Well back to the reason we are here, my Bible reading for the day.
We have:
12 burnt entrails
11 rams without blemish
10 shekels of silver
9 sprinkles of blood
8 sin offerings
7 pieces of unleavened bread
6 young pigeons
5 golden calfs (oh...wait that was earlier, we've gotten rid of those)
4 parts of an ephah of fine flour
3 cereal offerings
2 TURTLEDOVES (ok so this ENTIRE joke was just so I could use that!)
1 sweet and satisfying odor
Then we get more blood and and more sin forgiveness....nothing really new in today's reading.
Since I don't have anything really to discuss, let me just share my favorite part of today's reading (being a vegetarian, I especially love it)
ready........go
And he shall offer all its fat, the fat tail and the fat that covers the entrails, and the two kidneys and the fat thats on them at the loins, and the lobe or appendages of the liver, which he shall take away with the kidneys
I pretty much threw up a little after reading that part, who knew the liver had a lobe anyway....blahhh
15 comments:
Interesting. Don't you think it's really petty of an all-powerful God to demand this:
“‘If he cannot afford an animal from the flock, 1 he must bring his penalty for guilt for his sin that he has committed, 2 two turtledoves or two young pigeons, 3 to the Lord, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering.
That doesn't seem very localized and centered around that tribe, in that region of the world, with that specific ecosystem and animal life around him?
What did the peoples of southern Africa or northern Scandinavia do?
Crystal, I agree not much to really say here...more rules for attaining atonement, and more faithful obedience by Moses. I don't know about you, but I'm awful glad Jesus' coming changed these rules.
Groman, what I think is petty are all of you atheists doing exactly what you always accuse Christians of doing. Being judgemental, mocking, disrespectful, butting in for no other reason than to assert your viewpoints on everyone else; and when, even after a civil discussion, choose not to believe as you do you begin to insult and demean us. Having said that, I'll do my best to answer your "question"...at this time Israel was still God's chosen people, so there isn't much mention of the peoples of Africa (except NE Africa) or Scandinavia. Later God's promise becomes open to all, and is even retro for all of those who've lived before, in a way.
In fact, it is very localized for that region. The historocity of the Bible isn't hardly disputed by ANY notable historians today. I find it interesting that the overwhelming majority of secular historians are willing to accept its historocity, but not its morals, esp. American historians since our country was founded on these very principles.
As far as this text is concerned, there's not much new in the way of morals or character except Moses continued trust, faith, and obedience to God.
My intent is not to be petty. It's to think aloud about my idea of how I would approach things were I an all-powerful diety.
I would not demand something so meaningless, and cruel.
I don't accuse christians of being judgemental, petty, or mocking, and for the last time, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from passive agressive insults about my person.
As a literalist, (my perception, from reading your posts) I would think you'd have the very same questions that I'm raising in my post.
Why are these sacrifices and rules focused on such a miniscule % of his creation, and if the assumption is that it was based on his covanent with the tribes of Israel only, why is it even remotely relevant to read and care about today, even as an a la carte consumption of biblical law?
Why was it necessary in the first place?
Again, I'd like you to focus on my questions instead of painting me with broad strokes, as you have done repeatedly when you get frustrated or angry. I show you that respect, you should extend it to me.
Groman, well maybe you don't realize this, but when you accuse our God of being petty and judgemental (as though He has no authority to be) then that is more offensive to Christians than accusing us, personally, of those same things.
Having said that maybe I was a little defensive to due Stephen's provocations and took it out on you. I apologize.
I don't know why God chose, initially, Hebrews as His chosen people. I don't think the Bible says. But He later includes all of us (New Testament).
It's not all relevant to today's Christian from a particular spiritual perspective. A lot of this is tradition and law. Although Jesus says that He didn't come to do away with the law (commandments) we are not obliged to do the more traditional aspects, esp. those that pertain to atonement, because He (Jesus) is/was the sacrifice. I know you might want to get into this more, but this is an entire book and let's say it were 60 chapters, we're on chapter 4, and you're asking me questions (what happens) in chapter 45. See what I mean? I'd just ask you be patient. We're reading this in chronological order...cause I thought it'd be easier for Crystal seeing how this is her first time reading it. I know it's difficult in our discussions to not jump ahead, but let's try not to.
