Wednesday, February 10, 2010

It's in The Bible: Jesus will give you Hemorrhoids!

It's back to Old Testament law this week. It seems that you have to threaten people with horrible things to keep them on the straight and narrow and God is no exception. He speaks to us through his prophet Moses, warning us what will happen if we don't keep his legalistic, nit-picky rules.

The list of God-caused misfortunes is lengthy and found at Deuteronomy 28:15-68. Punishments include your wife being raped before you can consummate, eating your children, and being sold into slavery. I don't think any of that is very funny, except this one.
The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. Deuteronomy 28:27
I don't know what the botch is, but emerods are hemorrhoids! So, we better do what they say! Or, Jesus is going to infect us with itchy, scabby hemorrhoids that won't heal.

I find it interesting, though, that in the OT, we are threatened with real life, "on this earth" punishment. God wasn't threatening them with eternal torture after death. Also, the sins weren't "thought crimes". They were the breaking of taboos, like having sex with a woman on her period, or not burying your poo, or eating the wrong thing, or picking up sticks on the wrong day.

You know, if there really is a God and he is omnibenevolent, I don't think he'd have to resort to threats to get people to love him. Love doesn't work that way, anyhow!

33 comments:

The Rambling Taoist said...

Your post has me wondering now: Is Preparation H a tool of Satan? :D

GCT said...

"You know, if there really is a God and he is omnibenevolent, I don't think he'd have to resort to threats to get people to love him. Love doesn't work that way, anyhow!"

That's a very good point and similar to something that I've brought up in the past. god seems to demand love and obedience, but you don't get it by doing what he does. You'd think an omniscient deity would know that.

a said...

You do realize that you don't have to love God to be Saved. I doubt you'd be saved for long without growing to love Him, but it's not a requirement.

Robert Madewell said...

"You do realize that you don't have to love God to be Saved. I doubt you'd be saved for long without growing to love Him, but it's not a requirement."

I really don't care anymore. Besides, that has little to do with my point. The OT still threatens people with bad stuff if God is not worshipped properly. That is not compatible with a God of mercy and love.

BTW, I don't think we need a God to be "saved." I also think that if we even need saving, it's going to be up to us to save ourselves. Also, if we need "saving" of any sort, it not going to be for looking at a hot chick and thinking that I'd like to **** her (Matthew 5:28).

Robert Madewell said...

Hey A,

Would you mind telling me in your own words what the requirements are? You can do it in comment thread or you can email me at superstitionfreeblog@gmail.com. Please tell me in your own words. I probably already know what your pastor would say and I already know what Jack Chick says. I want to know what you think.

a said...

1. Acknowledge that you know Jesus is the Son of God (God made flesh)
2. Admit that you are a sinner and by God's standards are ineligible for Heaven as it stands.
3. Ask God to accept Jesus death on the cross as full payment of your sin debt.

In response to your previous post, God is merciful and loving to those who worship him correctly. Truly he even shows mercy sometimes to those who haven't done so. Consider the fact that he has let you live this long. Don't mistake the promises of God to those who love Him with his promises to all. You should also realize that your post about "markings" as Tim Tebow did references a Levitical law which no longer is in effect to anyone.

Robert Madewell said...

1. Acknowledge that you know Jesus is the Son of God (God made flesh)
There's no credible evidence that Jesus was the son of God. You'd also have to demonstrate that God exists in order to be Jesus' father. I don't accept the bible as authorative, there's too many goof ups in it.

2. Admit that you are a sinner and by God's standards are ineligible for Heaven as it stands.
You'd have to define sin first. I've heard so many definitions that I really don't know how to answer that for you, because I don't know what you consider to be sin. Also, you'd have to prove that God and Heaven exist before this could have any actual meaning.

3. Ask God to accept Jesus death on the cross as full payment of your sin debt.
See numbers 1 and 2

In response to your previous post, God is merciful and loving to those who worship him correctly.
It's a conditional love, isn't it. I would argue that being conditionally loving and merciful is not omnibenevolence. Of course, if you believe that God picks and chooses who to love, then I can't argue against that.

Truly he even shows mercy sometimes to those who haven't done so.
If he's feeling nice that day.

