A.J. Jacobs on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos

[ourworld287]

I wonder how many millions of people he killed for working on sunday??

[Gods0n1]

the guy was kinda funny, but he is picking and choosing as well, because the bible actually abolishes all of those 700 laws once Christ came and only keeps 10 Colossians 2:17

[hisbride49]

He missed grace, which is the marker of the NT! :-) Just sayin'...

[rebekah0504]

Great book! Really enjoyable read.

[ellenmh]

A Year of Living Biblically is my favourite book of all time.

[urgencyy]

i am currently reading his newest book "the guinea pig diaries"

excellent read, briliiantly funny and insightful man. definitely worth the time.

[YoYoHall]

This is all the old testament stuff he followed. Not the new testament, so the book should be called living old testamently

[VenomToothY]

Last few months he spent new testament style.

[heatherhellraiser]

@YoYoHall Actually he devoted about half the year to the old testament and the other half to the new testament.

[makeshiftwings]

I love this man. All his books are fantastic!

[gaBehcuoDsuoitneterP]

I've performed publicity stunts and have some scribblings I'd like to sell you at an exorbitant rate. Please contact me for further details.

[lamejorpersona1]

just finished this book. i read it in five days. this interview is basically like the "cliffs notes" version of the book. he hits on all the points in the interview that are the most salient in the book. interesting man, very different personality on the screen, but nonetheless it was an interesting read. oh, and you're all going to hell.

[buttercupcake27]

hey soooo is george married with children? lol =)

[buttercupcake27]

omg he is Jesus lol!!!!!! =)

[sarachuck08]

Pealse read this book before judging A.J. He went from not believing in a God to becoming reverent. He is not making fun of the bible or its rules. And deducing anything from this short clip is ignorant. Do not make a comment about the book or the author unless you yourself have tried to understand where he is coming from. Even if you are a secular person, like myself, you will fin d this book a good read. I was sad when his year was over.

[flyshoe19]

The previous comment was to sam51092. This comment is to sarachuck08: "deducing anything from this short clip is ignorant". That is a ridiculous statement. I'm not allowed to deduce things. I'm not supposed to identify how he represents himself. I'm just supposed to ignore the word gimmick that is plastered all over this guy, and ignore the clear misrepresentation of the Bible. I'll go buy his book and hate every word. And then I guess I can "judge". Your statement was ignorant.

[flyshoe19]

Just because he has read the Bible doesn't mean he understands it...he demonstrates a lack of understanding. He is trying to paint the Bible as absurd for modern society...the "rules" he followed were not addressed for use by modern man. There was a different relationship between God/Israel and God/modern Church. He is taking a shot against fundamentalism, but he doesn't really understand that what he is doing doesn't effectively hurt fundamentalism.

[sam51092]

'The "rules" he followed were not addressed for use by modern man'.

That would be one the rationales people use for picking and choosing. He was trying to not do that, that's the point. The shot against fundamentalism is that while fundamentalists criticise moderates for picking and choosing, the fundamentalists themselves are picking and choosing.

And if you listened to the vid, he said there were good things in the Bible for modern society. Wasn't just absurd.

[flyshoe19]

Okay, but you are harnessing a logical fallacy and oversimplification. You can call it "picking and choosing" if you want, but not all "picking and choosing" is bad. If you have a good understanding of the Bible (which most people do not), then you understand that not every "rule" in the Bible is addressed to modern man. It's not about picking the rules you like or don't like. It's about picking the ones that are actually addressed to you.

[sam51092]

Read the book, he acknowledges all that. But many fundamentalists DO say that the Word is 'eternal and unchanging' (probably the kind who haven't read it), so that's who he's targeting.

I have to wonder though, how do you decide what's 'addressed to modern man' and what's not? Is it based on modern culture, which has changed because... we wanted it to?? Meaning that the rules 'addressed to us' are just the ones we that we like??

[flyshoe19]

No, it's not based on modern culture; it's based on the Bible itself. It is very clear in the Bible that the Old Testament laws were addressed to Old Testament Jews. A new way to live and interact with God is given to us in the New Testament that is not based on law.

[sam51092]

So the Bible ISN'T eternal and unchanging. It changes to suit different societies. That would mean you actually AGREE with AJ Jacobs, who was only making fun of those who DO think every 'jot and tittle' is eternal and unchanging for everyone. AJ said picking and choosing WAS a good thing. I don't understand why God changes his mind so drastically, as though stonings were once morally GOOD but not now, but whatever.

