The bible as a guide to life.

Originally posted by masscat
Did you also research these verses in context to see what the applications were, or are you just fascinated with the crap part?

Don't confuse them with facts; they like their subjects scrambled like eggs, with bits of unknown debris to keep it interesting.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, now that we know where you stand...
I don't give a hoot (respectively or otherwise) what 'a large number of gay people' think about the blashemous nature of that statement. Whether or not someone accepts the Bible's description of God is entirely their business. While I would hope they would respond positively to that description, ultimately the choice is theirs. That, I accept.

my point was that it is almost imposible to avoid blasphemy against one religion or another as they are mutually incompatible with each other, simply disbeleiving in any of several religions counts as blasphemy. I was using this to refute you claim that all blaspheming was maliciouse or that the perpatraitor intended to offend others.
And I don't think you have any idea where I stand, I would be most interested to find out however. do elaborate.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Oh crap! , I never realised that the Bible had some really stupid bits in it. I feel so silly , my faith is now shaken to the core , infact I'm distraught and full of despair . How fragile and brittle my faith was ! How blind I was to not see these things ! What folly! What self deception! I never knew that the Bible was also steeped in Jewish supersti ...[text shortened]... f as well. Please educate me oh guru , how might I obtain knowledge?


NOT! (LOL)

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
Isaac Asimov

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Blasphemy. Do you really think the laugh is worth it?

So that's a yes then?

[edit; god tells us not to murder, yet has killed thousands (remember the first born). God tells us not to be gay, but since the rules he makes for us apparently don't apply, why can He not be gay?]

Originally posted by masscat
Did you also research these verses in context to see what the applications were, or are you just fascinated with the crap part?

Yes, God was telling some of the people He created to go eat crap.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Many here have shown how the bible tells us not to eat diseased meat etc, but let's see how well they do with this little gem.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0505/biblepoopquiz.html

Of course, I did look the answers up in bible.com and it turns out they are true.

So, what say all ye faithful. Why is the bible such a load of crap?

Never mind that, my question is what words did you put in your search engine to find such a thread and what you were originally looking for? No matter, what your into is your business. Please keep it that way.

I will only comment on this one as an example….

“And thou, take to thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and spelt, and thou hast put them in one vessel, and made them to thee for bread;”

He was told to prepare his food and cook it OVER dung…not eat it. Which was not unheard of. American pioneers used "buffalo chips" to cook, with. In parts of the world they used camel dung.

Ezekiel was warning people about a coming siege of Jerusalem that would last 18 months. (It began in 588 B.C.) During the siege the supplies of food would become scarce and would make it necessary to mix grains to get enough material to bake into bread. There would also not be enough wood left to cook with, so they would have to use animal dung, then, after they ate the animals, cook with human waste.

Those interested in further information concerning the other incidents referenced can find them by a) reading the Bible 2) consulting a good Bible reference book, or 3) going to a legitimate Christian web site.

Originally posted by whodey
Never mind that, my question is what words did you put in your search engine to find such a thread and what you were originally looking for? No matter, what your into is your business. Please keep it that way.

Actually, I found this quiz through a link in another thread. If I am to keep "what I am into my business" then you should obviously desist from speaking about religion.

Originally posted by masscat
I will only comment on this one as an example….

“And thou, take to thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and spelt, and thou hast put them in one vessel, and made them to thee for bread;”

He was told to prepare his food and cook it OVER dung…not eat it. Which was not unheard of. American pioneers used "buffalo chips" to cook, w ...[text shortened]... ble 2) consulting a good Bible reference book, or 3) going to a legitimate Christian web site.

Actually you should re-read it. The bible is wonderfully ambiguous on this one. It clearly specifies that you should use crap to make bread - the word "fire" is not mentioned, even once, in that chapter.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Actually you should re-read it. The bible is wonderfully ambiguous on this one. It clearly specifies that you should use crap to make bread - the word "fire" is not mentioned, even once, in that chapter.

9. Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.
10. And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it.
11. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.
12. And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

You are right! “Fire” is not mentioned in that verse. In verse 12 he was told to bake it (most likely he would have used fire). The way I read it, he was told in verse 9, to make bread out of different gains. Then, in verse 12 to eat the bread as barley cakes which he was to bake over human excrement. A couple of verses later, God relented after Ezekial’s protests, and let him use animal dung. It’s quite a stretch to read into it that he was to mix the bread with dung and eat it, don’t you think? Anyway, I’m not going to debate the issue further. I recognize you have the right to believe anything you want.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Actually you should re-read it. The bible is wonderfully ambiguous on this one. It clearly specifies that you should use crap to make bread - the word "fire" is not mentioned, even once, in that chapter.

The bible is wonderfully ambiguous on this one.
Actually, the Bible is not ambiguous at all. Ezekiel is being told to bake the bread with human dung, and then animal dung used as fuel.
Uogth, or, "and-ember-cake-of" and
thogne, or, "you-shall-bake-on-embers-her" both two of the actions performed on the bread/barley cakes, using the dung tzath, or, "to-come-forth-of" eadm "the human."

Nothing ambiguous here.

Originally posted by drjegc
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
Isaac Asimov

That's rich coming from the author of "Contact."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The bible is wonderfully ambiguous on this one.
Actually, the Bible is not ambiguous at all. Ezekiel is being told to bake the bread with human dung, and then animal dung used as fuel.
Uogth, or, "and-ember-cake-of" and
thogne, or, "you-shall-bake-on-embers-her" both two of the actions performed on the bread/barley cakes, using th ...[text shortened]... tzath, or, "to-come-forth-of" eadm "the human."

Nothing ambiguous here.[/b]

Strangely, that's not what the King James Version translates it as. Perhaps you see yourself as a greater biblical authority that the KJV bible authors?

Or perhaps it's you defining (or in this case translating) something the way it suits you, and not the way it is.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Strangely, that's not what the King James Version translates it as. Perhaps you see yourself as a greater biblical authority that the KJV bible authors?

Or perhaps it's you defining (or in this case translating) something the way it suits you, and not the way it is.

Although the KJV served its limited purpose, the scholars involved had limited proficiency in the ancient languages (as seen in more than a few deplorable examples).

What I supplied is an interlinear analysis, which is much more precise. But that really is far from the point. The wiseasses at the site you provided are perfectly content in their disingenuosity, spreading their disinformation in hopes of landing a few jabs. To the woefully uninformed, they score points. Their efforts are lost, however, on the thoughtful.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The wiseasses at the site you provided are perfectly content in their disingenuosity, spreading their disinformation in hopes of landing a few jabs. To the woefully uninformed, they score points. Their efforts are lost, however, on the thoughtful.

Oh, I see, so it is like what Christians tend to do with Evolution. Tit for tat I suppose.

TheSkipper