Why the Jews can all eat dung:

[_DigitaLVampirE_]

"Criticisms" of Christianity is not something restricted to Evolutionists like yourself only.
For example, a pastor from a church in Scotland once said in a sermon that the virgin birth was symbolic and that the Bible need not be taken literally.

When such matters are left to private interpretators then the Bible suddenly becomes a contradictory piece of "literature".

There were also contradictory and absurd statements made by several Evolutionists.
It does not mean what you say is true.
Or what other Christians say is true.
Absurdities comes from all sides.
I'm sure you're aware of that by now.

[ANDY-J1]

Originally posted by _DigitaLVampirE_
"Criticisms" of Christianity is not something restricted to Evolutionists like yourself only.
For example, a pastor from a church in Scotland once said in a sermon that the virgin birth was symbolic and that the Bible need not be taken literally.


Well exactly-when Christians themselves start to question the validity of doctrines which are fundamental to Christianity perhaps more orthodox christians should accept that certain aspects of their belief system are difficult to justify on intellectual and moral grounds.





When such matters are left to private interpretators then the Bible suddenly becomes a contradictory piece of "literature".

And who should it be left to?Who appointed any Cleric as the arbiter of what is right?Logic and common sense are the sole arbiters of what is right and if the bible doesn't conform to logic and common sense it is of no worth as a record of God's revelation to mankind.An infallible God can't be the inspiration for a holy scripture which is full of absurdities.









There were also contradictory and absurd statements made by several Evolutionists.

True but unfortunately for the creationists such people are overshadowed by the many thousands of reputable evolutionary biologists who take their work seriously.They observe the evidence objectively and arrive at hypotheses which can be tested.That is what serious scientists do and that is why their arguments have credibility.






It does not mean what you say is true.

What I say is patently true.I'll list several dozen biblical absurdities and contradictions if you like.

[voltaire-]

Ummm please don't think I'm getting all censorious, but isn't a thread about how "The Jews can all eat dung" a bit of a case of the infamous religion bashing?

V

[ANDY-J1]

I think that would be the case were it not for the fact that the bible clearly states that it is God's will that Jews should eat dung.

[upSlider]

Eze 4:12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

In Chapter 4, Ezekiel was being comanded to symbolize the seige of Jerusalem and the resulting exile by specific actions. The vs. 11 described that the famine would be severe, which lead into vs. 12.

Vs. 12 states that they shall eat barley cakes and shall bake the cakes with dung.

The barley cakes weren't to contain the dung - they were to be cooked over a fire made with the dried dung.

There are people all over the world that still cook food over "buffalo chips" (cattle dung).

I know this is a favorite verse among aethiests and clearly, who do not know what they are illuminating -- right back at ya babe!

upSlider

[ANDY-J1]

God states however "In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them." therefore the food is clearly tainted by the fact that it has been cooked on a dung fire.

[upSlider]

At least you've submitted that the verse states that it the barley cakes do NOT contain dung.

How about let's further explore Ezekiel PROPHECY which is referring to one part of history.

The prophet Ezekiel is told to give a specific prophecy by action. That of eating a barley cake that is baked over human dung. It isn’t that the cake was mixed with the human dung, but rather cooked over human dung. To which the prophet pleads for permission to abstain from this defilement. It was forbidden according to the Jewish dietary laws.

God allows him to use the dung of a animal instead. His prophecy was specifically to the Jews around him and especially of the Jews of the time of 70 AD. Especially in light of the statement that the fathers would eat their own children, and children will eat their fathers. Then the Nation will be scattered to the wind (Ezek. 5:10-17) and a sword will be unsheathed behind them.

This great slaughter will claim, one third by famine, one third by sword, one third sold into slavery, and the others will have no peace, for they will be chased by a sword. Chased by the sword, indicates their plight will not be over, even after their nation is destroyed.

The barley cakes and the small amount of water, indicated a famine or at least a great lack of food and water. For barley is the food of the poor, a later crop than wheat, etc. , consumed with a small amount of rationed water, instead of wine, used by the upper class. And cooked over dung, indicates a lack of cooking material and a desperate situation.

The use of human dung indicated the besieged Jews will have to defile themselves to stay alive, or do without or eat it uncooked.

At the very end of the siege of Jerusalem, Josephus records the Jews resorted to eating their own children.

This entire prophecy of cooking over dung, indicates the desperate situation and calamity of the Jews under this siege by the Romans armies.

Sure paints a desperate picture doesn't it.

If you were given a prophecy of this kind of desperate situation, what would you resort to?

upSlider