Lol!

[SnakeLord]

During my current analysis of the bible i stumbled upon this. Sorry i couldn't help but laugh:

Leviticus 22:24 You must not offer to the lord an animal whose testicles are bruised, crushed, torn or cut.

What a strange being...

First i'd wonder why god needs all these offerings to begin with- why the need for so many cows, goats, ox, rams, grain, incense, gold, silver etc etc? Sure, i can understand an occasional offering of love, thanks and worship but this goes beyond a joke:

Leviticus 7:37 These, then are the regulations for the burnt offering, grain offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the ordination offering and the fellowship offering.

That's a damn lot of offerings, some of which must be performed twice a day! This being sure sounds greedy.

So now i ask what the need is... I have noticed consistant mention of a couple of things throughout this first portion of the bible which i'd like to outline:

The first is defects. Whenever god asks for offerings they must always be free from defects, (including damaged testicles) This stems to humans aswell- people who have defects, (including damaged testicles), cannot make offerings to god:

Leviticus 21:16 The lord said to moses, "say to aaron: for the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his god. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or
deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunch backed or dwarfed, or who has an eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or (you guessed it..) damaged testicles.

He even goes so far as to outline blemishes.

The second most noticeable thing is gods love of smells. I'm starting to regard him as being a giant nose on legs.

From Noah through to my current part of leviticus there are countless mentions of god being pleased by aromas. He demands fragrant oils, incense and burnt meat which give him 'pleasing aroma' every single time:

Genesis 8:21 The lord smelled the pleasing aroma...

Exodus 29:25 Then take them from their hands and burn them on the altar along with the burnt offering for a pleasing aroma to the lord..

There are, (up until Leviticus 24:26), fourteen, (14) mentions of god and pleasing aromas.

Doesn't this overwhelming need for pleasant smells, (and un-damaged testicles), seem a tad weird?

The third distinct thing is 'smells by fire'. Fire is mentioned in every instance where god smells 'pleasing aroma'. From the burnt sacrifice by Noah to the fourteen mentions of smell in the early portions of Leviticus. Each time it is 'smell by fire'. Even the grains which give 'pleasing aroma' have to be burnt by fire. Furthermore what is incense? (Smell by fire).

One further thing that struck me as bizarre.....

Exodus 30:12 When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.

Ransom? Are they hostages? I know some would say it's an accounting for their life, as opposed to 'ransom' but do you know what that 'ransom' was? Do you know what god wanted as the 'ransom'? Money. Doesn't that seem just a tad strange to anyone?

Other bizarre occurences up until this point:

Gen 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brothers wife and fulfil your duty to her as a brother in law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the lords sight; so he put him to death also.

So on one hand god says: "Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife, that would dishonour your brother." But allows it in this circumstance but kills the guy for spilling his semen on the floor. Hmmmm

This i regard as god giving a pointless point. Frankly it's a pretty stupid thing to say:

Exodus 34:6 And he passed in front of moses, proclaiming, "The lord, the lord, the compassionate and gracious god, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

It's doubtful the theists will notice the problem with the above quote but i'm sure the resident 'doubters' and athiests will understand.

Well i hope you enjoyed this post one way or the other. I'm now off to check my testicles aren't damaged and to barbecue my pet cat for god to sniff on. Bye.

P.S I forgot to mention there is one instance in Leviticus where god says the people must not offer fruit as pleasing aroma. It does seem very apparent god doesn't like fruits, but likes meat. Even back in the very beginning the whole problem between Cain and Abel is down to the offerings made to god. Abel offers meat and is looked upon with favour whereas cain offers fruit and was shown no favour. God then says: "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door." The whole telling off about sin comes from an offering made by cain that contained fruit.

I hate to say it but it appears there will be no bananas, apples or mangos in heaven... Oh and nobody with damaged testicles.

 

[Mystech]

*shrugs* well that's ancient religions for you. Written by so damned many people who weren't coaborating, they contradict eachother, and always seem to let some crazyness get in there. Good thing some of us are hellbound anyway, we can screw until our balls are bruised, and it won't matter a bit

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

hahaha
thats really funny stuff.

I'll be interested to see how loyal posters like TheVisitor rationally explain this stuff;
"aaah ... well...aaah ... would you like damaged testicles? whats the point of having an animal if it has damaged testicles? And everyone already knows fruit sucks, tell me, what smells better fruit or steak? come on now, all this makes perfect sense"

 

[Jenyar]

God's sense of smell

Snakelord,
You're the last person I thought would be doing Bible study. Let me see what I can find out. I'm sure the Israelites who were actually putting these commandments into practice weren't as confused as we are. Maybe we could ask a rabbi about it...

I'm not an expert on the ritual of sacrifice, but I think it was meant to be an act of showing God that they knew and understood (and honoured) what He expected of them. The part about the sins of the fathers shows that they recognized it was for their own benefit.

Ex.2:24 God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. 25 So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them.

First i'd wonder why god needs all these offerings to begin with- why the need for so many cows, goats, ox, rams, grain, incense, gold, silver etc etc?

