Ask a Bible college Student

[Joods]

Mmm...I love jerky.

There's a newborn sacrificial lamb across the street. I'll have to finagle the parentals away so I can begin my ritual to the FSM.

[Doubting Thomas]

Well, except for our weekly baby barbecues, of course.

haha, and here you are all calling me the psychopath...... ;P

Yes but I'm just joking.  Many religious people have actually killed their own children because of religion.

[Primordial Bisque]

Mmm...I love jerky.

There's a newborn sacrificial lamb across the street. I'll have to finagle the parentals away so I can begin my ritual to the FSM.

May the FSM bless you with success; and tomato sauce. Personally, I'd go seasonal and grab some cranberry sauce and stuffing for the....*ahem*....meal.

[Minimalist]

Unlike that bible prick of a god the FSM does not demand blood.... just Mozzarella or Romano and a fine chianti.

[Whateverist]

All these criticisms plague fundamentalist Christians because they take the bible literally and the ideas of "God", "heaven" and "hell" as concrete things. It's a mistake. Criticizing this sort of Christianity is like shooting fish in a barrel. Too simple to justify the sport. Disappointingly it seems most Christians are of this sort. You guys had better evolve or you will perish.

[Whateverist]

Just an observation: the number of ape related avatars is threatening the ascendency of dog and cat ones.  Not sure how I feel about this, but I'd just like to put it out there.

I vote for more dog ones!
I absolutely love your dog one. Do you know what breed it is? It looks like an australian cattle dog- my favorite!

Both of mine are crosses. The pup, not in my avatar, is a heeler-X-aussie, the deliberate cross of an Australian Shepherd and an Australian Cattle dog. The one in the picture is probably a mix of at least heeler, aussie and German Shepherd.


I am encouraged by your new statement of your position. But really, is there any reason to consider that God might require that you set aside your will to do what strikes you as horrible? Why would anyone make that deal? Isn't grace the idea that God's favor is a gift? If the gift requires such a gruesome sacrifice perhaps it isn't worth it? Perhaps the sacrifice is a test which Abe failed? To be a moral person, shouldn't you act as seems best to you, not in a manner diametrically opposed to your values you imagine to be dictated by great power too fearsome to cross.

[Cato]

I do mean all of it. Yes, the Old Testament in particular is full, FULL of gruesome and brutal things. Human sin is a hideous thing. Please read the entire Bible in context with all of Scripture before judging the God who acted and continues to act out of justice and love then just as he does today.

I'm a little fuzzy on the whole 'in context' angle. Am I not to trust what the Bible says? Do I need to possess a secret decoder ring to read it 'in context'? Case in point...

From the start, Genesis severely fucks up and betrays a massive ignorance of creation, irrefutable. Earth before the Sun? Separated night and day? Divided the water above from the water below with a dome? Curious. All this light with plants growing and such and then God gets around to creating the Sun on the fourth day. It's also explicit that God (or the divinely inspired author of Genesis, Moses?) considers the moon a source of light. No misinterpretation or loss of context, that's what your book claims...and yet you accept it. This is just a summary of the first 19 verses of the first chapter of the first book.

You imploring others to read the Bible in context is a sad admission that you know the book is full of shit and no reasoning human can take it's proclamations at face value. Context then takes the meaning that it has to be interpreted in a special way to reconcile its teachings with modern understanding of our surroundings and history. This of course will be provided to the gullible for a donation in a local collection plate, the price of a special prayer cloth, overpriced armageddon food storage, or contribution to the prosperity gospel which only seems to serve the one preaching it.

If the word of God (directly written or divinely inspired) requires a secret decoder ring for proper context and interpretation, then I take serious issue with your god's ability to communicate. I then must wonder what special kind of gullibility is required to accept such blatant error as infallible. A person pushing this obvious claptrap as sincere is either a blithering idiot or intentionally malicious. Which are you? I of course ask this 'in context'.

[Emzap]

Both of mine are crosses.  The pup, not in my avatar, is a heeler-X-aussie, the deliberate cross of an Australian Shepherd and an Australian Cattle dog.  The one in the picture is probably a mix of at least heeler, aussie and German Shepherd.


I am encouraged by your new statement of your position.  But really, is there any reason to consider that God might require that you set aside your will to do what strikes you as horrible?  Why would anyone make that deal?  Isn't grace the idea that God's favor is a gift?  If the gift requires such a gruesome sacrifice perhaps it isn't worth it?  Perhaps the sacrifice is a test which Abe failed?  To be a moral person, shouldn't you act as seems best to you, not in a manner diametrically opposed to your values you imagine to be dictated by great power too fearsome to cross.

I have heard the heeler-X-aussie mix called a Texas heeler as well. Either way, great mix. That actually may be my favorite even more than just Australian cattle.

