Do you know your religion?

Betty Bowers is very enlightening. I read the full Bible and didn't even put this all together =P

Link above is my favorite video by her; I highly recommend it.
Full site here.

I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

Also, I would like to know what you think about the Kosher laws.
Christianity followed the Kosher laws until Constantine converted his people - he took them out to avoid backlash from the former pagans.

This isn't an attack on your beliefs, depending on your beliefs it may be a challenge - but the only real Christian in real life I have normal contact with is my mum, and she didn't have much to say =P
I am looking for dialogue, is all. Promise.

 

Honestly, I actively search for videos like these to challenge my own beliefs so I'll add this to what I already have an look into even deeper. I don't believe in blind faith, so if what she says is taken into full context then I will say, "Oh well" as it were to Christianity and incorporate what I feel is universally true and useful in my life. But until then, I can't just take her word for it. I have learned a lot from the people on these forums and the more I learn; the more arguments like these seem to vanish in my mind.

I believe your promise btw.

What I will say is that it seems like God compromised with man and worked with them to help them move along with cultural change as a way to bring us back to what we once had.

I will add that it doesn't seem to be saying that God is condoning all the women Solomon had only merely pointing out what he did to describe Solomon's condition because it can express a message for those that read it. Solomon's song goes into how courtship is important and uses many layers to express sex itself, the act of courtship, and as an allegory to God's love. The Bible also points out how lust leads to 'missing the mark' meaning we end up experiencing something less than what we could be, which could not be something that God wants for us. So Solomon using all dem womenz as whores doesn't seem to be something God would want -- It's also important to note that Solomon eventually turns away from God for others Gods later in life. People will often times even use the Song of Solomon to say that God is racist because it points out that Solomon's lover as dark as cedar. But taken into context, the people talk bad about her but as soon as solomon shows interest in her, the people suddenly love her (Which glimpses into human mimicry). Solomon also seems to really like her, so how would that be racist? I bring this up because it shows how important context is.

Come over to Bible Questions in sanctuary and ask these tough questions there. We can use people like you to further our understanding of the Bible. Most people are disingenuous with their questions, but since your mum is a Christian, you have more empathy over it.

Does God Condone slavery?

I would say no, but God would set rules on people that were still struggling with Pagan worship let alone understand the value of having no slaves. I cannot quote scripture in these boards, but God set rules that on the 7th year of service, the slaves MUST go free and be supplied with food, clothing and other essentially LIBERALLY and reminds them of the time of when they were slaves. Slaves in Biblical context is different from what we see even until today. People back then didn't have the luxuries that we enjoy. They had no welfare if they were struggling. They had no backup support in tough times so they used well to do families as support. They would go to them and ask if they can make up their debt so that they can continue on living, so they offered their services and would be treated as family. The Jews HATED slavery with a passion so it makes sense that they would try to not emulate the Egyptians.

Slaves are also asked to obey their earthly masters as they would Jesus. With that context in mind, what do you think it means if servicing Jesus is to love those as you love yourselves and having a 'master' is looked up as a kind of employer?

 

Ummm, I doubt it.

The Acts of the Apostles portrays a council in Jerusalem in which Paul Peter James and the rest of the 12 debated over whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised. The outcome was a resounding, no!

Jewish Christians in the first century most likely did, but in and after the 2nd century, it is unlikely that most Christians did. By the fourth century is is doubtful that any did.

 

As was me[SIZE=-1]ntio[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]ned, Acts 10 of the Bible abolished the old rules of kosher for ge[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]ntile [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Christia[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]n co[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]nverts.

And I will be a rebel and quote from the Bible, no matter what Skip's rules say. Mwahahahah!

[/SIZE]

I am about to watch the video. Will comment on it afterwards.

 

I watched the video. I suppose the humour value is there. But what it seemed was a lot of the quotes used are very out of context and even a little mangled. What was her quote about marriage with a kitchen condiment? That one I couldn't get my head around.

 

The Jews believed that associating with Gentiles made them ritually unclean and they wrongfully believed that associating with Gentiles was as bad as eating pork. Acts 10 refers to this NOT to dietary laws. Eating pork and shellfish is a practice taken from the pagan Romans. There is a reason that God said not to eat certain animals.Modern science has proven that pigs and shellfish are not fit for human consumption. I wouldn't even feed pork or ham to my dog!

btw: I find Betty Bowers to be downright hilarioius. Four years ago I posted a link to the Betty Bowers website on here and Bree and Seahorse took it seriously and jumped all over me. I love making fun of Religeous Right wingnuts. Its good to see that ya'll can appreciate satire.

 

The thing about satire is that it embellishes the truth a little to make it funny. There is some truth to it but it is bended a bit and it ends up changing its meaning. Anyone that serious in trying to discredit the Bible through satire alone isn't exactly a trustworthy source imo. Also, notice how many comments are given six thumbs down... any Christian making any remark about it's validity is being shut out. Doesn't seem like they are interested in debate but luling it up.

 

Read it again. God shows Peter images of food that is unclean in Kosher, and tells him to eat it, and never to call what he has made clean impure. I think that's pretty clearly talking about dietary laws. It is only because God told Peter that none of his creation was unclean that he would have talked to the Gentile Roman.

 

Interestingly, Navy Seals have discovered that as long as a fish has fins then it is safe and clean to eat.

 

The terms seafood and shellfish are understood to refer to creatures such as clams,shrimp, lobster etc NOT FISH!!!! The Bible allows the eating of fish that has fins and scales.