They needed to understand that everything they had belonged to God - remember they had just came out of exile where they were slaves and had nothing of their own. What they had now was a gift from God. You probably read the part about the firstfruits - the tenth of everything - that should be dedicated to God. Likewise, the "ransom" was probably a kind of offertory (collection) - to remind them who bought their freedom. Same with Passover and Easter...

Deut. 25 ends with: "Do not forget!".

Whatever they were keeping for themselves or withholding, they were stealing from God who gave it to them. All this was to remind them (and us) that they owed their very lives to God. It has nothing to do with being "greedy". There is of course also the spiritual implication of everything, which is explained in the New Testament.

The testicles thing is rather easy to explain. If you read Deut. 25 you'll also see that a woman who grabs a man's testicles during a fight is also condemned. (Actually, make sure you read the whole of Deut. 25). God's covenant has always been about life - giving it, prolonging it, protecting it, etc. - ensuring many descendents and a large nation. Just think about circumcision (an otherwise peculiar practice) - it's the continuation of something more than 'life': God's covenant. Anything to do with marriage, the family, and therefore reproduction is crucially important and should be protected. You'll see this theme everywhere in the Bible. As for the role of defects - apart from the theme of holiness and purity before God - you can speak to any evolutionary biologist or geneticist about that. Remember that we inherited the kingdom of God:
Galatians 3:18
For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

The second most noticeable thing is gods love of smells. I'm starting to regard him as being a giant nose on legs.

I think it's is because the "aroma" is the only thing that leaves the offering that is detectable - like the 'spirit' of the offering 'going up' to God. Nothing else much remains of anything that has been burnt (except Moses' burning bush, which is a way of showing God as a living fire, but not a consuming one).

To say it is the "spirit of the offering" sounds a little mystical, but it's nicely ambiguous if you think of Christ as the offering, ascending to heaven to be with the Father, and the Holy Spirit (often compared to fire - as in "baptism of fire") coming down to be among us, so that in essence we have become living offerings, made acceptable by Christ.

2 Corinthians 2:15
For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.

Gen 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brothers wife and fulfil your duty to her as a brother in law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the lords sight; so he put him to death also.

I refer you back to Deut. 25:
5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

This is known as a Levirate Marriage, from the Latin “levir” meaning “brother.” It was a well-established practice.
What did he do when he spilled his semen on the ground? He refused to reproduce, and did not fulfill his responsibility (where's Wesmorris?) towards his family, his people, and God. The prohibition you were referring to:
21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

Remember what I said about holiness and the family being sacred? The prohibition refers to a brother who is still alive (the dead weren't dishonoured, but the living). Also notice the penalty.

Your last problem:

Exodus 34:6 And he passed in front of moses, proclaiming, "The lord, the lord, the compassionate and gracious god, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

You are implying that both cannot be true, if I understand you correctly. Many people regard this as a contradiction to passages that state that children won't be held responsible for the sins of their parents. Since God is the one who judges anyway, I am not particularly worried about it myself. I guess it's up to you to decide who you are (surprise). According to your lifestyle, you might or might not father unwanted children, you might or might not contract an inheritable disease.

I look at it this way: we are guilty anyway. We are born into a world of sin and become caught up in it, whether by our own doing or that of others. Whether you will suffer from bad parenting or whether you will be a bad parent yourself depends on your life, and it is this life that God has made His covenant with. You are forgiven if you ask forgiveness. The passage is only problematic if you only believe in the punishment and not in the redemption.

How much is about you and how much is about other people depends on whether you are only worried about your own interests, or about God who gave you life, and other people that share it with you.

Mark 12:33
To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.

 

[Kunax]

heres my take on religion(xianity, islam), if i was a beliver.

Religion is the biggest joke ever created by the big D man, to chain and split the people. And it has been a working wonder, he has proberly been laughing his ass of for the past 2000 years, that he has lost touch(no more crusades or inqusition ect.) with the world, IMO it explains a lot.

 

[EvilPoet]

Offering, Incense, Marriage, and Sex

Offering

Offering - an oblation, dedicated to God. Thus Cain consecrated to God of the first-fruits of the earth, and Abel of the firstlings of the flock (Gen. 4:3, 4). Under the Levitical system different kinds of offerings are specified, and laws laid down as to their presentation. These are described under their distinctive names.

See also: Sacrifice

Source: Easton's Bible Dictionary


Laws of Sacrifice

The laws of sacrifice as they appear in the Torah itself, particularly in Leviticus, are comprehensive and complicated, though not exhaustive. There was undoubtedly an extremely detailed priestly tradition on how to deal with each type of sacrifice, both as regards to actual ceremony and the various flaws that might be found in the sacrifice itself. Sacrifices were rejected when the animal itself was flawed or when the thought or intention was unworthy, thus invalidating the offering. Even in the talmudic era, the laws of sacrifice were regarded as the most involved in the Talmud; as a certain sage said to one of his disciples: "Such a difficult problem belongs, from the point of view of gravity, with the laws of sacrifice." The complexity results not only from the abundance and intricacy of details but also from the basic intellectual theories underlying this type of law. Unlike civil law, for example, which is essentially rational, laws of sacrifice are based on very ancient traditions and customs for which no apparent explanation exists. In the Talmudic period it was emphasized that, unlike other halakhot, laws of sacrifice should be studied and analyzed with great caution, and methods of study appropriate in other spheres were not always effective in this area. The scholars cited extensive proof that halakhic methods relevant and applicable elsewhere cannot be employed in deliberations on laws of sacrifice, which constitute a world apart. At the same time, the scholar who becomes reasonably erudite in this field begins to discern a special kind of logic that can serve as the basis for more profound examination.

