reply to post by Hemlocks
Oh man, that was pretty amusing. Talk about putting not thought into the verses at all or looking at context!
Example 1: The Sabbath
The maker of the video's point with this point is that because American's work on the Sabbath we should all be killed because the Bible says. The
flaw in his argument is that this Law, even back in the Israelite times, only applied to those that followed Judaism. The Israelites weren't to
punish those in surrounding nations that didn't obey the Sabbath, only those in Israel. In other words, it was a faith specific thing. Putting
aside that Christians are freed from the Law, considering that many people in America are Christian in name only, why should they suffer the
consequences of something they don't adhere to? Know what I mean?
Exodus 31:15 is often translated as "should be put to death". From what I've read though, it can also be translated as "should be cut off".
This can be done in more ways than death. If also could mean a death other than physical, like was meant in the Garden of Eden. It could also mean
that the Lord himself would punish the people.
Example 2: No gods but God
This kinda ties into points made in example one. It is an Israel, and it's theocracy, centric thing. It didn't extend to other nations. Thus, the
video maker's argument falls apart when he tries to apply to America as a whole. God didn't demand that all that don't believe in him be killed.
Only those in Israel to reject him. This, too, could be viewed in another sense than physical death.
Example 3 and 6: Kill those that don't obey parents
I think that the maker of the video missed something interesting here when trying to show that rebellious kids were just offed because they were bad.
Take a look at Deuteronomy 21.20:
and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a
This wasn't a one time thing. The representation was a little off.
The child had a history of being rebellious, to the point that the parents had no other recourse. To the point that he was useless in the society
that they lived in, in both the spiritual and social respects. When this is the case, the person had to be punished somehow.
Example 4 and 5: Kill adulterers and homosexuals
These arguments bring up God's command to kill adulterers and homosexuals. A command to do so makes sense in the Israelite world, which would've
been much different than ours. (Sometimes, we must remember that things were slightly different before the 20th century and often God worked within
how a culture was.)
There are two things that I see here. Purging yourself of homosexuals could be viewed as something to be done from a pure survival stand point. The
race wouldn't keep going. Then there is also the spiritual reason. God promised that the Messiah would come, through a certain line, namely of
Judah, eventually from a certain family, David's. If the Israelites were to be allowed to sleep with whomever they wanted, lineages would be messed
up, thus making it near impossible to know who the Messiah was when he came.
Example 7: Removing the eye
This, to me, was the most amusing of the bunch. Two of his reasons for Jesus' statement in Matthew 18.8-9:
And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two
hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter
life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.
are pretty funny. They are:
- Jesus is an idiot.
- Concept of Hell is repulsive.
- Repulsive because Jesus demands self-mutilation.
I can't do anything about the first two, really. You have to decide that for yourself. Especially the hell thing. I just don't find anything
repulsive about people's sins being paid for.
Here's what I can say about that third point though. With his through picking apart of the Old Testament, I'm surprised that he missed this verse
in Deuteronromy. Fourteen verse one:
You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead.
In that verse, God forbids maiming oneself. Now, considering that Jesus was an obedient Jew, who said that he was sent by God, why would he have told
his followers to sin by maiming themselves? Any Jew would have been able to call him out if he was doing something contrary to the law. Thus,
Jesus' remarks in Matthew shouldn't be viewed literally.
Jesus in Matthew was using hyperbole. He was emphasizing the necessity of the disciples leading lives that have had sin radically removed, so that
that sin wouldn't lead to judgment. For example, if having a computer is causing you to sin against God, it is better to get rid of the computer so
that you don't sin.
Example 8: The Bible is sexist
This one is a good example of why context is important. It does indeed in 1 Corinthians 14:34 say:
the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak...
This is an example of why context is important because Paul says this just a few chapters earlier (11:5, 13):
but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. ... Judge for
yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
So, Paul allowed women to speak in church. So, there must be something else in mind here. Considering the immediate context of these verses, Paul is
probably forbidding women from standing up and judging prophecy, since doing such would subvert the male's leadership role in the church.
In 1 Timothy 2, Paul was using the using creation (and God's previous statements throughout Scripture) as an example of how church leadership is to
be. Adam, the male, was created as the leader. Thus, in a church setting, women aren't to teach, which is a leading role (because Eve was
In the end, this prohibition only extends to the assembly as a whole. Women aren't prohibited from teaching women or children. they're just not
supposed to take the role of pastor or elder since in God's scheme men are the leaders.
To say that Christianity is sexist has been a claim that has always amused me much.
Example 9: The Bible supports slavery
In the Old Testament God did allow for slaves from the other nations. The Mosaic Law regulated it, and thus, human rights weren't violated. From my
reading, slavery was much different back in these times than it is today, especially among Israelites. A slave didn't cease to be God's image
The New Testament though makes no provision for slavery. The only mentions of it are in cases where there were already slaves. In these cases, Paul
exhorted those slaves that were Christian to obey their master faithfully because they were their authority, much like we're to obey God since he's
our authority. Is there really anything wrong with that? The reasoning being that, through your actions, your master will come to know Christ as
Also, while there were those that tried to justify slavery using the Bible, the abolishonists pointed to Philemon as an example of slavery not being
the best practice. The video's maker only gave half the story.
Example 10: Random repulsiveness
The passages he gave were Isaiah 13, Hosea 13, and Numbers 31. Each quotation was obviously one verse, but he never gave the verse. I haven't gone
and looked through the passages to get their context, but I bet that knowing the context would prove very helpful. Perhaps someone else can lend a