[flyshoe19]

"So the Bible ISN'T eternal and unchanging. It changes to suit different societies." God is eternal and unchanging...if you recall I said that the new testament presents new way to live and interact with God--it's not that God changed. The Bible doesn't change to fit different societies-I never agreed to anything like that, I said the opposite of that. I disagree with Jacobs.

[flyshoe19]

"I don't understand why God changes his mind so drastically, as though stonings were once morally GOOD but not now, but whatever." If you believe in God, then you should realized your view of what is 'morally good' is not authoritative. It is made clear in the Bible that anyone guilty of sin deserves death. Every second a sinner does not receive death is attributed to God's grace. You questioning the morality of God's interaction with Israel is as backwards as it gets.

[sam51092]

I don't believe in God.

If you take the Bible literally, you have to believe God once mandated stoning to death as a legitimate punishment, then changed his mind in the New Testament.

[flyshoe19]

That is a false statement. If you take the Bible literally you have to believe that a human living in today's society is just as deserving to be stoned as in the Old Testament. If someone were stoned today, the Bible teaches that they deserved it because of their sin, no matter how insignificant you think their sin is. However, we no longer interact with God through His Law, so we don't have to worry about that. Statements like the one you just made indicate that you don't really...

[flyshoe19]

..(continued) understand that part of scripture. It is in a similar fashion it seems to me that Jacobs doesn't understand that part of scripture. It's not about OT God thinking it's moral and NT God thinking it's not moral, and therefore one of them is wrong. God in the NT (who is the same as OT God) is consistent in showing sin as punishable by death. People don't seem to get that. I don't think people want to get that.

[sam51092]

'However, we no longer interact with God through His Law, so we don't have to worry about that'.

And why do we no longer 'interact with God through His Law'? How can it be anything other than because he later changed his mind about how to 'interact' with us?

Perhaps he planned, all along, to have it one way up to a certain point and then have it another way... which is just stupid.

[sam51092]

We 'deserve' to be stoned to death, for the heinous crime (which we had no choice in) of being born imperfect? And we are supposed to thank your God for this ridiculous situation he's created?

And yes, God DID create it - if you believe the Bible - because he knew what would happen before he created Adam, so could've done it differently, and it was him who decided it was the rule that all humans would be sinners because of this one sin. So if anyone should take blame for our sin, it's GOD.

[flyshoe19]

Here's where you went wrong "which we had no choice in". Every human has a choice. The Bible presents free will. Just because God knew it would happen doesn't mean He should change it--it certainly doesn't mean he caused it. God desired free will to be present in man. Just as He knew Israel would fail, yet he still gave them a chance. He gave man a chance to not fail, but we failed. You individually failed. Don't blame Adam. Blame you. If God did eliminated free will and we were robotic...

[flyshoe19]

...followers, how would we know we need Him? (What would be the point of that anyway?) An observer would be able to accuse God of not allowing us to prove ourselves to be outside of His rule. Humans failing to be holy, demonstrates our need for Him.

[flyshoe19]

Here's how: Mankind failed...big surprise: God gave Jews the chance to live by the Law but time and again they turned away from Him. It was necessary to change the interaction because of man's failure. You are trying to imply that God's sense of what is moral has changed but you fail to make that case. The change in the interaction is not a result of God's morality changing but of man's failure. Why would God do it this way? The answer is similar to the next comment's: He gave man a chance

[sam51092]

And here's where YOU went wrong: I said nothing about the 'free will' God might give us NOW, I said we had no choice to be born imperfect IN THE FIRST PLACE, being punished for a sin committed not by us but by our supposed 'ancestors'. A sin for which GOD decided all humanity should be born imperfect, because that was the rule HE made. Since we are BORN imperfect, then no, we never 'got a chance'. This makes our sin God's fault, and so God deserves death according to his own ridiculous rules.

[flyshoe19]

I know you didn't say anything about free will. I'm saying we have free will. The Bible teaches that you did have a choice. God did not make it necessary for you to sin. You individually chose sin. God didn't make you imperfect. He didn't make a rule that YOU have to sin. You, on your own, chose to sin. You want to believe that you didn't have a choice, but that is just not what is presented in the Bible.

[sam51092]

Does it or does it not say in the Bible that sin in innate in us, that no one can avoid being a sinner, that no one is truly good? That this was because of God's penalty for Adam and Eve's sin? It was HIS rule. He could just as easily punished Adam and Eve (or the serpent) and had everyone else born perfect. He chose not to do this.

You can't have it both ways. If we don't have the choice open to us to be absolutely perfect in every thought and deed, then we have no free will NOT to sin.

[flyshoe19]

You don't seem to get what I'm saying...We each do have that choice (not to sin) open to us. But each of us chooses to sin. The Bible documents the fact that each one of us chose sin. Just because it states the fact, it does not make it (or God) responsible for the reason behind it. The reason behind it, is consistently represented as man's choice.

