Perhaps if Atheists did any historical research or put the bible in context they wouldn't be so outraged by it. It was a good laugh though.

Historical research proves that the bible is a compilation of many sources and not the true word of God, it was ratified and decided upon by various authors across many translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin and so forth.

I think it's rather silly to look upon the bible as anything other then an allegory for living life, but thats just me.

look, the Bible might have been a good idea 2000 years ago, but as a moral and ethical code to be taken literaly it's a bit out-dated, don't you think?

I could go through how completely incorrect the conclusions made for those verses were, but I've learned that people don't care about it here. The list is laughable. I can only hope no one gullible is taken in by it.

I think the name of the website, "Hate gets me off" explains enough. lol.

"If it moves.. you can EAT IT! Cannibalism is OKAY!"

Okay, this one confuses me: “And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.”

Meat has blood in it. You eat meat, you eat blood. It's unavoidable.
Can someone explain this? Is the quote being taken out of context?

^ It's referring to raw blood in particular. This was a rule in Israel, no eating raw blood. There's more symbolic meaning to it, but I'd have to look that bit up.

Drinking raw blood was a common practice in polytheistic rituals. Since the Children of Abraham had a problem with falling into paganist polytheism the drinking of raw blood was banned.

Hmm, thanks Doc. Another question:

"Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, “These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."

Jews in general still try not to do anything that qualifies as "work" on Sunday, right? Well why bother with that at all if they aren't going to enforce it and kill Jews that do work on Sundays?

Is the killing bit one of those things, like the passages about how to treat your slaves, that people have decided "well, these are modern times, we aren't going to do that any more"?

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand how people can just decide to ignore some of their holy book, but follow others. I know some people will say, "well, this is just a metaphor, you aren't really supposed to do it", but then who decides what parts of the book to use and which to ignore?

I suppose that's the reason there are so many subsets of each religion (roman catholic, methodist, 7th day adventist, orthodox jew, jihadist...). People decide what "level" of religiosity they want, then join a group of similarly-feeling people, and they do their religion together.

This is my view on that in brief:
The command to put those to death who work on the Sabbath was delivered to the Jewish people in those times, and it was enforced as I understand... however there were ways to earn forgiveness for such sins by certain well-defined sacrifices and ceremony, such as the "sin-offereing." The first four books of the Bible contain a great deal of law, but also a great deal of ways to attain atonement for violations. This was part of the foundation of the concept of sinning and receiving forgiveness via sacrifice, a preamble to the saving power of the last ultimate sacrifice, Jesus, which applied that atonement to all sin in everyone. The Jewish people today have developed a tradition that defines the rules such as these in extreme detail (since they have no such savior yet). I can't further speak specifically for them as I am not one.

As for Christians, the death of Christ (who committed no sin and who was also God) on the cross took the death sentence for all who accept it (the final and perfect Sin Offering, God giving His own life). Therefore, working on the Sabbath (for example) might be a sin (and "the wages of sin is death"), but the price has been paid... for everyone, every time. Anyway, most Christians consider that "work" that is done for the Lord is perfectly acceptable on the sabbath, which is Sunday for Christians. Jesus spoke on this a couple of times and it can be applied to the work we do or must do on Sundays. I cannot speak for the Jews, but Christians have valid doctrine pertaining to these laws and how Christ translated them into our current doctrinal law. As for differences in sects of religions, many times the differences are based on tradition, but in the cases that they are different based on biblical interpretations, they often agree on the concept of grace through faith, which is central to the faith.

You're also right that certain people don't want religion to be a big part of their life so they might get together with those in a sect that likewise want a surface belief. Even the bible says that they are only missing out on what they could have, live, and eventually have in eternity. Unfortunate, but Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient despite.

So, God banned drinking raw blood, etc., etc., ... but then he just went, "Ahhhhhh screw-it! I mean this is getting ridiculous! Here, I'll have a son, he will sacrifice himself by your hand, and then you won't have to be all super-concerned with this stuff I used to tell you (stoning people for whatever, not eating blood, etc.) because accepting that this final, human sacrifice was done for you is all that is necessary to achieve an eternal place in heaven. Go smack a child or steal a goat, I no longer care about this trivial crap and your offerings in repentance, as long as you come back to accepting that this perfect dude died for you."

