In Leviticus 19:28, the Bible says: ?e shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you; I am the Lord.?

How about tattoos?  Has anyone else ever found it ironic that so many people are now sporting religious symbols as tattoos?

---

In Leviticus 19:28, the Bible says: ?e shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you; I am the Lord.?ow about tattoos? Has anyone else ever found it ironic that so many people are now sporting religious symbols as tattoos?

---

I remember someone telling me, when I was quite young, that I had sinned because I wrote on my hand with a pen. *rolls eyes*  It's hard to believe a book as primitive and old as Leviticus actually has that kind of influence.

James

---

Oh man, I just realized that I wrote on my hand today to remind myself to pick up a perscription ... damn it, now I've really pissed God off.

---

Oh dear, you have really done it this time!

Seriously, I have to wonder if you were also spanked for wearing mixed fiber clothes or eating fruit from trees that were less than five years old?   Or if your parents had a garden did they ever grow two crops together?   All of that is prohibited in the same chapter of  Leviticus.              

  Ooops, I think they missed those ones.    Or maybe Jesus died so we can wear polycotton blends, but his blood just couldn't quite cover the evil of getting ink on yourself

Reply to : foxmaiden

I think you will appreciate this one:

I heard this in a comedy routine but it is very insightful.  Remember the law that it is an abomination for a man to lay with another man?  But notice that there is no law about a woman laying with another woman.  So this is a loophole that "believing" lesbians can take advantage of.  haha.... Guess God didn't notice that he missed this point.

---

Can a transgendered man lay with another man? Is the bible referring to physical or psychological manhood? Inquiring minds want to know!

---

I'm sure the bronze age culture that came up with most of the laws in Leviticus never dreamed that a man could one day, medically/physically/emotionally/mentally, become a woman.  It would be a sin to change your gender in the first place because of the whole potter-clay argument, and the Psalm "Thou didst form my inward parts" yadayadayada.  How would you repent after the fact, if indeed you wanted to?  Now that would be a bitch. 

There are Christian tattoo get-togethers, I worked with a girl who was into music and donned herself with several, so I guess she believes in the Jesus who does away with the law, or the subjective, personally interpreted Old Testament.  I like Joseph Campbell's "theology", Follow Your Bliss.  (if that doesn't include beating homosexuals and flying airplanes into buildings)

---

It would be a sin to change your gender in the first place because of the whole potter-clay argument, and the Psalm "Thou didst form my inward parts" yadayadayada.

---

Another scientifically ignorant Biblical assertion that didn't stand the test of time.

See the topic of sexual dimorphic nodes of the brain and their development under the influence of testosterone in the womb.

It shows that brain gender and body gender are not always synonymous.  Whereas body gender can be one of three broad states, male, female or intersex (where the genitals have neither gender characteristic or both), brain gender is determined on an infinitely variable sliding scale, depending upon the analogue level of testosterone present during gestation.  So, under normal circumstances, the external evidence displays a binary condition: male or female, but the internal evidence displays a percentage: 80% male, 20% female, etc.

Therefore, if the Bible were accurate, it would read, "Thou didst fuck up my inward parts..."

---

.Another scientifically ignorant Biblical assertion that didn't stand the test of time.See the topic of sexual dimorphic nodes of the brain and their development under the influence of testosterone in the womb.It shows that brain gender and body gender are not always synonymous. Whereas body gender can be one of three broad states, male, female or intersex (where the genitals have neither gender characteristic or both), brain gender is determined onan infinitely variable sliding scale, depending upon the analogue level of testosterone present during gestation.

