Follow the Bible

[Mark]

The open letter Randi quotes in his latest commentary apears to have been plagiarized from a much longer (and better written) one on this site. It's very, very funny.

http://www.internetparodies.org/followthebible.html

Enjoy!

[Graham]

What a crazy site! Funny though.

Apparently ol' Jerry took time out to sue them (http://www.internetparodies.org/lawsuit1.html) and lost!

With all those millions it's the last part I find hard to believe. d you think the law suit's a joke too?

Part of their reply. (http://www.internetparodies.org/lawsuit2.html)

This is a completely non-commercial web site, which exists for the sole purpose of expressing, through a parody, my opinion that your client is a jerk.

Why sugar coat you opinions, eh?

[Mark]

With all those millions it's the last part I find hard to believe. d you think the law suit's a joke too?

As far as I know the lawsuit was real...and he did lose; I don't know the exact details, though.

[Ladewig]

Oh, my gods. I poked around the site and stumbled across the photo of Dr. Falwell holding a balloon crucifix (just like a balloon animal but depicting Jesus on the cross). What color is the sky in his world?

[Nova Land]

I've seen several versions of the letter floating around. And I recall hearing the president (Bartlett, not Bush) use it on The West Wing a year or two ago.

[JesFine]

I seem to remember seeing that as a letter written to Dr. Laura after she made some mention of homosexuals being an abomination. Oh wait... it says at the bottom:
This letter was actually written to Dr. Laura, but it seems to work well with Mr. Falwell.

Anyway, here is a link to the Dr. Laura letter, with the appropriate Biblical Verses attached.

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm

People misinterpreting and using Bible passages out of context. So why is that funny?

One could easily do the same thing using quotes from books that are probably in your skeptical library.

[Mark]

People misinterpreting and using Bible passages out of context. So why is that funny?

Out of context? In what context would you find the murder of children (by crushing their skulls) acceptable?

In what context would you murder someone because he cut his hair?

In what context would you murder someone for wearing clothes made of different fabrics?

In what context would you murder somoene because he/she worked on the Sabbath?

In what context would you offer your wife and daughters up to be raped to save yourself?

In what context would you find it acceptable to murder an ENTIRE village (including the animals) because 2 smart mouthed kids made fun of a bald man's head?

In what context would you find it aceptable to own human slaves?

In what context would you find it acceptable to murder homosexuals?

In what context would you find it aceptable to sell your very own daughter into slavery?

This is ALL sanctioned in the Holy Bible. Read it. Enjoy. :D

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Whodini
People misinterpreting and using Bible passages out of context. So why is that funny?

Perhaps you could put them into context for us? And remember, if the Bible is divinely-inspired, 'normal for the times in which it was written' is unacceptable.

----
Perhaps you could put them into context for us? And remember, if the Bible is divinely-inspired, 'normal for the times in which it was written' is unacceptable.
----


You have to interpret them through the spirit, holy ghost.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Whodini
You have to interpret them through the spirit, holy ghost.

Be our guest. You have the floor - please do so...

----
Be our guest. You have the floor - please do so...
----


I never claimed I could.

That is just what some claim.

Down down! Don't make me get the spray bottle.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Whodini
People misinterpreting and using Bible passages out of context. So why is that funny?
When Jerry Falwell or Dr. Laura do it, it generally isn't funny. They are doing so seriously, in order to make a serious point about a matter (such as gay rights) which could have very un-funny consequences if their views prevail.

There are numerous ways people can respond to people such as JF and DrL when they do such things. One way is to make serious responses. Another way is to use humor.

The letter being discussed in this thread takes the approach of pretending to agree with JF/DrL that old testament verses can be applied to modern situations as a reliable guide to what is and isn't moral, and then carries this to a humorous extreme. The letter-writer brings up examples where clearly (to almost any reasonable reader) a literal reading and application of the verse will lead to immoral behavior, and asks with a perfectly straight face how best to carry these policies out.

That's not what we expect. In fact, it's so far from what most of us expect that it makes us (some of us, anyway) laugh at the thought of a person who could actually think that way. It's the incongruity that makes it funny.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Whodini
People misinterpreting and using Bible passages out of context. So why is that funny?



There have been several good responses to this.. I will add mine.


It's called joking. There are many people who consider jokes to be funny..

In fact, a lot of people even make a living telling jokes.
These people are called comics or comedians..
I might add, that a lot of their material would seem to be taken out of context, and in fact, might be
seriously humor deficient if it weren't.

