If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Confused Pastafarian)   "Amphibians, reptiles, (cold-blooded animals) and shellfish are permitted" to be eaten during Lent? Leviticus 9:12: "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." IT'S A TRAP   (catholicnewsagency.com) divider line 157
    More: Unlikely, Lent, archbishops  
•       •       •

1825 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Feb 2013 at 10:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-16 08:46:50 AM
The stuff in Leviticus pertains to the covenant between Yahweh and the ancient Israelites. They are not directly applicable to Christians.
 
2013-02-16 08:56:20 AM

RexTalionis: The stuff in Leviticus pertains to the covenant between Yahweh and the ancient Israelites. They are not directly applicable to Christians.


Someone tell that to Fundamentalist Christians, maybe they can stop cherry picking it for reasons to hate people.
 
2013-02-16 09:25:20 AM

Ennuipoet: RexTalionis: The stuff in Leviticus pertains to the covenant between Yahweh and the ancient Israelites. They are not directly applicable to Christians.

Someone tell that to Fundamentalist Christians, maybe they can stop cherry picking it for reasons to hate people.


The Bible is like a salad bar. You can take the shellfish, but leave the gay sex and the pickled beets. Both are an abomination to our Lord.
 
2013-02-16 09:26:52 AM
Is there ever an acceptable time to eat alligator?
 
2013-02-16 09:34:46 AM
I don't worship a God that cares whether or not I eat shrimp. Or bacon cheeseburgers.
 
2013-02-16 09:37:05 AM

vernonFL: I don't worship a God that cares whether or not I eat shrimp. Or bacon cheeseburgers.


Hey, go for the Chinese indigenous religions - we don't care what the hell you eat!
 
2013-02-16 09:54:05 AM
Is this the thread where we all piss our panties in glee because Bartlett quoted Dear Abby to Dr. Laura?
 
2013-02-16 10:03:43 AM

RexTalionis: The stuff in Leviticus pertains to the covenant between Yahweh and the ancient Israelites. They are not directly applicable to Christians.


And yet it's the Christians, not the Jews, who can't shut up about teh gheys.
 
2013-02-16 10:06:03 AM
Since when do Jewish people practice Catholicism?

The new Testament has specifically said that there are no unclean foods.
 
2013-02-16 10:13:16 AM

PacManDreaming: Since when do Jewish people practice Catholicism?

The new Testament has specifically said that there are no unclean foods.


The New Testament has a greater then or equal amount of horseshiat when compared to the Old Testament. Why anyone believes a shiatty book written thousand years ago by bronze age shepherds with enough plot holes to make L Ron Hubbard's books look like masterworks, we'll never know. Sometimes we just can't fix stupid.
 
2013-02-16 10:16:32 AM
I wonder how many people use Leviticus 18:22 to condemn homosexuality, then go stuff their fat faces full of shrimp and crab legs at some awful buffet somewhere.
 
2013-02-16 10:17:58 AM

dugitman: Is there ever an acceptable time to eat alligator?


Alligator is an anytime food.  Like bacon.  Or, beer.
 
2013-02-16 10:19:03 AM
Not to sound preachy, but it's kind of illogical to attack Christianity by using Levitican law. Levitican law was for Jews only. Not Gentiles.

That being said, Christians have no business using Levitican law when it's beneficial for them to do so, for the exact same reasons.
 
2013-02-16 10:19:50 AM

RexTalionis: The stuff in Leviticus pertains to the covenant between Yahweh and the ancient Israelites. They are not directly applicable to Christians.


Crap. I guess I should have at least read the Boobies.
 
2013-02-16 10:20:31 AM

RexTalionis: The stuff in Leviticus pertains to the covenant between Yahweh and the ancient Israelites. They are not directly applicable to Christians.


Mathew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Seems to imply that Christ didn't intend for people to abandon the old laws.
 
2013-02-16 10:21:39 AM
My family is Catholic so I get sucked in on the whole "no meat on Friday thing".

I always asked if we could have poultry since it's technically not meat. But the answer is always no.

That being said, as someone who hates seafood, this basically limits me to pasta and cheese pizza.

Unless I eat with my family, I eat meat on Friday because that gets really old after a while.
 
2013-02-16 10:23:01 AM

Mrtraveler01: always asked if we could have poultry since it's technically not meat. But the answer is always no.


How is poultry not meat?
 