---

---

Reading 1 Corinthians today, I realized that it is rather hypocritical for Christians to oppose gay marriage when Paul reportedly wrote:"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" (1 Corinthians 5:12 NIV).Also, I don't see Christians opposing the right of a Christian woman to marry a non-Christian, even though Paul was against this."A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord." (1 Corinthians 7:39 NIV).It looks to me like people are selectively choosing which scriptures they want to make law.James

---

Nah, dude it's not like that. The deal is that Paul is saying that Christians don't need to go up to non-Christians and say "hey, that grieves the Spirit".  If they aren't even Christians, why would they care or appreciate that?  It doesn't make sense. If you're going to judge spiritual things, you gotta do that in the church (among other believers), because really nobody else is going to care.  And Christians DO oppose the idea of yoking a believer and a non-believer in marriage, but again what point is it to push that belief outside the church to people who don't even believe God's word? 

But favoring a law against same-sex marriage isn't a judgement against homosexuals, it's a statement of belief of what marriage is supposed to be about. Only God can judge homosexuals, that's not a Christian's job.  Peace!

Ah, the circular logic and tunnel vision we all used to employ. . . . Christians are judgmental, they just keep it to themselves because non-Christians don't care, no wait, they're not judgmental, only God judges, and being opposed to something isn't judging it as wrong, it's just . . .

Oh no, my brain just exploded from too much cognitive dissonance! 

JamesLovesSam, your point is just another example that a) it is impossible to follow all the exhortations of the Bible to the letter because they contradict one another and b) the more one tries to obey the Bible, the crazier one becomes. 

---

Ah, the circular logic and tunnel vision we all used to employ. . . .Christians are judgmental, they just keep it to themselvesbecause non-Christians don't care, no wait, they're not judgmental, only God judges,and being opposed to something isn't judging it as wrong, it's just . . .Oh no, my brain just exploded from too much cognitive dissonance!JamesLovesSam, your point is just another example that a) it is impossible to follow all the exhortations of the Bible to the letter because they contradict one another and b) the more one tries to obey the Bible, the crazier one becomes.

---

Hey,

I think you're confusing "judging" with "judgmental". You're using them as the same word, but they are not.  Everyone has to "judge" just to live, just to get up and move and do things in this world.  Just about everything requires judging... can I merge into that lane of traffic, can I trust this person with a secret, is this other person involved in stuff that I'd like to steer clear of, etc. Christians aren't prohibited from judging!   Everybody, Christian or not, judges other people and bases friendships, business relationships, etc, off of those judgements.  But notice you can do all of the above and not even say a negative word to someone. That's mostly what judgement is -- it's for our own internal use.  And it's a good thing, I'm sure you gotta agree. 

But then there is judging -- the kind where you go and get in someone's face and tell them that they are doing something immoral, etc.  It's unfortunate that the English language has the weakness that sometimes one word can have multiple meaning, referring to the English translation of the Bible. "Judge" is used in the Bible with this meaning as well. It's also often called judgementalism.  And this kind of judging is usually deemed wrong to do.

So going back to my first reply, judgementalism really doesn't work in a Christian-to-nonChristian kind of confrontation.  A lot of Christians make that mistake and it backfires!  It's not going to carry any heft if the person doesn't even believe in Biblical concepts. That kind of judging is really something you resort to when you see a brother falling into sin and you gotta help him out of love. But everybody including Christians have the right to use their judgement (different word) as best they can and make their decisions off of those judgements. That's the most anyone can do!  Christians, like everyone else, have the right (actually, patriotic duty) to vote their conscious.  Is that judgementalism?  No, that's being American -- voting, freely expressing your opinion.  

So I see Sam mixing up apples and oranges here.  It's pretty silly to try to make a law forbidding people of different faiths to marry!   First of all, it interferes with freedom of religion. Second, it's unconstiutional. And it's not even enforceable. Compare that with the long standing history of the legal definition of marriage being between a man and a woman -- no restriction on religious freedom, no unconstitutionalities, and also enforceable. Marriage needs a legal definition, and there it is. Proposing additional legislation to further refine and confim that definition is completely consistent from a legal standpoint.

---

Compare that with the long standing history of the legal definition of marriage being between a man and a woman -- no restriction on religious freedom, no unconstitutionalities, and also enforceable.