It is true that some jokes are funny to some people, while others are not. But what is true, is that it is hard to find
an example of anything that makes one laugh, that is not related to a depiction of someone's misfortune
or shortcoming... i.e. Coyotes falling off of high cliffs, dumb blonds, disfigured people (clowns) and etc..
In fact, it is quite a challenge to find something ' funny ' that does not fall under this categorization..

An example of this would be, that Mr. Falwell would probably not find a cartoon ( another form of joking )
depicting himself in a compromising sexual encounter very funny.

Thousands of other people would indeed, find it funny.
However, some of these same people would not find it funny at all if Mr. Falwell told a joke about homosexuals,
even though that joke might set his congregation roaring.

Another point would be; that the lawyers, representing the various factions in the resulting litigation,
would most likely have little sense of humor at all, and not even consider the humorousness of any of the
points in fact..:D

----
It's called joking. There are many people who consider jokes to be funny..
----


So various derigotory (sp) jokes about Randi and other skeptics. Would those be funny or something else?

[Zep]

Whodini: So various derigotory (sp) jokes about Randi and other skeptics. Would those be funny or something else?
Sure! Randi laughs at these just as much as we do! We know it's supposed to be funny, even if it is really supposed to be a big dig at us skeptics.

Zep

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Whodini
So various derogatory jokes about Randi and other skeptics. Would those be funny or something else? It would of course depend on the joke itself and how well it was told. But potentially, yes, jokes making fun of Randi and other skeptics can be quite funny.

As one example, the comic strip Dilbert a while back (several years or so, I think) had a series of strips where Ratbert claims to have psychic powers and a skeptic shows up to debunk this. The skeptic not only denies the reality of Ratbert's powers, despite overwhelming evidence of their reality, but also expresses doubt about virtually everything else. The skeptic is portrayed as an annoying, wrong-headed jerk -- and the strips are funny.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
It's called joking. There are many people who consider jokes to be funny..
----


So various derigotory (sp) jokes about Randi and other skeptics. Would those be funny or something else?


Yes. If they are funny, they would be .... well, funny.
Maybe even hillarious...

P.S.

As I hinted at above, most jokes are derogitory about something or someone. More often the latter..

It is not unusual for the butt of a joke, to not find that particular joke very funny.

I wouldn't be surprised to find, that you don't think I'm being very funny..:D

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Whodini
I never claimed I could.

That is just what some claim.

Is it what *you* claim? If you have an insight as to how these verses can be taken *in* context courtesy of the Holy Spirit, perhaps you could share it with us. If not, how do you know the satirical letter took them unfairly out of context?

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Is it what *you* claim? If you have an insight as to how these verses can be taken *in* context courtesy of the Holy Spirit, perhaps you could share it with us. If not, how do you know the satirical letter took them unfairly out of context?


Huh.

I've heard that some people claim to interpret them through the spirit, etc.

As far as out of context, if you present a sentence without the surrounding parts, that is out of context. -which leads to misinterpretation.

An example:


----
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?
----


Lev. 19:27 is talking about an extremely specific hair-style, one that was in fashion by their enemies, while the stupid joke is talking about his friend getting his hair cut around the temples.


From another webpage:

----
It may appear surprising that Moses should condescend to such minutiae as that of regulating the fashion of the hair and the beard--matters which do not usually occupy the attention of a legislator--and which appear widely remote from the province either of government or of a religion. A strong presumption, therefore, arises that he had in mind by these regulations to combat some superstitious practices of the Egyptians.
----


And where does the joke person get that one will die for it?

[Mark]

A strong presumption, therefore, arises that he had in mind by these regulations to combat some superstitious practices of the Egyptians.

Well, there's quite a rationalization based on total speculation.

Lev. 19:27 is talking about an extremely specific hair-style, one that was in fashion by their enemies, while the stupid joke is talking about his friend getting his hair cut around the temples.

Which was the hairstyle referred to. And how does this make it OK to murder someone for it?

As I said earlier, to my mind, this stuff is horrible under ANY context.

----
Which was the hairstyle referred to.
----


No, the hairstyle is quite specific if you know about history and the hairstyles at the time. It certainly does not refer to a simple trimming of the hair near the temples.


----
And how does this make it OK to murder someone for it?
----


Can you point me to where it says that?

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Can you point me to where it says that?