Honeyfugle no offense but this pastors son has read Acts 10 more than a few times. In Jesus's time the Jews considered themselves to be ritually unclean if they associated or interacted with Gentiles because they considered Gentiles to be less than human and on the same level with pigs. They wouldn't even allow Gentile converts to Judaism into the Temple! Jesus wanted to make it clear to Peter that this attitude was wrong which is why he sent him this vision. It seems that this continued to be an issue with Peter, as later on Paul rebuked him for refusing to eat with Gentile Christians. Look at the context. The context has nothing to do with what Peter or anyone else was or was not eating. The context had to do with the fact that a Gentile was coming to Peter to learn about Jesus and Jesus wanted Peter to stop being prejudiced towards Gentiles.

Acts 10:28,29 (Moffats translation) To them Peter said, You know yourselves that is is unlawful for a Jew to associate with anyone belonging to another nation; but God has shown me that I must not call any man common or unclean, so that I have come with out any demur when I was sent for. Now I want to know why have you sent for me. Acts 10:28,29

The NIV version reads. Acts 10:28,29. He said to them: You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?

Yet again no reference to food.

If you read the above verses you can see that Peter understood that the vision petained to the Jew's attitude towards Gentiles.

Acts 10:34,35 Then Peter began to speak: I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts men from every nation who fear Him and do what is right.

If if read the chapter in its entirety you will notice that Peter makes no reference to diet after the vision takes place. Instead he makes is clear that the vision was refering to his attitudes toward Gentiles.




Modern science has shown that pork is loaded with saturated fat,cholesterol, bacteria and goes bad very easily. Thats why the old timers would only slaughter pigs in cold weather then immediately smoke it or preserve it some other fashion. All swine are born with trichanae parasites in their flesh. Then there's all the potential for food poisoning that comes from eating shellfish.

Oh yes... Betty Bowers. We should take no offense because this site satirizes those good ol' self rightous Religeous Right wingnut type Christians not real Christians like us. I find it to down right hilarious.

 

Perhaps we should agree to disagree, because we will end up in a stalemate situation.
If I understand your viewpoint correctly, it is that the food shown to Peter was an analogy of Gentiles, and not an abolishment of Kosher, and the Lord uses the analogy of food to show to Peter that Gentiles are not unclean. Is this correct? If so, I understand your viewpoint.
I, though read it slightly differently.
I read the vision literally speaking that these foods before seen as impure are now clean therefore ending the need for Kosher rules, and in light of God's message that his creation is not impure, Peter changes his opinion of a Roman Gentile, because as a creation of God, he too is not unclean.

I leave the space open for your word on this if you want to take it, but I think we should agree to disagree.

 

I didn't find it particularly funny if I'm honest. Sure, I can see why it would be funny as satire goes but... I dunno, I guess it's just not my type of humour.

 

What does it embellish so much?
All of that is in the Bible - it's just not put next to each other like that.
The only thing I can say that is dramatic is her Conservative Christian persona..
I don't know that she's trying to discredit the Bible - it's more that she's trying to discredit modern incarnations of Christians. And how is satire illegitimate?
And what the fuck does the YouTube comments have to do with anything? Talk about dodging debate...

Gentiles =/= Christians
Gentiles = non-Jews
Jesus' followers during his lifetime = Jews

Unless I'm confused here...

I really like this. Though, I don't think we should ever take offense to someone for disagreeing with us, even if it's done in a mocking way. That's how wars start =P

 

The words of Christ can be and are applicable to any level of understanding or circumstance of life. "It is not what goes into a man", applies to any and every environmental influence. In other woods, it is never what the other guy has done to you, it is always what you have done to them. Another way to put it is the measure you give is the measure you receive, therefore;
The only thing that can be lacking in any situation is what youhave not given.

 

The thing is though, Duck a lot of things she says aren't in it's biblical context, no matter who she is trying to discredit. Yes, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, that is the truth, but his actions were rebellious to the Lord. He'd already turned his back on God by this point. He was worshipping other gods and false idols, collecting vast sums of money and marrying pagan wives, all against God's wishes. Why, then, does this get skewered by Betty Bower to seem like this was in God's favour? That's just one example.

There is nothing wrong with satire. But I like my humour to be at least mostly true, not completely mangled into nonsense just to appease her need for comedy.

Editted to add: This is not to say I take offence at her video, far from it, I just don't find it very funny.

 

It embellishes the context and makes it look like it is saying something that it isn't. She interconnects those sections taken out of context then links them together to try to show that marriage is being described as something other than what the Bible describes it as.

I guess you are right about trying to discredit modern incarnations but I am unsure because she is using the Bible which is what Christians use to base their belief on. Maybe I am missing something. But like you, I do dislike modern views of the Bible, such as hell being a place of torment and burning. But what I worry about is how people accept the incarnations as being true Christianity and many will use what she says to discredit Christianity altogether.

Satire can be legitimate. One of the reasons why I love South Park because it reveals so much truth but I wouldn't take it that seriously.

My comment about youtube comments were out of line. Sorry for that. I was just saying that it can be difficult to discuss the Bible with those that don't want to listen. This doesn't include you, though.

 

Actually, No, it is not all in the Bible. Starting from almost the first thing she says. Eve did not have sex with any of her children, let alone Cain.

 

She made a factual error right at the start when she said that Adam and Eve had 2 sons only. Quite clearly that means nothing to her.

 

If everything she was "factual" then it probably wouldn't be all that "funny".

 

Okay, you got me there.

I disagree. Plenty of her takes on the true stuff is funny.
Though, I don't know if factual is the right word when talking about anyone's take on the Bible =P

Hm.. I can't remember Solomon too well, and I'm always bad with order, I may look into this one more.

Hm, I guess I do agree with you there. I always get annoyed about when Atheists bring up modern Christians' actions as an argument against Christianity.
I want a fair fight, damn it!