Dear Bush/Hello God

[van der graaf]

Got this in an email, thought it was amusing:

Dear President Bush,



Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.



I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.



1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?



2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?



3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.



4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?



5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?



6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?



7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?



8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.How should they die?



9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?



10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)



I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.



Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[mikeflca]

I've read this loads of times and someone has probably posted it here......but the point it makes is a good one.

[shakey_snake]

no not really.

[Myxomatosis]

Oh wow...

[mikeflca]

no not really.

So I should take the bible literally?

I'm gonna go kill some people, since the bible says I can, is that ok with you?

[billyvnilly]

the old testament is full of hate. its just hate hate hate. dont be a hater.

no no no, van der graaf, you dont understand...THOSE parts of the bible are OBVIOUSLY OUTDATED. The part about homosexuality OBVIOULSY still is good.

lol at the pigskin...hahaha

[Mattress]

where does the bible say you should go kill some people?

[mikeflca]

where does the bible say you should go kill some people?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

or, if you want the words from some versions of the bible:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/b...2&version=HCSB

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/b...version=NIV-UK

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/b...A2&version=KJV

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/b...A2&version=NIV

[Mattress]

okay go for it

[MagnumOne]

Those passages are from the Old Testament..Also Known As The Laws Of Moses..

When Christ was crucified..The Curtain that covered the Holy Of Holies was torn...(Holy Of Holies..A highly sanctioned area that only the highest of priests from that day could enter..Where the *Holy Spirit* chose to dwell)

Upon the tearing of the curtain, Christ's words..Father Forgive Them They Know Not What They Do came into effect..Releasing the Holy Spirit for all that would believe...

Thus rebuking the Laws Of Moses or the Old Testament..Under which most Full Gospel, Full Spirited Churches have set aside as merely a guideline or referral system..

Prior to the releasing of the Holy Spirit and the New Testament of the Four Apostles..Matthew, Mark, Luke and John those laws were adhered to and were shared to all who believed in the God of Abraham as a warning of what could and would happen if you decided to Piss Of The Lord..

It's alot more detailed than that...Those would be the High Points of Old to New Testaments..

[Germ]

Where'd you get all this information? Where in the Bible does it talk about this curtain that nullifies the stupidity in the Old Testament? This is just your interpretation of vague passages in the New Testament that not everyone would agree with at all. Churches have the power to "set aside" the Old Testament now because following the laws there would be too inconvienent for them? I'm confused can you please clarify for me?

[MagnumOne]

Originally posted by Germ
Where'd you get all this information? Where in the Bible does it talk about this curtain that nullifies the stupidity in the Old Testament? This is just your interpretation of vague passages in the New Testament that not everyone would agree with at all. Churches have the power to "set aside" the Old Testament now because following the laws there would be too inconvienent for them? I'm confused can you please clarify for me?

Well I guess I can help you out.. LOL!!

Matthew records several events that took place at Christ's death. One that initially seems insignificant, but was a symbol of major importance, is found in Matthew 27:50-51: "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom ..."

What did this mean, this event that was so important that three of the Gospel writers mentioned it?

The temple was divided into two portions, an outer room called the Holy Place in which a number of priests served, and an inner room called the Most Holy Place or Holy of Holies. This inner room represented God's presence. It was so sacred that the only person allowed in was the high priest, and then only on one day of the year to make atonement for the sins of himself and the people.

This sacred room, the Holy of Holies, was separated from the rest of the temple by an elaborate and beautifully embroidered curtain. According to Jewish descriptions of the temple, this curtain was truly massive—measuring some 30 feet wide, 60 feet high and three inches thick. Its tearing in two from top to bottom at Jesus' death was a shocking and bewildering event! How could God let something like that happen within His temple?

Yet God was not only behind this, He deliberately tore the curtain to make a point—that mankind's sins, which had cut us off from Him (Isaiah 59:2), could now be forgiven through Jesus Christ's shed blood.

Comparing how the high priest had previously only been able to pass through the curtain once a year to offer atonement for sins, Hebrews 10:19-22 explains that a new High Priest, Jesus Christ, through the sacrifice of Himself superceded this ritual for all time and gives mankind direct access to God:

"Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh), and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water" (NRSV).

The lesson for us is that, following heartfelt repentance, we can "come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16). Because of Christ's sacrifice, we enjoy direct access to the throne of our merciful, loving Creator.

[MagnumOne]

Now there are many parables in the Bible, and everything is not as cut and dry as the words reflect..

Read into them what you will...

[gaekwad2]

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

Is Leviticus in the old or new testament?

[mikeflca]

awesome.

/me gets dagger

[White Raven]

How exactly can you forgive sins through the shedding of an innocent healer man's blood?
I don't see the logic.

[MagnumOne]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Is Leviticus in the old or new testament?

Old...Right after the Exodus and Prior to the book of Numbers...

