My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[vulcanlogician]

That wasn't how they were healed from their leprosy. 

It's still weird.

[Whateverist]

Weird because cleansing with blood makes about as much sense as cleansing with any other toxic material.

[Dan Brooks]

Why? Their own holy book describes the inhabitants of the original paradise as completely ignorant and forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge.

If they believe that buy-bull is the word of gawd, or at least gawd inspired, then it would follow they find ignorance to be a virtue.

If God is to be found only in the Bible, then God is a figment of the imaginations of ancient desert dwellers.  If God is a real presence in reality, then to study reality is to love God.  Christians who will favor the Bible over a study of the actual evidence that God must have left writ all over the cosmos are doing nothing but ancestor worship-- they have no interest in a living God.

Don't scientists read? Scientists don't just walk outside and look up in the sky and say, "Wow, look at that." and now they're a scientist. Sure they study things in labs, and in the earth itself, etc. But they also read their scientific books. They also have to learn complicated math in certain sciences. So of course if someone is going to delve into a certain discipline, or to learn about a certain thing, part of that learning is going to include reading. 
It wouldn't make sense for someone who wants to about God not to read the Bible, which tells us who He is and how He is. If you want to learn about God, and there's a book about God, it would make sense to read it. Not that's the information about God. Everything shows us something about God, but even with all the evidence in nature, it still wouldn't make sense not to read about Him in the Bible. 
So no, God is not only found in the Bible, but He certainly is found in it. 

And Adam and Eve were not completely ignorant of everything. Adam named all the animals. He had to have quite a vocabulary and a good deal of intelligence just to be able to do that. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they were forbidden to eat from, not just the tree of knowledge. That's a Luciferian teaching, that God didn't want Adam and Eve to gain knowledge and to remain in ignorance. And Lucifer in the form of the serpent freed them from their ignorance. But that's not how it was. Lucifer, who was Satan (being God's adversary, which is what "Satan" means) knew that they would die in the day they ate of it, because God said they would. He wasn't trying to free them from ignorance, he was trying to make sure they died. 
God doesn't want us to be ignorant. You can read plenty of verses in the Bible that tell us not to be ignorant. Like this one.
2 Corinthians 2:10-12

10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; 11 lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

And it also says that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom. There are many verses throughout the Old and New Testaments that tell us not to be ignorant, but to be wise, and to gain understanding, etc. But it does say not to be wise to do evil though.

1 Corinthians 14:20

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

It wouldn't have mattered really what the command was. The point was that if they obeyed they would live, and if they disobeyed they would die. That's why Satan deceived the woman because he wanted her and Adam to eat of it and disobey God so that they would die.

[possibletarian]

I'm still waiting for the....
Bet you never thought of that did you

[Whateverist]

If God is to be found only in the Bible, then God is a figment of the imaginations of ancient desert dwellers.  If God is a real presence in reality, then to study reality is to love God.  Christians who will favor the Bible over a study of the actual evidence that God must have left writ all over the cosmos are doing nothing but ancestor worship-- they have no interest in a living God.

Don't scientists read? Scientists don't just walk outside and look up in the sky and say, "Wow, look at that." and now they're a scientist. Sure they study things in labs, and in the earth itself, etc. But they also read their scientific books. They also have to learn complicated math in certain sciences. So of course if someone is going to delve into a certain discipline, or to learn about a certain thing, part of that learning is going to include reading. 
It wouldn't make sense for someone who wants to ['know"?]* about God not to read the Bible, which tells us who He is and how He is. If you want to learn about God, and there's a book about God, it would make sense to read it. Not that's the information about God. Everything shows us something about God, but even with all the evidence in nature, it still wouldn't make sense not to read about Him in the Bible.

Big difference between the place of literature in science and in theology.  Indeed scientists do get a running jump on progressing empirical understanding by reading about the work of prior investigators.  This is how they "stand on the shoulders of giants" to see even further, as the saying goes.  But the HUGE difference is that none of the books of any of those scientific giants is sacrosanct.   Everything any of them ever concluded is open to revision.  With Christianity, it all rests on the bible.  If you don't start out assuming it is the inspired word of God you are finished before you start.  For you the bible IS sacrosanct.  Anything any theologian in the Christian tradition may have to say about anything has to be squared with what the bible says.  You say there is a God who is responsible for the creation of everything, but the only evidence you will accept is this book you think is so special.  The question you need to answer is "how do you know the bible is indeed the revealed word of God?"  