LEV19:8
Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the LORD: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

It applies to all thelaws of Lev 19

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Whodini

As far as out of context, if you present a sentence without the surrounding parts, that is out of context. -which leads to misinterpretation.
I have to disagree. Some politicians have begun using this definition, which allows them much too easy an out when caught saying something embarrassing.

We rarely reproduce someone else's articles or speeches in their entirety; common practice is to select a small portion that is intended to give the gist of what the person said on a particular point. Quoting is by its very nature removing things from their larger context. There is nothing inherently obnoxious in that, so long as the portions were selected fairly, to convey an accurate impression of what the person being quoted intended.

The complaint that something was "quoted out of context" should be reserved for the times when the quoted passage, removed from its context, appears to say something significantly different from what was originally intended.

For example, "This is the greatest movie I've ever seen..." is misleading if the full quote went on to say: "This is the greatest movie I've ever seen -- greatest waste of talent, greatest waste of money, greatest waste of time.." If, on the other hand, the full passage read: "I've been going to movies for decades and this is the greatest movie I've ever seen -- greater than Ben Hur! Greater than Gone With the Wind! Greater than Star Wars!" then the selected portion fairly represents the thought expressed. In both examples, the portion has been revoved from its surroundings -- but the former is an example of "quoting out of context" and the latter isn't.

Simply quoting a passage from Leviticus without quoting the entire chapter of Leviticus (or the entire book of Leviticus) (or the entire old testament) is not necessarily "quoting out of context." It is "quoting".

Does the quoted passage from Leviticus have a significantly different meaning than the one intended when it was written? In one sense, definitely yes! They were writing it for a very different time and a very different society. Attempting to apply it to today's society is -- well -- a bit out of place. Incongruous. If done well, funny.

The point of the letter is that attempts to apply other passages of Leviticus (such as the ones on homosexuality) are equally out of place. Since serious attempts to point this out have often failed to get through to the people using them, the letter-writer attempted this humorous way of making that point.

The verse in question, Leviticus 19:27, reads (in the NIV translation -- nearest bible to hand as I type this): "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your heads or clip off the edges of your beard." The obvious interpretation of that is that cutting the hair at the temples would be forbidden. If it is wrong to take this at face value, the letter-writer is pointing out, it is wrong to take similar passages which appear to condemn homosexual behavior at face value as well.

[Mark]

Leviticus 20:13
The man who lies with another man in the same way as a woman: they have done a hateful thing together: they must die.

Leviticus 24:13-14, 23 (For swearing)
Yahweh spoke to Moses, he said: "Take the man who pronouced the curse outside the camp. Let all who have heard him lay their hands on his head, and let the whole community stone him.
When Moses aid this to the sons of Israel, they took the man who had pronounced the curse outside the camp and stoned him. In this way the sons of Israel carried out the order of Yahweh to Moses.

Leviticus 25:44
The servants you have, men and women, shall come from the nations around you; from these you may purchase servants, men and women.

Exodus 21:7
If a man sells his daughter as a slave, he shall not regain her liberty like male slaves.

Exodus 35:2-3 Work is to be done for 6 days, but the seventh is to be a holy day for you, a day of complete rest, consecrated to Yahweh. Whoever does any work on that day shall be put to death.

----
Simply quoting a passage from Leviticus without quoting the entire chapter of Leviticus (or the entire book of Leviticus) (or the entire old testament) is not necessarily "quoting out of context." It is "quoting".
----


Well that certainly is a great justification/excuse.

Carry on with your out of context "analysis".

I'm neither religious or a Bible scholar, but at least I'm fair.

[Mark]

I'm neither religious or a Bible scholar, but at least I'm fair.

I apologize if I am misunderstanding you; but you seem to be suggesting there is some context under which this stuff is justified. I am suggesting, while it may be understandable in a primitive society, it is still immoral and evil.

Cannibalism was understandable in some primitive societies. That didn't make it right, or even OK. Stoning someone to death for saying the word "God" was evil and wrong.

[afree87]

Originally posted by Whodini
Carry on with your out of context "analysis".

I will put it in context for you.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God. Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God. And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will. It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire. And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted. Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the LORD: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of. But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the LORD withal. And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God. Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD. And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.

Please tell us the proper context. What a mysterious creature it is!

So where exactly does it say that one will die for getting a haircut?

Originally posted by Whodini
So where exactly does it say that one will die for getting a haircut?

Not sure about death for this, but try Numbers
"6:5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth [himself] unto the LORD, he shall be holy, [and] shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. "

Cheers,

Bill Hoyt:

And...?


