Incredibly Interesting Thread! Look here!

[I'm Typing]

It kills me when you religionists (christians in particular) love to pick and choose what to follow out of the bible. Consider the following exchange between a "Dr. Laura" type and the President in the TV show, "The West Wing" (keeping in mind that all of the references here come straight out of the bible):
President Josiah Bartlet: You're Dr. Jenna Jacobs, right?

Dr. Laura-type character: Yes, Sir.

Bartlet: ...Forgive me, Dr. Jacobs. Are you an M.D.?

Jacobs: A Ph.D.

Bartlet: A Ph.D.

Jacobs: Yes, Sir.

Bartlet: Psychology?

Jacobs: No, Sir.

Bartlet: Theology?

Jacobs: No.

Bartlet: Social work?

Jacobs: I have a Ph.D. in English literature.

Bartlet: I'm asking cuz on your show, people call in for advice and you go
by the name Dr. Jacobs on your show, and I didn't know if maybe your
listeners were confused by that and assumed you had advanced training in
psychology, theology or health care.

Jacobs: I don't believe they are confused, no, Sir.

Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an
abomination.

Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the
Bible does.

Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Jacobs: 18:22.

Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions
while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into
slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore,
speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What
would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask
another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the
sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or is it OK to call the police? Here's one
that's really important cuz we've got a lot of sports fans in this town.
Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they
promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football?
Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be
together to stone my brother John for planting different crops
side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing
garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions,
would you? One last thing, while you may mistaking this for your monthly
meeting of the Ignorant Tight-ass Club, in this building, when the
President stands, nobody sits.

--Exchange between President Bartlet and a character clearly meant to be
Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Oct. 18 on NBC-TV's The West Wing.


[transcribed by Rex Wockner]

Any comments?

(title edited second time for the mods)

 

[StageLeft]

I like it

Of course some people will come in and defend how it was poorly understood, or you're not supposed to take the bible literally or something or rather.

 

[DaBoneHead]

I'm typing.



Though I respect you and your opinion (it is very nearly my own), I hope this thread gets locked.


It is just too soon after the previous flame-magnet thread. Perhaps next week we will be up to it.


Sorry. I'm bowing out on this one.

 

[vi edit]

Yeh what Skoorb said. The bible isn't supposed to be interpreted literally...at least when it doesn't play in your favor

 

[CinderElmo]

Funny stuff...of course with a title like that you are going to invite wrath no matter how true it is

 

[ArkAoss]

ahh, well lemme get my bible out, no need to thump it though, no dust on it.

See that guy, there, Jesus, he died for mankinds sins, K?
And his death symbolized a new deal with the BIG guy
and that stuff the BIG guy set out for his first nation the Isrealites, that dont count, the sabbath stuff, the slavery stuff, the pig skin stuff.
Al that matters is what Christ said. And *spitts into spitoon* well some of the stuff, the comon sense stuff bout cleanliness, that matters. And if your gonna take the bible literaly (like you should) you should understand what literally means for the parts.

-Puts marking thread back in bible, goes back to fixing web pages.

 

[Balt]

I have one. What is the point of this thread? Both the theists and the atheists on this forum never cease to spew reasons why they are 'right' and anyone who doesn't believe (whether that be theist or atheist belief)as they do isn't. I don't see what objective you have here except to stir a hornet's nest (which has already been messed with enough times, IMO).

Don't think I'm attacking everyone, because I'm not. What I'm attacking is people who honestly believe they know everything and start name calling (see thread topic) just to get a rise out of people. Unfortunately, it certainly worked in this case (on me at least).

Learn some friggin tolerance. Everyone is a hypocrite (and of course I admit that I am probably the biggest one. They can support some of the things in the Bible if they want, and not support others. It's a fact of life, get over it.

OK, done ranting.

 

[FettsBabe]

ArkAoss - Way to go!!!!!

 

[palad]

Well, here's my $.02.

What the President is talking about in his little speech is the Law of Moses, or the Mosaic law. Every little thing was set out under it, including the handling of dead bodies, the washing of women after their menstrual period, and the preparation of food. In addition to the observances, there were many direct statements which were made: murder is an abomination, adultery is an abomination, theft is evil, coveting is wrong, the Sabbath is the Lord's. When Christ came, he fulfilled the Mosaic Law, he did not detroy it. The observances were no longer required, but that did not mean that evil stopped being evil, or good was no longer good, merely that the people no longer needed to observe all of the ritual cleansings, preparations, feasts, etc. All of these had originally been intended as a type, or representation, of the sacrifice that the Messiah would make, and were instituted to give the people an opportunity to learn. After Christ fulilled his calling and made his sacrifice, all of the mosaic observances were no longer needed. But he did not do away with the declarations or commandments which had been given; instead, he expanded upon them. Not only are we not to commit adultery, we are not even supposed to lust in our hearts. It is not enough to 'not murder', we must not even become angry with our fellow brothers and sisters. The Lord had already made a firm declaration that homosexuality is of the devil and is an abomination to God, and this did not change. All that changed was the ritual observance and proscribed punishment for engaging in such a sin.