---

I don't know about "enforcable". I don't remember ever being asked "Are you a female?" before "Do you take this man...."

  Slavery also had a longstanding legal tradition. A lot of evil things did and do. Appeals to Tradition don't make something any less wrong.

---

I don't know about "enforcable". I don't remember ever being asked "Are you a female?" before "Do you take this man...."

---

Maybe it was obvious? And don't marriage licenses in all states require ID?  Correct me if I'm wrong.

---

I don't know about "enforcable". I don't remember ever being asked "Are you a female?" before "Do you take this man...." Slavery also had a longstanding legal tradition. A lot of evil things did and do. Appeals to Tradition don't make something any less wrong.

---

I didn't appeal to tradition (in fact, nowhere did I mention the word "tradition"). I appealed to constitutionality. I appealed to the consistency of the legal process, which by no means implies that all laws are "right", but instead to establish the arena in which laws can actually be applied in a constitutional way.

What is the point of arguing about the legality of a ban on same-sex marriage?  This post was about hypocrisy, not legality.  It was about picking and choosing what to make a moral hot topic of the Christian right and what to leave alone.  I'm going to break out Leviticus and compare Paul's admonitions versus Jesus' if you're going to ignore the conflicing messages of the Bible.

I also think that pleading semantics isn't going to give your shaky arguments ground to stand on.

You do realize that this is a forum for people who have walked away from fundamentalism and come here seeking camaraderie and support, right?  Since we don't care if we "grieve the Spirit" or not, perhaps you would do better to spend your time "helping a brother out of love," since your non-judgmental judging isn't really in keeping with the whole support system we've got going here.

---

What is the point of arguing about the legality of a ban on same-sex marriage? This post was about hypocrisy, not legality.

---

Because it shows that the supposed hypocrisy is based on an misunderstanding of law and constitutionality.  There's nothing wrong in voting for legislation that reaffirms a concept of marriage consistent with the Biblical one.  But the idea that this means that a Christian must also want laws to prevent interfaith marriage (unconstitutional and ridiculous to boot) , lest they be hypocrites, is pretty dumb.

---

I'm going to break out Leviticus and compare Paul's admonitions versus Jesus' if you're going to ignore the conflicing messages of the Bible.

---

So far in this thread, I've consistently addressed that very thing in each reply.

---

.I also think that pleading semantics isn't going to give your shaky arguments ground to stand on.

---

I haven't plead semantics.  I just happen to think that words, phrases, and paragraphs have meaning. If you disagree with that, then we don't have much to work with here. 

---

You do realize that this is a forum for people who have walked away from fundamentalism and come here seeking camaraderie and support, right?

---

Who mentioned fundamentalism?  I didn't.

---

You do realize that this is a forum for people who have walked away from fundamentalism and come here seeking camaraderie and support, right? Since we don't care if we "grieve the Spirit" or not, perhaps you would do better to spend your time "helping a brother out of love," since your non-judgmental judging isn't really in keeping with the whole support system w

---

It appears you've completely missed the point, and in fact fabricated falsehoods in the process:  1)  I've passed judgement on no one here, which negates pretty much everything you say in this paragraph. 2) I answered a question directed at Christians. I am a Christian, hence, I answered. If you fail to see the logic in that, I'm afraid at a loss to explain it in any simpler terms. 

So, the original argument of hypocrisy remains disassembled and disproven. The very idea that a Christian must favor laws against interfaith marriage if they are in favor of the current civil law concerning marriage is pretty ignorant of both Christianity and this country's constitution.

---

Who mentioned fundamentalism?

---

You know, really we should be rejoicing at what's his name's (at first I thought it was our troll reincarnated) foray into our forum.

I answered a question directed at Christians. I am a Christian, hence, I answered. If you fail to see the logic in that, I'm afraid at a loss to explain it in any simpler terms.

