How can anyone seriously get upset at this, when a) the source material is quoted *accurately*, and, b) with a few exceptions, the scenes depicted with the Legos *accurately* portray the verse? (The Jerry Springer scene is a bit over the top - but nicely places a new context on a historical text.)
Either Legos are simply not worth of portraying the Word of God (but blood and guts galore by Gibson is fine), or the source material *really is that bizarre* from a modern context that showing it simply, clearly, and plainly is somehow embarrassing.
Oddly enough, I was advocating this site just tonight to someone who was interested in learning more about the Judaic laws. Here they're laid out like a children's Bible book, with the exact quotes. Can't get much more clear than that.
Frankly, I think the Old Testament is pretty barbaric, and from a Christian standpoint good only for a historical context prior to the New Testament. (Hint: Christ -> Christian. Otherwise it'd be Mosesian.) Just *maybe* that's the reason it's the *New* Testament? It's a break from the old, a new beginning, and a new religion. Trying to have it both ways (vengeful, wrathful, sadistic Yahweh, vs. loving, kind, forgiving God) is just schizophrenic... and this site shows it in all the plastic goodness that is Lego.
But hey. I find it a light hearted *but accurate* depiction. Others with less tolerance may find it blasphemous.
'congrats guys! You have outdone yourselves! Your bigotry knows no bounds.
This isn't a website, this is a bigot factory. See ya.
*submits last post at .com*
So I guess noone is allowed to see the fun aspects of the 72 virgins waiting in heaven for good muslims either?
We can make jokes about AIDS, homosexuals, war etc but NOOO, not about small plastic figures playing out role plays from an over two thousand year old collection of local rules that in most cases are impossible to enforce outside the very narrow setting they were formulated in.
Look at the site again at everything else than The Law. You might even find inspiration on how to make the old and new testament alive for you own children.
Justification for atrocities committed in the pursuit of personal power and gain. Simple as that.
You'll hear people still spouting "The Bible says, 'an eye for an eye'!". True enough. But ask them if they then denounce the Gospels, since in Matthew 5:38-39, it says "38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Usually they just starting spitting inanities because they can't decide which religion they're actually following: the Old Testament, with its fire and brimstone philosophy based on fear and wrath (which some people *LOVE* to use as justification for their own abuse of others), or the New Testament, with a philosophy of love and redemption.
Frequently they bounce between the two as meets their needs at the moment: that way they get to be righteous abusive assholes... but know that God forgives them, so it's okay. *THEY* won't burn in hell for being an evil dickhead to other people.
Rare in my experience is the Christian that is worthy of the name... one that actually follows the teachings of Christ, and applies them to their own life, leaving behind the Old Testament as the relic that it was intended to be ~2000 years ago. How we ended up with that millstone around the neck of what is otherwise a beautiful philosophy is one of the great tragedies of human history.
Justification for atrocities committed in the pursuit of personal power and gain. Simple as that.
You'll hear people still spouting "The Bible says, 'an eye for an eye'!". True enough. But ask them if they then denounce the Gospels, since in Matthew 5:38-39, it says "38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Usually they just starting spitting inanities because they can't decide which religion they're actually following: the Old Testament, with its fire and brimstone philosophy based on fear and wrath (which some people *LOVE* to use as justification for their own abuse of others), or the New Testament, with a philosophy of love and redemption.
Frequently they bounce between the two as meets their needs at the moment: that way they get to be righteous abusive assholes... but know that God forgives them, so it's okay. *THEY* won't burn in hell for being an evil dickhead to other people.
Rare in my experience is the Christian that is worthy of the name... one that actually follows the teachings of Christ, and applies them to their own life, leaving behind the Old Testament as the relic that it was intended to be ~2000 years ago. How we ended up with that millstone around the neck of what is otherwise a beautiful philosophy is one of the great tragedies of human history.
Your theology is really weak.
I would suggest some reading beyond Legos. Try some Luther, some Calvin. Heck, even Aquinas would help.
