• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

MUST I FOLLOW THE BIBLE TO THE LETTER

#1
Just found this in the nether regions of the Web:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour unto the Lord (Lev1.9). The problem is my neighbour. He claims the odour is not pleasing to him. Should I smite him??

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age what would you think is a fair price???

3. Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? And, for the benefit of our English friends, are Scottish, Welsh and Irish allowed or are they limited to continental Europeans?

4. I have a neighbour- JanL - who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 cleary states he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged to kill him myself?

5. 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???

6. 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 glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here.?

7. I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching a pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

8. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments 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 him?(Lev 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do it with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev20:14)?

By the way, the italics in Q3. are my own modification!

I feel sure that the collective wisdom of this community will be able to give some worthy advice to this poor unfortunate soul. In fact, I`m sure that some of our members may also be facing similar doubts and fears - if so, feel free to seek resolution - let`s hear your quezzie.
 
#2
ha ha where did ya find that
obviously a man who needs answers
 
#3
I like your style Brace,
But as the bible is a work of fiction whose contents were selected by the attitudes of the writers at that time,
You’d be better off following the teaching of the Beano or Dandy.
(For our American friends the Beano and Dandy are children’s comics)

It should come with a disclaimer on the first page:

“The following story is very loosely based upon a very few true events in history”.
 
#4
Can you offer any guidance regarding the killing of witches; particularly the burden of proof required to act?

Is the Northern European tradition of burning them biblically acceptable or do I have to use a biblically sanctioned method?

Is anybody planning on stoning to death an adultress in the near future?
It is something I have long wanted to watch as the grainy, distorted and poorly filmed offerings posted on the internet invariably disapoint rather than satisfy. I have long wanted to throw some stones myself.
 
#5
I thought that the burden of proof attached to accusations of being a witch, as perpetrated by Matthew Price and his fellow witch-finders was a damn fine bit of judicial tomfoolery and one that maybe we should attach to the identification and persecution of chavs today. It would provide endless hours of fun and mirth for the masses.

Test 1 - stab alleged chav in the chest with a chav pricker - if alleged chav bleeds to death he was not a chav - say sorry, give him a good Christian burial and go home for tea; if he does not bleed then he is a potential chav - now go to test 2.

Chav pricker = dagger with blade that retracts into handle when light presure is put against blade tip

Test 2 - strap alleged chav to ducking stool and immerse under surface of village pond for 10 minutes. If alleged chav drowns he was not a chav, say sorry, give him a good Christian burial and go home for tea; if chav survives go to test 3.

Test 3 - tie alleged chav to post, feet approx 6' above ground level, surround him with masses of combustible material, pour a few gallons of petrol over pile and set alight. Leave for 2 hours, adding more combustible material as required to keep pyre going. If alleged chav burns to a smelly, black crisp then he was not a chav, say sorry, give him a good Christian burial and go home for tea; if chav survives you are in a world of shite so cover yourself in garlic, stand on top of a crucifix in a fast flowing river and arm yourself with a minimi fed with sterling silver rounds and an UCL (underslung crucifix launcher).
 
B

Bottleosmoke

Guest
#6
SlimeyToad said:
I thought that the burden of proof attached to accusations of being a witch, as perpetrated by Matthew Price and his fellow witch-finders was a damn fine bit of judicial tomfoolery and one that maybe we should attach to the identification and persecution of chavs today. It would provide endless hours of fun and mirth for the masses.

Test 1 - stab alleged chav in the chest with a chav pricker - if alleged chav bleeds to death he was not a chav - say sorry, give him a good Christian burial and go home for tea; if he does not bleed then he is a potential chav - now go to test 2.

Chav pricker = dagger with blade that retracts into handle when light presure is put against blade tip

Test 2 - strap alleged chav to ducking stool and immerse under surface of village pond for 10 minutes. If alleged chav drowns he was not a chav, say sorry, give him a good Christian burial and go home for tea; if chav survives go to test 3.

Test 3 - tie alleged chav to post, feet approx 6' above ground level, surround him with masses of combustible material, pour a few gallons of petrol over pile and set alight. Leave for 2 hours, adding more combustible material as required to keep pyre going. If alleged chav burns to a smelly, black crisp then he was not a chav, say sorry, give him a good Christian burial and go home for tea; if chav survives you are in a world of shite so cover yourself in garlic, stand on top of a crucifix in a fast flowing river and arm yourself with a minimi fed with sterling silver rounds and an UCL (underslung crucifix launcher).
Someones been watching too much Buffy...............................MMMMMmmmmmmm Buffy.
 