Consider the fact that he has let you live this long.
Again, you are assuming that God exists. I don't. Me living to be 41 years old is consistant with a universe where God does not exist. It'd also be consistant with a universe where God exists, but decided to give me a chance. Considering that, your fact is meaningless and proves nothing except that I am still alive.

You should also realize that your post about "markings" as Tim Tebow did references a Levitical law which no longer is in effect to anyone.
You know, I asked a local Jehovah's Witness if that verse still applied and he said yes. Just because you say one thing doesn't mean that someone else, who also claims to be authorative, won't say the exact opposite. My question is, Who do I believe?

GCT said...

Yay, another Xian that admits that Xianity has nothing to do with morality. god seems to only care whether you believe the right thing or not. He's big brother.

ethinethin said...

You should also realize that your post about "markings" as Tim Tebow did references a Levitical law which no longer is in effect to anyone.

That's the thing about "Levitical law". Christians seem to pick the ones they like and toss out the ones they don't. How do you decide which ones to follow and which ones to toss out?

a said...

You can toss them all out. Unless you find it in the New Testament, you don't have to live by it anymore. That's why it is the NEW Testament.

GCT, God does expect us to act morally, considering that He invented morals. However, that is not what guages our eternal destination. Considering that only God is immutable, he is the only thing we can know as a true guidepost of morals.

I would also argue Robert that a Jehovah's Witness is not a Christian, considering they don't even believe in eternal Heaven OR Hell. Of course, you'll brush that off as the "not a true Christian" argument, nevermind the fact that it is a valid argument as long as being a Christian hinges on believing the entire Bible or not.

Robert Madewell said...

A said, "I would also argue Robert that a Jehovah's Witness is not a Christian, considering they don't even believe in eternal Heaven OR Hell. Of course, you'll brush that off as the "not a true Christian" argument, nevermind the fact that it is a valid argument as long as being a Christian hinges on believing the entire Bible or not."

I would argue that you don't believe the entire bible, either. As a matter of fact you admitted it in the same post that you criticized JWs for not believing the entire bible.

A said, "You can toss them all out. Unless you find it in the New Testament, you don't have to live by it anymore. That's why it is the NEW Testament."

Last I checked, the old testament is included in the entire bible.

Don't worry, though. I have no problem, if you don't believe the entire bible. I just don't think it's fair to criticize Jehovah's Witnesses for not following the entire bible, when you don't follow the entire bible, either.

Besides, you missed my point. Maybe, I didn't make it very clear.

Why should I believe what you say as opposed to what someone else says? What make your beliefs more believable to me than the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Community of Christ, Christian Science, etc.?

Why should I listen to you? What makes an anonymous commentor special? I'm not intending to be condescending. I really want to know. This is your chance to prosyletize.

Robert Madewell said...

A also said, "GCT, God does expect us to act morally, considering that He invented morals. However, that is not what guages our eternal destination. Considering that only God is immutable, he is the only thing we can know as a true guidepost of morals."

If morals is not what God guages our eternal destination by, that means that Jeffrey Dahmer is in heaven. You'll be surpised how many chritians argue that he is not in heaven.

a said...

Jeffrey Dahmer could certainly go to Heaven. And I'm not saying that the Old Testament isn't scripture. I'm saying that God told us that the laws of it were no longer in action once Jesus came and died on the cross. There is a difference between that and just throwing away something God didn't tell you was ok to throw away.

Robert Madewell said...

I really don't care how you justify it, A. I'm sure the Jehovah's Witness has an explaination to justify his disbelief in an eternal hell.

I really see little difference between the different sects of fundamentalism other than subtly different interpretations of the bible. I am just not impressed at all with christianity's silly little in-fighting. It's one of the many things that lead me from christianity. So, your running down the wrong path if you wish to convert me by arguing who's a True Christian™ or not.

Again, why should I believe you and not him? Why should I believe him and not you? Do you think these are unreasonable questions?

Robert Madewell said...

Kudos, A.

At least you are sticking to your guns with respect to Dahmer. I've had many "saved by grace" christians argue with me that there's a possibilty that Dahmer is in heaven. They say "saved by grace", but they don't really believe it.