Source: The Essential Talmud by Adin Steinsaltz


Incense

Incense - a fragrant composition prepared by the "art of the apothecary." It consisted of four ingredients "beaten small" (Ex. 30:34-36). That which was not thus prepared was called "strange incense" (30:9). It was offered along with every meat-offering; and besides was daily offered on the golden altar in the holy place, and on the great day of atonement was burnt by the high priest in the holy of holies (30:7, 8). It was the symbol of prayer (Ps. 141:1,2; Rev. 5:8; 8:3, 4).

Source: Easton's Bible Dictionary

For more on incense see: Incense From Wikipedia


Marriage and Sex

"In contrast to Christianity and several of the Eastern religions, Judaism never regarded marriage as a "necessary evil," necessary for the perpetuation of the species but otherwise an institution to be despised. The sages treated the sexual urge as a natural instinct like any other, rather than being something to be condemned. Although they themselves advocated extreme modesty and chastity and the greatest possible purity in relations between husband and wife, they did not ignore the implications of the sexual instincts for men and women."

"In general, the sages were aware of the power of the sexual drive, and their view is epitomized in the saying: Ein epitropus le'arayot (there is no guardian over sexual affairs). Accordingly, even the most chaste and pious of men, who was above suspicion, could never be wholly trusted and should not be entrusted with the task of guarding a woman alone. It is a measure of their profound awareness that the sages claimed that "he who is greater than his fellow man is also greater in desire," and several stories are told of men renowned for their piety who were almost tempted into sexual misdemeanors. The purpose of these anecdotes was not to generate these saintly men but to emphasize the need for chastity and self-control."

"An unmarried man, in the eyes of the sages, is only half a body and becomes a complete human being only when he marries (the story of creation as related in the Torah was interpreted by most scholars as mean that Adam was created with a dual image and was later separated into two bodies--man and woman)."

Source: The Essential Talmud by Adin Steinsaltz

 

[New Life]

The offerings were actually made in order to cleanse the people of sin so that they could enter into God's presence.....therefore the offering had to be perfect (otherwise it couldn't cover the sins)
The offerings were made in a certain order, with very specific instructions so that they could be accepted..........the priests made the offerings........some are done twice because the first time was for the priest himself, and the second was for all of the people.

This then goes into Jesus being the perfect Lamb of God who was sacrificed as the final, total sacrifice for all human kind, for all eternity.

the lay-out of the tabernacle shows this process quite clearly.

 

[Michael]

sweetmeats

the reason is really quite simple. When an animal is sacrificed it is usually eaten by the people doing the sacrificing - typically anyhow. Obviously the October Horse wasn’t eaten – but that was an annual thing. As for your run of the mill sacrifices; say for the dirty sinnen like bruising your testicle or giving it a wank – well them animals are good eatens God enjoys a good BBQ and me too! Just think, if you were the guy doling out the forgiveness would you want to eat a crap animal some idiot tried to pass off? I’m sure after the first nasty one that came by and the Good Book got updated in a hurry! Who wants some crap fruit? hehehe ...

PS This was a great post please continue to do so as you work your way through the Good Book!! I litterally LOL!

 

[SnakeLord]

Jenyar:

You're the last person I thought would be doing Bible study.

Well it's hard to debate a book if you haven't read it thoroughly. I have in the past skimmed through it, and like most people are aware of the 'famous' stories like Noah, Moses etc. I made comparisons when reading Sumerian writings but have not really gone to the lengths of analysing it in it's entirety. It has taken me roughly a month just to get to Leviticus so I can assure you this is a thorough look at the bible. I have a vast collection of notes i have made from what i have read so far. Some would ask why-I'd reply that im not exactly sure yet. I do things like this to excercise the mind. A while back i memorised every single trivial pursuit question- don't ask why, i don't know. But let me assure you i kicked ass when i had a game with my family during the holiday season

I'm not an expert on the ritual of sacrifice, but I think it was meant to be an act of showing God that they knew and understood (and honoured) what He expected of them. The part about the sins of the fathers shows that they recognized it was for their own benefit.

What i'm trying to understand is why animal sacrifices. I mean nowadays people pray and no longer kill goats. I know, i know times were different, (for man), but i'm trying to work out why god needed animal sacrifices then but settles for prayers these days. Ok, none of us own goats anymore but couldn't we sacrifice our pet cats?

Ex.2:24 God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. 25 So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them.

