Jump to content

Don't you love how religion doesn't affect culture how it was intended to?

FindingTheEverlight

By FindingTheEverlight
in General

Recommended Posts

FindingTheEverlight Newbie

FindingTheEverlight

Posted
Posted

My friend posted this as his status on Facebook, I love how society disregards all these things that the "holy one" tells us to follow.

 

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, 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 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 uncleanliness - Lev15: 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'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your adoring fan, James M Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)

 

 

So discuss how you feel about this. Why governments based on religion never seem to follow these rules that they set out for their subject to follow, but eventually make laws against following the "holy one's" edicts?

 

Or just discuss how you think this is absurd or pure genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tentacruel Newbie

Tentacruel

Posted
Posted

Person who wrote the letter is just a troll who thinks they're smart because they actually read the Bible. Person on the radio is just a hater.

 

And know, I don't think things in books like Leviticus were meant to be taken as rules to follow. It's a depiction of a culture. But I have two questions.

 

1-Do you know how few governments are actually based on religion? Most of the whiners on the internet who complain about it don't actually live in countries with religious governments.

 

2-If religion is not forced by the government, what does it matter to people who don't follow the religion what the religion's sacred text says? (at least technicalities like this)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rustyowl Newbie

rustyowl

Posted
Posted

1-Do you know how few governments are actually based on religion? Most of the whiners on the internet who complain about it don't actually live in countries with religious governments.

 

2-If religion is not forced by the government, what does it matter to people who don't follow the religion what the religion's sacred text says? (at least technicalities like this)

 

To answer your second point, the reason why people who don't follow religion care is, at least in a democratic government, people who have religious beliefs vote based on those beliefs, and those beliefs come from the religious texts. The people who don't follow a religion see, at least from their point of view, people back up their beliefs as to how the country should be run through these religious texts, such as the issue of gay marriage in American, for example. At the very, very least, these people who don't believe in the religion want these religious people to take in mind everything in their texts instead of nit-picking the parts they like. That way, when the religious people see that where it says gay sex is sinful it also says people who have been raped should marry their rapists, the religious people would begin to see their religious texts as bullshit. My examples mainly deal with Christianity, because that's the religion I'm most familiar with, but frankly, this basic thought process can be applied when non-religious people look at other religions as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tentacruel Newbie

Tentacruel

Posted
Posted

To answer your second point, the reason why people who don't follow religion care is, at least in a democratic government, people who have religious beliefs vote based on those beliefs, and those beliefs come from the religious texts. The people who don't follow a religion see, at least from their point of view, people back up their beliefs as to how the country should be run through these religious texts, such as the issue of gay marriage in American, for example. At the very, very least, these people who don't believe in the religion want these religious people to take in mind everything in their texts instead of nit-picking the parts they like. That way, when the religious people see that where it says gay sex is sinful it also says people who have been raped should marry their rapists, the religious people would begin to see their religious texts as bullshit. My examples mainly deal with Christianity, because that's the religion I'm most familiar with, but frankly, this basic thought process can be applied when non-religious people look at other religions as well.

 

You make a good point. People shouldn't necessarily vote their own morals into legislation. However you make the common assumption that if people actually read the fine-print in the Bible, they would disregard it, which frankly, is bullshit. This isn't the 18th century, so the average religious person has probably found some of the more colorful passages in their religious text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rustyowl Newbie

rustyowl

Posted
Posted

You make a good point. People shouldn't necessarily vote their own morals into legislation. However you make the common assumption that if people actually read the fine-print in the Bible, they would disregard it, which frankly, is bullshit. This isn't the 18th century, so the average religious person has probably found some of the more colorful passages in their religious text.

 

You would actually be very surprised. People with less education tend to not know basic facts about a religion, such as the bread and the wine are actually the body and blood of Christ and not just symbolic, yet they still believe in the religion anyways.

 

Of course, I and many others, including yourself obviously, do not believe that people would just disregard to the Bible when they read a few colorful passages. However, it's all about baby steps. One day, they find out about these colorful passages that aren't mentioned at Mass, and then the next day, they find out some other awkward truth about their religion. If they're not set in their ways, which many young people are not, they may give up their beliefs once they discover how much bullshit they've been fed since they were little. By no means is that the absolute truth in every, in that they were fed bullshit, but that's how they might see it. And that's the goal of these non-religious people, in that just how many religious people like to convert others to their ideas, the non-religious people want people to give up their beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest .Rai

Guest .Rai

Posted
Posted

I've always thought that writing a 21st century Bible would do Christianity some good.

 

When the Bible was written in a completely different age and culture, little in it applies to modern day society. Therefore, someone has to write something that does apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rustyowl Newbie

rustyowl

Posted
Posted

> Less education = Not going to your religious assembly as often

 

LOL. It says nothing about being 'educated'.

