Atheists: let's clear a few things up about the Bible.

[Monarchist]

Atheists & agnostics,

You've caught the Christian Church with our pants down. You've found the fundamentalists and literalists. You've found a time of faithlessness calling itself faith, and murder calling itself martyrdom. Worst of all, the shameful debauchery of most "Christians" has made you laugh at our holy religion.

You have a right to question us... but in the arena where you hold us most contemptible - the Bible - the fault is on your side. Let's clear up a few things that have become the butt of your jokes.

Crops. In Leviticus 19:19, the LORD says "thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed", the famous so-called law which makes Christian farmers hypocrites.

Clothes. "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and wool come upon thee", the so-called law which makes Christian retailers hypocrites (not to mention anyone who isn't a nudist).

Cattle. "Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind", the so-called law which makes Christian pastoral and grazing producers hypocrites.

Note well that no punishments are prescribed for mixing these things together. Did you never ask why these were not different into separated thoughts, but are one sentence? It is because they are not laws; they are metaphorical injunctions against worshiping other gods in addition to YHWH.

Jesus of Nazareth used the same metaphor as Lev. 19: don't put old wine in new wineskines; don't patch old clothing with new material. Mixing two unlike things causes both to break or rip. The same is mixing YHWH and Zeus, or YHWH and Ahasueras, or YHWH and Satan. All such double-mixing injunctions in the Old Testament are teachings about Faith, and are not literal criminal law.

Now I have no answer for the injunctions about stoning, etc., but that's for another time. These are just a few clear-ups. Next time you attack a Christian for calling Homosexuality an abomination (which it is, along with heresy, faithlessness, murder, adultery, and all other sins), don't bring these things up to show how foolish he is. Honesty is a virtue.

Also, so as not to crowd the O.P. :

Slavery of a daughter. "If a man sell his daughter as a maidservant...", the so-called law which makes any and all selling of slaves O.K. ! The fact is that Context is King:

7 if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

1. IF a man sell his daughter. This is no command or law, but a reluctant allowance for sinful acts.
2. IF the girl does not please her master, she is set free. She cannot be freed into a nation outside Israel; she must be sent home.
3. IF the girl is approved and is wedded to the master's son, she shall be a Free Woman, not a slave.
4. IF the master commits bigamy, he cannot ignore and neglect the girl.

This law exists to protect girls and daughters against the already-rampant pagan and secular, sinful practice of selling daughters into slavery under immoral conditions. They are protections. Feminists should rejoice.

[Larkin]

Next time you attack a Christian for calling Homosexuality an abomination (which it is

Yeah, you instantly lost all credibility. I can't believe people like you still exist in 2012.

[Sir Adrian]

Yeah, you instantly lost all credibility. I can't believe people like you still exist in 2012.

I can't believe people like you exist either.

[Enzo]

The homosexual thing was in there because it was common practice for pagans in that part of the world and Jews went to great lengths to ensure they kept themselves distinct from pagan cultures. It's not something that applies today it's just of historical interest. Most of other OT the sexual prohibitions are still valid though, sex with animals and close relatives we still think ought to be avoided, rape and adultery laws are slightly iffy but I see the world as a work of moral progress towards an ideal. You can see such progress in the Bible itself and in the progress of the Western world built on Christian principals. Atheists would agree about there being some kind of progress but then they don't believe morality really exists anyway because there would be no ultimate basis for it.

[Larkin]

The homosexual thing was in there because it was common practice for pagans in that part of the world and Jews went to great lengths to ensure they kept themselves distinct from pagan cultures. It's not something that applies today it's just of historical interest. Most of other OT the sexual prohibitions are still valid though, sex with animals and close relatives we still think ought to be avoided, rape and adultery laws are slightly iffy but I see the world as a work of moral progress towards an ideal. You can see such progress in the Bible itself and in the progress of the Western world built on Christian principals.

Yeah, the Westboro Baptist Church has a few things to say about that.

[Enzo]

Yeah, the Westboro Baptist Church has a few things to say about that.

A crazy fringe cult of about 30 people isn't really representative of the faith. Take the Anglican church that now ordains gay clergy for instance.

[Larkin]

A crazy fringe cult of about 30 people isn't really representative of the faith. Take the Anglican church that now ordains gay clergy for instance.

And you are just one person, your beliefs are not representative of the faith either.

Why is it not an abomination? It gives humanity no advantage that i can think of?

An abomination is something that creates feelings of disgust or hatred. "Advantages" to humanity are irrelevant to determining whether it is an abomination or not. Besides, the advantage is the basic things like "pleasure" and "happiness", which should be a core aspect to any human's life.

[Monarchist]

Yeah, you instantly lost all credibility. I can't believe people like you still exist in 2012.

Uncanny, isn't it? Unfortunately for you, attacks against the credibility of the man are not refutations of his argument.