Mark:


----
In what context would you find the murder of children (by crushing their skulls) acceptable?
----


Perhaps your ancestors did in a ritual sacrifice.


----
In what context would you murder someone because he cut his hair?
----


Again, SHOW ME EXACTLY where it says that someone will get murdered for getting a hair cut.


----
In what context would you find it aceptable to own human slaves?
----


Many of the founders of the United States did.


----
This is ALL sanctioned in the Holy Bible. Read it.
----


So you intentionally avoid the good parts? That's interesting...

[Mark]

Perhaps your ancestors did in a ritual sacrifice.

Perhaps they did. That doesn't make it OK.

Again, SHOW ME EXACTLY where it says that someone will get murdered for getting a hair cut.

Read Leviticus.

Many of the founders of the United States did.

You think that makes it OK? Why? It makes the founders of the U.S. hypocrites; slave owners yearning to be free. Duh.

So you intentionally avoid the good parts? That's interesting...

Preachers constantly show us the "good parts." They (and you) ignore that bad parts. If people feel the entire bible is the literal word of God, then why do they not read the entire thing? It is YOU who ignoring parts, not me.

Looked at purely as history the bible is at best unreliable. Looked at as the literal word of God, much of it is just plain scary.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Whodini

So you intentionally avoid the good parts?...
No, I don't.

There used to be an occasional feature in National Lampoon, "Professor (I forget his name) Analyzes the Joke", in which a serious-sounding academic would be presented with a joke and proceed to explain why it wasn't really funny. He would point out (with a straight face) the errors in fact, the gaps in logic, how the jokes really didn't make sense when looked at sensibly...

Jokes generally don't make sense. At some point there is a gap in the logic, a disconnect -- something happens that isn't supposed to, and that's why it's funny.

The letter is a joke. It is an attempt to make people laugh. And it works for me -- I laughed out loud several times the first time I read it.

It doesn't matter to me whether the penalty for getting an improper haircut is death or something less drastic. The precise penalty is not the point. You seem to be fixating on details and, like National Lampoon's professor, missing the joke itself.

The target of the joke, as far as I am concerned, is not the bible, nor even the parts of the bible with out-dated instructions such as these. The target is people such as Jerry Falwell and Dr. Laura (or, more extremely, Fred Phelps) who take these parts of the bible and use them as justification for prejudice and discrimination.

A law against certain types of hair-cuts is mildly amusing, as are some of the other notions people had thousands of years ago. But what is funny about the letter is the thought of a person who takes such notions with earnest seriousness today.

In real life it is sometimes hard to laugh about such things. . The idea that someone would take these parts of the bible seriously enough to deny equal rights to gay people is often too real to seem funny. By taking an extreme extension of the idea, such as a person willing to sell a daughter into slavery or stone a neighbor to death, and treating it so matter-of-factly, the letter-writer makes it possible to laugh rather than cry at the thought of people like Fred Phelps.

I don't "intentionally avoid the good parts." The good parts simply were not relevant to this particular joke.

----
Again, SHOW ME EXACTLY where it says that someone will get murdered for getting a hair cut.

Read Leviticus.
----


I have read Leviticus. Leviticus does not say "If you get a hair cut you will get murdered." or "murder someone who gets their hair cut."

If you are claiming it does, then prove it.

[Mark]

I have read Leviticus. Leviticus does not say "If you get a hair cut you will get murdered." or "murder someone who gets their hair cut."

You are, in a strict, technical sense correct on this one point. In Lev. 19:27 it does not say kill them...exactly. However, in Lev. 20:22 it says "You must keep ALL my laws, all my customs and put them into practice: thus you will not be vomited out of the land.

You are very big on context...throughout this entire chapter, it gives specific instructions to stone people to death for violating God's laws. e.g.:

Lev. 20:27 Any man or woman who is a necromancer or magician (hi, Randi) must be put to death by stoning; their blood shall be on their own heads.

Lev. 26:14 But if you do not listen to me, and do not observe EACH ONE of these commandments, if you refuse my laws and disregard my customs, and break my Covenant by not observing each one of my commandments, then I will deal in a like manner with you.

I will inflict terror on you, consumption and fever that waste the eyes away and exhaust the seed of life.

Lev 26:22 I will let wild beasts loose against you to make away with your children (God protecting the innocent children here?), destroy your cattle and reduce your number until your roads are deserted.

Lev. 20:9 Anyone who curses father or mother must die.

