Election Day - California!

[cyberspice]

Today the USA votes for a President.

More importantly California votes on Proposition 8 which is a hateful bill that wishes to amend California's constitution to recognise marriage as being only between one man and one woman (although it doesn't define these two entities). This will end gay marriage in the State and void those which have already taken place. And why? Because of bigotry and fear.

The whole "Vote Yes On 8" campaign has been using scaremongering and heavy hand tactics to get their voice heard. Gangs of Yes On 8 people hang around on street corners. TV commercials basically infer that if gay marriage is allowed it will turn your children gay. It will not happen.

And before people start spouting Leviticus at me remember Leviticus also says that you have to eat Kosher/Halal foods (no seafood; pork; blood; has to be killed correctly; etc.) so no seafood gumbo people; that handicapped people can't pray; and blasphemy requires a stoning. However the biggest law in the Bible is "Thou shalt not kill!". It doesn't specify, you shouldn't kill unless its some foreigner with a different coloured skin, religion, hairstyle, hat, vast quantities of oil! It says "Thou shalt not kill". I wonder how many who will vote yes on Prop 8 have killed.

And Jesus instructed that Leviticus should be ignored anyway. That's why he was nailed to a cross, or partly.

Vote NO to Prop 8!

While you're at it. Vote YES to Prop 2 which introduces humane farming.

Finally back to the election. Vote Obama. McCain has come across as a fairly amiable chap however he is in his 70s. Palin scares me. And the extra stress of being president may finish McCain off. If for no other reason look at Palin and consider whether you want her as president?

Comments

[steer.livejournal.com]

Hares -- not bunnies! Honestly, you make it sound like leviticus is full of daft stuff!

[Also, the hamburger one is just plain wrong! That verse is about eating blood.]

[steer.livejournal.com]

Heh... it is quite a good icon. There's much equally silly and strange stuff in leviticus to find.

[ellenscult]

Nope, bunnies are prohibited too. They chew the cud, but they don't have cloven hooves. :)

[steer.livejournal.com]

Ah... fair point -- the icon is just pointing to the wrong verse -- should be 11:5 (conies) not 11:6 (hares). A hamburger with cheese would be out too under the meat and dairy (can't find the verse easily).

[steer.livejournal.com]

You'll just have to snack on locusts and beetles to fill you up -- they're just fine (Leviticus 11:22).

[echo-echo.livejournal.com]

Yup, apparently you cannot wear clothes made of two different cloths.

I cannot stand the way people pick and chose which bits of the Bible to follow. Either ALL of that section is the word of God and to be followed, or it isn't. My understanding is that as a Christian that Leviticus is not to be followed anyway...which does beg the question why it's in the Bible.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Hmm... I find that a rather strange approach. I mean, is there any other document you'd take that approach with? If you agreed with one story in the guardian would you have to agree with the rest? Especially you have to also remember the whole thing has been translated, rerecorded and mistranslated. Compare with a similarly aged document, say the writing of some roman historian -- if they said something that fitted in with the rest of my knowledge I would say fine -- more evidence in favour, if they said something that would not agree with such, I would ignore that part or assume they were mistaken or misinformed or the translation was bad.

My understanding is that as a Christian that Leviticus is not to be followed anyway...which does beg the question why it's in the Bible.

Ah... because Leviticus was the old covenant which Jesus overturns in the new testament replacing it with instead the new convenant "love thy neighbour as thyself" rule. The reason leviticus remains is that it is part of the pre-exisiting old testament. (Unless your question is actually about why some books of what was the old testament are now considered apocryphal -- the answer is somewhat complex.)

[echo-echo.livejournal.com]

No, but the Bible is not any other document, it is to many people gospel. It is a mangled contradictory spuriously curated mess. Leviticus is a great example, how can you possibly pick and chose parts of the same book? Either you accept it in it's entirety or you don't. It's not a "Follow these rules if you fancy them, and just discard the bits you don't like". It is supposedly the word of God. Who is anybody to challenge that word? Or to pick which bits they like? What morality or authority guides them to do so?

Even the Catholic church has stepped out to say that although guided by God it is the work of man.

And if Jesus overturned the covenant in Leviticus, why do people still refer to it?

