Being a condescending dick is no way to go through life

[Burris]

A fellow FJ user, MormonJesus, recently posted a thread called, Mary Mother of God – Ruben from Homemaking by Choice is Nuts.

When I come across epic discoveries made by other posters, and wish to comment on those matters, I usually do so in the OP's thread rather than duplicating content by starting a thread of my own. I also don't want to offend an OP or take away from the work that person has already done in digging up gems like the YouTube video, “Do Christians Pick Cherries?â€

This particular video was so incredibly condescending, unsettling, and morbidly stupid, however, that I have transcribed nearly the entire thing so as to more easily deconstruct this nonsense.

I recommend that readers first watch the video, which can be found in MormonJesus' thread, before going through the transcript. Merely reading the content of this video is not nearly enough to grasp just how infuriating it actually is.

The following transcription is interspersed with my own reactions.

So what's up with the blended fabrics and the animal sacrifices and the all that stoning people in the Old Testament? Well we don't just pretend those verses don't exist, but within the larger context of the Bible it becomes clear that they do not necessary apply to us – at least not directly – although there may be principles contained in them that apply to us.

Notice how the individual responsible for this video - a man I'll call 'Rabbit Sauce' because that is a shorter form of the handle he picked for himself - has already created an 'out' by which he can cherry-pick from the Bible: 'The principles may apply to modern Christians, but the rules themselves may not.'

He makes some effort to explain why certain Biblical injunctions were appropriate 2000 years ago that are no longer valid today.

These explanations – mostly unsatisfactory – will appear below as we continue with the transcript.

So why don't we sacrifice animals anymore? Because the sacrifices were symbolic acts pointing to the Savior that one day would come – the spotless lamb of God, Jesus Christ, whose death was sufficient for all the sins of everyone who will ever receive his forgiveness, thereby rendering any further sacrifices obsolete. This is explained quite clearly in the New Testament so hermeneutically it's really a no-brainer.

Though Rabbit Sauce expresses himself in a most arrogant fashion, his explanation for the end of animal sacrifice among early Christians is in line with a mainstream understanding of the subject: Under the sacrificial system in the Old Testament, human guilt had to be purged – unfortunately by shedding innocent blood as an act of contrition and atonement.

Since no human was ever innocent, but animals were, than their blood was the required price for atonement.

Then a unique individual was born: Jesus, who, being the Son of God (or an avatar of God), was the only being with human form who was nonetheless sinless. His own act of sacrifice, made to atone for the sins of his followers (or of all people ever to live, depending on what one believes) put an end to animal sacrifice among those who believed in the new sect.

Stoning people? Well, these commands are part of the civil law that the nation of Israel was to be ruled by.

Yeah, except there was no real differentiation between civil and religious law in ancient Israel.

You may or may not agree that these laws were appropriate, and I won't go down that rabbit trail today...

Those were brutal laws for a brutal time. They did, however, require that an entire community share in an execution – and, if the person they killed proved to be innocent, that community shared in the bloodguilt as well.

...but the reason you don't see any Christians stoning people today is that we are not a part of that nation; we are a part of whatever nation we live in and we live under the laws of that nation.

Who is this “we†Rabbit Sauce keeps mentioning?

FreeJinger and FSTDT are but two of many sites that chronicle the ongoing and organized effort by some Christian groups to subvert the law – to break it with impunity, such as by abusing tax-exempt status; to get away with murder, because they failed to get proper medical attention for their child for "religious reasons"; to codify specifically religious morality, such as by trying to maintain the prohibition against homosexual marriage

And yet, despite their alleged reverence for the entire Bible - including for those legal statutes in the Old Testament that had not been specifically repealed in the New Testament - most Christians do not follow Old Testament rules even despite Jesus' never having repealed them (such as he did when lifting the ban on eating certain meat).

He did not tell Christians to avoid the Mikvah, for example, and yet most modern do not follow that tradition.

Paul instituted the headcovering for women in prayer (1 Cor. 11), in the New Testament, and yet may of the hardcore fundies we discuss here - for example Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Nancy Campbell, Kelly Crawford, Beall Phillips, and so many others - do not veil themselves. These women claim not to cherry-pick either.

Other Christians do not provide the modern equivalent of gleaning activities for the poor, even though that command was never repealed. Still others do not follow the command not to mistreat foreigners (Ex, 22:21, Ex, 23:9, Lev. 19:33, Deut. 24:17-18, and others), instead looking for ways to dehumanize and deport people fleeing West from war and terror abroad.

Forget mixed fabrics, pork, and shellfish for a moment: Too many modern Christians not only ignore OT commands to help the poor and the stranger, but they also ignore the parallel commands in the New Testament.

