Tag Archives: bible

Of the lecturing on scientific disciplines

Slate’s Daniel Engber with Both Sides Do It, science clown edition:

Beware, for thou that judgest doest the same things: Members of both parties have had to squiggle through elections by appealing to a hazy sense of geo-history. In fact, the Antichrist himself—Barack Obama—has had a tendency to get a little soft with science.

First — remember this? Marco Rubio, eyes fixed on our presidency, couldn’t come up with any guess as to the age of his home, the Earth. What is he, Pope Ptolemy? He’s running for office for Pete’s sake.

I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.

He’s not a scientist. He’s not a theologian. He’s not the body of a falcon with the head of a ferocious lion. How the heck should he know? Marco only pawn . . in game of life. Now Rubio’s doppelganger makes an entrance:

Q: Senator [Obama], if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

A: What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know.

Yes, of course, it’s obvious. Both sides did not do it. But let’s let Engber embarrass himself, we’re trying here to have some fun:

Both senators refuse to give an honest answer to the question. Neither deigns to mention that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old . .

Why in the world would Obama say that? He was asked how long it took to “create the world.” The best answer to that ain’t 4.54 billion years, buddy. The best answer is jillionths of jillionths of a second. Our tiny Earth’s creation only occurred as a consequence of the Big Bang, billions of years after the fact.

Additionally, the manner in which the world (or the Earth) was created and the point in time when it was created are two different things. It may take Ford Motor Company six days to put together a Taurus, but that doesn’t tell you when someone drove it off the assembly line. Obama, unlike Rubio, is clearly talking about how the world was created, not what date.

Engber has got some nerve to lecture people on science and facts when he can’t even comprehend what he’s reading. The President’s response is a politically deft but passable answer. No one knows yet — certainly science doesn’t — what happened before the Big Bang. It is possible the creation of the universe was finalized in a cataclysmic explosion at twelve midnight, on the sixth day. You may take annoyance at the loitering of a present-universe metaphor, but you can’t factually dismiss it.

Science operates by the application of logic not by the appearance of sophistication. Engber falls prey to his own laziness, but tee-hee Both Sides Do It.

Share

Five days in Herman Cain’s Libya

This was an awful week for Herman Cain.

After Monday, when he couldn’t recall what the devil Libya was, Cain worked mightily to set his campaign back on ‘solid ground.’ He spent the rest of the week attacking something, anything, of the embarrassment to save dignity.

Unfortunately, on Thursday he started weeping in the middle of another media sit-down, this time with WMUR in all-important New Hampshire. Then on Friday, while trotting out yet another defense, he stumbled on the devil again.

Herman Cain thought the Taliban were taking over Libya. A tough week:

“Do I agree that they now have a country where you’ve got Taliban and Al Qaeda that’s gonna be part of the government? Do I agree with not knowing what the government was gonna . . which part was he asking me about?”

There was a widely read piece by Molly Ball in Thursday’s Atlantic titled Herman Cain Meltdown. Molly said Herman was coming apart at the seams.

I’d draw a distinction. While Herman is clearly looking worse for wear, it’s not because he can’t handle the heat. It’s because he’s utterly incompetent. Beyond getting out in front of people and touting himself, he’s got no talent for politics. He’s playing a game he can’t win.

I doubt you’ll ever see him with any better command of foreign policy though he nearly just gaffed his campaign to death. He still has no interest in Libya or Egypt or Afghanistan or any other place as far as three time zones away. You’d ask, “Why doesn’t he sit down with a foreign policy expert, or an international current events primer, or something?” He never wanted to before, and he doesn’t want to now. It’s no more complicated than that.

Share

Conservatives think Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is a liberal conspiracy

They believe the great man and his theory are out to get them…

AlbertEinsteinConservapedia is ostensibly the right-wing answer to the internet institution Wikipedia. I’ve written about it several times previously at another site, now defunct.

It’s a hilarious place, a great way to spend a free 10 or 20 minutes looking up your favorite controversial subject to read nearly illiterate opinion masquerading as encyclopedic knowledge.