 

...?

 

"Not surprisingly, those who said they attended worship at least once a week and considered religion important in their lives often performed better on the overall survey. However, level of education was the best predictor of religious knowledge."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest .Rai

Guest .Rai

Posted
Posted

 

 

...?

 

"Not surprisingly, those who said they attended worship at least once a week and considered religion important in their lives often performed better on the overall survey. However, level of education was the best predictor of religious knowledge."

 

Frankly, if someone was educated, and knew symbolic facts about their religion, it means that:

 

1. they're curious and knowledge-hungry.

2. they take Religion classes.

 

And, also, an educated person probably wouldn't be stubborn in which to vote according to their religious texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rustyowl Newbie

rustyowl

Posted
Posted

LOL

 

 

Yeah, because reading articles about it on the Huffington post obviously makes you a real expert on religion.

 

The survey is wrong. The bread and wine are in fact, symbolic.

 

The bread and wine are not symbolic according to Catholic faith. They actually believe that it becomes the body and blood of Christ during the Mass.

 

I never claimed to be an expert on religion.

 

Frankly, if someone was educated, and knew symbolic facts about their religion, it means that:

 

1. they're curious and knowledge-hungry.

2. they take Religion classes.

 

And, also, an educated person probably wouldn't be stubborn in which to vote according to their religious texts.

 

I wouldn't put it past them. Being education has little to do with not being stubborn. I'm sure there are religious people who do not vote according to their religious beliefs, but there also some who do, educated and uneducated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest .Rai

Guest .Rai

Posted
Posted

 

 

The bread and wine are not symbolic according to Catholic faith. They actually believe that it becomes the body and blood of Christ during the Mass.

 

I never claimed to be an expert on religion.

 

That is symbolic ._.

 

If it's a metaphor for something else, that means it is a symbol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tentacruel Newbie

Tentacruel

Posted
Posted

The bread and wine are not symbolic according to Catholic faith. They actually believe that it becomes the body and blood of Christ during the Mass.

 

I never claimed to be an expert on religion.

 

Oh. I'm still not entirely sure about that, but I don't know much about Catholicism, being Protestant or whatever you call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest .Rai

Guest .Rai

Posted
Posted

 

 

http://www.catholicc...cfm?recnum=1340

 

Read a few lines into it, past the bullet points.

 

The last 23% counts towards it, so 53% (at least half) of the surveyed people treat it as a symbol as it was meant to.

 

While the others still treat it as a symbol, but interpret it in a different way. Religion is subject to interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rustyowl Newbie

rustyowl

Posted
Posted

The last 23% counts towards it, so 53% (at least half) of the surveyed people treat it as a symbol as it was meant to.

 

While the others still treat it as a symbol, but interpret it in a different way. Religion is subject to interpretation.

 

No. Please learn to read. The 23 percent is those who are actually Catholics; the remaining 7 percent that makes up the 30 percent are non-Catholics.

 

Religion is up to interpretation, but Catholicism is one religion with one interpretation; if you have other interpretations, make a new branch of Christianity or join another one. Some may treat it as a symbol, but Catholic teaching is that it is not a symbol.

 

That website seems, oddly comical.

 

Anyway, if you can believe in an omnipresent omnipotent being, you can believe in just about anything.

 

And I'm not even Catholic. I just know a little more about it than you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest .Rai

Guest .Rai

Posted
Posted

 

 

No. Please learn to read. The 23 percent is those who are actually Catholics; the remaining 7 percent that makes up the 30 percent are non-Catholics.

 

Religion is up to interpretation, but Catholicism is one religion with one interpretation; if you have other interpretations, make a new branch of Christianity or join another one. Some may treat it as a symbol, but Catholic teaching is that it is not a symbol.

 

 

 

And I'm not even Catholic. I just know a little more about it than you do.

 

Well, that still doesn't add up to 100%. lol.

 

30% of people who interpret it as it was meant to be interpreted

29% believe it's symbolic of his teachings

10% believe it's bread and wine from Jesus

23% personal symbolic beliefs.

7% non Catholics.

 

If that's what you think it means. What do you think is the percentage breakdown. Besides, why were they surveying non-Catholics. It completely changes the variables of the survey.

 

And editing that last sentence in was just obnoxious. (Edit: Never mind, missed the quote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest .Rai

Guest .Rai

Posted
Posted

Frankly, it's just more convenient to have some main branches of Christianity. Adding another 300 just because people have 'peronal beliefs' is cluttered and pointless.

 

When so much of the Bible is utterly ridiculous anyway, you are free to interpret the missing bits as you want, since no-one else wants to. Henry VIII is dead, and the Pope is retarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...