If I understand your question...the reason it was necessary, I think, is because after seeing how man acted in the time before Noah and at Sodom and Gomorrah, it became clear to God that maybe He made us more free and intelligent and "carefree" than it was for our own good. I hope I answered the question you were asking.
Just so you know, I am not, nor was, angry or frustrated. I felt I was answering you in the same tone you were asking me. I must have interpreted that wrongly.
I think these stories, even if you think of them as historical and not applicable morally to today's Christian, is important for the overall context of the Bible, God's character, abilities, mercies, promises, and nature.
Oh, I know that it's offensive, but (I think I said it already, maybe in another conversation like this online) but I'm not really apologetic about it.
I don't feel obligated to walk on eggshells when someone believes that I'm deserved of eternal condemnation for not believing in something without empirical evidence to support it.
As a person, and a friend of Crystal's, I'll give deference and remain civil towards you in this context, however. I only ask that I'm given that in return.
I'll try to stay in the context of the chapter/verse discussions, but it's hard not to give it a big picture reference when it gets outside the boundries of (in my opinion) rationality.
So, you have the audacity to offend me, not be apologetic about it, and then tell me that I should respect you and not be offensive to you. Really? Seriously? I don't think so. You'll get treated however I decide to treat you at the time.
You want empirical evidence, then maybe you should live a life worthy of seeing it. Again, it takes a lot of nerve to disbelieve in God, and then complain when He doesn't show up in your life. How idiotic.
And true to liberal fashion, you accuse me of being passive agressive when that's exactly what you've been. So as I said, I don't care whether you like it or not, or wether you think I'm some how obliged to be civil to you or not. I'll speak to you however the situation dictates. How's that for taking the passive out of the aggressive.<--no question mark.
Rational? Really? Since I've already used the evolution analogy with you...I'll continue...A bunch of gases (with no explanation of where THEY come from) are heated under pressure (again by unkown forces or causes) explode and produce live, organic materials...which has never happened since. Rational? Anyway, go along with the story and try to understand or don't.
Btw, I really don't care about your perspective of trying to see things as if YOU were the god. In the context of this blog, you're not. Why would you think we'd care about that perspective. <--no quest. mark. You're clearly not here to try and understand how or why Christians view things. You're clearly here to name call and mock....which is what liberals do when they run out of intelligent things to say, which, typically doesn't take long.
I've tried to be civil to you. I've even apologized to you, but you are hell-bent (in more ways than one) on trying to antagonize me with your passive aggressive/veiled insults.
The reason it's so evident that you're just trying to be obnoxious is because even after apologizing to you a couple of times and answering your questions, you still have to bring up and start on this whole business of you being offended and how you feel, as if I care. Instead of just shutting your pie hole and being satisfied that I answered your questions the best I could, you pipe up with your feelings. It's odd how you can be so "intelligent" yet you can't seem to understand the purpose of this blog, despite being reminded of it over and over again. I guess you're not as think as you smart you were.
Sit down, read, and shut your mouth unless your going to ask a legitmate question that has to do with the particular text we're reading for the day. You don't like it, don't follow along, I'm not doing this for you.
Jamie you do your religion a huge disservice. Again, when have I name-called?
As a point of reference, I was the president of Young Republicans of California for two years. In addition, I'm actually a pretty highly decorated Gulf War Vet with two tours in Saudi, Kuwait, and places I can't tell you about. =)
I've been in Combat, and served almost 8 years ending with 4 in special ops.
Typical liberal?
More like typical fear-mongering hateful, and spiteful Christian.
I've also never stated I believe in the big-bang, or evolution. I've stated very few of my beliefs, and again, tried to restrict my commentary to the context of the posts being made.