Currently on the front page:

Conservapedia’s article Atheism is a clown and it did not know it contains an important question that is upsetting to many atheists. “The question” has helped cause atheists to leave atheism and embrace Christianity.

“The question” that upsets many atheists focuses on the central distinction between atheism and Christianity. Namely, unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology.

So, you can see the level of discourse. TPM came across a particularly hilarious attack on the science left behind by notorious moonbat Albert Einstein. He is currently held in high regard in scientific circles, and elsewhere:

Conservapedia: E=mc2 Is A Liberal Conspiracy
Megan Carpentier | August 9, 2010, 5:01PM

. . If you’re behind on your physics, the Theory of Relativity was Albert Einstein’s formulation in the early 20th century that gave rise to the famous theorum that E=mc2, otherwise stated as energy is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light. Why does Andy Schlafly hate the theory of relativity? We’re pretty sure it’s because he’s decided it doesn’t square with the Bible.

In the entry, “Counterexamples to Relativity,” the authors (including Schlafly) write:

“The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.”

Really? Yes, really. Here’s the following line that TPM skipped:

Here is a list of 24 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

Really! Any one of them blows Relativity out of the water. Took decades before the shocking theories (there are actually two of them) became widely accepted by physicists. But Conservapedia wiped the entirety of Einstein’s work out with a mere couple of webpages, using points like these:

8. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.
9. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.

Convinced yet?

18. The lack of a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science. The only device based on relativity is the atom bomb, but that has destroyed far more lives than it’s saved so it can hardly be considered useful.

Andy Schlafly tests his scienceWell, that’s not a counter-example, is it? In fact, The Bomb continues to function frighteningly well, bearing out Einstein’s work. They seemed to have missed that point. Other times, they seem to want to borrow lefty Al’s science when it helps their cause:

Time Dilation and Creation Science

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. John Hartnett have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

It’s all a bit confusing.

Share

Now secession is American and patriotic, and it’s Christian, hooray!

The rhetoric just keeps getting creepier and creepier. It certainly makes me wonder if the crash of some terrible event will be required before it will stop.

The right-wingers’ fears aren’t just unleashed, they’re at bay, growling and clawing, running wild and free across the familiar wingnut neighborhoods. Nothing seems too extreme for Conservatives to champion or to rehabilitate in anticipation of the apocalyptic Civil War that is obviously looming on some unseen crimson horizon.

April 23, 2010

A concurring (Biblical) opinion for secession
By Chuck Baldwin

chuck baldwinChristians rightly square everything with the principles and precepts of the Holy Scriptures. So, is there Biblical approbation and authority for State secession? . .

We could go on an on with historical examples of how nation-states separated — by either violent or non-violent means. So, why is it that Christians, pastors, and churchmen will not so much as bat an eye at the numerous State separations that have taken place over the centuries, but suddenly become righteously indignant when discussing the American South’s attempted separation from the Union in 1861 — or even of the 13 Colonies’ separation from Great Britain in 1776?


WOW. This guy, Baldwin, is drawing absolutely no distinction between Americans fighting to get away from an armed, murderous and oppressive colonial power in 1776 and Southern Americans fighting to get away from the increasingly slavery-intolerant Northern states in 1861. Apparently, the reasons for secession are immaterial, it’s just secession itself which is super-duper and godly. I hope no one is actually buying this brutal stupidity.

And while we are on the subject of hypocrisy, how dare any Church or pastor denounce State secession or separation on one hand and then turn around and celebrate Independence Day on July 4?


Again: armed and violent rebellion is itself an awesome, godly American
thing. How dare any of you condemn it for any reason because it’s alllllllllllllllll the saaaaaaame. Chickenshits, hypocrites.

How dare they host “patriotic” services and invite special patriotic speakers and singers to come into their churches? How dare they encourage civic involvement and responsibility (such as voting)? How dare they promote participation in the US military, if they believe that there was no legitimacy to America’s separation from Great Britain? Plus, how dare today’s preachers and Bible teachers condemn what George Washington and the boys did in the American Revolution, and then turn around and celebrate the freedom and independence that was produced and preserved by that same Revolution?

Now, let’s look at the Biblical record . .