He felt concerned about them.... so he kept them as slaves for many more years. God mentions many times how he 'hardened the hearts of the pharoahs so they wouldn't let the jews go'. With all his awesome power he could have freed them instantly. Instead he felt like impressing the Egyptians with magic tricks. First the snake staff, which man was able to do up to killing first born children. Undoubtedly he has immense power but so much of the time it seems like he has frailties he shouldn't have. I will get into this later. The first few 'plagues' man the Egyptians were able to copy. It seems to me pretty strange how man could copy god's 'magic' and turn the water to blood- yet they succeeded. Can we do that in this day and age? I do wonder how they managed these tricks. There was, for a while, a competition running between god and these 'magicians'. Eventually god did win, but the 'magicians' put up a damn good fight.

Then finally the jews were free. God decides he needs an adventure and 'hardens the heart of the pharoah' so he will chase after moses. God mentions how he wants to show his glory to the egyptians just before drowning them all. I do find he's being a bit of a show off at this point in time.

Eventually god obviously has enough of human whinging and tells them to leave without him for if he even spends a minute with them he might kill them all.

I also wonder why, during the killing of the first born, god would need the jews to signal who they are with blood on their houses. Surely he can distinguish between jews and egyptians without painted signs?

Of course we can all come up with a speculation. I'd rather not do that so i ask others. I will then incorporate any plausible explanations into my notes. Once complete i will compile the whole thing together in sections and throw it up on the web for interest.

They needed to understand that everything they had belonged to God - remember they had just came out of exile where they were slaves and had nothing of their own. What they had now was a gift from God. You probably read the part about the firstfruits - the tenth of everything - that should be dedicated to God. Likewise, the "ransom" was probably a kind of offertory (collection) - to remind them who bought their freedom. Same with Passover and Easter...

Would a thanks and a prayer suffice? When you consider it, he is god- Any of us can kill a goat and give it to someone else- but when you bow down, worship and say thanks god will surely be able to tell the sincerity of his children and that would be cleaner, quicker and more heartfelt?

It has nothing to do with being "greedy"

Well, god really needs man to show they understand he owns everything twice a day, over many different styles of offering? Kill a cow when you sin- which in most peoples cases would mean the extermination of the species within a week :bugeye: kill a cow to say thanks, kill a cow to show you fear me, kill a cow to show i own the cow etc etc.... With all that was written Moses and his buddy's wouldn't have had more than 30 seconds sleep per night with all the cow killing. I see it as a tad over the top.

There is of course also the spiritual implication of everything, which is explained in the New Testament.

Many people use the NT to show a point regarding the OT. I really don't consider the NT as the most valid source when talking of the OT. The age gap between them is large and most of what is said will be speculatory at best. All these teachers of the 'new age' version of the bible weren't there to see what happened or how things were. The New testament is also widely known for it's mass of contradictions from one book to the next. I am working through the bible in order from front to back. At this stage in time i have no want to use the back page to explain details on the front page. It is imo a completely separate piece of work to the OT. In the OT god is a specific way but all of a sudden the whole thing changes. I will point out what i refer to sometime in the future when i am analysing the NT in full.

The testicles thing is rather easy to explain. If you read Deut. 25 you'll also see that a woman who grabs a man's testicles during a fight is also condemned. (Actually, make sure you read the whole of Deut. 25). God's covenant has always been about life - giving it, prolonging it, protecting it, etc. - ensuring many descendents and a large nation. Just think about circumcision (an otherwise peculiar practice) - it's the continuation of something more than 'life': God's covenant. Anything to do with marriage, the family, and therefore reproduction is crucially important and should be protected. You'll see this theme everywhere in the Bible.

Ok, that's all understood. But why would god worry about a dead cows testicles? The cow's dead- it's hardly likely to have any more children. In essence what you say would actually be the opposite. If gods covenant is all about life surely he'd want you to sacrifice the cows with bust up testicles because they cannot give life? There would be no use for the animal in life- and i'd hardly consider it a great impact to god when it's dead. Instead the people must sacrifice, (constantly), the healthy life giving cows. Those animals that can reproduce are killed whereas those who cannot are left alive. The way i see it that would lower population and would not ensure 'many descendants and a large nation'. Sacrifice the crippled, save the pure- not vice versa. Wouldn't that be preferable to ensure many descendants etc?

As for the role of defects - apart from the theme of holiness and purity before God

Might i ask how these people got the defects? If god made them that way he is rejecting those he made the way they are- that sounds plain nasty. If they were just unlucky and random events in nature cause their deformity go rejects them and shows he doesn't feel the same about all his children. Do you have a choice over whether you're born ugly or not? Would it seem a tad mean if you were rejected in life because of your looks? The same applies here.

God also goes into great detail about disease. The idea behind it is correct. Those who are ill get sent away from everyone until they are better, (separate the clean and unclean). I can fully understand that, as can everyone. What i will ask is where these diseases come from. I don't really have a 'beef' with this issue- it's medically smart- so im sure any answer will suffice.

I think it's is because the "aroma" is the only thing that leaves the offering that is detectable - like the 'spirit' of the offering 'going up' to God. Nothing else much remains of anything that has been burnt (except Moses' burning bush, which is a way of showing God as a living fire, but not a consuming one).