An abomination is something that creates feelings of disgust or hatred. "Advantages" to humanity are irrelevant to determining whether it is an abomination or not. Besides, the advantage is the basic things like "pleasure" and "happiness", which should be a core aspect to any human's life.

Here is where we can see the gigantic mental gap which exists between the two of us, and between our philosophical traditions. An abomination is not a subjective feeling, but an objective corruption, or evil. That's the biblical definition, anyway, and if you're going to discuss the Bible you'd best know what its terms mean.

Pleasure and happiness are not the goals of this world. Please make at least a little effort to understand moral monotheism before making so many assumptions. If I look ridiculous for denying my own homosexual inclinations, you look ridiculous for defining things wrongly.

[Enzo]

And you are just one person, your beliefs are not representative of the faith either.

I would say Jesus is representative of the faith if you want a gauge. I think I'm closer to being like Christ than Westboro Baptists and you will be as well along with most other people in the world who are sane.

An abomination is something that creates feelings of disgust or hatred.
"Advantages" to humanity are irrelevant to determining whether it is an abomination or not.

Jesus had a message of compassion and tolerance for others even if they're people who are different to you or even people who are your enemies.

Besides, the advantage is the basic things like "pleasure" and "happiness", which should be a core aspect to any human's life.

The greatest pleasure and happiness that can ever be attained will be found in God.

[Vizsla]

Atheists would agree about there being some kind of progress but then they don't believe morality really exists anyway because there would be no ultimate basis for it.

I find this statement troubling.

I am an atheist. I believe morality exists. I believe in an objective definition of right and wrong.
What I don’t believe is that an imaginary supreme being is the sole arbiter of morality and that the only way we can know what morality is is through texts written by Jewish people in the desert 2,500 to 3000 years ago.
That’s where we differ.
Why does anyone have trouble understanding this position?
An inherent system of morality is consistent with evolution combined with the modification of behaviour by a developing society.

[Larkin]

I find this statement troubling.

I am an atheist. I believe morality exists. I believe in an objective definition of right and wrong.
What I don’t believe is that an imaginary supreme being is the sole arbiter of morality and that the only way we can know what morality is is through texts written by Jewish people in the desert 2,500 to 3000 years ago.
That’s where we differ.
Why does anyone have trouble understanding this position?
An inherent system of morality is consistent with evolution combined with the modification of behaviour by a developing society.

You're not really supposed to say "I am an atheist." You're just supposed to say "I am atheist". That doesn't put atheism into a similar category as religions, and allows for your own subjectivity about it in regards to things like morality, as I am also atheist but do not subscribe to ideas of objective morality.

Essentially, it allows us both to be atheist but both to have different opinions, when the theist tries to group us together. That's all.

[Gatsby]

I don't know why Christians assume anybody else cares about their Iron Age book.

Rather than waste time reading a single word of that garbage - I can go read some good fiction, I can talk to a another human being, I can practice piano, I can go on Wikipedia; hell I can go read another article on TWC.

I can do just about anything instead, and make my life better than if I had picked up a Bible.

[fkizz]

It's true that Church takes a more ideological anti-gay position, but the people I've seen discriminating gays were both atheist and religious alike.

In paper and theory we are all politically correct, but in practice, heterossexual atheists end up finding themselves repulsed by the thought that their best friend wants to suck them off as much as the heterosexual theist.

I've seen at school some mates (all atheist) gathering up in a group to beat up a gay. Don't be fooled, gay people, atheists are also very likely to discriminate you.

[Sogdog]

"Now I have no answer for the injunctions about stoning, etc., but that's for another time. These are just a few clear-ups. Next time you attack a Christian for calling Homosexuality an abomination (which it is, along with heresy, faithlessness, murder, adultery, and all other sins), don't bring these things up to show how foolish he is. Honesty is a virtue. "

And this is where you lost any credibility whatsoever. SO much for your argument. You are a hypocrit and so is your religion. Honesty is a virtue, which is why religion is not virtuous!

This law exists to protect girls and daughters against the already-rampant pagan and secular, sinful practice of selling daughters into slavery under immoral conditions. They are protections. Feminists should rejoice.

hahahahahahahaah. If you believe what you have written then you are too far gone to reason with. Monotheistic religion has refined the art of women abuse and tried to rationalise it exactly the same way you have. Pathetic. Monotheistic religions are paratsites in the religious world. They took from the pagan religions and adopted those practices to bring the people around in believing the story of one god. Those that didn't toe the line were killed. Simple. Monotheistic religions used bullying tactics and the doctrine of fear to convert. YOur religion is young, a copy-cat version of others before. You take yourselves too seriously and demand more rights than the average non-believer. You demand your faith be the only one allowed. You demand your archaic ways to be the only ways. Gays, heretics, pagans, witches and non-believers are equal too you. No one is more equal. I wish the monotheistic religions would get that through their heads!