You can bet that Baldwin’s Bible comes down squarely on the side of revolution.

Chuck doesn’t seem to care who or what America is or was, what our identities, values, traditions, histories or natures are, what our intentions are or were — none of that seems to mean a good God Damn. Secession Is Just Good.

Greasing the skids for some new patriots, terrific.

Share

Fox News backs presence of Bible inscriptions on military weapons because the Taliban “started it”

U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret ‘Jesus’ Bible Codes

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the U.S. military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army…

Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions “have always been there” and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is “not Christian.”



I wasn’t buying that this has been tradition for the U.S. military. So I called up the registrar at the local war museum and asked him to take a look at the remains of their World War II rifle collection, and WHADDYAKNOW:

wwII rifle barrel

Share

Texas public schools are required to teach the Bible this year. No date scheduled yet for teaching the Koran.

“Did you ever wonder why staunch defenders of teaching the Bible in public schools don’t also encourage schools to teach about other examples of religious scripture? Surely that’s not a sign of favoritism and a desire to implicitly promote Christianity over other religions, is it? Of course not, the strongest supporters of teaching the Bible in school are also the strongest supporters of church/state separation, didn’t you know that?”

This is proven by Texas State Representative Warren Chisum, architect of his state’s new law requiring all schools to provide elective courses about the Bible as “literature” and “history.”

[Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, the author of the plan] said the legislature specifically addressed the Bible, not the Quran or any other religious writing, because “the Bible as a text … has historical and literary value.”

“It can’t go off into other religious philosophies because then it would be teaching religion, when the course is meant to teach literature,” he said.

——————————————————————————————————————————
…Rep. Chisum sunk to a new low of bigotry by distributing a memo–reproduced below–of State Representative Ben Bridges, Republican of Georgia, that advocates young-Earth creationism, geocentricity, a non-rotating and non-revolving Earth, and attributes evolutionary biology to a conspiracy of Jewish “Kabbalists” documented in ancient “Rabbinic writings.” The late journalist Molly Ivins referred to Chisum as “the Bible-thumping dwarf from Pampa,” referring both literally to his physical and figuratively to his moral stature, so this episode certainly confirms that characterization…

——————————————————————————————————————————

Physicists Create Phony Math To Rule Out A Non-Moving Earth

(…taken from HERE pp. 7,8 of 13: … Furthermore: there was a meeting of Communist Scientists in London in 1931 which was when Gamow was at Cambridge–and the year he was called back to be Master of Research at Leningrad U. (There are three pages of rare quotations that relate to that London conference on the furtherance of Communist ideology through “science” given at that link above.)  The following samples from those pages bear heavily on this entire web page effort… Note these statements from Communist (i.e., atheist) “scientists” at that London Conference:

“Modern physics rejects absolute inertia.” 28 [“Why?! Because modern [i.e., atheist Communist] physics must insure for all times that the Earth moves.  All Communists are atheists who must believe in evolution. The Bible’s stationary Earth teaching must forever be forbidden by “physics”!]

“The teaching of the self-movement of matter received its full development in the dialectical materialism of Marx, Engles, and Lenin.”29 [Does that sound like “physical science” to you?]

[Engles said]: “…one of the BASIC THESES of dialectical materialism [communism] is the inseparability of movement from matter.”30 [“Basic is pretty strong, wouldn’t you say?  This reminds one of Marx’s exultation over the advent of Darwin’s book: “You have given me the ‘Basis’ for my system!”

“The mathematisation of physics…is continually growing and physics is becoming more and more dependent upon the fate of mathematics.”31 And that was over 75 years ago!

“This special mathematics–the tensor analysis, the matrix calculus, the theory of characteristic numbers–has for the greater part been created by the physicists themselves, for ordinary mathematics is unable to satisfy the requirements of present day physics32  [Who says  “No inertia allowed”?  Physicists.]

“For mathematics there is only one way out: conscious, planned reconstruction on the basis of materialist [no God] dialectics.”33 [Step right up and witness the Politically Correct Science that has made the Earth move with a clever mathematical model when all known phenomena is readily explained by a stationary Earth Model!]

