Cherry-picking Leviticus
15 June 2007 by StardustWhen the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen is asked which parts of the Bible are still relevant today, the Bishop doesn’t answer the questions the interviewer raises, and when cornered he keeps saying how “impressed” he is with the interviewer’s education and knowledge about the Biblical texts, and he scurries off. The interview is in response to Jensen’s use of the Bible against gays.
15 June 2007, on 4:48 pm
So they’re are going to persecute people on the basis of a book they’ve barely read and don’t seem to understand? Great.
15 June 2007, on 4:55 pm
“Lucky I had Leviticus to protect me” — Snark!
15 June 2007, on 5:11 pm
Well, at least they aren’t killing them all… yet, anyway.
15 June 2007, on 5:13 pm
Vjack, funny thing, seems I got something about Osiris wrong during a debate on a message board and I was told to read the Bible because it would “change my life.”
So I asked which came first, citing the two conflicting tales of creation. Suffice to say, I got no answer from the original poster and the BS they tried to use to tell me I was wrong was laughable.
It’s always nice to win, isn’t it?
15 June 2007, on 5:35 pm
I think Jensen knows darned well which part of Leviticus deals with gays, but he also knows how horrendous that passage sounds to reasonable, rational, humane people, so he tries to brush off the whole conversation in order not to be drawn into a discussion about it.
Because if he did answer and accurately, he would be at the very least tacitly agreeing that the correct response to gays is destroying them - and he knows the outrage that would generate against him.
15 June 2007, on 5:44 pm
It’s weird how the only Christians who will stand up and defend every bit of their Bible are the psychopaths and morons.
15 June 2007, on 5:50 pm
Ok, in fairness, the Bishop could have argued that the New Testament says that Christians are no longer subject to “The Law” (the Bible at the time the NT was written), and could have used Paul’s anti-homosexual writings to denouce homosexuality (though many argue Paul was really arguing against temple prostitution).
Of course, none of this matters to me, as I don’t “believe in” any of it…
15 June 2007, on 6:26 pm
Xians do have a problem with keeping faith with the NT, while the good bits that allow them to be misogynistic, xenophobic, in support of slavery and homophobic - is all housed in the OT.
What morons!
I love the ‘webs! Now we can show vids of them being stooopid, whenever we find them! How else would we have seen this wonderful YouTube from Australia, illustrating the verbal-bob-and-weave by an Anglican cleric?
Bring ‘em on! We know there’s more where that came from. Pretty soon, they’ll have to shut their fucking mouths. For good!
15 June 2007, on 6:38 pm
I love it how these morons are always claiming that the Bible is the word of their god and such a beautiful book to live by and yet they never seem to want to quote it, refer to it or discuss it when called on their bullshit. Someone as important as Jensen should have no problem ripping these guys a new one when it comes to knowledge of the Bible. Instead he plays it off like a senile old man who can’t remember where he lives. If you’re ashamed of your beliefs, maybe you ought to reevaluate them old man.
15 June 2007, on 6:48 pm
OK, listen up. I’m not going to repeat this. Here’s the rule:
If the passage would make Jack the Ripper queasy, it’s to be interpreted metaphorically, or poetically, or in context, or the passage was meant only for those times, not these.
If the passage is Bambi-sweet it’s to be interpreted literally.
M’kay?
15 June 2007, on 6:49 pm
This is taken from a show called (at that time) CNNN, now it’s morphed into a show called “The Chaser’s War On Everything”, in which they do some pretty outragous stunts with celebrities, politicians, etc. They recently got a Muslim mufti, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali (who is a complete dick, Google him sometime) very angry to the point of threatening to punch them! Classic stuff.
“John Safran vs. God” is another Australian programme, exerpts of which are on YouTube, that pokes fun at all religions. Check out his atheist doorknocking in Utah.
15 June 2007, on 7:14 pm
Actually Ollie, that’s not true at all. Xians like to say that Jeebus frees them from the OT laws, when in fact it’s stated in their own babble that Jeebus came to fulfill, not destroy.
15 June 2007, on 8:18 pm
Actually Ollie, that’s not true at all. Xians like to say that Jeebus frees them from the OT laws, when in fact it’s stated in their own babble that Jeebus came to fulfill, not destroy.
AUM - Thanks for pointing that out. I was just about to do that.
15 June 2007, on 11:06 pm
Yes! Finally I get the jump on the other GIFSers!
I actually had a philosophy teacher (second one, not the fundie asshat), yet another of those “I have a religious degree” type people, even though he was a really cool guy, who said he never saw that.
Seriously though, what the fuck kind of degree are they getting if they don’t encounter this kind of thing? From some asshat in the local paper with degrees out the ass saying he’s never encountered the fact that the babble is just plagiarized myths from older cultures to this one who never encountered a claim STRAIGHT FROM JESUS, someone they claim to worship!
