Documentary On Homosexuality And Religion

[KramitDaToad 0]

I'm sorry, but are you arguing that the bible is perfectly clear in all its instructions? As for that passage in particular, it's kind of funny that you're so fired up about there being no chance in hell that "spilling seed" could be construed as beating off as opposed to pulling out. Of course it can be taken that way (even if it's a stretch) without it necessarily being an agenda thing. You're being pretty thick-headed about this one. And this is coming from someone who strongly prefers your interpretation (now that I've heard and understand it).

I dont think David's point is that it is debatable whether we have a passage describing coitus interuptus or masturbation.I think he is stating that to take that passage as a direct instruction for all other men not to strangle the python is incorrect.

[brvheart 1,752]

I find it disturbing that God is nowhere in this. I know that Christ is supposed to be God in human form (or however you say it), but still...it's interesting. That guy, crazy as he may have been (though a seemingly nice guy), sure took cult/religion leadership to an incredible level.

God is all over it and through it. The Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.Jehovah God.

[brvheart 1,752]

I dont think David's point is that it is debatable whether we have a passage describing coitus interuptus or masturbation.I think he is stating that to take that passage as a direct instruction for all other men not to strangle the python is incorrect.

Speedz is agreeing with this!His point is that David shouldn't be shocked to the point of anger, that people can interpret passages differently.

[Mercury69 3]

I haven't seen it but something tells me it'll be pretty gay...

[speedz99 145]

I dont think David's point is that it is debatable whether we have a passage describing coitus interuptus or masturbation.

Right...he's stating the opposite. That it isn't at all debatable. He thinks that not only is he 100% correct, but to take the passage in any way other than the way he has taken it is stupidity and not worth discussing. And he's totally wrong about that.

God is all over it and through it. The Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.Jehovah God.

But in the Latin alphabet, Jehovah begins with an 'I'!!!It's just funny to me that Jesus was so convincing that the word "God" wasn't even included in that list. I realize it's because the two are interchangeable to you, I was just making a random comment for the other non-christians around here.

Speedz is agreeing with this!His point is that David shouldn't be shocked to the point of anger, that people can interpret passages differently.

Exactly. He's being way more thick-headed than I'd expect from him...based on a general idea of his personality from the few posts of his that I can remember.

[LadyGrey 6]

Exactly. He's being way more thick-headed than I'd expect from him...based on a general idea of his personality from the few posts of his that I can remember.

Yeah, isn't he the guy that got shot? Am I confused or something? I thought he was Nikki's husband and he got shot in the arm. Anyway, exciting people aren't allowed to be religious, it's an oxymoron.

[checkymcfold 0]

Thanks for that. Ok, how does this look then?

• We all sin. Whenever we <Enter sin here> we are commiting a sin.
• Sin cannot enter heaven.
• However Jesus died as 'payment' for our sins
• Once we believe in Jesus we receive the benefits of this 'payment' in that all our sins are forgiven - this is referred to as being saved
• After we are saved we will continue to sin. This is because we are human
• However if we continue to work with God to reduce our sinning, (and it is a given that we cannot completely stop sinning but it is the effort of trying to stop that counts) God will grant us time to reach a level of <?>
• Once we reach that level of <?> we can enter heaven
• If we don't work with God to reduce our sinning, despite being saved we are denied heaven

I know you've answered this all over the forum, but it's always been fractured and shifts with context. What would be good is to have a clear explanation of what your definintion of salvation is, somewhat like BG asking for a clear definition of evolution. Obviously you, BG and brv have individual defintions, theirs seem to stop around point 4, but yours is more detailed.Now I'm not sure what to put in place of <?>. Perhaps understanding, or piety. Maybe you have a better word? <Enter sin here> can be replaced with any sin found in the Bible. This leads to a question that Checky keeps asking but doesn't seem to get answered. What acts/thoughts are considered to be a sin?Is it just those that Jesus describes, or does it include those in Pauls letters as well or is it everything in the Bible, Old and New testaments?I know checky that this is a bastardisation & dumbing-down of your question, but I think you can see the commonality.Oh ye of little faith.And just to keep the whole gay theme of the OP going, a timely news article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ga...0,6182317.story