“To overcome the crisis in present-day mathematics, to reconstruct it along socialist lines, patient and persistent work is necessary… Preceding from Leninist theory…we [scientists] in the Soviet Union shall reconstruct the mathematical sciences.34 [They succeeded in “reconstructing” the mathematical sciences.. This Phony “New Math” was then implanted in Science Departments in the world’s Universities where it became an indispensable weapon in an “all or nothing” spiritual warfare. This pivotal battle has been between the Pharisee’s Kabbalist “creation  scenario” of 15 billion years of evolutionism and the Christian’s Biblical “creation scenario” which required no evolution whatsoever.  The credibility of both religions stands or falls on the credibility its foundational “creation scenario” of which the moving or non-moving Earth is  the keystone.

Share

know your bible homo bullcrap, people (pt.iii)

So what about the parable of Sodom and Gomorrah? Isn’t it 100% a story of gays offending the Lord, causing him to incinerate homo towns? No, it’s not–but read it for yourself.

Here:

1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

10But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. 12And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: 13For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

The angels were sent by God to destroy these evil places. On their errand, upon arriving in the vicinity, they meet good ol’ Lot. He begs them to take refuge in his house, which they wisely do. The people of the area, predictably, continue acting like assholes, demanding Lot produce the angels so that they may have their way with them.

But is this evil prominently and particularly homosexual? If I and a bunch of my drunken buddies showed up at your house, pounded on your door and said ‘Hey–I heard there’s somebody in there that’s pretty hot. Send her out of the house so we can fuck her,’ I imagine plenty of folks would still consider incinerating us. Certainly, the behavior of the townspeople might be a perfect expression of their particular evil, but it may also be an expression of perversion. A demonstration of the ‘unnatural’ ways of a disintegrating society, to borrow from the Romans text, which we’re now familiar with.

Nowhere in the parable does it say exactly why the towns were abominable. It does say that they were considered evil, that God wanted them wiped out, and that they were destroyed.

It also makes clear that Lot is a good, virtuous god-fearing man who is spared by his recognition of evil and his good deeds. But the tale goes on: how did his life proceed after witnessing God’s terrible retribution?

31And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

His daughters get him drunk, and he fucks them. God chose this guy to point out that sexual misconduct will be met with death? Crazy.

Leviticus 18:6 “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.”

Like the rest of us, he doesn’t even bother with the sacred instructions in Leviticus. Makes it difficult to take seriously those providential urgings there, or anywhere else, when this man, so favored by God that he ends up in a biblical parable, doesn’t bother. The Bible is certainly confusing when it comes to unraveling the mystery of the essential messages contained therein.

One thing’s for sure: he doesn’t get in the face of the townspeople and scream Romans 1:26-27 at them, which would certainly underscore the traditionally assumed intent of the story, if it’s actually there. But then maybe it’s hard to lecture people when my wife has got him by the secrets, bless her, no one likes a child molester.

Share

know your bible homo bullcrap, people (pt.ii)

(continuing)

Here the passages are:

Corinthians 6:9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

This is just a list of the folks who will not find favor with God. Gays are in the list along with the likes of drunkards, hardly a screaming condemnation. And I have a hard time believing that a just God would be tossing boozers out of his favor, but then that could be naive self-preservation on my part.

Now, here’s perhaps the most quoted passage(s) with regard to homosexuality and the Bible:

Leviticus 18:22 (and Leviticus 20:13) “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

But as anyone who’s read Leviticus will tell you, it is the most mind-numbingly endless and ancient laundry list of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ imaginable. It would be a knock-me-down-with-a-feather surprise if the still misunderstood existence of homosexuality were not forbidden in Leviticus, as just about everything else is. Right next door to 18:22, 18:19 forbids having sex with a menstruating woman. Chapter 19 forbids harvesting the corners of your crop fields, dictates how long you may eat sacrifices before burning them and lays out the procedure for atonement after you’ve slept with an unredeemed bondmaid. (As usual, a ram is involved.) (..and isn’t that where we came in? Ba-da-bing.)