That actually makes ME smarter than the guy with the degree, and the guy in the paper had a PHD! And I did it with less money and work!
15 June 2007, on 11:43 pm
I always refer to that insane part of the OT as Leviciousness.
What comes to my mind…quite often, unfortunately…regarding the whole Bible; and for that matter, the Q’uran and Book of Morons; is the somewhat terrifying thought of just HOW fucked up the morons who wrote those tomes must have been in real life. Of course, if they lived today, the delusionals in our midst would honor them all, if, as Hitchens points out, they have ‘Reverend’ before their names.
Actually, if they lived today; they most likely would scare the Bejeebus out of the worst nut cases at…oh, I dunno…
Bellview Mental Hospital?
On entering the first question might be:
“Pardon me, reverend…What size straight jacket do YOU wear? What’s that?…The sword/bullet/kitchen utensil and demon proof model?
Ummm…I think we’re temporarily out of that model…”
Perhaps there’d be another Jack Nicholson role in something like:
“One!….FUCK!…ALL…flew over the cuckoos nest…just to escape from those crazy MFs”.
I know; the title’s a bit long for the marquee. Maybe just shorten it to…
“Holy Fuck!!!”
What’s that Stardust?…
Oh, alright…make that: “Wholey Fucked”?
16 June 2007, on 12:23 am
Nice bit about Jensen’s glasses — I hadn’t made that connection to the “defect in sight” passage.
Sadly, however, one quickly learns that believers can’t be expected to make sense, nor to recognize it — with or without their glasses.
16 June 2007, on 2:03 am
ChuckA, your title doesn’t even come close to:
Or:
16 June 2007, on 2:07 am
Or:
16 June 2007, on 2:21 am
Ummm…Naomi…
Do you mean to tell me, the true marquees in La-La land are STRANGER than my silly fiction? Is that what you’re intimating?
[Erm...My, how intimate?]
If so; why am I not surprised?
16 June 2007, on 3:04 am
That was hilarious! I loved that. Stupid archbishop. I loved that he is preaching against gays and practically jumped that guy. Ha, ha!
16 June 2007, on 3:43 am
[...] (Via God is for Suckers.) [...]
16 June 2007, on 5:07 am
[...] (Via God is for Suckers.) 16 Jun 07 | Source link | Apache | | On Server Also: [...]
16 June 2007, on 8:15 am
Do any leading Christianists claim that the NT frees them of OT laws?
As best I can tell, the Moehlers, et al. claim the Bible is inerrant, not just the NT, and every word is the literal truth of God.
16 June 2007, on 12:15 pm
Actually, there is a section (Acts?) where they (the non-Jewish converts) are told that they are allowed to not keep Kosher laws; there was also a NT debate on whether new converts had to be circumsised (sp; my spelling sucks) or not.
Paul frequently talks about justification “from faith” rather than from “the law”.
In fact, the Catholic church puts sacred church tradition on a par with “scripture”; after all, it is the church which says what scripture is and how to interpret it.
Yes, of course, there is much in the NT that contradicts other parts of the NT, etc., etc.
Again, the above is all “how many angels on a head of a pin” stuff for me.
PS: about Leviticus, there are some (Gomes, for example) who state this was merely a “holiness code” designed to distinguish the Israelites from those they lived next to; therefore those laws are no longer relevant.
Yep, rationalization…but that is how they look at it.
16 June 2007, on 1:58 pm
Thanks Ollie.
There are a million dodges for rationalizing religion aren’t there? Especially when they do “No True Scotsman” arguments about parts of their own texts. No, no, that’s not the real infallible Bible, read this other part. But of course hating on gays isn’t a part they repudiate.
16 June 2007, on 4:51 pm
See, that’s the problem with xians. They like to speak in terms of absolutes, but fail to think in terms of absolutes.
Something can’t be inerrant AND wrong at the same time. Something can’t be perfect AND open to interpretation. Something can’t be perfect/inerrant AND set down laws that were at one time in effect, but not anymore (in effect, can’t be perfect AND change your mind).
Also, why the hell would the being who made the law have to free people from the law he himself made?
16 June 2007, on 10:04 pm
Exactly the questions we ought to encourage our thinking theist friends to ask themselves!
16 June 2007, on 10:56 pm
All of this is just further proof of how poor a communicator God is and was. With his perfect knowledge and unlimited power he writes this book, the bible, and he can’t make it crystal clear to everyone who actually reads it what the hell he really means. We need archbishops, and Christian “apologists,” and priests and ministers and delusional mental patients to explain it all for us.
When I was a kid, my folks purchased an entire set of the World Book Encyclopedia for me. This would have been around 1960. Each year, the World Book would send a yearbook to keep things current. So, you could check out the 1963 World Book Yearbook to learn about new scientific discoveries, or to get the details of the JFK assassination. You know, “stuff” that wasn’t included in the original set, because the original set was just a snapshot in time.