Okay, a bit sarcastic, sorry, but seriously, this is basically my understanding of the situation.

Speaking of that bamdrew... god is all-powerful, right? Why bother with sacrificing jesus in the first place? Seriously, he could have just been all like, "ok now, you can get to heaven just by believing in me, don't worry about all that stuff I told you before".

The reasons for forgiving sin through the sacrifice of Jesus is one of the major reasons the Christian faith gained so much followers, previously if you have transgressed pagan and earlier Gods you are basically unforgivable, you sinned, thats it or even worse you were a serf or lower man, Gods had no time for you.

Christianity however presents a view that all men are sinners, but everyone is equal in the eyes of god, everyone is a child of God, one can atoned for their sins, furthermore they are forgiven by a selfless act of death by the son of God.

Think of such an idea in ancient times, you were forgiven for your sins if you accept God in your life. Thats a powerful incentive for the common man, the sinner who wants to atoned and for those who are thinking of what happens when they die.

First, my responses are under the belief that the book is in fact true as I believe it to be.I enjoy ironing out doctrinal knots and at least helping people understand what the belief system really is, whether they believe it or not.
That being said.
More of my take on it and your response:
It may seem easy to look at it the way you said, but God sees the end from the beginning. He knew when sin entered the world what men would choose and that those choices would lead them from Him and what He has to offer. The law is essentially a way to reveal that man is sinful and that sin leads to separation from God (by its nature... "the second death"). This is an oversimplification but, since sin is such direct rebellion and leads to this separation from God and thus "death" (not of the body, but of the soul), something of great value must be sacrificed in its place... And Sin has no place in Heaven so nothing tainted with it can enter, by nature. Since man is full of sin, God planned a way to free us from it by His own hand through His own sacrifice ("so that none may boast"). The OT laws and the sacrificial requirements were prophetic to the sacrifice on the cross. The "sin offering" was a lamb taken out of town and slaughtered. Jesus was also called the "lamb of God" and was taken from town and slaughtered. In fact, a HUGE number of events in the OT are straight forward prophecy of this event and its ramifications.

He's not saying:
"Screw it, I give up. Do what you want. You're gonna be bad anyway, so go for it. I'll fix it." Would a human father really say that if he loves his child? Think about it, and if you wouldn't say it to your kid, do you think a perfect father, God, would?
He's saying something like:
"I want you to be good and it will make you closer to Me and that is a great thing for both of us, but I know that you will rebel even though you love me. For this reason, I will love you by saving you anyway so we can remain together forever."

To the first a child might respond:
"Alright! Screw you too, I'm outa here, since it doesn't matter anyway." ...and so much for that relationship...
To the second a child might say:
"I know I'm not always doing what you want, but because I love you, and in gratitude for what you're doing for me, I'll keep trying."
A Christian believer (hopefully) sees what God has done and keeps trying, not just in gratitude, but also to remain close to God like a son wants to be close to a perfect dad. This is the personal relationship that God wants, but lets us choose to accept or reject.

All this is part of the argument that quoting single phrases/verses from the bible and drawing enormous conclusions from them is unwise. The canon is a story that is far more complex and interwoven for that sort of method. The "context" is often the entire redemptive plan through history. So reading a verse from numbers and ignoring all that preceded and followed in history will just lead to confusion or misunderstanding.

P.S. There are many books written on why Jesus' sacrifice was necessary. If what I've said at the top of this post gives no hint, the books on the topic are decent, or maybe I can try more later... but for now, I'm off to bed.

p.p.s The fact that I'm still awake while Farhad is posting REALLY tells me I should be in bed. lol.

Even if god does exist (of which you have no proof of) - what makes you religious nuts so absolutely 100% sure a higher beign cares about anything you say or do? It's like you and me caring about bacteria in the air we breathe...
I mean, I usualy have to take large quantities of hard drugs to imagine or even have a conversation with someone who doesn't exist - what's your secret?