this isn't quite what i'm asking, but it may be further down the line of where i'm ultimately going .my question is a relatively simple one, really: what is the status of paul's letters for the christians that post here, and how is that status different from that of the gospels and the hebrew bible/old testament?this is an IMPORTANT question, as it provides the base from which you can start to engage in interpretive discussion about the bible. for some christians, paul's letters are to be contextualized historically and read in an altogether different way from the gospels, but for some, the three general parts of the christian bible are to be read in one and the same way. either of these approaches is fine on its own ground, but it's entirely necessary to start by defining the interpretational framework from which we're going to be talking about christian doctrine and theology if the discussion is going to be at all productive.to put a finer point on it, it's, like, super important to figure out how we epistemologically value various discussions of sin in the bible before we go to the next step of talking about what sin is and how we can wash it away. or alternatively, before we start talking about homosexuality and what sort of sin it is, we need to know more about how we are to read the passages in which it's discussed in the christian bible in more general terms.in short, saying "i believe in biblical truth," or "i believe in justifying claims with scripture" doesn't mean shit without the above context.

[brvheart 1,752]

But in the Latin alphabet, Jehovah begins with an 'I'!!!

I probably need to put up one of the Indy movies as in avatar soon. Favorite? Raiders vs. Doom vs. Crusade?

It's just funny to me that Jesus was so convincing that the word "God" wasn't even included in that list. I realize it's because the two are interchangeable to you, I was just making a random comment for the other non-christians around here.

I understand what you're saying but this is a doctrinal statement written by Christians for Christians. If it was written for non-believers many many things would be worded differently so that their full meaning would be easy to spot. For me, saying that I believe in the Trinity, is immediately recognized as believing in God first, then Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Sending Jesus was God's plan for salvation for the Jewish people since the time of Adam and Moses. He promised them a Messiah and he kept his promise. So everything that is mentioned about Jesus is actually the fulfillment of the promise that God made with the Jews, and that is why he is the focal point. God said all through the Hebrew Bible that he would be sending a Messiah, so this Messiah was/is a focal point for the Jewish people as well. If the Messiah that the Jewish people have been waiting for came to Earth would he not also be the focal point? The issue is that the Jewish people just don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah that they have been waiting for.

[brvheart 1,752]

this isn't quite what i'm asking, but it may be further down the line of where i'm ultimately going .my question is a relatively simple one, really: what is the status of paul's letters for the christians that post here, and how is that status different from that of the gospels and the hebrew bible/old testament?this is an IMPORTANT question, as it provides the base from which you can start to engage in interpretive discussion about the bible. for some christians, paul's letters are to be contextualized historically and read in an altogether different way from the gospels, but for some, the three general parts of the christian bible are to be read in one and the same way. either of these approaches is fine on its own ground, but it's entirely necessary to start by defining the interpretational framework from which we're going to be talking about christian doctrine and theology if the discussion is going to be at all productive.to put a finer point on it, it's, like, super important to figure out how we epistemologically value various discussions of sin in the bible before we go to the next step of talking about what sin is and how we can wash it away. or alternatively, before we start talking about homosexuality and what sort of sin it is, we need to know more about how we are to read the passages in which it's discussed in the christian bible in more general terms.in short, saying "i believe in biblical truth," or "i believe in justifying claims with scripture" doesn't mean shit without the above context.

This is all addressed in my long post.

[checkymcfold 0]

This is all addressed in my long post.

it actually wasn't. that's why i asked it again and fleshed it out a bit more.edit: "article I" KINDA talks about it in a roundabout way, but doesn't really answer the question as such.

[brvheart 1,752]

it actually wasn't. that's why i asked it again and fleshed it out a bit more.edit: "article I" KINDA talks about it in a roundabout way, but doesn't really answer the question as such.

What i really want to do is answer all your points by cutting and pasting items from my previous post... but that would take too long.The Bible is the inerrant word of God. From Genesis to Revelation. Every book is from God to man to page.I have to leave now, but later tonight I'll finish this post.