But here we are, 3000 or more years after God “wrote” the Old Testament, and 2000+ years after God “updated” things with the New Testament - and not a single yearbook? Or, hell, even a century book? (Mormons might claim that the Book of Mormon is God’s “century book” update of the original bible for the 19th century, but as laughable as that piece of fiction is, who can confidently believe it?)
So, why don’t you get with it, God? Most men don’t have dozens or thousands of “concubines” these days, or slaves even (unless you count wage slaves). Why no “century book” for the 21st century? For example, if I eat shrimp, is that still an abomination unto you? Or does that only apply to things like crabs and oysters and mussels? Or maybe you’ve changed your mind about all of this? I mean, lots of places, restaurants, serve these forbidden foods. Are these places Satan’s outposts? Should I avoid them even today? When I ask my 17 year old son to do a chore, and he responds in a miserable and disrespectful manner, am I still obligated to stone him to death? A few thousand years ago, there may have been few or no repercussions from such an act, but nowadays, I wouldn’t be looked upon very kindly by my peers, even those who are rabidly Christian. And I would almost certainly go to jail, or maybe even receive the “death penalty” (since I live in your very favorite nation, the USA). And to be perfectly honest with you, God (not that I have to be since you can read my mind at will), there is no way I would stone my son to death to satisfy you, even if this is still what you would demand. Yeah, the kid can be a pain in the ass sometimes, but he’s mine, and I love him.
So, stoning disobedient children aside, how can I possibly know how to best please you here in the 21st century when you simply refuse to update your bible? Are you just lazy or what?
Tell you what - I offer myself up as your obedient scribe. Get in touch with me, and I will gladly channel all you have to say to make your bible relevant to 21st century life. Of course, there are those miscreants who would say that, as God, you could easily make a copy of your update magically appear in the mailbox of every person on earth. But, as we know, you don’t work that way. That would make too much f**king sense, wouldn’t it?
16 June 2007, on 11:40 pm
Shade 51: “Mormons might claim that the Book of Mormon is God’s “century book” update of the original bible for the 19th century, but as laughable as that piece of fiction is, who can confidently believe it?”
Hahahahahaha…Hmmm…Now, I wonder who…
[cue the "64 Thousand Dollar Question" tension theme?]
Oh…Why, of course! That delusional dork, Mitt Romney…our possible next…
WTF!!!! WHOA!!!
Yeah…and…following my’ bread crumb’ logic…Y’all know the story about old Joe Smith, of course!…and the elusive Angel Moroni?…Moron-i…Moron…i(eek?)…erm…thus, logically?…and, indeed, more properly…
“Book of Moron”?
“Why, coitenly! Nyuk, nyuk…da Morons!!! Woo-woo-woo-wooh!…Oh…
Bazoomies!”
17 June 2007, on 3:20 am
Absolutely priceless. Great find, Stardust.
What’s so amazing is that we’re not even talking about another BOOK in the Bible. We’re talking just 3 or 4 chapters over!
The fact that anyone still buys this bullshit just shows how stupid much of the human race is. People that use logic and reason are the exception, not the rule.
Someone pointed out to me a while back — I think it might have been Naomi — that the Bible was basically written by a bunch of bronze age guys who know less about the universe than today’s average 10 year old.
19 June 2007, on 12:40 am
It is very funny that the Bible is always the number 1# seller. It’s a piss poor book that no one reads. Look at all the wasted paper! The environmentalist should be attacking the bible thumpers.
19 June 2007, on 2:50 am
THANK YOU STARDUST!!!
Goddamn that is a fucking amusing video. Just fucking awesome. I love how he points out the bishop’s glasses and all that. Gotta luv that aussie!
19 June 2007, on 6:12 am
According to the Bible Jesus actually does like some fags:
In regards to the rapture: “I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” Luke 17:34-36.
I wonder if Christians are aware of this little snipet… doubtful.
19 June 2007, on 7:09 pm
Probably not Stupid Git. You know how Christians like to “tap dance” on everything.
21 June 2007, on 5:31 am
“You’re very good looking”. LOL.
As to the new testament and Paul, Paul was not actually a xian. He knew nothing about Jesus, his “life” and “work”, and the gospels. He made up his own religion.
He said so himself. He had “visions” and “revelations” that were the bases of his belief.
21 June 2007, on 8:28 am
bernarda, that is a point I would love to bring up to the couple of Baptist relatives in our family. They are Paul worshippers. They talk about Paul, and “what Paul said” more than they do Jesus. They sing about Jesus, but preach their religion based on Paul. Ironically, they have created another “god” for themselves, which is a big top-ten no-no.
Actually, they created more than one god for themselves, Jesus, the Pope, the Saints, Prophets, etc. To get around that commandment concerning Jeebus, they just dreamed up this “three-in-one” concept, then it’s ok…it’s okay to worship Jesus if they say he is also God.
They sure are creative liars to suit themselves.