This is an open letter to Dr. Laura making the rounds on the Internet, in response to her position of homosexuality. Yes, it’s sarcastic satire to the max, but it makes some excellent points. I’ve appended a couple of my own:
And here’s a couple more:
Jepethah in Judges 11:34-40 found it necessary to make a human sacrifice of his daughter. If I find myself in the same situation, is the 2 month grace period he gave her a maximum or just a guideline.
And on a related question:
Abraham was ordered by God to make a burnt offering of his son Isaac, Genesis 22:2. My question is, would it have been a violation of protocol if he’d told God to kiss his ass?
How about stoning unruly children at the gates and not allowing a witch to live? How about zapping Onan who spilled the precious seed of a nation? Do we not grow in spirit beyond nationism and fear of what is other? Paul revitalized the OT curse on homosexuality or perhaps merely misinterpreted it. I personally do not know whether this condition is a lifestyle choice or a genetic certainty. And, not knowing, how could I judge it?
Jung also has a positive and interesting view on homosexuality, as the expression of the psychic attraction to human one-ness. He says that this is something to be prized not disparaged.
The point here is not about homosexuality, it’s about how we deal with these revealed religions and their barbaric backgrounds. Do we practice them literally, excuse them as impurities in God’s word with all the neuroses that generates, or dump the whole set up and start from scratch using 100% reason, evidence and facts.
No no no . listen. Back then they had a third creature. Much is lost in the translation too. Man and woman are not simply male and female. Man and woman are the finished product. It’s the article plus culture and whatnot .the restriction is not about homosexuality. Its about a man with a man. Its talking about heterosexuals. Therefore it’s talking about forceful sex—ice rape. The homosexuals were deemed to be a third creature. They are not mankind or womankind.
Form my own experience it’s a challenge when you put the three creatures together. Mankind learns through growing up what rules to observe. I’m talking about those unwritten rules. They know what lines not to cross before it get deadly. . Important, keeps the peace. If you include in a team of mankind the second or the third creature you have to establish new understandings and new rules to keep the team functioning .the mankind will mistake the third creatures for one of them because it looks like them and when the third creature behavior doesn’t correspond with their expectation they get aggressive and they will kill the third creature. frankly its problem .very early on I decided not to include the third creature in my team because it was just too much trouble .i didn’t include them in my team. the mankind that worked for me were of the criminal kind , already extra crazy .they were armed at all times too . the second creature –ice womankind- I kept in my office and I always instructed them to keep their interaction limited with the mankind . When the mankind tried to challenge me trying to grab my womankind I came hard down on them. Broken noses and bones.
At home here the third creature is very important. We castrate them. They watch over the womankind. They’re also used to discipline the young men and keep them in line. They beat the hell out of them. Eunuchs are physically extremely strong. Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking because they talk funny and act funny you can take them on. One eunuch can beat several guys combined. And you can have sex with them if you’re into that sort of thing. .
Womankind also have their third creature. They are important. A man here can have many wives . I have many . I can’t service them all. The most I can do is impregnate them. So the third creatures fill in for me in terms of sexual fulfillment for my womankind.
My wives do not have to tell me when they have the menses. I can sense it. I can smell blood form a distance. The problem here you have to regain your lost nature. Eat raw liver , drink blood . drink cow blood mixed with milk. Its good for you. You have blood in you all the time. its in your nostril. You should be able to smell but you don’t because you do not know blood. So learn to know blood.when you do my advice stay away from the woman when she has the menses. You could harm her. You know , get overly excited and take a bite or something. Always remember you’re an animal.
You do the rest. It’s easy. Just stop being a programmed robot . it’s no good. Work hard. Produce.
Do people even WANT to know what the Bible says about Homosexuality anymore, or what Churches do/have taught on the subject, or is it just a jumping off point for making fun of conservatives? Seriously, any reference to the Bible and Homosexuality that doesn’t talk about Corinthians is just propaganda.
I can’t believe even a die hard leftist would want to degrade themselves to the “Oh yeah, well why don’t you stone kids who lie to their parents then?” line of argument, as if you don’t know better.
So tell me, do you think the conservatives even WANT to know what the bible says about homosexuality? Other than the “homosexuality is abhored by god and is an abomination” cliched line. If “conservatives” have any understanding beyond that line, they’ve damn well kept it a secret, haven’t they? The literalists and extremists pick and choose what they want the bible to say in their effort to spread fear and hate. Nothing new, is it? All PT has done is point out the usual inconsistencies of the religious extremists who conflate one biblical verse and conveniently close their eyes to another if it doesn’t fit their agenda.
PT knows better. That’s why this thread. So do a lot of others. Hypocricy doesn’t favor one group or another.
A lot of them don’t, no. and as long as they’re fixing trucks and working in grocery stores, I could give a shit. But this is ostensibly a website in which you people discuss philosophical matters as if you had more than a retard’s comprehension of the issues at hand, or at least, a desire to obtain one.
DO you?
HAS he? You’ve told me time and time again that you’re very familiar with Christian theology. So, answer me this- is “Look at all the stuff advocated in Leviticus that Christians don’t enforce” actually an inconsistency in conservative/traditional/whatever Christian teaching? I’m not talking about some liberal denomination that I’ll pull out of my ass to play ‘gotcha’ with you. I’m talking about the fundies you have a problem with, defined however YOU want to define them. Does the quoted passage ACTUALLY show an inconsistency in what they believe?
