ok, so we can agree that this is a ******ed law and no omnipotent god should give a crap about what fabric our clothing is made of?

i don't find this surprising at all, but he wasn't really looking for it...he seems to have already been pretty well versed in the bible and had reasons for the choices he had made...it didn't seem like his intention was to find god...

This is a good point and I would agree that he did not partake in this experiment with the hope or indeed intention of finding God. I was thinking along the lines that since Jacobs studied this supposedly holy text and attempted to live his life by it you would think that God, if he existed, may have revealed himself in some manner.

I did not really take offense. I just find it odd, or convenient, that he passes these laws off as meaningless whether it be for that time or for now. I would agree that most of them would be meaningless today but he does not mention that they had meaning at the time and that they were not in fact arbitrary at all.

You do not have to take my word for it, you can do your own research and come to your own conclusion. As far as there being no valid reasons for all of the laws the burden is on you to prove that there was none.

I would say that even the book itself shows it's intentions.

As far as following all of the laws of the OT and Lev. no I would not aspire to that. I do think though that he shows a couple of things that are very important. Most of all is that if we truly put our minds towards something like following bible it can be done. To follow the NT would be much than the OT in theory. Of course most of the NT is deals with inward things as opposed to the OT. To follow the NT you really have to change yourself not just your actions.

It would seem it is strangely convenient.

What does?

The reason I'm having trouble with this is because god is supposedly all-knowing.

To be all-knowing means that you wouldn't have the re-think stuff over time...because you already know what's right and what should be said.

And also, you say that the OT stuff like "do not wear wool and cotton together" doesn't apply to Christianity, yet the creation story does. Sorry if I'm having trouble separating the two. It's not so easy when you don't just select the parts you like and discard the ones you don't.

These are two completely different things. I do not believe that the OT laws did not happen, just that they no longer apply as the NT says. The creation account is just that, an account of the creation. Whether you believe it to be literal or metaphorical or a mixture. So i am not understanding how you are comparing the two.

These are the laws of conduct for a specific people at a specific time. It was not meant to be universal and eternal. So how does God's Omniscience come into play?

We'll stop mentioning the OT as soon as the theists on the board stop quoting from it to back up their points.

Just watched the whole thing.

Seems like Red Letter Christianity is where it's at if you're gonna do it.

Like the part where he talked about how the passed out the pamphlets about what Jesus said about homosexuality. Nothing! That was great, and it goes to show how the bible was written to gain control over others by barbaric men.

Great video. Interesting how he talks about the necessity of ritual and sacredness, yet also recognises the essential arbitrariness of religious rituals.

I think this is one of the great points he makes in this video. I am glad you liked it, I think the tone of the video is great for anyone as he has clearly not set out to ridicule religions or religious beliefs. I really wish more theists on here would watch it without their brain blinkers on.

And he does give props to the Bible for making him a better person.

So hilarious that even mentioning the OT laws sends Jib running for the hills.

People are wildly divided on what the term "biblical living" constitutes so I really don't see why people would want to see an agnostic take such a subject on.

The Orthodox Jews, the Messianic Jews and even various Christian Groups differ on what constitutes "biblical living". There is no one standard on this. So any argument is pretty much stymied from the outset by sect/group variation of practice.

Atheists never get it. Sects are mainly all about difference in the amount of emphasis that they put on similar ideas. That is a fundamental human trait that when coupled with any system of beliefs is going to cause different sects and sect practices.

Like the idea of sin in Christianity. The Catholics emphasize the notion of original sin hence they have infant baptism. The Protestants agree with this notion of original sin its just they emphasize the individual recognition and conviction of it hence adult full immersion baptism. Same root. Different emphasis. A different emphasis that is reflected in practice.

So sry but I just don't want to see some uncommitted guy doozying around with something he doesn't even believe in. I can't learn anything from that. As Creflo Dollar says "be careful what you are watering the seed of God with. Use the purest water" or something like that.

"I'm Jewish in the same sense that The Olive Garden is Italian."

Best quote in the video IIRC.

awesome link. ted rules

No need to apologise, I wasn't expecting you to learn anything. He was far more committed to living Biblically than you are. Maybe if you watched the video you would under stand this, oh and that reminds me.

Pretty sure I already told you to **** off unless you were going to watch the video.

Isnt it written that Jesus said "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

And people honestly take this litteral?

...

...

..

f real?

such a fantastic quote, but if taken litterally... umm...

I personally think it is one of the wisest lines in the Bible. I see what your saying tho (although my vision in unnaturally obscured right now for some reason).

it is? here, let me help you with that =P

we are not under the law but under Grace if you try to keep the law you come under a curse because the law brought a curse we the christians live by faith and love ==the laws of the old testament where given to the nation of isreal==we are under the laws of Jesus Christ

You think that a) no atheist is capable of understanding the differences in sects of Christianity and b) there is nothing to be learned from information gathered by an intelligent and objective observer who spends a decent amount of time living his work because he doesn't live his whole life in the way he is living during the time he is observing(JANE GOODALL SAYS HI!)?

Started to watch but stopped when he got into the OT laws. Has nothing to do with me or atheism.

Seriously though. Awesome video.

1) This makes my head hurt. I think the answer is yes. I don't care if this makes other humans hate me or I end up in jail. I'm not gonna **** with God. This life isn't that important. If I play by God's rules I get to party with him FOREVER!

2) I think cafeteria Christians are most likely to act in a compassionate manner vs other Christian types. So I think the cafeteria Christian is the best type of Christian. It's still wrong in the sense that A) If there is a God he may get pissed off by this. B) I think a moral model based on compassion still beats out a moral model based on picking and choosing from the bible. C) The obv. Assuming their book is a myth, like all the other sects, they're wasting their time and energy.

3) In terms of Christianity, I think the red letter Christians are teh awesome. Jesus does do some things that piss me off or disappoint me but I think the NT outside of Jesus is way worse. But then again Jesus did bring about the idea of hell which basically destroys everything I just wrote here. So there's only one thing we can do (besides the obvious of using the book for toilet paper)....It's time for:

Red Letter Cafeteria Christians!!! I plan on starting this religion tomorrow and getting super rich. Holla!