[sam51092]

Now you're contradicting the Bible. The Bible says we are IMPERFECT. Being made imperfect means we CAN'T choose to be perfect, hence sin being INEVITABLE.

It's reason for this imperfection is humans are born in a fallen state, as God's chosen penalty for Adam and Eve's sin. So the predisposition to 'choose' sin in the first place is because of God's chosen penalty- which wasn't our choice at all. And if we didn't choose to be imperfect, in what sense are individual sins really OUR choice?

[flyshoe19]

Wow....how are you not getting this? You have made the same "point" in each of your last three posts. Each time I replied that our punishment is just as much our fault as it is Adam's. You are not blameless. "The Bible says we are imperfect. Being made imperfect means..." Notice how you through in that word MADE....we were not MADE imperfect...we are imperfect by our own sin. You individually failed. If there were no one else besides you (no Adam or Eve) you still fail.

[sam51092]

'Wow....how are you not getting this? You have made the same "point" in each of your last three posts'.

I was thinking the exact same about you. I said 'made' because it was God's penalty for Adam's sin that ALL humanity be fallen, made imperfect (do you deny the doctrine of the Fall?) So yes, 'made' was a deliberate word choice.

Btw, I never said I think I'm blameless in reality. I only said I must be blameless if Christianity is true, which of course I don't believe is the case.

[sarastone101]

wow this seems twisted we r imperfect cuz god wanted a reason to create a world so ppl could transform it into good we dont have to sin we have a choice to sin or not we do have a choice we have a go at making the world a better place to live in

[flyshoe19]

Wow...why would you waste a year following rules you don't understand? He was clearly attempting to prove something...but clearly he does not truly understand the Bible.

[aensinger]

Read the book...douche.

[flyshoe19]

Don't need to...It's called deduction. In this short segment, I recognized A.J. Jacobs lack of understanding of the Bible.

[flyshoe19]

thanks for calling me a douche

[aensinger]

He read numerous bibles, a number of times. You may want to read his book and the bible before criticizing.

Sorry about the "douche" part...I was drunk. :-)

[flyshoe19]

I don't want to support him or waste my time reading his book which is a boring gimmick.

[deathyou9000]

its actualy a good book...

[stiophangeal]

Great interview, the book is profound and challenging, as a Christian to realise that the Bible is so important to life still today, even some of the weirder laws. I really am impressed too by the power of prayer and perhaps thats the key to understanding the Bible better, humble God seeking prayer

[CU0812]

I read his book for a class that I'm taking in college and some of the things that he was doing was really funny. His attempt to do that was cool.

[HeavyDrumminForJesus]

I am a christian and I appreciate his attempt to understand God and character. We have to understand that God is SO MUCH BIGGER...than our mindset. Loving people doesn't have to do with the person you are loving as much as being willing to love.

[masterkiiff]

i have the same name as this douche bag

and he be giinve me a bad name

[DigitalCodex]

This guy apparently forgot to read the latter of the Bible, which says the Old Covenant is done away with.

[DigitalCodex]

This guy apparently forgot to read the latter half of the Bible, which says the Old Covenant is done away with.

[SkinnyWmn69]

Where does is say that exactly, I'm quite interested. And if Old Covenant is everything in the Old Testament, why is it included as part of the Bible and why is it quoted as truth?

[DigitalCodex]

The Mosaic or Old Covenant is not everything in the Old Testament, although it was written during its time. The OT is composed of the Pentateuch (or Torah/Law of Moses), History, Poetry or Writings, Major Prophets, and Minor Prophets. In the OT are also found the Adamic Covenant, Noahic Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic Covenant, Davidic Covenant.

Read about the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:27-40, Like 22:20, 2 Corinthians 3:1-6, Hebrews 12:18-24.

[SkinnyWmn69]

Thanx Digi...that was helpful!

[h4k6h1]

there's not evidence about a lot of things does that mean you don

t believe in those either? you need a stronger argument

[adaallurefan]

awesome clip! i love talking about religions with mature people. I am so tired of hearing people who think that their truth is universal, that their god is the god of everyone. Refreshing to see someone talk about religion in a light, smart, open way.

[hazing420]

god does not exist because there is no evidence and there never will be any evidence. like einstein said , religion is nothing more than a product of human weaknesses and its childish.

[RosieDesire]

His book was awesome.... excellent read... Atheist or theist...

[undamanuts]

No thanks I'm still an Atheist.

= )

[rjshmo]

Jews are always looking for loop holes. Jews are very evil!!!