I have had to repin this as it points to how bigoted and laughable religion is:


On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Th...
ank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

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

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. 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? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

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

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

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

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made 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 them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman,

Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)

[fkizz]

I guess atheism only privilege is to complain on the internet how much religion sucks.

[Manco]

I don't believe in all this "read it in context" nonsense.

Christianity is supposedly a universal religion, both in ethnicity/geography as in time. Yet its holy book does not contain simple universal truths, worded in a clear and concise manner; but a bunch of allegories and vaguaries, riddled with terms and sentences that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways and even what's fairly clearly written is apparently subject to contemporary customs and mores.
You can try and explain it away, hell, bible study has become an actual academic profession. But ultimately it all supports the viewpoint that Christianity was not intended to be universal, it was a Jewish doomsday cult that capitalized on the Roman Empire's disenfranchised that ultimately got picked up due to its rising popularity among the masses and its uses as a political tool.

If it actually had been universal from the get-go, we wouldn't have to interpret anything, it'd be written clear as day. We would have 10 commandments that made sense, that included things like "you shall not enslave" and "you shall support the weak and destitute to your own ability". And you know, we wouldn't have had to wait aeons to get that message and everyone would have had equal opportunity to receive the message. AFter all, this deals with things like eternal punishment and an omnipotent god, it's too damn important to leave it to a single carpenter's pupils to spread around during an age when travel was incredibly dangerous.

[Irishman]

Wait, so the bible is being metaphorical when you see fit? Leviticus is a listing of separate rules for the christian people. Your metaphor analysis really doesn't hold water when you try to apply it to the crops/clothes/cattle example.

[Enzo]

Wait, so the bible is being metaphorical when you see fit?

I don't think you have to literally believe that Jonah spent three days inside a whale, that story will be a parable or something. The resurrection of Christ may need to be taken literally ideally, I don't think Jesus returning from the dead as a metaphorical symbol would be the Good News. It's possible in theory that someone "just made it up" but it would be interesting to know who did that and why if they did. What happened to His body why were there people within 20 years of his death prepared to die for the belief that this happened if it didn't and so on. Plenty of questions needing to be answered there.

[Irishman]

I don't think you have to literally believe that Jonah spent three days inside a whale, that story will be a parable or something. The resurrection of Christ may need to be taken literally ideally, I don't think Jesus returning from the dead as a metaphorical symbol would be the Good News. It's possible in theory that someone "just made it up" but it would be interesting to know who did that and why if they did. What happened to His body why were there people within 20 years of his death prepared to die for the belief that this happened if it didn't and so on. Plenty of questions needing to be answered there.

Parables are different. He is quoting Leviticus, which was literally a legal document for the Jews and claiming that several of the laws stated in it are metaphorical. Not very convincing.

I mean, the line before those laws are "YOU SHALL KEEP MY STATUTES":

You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

These are not metaphors. Also, the next line is the condemnation of homosexuality, which apparently the OP upholds. In fact idolatry does not exist anywhere directly before or after these supposed metaphors in order to ground that context.

[Enzo]

Parables are different. He is quoting Leviticus, which was literally a legal document for the Jews and claiming that several of the laws stated in it are metaphorical. Not very convincing.

We're not Jews are we? Mind you Jews don't take any notice of Leviticus either so it's all a bit moot. What matters is that there is one God and this God has a Moral Law. Not the human opinion based moral relativism of atheism, you know what you can do with that.

I mean, the line before those laws are "YOU SHALL KEEP MY STATUTES":

You shall if you know whats good for you, it's the Moral Law and to turn from that is to sin.

These are not metaphors.

Indeed they're not, the Moral Law is real even if isn't fully represented in any human book. Jesus tells you where to look for it.

Also, the next line is the condemnation of homosexuality, which apparently the OP upholds.

It also says those who work on the Sabbath day should be stoned to death (with stones) but don't worry about that.

So everything in the Old Testament, which is what is being assessed here, is therefore irrelevant?

Absolutely not but it does have some flaws in it which Christ/God helped to rectify. We're no longer bound by Mosaic Law though not being Jews we never really were. Islam brought a few of those back but I think that was a mistake.

Or so you believe. But why is that any reason to restrict other people who have not found God?

You're restricting yourself by denying the very existence of the Living God. A bit of worship like thisthat gets you in touch.

God has never offered me any pleasure or happiness, and his disciples have only ever served to aggrieve me.

It's because you have forsaken your Lord in return for mere fleeting Earthly pleasure.

Yet I have found plenty of pleasure and happiness in atheistic endeavours.

WTF is an atheistic endeavour? Anyway have a read of the Wisdom of Solomon he can put this across better than me.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3905445