#7
Mmmmmmmmmm...............Buffy...............there goes another couple of million potential kids down my left leg.........

The recruiting sergeant told me I'd have a SMG to play with - how the feck was I supposed to know it didn't stand for Sarah Michelle Gellar? Bugger!!!
 
#8
SlimeyToad said:
If alleged chav burns to a smelly, black crisp then he was not a chav, say sorry, give him a good Christian burial and go home for tea;
Alternatively, market charred remnants as "chav scratchings".
 
#9
"the following book is entierly fictional. any resemblance to persons living or dead, is purely coincidental."
 
#10
*Sigh*

1) None of those laws were binding on non-Jews in Biblical times - only the seven Noahide laws applied to gentiles.
2) Since the vision of Simon Peter (see Acts 10:10-16) and the development of various Pauline doctrines, none of the laws in question have applied to Christians, whether Jewish by ethnicity or not.
3) Some of the laws were applicable only when the Temple in Jerusalem still existed.
4) Judaism is, and always has been, a religion of debate and dialogue - as evidenced primarily by the Talmud. The vast bulk of Rabbinical opinion would say that the non-Temple laws in that list need some interpretation (and, not incidentally, the original writers of Leviticus would almost certainly agree).

In short, a primary school attempt to ridicule the Bible. Whether ridicule is deserved or not is open to debate, but the person doing the ridiculing needs to be a bit more theologically sophisticated than this gimp.
 

old_fat_and_hairy

LE
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#11
I always thought it was a real waste. You never know when you are going to need one, and if one has been identified, it saves a lot of time.
 
#12
old_fat_and_hairy said:
I always thought it was a real waste. You never know when you are going to need one, and if one has been identified, it saves a lot of time.
Mom! Grandad's been drinking again!
 
#13
You don't have to follow the bible to the letter, but if you don't you are going to hell.

Hope that clears it up.

In reality, let's face it most wars have been fought over the difference of opinion of what the bible (or parts there of) actually mean.

Catholicism got rid of most of the differing Christian faiths (protistant and others coming later). Then you have the Shi'ites and Sunnis, etc.

Differing views have caused much suffering.
 
#14
fellow named Jacobs.. in the US has written a book about this .. A Year Of Living Bibilicly or something like that.. saw an excerpt in some critic mag..
funny a heck.. wouldn't touch his wife for seven days when she was' unclean ' , couldn't shake hands with women, etc. wouldn't work on Sundays.. etc.. etc..

Rules were so damn restrictive and uncompromising that it was ridiculous...
what makes things so damn funny about all this is that there is a whole Talmudic school that spends its time trying to find loopholes in the laws..

remember a story about scholars debating whether a devout Jew working on his roof in the nude [stick with me on this ] could be charged with rape if he fell off the roof onto a passing nude female and 'accidentally ' stuck it in her...[ hey! this is serious stuff ]...
 
#15
Judaism has a long tradition of trying to fool God. Witness Jews writing G_d in reference to God, to avoid the Levitican prohibition on pronouncing His name. FV to jew; you're not fooling God, Over. Kinda blows the All-Knowing rule out of the water, eh?

Also, Catholics had declared at one point some land-going mammal or other a "fish" so that it could be eaten during Lent and Fridays.
 
#16
chocolate_frog said:
You don't have to follow the bible to the letter, but if you don't you are going to hell

Hope that clears it up...
Balls. No competent authority actually says this. In fact, it is impossible to follow the Bible to the letter and widely accepted as such.

chocolate_frog said:
In reality, let's face it most wars have been fought over the difference of opinion of what the bible (or parts there of) actually mean....
Again - balls. For a start, wars could only have been fought over interpretations of the Bible within the period of time that it has actually existed in it's current form. That means that even if we take an extremely Euro-centric view of the world, and then only include the conflicts that have taken place over the last 1,500 years or so, only a small proportion of historical wars have been fought over interpretations of the Bible. When we grow up just a little bit beyond that, and realise that religion did not play the major part in a great many conflicts (England and France were both resolutely Catholic at the time of the 100 Years War, for example) and then take the final leap out of the playground and acknowledge that religion was often a convenient smoke-screen for worldly power-play, we start to see that you're talking out of your arrse.

chocolate_frog said:
Catholicism got rid of most of the differing Christian faiths (protistant and others coming later). Then you have the Shi'ites and Sunnis, etc.