I won't allow you to push ignorance around with grand sweeping gestures or assumptions, I'm sorry if you get red-faced over it.
Jamie,
If you can't easily answer the questions Groman asks, which I believe are completely valid, how do you expect any non-believer of Christianity to take you seriously?
But maybe we got off on the wrong foot and I sense we're getting off track again, so I'll ask the a sincere, straightforward follow up question.
You said "...it became clear to God that maybe He made us more free and intelligent and "carefree" than it was for our own good. I hope I answered the question you were asking."
Do you believe God is all knowing and all powerful? If so, there is no possible way your statement could be true. God would have known all of this, always. That's what being omniscient is... knowing everything all the time.
Again, this is a serious question and I don't mean to make you angry. Just because we don't see the world as you see it doesn't mean we have to sit down and shut up.
If you believe that God made you, then he also made me and Groman. And if we're the ones who are lost don't you think God would expect you to treat us with respect even though we are are (in your view) smug and self-righteous?
It's your story you can tell it how you want to.
As I told you, I'm not angry or frustrated, I deal with ignorant, big-shot types all day long.
How condescending for you to think you could have any control over what I do, feel, or think. You really think you're something. I don't. I don't believe you at all. If any of that were true you wouldn't be talking about it, esp. on a blog. I would know. Nice try. I love how tough everyone is on the phone and computer. Apparently this world is full of heroes....this world is full of something.
Bottom line is that you can't get it into your noggin what this blog is about. You're continually trying to hijack it for your own arrogant needs and desires. It's not about you. It will NEVER be about you. I will no longer read your posts....and we have some lovely parting gifts for you as well...take your pick: 1) long walk of a short pier, 2) a blend-o-matic blender, 3) eternal damnation.....what? Don't like those choices? They are still choices. hint: I'd go with the blender.
Wow. That is really disheartening what you just posted.
Tough questions require answers, it's your duty as a Christian to spread truth, dawg.
Crystal knows me, and knows all of the above....so you can call her a liar as well, while you're at it.
That's something you're consistently doing in this blog.
I know you will read our posts, just as you will respond to them.
You already said you wouldn't and you have, which is a sin. It's called lying.
Look it up.
OK OK OK Let me just start out by saying that I don't want to speak for anybody, however I just want to try to explain the best way I know how what, my purpose in creating this blog was. And in turn explain why all of this back and forth has gone too far.
Yes I think most of this stuff seems absolutly ridiculous and extremly comical....the turtledoves, the blood, the sleeping with your father... and yet so many seemingly intellgent people believe so fully in it.
I have never been able to have a real conversation with someone I trust so fully as I do Jamie about their beliefs. I never intended for him to explain "why" God would do the things he does, only how he can believe that it was done. Does everyone see the difference.
This is not about the hows and why's, its about me understanding, through my good friend, how people can possibly have such faith in it.
I know that that isn't going to stop the three of you from having a very different conversation, and thats fine, I suppose. Because I have friends on both sides I just want you both to understand why I am here.
If we keep going in this direction its just going to go around and around and around again in circles. And no one learns anything. Being that I have friends on both sides of the aisle, I feel lucky, but didn't Rodney King say it best?
Crystal,
Thank you for that.
I respect your purpose for being here and I will do my best to stay on topic, polite and respectful.
I'm very curious why Jamie believes what he believes. And I feel like the questions I've asked speak to this curiosity. I think Jamie is used to people just accepting what he says (if they agree or not) for the sake of being polite. This is certainly the easiest path, but one that doesn't do much to challenge either parties assumptions.
I believe I can be polite and still press him on his logical pitfalls. If he decides to act aggressively (call me names and make wild assumptions about me and Groman) I believe it's due to his own insecurity and the weakness of his arguments.
Since this is Jamies and Crystal's blog, I will respect your rules (polite, on topic, etc) but I won't pull any punches if I find fault in anyone's reasoning.
That's all I can ask of all of you. Jamie included. Thanks
Post a Comment