Well i will concur that god shows little interest in consuming the offerings, but is focused solely on the smell.

To say it is the "spirit of the offering" sounds a little mystical, but it's nicely ambiguous if you think of Christ as the offering, ascending to heaven to be with the Father, and the Holy Spirit (often compared to fire - as in "baptism of fire") coming down to be among us, so that in essence we have become living offerings, made acceptable by Christ.

Hate to say it but christ is irrelevant here. Also mention of 'spirits' is pure speculation. It says time and time again 'god smelled the pleasing aroma' and other such sentences in that format that by all evidence it is a nasal issue instead of a sprit issue. The bible is not the only place that mentions god/s loving smells of burning meat etc:

"... the gods smelt the fragrance, the gods smelt the pleasant fragrance..."

That is from Sumerian writings about Ziusudra, (Utnapishtim in Akkadian) -(the supposed original Noah). It is the same as the Noah story- he lands on a hill and makes an offering to the gods whereby they proceed to state liking of smells.

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

Well, his brother didn't exactly just die. god killed him, (although it doesn't specifically say why). Either way i personally could not sleep with my brothers wife if he died no matter who told me to. I regard it in itself as sinful- maybe god doesn't but he's not the one having to bonk her. The guy did actually sleep with the woman but because he didnt impregnate her, instead dropping his semen, god killed him too. I mean..... forcing a guy to get laid and get the woman preggers? It just sounds a tad mean to me.

You are implying that both cannot be true, if I understand you correctly.

Yes, but not just that. I also took notice of the bizarre use from 'third-person? perspective' god undertakes. It's almost as if he's singing a song about himself. I can image god dancing about in front of moses singing this wonderful ballad about himself trying to look like a big shot.

"oh snakelord, oh snakelord what a wonderful guy he is. Every woman wants to jump on him"

It just seems funny. I starts off so nice and pleasant but then....'he punishes children upto the fourth generation'. That really throws the whole balance off something that started well.

you might or might not father unwanted children, you might or might not contract an inheritable disease.

Fair enough but what's that got to do with my kids, my grandkids, my great grandkids or my great great grandkids? I find that a tad malicious.

"Oh grandad you bastard! All because you didn't kill a cow i now have to spend a life with bruised testicles!"

The passage is only problematic if you only believe in the punishment and not in the redemption.

Well c'mon you have to admit it is a dodgy paragraph? god- full of love, compassion, graciousness etc BUT i punish everyone whos 'guilty', (guilty of what exactly?), including their kids, kids kids, kids kids kids, and kids kids kids kids. The passage is problematic regardless of his claims to being loving, compassionate etc.

Mark 12:33
To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.

That's good and easy for Mark to say, but god never said that.

New Life:

The offerings were actually made in order to cleanse the people of sin so that they could enter into God's presence.....therefore the offering had to be perfect (otherwise it couldn't cover the sins)

Well.... There was already a sin removal process in place as instructed by god which involved sending a goat off into the desert. He could have stuck to that without worrying about dodgy testicles and perfection. I already explained the problem with killing perfect cows to Jenyar.

Either way i still fail to see how killing a cow with perfect testicles is the way to cleansing your sins.

The offerings were made in a certain order, with very specific instructions so that they could be accepted..........the priests made the offerings........some are done twice because the first time was for the priest himself, and the second was for all of the people.

Now imagine all those dead perfect cows. Would only be a matter of time before all you had left was deformed, bruised testicled animals that could serve no worthy purpose to man or god. I suppose the other method would mean a desert full of thousands of dead goats- both are insane ideas. What's wrong with a prayer and a puff on the peace pipe?

This then goes into Jesus being the perfect Lamb of God who was sacrificed as the final, total sacrifice for all human kind, for all eternity.

No, no, no, no, no. Don't start bringing jesus into the fray. He's completely irrelevant to the post and im not in the mood for a jesus worshipping sermon. But can i avoid it? Unlikely so let's get to it:

Was it a sacrifice? Is Jesus dead, yes or no? If no i ask again: was it a sacrifice? He knew he was going up to sit with his father- he knew he was going to have eternal life on the right hand seat or whatever so was it really a sacrifice or just a show put on for the mortals? Perhaps it was the only alternative left to god 'cause no cows without bruised testicles existed anymore. Don't say i didn't warn him. I guess it's a stroke of luck jesus had perfect ball bags or does god decide who gets perfect gonads and who doesnt?

[edit] Sincere apologies for the abounding amount of typos etc. It's early in the morning, i can't be bothered correcting them, and i'm sure you can figure out what i'm trying to say anyway.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

SnakeLord

Nice

 

[SnakeLord]

Actually just a couple of small points:

A) If you want to anger god wave a banana in his face

B) What problems do you think would arise with constant sacrificing of 'perfect' animals? I have already mentioned to Jenyar, that seems a bit backwards when thinking about further life. Of course we've also spoken about man being the one eating the animals- so is it such a big deal? Man get's food, (or does he?)- god gets aroma. However i can show you how the constant sacrificing of animals leads to problems and can show you the people were not getting to eat the meat:

Numbers 11:4 The rabble with them began to crave other food, and again the Israelites started wailing and said: "If only we had meat to eat!.... we never see anything but manna."

