Bush and God

I take no credit for this, but it is absolutely hilarious!!


Subject: Open letter to the president...funny no matter what you believe


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 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 to 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 uncleanliness (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 that 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.

 

My mother voted for W because her Paster told the congregation that W is, "God's man for the hour."
I don't know how the 'publicans did it, but christians have been buying their BS for years. Mom said that the biggest reason she voted for Bush is because, "Kerry wants to kill babies." I hear that one every 4 years about the democrat candidates. Strange; abortion is still very legal.

outstanding post.

 

It's all because the stupid people voted Republican.

Haven't you been listening to the Democrats?

 

I was merely commenting on the irony here. I don't think they're stupid at all. I almost voted for Bush. Although I have been on the left side forever, I had a tough time with this election. It came down to which candidate did I distrust the least. I meant no offense.

 

No offense taken.

I was just commenting on all of the excuses the Democrat have thrown out on why they lost.

 

Gee, Rodger. I wonder where you found this.

Can one of our resident Bible scholars confirm whether all those references are true? Thanks.

 

The democratic party cannot be taken seriously on issues of God because He really has no place of honor in their party. Their candidates speak of God when it serves their purpose but never seem sincere. The only time you really see them in church is when they are pandering to the "black vote". To listen to democratic candidates as a whole God should be removed from every vestige of society (unless he is getting them votes), meanwhile every nut with an axe to grind is welcomed in. And abortion is a States Rights Issue, not an issue for the Federal level. The rightness and wrongness over the merit of abortion can be debated forever, we all have opionions and beliefs. At the end of the day, the individuals voice should be heard, and it is not at the federal level. States should decide what is legal and what is not in their own back yard.

I did however think this was a very thought provoking and intelligent post.

 

Let's don't forget that the Moral Majority was a big supporter of Jimmy Carter (D) too.

Bush II is their champion though. His dad catered just enough so as not to lose their vote but had no intention of furthering their agenda. Clinton, well........ Reagan probably catered more than most during election years but didn't follow through as far as the religious right is concerned. You can kind of understand that after trying to get an evangelical christian in the White House for nearly 30 years they are anxious to capitalize. Bush II has served them well thus far but the real carrot is the Supreme Court.

Darrin, I don't think its an excuse to say that the Dems were unable to reach the religious right which showed up in huge numbers for Bush. It's just a fact. The Dems have pretty much no shot at that voting demographic but a more broad appeal would take alot of moderate votes and I think that will be the new party direction.

 

I sort of disagree, at least in part. It depends on the individual candidate. John Kerry (one exampe) was a Catholic; however, it seems like his stance was more of a separation-of-Church-&-State issue, as opposed to a pandering-to-the-Christians-for-votes issue. It's a bit irrelevant since he still lost. JFK was a Roman Catholic as well, when he wasn't, you know, banging Marilyn Monroe.

As a moderate who's voted Democrat, I guess that makes me as close to Democrat as anybody who posts here. But I'm Christian as well. I'm not Republican because 1) I have a problem with what I see as merely upholding the status quo, and 2) I believe it's up to the individual to make decisions in their lives on a lot of things the GOP wants to legislate (e.g. sexuality, abortion, etc.) even if I think they're wrong! Not that anybody has to share these beliefs, but Democrat doesn't equate to not-Xtian.

Funny initial post, however. It seems like Jesus focused more on overall morality and spiritual state of one's soul and their actions, as opposed to the more ritualistic nature of the Pharasees, which would represent a significant change from the Old Testament times. I'm only 1/2 way through the Gospels, but was was wondering if Jesus ever directly addresses things such as homosexuality, abortion, or even things like masturbation, or sodomy. It just seems like what one does to themselves or their legally married spouses that would fall under the sodomy/masturbation taglines would be an odd thing to regulate, but it's not something that was openly brought up a lot, per se, in the church services I've been to growing up. It was largely addressed merely by the terms "don't do it."

-Cheers

 

I'd agree. However, if there wasn't a war I don't think Bush would have a job right now; a lot of people I've heard talking voted for Bush solely because they didn't want to "change the ship mid-stream" or something along those lines. But hey, he won. go bush.

But of course not all Republicans or Democrats are stupid. It's possible to have different values and opinions without one or both being stupid, or smart for that matter. But the stupid ones from either side definitely make for more interesting headlines.

-Cheers

 

he shouldnt have any place in any party. separation of church and state is the way it should be. is the separation of church and state a law, or a theory?? because if its a law its broken quite a bit. i side with the democrats more it seems because they dont feel the need to impose their beliefs, no matter what they are, on other people as much as it seems rebublicans do. the first post was pretty funny,lol. it seems not to many people buy into the bible lock stock and barrel. they must pick and choose what they believe it seems (if those parts in the first post were true).

 

How do you justify banning religion from all parties? Isn't that restricting freedom? The thing that matters is that it stays out of government. In other words, check your religion at the door when you get elected.

OK, I have retyped this thing three times and I still can't express my thought clearly. So I am leaving this one up.

 

well the way i looked at it i guess, is the party's make up the government. so ya cant really have it in one without the other. its not like i don't think they should go to church or worship whatever he/she feels like. but i dont think it should be part of their stance on issues or have any relevance on how they govern. so i guess i agree with you papa,lol.

 

I disagree. There is nothing Constitutionally offensive about a party naming itself The Party of God for example. A POG President could act in accordance with his/her party's doctrines and policies, within the limits of the Constitution.

It is the Constitution that protects us against the tyranny of the POG or the POS or whatever.

 

And that would be why I had to rewrite my paragraph several times (and still couldn't get it right): I actually agree 100%.

 

those are Jewish law. What most people call the new testament is christian guides.

 

Does that mean the Bible is not the literal word of God?

 

those are Jewish law. What most people call the new testament is christian guides.

 

Only when it fits what the guy in the pulpit or big hat thinks (or wants) it to be... If it was the literal word of God, the meanings would not change with popular opinion.

Just remember, man has a habit of screwing everything up, what makes you like their interpatation (sp) of the Bible would be any different?

 

All those scriptures are old testament. We have a new testator that did not come to abolish the law but fulfill the law. No man other than Christ was able to fulfill the old law. Christ died for our sins. Now we no longer have to travel to Jerusalem each year nor do we have to sacrifice the blood of bulls and goats along with all the other requirements needed to be blaimless to God. The person that wrote the letter never mentioned any of that.

The meaning of the bible has not changed. It is timeless. The only thing that has changed is man and his interpretation of the bible to fit his needs. The bible is the inspired Word of God and the only way that God speaks to us now. The Word is all sufficient. If it wasn't there would not be the warning in Revelations about adding to or subtracting from it. If God spoke to one person and not to another, that would make him a respector of persons.