You know, I don't care what someone believes. If a christian does not believe in "saved by grace", I could care less. However, I'm not impressed if they say they do but don't act like it. I just think that what they say should mirror what they act like.

That's why I'm giving you a hard time about saying that you believe the entire bible. See, just because you have apollogetics that explain why the OT is obsolete, doesn't negate the fact that you don't believe the entire bible. All you have proven is that you can explain why you don't believe the entire bible. I don't care if you do or don't. I'm just put off by your claiming you do, while you really don't. Again, this is the wrong path to go down, if you wish for me to convert.

Here's an old money quote.

All Christians are Cafeteria Christians. Even, the fundamentalists. They just don't admit it. -- Me

"I'm not saying that the Old Testament isn't scripture."

Neither am I. Scripture just means writtings. That's all. I would apply the term mainly to ancient religious texts. The term does not mean it's inspired.

ethinethin said...

You can toss them all out.

Oh, can we? Every jot and tittle?

Robert Madewell said...

Here's the bible reference, Ethinethin.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:18-19

My old KJV has all this in red. I wonder why. Oh yeah! Because Jesus said that!

ethinethin said...

What am I missing? That looks like Jesus is saying the old laws still apply, which is not what "a" said. Who is right on this, Jesus (God) or "a" (anonymous)?

ethinethin said...

(or should I say "Who is right on this, Jesus or Paul?", since Paul had no problem directly contradicting the words of Jesus on a regular basis)

Mark Morrison said...

ethinethin said...
(or should I say "Who is right on this, Jesus or Paul?", since Paul had no problem directly contradicting the words of Jesus on a regular basis

Please show me where he has done this.

ethinethin said...

Well in this particular example, the "Matthew" Robert threw down a few posts ago seems to be directly contradicted by Paul in Romans.

Jesus: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

Paul: Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Romans 10:4)

It seems to me that Jesus was saying "how you act is important, follow the law, it still applies". Paul disagreed and said "act however you want, as long as you believe in christ, don't worry about the law".

I'm sure it's a little more nuanced than that, if you slather it with apologetic butter, but but this certainly seems like a direct contradiction to me.

Paul of Tarsus was the Joseph Smith / L. Ron Hubbard / Jim Jones of his era.

ethinethin said...

Regardless of what Paul teaches, though, why is it okay to "throw away Levitical Law" if Jesus said it still applies?

I don't understand "We can act how we want because we're saved by grace". I do understand "these archaic laws were written by ancient pastoralists and don't apply to modern man", though.

You're free to think eating pork or shellfish is an unrighteous act if you want. Doesn't stop you from doing it, so who cares?

a said...

No, Robert, you still misunderstand. You say, "Scripture just means writtings" which is not true. See 2 Timothy 3:16.

Also, I now understand your confusion about what Jesus said and what Paul said, and really all quotes about the law. There is Levitical Law and there is "deca-law" which would be the ten commandments given by God. If you interuse these things, you would be very confused about what is being said. You have to judge by the context to understand what is meant.

I'm sorry you feel I'm trying to convert you here, because honestly, I just had the time and wanted to stand up for the gospel. Usually I won't even begin speaking about any apologetics and such, until I ask the question, "If I can provide a reasonable answer to your question, would you really be converted? Or would you just dig for another question?" I could provide the most logical answers in the world Robert, and you would not believe. I think you have so dismissed God that more than likely he has hardened your heart as fulfillment of your own desire. That's what the Bible speaks of as a "reprobate mind." You want to disbelieve beyond all reason? God'll let you do that.

a said...

Oh, and ethinethin said, "I don't understand "We can act how we want because we're saved by grace."

That's not true either. And that is not why the Levitical law doesn't count. The Levitical law doesn't count because God said we had a new covenant with Him once Jesus atoned for our sins. Being saved by grace is never an excuse to sin. Ephesians 2:10 says we are "created in Christ Jesus unto good works." While our good works are not what save us, we are still created for the soul purpose of doing them. I hope this clarifies it a bit.

Mark Morrison said...

ethinethin that wasn't a contridiction. Jesus did fulfil the law. In doing so He released us from the curse of the law.