Isn't it said that too much of one thing is bad? And yet here are all these hundreds of thousands of people eating manna constantly. They could perhaps improve their diet and eat some meat but alas- they must sacrifice it all to god and burn it into ashes. As is still the case, the priests get to eat some of the meat while everyone else goes hungry.

In my opinion it's a pathetic waste of a perfectly edible cow. One example of offerings given can be seen in Numbers 7:84 onwards:

12 silver plates
12 silver sprinkling bowls
12 gold dishes
12 young bulls
72 rams
72 male lambs
72 male goats
24 oxen.

Just to mention: Thats a period of 12 days only.

That's 252 animals sacrificed in 12 days= that's 21 animals daily. Does anyone else regard this as excessive? Especially considering the fact that the Israelites get nothing but manna to eat?

Doesn't that seem just a tad self centered? god having all these animals killed just for his pleasure at the behest of 630,000+, (stated in early section of Numbers), Israelis?

 

[Mystech]

Yeah, but keep in mind that God had to constantly remind those people who was on top, lest they go off and worship a cow or something. When we get up into heaven I bet we'll see him drivin' around a solid gold catilac filled with super models, that's just the kind of diety he is. I imagine that no one has heard anything from him lately just because he's got a hang over or something, God likes to hit the bottle really hard now and again.

 

[SnakeLord]

Man i love this book- it's so bloody funny.

Addded bit:

Ok, so we now know the 600,000+ men were surviving on manna and not eating any meat.....

god heard their whinging and spoke to moses. Reluctantly he agreed to let the people eat meat, which he would provide, for a month.

What meat did god give to the men? Was it their nice large perfect cows? perfect goats or perfect 1 year old lambs?

Nope.... God gave them the tiniest f****** animal on the planet - Quails.

Lots and lots and lots of bloody quails. The smallest, teeniest, weeniest damn meat source on the face of the earth!

Moses, (a man after my own heart), had said: "Here i am among 600,000 men on foot, and you say 'I will give them meat for a month'. Would they have enough if flocks and herds were slaughtered for them?.."

Anyway so man has now been provided with meat. Oh i bet he now sits down and enjoys the meat god has provided.......

WRONG!!

'But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed....'

Yes, you guessed it.... god became angry and killed them all with a vicious plague.

Arggggggggggggg what a joker

 

[Jenyar]

Snakelord
First off, the New Testament are documents written by practicing Jews and believers alike, and as such it has a unique perspective (Christian) on the events and practices of the OT. As a Christian, I cannot understand the OT otherwise. I would like to hear from Jews, but from my experience most seem either fatalistic or rather laissez-faire about it. Either way, they expected a reconciliation between God and man, and the OT should be interpreted with that in mind. After the restoration, they believed "Sacrifices will continue to be brought in the Temple, but these will be limited to thanksgiving offerings, because there will be no further need for expiatory offerings."

What i'm trying to understand is why animal sacrifices. I mean nowadays people pray and no longer kill goats. I know, i know times were different, (for man), but i'm trying to work out why god needed animal sacrifices then but settles for prayers these days. Ok, none of us own goats anymore but couldn't we sacrifice our pet cats?

Sacrificing your pet cat is only cruel. Animals were like currency to nomadic people, and their survival and prosperity depended on livestock. By sacrificing their prime animals, they were explicitly acknowledging that their livelihood and prosperity is in God's hands. They owed everything to Him, and had to acknowledge that it is God who was building and maintaining His people - not just nature taking its course; they were His people and that meant something. Since it came from God in the first place, to give it back to Him was a sign of thanksgiving and belief that He would continue to provide for them. In that sense it was quite the opposite of 'waste'. God did provide: with manna - but they craved other food than what God gave them (remember they had been surviving quite nicely on manna for forty years).
The people had priests to cleanse/purify and intercede for them - much like the Catholics still do. Since Christ - as priest, prophet and king - fulfills those functions, including sacrifice, our sacrifice is ourselves. The point is faith. If you don't believe in God, sacrifice has no meaning whatsoever. You'll understand it better when you read Hebrews*

He felt concerned about them.... so he kept them as slaves for many more years. God mentions many times how he 'hardened the hearts of the pharoahs so they wouldn't let the jews go'. With all his awesome power he could have freed them instantly...

Things were no different then than they are now. People weren't puppets of God any more than they are now, and the miracle did happen. What was written down was how the Israelites perceived circumstances (same with he 'aroma of sacrifice'). It's normal history, normal physics and normal experience, as seen through the eyes of believers. The point was, Pharoah did not want them to go - no miracle either from God or from Moses would persuade him - yet in spite of this they were freed**. Moses knew beforehand the Pharoah would not listen, but he did what God told him to do anyway. The plagues were signs which Pharoah ignored - TEN times. They had ten chances! A sudden miracle would have left them no choice in the matter. Just like people are ignoring the signs of the times today, but still choose to go against God.

