Copland III

Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah. –Deuteronomy 6:16

Imagine you’re being offered the opportunity to buy a car. It’s at a reasonable price and the deal looks good, but there are some strings attached.

You can’t take the car out for a test drive. You aren’t allowed to touch the car without the owner’s permission – in fact, you’re not allowed to see the car before you buy it, let alone start it and test its ability. In this sort of situation, you’d imagine you’re being set up for a scam.

That is exactly what is being stated here – you can’t put god to the test, and therefore you cannot PROVE he exists. You wouldn’t buy a car, a house or a computer like this, so how on earth would we expect to find the meaning of life in it.

There are those who cry ‘you must have faith’. However, am I likely to have faith in a supernatural cloud-fairy who is, according to the same texts, a homophobic, racist, nationalistic, authoritarian mass-murderer?

Conservapedia has always been a fecal pool for racist, biased and twisted bollocks. But this particular article amuses me – it is the article on naturism. I’m linking to it via snurl (I am in no way going to contribute to these idiots’ PageRank).

Naturism, also known as nudism, is the idea that going without clothes is acceptable and beneficial for health and wellbeing.

Those who support naturism quote Genesis 2:25, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

However, the Bible clearly says that such behavior is not acceptable. Genesis 3:9-10 says, “And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

Further, Leviticus 18 is far more explicit against naturism:

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

Quite amusingly, the Conservaprats have misquoted their own holy text. The ‘uncover one’s nakedness’ in the KJV sense actually equates to “have sex with”. Nothing to do with nudity at all, then.

And then we come to the talk page. Oh, dear. The’ve been discussong this issue with excellent verve, even getting basic bible cancepts wrong.

This article equivocates on the biblical concept of uncovering someone’s nakedness, which is KJV language for the total sex act and has little to do with public nudism. I don’t think there’s any way to salvage this article to make it acceptable in CP. Teresita 21:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree. According to mainstream Christian theology Adam and Eve were without sin prior to their
disobedience regarding the Tree of Life.

They were also naked as well before the Tree of Life “original sin”. Therefore, according to Genesis at least, nudity in and of itself must not be sinful. That’s how I understand it at any rate. Sulgran 21:47, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

“Those who support naturism quote Genesis 2:25, ‘And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.’” Surely there are also naturists who do not go déshabillé just because of Genesis? Perhaps even naturists who do not even believe Genesis?–All Fish Welcome 04:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Often, when confronted with scientific facts about the placebo effect or evolution, a fundamentalist Christian’s answer will begin with:

You are incorrect. There are numerous examples in Scripture of (insert phenomenon here)…

But can we treat this “Scripture” as a reliable historical source? Often, when trying to explain the awesomeness of the bible (and god) to a child or an unbeliever, a person will say

“The Bible’s an awesome book. It’s thousands of pages long, and was written by scores of authors over thousands of years…”

If we replace every instance of the word “Bible” with the title of another book, then from these statements, the book would sound thoroughly unreliable. But no. It’s the Bible – it must be valid.

Yeah, right.