Thursday, November 22, 2007

Grey Market Judaism

Whether you "agree" with Leviticus or not -- certainly 20:13 is wrong -- there's more wisdom in any given letter of the Torah than there is in all the Human Rights codes of the world. It will be studied long after Canada, human rights, and tribunals are all forgotten.

On October 27, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a precedent-setting cease and desist order which forbids Jessica Beaumont from posting certain Bible verses on the Internet. If this 21-year old woman posts the wrong Bible quotation online - even if it is on an American website - she could face up to 5 years in prison.
So, because I am an atheist, or something, I can reproduce the following verses without having to pay off a human rights profiteer like Richard Warman -- or live them in prison -- but Beaumont cannot.

I don't like them (as painful as the Human Rights Commission makes it to say that), but by its ruling the Human Rights Tribunal compels freedom-loving Canadians to spread these non-freedom-loving verses far and wide.
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

LEVITICUS 18:22

If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

LEVITICUS 20:13
Now, hold on to your hats, because I'm going to insist you don't obey 20:13, okay? That would be against real laws, as opposed to human rights legislation.

14 comments:

Elaine said...

It is getting so ridiculous.

There are many things in the bible, that are now ignored, and rightly so.

It is called evolution and intelligence of thought, and not happening fast enough to some. Some people need the bible, because they are scared to death of death.

It is from the pagan tribes,long before the gaggle of gods we have now.

Homosexual men were killed, not because they were gay, but because it was a sin to waste their seed. The tribes looked at it as a waste to use it on another man.

In those days people didn't live that long,infant mortality was high, so it was important to breed like bunnies. If you weren't interested in breeding, with the opposite sex, you weren't an asset to the tribe, therefore you were offed.

How many people take the bible literally? It is just a fairy tale, a fantasy this young girl was indoctrinated with.

Is there no one on the left bright enough to logically point out to this young kid she is dumb, and give her the low down on the bible?

Why is it important to throw her in jail? Are they that devoid of intelligence, that they see her post on a blog as a calling up to christians, many who are homosexuals, to pick up pitch forks and go after the gay people?

NIAC said...

I don't know that it is legal to penalize someone for quote a book ... any book.

You know ... this would not be legal in the US of A.

eng said...

The literal translation of that passage is: "And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them."

The concern wasn't wasted seed, the concern was who's the father if the woman gets pregnant. "Dying they will die" means neither would be recognized as the father, and so do not live on through their offspring. So when they die, they die.

NIAC said...

Nicely done, Eng.

Elaine said...

Wasted seed was a big thing eng. Maturbation was considered a sin for the same reason, when they figured out it was the seed of life.

I read it a couple of books about ancient tribes and phallic worship. I wasn't there at time, but it makes sense to me.

Elaine said...

LEVITICUS 18:22

If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

eng, they killed them, put them to death. If people did what was considered detestable they were offed. It was detestable at the time to not breed and produce offsping.

They put people to death for a number of silly reasons. They were barbaric violent times.

NIAC said...

When an RR quotes, I like to read up to find out exactly what the thing they *think* they are standing behind means.

You see, I love taking issue with people ... well, the RR people ... when they try to use quotes from whatever version of the Bible to make a point, take a stand but most of all, to point out OTHER'S faults or flaws.

It might just be me, but on reading chapters 17-20 of LEV, does Jessica Beaumont also quote the virtues of plural marriage?

(go read the verses)

Let he who knows not of the stone cast first. ;)

NIAC said...

I posted this whole thing here, since there are so many instances on the 'Net, and I can't find the proper quotable source, and cannot give proper credit...but I didn't write it.

Bush and the Bible: A Letter to George Bush
Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

marginalizedactiondinosaur said...

Fact is this is a Christian country . any one who has read the charter knows the first line mentions god in an unsocialist fashion. Ie favourably,

Hell Hugh owens was fined was it 20k just for quoting chapters in the bible.

Bill Whatcott was fined just for putting out a flyer saying homosexuals were breaking the law.

There was a homosexual magazine in Saskatchewan that was advertising for sex with young boys.

In canada talking about favoured groups in a negative way even when they are breaking the law, can get your ass sued off.

Luckily no one has ever been sued for insulting and hating Christians. That's cool in Trudeaupia.

They are waging a war on Christianity. When the document our nation was partly founded on is a hate crime well we are "progressive" and Orwell talks about that in 1984.

The witch hunters and Richard of the retirement fund need to go.

NIAC said...

Having sex with young women...even women purporting to be young, is just as bad. So is advertising for it. I would hazard a guess that in print alone, there are more "girl" ads than "boy" ads. Does that mean heterosexuals should be shunned?

I love Orwell.

I really do not, however, understand (and if you read the whole linked article, I am not the only one who questioned it) how someone spouting off anything can get jail time. Except, I guess, death threats.

Elaine said...

If you were to take the bible seriously, there wouldn't be a person left on the earth to pay the tithes.

It is a rule book, and the rules had to change, as people evolved.

I remember some of the changes in the catlick church.

I remember the masses were all in latin, not that anyone was listening anyway, but they were losing people.

So they changed that so at least they could tell people to throw more money in the collection plate, in a language they could understand.

The hat thing was the turning point for me. The females couldn't go in the church without something on their heads.

There were four girls in my family, and it was mad dash for the lace doileys off the coffee table on Sunday mornings.

You didn't get one of the three doileys you were stuck with the rolled up wad of toilet paper bobby pinned to your head.

I remember when they changed that, and it was not necessary for a female to have her head covered.

I remember being almost sick walking into the church that first time, thinking god would strike us all dead.

I felt naked, and real strange.

Got used to it though, and got thinking. I thought if that can be changed, whatelse can be changed. Why was it changed, and who gets to decide the changing.

Started me on my path to being a heathen.

pastor fuzz said...

elaine, you say that when males masturbate, they are wasting "seed."

then what are women wasting when they give themselves pleasure?

the dissipation of desire into the ether?

Elaine said...

....totally different subject. Men are preocuppied with their tallywhacker.

You just prove the point.

Anonymous said...

I leave no comment as to whether or not I agree with the Tribunals decision or not but before anyone posts further, perhaps you would like to go and read the official summation on the matter.

Somehow it has been perceived that she was ordered not to post bible verses, and the extent of the order against her had nothing to do with being able to post bible verses on the internet, by the end of the order it was about the only thing she was allowed to do.

At the end of this post is a link to a copy of the CHRC summation and also contains a full listing of all of the messages she posted that were used as evidence during the tribunal.

It should be noted that she was brought before the human rights commission in violation of Section 13 of the act and was found in violation of that section, being that she was spreading hate messages and reteric, using the internet as her forum. Before anyone else comments, please go and read the summation.

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=874&lg=_e&isruling

Whether or not I agree was never the reason for my post, it was because it seems as though some people are spreading a message without all of the facts.

While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Warman, Beaumont or the Tribunal, I do think that everyone needs to see for themselves what it's all about and not a couple of lines that were chosen by one person from several pages of information.

Thank you.