I also wonder why, during the killing of the first born, god would need the jews to signal who they are with blood on their houses. Surely he can distinguish between jews and egyptians without painted signs?

By the blood of an unblemished sacrificial lamb, the people of God were spared from death. Does this sound familiar? Maybe after you've read the rest of the Bible... By the way, God did take the firstborn sons of Israel ***

...Kill a cow when you sin- which in most peoples cases would mean the extermination of the species within a week kill a cow to say thanks, kill a cow to show you fear me, kill a cow to show i own the cow etc etc.... With all that was written Moses and his buddy's wouldn't have had more than 30 seconds sleep per night with all the cow killing. I see it as a tad over the top.

I see you understand that no sacrifice or amount of prayer, fasting and good deeds we give could ever be enough.

Might i ask how these people got the defects? If god made them that way he is rejecting those he made the way they are- that sounds plain nasty. If they were just unlucky and random events in nature cause their deformity go rejects them and shows he doesn't feel the same about all his children. Do you have a choice over whether you're born ugly or not? Would it seem a tad mean if you were rejected in life because of your looks? The same applies here.

See above answer. God is showing them the difference between acceptable and unacceptable. Sin is continuing an unacceptable life before God. Moses was "like God" to the pharoah despite his imperfection (which he seems to have been very sensitive about). We were created perfect in principle, but sin has made, and makes us imperfect. It has become our nature and our legacy. Call it bad genes if you want, but we are still "like gods" to God when sanctified by faith.

Either way i personally could not sleep with my brothers wife if he died no matter who told me to. I regard it in itself as sinful- maybe god doesn't but he's not the one having to bonk her. The guy did actually sleep with the woman but because he didnt impregnate her, instead dropping his semen, god killed him too. I mean..... forcing a guy to get laid and get the woman preggers? It just sounds a tad mean to me.

And since you are not an Judaic Jew or subject to levirate laws, you won't have to. The issue here is that for the sake of the continuation of his brother's line and inheritance, it was expected of him after his brother's death - it was about preservation.

It just seems funny. I starts off so nice and pleasant but then....'he punishes children upto the fourth generation'. That really throws the whole balance off something that started well.

God was announcing Himself - He was telling Moses who He is. This is not problematic since God did the same when Jesus was baptized and the God's Spirit came down. The reason it starts off nice and seems to lose balance is because God is saying that He is righteous and merciful. We are guilty of sin, but redeemed by faith. Both can be true at the same time. A person can be punished and excused in his own lifetime. Final justice will only be realized after death.

That's good and easy for Mark to say, but god never said that.

He did, exactly like that: Deuteronomy 10:12, 11:13, 13:3, 30:6 and inJoshua 22:5
But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you: to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to obey his commands, to hold fast to him and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul."


*Hebrews 7
26 Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect for ever.
Hebrews 10:3
But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins.

Matt.9:13
But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
Ephesians 5:2
and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Romans 3:25
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.
Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of worship.
Hebrews 9:9
This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshipper.
Hebrews 13:15
Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that confess his name. 16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

**Ex.5:1
Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the desert.' "
2 Pharaoh said, "Who is the LORD , that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD and I will not let Israel go."
Numbers 14:22
not one of the men who saw my glory and the miraculous signs I performed in Egypt and in the desert but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times--
23 not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers. No-one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it.

***Exodus 13:2
Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal.

 

[SVRP]

Hebrews 9:19-22
19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
20 saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU."
21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.
22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

God's judgment required the shedding of blood before there is forgiveness of sins. To appease God's judgment, a perfect sacrifice was necessary, according to the Law handed to Moses. Therefore, a perfect substitute (a sacrifice without blemish) was needed to intercede for man in order for man to be forgiven of his sins.

 

[Jenyar]

I think Hebrews has just become my favourite book, after Romans and Ephesians.

 

[atheroy]

why does god need money OR scrafices? more specifically, how does any form of currency ensure forgiveness of ones sins? if god is perfect his need to be worshipped would be non-exsistent; to be showered with gifts, unthinkable. the guy sounds unreasonable, petty, full of himself and melodramatic. lets hope he's grown up something. also, the new testament will be full of bias- all humans do it. it cannot be a faithful representation of the old testament, because if some people have trouble even reading the old testament (which happens more often than not i hear), how can other people successfully dechiper the amazingly bad english? i read that the saying "walking on water" 2000 years ago (jesus was supposed to "walk on water" once, right?) was the equal of walking around water today- slang has changed. if the english is bad, the nuances are different, how on earth can the new testament be a faithful conversion of the old testament? it can't.

 

[EvilPoet]

Fal$e Prophet$

Was Jesus a False Prophet?

 

[SnakeLord]

Jenyar:

First off, the New Testament are documents written by practicing Jews and believers alike, and as such it has a unique perspective (Christian) on the events and practices of the OT.

Yes.... their perspective, their opinions, thought and beliefs. The fact remains none of them were present at the time so anything they perceive can in no way be seen as an accurate perception. It is mere speculation. The people who would know, who would be accurate are the ones who were there at the time, (or closer to it). As such i'd rather read each section as it is instead of reading what someone speculated about it several hundred years later.

