you would like to embrace *all* sexual perverts!

Well, I spent a dull half-hour re-reading it, all 27 chapters, and I can safely say that nothing seemed terribly out of order. I'm sure you were thinking you'd catch me up in something, but go ahead; do your worst.

On the subject of animal sacrifice, I have been raised in the belief that it is not suitable for modern times, due to the simple fact that in the old days sacrificing a sheep or what-have-you was a big deal, but now you could buy one for 40 dollars and kill it, that's not much of a sacrifice.

__________________
"Those who turn swords into plowshares will do the plowing for those who do not" - Anon

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and mental development" - Sigmund Freud

Well, several things. For one, the first 10 chapters all deal with what you have to do to please the lord, specifically how and what to sacrifice to him. Yet modern Christians don't do that. Why not?

You say it's because sheep are cheap these days. But cows aren't. In any event, what changed that lets us ignore that part of Leviticus?

Similarly, the "trespass" offerings in Chapter 6.

In Chapter 11, the Lord commands you not to eat camel, rabbit, pig, shellfish, oysters, snails, turtles, and a whole range of birds. Most Christians now ignore this entire chapter.

Chapter 12: Women are unclean for up to 66 days after childbirth. Christians ignore this chapter.

Chapter 19: This chapter, like 18, is devoted to moral laws. Among them: No plowing a field with both oxen and horses, no wearing clothes made of both linen and wool, no planting two different crops in the same field. It also lays out specific rules for haircuts and outlaws tattoos and other body marks. Most Christians ignore this entire chapter.

Chapter 20: Adultery is punishable by death, as is homosexuality, bestiality, and marrying both a woman and her mother. Most Christians ignore this chapter.

Chapter 21: People with physical defects aren't allowed to make offerings to God. Entirely ignored these days.

Chapter 24: Swearing is punishable by death, plus the famous "eye for any eye" rule. Ignored these days.

Chapter 25: Every seventh year, let your fields lie fallow. Different rules for selling a house in a walled city vs. an unwalled village.... Both ignored these days.

In fact, almost all of Leviticus is readily ignored by Christians. Why, then, should we not similarly ignore your cite from Chapter 18?

I understand why you would believe your cite is relevant if you also follow all the other rules in Leviticus. Which is why I asked if you do.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

I was expecting this one, and I was raised vegetarian into a sect which believes in bing vegetarian. So there.

I cannot speak for most Christians, most Christians ignore the part about gays too. As for myself, I have yet to break most of those laws, I do wory about hybrids and the like, as my father is a theologian of sorts and his influence is present in that.

Many Christians believe that Women Ministers, Homosexuals and Miscegenation are fine and dandy. Do you know what that makes them? Heretics. I will not defend Heretics. As for myself, I do hold as true to the Bible as I can, which is all God asks.

Like I said, most Christians probably arent like me, but my father was concerned with the rules in Leviticus, and so I am as well as a result of his teachings. I do my best to follow them. I havent any tattoos, I don't sleep with my close relatives, or animals, or mankind, I don't eat unclean (or any) animals, I don't plow when I am not supposed to (or at all), and I choose willingly not to offer animals to God (as Leviticus does say that you must willingly do so) on account of my father's belief.

So, yes, I agree with the other parts, almost all of them. I don't think we are supposed to put people to death anymore, in fact, whether for (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ry, adultery or bestiality, because I believe Jesus relieved us of the responsibility to stone to death those who brole the laws of the OT. But Leviticus is the best example there is of God's opinion of (*)(*)(*)(*). THEY ARE ABOMINATION.

And as for Force of the Truths original point, when re-reading Leviticus to see what exactly raytri was trying to trick me up with, I noticed a bit where it outlines the sacrifice you should give for accidentally sleeping with a man, which basically destroys your theory.

This sort of debunks the theory that Lev: 18:22 and 20:13 are referring to adultery committed by a man with a man, as well as adultery by a man with a woman. Which begs the question, why is adultery by a woman with a woman not mentioned, if FOTT's theory is correct?

__________________
"Those who turn swords into plowshares will do the plowing for those who do not" - Anon

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and mental development" - Sigmund Freud

Fair enough. You are more consistent than most Christians on this topic.

Elaborate, please. I didn't read it as saying that if you didn't want to sacrifice animals, that was dandy. At a minimum I think you had to sacrifice other stuff, like crops.