2013-02-16 10:23:10 AM

jake_lex: I wonder how many people use Leviticus 18:22 to condemn homosexuality, then go stuff their fat faces full of shrimp and crab legs at some awful buffet somewhere.


People seem very skilled at determining which bible verses do and don't apply to the modern world. It's just a coincidence that the parts they know apply and the parts that they know don't just happen to line up exactly with their personal world view and what they want to do anyway.
 
2013-02-16 10:24:16 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-16 10:24:54 AM

Mugato: Mrtraveler01: always asked if we could have poultry since it's technically not meat. But the answer is always no.

How is poultry not meat?


I dunno, my grocery store separates the two so I thought they were different.

Does anyone know the answer to this?
 
2013-02-16 10:25:12 AM

PacManDreaming: Since when do Jewish people practice Catholicism?

The new Testament has specifically said that there are no unclean foods.


The new Testament has obviously never eaten at Arby's.
 
2013-02-16 10:26:07 AM

TFerWannaBe: RexTalionis: The stuff in Leviticus pertains to the covenant between Yahweh and the ancient Israelites. They are not directly applicable to Christians.

Mathew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Seems to imply that Christ didn't intend for people to abandon the old laws.


But it's still a Jews vs. Gentiles issue. Christ wanted his message preached "first to the Jews, then the Gentiles." Reading between the lines, I don't think Jesus really gave much of a flip about Gentiles. And it caused quite a stink, if I remember correctly, when Paul (or was it Peter) wanted to specifically preach only to the Gentiles. I digress though. The laws Jesus spoke of were the Levitican laws aimed solely at Jews.

/How does that explain Christians following the Ten Commandments though? Hmm.
 
2013-02-16 10:26:30 AM

Mugato: Mrtraveler01: always asked if we could have poultry since it's technically not meat. But the answer is always no.

How is poultry not meat?


Historically "meat" refers to  the flesh of goat, pig, cattle, lamb . . mammals in general. Cookbooks still separate meat from poultry and seafood, but you're right that the term has lost this distinction.
 
2013-02-16 10:30:58 AM
Previously, the wise men of the Catholic Church have ruled that the Capybara and beaver are both fish, too (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver#In_dietary_law).

A fish:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-16 10:32:42 AM

TerminalEchoes: TFerWannaBe: RexTalionis: The stuff in Leviticus pertains to the covenant between Yahweh and the ancient Israelites. They are not directly applicable to Christians.

Mathew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Seems to imply that Christ didn't intend for people to abandon the old laws.

But it's still a Jews vs. Gentiles issue. Christ wanted his message preached "first to the Jews, then the Gentiles." Reading between the lines, I don't think Jesus really gave much of a flip about Gentiles. And it caused quite a stink, if I remember correctly, when Paul (or was it Peter) wanted to specifically preach only to the Gentiles. I digress though. The laws Jesus spoke of were the Levitican laws aimed solely at Jews.

/How does that explain Christians following the Ten Commandments though? Hmm.


I don't see any indication that Christ's was preaching one set of laws for Jews and a different set for everyone else. Either way, you'd think that a people intent on following Christ's teachings would recognize his support for the Hebrew laws.
 
2013-02-16 10:32:50 AM
yes, the alligator is considered in the fish family," Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond wrote in a 2010 letter provided to CNA by the New Orleans archdiocese Feb. 15.

Alligators are fish. This is why we don't want these idiots dictating how we teach biology.
 
2013-02-16 10:35:27 AM
Aliligators live in the water and have scales, thus are not a abomination according to Leviticus 9:12 so no contradiction there.

However Leviticus 11:42 says "You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable." Alligators, and most reptiles, fit into this category.

So if you don't cherry pick Leviticus shellfish and most reptiles are forbidden to eat.
 
2013-02-16 10:36:26 AM

TFerWannaBe: Mugato: Mrtraveler01: always asked if we could have poultry since it's technically not meat. But the answer is always no.

How is poultry not meat?

Historically "meat" refers to  the flesh of goat, pig, cattle, lamb . . mammals in general. Cookbooks still separate meat from poultry and seafood, but you're right that the term has lost this distinction.