[MagnumOne]

Originally posted by White Raven
How exactly can you forgive sins through the shedding of an innocent healer man's blood?
I don't see the logic.

I can't Forgive Sins...Geez.I've got enough of my own that need tending to..

Take me forever to answer that..My fingers would fall off from all the typing.. LOL!!

I'd be in a Severe Need Of A Healing.. LOL!!

[Psythik]

@mikeflca and anyone else: No, the bible is not intended to be taken literally. It is up to the dedicatated christian to read it and figure out for themselves what the true meaning of everything in it is; which of course makes all the versions complete BS, (except for the orginal King James Version, of course) considering that the new versions were written to be read literally and easiely, which defeats the whole purpose of the Bible itself.

[billyvnilly]

it was his own sacrifice...he did it for us. and since when have logic and religion gone hand in hand lol.

[General Geoff]

Originally posted by ScYtH
@mikeflca and anyone else: No, the bible is not intended to be taken literally. It is up to the dedicatated christian to read it and figure out for themselves what the true meaning of everything in it is; which of course makes all the versions complete BS, (except for the orginal King James Version, of course) considering that the new versions were written to be read literally and easiely, which defeats the whole purpose of the Bible itself.

I agree. The bible should be intepreted as a book of morals and values that you can incorporate into your life, should you see fit. It's not some kind of "follow this book to the T or burn in hell for eternity!" thing.

[mikeflca]

I know it shouldn't be taken literally, hence my example. Unfortunately there are still a number of people who would argue that it should be etc etc etc.

anyway, if this goes on any farther i can see a hige flamewar coming so....... i'm off

[White Raven]

Okay let me rephrase...

How exactly can God forgive sins through the shedding of an innocent healer man's blood?
I don't see the logic.

And not only the sins of everyone accumulated back then -- but for all the future, too? One man, for all that? I don't think so.

[Psythik]

Ahem, let me repeat this for you White Raven:
THE BIBLE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY

Originally posted by mikeflca
anyway, if this goes on any farther i can see a huge flamewar coming so....... i'm off

Yeah, I feel one coming on also...

[billyvnilly]

well you have to appreciate the fact that he is our sheppard. that he is the only son of god.

but on a side note, god doesnt completely forgive our sins. (i think) john says that you have to be a devout christian to have your sins forgiven, that those lazy ppl claiming to be christian arent.

eveyone here knows that it shouldnt be taken literally....and the humor in this thread is the fact that so many ppl argue against homosexuality bc it says it is wrong in the bible, yet all these other things dont apply anymore.

[MagnumOne]

Originally posted by White Raven
Okay let me rephrase...

How exactly can God forgive sins through the shedding of an innocent healer man's blood?
I don't see the logic.

And not only the sins of everyone accumulated back then -- but for all the future, too? One man, for all that? I don't think so.

Tell ya what I'm going to do...

One Man...??

John 1:1... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Like i said there WR..It's all too long and drawn to type out..My Bible is about 2400 pages long.. LOL!!

Read the word for yourself,,I started in the book of John and carried on from there..It's a good spot to start in..

Alot Of Knowledge And Wisdom..Between The Covers..

[shakey_snake]

The letter in Acts (a historical book) 15 clearly specifies how to balance OT Law with the freedom Christ's sacrifice brings. Here I'll post the text:

NASB

The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul-- 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

30The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers. 33After spending some time there, they were sent off by the brothers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them.[4] 35But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

-----------------------
Now notice how it explictly states "sexual immorality". Considering This council consisted primarily of Jews, it is only logical that they would have defined "sexual immorality" as is found in Leviticus 18, since they studied the Torah their entire lives.

The Bible couldn't be more clear. Thats why I suggest that people read it along with a good commentary, before passing judgement, and calling it "conflicting " and such.

[Germ]

haha This is an amusing thread

[MagnumOne]

Originally posted by Germ
haha This is an amusing thread

Yep..I'm leaning over laughin..... LOL!!

But then I usually am in here..

[Germ]

You're definitely a source of my amusement

[MagnumOne]

Originally posted by Germ
You're definitely a source of my amusement

Actually...You are my amusement..You're all things that are enlightening..Please Continue

[Germ]

I'm happy I've been able to touch your life in a positive manner

[MagnumOne]

Originally posted by Germ
I'm happy I've been able to touch your life in a positive manner

Everything Has It's Positive Portrayals... LMAO!!

Like I said..You're totally enlightening and a great example..

[White Raven]

Originally posted by ScYtH
Ahem, let me repeat this for you White Raven:
THE BIBLE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY

DID IT SOUND LIKE I WAS, DEAR? I was interpreting it, just like anybody else. All those zealots would have some folks thinkin' otherwise...

And people are all like OMG JESUS DYED 4 MAI SINS!1111! Why don't you tell them to not take it literally?