Paul tells you in Galations Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

So then what is the law for ? Look at this 1 Timothy,8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Now this verse makes since.
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. You have to believe in Jesus to be free from the law.

No contridictions here.

ethinethin said...

Yes, smooth as butter apologetics.

Paul tells you in Galations Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;


Alright.

There is Levitical Law and there is "deca-law" which would be the ten commandments given by God.

And the same terms are used for both, so how do you know when to use one and when to use the other? Why did they not explicitly say which one they were referring to?

If you interuse these things, you would be very confused about what is being said. You have to judge by the context to understand what is meant.

Judging by context is not enough, because obviously there is some confusion there. I would think that if your holy book really was infallible, there wouldn't be these grey areas.

So how can you tell Jesus was talking about "deca law" and Paul was talking about "Levitical law"? What are the contextual clues you are using? Are you using contextual clues like you claim, or are you using your own presuppositions about what they meant?

ethinethin that wasn't a contridiction. Jesus did fulfil the law. In doing so He released us from the curse of the law.

Sorry Mark, I don't buy it. I know you believe it so it makes sense to you, but it just sounds like ridiculous nonsense to me. Did God say in Leviticus "these laws will stand until someone comes and fulfills them"? Or did he say

It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations (Leviticus 23:14,21,31)

Am I quoting out of context? Did he say immediately after that "Oh, except when I send someone to fulfill it."? Or is it some alternate definition of "for ever" that I am not aware of?

a said...

He was talking to the Jews ethinethin, and they DO still do those things.

Robert Madewell said...

"No, Robert, you still misunderstand. You say, "Scripture just means writtings" which is not true. See 2 Timothy 3:16."

Ok, you have a different definition. Good for you.

"I'm sorry you feel I'm trying to convert you here, because honestly, I just had the time and wanted to stand up for the gospel."

Actually, it's ok if you are trying to convert me. I expect it.

Yeah, I used to "stand up" for the gospel, too. It's hard to do when it doesn't stand on its own.

"You have to judge by the context to understand what is meant."

I have found long ago that context is one of those things that you don't have when you disagree with someone on interpretation. It seems to be very subjective.

"If I can provide a reasonable answer to your question, would you really be converted?"

I haven't heard a reasonable answer yet. It's just the same irrational, uncritical thinking that I have heard my entire life. I was forced to believe stuff that made no sense to me. If I was to express disagreement, I was shamed for not being doctrinally sound. That's why I looked into other faiths as a young adult. I found none of them to be true faiths.

"Or would you just dig for another question?"

Probably. Especially, if the answer wasn't reasonable.

"I could provide the most logical answers in the world Robert, and you would not believe."

OK, where's your logical answers?

Robert Madewell said...

"That's what the Bible speaks of as a 'reprobate mind.'"

I like that! Look at the header for my blog. I'm going to use it with pride!

Mark Morrison said...

a said...
Oh, and ethinethin said, "I don't understand "We can act how we want because we're saved by grace."

That's not true either. And that is not why the Levitical law doesn't count. The Levitical law doesn't count because God said we had a new covenant with Him once Jesus atoned for our sins.

ethinethin, A had already answered your question about Levitical law. I included the verse below.

Galatians 3:24 (King James Version)

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

GCT said...

So, one is saved by faith alone, meaning one only must believe the right thing. Yet, apparently, according to Mark and a, that is not true, since one must also do good works and be a good person. This, somehow does not contradict what they said earlier about faith along bringing salvation. Um...right...

a said...

GCT, I'm not sure where you get that anyone here said you had to do good works to be saved. You do good works simply because that is your purpose for being on earth. You could go to Heaven, even if you didn't do them, but someone who loves God wants to please Him, whether there is the threat of Hell behind it or not.

Robert Madewell said...

A said, "You do good works simply because that is your purpose for being on earth. You could go to Heaven, even if you didn't do them, but someone who loves God wants to please Him"

That's how I used to explain it, too. I think there was a saying, 'Justified by faith. Sanctified by works.'

Anymore, I just don't buy the 'God exists' thing. That makes such apollogetics pretty much meaningless, to me.