From dictionary.com:
meat  [meet] Show IPAnoun1.the flesh of animals as used for food.2.the edible part of an ything, as a fruit or nut:Crack the walnuts and remove the meats.3.the  essential point or part of an argument, literary work, etc.; gist; cr ux:The meat of the play is thejealousy between the two brothers.4.soli d food:meat and drink.5.solid or substantial content; pith:The article  was full of meat, with few wasted words
Chicken flesh is meat, and technically, so is alligator by this definition.  In any case, an alligator isn't a fish, silly bishop.
 
2013-02-16 10:37:14 AM

zetar: Previously, the wise men of the Catholic Church have ruled that the Capybara and beaver are both fish, too (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver#In_dietary_law).

A fish:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x531]


I thought Catholics weren't allowed to eat beaver or any type of sodomy.

\Straight up missionary style or nothin'.
 
2013-02-16 10:37:47 AM
Silly people following a silly book, choosing what silly rules to obey and what silly rules to ignore.
 
2013-02-16 10:38:12 AM
What on Earth does this have to do with Politics?
 
2013-02-16 10:39:09 AM
FTFA:"Concerning the question if alligator is acceptable to eat during the Lenten season...yes, the alligator is considered in the fish family," Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond wrote

Ummm, science would disagree with religion on this one.

/and pretty much everything else too
 
2013-02-16 10:39:16 AM
It's almost as if Catholics and Baptists aren't the exact same religion.
 
2013-02-16 10:41:39 AM

Karac: yes, the alligator is considered in the fish family," Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond wrote in a 2010 letter provided to CNA by the New Orleans archdiocese Feb. 15.

Alligators are fish. This is why we don't want these idiots dictating how we teach biology.


The fact that Alligators are a delicacy and the fact that the sale of alligator is vital to Louisiana's economy is not coincidental at all.
 
2013-02-16 10:43:11 AM

Ennuipoet: RexTalionis: The stuff in Leviticus pertains to the covenant between Yahweh and the ancient Israelites. They are not directly applicable to Christians.

Someone tell that to Fundamentalist Christians, maybe they can stop cherry picking it for reasons to hate people.


So much this.
 
2013-02-16 10:45:35 AM

PacManDreaming: Since when do Jewish people practice Catholicism?

The new Testament has specifically said that there are no unclean foods.


Also:

Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

and

"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 'For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.' If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and you be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, 'This is offered in sacrifice unto idols,' eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: 'for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.'"

1 Corinthians 10:25-28


I don't see anything forbidding human flesh. So zombies are in the clear.
 
2013-02-16 10:46:21 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: jake_lex: I wonder how many people use Leviticus 18:22 to condemn homosexuality, then go stuff their fat faces full of shrimp and crab legs at some awful buffet somewhere.

People seem very skilled at determining which bible verses do and don't apply to the modern world. It's just a coincidence that the parts they know apply and the parts that they know don't just happen to line up exactly with their personal world view and what they want to do anyway.


Sort of like how you really can't tell the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to a modern audience without pausing to explain that things were different back then so it's totally okay that the hero of the story invites an angry mob to violently gang-rape his underage daughters.
 
2013-02-16 10:48:44 AM

TerminalEchoes: Not to sound preachy, but it's kind of illogical to attack Christianity by using Levitican law. Levitican law was for Jews only. Not Gentiles.

That being said, Christians have no business using Levitican law when it's beneficial for them to do so, for the exact same reasons.


As a non-theist, I can't tell christains which of you is 'right' or 'wrong' in your personal beliefs. So long as the average christian doesn't know the bible, read it, understand it, etc. I will be well within soumd logic to say that the christians in your second paragragh justify my "attacks" on those specific christians.

If I wanted to attack the entire religion, I just say there is no evidence for god and his supposed wishes are an ongoing excuse for mankind to feud.

Good acts and peace can be justified without irrational beliefs. Bad acts cannot.
 
2013-02-16 10:49:55 AM

dennysgod: However Leviticus 11:42 says "You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable." Alligators, and most reptiles, fit into this category.


Seems that any land-animal would fit that category.  Chickens, cows, etc. are all abominations.  I wonder how many Christians avoid eating them.
 
2013-02-16 10:50:39 AM

Ennuipoet: RexTalionis: The stuff in Leviticus pertains to the covenant between Yahweh and the ancient Israelites. They are not directly applicable to Christians.

Someone tell that to Fundamentalist Christians, maybe they can stop cherry picking it for reasons to hate people.