Differing views have caused much suffering.
The first part (this'll suprise you) is balls as well. But suffice to say that the bloodiest and cruellist period in human history was the 20th Century, when avowedly, militantly atheistic political movements soaked the world in blood.
 
#17
Rocketeer said:
fellow named Jacobs.. in the US has written a book about this .. A Year Of Living Bibilicly or something like that.. saw an excerpt in some critic mag..
funny a heck.. wouldn't touch his wife for seven days when she was' unclean ' , couldn't shake hands with women, etc. wouldn't work on Sundays.. etc.. etc..

Rules were so damn restrictive and uncompromising that it was ridiculous...
what makes things so damn funny about all this is that there is a whole Talmudic school that spends its time trying to find loopholes in the laws..

remember a story about scholars debating whether a devout Jew working on his roof in the nude [stick with me on this ] could be charged with rape if he fell off the roof onto a passing nude female and 'accidentally ' stuck it in her...[ hey! this is serious stuff ]...
Bloody hell! LEVITICAN LAW WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY AND WAS DELIBERATELY LEFT OFTEN TO SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATION! You can't think of the Pentateuch like a modern book of law.

Hey - if i say it enough maybe I'll give myself a hernia :wink:
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
wedge35 said:
chocolate_frog said:
You don't have to follow the bible to the letter, but if you don't you are going to hell

Hope that clears it up...
Balls. No competent authority actually says this. In fact, it is impossible to follow the Bible to the letter and widely accepted as such.

chocolate_frog said:
In reality, let's face it most wars have been fought over the difference of opinion of what the bible (or parts there of) actually mean....
Again - balls. For a start, wars could only have been fought over interpretations of the Bible within the period of time that it has actually existed in it's current form. That means that even if we take an extremely Euro-centric view of the world, and then only include the conflicts that have taken place over the last 1,500 years or so, only a small proportion of historical wars have been fought over interpretations of the Bible. When we grow up just a little bit beyond that, and realise that religion did not play the major part in a great many conflicts (England and France were both resolutely Catholic at the time of the 100 Years War, for example) and then take the final leap out of the playground and acknowledge that religion was often a convenient smoke-screen for worldly power-play, we start to see that you're talking out of your arrse.

chocolate_frog said:
Catholicism got rid of most of the differing Christian faiths (protistant and others coming later). Then you have the Shi'ites and Sunnis, etc.

Differing views have caused much suffering.
The first part (this'll suprise you) is balls as well. But suffice to say that the bloodiest and cruellist period in human history was the 20th Century, when avowedly, militantly atheistic political movements soaked the world in blood.

You're a bastard Wedge. I settle down to a spot of God-Botherer bashing in the NAAFI and you come along with sensible answers and reasoned posts? Where's the fun in that?

Begone with you sir! :D
 
#19
chocolate_frog said:
You don't have to follow the bible to the letter, but if you don't you are going to hell.

Hope that clears it up.

In reality, let's face it most wars have been fought over the difference of opinion of what the bible (or parts there of) actually mean.

Catholicism got rid of most of the differing Christian faiths (protistant and others coming later). Then you have the Shi'ites and Sunnis, etc.

Differing views have caused much suffering.[/quote]

Yes, boil it down and it works out as "my imaginary friend is better than yours".....

Bugger. I'm going to Hell for that :(
 
#20
Flagrantviolator said:
Judaism has a long tradition of trying to fool God. Witness Jews writing G_d in reference to God, to avoid the Levitican prohibition on pronouncing His name. FV to jew; you're not fooling God, Over. Kinda blows the All-Knowing rule out of the water, eh?

Also, Catholics had declared at one point some land-going mammal or other a "fish" so that it could be eaten during Lent and Fridays.
First point: They're not trying to 'fool' God. As I said before, Judaism sustains itself as a religion through learned internal dialogue. Is that the time?

Second point: Haven't heard that one so can't comment. Seems likely that your looking at medieval religion through post-enlightenment eyes, however. My knowledge of Catholicism in the middle ages is not what it should be but I'm willing to bet, based on other such situations, that no one actually believed the vowl (or whatever) in question to be a fish but those who were required to understood the theoligical arguements behind it. Unlike us.
 

Similar threads

Top