I wouldn't say that having a belief in a religion constitutes being a religious nut, because to me there's nothing wrong with having convictions about things that are inherently unknowable.

>> ^Doc_M:
... man is sinful and that sin leads to separation from God (by its nature... "the second death"). This is an oversimplification but, since sin is such direct rebellion and leads to this separation from God and thus "death" (not of the body, but of the soul), something of great value must be sacrificed in its place... And Sin has no place in Heaven so nothing tainted with it can enter, by nature.


I've heard that before, I think, but what I don't get is why god, as the all powerful ruler and maker of everything, didn't just change the rules. Obviously as the creator, he had to have set up the whole "sin = no heaven" system in the first place, so he could just change the requirements for entrance into heaven and instead of requiring people to enter without sin (ie. by performing sacrificies while still alive to atone for their sins), he could only let people in that:

1. believed in him
2. were truly sorry that they had sinned
(this is basically my understanding of the current system as most christians believe it)

Since he must have been able to do this, yet chose the whole jesus route, I have to wonder why. Was the whole "final sacrifice" thing sort of a public relations stunt to get the attention of the sacrifice-minded Jews and/or pagans of the time?

If God created the universe, as a enlightened being am sure he seeded life on many different planets across many different solar systems and different Universes, sure that the chaotic system of order he created would lead to beings that are intelligent and question their own place and existence on this plain. For time is meaningless for him as a concept, a billion years passing in a heart beat, he waited for one of his seeds to evolve to give him company, to act as a mirror to what he is.

I mean honestly, we so delude ourselves that we are in some way special. We are not. Life is capable of emerging on countless planetary systems across the Universe. We refuse to believe it is possible because we cannot fathom the millions and billions of years that all of existence has endured and how we, our whole documented existence is but a fraction of a fraction of that time.

And even then somehow we believe we can connect to a being that has created the universe as vast as the one we occupy on our small planet, its not like a human being communicating to a termite, its like a sun communicating with a cell based life form.

Yet we are so bold, so arrogant to assume that it is we who are the focus of it all.

god is the great coder: it programmed the whole thing and compiled it then sat back to see how the program worked. Whether or not it fixes the bugs or the program has its own troubleshooter is not really relevant to the program. Obviously bugs get addressed slowly and on an "as-needed" basis.

I'm a deist. I think the great coder made the program (as I agree with Farhad, the program isn't JUST US) and went on about its business. Why? Ask any geek and you'll get the answer: because its cool

If you cede that God is all-powerful and not bound by time itself, what makes you think He is incapable of having an intimate father-child relationship with every single being in existence? People imagine a person-like figure sitting in a chair somewhere and watching bits and pieces unfold. Why can He not see every single event everywhere and interact as He chooses. He is not limited to the human one-focus-at-a-time cage. Why do I think He cares? I believe He said so, but further, if you had a million children and had the means to have a full-time, meaningful relationship with each and every one of them, wouldn't you, and wouldn't you love it? A billion? A trillion? If you created beings with eternal souls, one-by-one, gave them the capability to live and love and to choose to love or reject you, would you not wish to feel their love and return it as a parent? Wouldn't you want to give them guidance as well?

Why is it arrogant to embrace a God and enjoy a relationship with Him knowing it costs him only a portion of His thought that doesn't compare to the infinity He is capable of? A bible-believer will tell you that God delights in His creation and enjoys the love He can give and receive in return. If there are millions of other worlds out there and billions of inhabitants on each, can He not enjoy that love with all of them as well? Would that not just add to His joy and to His glory?

and Cheesmo, the shortest way to answer your question could be to see this: If God is all-powerful and perfect, then His every move and choice is Right the first time, every time. God does not change. He does however have a character. He IS a certain way and those that sin and reject His being and His ways cannot be with Him. In fact, they are choosing to reject Him! Hence upon his rebellion and subsequent failure, Lucifer and his followers could no longer remain with Him.