[checkymcfold 0]

What i really want to do is answer all your points by cutting and pasting items from my previous post... but that would take too long.The Bible is the inerrant word of God. From Genesis to Revelation. Every book is from God to man to page.I have to leave now, but later tonight I'll finish this post.

sigh.ok, fine, i can (sort of) grant you that vague basis from which we're working here. but if that's the case, then what are the consequences of lois's earlier claim that the coming of the messiah frees christians from the laws of leviticus, etc.? i mean that question in two senses:1. specifically as it applies to homosexuality--are we to disregard the discussion of various rules in the hebrew bible and work directly from new testament discussions of homosexuality exclusively, or are we to read the two alongside one another to develop a more full understanding of your god's intentions with regard to our tendency toward buttseks?2. in general--there's a bit of a disconnect in saying that the coming of jesus means that we can eat shrimp but that we still have to stop doing dudes in the butt, or cuddling with them, or whatever. how do we negotiate this discrepancy in general terms? do we disregard the hebrew bible claims when there are new testament discussions of similar issues, do we create a hierarchy of sins based on concomitant readings of various parts of the christian bible, or do we take the hebrew bible discussions as true and read the new testament passages on similar subjects as clarifications of a previously written truth?moreover, there's another question lurking in the background here, namely that of the status of apocryphal and non-canonized texts, both within and without the christian tradition (that is, texts all the way from the gospel of thomas to the koran). what can we learn from these texts? should we disregard them entirely or use them as interpretive tools when engaging with our present primary source, the canonized bible?

[Balloon guy 158]

The Old Testmanet was largely a direction for a people, a group, a nation on how to live etc.The New Testament largely is a direction for an individual to live.When something is clearly forbidden in the OT, it would require a clear NT change to make the case for it no longer applying. case in point is the dream of Peter where god told him to eat things that rabinical law forbids, cloven hoof animals etc.Or the Sabbath being changed to the first day of the week in Acts.Homosexuality is fobiden in both OT and NT, so the argument that you can try to end run it with a legal trick will only make you feel right. You won't be right.Paul's letters should be seen in context, obviously his discussion on slaves wouldn't matter to a society that doesn't have slaves. But as there are no real conflicts with Paul's letters and the rest, I fail to see where you are trying to arrive, unless again you seek to perform a "If the glove doesn't fit" argument.

[Balloon guy 158]

There have been huge debates over interpreting the bible, just look at the Eucharist debate during the reformation. The bible has been translated and edited so many times that the original meaning is lost, key words have been changed, others taken out of context, and some parts rewritten on the whim of the monarch who obviously has no authority to do so.That's why quoting the bible as the ultimate proof of a belief or an opinion is redundant. It's not only an unreliable source of what was originally written, but it can be interpreted differently by different people and groups, and you cannot prove which interpretation is the right one (no matter how staunchly, pedantically and sarcastically you insist it, Mr Nicoson).

Sorry but this argument would only apply to some small areas in Europe back in the middle ages, and then really only if you use the Latin Vulgate as your sole example, and even then only the regional translations and not the official church versions. In fact it would be like saying that you could only use the exact books that fit that arguement, and not one other single book.Since the 1500's the Bible has been accurate enough that any serious student of anything remotely related to historical documents would pat you on your way and buy you an ice cream.Of course if this was your original intent then High Five, Rocky Road or you probably go Ben and Jerrys right?

[Loismustdie 0]

I want to shake everyones hands in this thread. This has been a good example of what I hope for in this part of the forum. O.k, I want to throw this out there because I was thinking about it in the car earlier. I see both sides of the once saved always saved argument, but I also see a hole that I don't think can be closed. Assumeing that we have free will, and assumeing that one can repent and then go back on that later, God would have to allow for an out, or allow for the idea that you could not make it in to heaven. I say this because he has to allow you choice, and since we know you can choose to sin, and we know that sin can not enter heaven, and we know that God will not forgive an unrepentant, stagnant christian, you could choose- as you God given right- to not go to heaven. Thoughts?

[speedz99 145]

Yeah, isn't he the guy that got shot? Am I confused or something? I thought he was Nikki's husband and he got shot in the arm.

I think that's him. Man, back when that happened I made a really funny post about it. Good memories...

I probably need to put up one of the Indy movies as in avatar soon. Favorite? Raiders vs. Doom vs. Crusade?

Well, Doom is obviously the worst of the three...even though I don't think it's horrible when compared to the average movie. I think that Raiders is the best film in general, but Crusade has the most entertainment value (thank you, Sean Connery's Accent). I'm not sure which I'd say is my favorite. Probably Crusade.You?

I understand what you're saying but this is a doctrinal statement written by Christians for Christians. If it was written for non-believers many many things would be worded differently so that their full meaning would be easy to spot.

Gotcha.

For me, saying that I believe in the Trinity, is immediately recognized as believing in God first, then Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Sending Jesus was God's plan for salvation for the Jewish people since the time of Adam and Moses. He promised them a Messiah and he kept his promise. So everything that is mentioned about Jesus is actually the fulfillment of the promise that God made with the Jews, and that is why he is the focal point. God said all through the Hebrew Bible that he would be sending a Messiah, so this Messiah was/is a focal point for the Jewish people as well. If the Messiah that the Jewish people have been waiting for came to Earth would he not also be the focal point?

When I hear, "He promised them a Messiah," I don't think that said Messiah would be God himself. I mean, that's what Jesus claimed, but is there anything in the Old Testament that said Godishness was going to be inhabiting the man's body? I really doubt that Old Testament God was hoping that after the New Testament was written people would be worshipping the Messiah's name, not his, even though you think they're interchangeable.What I'm trying to say is that, even in a world where the Old Testament is God's word, I don't think it makes sense that now Jesus is the main focus of your religion. The fact that he was even part man makes it odd in my opinion. Maybe I'm being very confusing because I have to keep moving in and out of my own beliefs (that none of this is real) to try and put myself in the shoes of someone who does believe certain things. Damn, I'm making no sense here. Oh well.

The issue is that the Jewish people just don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah that they have been waiting for.

Or, didn't believe it back then. Nowadays I'd say that less than 5% of Jews actually believe that a Messiah is coming. Even most very orthodox ones.

I want to shake everyones hands in this thread. This has been a good example of what I hope for in this part of the forum.

It's been very civil. But at some point the intellectual curiousity will be satisfied and a lot of us will just go back to ridiculing. But let's enjoy it while it lasts!You know, this actually brings up another point...and that's the fact that it's a shame you guys don't take advantage of the fact that there are some very smart people around here who can explain certain things about science that you all obviously would rather say "NO, THE BIBLE SAYS OTHERWISE" to instead of trying to understand it better...and we could try to figure out a way to incorporate some of it into your lives without it having to make you denounce anything about your current faith. I wonder if that's possible. BG started trying with the evolution thread, but not really, since it seems to me that he just made it hoping to knock down our responses...and then left the thread altogether when he realized that wasn't happening. Bah.

O.k, I want to throw this out there because I was thinking about it in the car earlier. I see both sides of the once saved always saved argument, but I also see a hole that I don't think can be closed. Assumeing that we have free will, and assumeing that one can repent and then go back on that later, God would have to allow for an out, or allow for the idea that you could not make it in to heaven. I say this because he has to allow you choice, and since we know you can choose to sin, and we know that sin can not enter heaven, and we know that God will not forgive an unrepentant, stagnant christian, you could choose- as you God given right- to not go to heaven. Thoughts?

Your version of God doesn't give everyone a choice. Just think about the billions of people who died since JC's death who never even got the chance to hear about what they had to do to get into heaven. I know that wasn't your point, but I just had to throw it out there. I know I have before, but I forget what the regular response to it is.Man..."accept me as your savior and praise my name or you will burn in hell for all of eternity"...you've got to admit, if he was just a crazy/delusional guy, he was a really smart one.

[Loismustdie 0]

How do you know millions have never heard of him? If there are millions, how do you know they WANTED to? He says a seeking heart WILL find. Some people just don't have that- some do as they please, no matter what, that is who they are, it wouldn't matter if God himself came down. Think about this- God came to Paul, and what happened happened, but what if Paul wasn't receptive? The story would have been different- what if everyone in the world has that same moment, maybe less defined, but we have that same God reveals himself moment, and some realize it and some don't, because they were to busy, or whatever? That is certainly possible as well. If you say it's not, consider this- every man at some point has said, "Hey, look at this- if I tug it, that's nice." It is entirely possible for us to share the same experiences, and entirely possible to do different things with it, and using my rational I would go past possible and say that it's likely.