 

[Russ]

Uh, Typing, The West Wing is a TV Show.

Russ, NCNE

 

[maximus]

Religionists? is that even a word? anyway in the same way that you say Christians use the Bible out of context, people on your side of the coin do an even greater injustice, taking the Bible out of context while knowingly conceding that you do not believe a word the Bible says. so stop trying to make this a one-sided issue. secondly, the Bible must be interpeted literally because otherwise we move away form absolutes and towards relative thinking, which is a very dangerous way of thinking.

EDIT:Religionist is a word, guess anyone who believes in the Bible is too slack jawed to know that.*sarcasm*

 

[ArkAoss]

well thanks PALAD for the spectacular backup. I had just left a thread about red necks, and was in kind of a red neck state of mind. (still think though laura sleshinger is annoying though)

Though, BALT, I too agree that the number of threads started just to cause people to fight is going on too much, I shouldn't have responded. (I admit I have started a few of my own)

 

[Optimus]

I'm Typing - I pointed out that scene in the West Wing in the Dr. Laura thread because it finely illustrates how people can take anything, even the bible, and use it as a weapon. The character on the show used the parts she wanted from the old testament and ignored others. The point is that much of that type of law was meant to basically keep God's people alive and healthy in those times. The law is not the same today, for much of the reasons Ark Aoss listed.

Anyway, some points:

1) The scene was not an attack on religion in the show, Bartlett is a Christian character. It was an attack on hypocrites who use anything, including the Bible, as a weapon.

2) Yout thread title is inflamatory, and I know it is in response to another infalmmatory thread title here in OT. That other thread title was not good, nor is yours. If you feel the other thread title is wrong, step above it and don't mimic it, I'd say.

/Edit - OK, the title has been changed.

3) Vi_edit and Skoorb - Bible literalists who pick and choose what in the book is literal and what is interpretive are not exaclty being honest. That doesn't negate the validity of the Bible, simply because some abuse it. People either believe it or don't, it is a matter of faith to them.

4) If the Democrats in real life were like those on the West Wing, I'd be a Democrat - I truly wish that we had politicains that principled. Even on points I disagree with them on, these characters are always acting on what they hold to be right.

 

[I'm Typing]

I'm Typing,

About your thread, "A thread for all you whiny, slack jawed religionists out there."

The thread is far more interesting than the title. Please edit it before another moderator decides to lock it on general principles. No guarantee that won't happen.

Thanks,

AnandTech Moderator

(removing gag) done.(placing gag back on)

 

[GL]

So there are people out there that still think that homosexuals are abominations to God for being the way they were created. Oh wait...homosexuals aren't born that way...homosexuality is an act that you choose to do in the same light that murder is an act. Therefore if you commit homosexuality you can be condemned in the way you commit murder.

I'm a Catholic and I don't even take the Bible literally. Study it's history. It has been translated over and over and over again throughout history. Much of the translation has resulted in mistranslations...much in the same way that a book 50 years ago stating "John was gay" (John is happy) could be misinterpreted by a teenager 10 years from now (John is a homosexual). And this is sticking with the same language...imagine trying to translate between different dialects of a language or between completely different languages.

-GL

 

[Russ]

<< The thread is far more interesting than the title. >>



The mod is full of crap. The title was the only interesting thing about this thread.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Optimus]

GL - I wouldn't compare it to murder... that is pretty infalmatory.

And the Catholic view on it is that the act is a sin. The people are not bad, but the act is considered a sin under religious law. Actually, any sex outside a marriage is considered a sin, not just homosexuality. It is a matter of faith law.
I don't think that Catholics base their view on the times the old testament mentions it.

 

[ArkAoss]

:|
for the length of the thread, i shorten this

 

[Balt]

The mod is full of crap. The title was the only interesting thing about this thread.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? Don't tell me you didn't find the &quot;West Wing Argument&quot; both thought-stimulating and riveting.

 

[GL]

So my original post can be upheld. I can safely conclude that there are still people out there that view homosexuality to be an act and not, for lack of a better word, an inherent state of being much the same way you are born a man or a woman.

-GL

 

[Optimus]

I'll get Russ interested in this thread again:


&quot;Gore arrested in motel room with ballot-counting sheep, while Dems file suit to have him named the guy who cracked RC5&quot;



How's that?

 

[Napalm381]

<< DO you really want to argue the Validity of the bible? >>

What's wrong, ArkAoss? Can't handle the fact that some people see the bible as nothing more than a silly hyped-up story book? Yeah, it's got some history in it, but it's also got a lot of crap.

 

[Optimus]

GL, there is an act, and there is a predisposition/leaning/tendency (whatever). I have a pretty religious friend who says he is homosexual, but will live a virgin because of what he believes...

 

[Optimus]

Napalm and Ark Aoss:

One can no more argue against the validity than one can argue for it. It is a matter of faith and beleif.

 

[Napalm381]

<< One can no more argue against the validity than one can argue for it. >>

Debatable, but I don't really care. Suffice to say the Bible has a much meaning to me as the National Enquirer, and I'll leave it at that.