The "final sacrifice" wasn't a PR move, it was to fulfill the necessity of justice and law. God (as the Son) took the fall Himself to fulfill the law. If He broke His own law, how could He be called just? He'd just be like us. In many polytheistic ancient religions, gods were very human and flawed. They might consider just scrapping a plan and folding their hand for the convenience of it or to avoid something unpleasant. The Christian God is not this way and maintained His character and law despite the price it cost Him.

Why would He care? Why not?!

What I posted above is merely a possible interpretation one can possess in our modern lives about the existence of a God. But I have to ask...

If God is as you say he is: why does an all powerful, loving god, allow evil to occur in our lives?

And am not talking simply of evil that men commits in the form of murders and wars, even though many were carried out in the name of God - Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Crusades and so on covering other religious wars.

But events like famine, hurricanes, storms and other phenomenon that kills hundreds or thousands. Or what about disease? Cancer? Heart attacks? untimely deaths of young ones?

The answer of God works in mysterious ways is a cop out. Saying that all men are to blame because we are all sinners is also preposterous.

Furthermore alot of what you says is rooted in the Bible, but if it really was the word of God it should be infallible, but it's not because its not the word of God, it contains masses of contradictions and passages from the past. A mathematics book is infallible, you can't argue with the Pythagoras Theorem.

But because those are interpretations that Man has created for himself when thinking of his purpose on Earth, trying to relate to a being that has put him there. The thread runs clear from mystical pagan worship of Nature and the lands to symbolic worship of Sun Gods and finally to likeness worship in the shape of Jesus. We went slowly from worshiping unknowns into focusing worship into a shape of a man, something that is easy to relate to us. That's marketing PR 101.

To me man made Religion is a psychological need of a person to know that their existence stretches past and beyond death, that inherently there is a purpose to your life beyond biological need for procreation. It is also a powerful social aspect that unites many in our world. However as time has shown countless times Religions wane in and out of existence. In 2000 years perhaps Christianity will be looked upon like we look on Egyptian religion now, while embracing some new religion of I don't know... Star worship. There is a human psychological need to know that we FIGURED IT out, that we know what this all means.

For me at the end of the day man made Religion has achieved social and thought control with regards to many issues, but has failed to really hammer through the lessons that form the core of each - "Love your fellow man".

For America as a Christian nation with a Christian President still willingly took up the arms of war out of fear, yet all sat in the Church at one point or another. Those in the Middle East still practiced cheating their fellow man, abusing their fellow man and taking arms to secure control but each day went to the Mosque and prayed and proclaiming God's name as they detonated IEDs. In Africa I have seen religion come to substitute effort and thought to merely accepting what God has given, praying for a better tomorrow instead of working towards it. Even though this faith was brought by missionaries, their faith has adopted and changed it to fit their life styles. Wasn't God's basic plan is to make us get along?

Looking at all life with scientific, philosophical and historical awareness I have come to this conclusion. However I don't mind that people still seek out Faith and take up religion, I believe everyone has a right to a subjective view with regards to their existence and what it means to them. But pushing it on others cross the line, I don't mean moderate adherents of the Faith but those who abuse and take the Faith to assume a measure of Power. For example - Will it ever be possible to have a President in the US who doesn't possess a deep religious background? Why is that? Where does ones subjective faith stance factor into being a statesman? Bush is a perfect example for he said 'God told me to invade and free Iraq'. Would God talk to one singular man over others? To push forward inevitable war and suffering on so many others?

Then again only my view.

>> ^Kreegath:
I wouldn't say that having a belief in a religion constitutes being a religious nut, because to me there's nothing wrong with having convictions about things that are inherently unknowable.


your statement is paradoxical in itself - if these "things" are inherently unknowable, how can you believe in them with such (or any reasonable degree of) conviction? I understand the meanings of the words "belief" and "conviction" as something that leave little or no room for doubt or interpretation. or maybe my english is worse than i thought...

Hey, I know! Why don't we all just quit arguing and kill each other?

talking about god with words is like painting the sistine chapel with a magic marker.

magic marker is to words as actual painting equipment is to... telepathy? what?

An infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of magic markers could pull off a sistine chapel...

*quality

Awarding kulpims with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by UsesProzac.