Sacrificing your pet cat is only cruel.

No more cruel than sacrificing 21 cows a day.

Animals were like currency to nomadic people, and their survival and prosperity depended on livestock.

So god didn't care for their survival or prosperity? Then why make them sacrifice all these animals every day and leave them only the animals with crushed ball bags and deformities?

By sacrificing their prime animals, they were explicitly acknowledging that their livelihood and prosperity is in God's hands.

They were acknowledging that they had no choice in the matter, just like a slave. If they didn't kill their perfect animals they were killed, plagued, burnt and so on. Either way you cut it this is not love, concern, compassion or anything along those lines. It is pure slavery run by pure fear. Ok..... a sin offering, sure. When you're bad apologise by killing a cow. But all the other offerings? The fact is god works for himself. He demands people do everything for him- if they don't he kills them. If they do as he says but ever complain they get killed. Etc, etc, etc. Way back since the early days god has been making all these promises and has not yet delivered. Instead he makes 600,000 jews live in the desert eating manna, killing their cows and then killing them.

Since Christ - as priest, prophet and king - fulfills those functions, including sacrifice, our sacrifice is ourselves. The point is faith. If you don't believe in God, sacrifice has no meaning whatsoever. You'll understand it better when you read Hebrews*

What does jesus know about sacrifice? Not a lot. According to christian belief jesus sacrficed himself for our sins but did he really? Ok- the book tells us he got crucified.... But what kind of sacrifice is that considering he came back from the dead a little while later- AND actually knew that beforehand. If i knew when i died i would come back to life afterwards the death wouldn't be a sacrifice it would be a magic show to please tourists. Sacrifice is when you give up something- he didn't give up anything. He got killed only to come alive again and also knew that he would be going home to see daddy. There's no sacrifice there- just a guy fooling the shepherds for a laugh.

What was written down was how the Israelites perceived circumstances (same with he 'aroma of sacrifice').

Same with the belief in god then? Maybe they just 'percieved' natural disasters as being dealt out by a mystical being. Maybe the voices they heard was just the human conscience at work. You can't just deny one aspect, or one act of god without looking seriously hard at the rest.

The plagues were signs which Pharoah ignored - TEN times. They had ten chances!

No, they had 0 chances. God said: "I will harden the hearts of the egyptians so they wont let the jews go". He said that every time. He even hardened the hearts again so they would chase the jews and eventually be drowned like rats. That is being a puppet on a string. If it's just human perspective then so is god being the maker of miracles. The middle east would have been rife with those kinds of things. Frogs from the nile, locusts, boils. There would have also been a high miscarriage rate and death rate among people. The staff to snake and nile to blood might be slightly harder to explain but according to the bible the egyptians managed to make those miracles aswell.

Just like people are ignoring the signs of the times today, but still choose to go against God.

Can you tell me what those signs are?

By the blood of an unblemished sacrificial lamb, the people of God were spared from death. Does this sound familiar? Maybe after you've read the rest of the Bible... By the way, God did take the firstborn sons of Israel

Well... god says the firstborn belong to him- but they are redeemed by... paying in silver. I wasn't the firstborn in my family. Does that mean i don't belong to god? Earlier you were telling me everything belongs to god so why would god say 'the firstborn belong to me' if everything belonged to him? He wouldn't need to say that- people would know anyway considering they had to kill cows to acknowledge that everything belonged to him. So either everything belongs to him or just the firstborn? Or does the firstborn belong to him twice? :bugeye:

I see you understand that no sacrifice or amount of prayer, fasting and good deeds we give could ever be enough.

And thus we enter the realms of greed and self-centeredness. If you tell your wife/husband you love them a hundred times a day it starts to mean nothing. If you say sorry a thousand times a day it means nothing. If i forced you, (under threat of death), to kill your currency, survival and prosperity every single day of the week, every day of the year forever would you say i loved you? Would you eventually- no matter what the cost- rise up against me and tell to piss off? Be honest.

Call it bad genes if you want

Genes? Don't get all evolutionary on me- it doesn't suit religious folk. How about we just say god messed up on the maths? He created something full of design flaws. It wasn't thoroughly road tested and as such got a puncture and a ripped fan belt after it hit 30mph.

And since you are not an Judaic Jew or subject to levirate laws, you won't have to. The issue here is that for the sake of the continuation of his brother's line and inheritance, it was expected of him after his brother's death - it was about preservation.

I'm adopted jew- even had a barmitzvah. However either way i would apparently have to if god said so otherwise i'd be killed.

The reason it starts off nice and seems to lose balance is because God is saying that He is righteous and merciful. We are guilty of sin, but redeemed by faith. Both can be true at the same time. A person can be punished and excused in his own lifetime. Final justice will only be realized after death.

No, he's saying the guilty will be punished upto the 4th generation.

***Exodus 13:2
Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal

Again i ask, in accordance with his and your statements: Doesn't everything belong to god?

(remember they had been surviving quite nicely on manna for forty years).

You try eating the same thing for 40 years then come to me and say "quite nicely".

 

[firingseeds]

:bugeye: