Dear President Bush...

[Jess1483]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:20pm

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 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 to 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.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?
4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
5. 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?
6. 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?
7. 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?
8. 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?
9. 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.

"out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there."
Rumi, Sufi poet

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:26pm

isn't this from "The West Wing"?

it was good though.

[Jess1483]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:28pm

I actually have no idea where it's from, a friend sent it to me. I do remember the episode you're referring to, I don't think it was the whole thing, though... My guess is that someone wrote it after watching that episode. But yeah, one of my favorite WW episodes ever!

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:29pm

Now its the time to show the whole "Bush/Monkey" picture. Cause that's what he'd look like if he got this.

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:32pm

Isn't all that stuff from the Old Testament?

Isn't the Old Testament Jewish?

Aren't many Jewish people in this country bleeding heart liberals?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:34pm

Dear Jess,

Since President Bush is too busy running the country, I'll respond on his behalf. Your letter shows a lack of understanding where Biblical matters are concerned. Since President Bush has read the New Testament, I would advise you to do likewise. Since all of your references are pulled from Jewish law, I have to assume that that's all you've read. It's sort of like only reading a quarter of a book. When you have read the full book, please feel free to ask any questions on the material that you don't understand.

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:36pm

** high-fives GothamPc **

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:44pm

As a refugee from Catholic school, I always wondered why homosexuality is this massive sin...yet Christ said nothing about it.

Seems to me that if it was so important, God himself would have actually offered up an opinion.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:49pm

it was on the tablet of commandments that got dropped, robbie. y'know, along with leaving the toilet seat up, going slow in the passing lane, leaving a cell phone on in a theatre and reviewing a show in previews.

the 15th commandment clearly states:

thou shalt not indulge in any act that shall result in
santorum

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:50pm

sh!t.

literally.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:58pm

Jesus continually said: "Whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give to you." John 14:14; John 15:16; John 16:23

If you want something, stop crabbing to George W. Bush about it and go ask God. (How do you think evangelical Christians won a second term for Bush?)

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 2:58pm

There's nothing in the new testament condeming homosexuality. In fact, there's nothing in the new testament at all about homosexuality. According to the new testament Jesus never spoke of it. You would think, if it was that important, or such an a abomination, that he would have at least had a little something to say about it. No. Not a word. So then, why do most Republicans want to deny homosexuals their equal rights? Why do they want to condemn us to second class citizenry? Why do they use the bible (new testament and old) and their religious beliefs only when it's convienent for them? That's the point I believe the first poster was trying to make. They hide behind their religion and use it to justify and rationalize their hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, divisionist ways.

And when you call them on it they shrug it off with an insipid comment or a bad joke like "it was on the tablet of commandments that got dropped..."

Updated On: 11/19/04 at 02:58 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 3:06pm

Actually, Curtain, I'm not sure that's true. Didn't John or Paul write something about men sleeping with men?

You might want to check with Gotham. He/she apparently knows everything about the Bible.

Constitutional law, on the other hand, is not his/her strong suit.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 3:06pm

Curtain, you better go back and read it again.

Romans 1:26-27 is one place that mentions it:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

[Jess1483]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 3:22pm

Wow, okay, just sharing something that made me smile/think. I didn't particularly want to get into a huge debate. Indeed, I've had this debate many times ON THIS BOARD. I thought I had shared all I have to share on this matter in other posts, but *sigh* here goes.

Since President Bush has read the New Testament, I would advise you to do likewise. Since all of your references are pulled from Jewish law, I have to assume that that's all you've read. It's sort of like only reading a quarter of a book. When you have read the full book, please feel free to ask any questions on the material that you don't understand.

Gothamp--Trust me, I've read the New Testament. It is unnecesary to take that tone (well, whatever kind of tone you can take on a message board) with me. For your information, I'm a Christian and a religion major with a focus in ethics. Certainly that doesn't make me an expert on the Bible, but I do know this, for myself (let me emphasize the for myself part, these are personal beliefs): The Bible is not infallible. It holds religious truths, but not scientific and historical truths. The New Testament trumps the Old (though it does not render it useless). Jesus taught us love for everyone, and tells us that judgement is reserved for God alone.

And by the way, the text most commonly used to condemn homosexuality...you know, Sodom and Gamorrah? Wait, what testament is that in? Oh yeah, the Old Testament, along with all the other things in the original letter. That was my point (and I assume the point of the author.) Why do people pick homosexuality out of all the other "crimes" in the Bible and make that the one they're sure was really meant in the Old Testament, but easily condemn slavery?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 3:40pm

Jess, sorry you didn't like my tone. It simply mirrors the tone of your original post.

Whatever your belief on the Bible, Jesus didn't say get on a message board and whine about life, He said "Ask the Father for what you need."

[Jess1483]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 3:45pm

I wasn't expecting anything to happen because I posted on a message board. Trust me, I do ask the Father for what I need. And by the way, I think this conversation is kind of the point of posts like this. Yes, I posted it without meaning to have a big debate, but I'm kind of glad we are, because now people are thinking about what we've written. Don't tell me you honestly think that people shouldn't be out doing things about what they believe in favor of praying. In addition to, yes, instead of, no.

The reason I took issue with your tone is because it was directed to me, and offended me by assuming that I posted without knowing what I was talking about. The original post was directed to a person who has no chance of ever seeing this. It was not directed at you. Therefore, you can disagree with the context, and even the tone in which it was written, but a personal attack on me was unnecessary.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 3:49pm

You post a sarcastic letter that is meant to mock the beliefs of Bush and other Christians and then you are mad when someone attacks you? Explain the logic in that.

[Jess1483]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 3:53pm

Again, I'm a Christian, and I didn't find it offensive. I understand how some others might, and for that I would apologize, again, if I had written it. I'm not trying to pass of responsibility for the post, because I take full responsibility for posting it, however, like many others who post things of this nature, we are starting a discussion. But whatever, take the tone you want with me, the issue is what's important.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 4:13pm

What is most insidious about you, Goth, is not your 'tone', but your willing disregard for the Constitution of the United States. You espouse your beliefs as if they are the only right way to think. It doesn't seem to occur to you that many MANY people in this world hold very different beliefs from you and still somehow manage to be good people. There are even people who do not believe in God who seem to be able do good works, raise good families and make important contributions to society.

Your fundamentalist, non-inquisitive view of religion married to your complete ignorance on Constitutional law makes you the most dangerous kind of person. And wholly un-American.

I don't like you. No...I can't stand you. But unlike others who have blocked you, I intend to keep reading your every post so that I may in some way counterbalance the posion you spew forth.

And no...I don't ask God for a single thing. God gave me life. And that's more than enough. The rest is up to me.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 4:13pm

Hey Jess, don't worry. Apparently you're being attacked by the same bigots I've blocked.

This time they're using that old canard about Romans 1:26-27 being a proscription against homsexuality.

That's false.

Biblical scholars pretty much agree that the vague wording of Romans 1:26-27 is about sexual practices connected to IDOL WORSHIP, which was a big deal in Jesus' time.

Homosexuality wasn't such a big deal. Which may be why John 13:18-21 describes one of the disciples as "leaning on Jesus' bosom," the "disciple Jesus loved best."

Also, in Matthew 8:5-13, the story of the Centurion's lad can clearly be interpreted as Jesus being happy to help a sick lover in a same-sex relationship, or Jesus' compassion for the kind of eunuch lover common at that time and depicted in the new Alexander movie.

But don't let the bigots bite. You can always block 'em when they become too annoying.
The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament

Updated On: 11/19/04 at 04:13 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 4:27pm

Pal, how do you get a homosexual relationship out of Matthew 8:5-13?

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 4:40pm

well, i'm a Christian and that chain letter is older than dirt. Normally it's addressed to Dr. Laura. Funny how they made it to President Bush. Those clever, clever liberals! =P lol

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 4:46pm

Another nasty right-winger one to add to my list of blocked users. Ciao EIR--or should I say "Mimi"?

[Jess1483]

Posted: 11/19/04 at 4:49pm

EiR--Once again, wasn't trying to be original. I assume some people have seen it and others haven't. Just because it's old, I can't post it?

Pal-Wait, if you've blocked them, you can't read what they say, right? Doesn't that make conversations hard to follow? And thank you for your kind words. I know I don't need someone to affirm my opinion, but it's good to know I have support anyway.