[speedz99 145]

How do you know millions have never heard of him? If there are millions, how do you know they WANTED to?

You know that in the past two thousand years there were many, many millions of people who never heard of Christianity. It doesn't matter if they 'wanted' to. It was physically impossible for them to find out due to obvious geographical issues. These days it's rare, but it still happens (I would assume only to random small tribes and villages in Africa/Asia/South America).And, beyond that, think of the millions of people now who may have heard of Christianity but have never really had it explained to them. Sorry, but your God can't expect people to hear "there's a religion called Christianity" and immediately realize that it's the true faith. And if he does expect that, he's an idiot who doesn't understand his own creation.

[Loismustdie 0]

You know that in the past two thousand years there were many, many millions of people who never heard of Christianity. It doesn't matter if they 'wanted' to. It was physically impossible for them to find out due to obvious geographical issues. These days it's rare, but it still happens (I would assume only to random small tribes and villages in Africa/Asia/South America).And, beyond that, think of the millions of people now who may have heard of Christianity but have never really had it explained to them. Sorry, but your God can't expect people to hear "there's a religion called Christianity" and immediately realize that it's the true faith. And if he does expect that, he's an idiot who doesn't understand his own creation.

That doesn't answer the question of you being so sure they wanted it. He promises if you seek you will find- if you don't seek, what then? No promises whatsoever. This is a major point where your thinking is flawed. Gloves are off, bitches.

[speedz99 145]

That doesn't answer the question of you being so sure they wanted it. He promises if you seek you will find- if you don't seek, what then? No promises whatsoever. This is a major point where your thinking is flawed.

Lois, you need to back off of this "promise" and start thinking realistically.

Thinking cap is off, bitches.

Obviously, if you can't imagine dozens of scenarios in which someone would have no chance of discovering Christianity.Using your brain doesn't make you any less Christian. Seriously. I don't think there's anything left to say about this subject, we might as well move on if you're going to hold to this stance.

[Loismustdie 0]

Lois, you need to back off of this "promise" and start thinking realistically. Obviously, if you can't imagine dozens of scenarios in which someone would have no chance of discovering Christianity.Using your brain doesn't make you any less Christian. Seriously. I don't think there's anything left to say about this subject, we might as well move on if you're going to hold to this stance.

That's impossible, and this is the EXACT spot where things get dicey from your point of view, because in order to accept that "if you seek you will find" means just that you have to have faith that "through God all things are possible" so it really would not matter what you came up with. There is not one scenario you could dream up that the answer would not be "almighty all powerful being would find a way, and if he didn't then they must not have been seeking." That carpet answer covers every scenario- so, the question is, why dream up scenarios? Well, because you question: this means you lack faith, which is fine and actually a good thing. Now, questioning does two things to people, it either strengthens or it weakens your position on whatever thing it is you are questioning, that being said when I have questioned, and I do, very often, the answer that I was looking for is the answer I received. Did I want the truth? Did I want a lie? When I wanted truth, I found truth. When I wanted a lie, I found a lie. My heart in the matter has everything to do with it. When a christian is serving God this is paramount to the deal.

[Sal Paradise 57]

That's impossible, and this is the EXACT spot where things get dicey from your point of view, because in order to accept that "if you seek you will find" means just that you have to have faith that "through God all things are possible" so it really would not matter what you came up with. There is not one scenario you could dream up that the answer would not be "almighty all powerful being would find a way, and if he didn't then they must not have been seeking." That carpet answer covers every scenario- so, the question is, why dream up scenarios? Well, because you question: this means you lack faith, which is fine and actually a good thing. Now, questioning does two things to people, it either strengthens or it weakens your position on whatever thing it is you are questioning, that being said when I have questioned, and I do, very often, the answer that I was looking for is the answer I received. Did I want the truth? Did I want a lie? When I wanted truth, I found truth. When I wanted a lie, I found a lie. My heart in the matter has everything to do with it. When a christian is serving God this is paramount to the deal.

really? now I'm honestly not trying to be an ass here, I'm really not, but is what you're saying basically that if you believe in god, it doesn't matter if everything else that you believe doesn't make any sense at all?