And also, it is said that through the blood of Christ, man's sins would be forgiven/absolved, I forget the terminology. It's clearly said. But my point is... How can one man's blood possibly hope to be adequate to the billions of people murdered, raped, etc since his time?

Yes, it was Jesus yes the great Jesus... But even the great Jesus, in my eyes, his sacrifice does not absolve the horrific crimes done in the Holocaust, in the countless wars, Iraq, what's happening on the streets today.

To me, it just doesn't seem 'worth' all that.

[mikeflca]

It's because his sacrifice was special, because he was the son of the guy that f*cked the "virgin" Mary when she was drunk and then never remembered it....

I mean, sorry, he was god's son or somethin.

What, come on, it was a typo, those letters are all really close together on my keyboard!

/runs

[Phyltre]

For those of you who (I assume geniunely) want to understand the whole "one-person-for-our-sins" deal:

---Note: This explanation contains elements of belief that might not be citable to specific individual passages, and that therefore could be considered informed opinion.--

In my eyes, humankind (and by extension, creation) is somewhat of an experiment. I say that because the very first things we hear of in Genesis are God creating things and then evaluating them. "Created ___ and it was ___."

Humankind was a new sort of life, physical like animals but with at least some elements of higher lifeforms (like what we call "angels" and distantly, God.) We are given free will to make decisions based on incomplete data that we accumulate ourselves. We either prove or disprove our worth based upon our morality and decisions in life. Simple enough?

(I'm skipping the Adam & Eve bit because it's not what I'm getting at, if you want me to address it later, ask.)
Well, in the Old Testament world, things were not looking too good for humankind. In fact, the first batch of civilization was pretty corrupt and got cleansed --read: Great Flood.-- So, next (hand-picked) generation of humankind is brought about. Things were going a bit better, there was a more rigid system of rules and life ritualisms to keep people in line. However, eventually this system led to corruption; and things went on long enough that the Word wasn't even reaching all world cultures anymore. Without the Word the humans wouldn't even know what they were supposed to be doing in the experiment, or why they existed. Things were looking like major revisions would be necessary.

At this point the validity of humankind in general was in question. It appeared that constant, blatant intervention into the scheme of things would be required by God, which was altering the results of the experiment. And the Ultimate Scientist said, well, we'll try one last thing; we'll generate something with the fallibilities of the humans--incomplete knowledge, being tied to an imbalanced transitory hormonal system, etc.--and the understanding/power of the word of God, that could not be imposed upon the limited human existence.

This new being would be born and raised as an average human, since that was what was being tested in the first place. Once maturity had been reached, the prototype would be asked to decide between rational self-interest and self-sacrifice for the greater interest. The reasons for the sacrifice would be made physically and totally evident to the prototype because both sides would have to be shown to be valid choices. And then, as we know, the prototype chose personal suffering for the greater good. This was the decision God had wanted (if "wanted" is a valid term when God is concerned.) By this, God saw that there was indeed great potential in the souls of men, if only they could be given spiritual understanding surpassing the normal physical experiences. And therefore, God decided to judge man not only by what it did in life but also what it would be capable of when freed from its physical limitations. There was forgiveness for sins.

Well?

[billyvnilly]

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.
John 14:4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
John 14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Jhn 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.


here jesus admits that he is his father basically. Still, he is not sacrificing himself because he knows that he shall rise again. and you have to remember that life after death is the ultimate goal. life on earth is only the first chapter.

so hitler, who did not follow the path set out by jesus is not going to heaven.

[Timbaland]

White Raven: Ever heard of fate? That some things have to happen? There will always be horrible things in the world, no matter what there is no such thing as peace. But theres is karma and fate. Everything cant be perfect..

[Mattress]

Let me try to answer your question White Raven.

If you read the old testament, particularly the first five books, aka the Torah, you'll learn about how God set up the Jewish sacrificial system. Sacrifices were made for different reasons, but one important one was for the forgivness of sins, basically, the judgement that should have been passed on those who sinned was instead transfered to the animal being sacrificed. In this way God's wrath was satisfied. Pure white lambs were chosen specifically for the sacrifice for the forgivness of sins. Once a year the high priest would enter the holy of holies and present the sacrifice before God. If God accepted the sacrifice he then would forgive the sins of the people of Israel.

When Jesus came and died, his death became the atoning sacrifice for all mankind. Jesus took the punishment that was meant for us, he experienced Hell (the seperation from God) in our place. Jesus was considered a worthy sacrifice because he never sinned. His death satisfied the wrath of God. Certainly the death of one man couldn't cover the sins of the entire world, but if you believe that Jesus was the son of God, and you believe in the idea of the Trinity, then it wasn't a man who was sacrificed, it was God.

[Germ]

Personally I think most people interpret the bible in whatever way suits them best.