As to the apocryphia, that surely suggests enough to people that this is not the absolute truth? That is is a deeply flawed book that has been selectively edited over time. Certain fundamental truths of what is modern Christianity are barely mentioned. The resurrection of Christ for example. Not exactly something you would forget to mention I would think.

[steer.livejournal.com]

it is to many people gospel.

Yes... foolish people.

It is a mangled contradictory spuriously curated mess.

Of course -- but the truth behind a document is not changed by mistranslations or by how people translate it. The truth or otherwise of say, the theory of evolution, is not changed by the fact that a good number of people misunderstand it badly.


And if Jesus overturned the covenant in Leviticus, why do people still refer to it?

Well, for Jewish people of course it still holds. and then there's the fact that a good number of people aren't really that bright.


As to the apocryphia, that surely suggests enough to people that this is not the absolute truth?

Um yes... but nobody sensible believes it is the absolute truth.

[echo-echo.livejournal.com]

But there are a staggering amount of foolish people. Foolish people who really ought to be taught better by their clergy.

You imply there is a fundamental truth behind the document?

I would argue there is no fundamental truth there and that substantial parts of the document are based on a fallacy.

Of course Leviticus still holds for Jewish people, but their holy book is not the Bible. Why is a rejected book still in the Bible? Or perhaps more appropriate, because for historical reasons I can see the merit of seeing what has been rejected, why is a rejected book still in the Bible without a substantial disclaimer?

The differences in the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are staggering. That they are collated together in the same book is nothing short of astonishing.

[steer.livejournal.com]

But there are a staggering amount of foolish people.

Amazingly around about half the people in the world are below average intelligence.

Of course Leviticus still holds for Jewish people, but their holy book is not the Bible.

Well the connection is complex the Pentateuch is genesis exodus leviticus numbers and deuteronomy. I am not sure quite how all the other books of the Old Testament are regarded in Judaism but I think most have some standing. Since all branches of Christianity don't agree on which books form the Old Testament the matter is further complicated.

why is a rejected book still in the Bible without a substantial disclaimer?

Well, for those who believe such things it would be a previous covenant of god so if you were a strict believer in such things then you would believe that at one point that was what you were meant to do but after Jesus came along it was not. So, officially, if you're a "literal truth of the bible" type it is not a rejected book but a change of official policy. Bloody stupid if you ask me.

That they are collated together in the same book is nothing short of astonishing.

Ah... but those books are written many hundreds of years apart. We could say, similarly, that the writings of Newton are very unlike those of a contemporary physicist but that both would belong in a book called "Science".

[steer.livejournal.com]

Ah... hooray for Wikipedia which knows what I don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

This is about the Jewish bible which I did not know was distinct from the Torah -- it contains pretty much the same books that I recall from the AEV bible (one or two differences).

[steer.livejournal.com]

Oh, the clothes of different cloths is Leviticus 19:19

19: 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.

[It is also this verse the icon above is referring to when it talks about vegetable gardens. I have no idea what "cattle gender with a diverse kind" means.]

[cyberspice.livejournal.com]

Don't put the bulls with the cows?

[steer.livejournal.com]

Well I thought of that, but frankly if they followed that they wouldn't have any cows. :-)

My guess is that it might mean different breeds of cattle.

[echo-echo.livejournal.com]

I think so too though hard to tell with the translations.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Aha -- thank heavens for the NIV (my quote was KJV).

19:19 there is: "Keep my decrees.Do not mate different kinds of animals.Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

Much clearer

[ellenscult]

Hope your nose is okay now! Were I in the US and eligible to vote in California, I'd be voting a huge, resounding HELL NO! to proposition 8. It's lunacy, and it's Just Plain Wrong. Bah.

Wrt Leviticus, it actually transates as 'Thou shalt not murder' - not 'thou shalt not kill'. This opens up the huge can of worms about what exactly the difference between the two is, which rabbis have been arguing over for A Very Long Time Indeed. But it seems to come down to the right to a pre-emptive strike if, for instance, your life is threatened (or your country threatened with invasion), where 'thou shalt not kill' prohibits all form of violence leading to death regardless of the circumstances.

Campaign Promise

[parmonster.livejournal.com]

For the record, if McCain/Palin are elected, I'm leaving the US, period.

If Prop 2 loses, and Prop 4 and 8 win, I'm leaving California.

Re: Campaign Promise

[cyberspice.livejournal.com]

*Hug*