I really would hope that God would never require that. The problem with acting in a way that seems best to me personally, is that that standard is so subjective. One person may say that killing innocent people for the sake of bettering the human race is an honorable act. I don't think that that person should act according to what seems best to him. Yes, everyone has some sort of moral code, and its generally the same across the board for all people (one reason I believe in intelligent design rather than a big bang and evolution of everything by chance), but I think there is also an absolute right and wrong apart from our feelings. What I can say is this: the sufferings of this world are not worth comparing to the glory that is to be revealed. It is worth it to believe and obey because of the hope we have in eternal life in Christ after death. Without that hope, no, its not worth it. If this life is as good as it gets, by all means I'm gonna do what I want and nothing can stop me. But I believe in a life after death, and that makes all the difference.

---

I'm a little fuzzy on the whole 'in context' angle. Am I not to trust what the Bible says? Do I need to possess a secret decoder ring to read it 'in context'? Case in point...

From the start, Genesis severely fucks up and betrays a massive ignorance of creation, irrefutable. Earth before the Sun? Separated night and day? Divided the water above from the water below with a dome? Curious. All this light with plants growing and such and then God gets around to creating the Sun on the fourth day. It's also explicit that God (or the divinely inspired author of Genesis, Moses?) considers the moon a source of light. No misinterpretation or loss of context, that's what your book claims...and yet you accept it. This is just a summary of the first 19 verses of the first chapter of the first book.

You imploring others to read the Bible in context is a sad admission that you know the book is full of shit and no reasoning human can take it's proclamations at face value. Context then takes the meaning that it has to be interpreted in a special way to reconcile its teachings with modern understanding of our surroundings and history. This of course will be provided to the gullible for a donation in a local collection plate, the price of a special prayer cloth, overpriced armageddon food storage, or contribution to the prosperity gospel which only seems to serve the one preaching it.

If the word of God (directly written or divinely inspired) requires a secret decoder ring for proper context and interpretation, then I take serious issue with your god's ability to communicate. I then must wonder what special kind of gullibility is required to accept such blatant error as infallible. A person pushing this obvious claptrap as sincere is either a blithering idiot or intentionally malicious. Which are you? I of course ask this 'in context'.

When I refer to context, I mean don't read one verse and base your entire belief system on it. This is true no matter what you read. If you only hear half the thought, you will inevitably come to a wrong conclusion. Even in elementary school, when you don't know the meaning of a word, teachers tell you to look for "context clues." Scripture interprets scripture. Also, in history, if you only look at a small snapshot of an event, its really hard to understand the importance or overall impact. Its when you look at the big picture that things start to make sense. 

I think churches that teach the prosperity gospel and coax attendees into giving money to the church are corrupt. I'm not sure what a special prayer cloth is, or what you mean by overpriced armageddon food storage. There is corruption in the institution, no doubt. There are people who claim to be Christians who do not represent Christ well. The collection plate should be for believers who willingly want to support the church, just like some people donate to this website in order to keep it up and running.

[SteelCurtain]

When I refer to context, I mean don't read one verse and base your entire belief system on it. This is true no matter what you read. If you only hear half the thought, you will inevitably come to a wrong conclusion. Even in elementary school, when you don't know the meaning of a word, teachers tell you to look for "context clues." Scripture interprets scripture. Also, in history, if you only look at a small snapshot of an event, its really hard to understand the importance or overall impact. Its when you look at the big picture that things start to make sense. 

But you do realize that when you move on from the blatant impossibilities and objective falsehoods, as Cato noted, in the first half of the first book of the Bible, you are just hand waving, right?

I mean that is the boilerplate non-response. You have just shifted the onus away from those wrong or odious verses.

For example, please explain the context where this verse can be explained:

28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

I have read the surrounding text. (I have read the entire Bible.) This verse says that if a man rapes a woman, she must marry him. Her father should be paid (bride price). But loophole---only if someone catches him. Please give me an example where context makes this okay.

[Minimalist]

When I refer to context, I mean don't read one verse and base your entire belief system on it.

Wait a moment...you guys are famous for that.

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
    one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
    from ancient times.”


Micah 5; 2

And we all hear, "Yep..BETHLEHEM!  THERE's JESUS!!!

Except you don't have to read much farther to figure out that it's talking about the Assyrian invasion c 722 BC.

And he will be our peace
    when the Assyrians invade our land
    and march through our fortresses.
We will raise against them seven shepherds,
    even eight commanders,
6 who will rule[c] the land of Assyria with the sword,
    the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.[d]
He will deliver us from the Assyrians
    when they invade our land
    and march across our borders.

Micah 5;5-6

Cherry-picking xtians are the cause of some of my greatest amusement.  BTW, The Assyrians kicked the ever-loving shit out of Israel and consigned it to the dustbin of history.