If you can't and answer that question, then theology can never self correct.  You are stuck with bronze age mindset but you are convinced you are better off for it.  There is no parallel here between the place of the literature in the pursuit of science and its place in the Christian religion.

So no, God is not only found in the Bible, but He certainly is found in it.

This is precisely what you have not established and, no, you can't refer to the bible to show that the bible is the book in which to learn about God.

[brewer]

That wasn't how they were healed from their leprosy. That was done of the day of their cleansing. The sprinkling of blood was symbolic of cleansing, and not only in that instance, but in general, because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul, because the life is in the blood. This was all symbolic of what the Messiah would do later in history. The blood has to be sinless in order to cover for sins, which is why the Messiah had to shed His blood and die on the cross. 
That's what the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament were symbolizing. That's why they were instituted.  
Leviticus 13 talks about all the ways to determine if the leprosy was healed or not,and whether the person was clean or not. And 14 instituted the ceremony that was to be done on the day that he was pronounced clean. That's all it is. It wasn't some sort of witch's brew or something. Those kinds of things were done too, but God forbid them to be done.

Why isn't this treatment for leprosy still used today? 

If all were sinners, how do you have sinless blood?

[downbeatplumb]

Small point of order.
Atheism isn't a belief system in its own right.
It is merely not sharing yours.

[Pat Mustard]

What creator? The whole thing makes itself.

No it's not !
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Well done, you answer my rebuttal to your unevidenced assertion with a non-sequitur! And then you go on and post a link to a disproof of your original assertion.

Big dunce's cap just specially for you!

---

It is my own "nonsense." I copied from another thread I posted it in in a Christian forum in a theistic evolution thread. I left out the last couple paragraphs because they were irrelevant to this thread. https://www.christianforums.com/threads/...t-72102948 (In case you want proof).
(And I wouldn't bow down to you, Joods, even if you could prove that you were a god. There are many gods to whom there is no need to bow down, and all of them are inferior to the real God.)

Well my advice to you is to go back to christard forums (yes, I know what the site is. I've seen its workings and members well enough to know they deserve that appelation) and stop trying to bug us with your nonsense.

[bennyboy]

If God is to be found only in the Bible, then God is a figment of the imaginations of ancient desert dwellers.  If God is a real presence in reality, then to study reality is to love God.  Christians who will favor the Bible over a study of the actual evidence that God must have left writ all over the cosmos are doing nothing but ancestor worship-- they have no interest in a living God.

Don't scientists read? Scientists don't just walk outside and look up in the sky and say, "Wow, look at that." and now they're a scientist. Sure they study things in labs, and in the earth itself, etc. But they also read their scientific books. They also have to learn complicated math in certain sciences. So of course if someone is going to delve into a certain discipline, or to learn about a certain thing, part of that learning is going to include reading. 
It wouldn't make sense for someone who wants to about God not to read the Bible, which tells us who He is and how He is. If you want to learn about God, and there's a book about God, it would make sense to read it. Not that's the information about God. Everything shows us something about God, but even with all the evidence in nature, it still wouldn't make sense not to read about Him in the Bible. 
So no, God is not only found in the Bible, but He certainly is found in it. 

Scientists don't read books based on authority: they read about what observations have already been made, what experiments have already been done, and the conclusions that other scientists have arrived at.  They then decide whether their OWN observations confirm what those others have done, and if not, they will supplant old theories with new ones.

If God is alive, then you should have some experience of God.  If your only source of knowledge about God is the ancient writings of desert-dwelling Hebrews, then God whether He exists or not is of so little import in our lives that for all practical purposes, he cannot be said to exist.

In short-- if God is real, demonstrate that He matters except as a word to fight about or to pass the money tray about. Show me this generation's Moses or Abraham, or explain to me why God was so active 3000 years ago but seems so suspiciously like a fairy tale today.

[Astreja]

The blood has to be sinless in order to cover for sins, which is why the Messiah had to shed His blood and die on the cross.

Your alleged "Messiah" was far from sinless.  In the Gospels he does a great number of despicable things -- Verbally abused a foreign woman, talked back to his mother (clear violation of a commandment there), destroyed a farmer's herd of pigs, assassinated a fig tree, told his disciples to commit Grand Theft Ass and Colt so that he could ride into Jerusalem in style, and told an occasional lie (again, a commandment violation).

Just a narcissistic little brat whose ignominious death at the hands of the Romans was romanticized and mythologized by cultists.