Any Bible literalist who bothers to quote you Leviticus on this topic is begging for a rhetorical ass-whupping. Feel free to pick virtually anything out of that book, and throw it right back.

25:4 “But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards.” Why have they not condemned Archer Daniels Midland or EJ Gallo for their abominable, ungodly farming practices?

20:9 “If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.” I don’t remember any provision like this being a ‘special circumstance’ for capital crimes–aren’t they concerned about American law, or morality?

19:17 “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.” Why have they allowed their friends and family to bad-mouth these people? Why are they themselves doing it–what, have they never actually read the Bible?

No one in the history of the planet has ever adhered to all of Leviticus, it’s impossible. So there’s no reason for someone to pull 18:22 out of this mountain of ancient edicts and favor it as vital, holy gospel. It’s hypocritical.

Which leaves us with the Romans 1:26-27 passage:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

And there, finally, is a pretty clear rebuke of homosexuality. It’s also the only time, as far as I know, that actual lesbianism shows up.

But also note the repeated use of ‘nature’ here. The ‘vile affections’ are repeatedly referred to as unnatural here: ‘natural use into that which is against nature’. The writer (or God himself, presumably) could have easily just said it was evil, period. Or it was hated by God, period. But the Bible is clearly saying repeatedly that these things were not ‘natural.’

Now we all know that homosexuals are born, not made. What could possibly be more ‘natural’ than being born a perfectly fine, happy, functional human being? C’mon, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality–it’s just rarer. Frankly, I believe that this is just a big Bible ‘goof’: calling something totally natural ‘unnatural’ because it was misunderstood at the time. Which is a pretty understandable error. And it’s not like the Bible isn’t full of plenty of other mistakes, like the supposed age of the planet or universe, right? They’re no reason to throw the Good Book away, but there’s no reason to hold them dear when you know that they’re wrong.

So if that’s the toughest indictment of gays the Bible had got, I wouldn’t be particularly persuaded. Still, we haven’t yet gotten to the story of gays in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah. But was it really a story about evil gays? Hmm…

Share

know your bible homo bullcrap, people (pt.i)


What is the problem with so many people, all their hangups with the geh? Why are they so stuck in their tired old ways? To my recollection, The Bible is what’s used most often as a reference and a guide by these fuddy-duddies as the definitive word on what homosexuality is and how it should be viewed. But what does the Bible actually say? [note on the following: I stuck with the King James version for the most part]

Well, the Bible is against it. But, let’s not forget, once you read enough of it, it’s against pretty much everything. Seriously, there are very few things that the Bible doesn’t eventually dislike, often calling for disabilities and death penalties in retribution.

Sass: “The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.” (Proverbs 30:17) [..why do ravens have to do all the work? Are they the waiters of eye-eating world? –ed.]

Teenage rebellion: “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)

Urban living: “If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die.” (Deuteronomy 22:22-24)

Overtime: “..but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.” (Exodus 35:2)

And that thing, where you and this other guy are, like, brawling, and then your wife walks in on the scene, and she’s like ‘No WAY’, so she jumps in and squeezes dude’s balls: “When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Yeah, that thing–is nothing reasonably allowed in this damn book?

There are something like 31,173 verses in the book, 774,746 words, and, as you probably already know, little of that is dripping with tolerance.

So you might be surprised to find how little of the Good Book is devoted to addressing homosexuality. By my quick reading, where it is mentioned directly is in six isolated passages and one chapter: Jude 1:7, Timothy 1:9-10, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-27, and Genesis chapter 19.

The Jude passage rehashes Sodom and Gomorrah, so I’ll throw that in with the Genesis 19 parable that covers it. The Timothy passage is about the “lawless and disobedient” and lists “them that defile themselves with mankind”, but this hangs apparently upon the translation of ‘arsenokoitai’ from Greek which could also have just meant prostitution, so let’s toss it. The two Leviticus passages are essentially identical, so you can combine them.

So, that’s three passages and the Sodom and Gomorrah parable–that’s it. It really isn’t much. And the passages themselves, except for one, aren’t even very compelling in their pronouncements against gays, to be honest.


[more later]

Share