This is a precious service he is providing us.  I for one am not at all familiar with Christianity myself.  If you were to ask me how a Christian thinks, lives, or operates, I'd be at a total loss.  Thank goodness doj has come to save the day!  I hope he has time to respond personally on behalf of all Christians for every post here that mentions Christianity.  That's exactly why we, former Christians, come to this forum . . . to have new Christians that we don't know explain the ways of the world to us (too bad Doj's explanations are too complex for my simple mind, otherwise I would be totally transformed into a clone of Doj, I mean, saved and cured and all that).  Somehow we all managed to be Christians ourselves without ever meeting other true (TM) Christians, but luckily Doj will be our ambassor from Christendom.  Ya know, we've all spent collective years in personal anguish over our doubts and relationships forever changed with loved ones, but I think that if Doj were to just clarify a few points regarding politics and religion, we would all instantly revoke our deconversions.

While he's at it, he should join every support forum in the world and offer his services.  Not qualifying for this one didn't stop him, so maybe AA, abused women, or former members of NAMBLA is next!  You go get 'em Doj!

Reply to : doJ

Well doJ, from what I can determine, you're a fervent, bible-believing Christian. (that was kind of a no-brainer, but just thought that I'd acknowledge it.)  You can say that you're not "judgmental" in the various erroneous ways that many other Christians are...but the fact is, in your heart of hearts, you carry all the same prejudices...and detest the same people and the same human behaviors that your "God" detests....with an equal intensity.  You just won't let onto that fact in your conversations with infidels, or non-believers....because you know how your "association with the Holy" sounds to their ears....how it smacks of arrogance and elitism.   

It seems what you're trying to do...is dress yourself up in a cloak of "tolerance"...or a form of political correctness....by saying "Hey, its God's place to judge...not mine."  But the fact is, when it comes down to your true feelings about the world and the people in it....you're just as crass, narrow-minded, intolerant, bigoted, indignant, and self-righteous as the god that you proclaim to serve.  Jesus is your Tree of Life...and the apple never falls far from the tree.  I'll bet that you defend the actions of your detestable God...and I'll bet that you even feel that the people who end up in hell are well-deserving of it...that God has judged righteously and justly. 

I used to associate with many people like yourself...I used to consider them my "Brothers and Sisters in Christ."  I used to be like you....in regards to my views on sin, human nature, and the rest of the world.  Now...I'm thankful to be free of all that narrow-minded, psychologically-stunting bullshit....and I'm thankful that nowadays, most of the dealings I have with backward, misguided religious folks such as yourself...is via the medium of a keyboard and computer screen. 

You've been swindled, mate...just as most of us were.  You seem to possess a good degree of insight and intelligence...so hopefully you'll begin to apply it towards thinking your way out of the Biblebox.  But anyway...gnite, and peace be with you....hope you enjoy the board and stick around for awhile. 

---

Ah, the circular logic and tunnel vision we all used to employ. . . .Christians are judgmental, they just keep it to themselvesbecause non-Christians don't care, no wait, they're not judgmental, only God judges,and being opposed to something isn't judging it as wrong, it's just . . .Oh no, my brain just exploded from too much cognitive dissonance!

---

Reminds me of my niece, who once said (I believe in reference to her feelings over homosexuality) "It's not anger, it's righteous indignation!" 

---

...your point is just another example that a) it is impossible to follow all the exhortations of the Bible to the letter because they contradict one another and b) the more one tries to obey the Bible, the crazier one becomes.

---

True, true, true.  The inability to admit biblical contradictions creates a need to force meaning and coherency between the different books, which leads one to tunnel vision; blinders are needed to keep one  on the straight and narrow. 

Knowledge and understanding of homosexuality was not understood in biblical times.  Much of the bible is a mixture of myth, half-truths, and a bronze age world view.  While there may be a few historical accuracies, it does not prove the unfallible truth of the bible.  We need laws and customs for today's world, not ones from some rigid, puritan past.  If the shoes don't fit; buy a new pair.