To the extent that any christian or christian group wishes to cite the bible as authority, then yes, there is inconsistency. But now we’re back to arguing interpretation, aren’t we? We both know that the bible was written then and this is now and interpreting yesterday to fit today is a constant and thorny battle. How much interpretation is trying to re-write the bible? Which parts can be taken literally and which parts demand new interpretation? And off we go to the hall of mirrors. The inconsistencies don’t bother me until some dumbass tries to use a literalist argument to push their agenda (conservative or liberal) If one choose to be a literalist, then take responsibility for BEING a literalist - and the consequences. I doubt that there is anyone in this forum that doesn’t understand the literalist. One does wander in occasionally, but they leave quickly. And so we are left, each individual, with our own personal “interpretations” of the bible, the koran, the… The good thing about holy texts is that they leave room to be interpreted against our personal experience. The bad thing is that they leave room to be interpreted against our personal experience. Actually, the appeal of the bible for me is the fundamentals, the simplicity presented by Jesus of Nazareth. It is the layers of so-called fundamentalist garbage piled on top that obscures both the wisdom and message.
So what do you say? Wanna go back five or six years and start over?
We’re ALL relativists. The question is our consistency, and even that is soft turf. The same thing can be said for morality. We all know what it is, we just can’t agree to WHAT it is. All is conditional, provisional, and contextual. But people like to cling to rocks, seek out the illusional THE. I guess at it’s worst, it’s entertaining. (shrug)
Oh, but you can. We do it all the time. Granted, it’s best not to try both simultaneously, and most people confuse one for the other. Apparently, you didn’t read what I said or ignored it as did Churro. Soooo, one more time. All is conditional, provisional and contextual. What we “see” depends on perspective, and we may see from many different perspectives. If subjective/objective were as simple and 100% one or the other, it would have been worked out millenia ago.
Oh, but you can. We do it all the time. Granted, it’s best not to try both simultaneously, and most people confuse one for the other. Apparently, you didn’t read what I said or ignored it as did Churro. Soooo, one more time. All is conditional, provisional and contextual. What we “see” depends on perspective, and we may see from many different perspectives. If subjective/objective were as simple and 100% one or the other, it would have been worked out millenia ago.
I don’t think it’s worth debating with religous folk about homosexuality. Some are okay with it, some aren’t. Because of this, my view is that any indivdual’s opinion about gays has more to do with the person’s attidudes about sex than it does religion. If they think homsexuality is icky and unnatural, then they can find a holy book passage to confirm that it’s also sinful, so that they feel better.
As an aside, I thought I’d read somewhere that Dr. Laura did a turnaround on homosexuality some time ago. I think it was after gays got organized and convinced some big sponsors to boycott her radio program because she kept talking shit about them…? That’s the traditonal value known as “Money Talks”. But I might be thinking about someone else. Anyway, her thing these days seems to be about “N-words, N-words, N-words!” She’s a crackup (or a crackpot?).
In a world of semantical games, of course it’s absolutely true. I think… Wait! Maybe not. I left my Farmers Almanac at work. I’ll have to get back to you on that.
Quite the contrary. It makes it much more difficult to sort out all those contradictions and you shouldn’t assume that I attempt to justify any contradiction. But I do try to understand them. It is a common error to believe that we have no contradictory beliefs or that our intellect will create purity of belief. But if you’re perfect, hats off to you.
And I don’t have any problem calling a semantical game a semantical game.
must I always teach? will there be no breaks for me ever?
My issue with the bible is that it’s an extremely liberal book. It’s too soft on people
The verse with the slave daughter……. Here you have a derelict unfit father who brought life into this world and naturally fails to provide for it and himself and as a result he wants to sell his daughter in order to stuff his guts. The bible says yeah yeah go and then places very unfair conditions on the buyer . If you buy the guy’s daughter you can’t get rid of her just like that. . you have to keep her and clothe her and feed her all her life. you can’t sell her . … You’re stuck with her for life. infact if you have sex with her she is as good as a wife it would seem And if you make the mistake of giving her to one of your sons she is no longer a slave but your daughter by rights.
Its this sort of liberalism that lead to the present disgraceful state of things in the USA. Now you have to pay taxes so the daughter of the unfit man can get on welfare and get fed and clothed and produce more misfits and criminals and drug addicts .
Here is what the rule should have been . .castrate the guy and remove the ovaries of the daughter so she can’t breed.The Chinese got the right idea.
Consider also the rules about whom you can buy .one category… you buy the criminal and you have to let him free after six years. What kind of nonsense is this ? but 70% to 75% of crime is committed by repeat offenders. This is today from current statistics. You release that criminal and he goes back to a life of crime. No do not release him. No six year nonsense. Enslave him for life until he drops dead. Do like the Chinese . Put him in a factory and make him work for the benefit of society.
The other verse about buying foreign slaves .this one is debatable and very risky. I’m not sure about it . the issue here is homogeneity … it’s not between welsh and Scots . Some European countries due to excessive inbreeding opted to import immigrants from the wrong countries leading to the creation of incompatible hostile sub cultures leading in turn to placing unmanageable heavy burden on it’s social services .
Conclusion the rules of the bible are too liberal. It is for sure the master piece of humanity. Has lot of wisdom in it . but it is also
too liberal. You can’t run a society productive one with such soft rules.
Make me president and I will fix things for you. I see a lot of heads that have ripened and the time for their harvest is at hand and by god I should made the harvester .i like to help you. the sharp edge of the sword is more honest in separating play from truth.
In a world of semantical games, of course it’s absolutely true. 
I think… Wait! Maybe not. I left my Farmers Almanac at work. I’ll have to get back to you on that.