Can you argue against that 99.9% of people calling themselves Christians *haven't* read them however, and revert to the oh-so-clever 'Because the Bible says so' when most of the time that *isn't* what the Bible says, and they're just using random snippets to justify atrocities against their family and neighbors? I sure can't. I'm not saying that's the norm, but the vast majority of Christians have no serious idea what's *in* the book they claim to follow... just random tidbits here and there. And entirely too many of them use these random tidbits, taken out of context, as justification for all manner of contradictory beliefs and heinous actions.
I have seen, firsthand, a husband spout chapter and verse while beating his wife, and justify it as the word of God. After all, it *is* allowed in some interpretations of Judaic law in some circumstances... none of which applied, but what the hell. The Bible says so.
I have seen, firsthand, someone espousing on the vile evilness of homosexuals... while eating pork sausage. Same book prohibits both. Justification for thinking that homosexuals should be killed outright? You guessed it, the Bible.
Please argue a stronger theological statement than simple observation of human behaviour supports and explains.
I'm open to new interpretations and insights, but frankly, my readings and observations have only led me to the belief that Christianity went down the wrong path soon after birth, by 1) not ditching the Old Testament, and 2) letting Paul loose to run amuck. Talk about your bitter caustic puritanical misogynists. (Power hungry comes to mind as well, but that's another thread.)
Christ's teachings are simple, direct, and to the point. The Bible, unfortunately, is full of entirely too much fodder for all manner of vile justifications that contradict those teachings directly... and yet few Christians are well versed enough in their own faith's writings to know that the problem even exists, in my experience.
"Feed my sheep." Unfortunately, many people take that appellation entirely too literally and forget to investigate anything other than what they are handed in tiny nuggets from an all too human pulpit.
Comments
I love legos...
What if there is no gate at your city? What do you do then?
Sexual Discharges
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Are animal sacrifices really still OK?
Sexual Discharges
Finally a way to get rid of all these damn pigeons!
With all this washing you would think the laundry soap business would be a champion of strict biblical interpretations!
I guess Abu Ghraib is okay then for the old testament christian sects...
Originally posted by Anders
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the.../dt21_10a.html
I guess Abu Ghraib is okay then for the old testament christian sects...
Hell's bells, that's fantastic.
Ow, my sides hurt... owwww.
Beautiful. And, accurately quoted which just makes it that much sweeter.
Okay this is now officially LOL
This isn't a website, this is a bigot factory. See ya.
*submits last post at .com*
Either Legos are simply not worth of portraying the Word of God (but blood and guts galore by Gibson is fine), or the source material *really is that bizarre* from a modern context that showing it simply, clearly, and plainly is somehow embarrassing.
Oddly enough, I was advocating this site just tonight to someone who was interested in learning more about the Judaic laws. Here they're laid out like a children's Bible book, with the exact quotes. Can't get much more clear than that.
Frankly, I think the Old Testament is pretty barbaric, and from a Christian standpoint good only for a historical context prior to the New Testament. (Hint: Christ -> Christian. Otherwise it'd be Mosesian.) Just *maybe* that's the reason it's the *New* Testament? It's a break from the old, a new beginning, and a new religion. Trying to have it both ways (vengeful, wrathful, sadistic Yahweh, vs. loving, kind, forgiving God) is just schizophrenic... and this site shows it in all the plastic goodness that is Lego.
But hey. I find it a light hearted *but accurate* depiction. Others with less tolerance may find it blasphemous.
Originally posted by dmz
*submits last post at .com*
Oh, please, please, please let it be true!
Originally posted by dmz
'congrats guys! You have outdone yourselves! Your bigotry knows no bounds.
This isn't a website, this is a bigot factory. See ya.
*submits last post at .com*
So I guess noone is allowed to see the fun aspects of the 72 virgins waiting in heaven for good muslims either?
We can make jokes about AIDS, homosexuals, war etc but NOOO, not about small plastic figures playing out role plays from an over two thousand year old collection of local rules that in most cases are impossible to enforce outside the very narrow setting they were formulated in.
Look at the site again at everything else than The Law. You might even find inspiration on how to make the old and new testament alive for you own children.
Originally posted by shetline
Oh, please, please, please let it be true!
Hey now, be nice.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Hey now, be nice.