Not to blaspheme, but doesn't some of this old testament stuff give you the mental picture of whiny Jews and God, "God, the bar mitzvah is Friday and I've already paid the caterer and Aunt Syl with her bad hip is on her way from Bethlehem and now it looks like I'll be unclean.  What's a mother to do, I'm working myself to the bone here".  God sighs and comes up with a loophole.  "Go burn a spotted owl, put its ashes in holy water and soak in it for day, you'll be fine.  Tell Aunt Syl hi."
 
2013-02-16 10:52:16 AM

Mugato: Mrtraveler01: always asked if we could have poultry since it's technically not meat. But the answer is always no.

How is poultry not meat?


How is fish not meat?
 
2013-02-16 10:52:23 AM

Garble: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: jake_lex: I wonder how many people use Leviticus 18:22 to condemn homosexuality, then go stuff their fat faces full of shrimp and crab legs at some awful buffet somewhere.

People seem very skilled at determining which bible verses do and don't apply to the modern world. It's just a coincidence that the parts they know apply and the parts that they know don't just happen to line up exactly with their personal world view and what they want to do anyway.

Sort of like how you really can't tell the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to a modern audience without pausing to explain that things were different back then so it's totally okay that the hero of the story invites an angry mob to violently gang-rape his underage daughters.


I'd love to see a production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" that included the subplot about Judah and Tamar.
 
2013-02-16 10:55:47 AM

Mrbogey: It's almost as if Catholics and Baptists aren't the exact same religion.


Am I missing something?  What do Baptists have to do with any of this.
 
2013-02-16 10:59:35 AM
Catholics don't (or at least shouldn't) use the old testament against homosexuality. The reason it's a sin is because any sex for non-reproductive purposes is a sin,whether gay or on birth control. So you're allowed to be gay, you just aren't allowed to have sex.

Which really isn't any less stupid, but there you have it.
 
2013-02-16 11:03:27 AM

PacManDreaming: Since when do Jewish people practice Catholicism?

The new Testament has specifically said that there are no unclean foods.


WRONG.  Yeshua said that nothing a man eats can make him impure, he does that simply by breathing.  Whether or not a food is clean was not mentioned.  Paul followed this up by saying it doesn't matter if a food was to be sacrificed to a false god, because again it can't make you any worse than you already are.

Always read the fine print.
 
2013-02-16 11:04:37 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Mrbogey: It's almost as if Catholics and Baptists aren't the exact same religion.

Am I missing something?  What do Baptists have to do with any of this.


Someone brought up fundamentalism. I only erred in saying Baptist and not Protestant.
 
2013-02-16 11:05:34 AM

jake_lex: I wonder how many people use Leviticus 18:22 to condemn homosexuality, then go stuff their fat faces full of shrimp and crab legs at some awful buffet somewhere.


... while wearing polyester-cotton shirts.

/Lev 19:19
 
2013-02-16 11:07:01 AM

Mrtraveler01: My family is Catholic so I get sucked in on the whole "no meat on Friday thing".

I always asked if we could have poultry since it's technically not meat. But the answer is always no.

That being said, as someone who hates seafood, this basically limits me to pasta and cheese pizza.

Unless I eat with my family, I eat meat on Friday because that gets really old after a while.


There were lots of factors, but if you asked me to pinpoint the one thing that made me realize what a bunch of bullshiat Catholicism is (and drop the shenanigans day 1 of college), it's this.  I also do not enjoy fish and was likewise limited.  I never received a good answer as to why "fish" is ok but beef is not.  If anything, consuming fish is eating an animal more completely.  Lent is supposed to be about sacrificing, but exactly what is being sacrificed by people that like fish?  The only one suffering here is me, and that's mostly because the pizza being served at the fish dinners is cheap and shiatty.  It's just a long con game dreamt up by someone with fish to sell.  "Buy my fish!"  But it tastes terrible.  "Umm...because Jesus said so!"  Well ok!
 
2013-02-16 11:08:26 AM

PacManDreaming: Since when do Jewish people practice Catholicism?

The new Testament has specifically said that there are no unclean foods.


oh yeah? what about dirty rice!?
 
2013-02-16 11:08:36 AM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Mrbogey: It's almost as if Catholics and Baptists aren't the exact same religion.

Am I missing something?  What do Baptists have to do with any of this.

Someone brought up fundamentalism. I only erred in saying Baptist and not Protestant.


Well, "fundamentalism" can apply to any religion or denomination, but I see what you're saying.
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report