[speedz99 145]

That's impossible, and this is the EXACT spot where things get dicey from your point of view, because in order to accept that "if you seek you will find" means just that you have to have faith that "through God all things are possible" so it really would not matter what you came up with. There is not one scenario you could dream up that the answer would not be "almighty all powerful being would find a way, and if he didn't then they must not have been seeking." That carpet answer covers every scenario- so, the question is, why dream up scenarios? Well, because you question: this means you lack faith, which is fine and actually a good thing. Now, questioning does two things to people, it either strengthens or it weakens your position on whatever thing it is you are questioning, that being said when I have questioned, and I do, very often, the answer that I was looking for is the answer I received. Did I want the truth? Did I want a lie? When I wanted truth, I found truth. When I wanted a lie, I found a lie. My heart in the matter has everything to do with it. When a christian is serving God this is paramount to the deal.

There's nothing I can say to this. The glasses you view the world through are interesting, to say the least.

really? now I'm honestly not trying to be an ass here, I'm really not, but is what you're saying basically that if you believe in god, it doesn't matter if everything else that you believe doesn't make any sense at all?

I think he's saying that if you believe in God you can believe in anything and everything. I can't decide if that's admirable or just insane. I guess it doesn't matter either way.

[checkymcfold 0]

The Old Testmanet was largely a direction for a people, a group, a nation on how to live etc.The New Testament largely is a direction for an individual to live.When something is clearly forbidden in the OT, it would require a clear NT change to make the case for it no longer applying. case in point is the dream of Peter where god told him to eat things that rabinical law forbids, cloven hoof animals etc.Or the Sabbath being changed to the first day of the week in Acts.Homosexuality is fobiden in both OT and NT, so the argument that you can try to end run it with a legal trick will only make you feel right. You won't be right.Paul's letters should be seen in context, obviously his discussion on slaves wouldn't matter to a society that doesn't have slaves. But as there are no real conflicts with Paul's letters and the rest, I fail to see where you are trying to arrive, unless again you seek to perform a "If the glove doesn't fit" argument.

i'm not trying to "arrive" anywhere with regard to discrediting christianity as a whole, which i realize it might sound like regardless, honestly. when it comes to something like homosexuality, which i have strong feelings about, it's of the utmost importance to me to be able to convince christians that it ain't so bad. i just happen to understand that doing so for most christians requires an argument within their own religious context, and i'm trying to get a handle on that context in precise terms before i offer up a perfectly scriptural argument for why christians shouldn't give a **** about who's doing who.if you really push me on it, i do think that on a fundamental level, most organized religion is total bullshit. but i don't care about that, since i as much as anyone else am full of my own sorts of bullshit that i'd prefer no one make fun of or call idiotic. but when it comes to that bullshit becoming manifest in various sorts of social doctrine, i'm going to do my best to make people hate each other less. i suppose that's the ultimate goal, if you really want me to have one. tbh, i think it's entirely impractical to go after achieving that by concocting some sort of alternative bullshit system from which one can assault another bullshit system, since i don't think that the bullshit is really either a problem or avoidable in any general way. we're people, we make shit up for ourselves. that's fine, and part of who we are. i couldn't care less. i'd rather that we learned more about each others' bullshit systems just so that we can hate each other less, and that applies to christians, muslims, buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc. in precisely the same way.

[speedz99 145]

i'm not trying to "arrive" anywhere with regard to discrediting christianity as a whole, which i realize it might sound like regardless, honestly. when it comes to something like homosexuality, which i have strong feelings about, it's of the utmost importance to me to be able to convince christians that it ain't so bad. i just happen to understand that doing so for most christians requires an argument within their own religious context, and i'm trying to get a handle on that context in precise terms before i offer up a perfectly scriptural argument for why christians shouldn't give a **** about who's doing who.

Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have 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 okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because 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 be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.