Nah. Please PLEEEAAAASSSEEEE go. And Take NipplesX with ya
From Sunday school I remember something about Jesus or a disciple saying those rules are passe.
Seriously, I'm honestly asking for some theological scholar to fill me in on the reasoning.
Justification for atrocities committed in the pursuit of personal power and gain. Simple as that.
You'll hear people still spouting "The Bible says, 'an eye for an eye'!". True enough. But ask them if they then denounce the Gospels, since in Matthew 5:38-39, it says "38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Usually they just starting spitting inanities because they can't decide which religion they're actually following: the Old Testament, with its fire and brimstone philosophy based on fear and wrath (which some people *LOVE* to use as justification for their own abuse of others), or the New Testament, with a philosophy of love and redemption.
Frequently they bounce between the two as meets their needs at the moment: that way they get to be righteous abusive assholes... but know that God forgives them, so it's okay. *THEY* won't burn in hell for being an evil dickhead to other people.
Rare in my experience is the Christian that is worthy of the name... one that actually follows the teachings of Christ, and applies them to their own life, leaving behind the Old Testament as the relic that it was intended to be ~2000 years ago. How we ended up with that millstone around the neck of what is otherwise a beautiful philosophy is one of the great tragedies of human history.
Originally posted by Kickaha
My opinion?
Justification for atrocities committed in the pursuit of personal power and gain. Simple as that.
You'll hear people still spouting "The Bible says, 'an eye for an eye'!". True enough. But ask them if they then denounce the Gospels, since in Matthew 5:38-39, it says "38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Usually they just starting spitting inanities because they can't decide which religion they're actually following: the Old Testament, with its fire and brimstone philosophy based on fear and wrath (which some people *LOVE* to use as justification for their own abuse of others), or the New Testament, with a philosophy of love and redemption.
Frequently they bounce between the two as meets their needs at the moment: that way they get to be righteous abusive assholes... but know that God forgives them, so it's okay. *THEY* won't burn in hell for being an evil dickhead to other people.
Rare in my experience is the Christian that is worthy of the name... one that actually follows the teachings of Christ, and applies them to their own life, leaving behind the Old Testament as the relic that it was intended to be ~2000 years ago. How we ended up with that millstone around the neck of what is otherwise a beautiful philosophy is one of the great tragedies of human history.
Your theology is really weak.
I would suggest some reading beyond Legos. Try some Luther, some Calvin. Heck, even Aquinas would help.
Can you argue against that 99.9% of people calling themselves Christians *haven't* read them however, and revert to the oh-so-clever 'Because the Bible says so' when most of the time that *isn't* what the Bible says, and they're just using random snippets to justify atrocities against their family and neighbors? I sure can't. I'm not saying that's the norm, but the vast majority of Christians have no serious idea what's *in* the book they claim to follow... just random tidbits here and there. And entirely too many of them use these random tidbits, taken out of context, as justification for all manner of contradictory beliefs and heinous actions.
I have seen, firsthand, a husband spout chapter and verse while beating his wife, and justify it as the word of God. After all, it *is* allowed in some interpretations of Judaic law in some circumstances... none of which applied, but what the hell. The Bible says so.
I have seen, firsthand, someone espousing on the vile evilness of homosexuals... while eating pork sausage. Same book prohibits both. Justification for thinking that homosexuals should be killed outright? You guessed it, the Bible.
Please argue a stronger theological statement than simple observation of human behaviour supports and explains.
I'm open to new interpretations and insights, but frankly, my readings and observations have only led me to the belief that Christianity went down the wrong path soon after birth, by 1) not ditching the Old Testament, and 2) letting Paul loose to run amuck. Talk about your bitter caustic puritanical misogynists. (Power hungry comes to mind as well, but that's another thread.)
Christ's teachings are simple, direct, and to the point. The Bible, unfortunately, is full of entirely too much fodder for all manner of vile justifications that contradict those teachings directly... and yet few Christians are well versed enough in their own faith's writings to know that the problem even exists, in my experience.
"Feed my sheep." Unfortunately, many people take that appellation entirely too literally and forget to investigate anything other than what they are handed in tiny nuggets from an all too human pulpit.