Lev. 20:13 The man who lies with another man in the same way as a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they must die.

Lev. 20:14 The man who takes a woman and her mother to wife: that is incest. They must be burned to death---he and they.

Lev. 20:17 If a man sees his sister's nakedness and she sees his, it is a disgrace. They must be executed in public...


Fun stuff...and I sure am not going to follow these instructions. If you do, you'll be arrested and charged with murder.

----
You are, in a strict, technical sense correct on this one point.
----


It is a miracle!!!

I'm done. Sheesh.

Only took you "skeptics" about 10 posts to admit that.

You guys are getting better. ;)

[Mark]

Only took you "skeptics" about 10 posts to admit that.

Enjoy your "victory."

You are ignoring (how consistent of you) what I said. That particular verse does not say what the punishment shall be. The book Leviticus as a whole makes it perfectly clear to anyone who has really read it, that death is the appropriate punishment.

The only question is, should it be death by stoning or death by immolation?

----
Enjoy your "victory."

You are ignoring (how consistent of you) what I said. That particular verse does not say what the punishment shall be. The book Leviticus as a whole makes it perfectly clear to anyone who has really read it, that death is the appropriate punishment.

The only question is, should it be death by stoning or death by immolation?
----


Nice try, and a change of subject.

The original debate was over whether Leviticus says that you will get murdered for getting your hair trimmed.

It doesn't.

If you interpret it as that, then that is what YOU want it to say apparently.

I'm guessing atheist here? Just a wild guess...

[Mark]

Actually, here is my original post:

Out of context? In what context would you find the murder of children (by crushing their skulls) acceptable?
In what context would you murder someone because he cut his hair?
In what context would you murder someone for wearing clothes made of different fabrics?
In what context would you murder somoene because he/she worked on the Sabbath?
In what context would you offer your wife and daughters up to be raped to save yourself?
In what context would you find it acceptable to murder an ENTIRE village (including the animals) because 2 smart mouthed kids made fun of a bald man's head?
In what context would you find it aceptable to own human slaves?
In what context would you find it acceptable to murder homosexuals?
In what context would you find it aceptable to sell your very own daughter into slavery?

I say again (and you obviuosly cannot refute this) ALL of these things are SANCTIONED in the bible.

The ONLY inference I have made is about the hair being cut; it is made clear in the bible that this is punishable, but it does not specifically say how. In the context of Leviticus, it is clear death is appropriate for that transgression. And, if not, then "God" was being alarmingly vague.

Why do you continue to ignore all the other points (other than an odd reference to my own ancestors)?

P.S. Your assumption that I am an atheist is impertinent and incorrect. I am a Taoist.

Tangent Man,

You keep changing the subject.

My original point was that Leviticus does NOT say one will be killed/murdered for getting a trim- something which the joke letter did claim Leviticus said.


----
Out of context? In what context would you find the murder of children (by crushing their skulls) acceptable?
----


Does saying "child" imply any age? Because someone's child can be say 50 years old for example.


----
In what context would you find it aceptable to own human slaves?
----


Gee, maybe if I wanted to be a founding father of my own country.


----
The ONLY inference I have made is about the hair being cut; it is made clear in the bible that this is punishable, but it does not specifically say how.
----


Change your word "inference" to the phrase "crazy assed guess- projecting what I want to be in Leviticus to what really is in Leviticus", then I'd agree.


----
Why do you continue to ignore all the other points (other than an odd reference to my own ancestors)?
----


They are off topic. We are talking about hair trimming in Leviticus, not homosexuals, etc., in Leviticus.

YOU seem to want to say: 'It says you will get murdered for this stuff, therefore you get murdered for a hair trim.'


----
P.S. Your assumption that I am an atheist is impertinent and incorrect. I am a Taoist.
----


Which is a variety of atheist- because you are atheistic towards the Judeo-Christian God.

[Mark]

Which is a variety of atheist- because you are atheistic towards the Judeo-Christian God.

I won't even bother with your other comments since they are so completely silly. This one is simply based on knowledge you cannot possibly have.

I will note that many of the more imortant translators of the Tao te Ching were Christian monks. I suggest you change your avatar since you have absolutely NO idea what it represents; you're just making yourself look silly using it.

Cheers.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Whodini
People misinterpreting and using Bible passages out of context. So why is that funny?

One could easily do the same thing using quotes from books that are probably in your skeptical library.


Show me a single misinterpretation and lost context in the Aramaic or Hebrew.