For instance, while you personally do not farm, do you believe the farming rules should still stand for Christians? Do you believe people should wear only single-fiber clothes?

*Almost* all? How do you get to pick and choose? Isn't it all God's word?

Personally, given the datedness of the other parts of the chapter, I think it more reasonable to read Leviticus as the best example of the *Israelites* view of gays -- and a lot of other things. For instance, it expressly condones slavery, as in 22:11, 25:39, 25:44 and 25:48. Do you support that?

As an aside, Jesus never mentioned homosexuals. And his approach to outcasts in general was to show mercy and forgive them. He tended to reserve his wrath for the powerful.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Finally, Christian proscriptions are only supposed to apply to Christians. Do you support legal restrictions against homosexuals and homosexuality? And if so, on what basis do you support applying Biblical law to a secular society?

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

I support restricting the ability of Homosexuals to further their agenda on the basis that they are mentally deranged, and mentally deranged persons don't have the same rights as normal persons.

Restricting their ability to further their agenda means that, while they should not face criminal charges for the activity of homosexuality itself, they should not have a right to parade, they should not have any influence as a voting bloc or special interest lobbying group on politics, they should not be around children in schools and their lifestyle should not be taught as normal and acceptable to impressionable children in Social Studies classes.

I don't believe they should have a right to marry either, but I am against the government defining what marriage is. I suggest civil unions, as that gets them what they claim to want while at the same time getting the real intention, the in-your-face insult to religion, neutralized. Also, I am staunchly for the Don't-ask-don't-tell method staying in place in the army, and it being extended to holders of political office and government jobs, as well as removing homosexuals from the Affirmative Action rolls.

__________________
"Those who turn swords into plowshares will do the plowing for those who do not" - Anon

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and mental development" - Sigmund Freud

Okay, but on what basis do you justify their inclusion in that category? Homosexuality is no longer defined as a mental disorder. They are not a danger to themselves or others. They are able to function in society -- indeed, where they are not crushed by discrimination, gay households are among the most affluent thanks to higher income (two male earners) and lower expenses (no kids, and the resulting flexible schedule that allows them to devote as much time as they want to their career). That suggests, BTW, that in a totally free society and free economy, homosexuals would have a competitive advantage.

I can't think of any objective criteria that supports a "derangement" exception to the rights enjoyed by all citizens.

So a second-class citizenship sort of solution. As a practical matter, how do you propose to stop them from forming voting blocs? And what's the rationale for keeping them away from schools? Homosexuals aren't any more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

I doubt their main intention is to insult religion; maybe they just really want to be married. But here I think you and I agree: civil unions for all, marriage for those who want it and can get a church to sanction it.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you suggesting that a politician who is revealed to be gay should be removed from office and forbidden from running again?

As a practical aside, they aren't on any AA rolls. In some places they are protected from discrimination, but I'm not aware of any program that gives *preference* to gays in an AA sense.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

I justify their inclusion in that category on two fronts: One, the Pentagon legally considers homosexuality a mental illness and Two,
American Heritage Dictionary
mental illness
n. Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors [/quote]


Are the deranged permitted to vote or run for office? Or are they confined to an asylum? If anything Im going easy on the gays.


By not allowying them to vote.

They are more likely to be pedophiles, the fact of the matter is that a man who is attracted to boys is not a heterosexual, he is a homosexual. Second, they impart there views and mores on impressionable children and further the gay agenda by affecting curriculum.

Yes. I would have them classed not as citizens but "Legal Residents", and subject them to deportation if they commit criminal activities.

Perhaps. If they do not have gay quotas, and Im not convinced that they dont, they will soon. In the case that you are right, I did intend that to include discrimination laws.

__________________
"Those who turn swords into plowshares will do the plowing for those who do not" - Anon

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and mental development" - Sigmund Freud

The Pentagon is the final arbiter on such things?

And your dictionary definition works only if you assume that homosexuality causes "impairment".


I was unclear. I meant there is no objective criteria that supports classing homosexuality as a derangement justifying such an exception.


Yowza. Massive civil rights violation aside, how will you identify them and then enforce such a ban?


Most experts disagree, but even if we accept that argument, a man who is attracted to girls is a heterosexual. Shall we keep male teachers separated from female students and female teachers away from male students?

I'm curious how you think that works, and at what ages.

Double Yowza.

Okay. Though I would note that your posts here could be used as an example of why they *need* protection against discrimination....

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.