If the Christian response to the 2012 election cycle is any indication, the average 'fundamentalist' - you know, that individual who claims to stick with the fundamental truths of the Bible – cherry-picks verses to the point where nothing remains but the condemnation of homosexuality and some wierd patchwork of verses about child-bearing.

Okay, so let's deal with the famous ban of clothes made from a blend of wool and linen.

Rabbit Sauce's precision – his specificity in listing which fabrics should not be mixed – is far from accidental. His entire argument rests on how the ban was specific to these two fabrics, ignoring all the other Biblical admonitions against mixing diverse seeds and mating diverse animals (which are all mentioned in the same verse, Lev. 19:19).

Moreover, while the KJV lists a prohibition on mixing specific fabrics in Lev. 19:19 – a mistranslation that Rabbit Sauce clings to like a life raft in trying to make his asinine point – The Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (among most others) says something a bit different: “My statutes ye do keep: thy cattle thou dost not cause to gender with diverse kinds; thy field thou dost not sow with diverse kinds, and a garment of diverse kinds...â€

Here's what the English Standard Version says:

“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.â€

Of this verse, Lev. 19:19, Clarke's commentary reads in part...

“These precepts taken literally seem to imply that they should not permit the horse and the she-ass, nor the he-ass and the cow, (as they do in the East), to couple together; nor sow different kinds of seeds in the same field or garden; nor have garments of silk and woolen, cotton and silk, linen and wool, etcâ€

Deut. 22:11 mentions a specific prohibition against mixing wool and linen, and across multiple translations, but Lev. 19:19 does not. The latter speaks of mixing different materials, full stop.

Atheists take great enjoyment in sarcastically asking Christians whether they wear any clothes made with blended fabrics. Personally, I do not wear that particular blend of fabrics, but not for any other reason than it's a rather impractical combination and it's not a combo that clothing manufacturers tend to go for. So unless you sew your own clothes from fabric you have woven yourself, you will have a hard time breaking this statute.

Actually, as I demonstrate above, it's really easy to break that statute. Rabbit Sauce was likely breaking it in the clothing he wore while filming.

If you decide to try, make sure you hand wash it cold, dry it flat, and don't even think about ironing it.

Oh, very cute. I assume this is what RS mistakes for wit.

That being said, since no person in his right mind would even think of combining these two fabrics, the law was probably given to root out some superstitious practice that Israel had adopted from some form of pagan idol worship.

...well that, or RS did not read different translations in parallel, and nor did he read any commentary on the verse in questions.

But if you're not happy with that explanation, feel free to go through your closet and make sure you don't find any offending item of clothing in there. I don't think you will.

I don't see any need to continue an eons-old ban on mixed fabrics. If I were a Biblical literalist, however, and mocking other people for failing to do their research, then I would have been a bit more careful to make sure I had not been cherry-picking.

Bottom line: Christians do not cherry-pick on a whim what Bible verses we want to follow or not. We study this book carefully to figure out how each individual verse applies to us.

There is no “we†here. RS may study – or in this case, “study†- the Bible in a way different from how others do so. He may determine some principles – for example, the high bar set in Matthew 25:31-46 – are important even while other Christians fixate on whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (with an additional irony being that some of those same Christians who oppose marriage equality are divorced-and-remarried themselves, thereby committing the Biblical definition of adultery).

Sometimes that is very easy, like most atheists taking verses out of context to make the Bible look silly. We can deal with that.

If RS thinks atheists are the only ones who might have trouble with his condescending lack of humility, then he is mistaken.

Sometimes it's more complex. There are some questions that (you know) good, honest Christians have studied for centuries and we still haven't been able to come to an agreement on them.

Indeed.

But please stop making fools of yourselves by acting all smug over discovering these Bible verses because we have entrusted out eternal salvation to this book. We study it, and we know what it says.

“We†again? I have no doubt RS has read the Bible. Based on this video, however, I don't think he has actually studied it. If he had studied the Bible, that film he made would be much different both in tone and in content – and, more importantly, it would be aimed at other Christians so that iron may sharpen iron.

Stereotyping atheists as foolish for asking perfectly legitimate questions? That's not right at all. In fact...

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.†1 Peter 3:15-16 [bolded for emphasis]

[desertvixen]

If the Christian response to the 2012 election cycle is any indication, the average 'fundamentalist' - you know, that individual who claims to stick with the fundamental truths of the Bible – cherry-picks verses to the point where nothing remains but the condemnation of homosexuality and some wierd patchwork of verses about child-bearing.

I think I love you... :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: