Shocking Bible Quotes

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

the quote is shocking; so what? Does this somehow invalidate it, or establish that religious faith is invalid, or . . . what?

It means that people who hold up the bible's moral rules as describing a "perfect absolute morality" are hypocrites. It's a detestable from of intellectual dishonesty.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nobody really addresses the implications of the fact that parts of the bible are pretty shocking; nobody mounts any argument based on that fact; nobody draws any explicit conclusions.

The inevitable conclusion is that the bible is a despicable book, clearly a product of its time and its savage intellectual, political and social climate and clearly not the work of a deity, possessed of infinite wisdom, love or any other admirable quality.

The deity, on the contrary, is the heated, dry and savage product of the heated, dry and savage environment in which claims for existence were found to be politically useful.

Lest you think this is another hollow intellectual argument, there are humans out there who put this kind of "morality" into practice. This sad, sad story from a few months ago:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/130830448.html

The "parents" were following the spirit, and occasionally, the letter of an old-testament-inspired a book on Training up a child. As far as I'm concerned, the book's authors should be hauled up as accessories for murder.

pH

Not so much shocking, but this is in the Christian bible and it does describe chopping up a goat, putting its bloody head on the altar and sprinkling the blood around the altar - because, well God likes dead sheep, killed for him and burnt in a particular way.

And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.

11And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

12And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

13But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+1&version=KJV

The first 7 or so chapters of Leviticus continue in this manner, well worth a read. I really wonder what 99% of modern Christians would think of a religious sect that performed these rituals today - blood splattered altars and all.

And yes, before someone comes along, I know you now claim that this stuff doesn't matter any more because Jesus - but this stuff used to please the Lord - who is eternal unchanging and apart from time, yet it no longer pleases him greatly - though time has no influence on him.

maximoose

robindch wrote: »

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/130830448.html

The "parents" were following the spirit, and occasionally, the letter of an old-testament-inspired a book on Training up a child. As far as I'm concerned, the book's authors should be hauled up as accessories for murder.

Just had a quick skim through that, it really is sad to think of how many idiot parents there must be out there who use these kind of methods.

Galvasean

sensibleken wrote: »

My favourite is this from leviticus



TL;DR? This is the wall of text where god goes on and on about how mildew is bad



This is the bit about the gays. Which one do you think is of more concern to the big man?

Hey! Mildew was a BIG problem in those days...

Sarky

Undermining the very fabric of your pants. Much more important than the fabric of society.

sensibleken

HI IM GOD, AND THIS IS NEW CILLIT BANG BATHROOM SPRAY!!!!

Amtmann

Some great quotes here about smashing little children against rocks, the characteristics of mould, the dismemberment of goats, and stallion-like ejaculations.

I am almost tempted to marry in a church, merely so that I can choose these as my readings.

fitz0

Peregrinus wrote: »

I look in vain for the word "die", or any language suggestive of death, or an afterlife in the quote. I look equally in vain for anything suggesting or recommend passivity, or any promsie that God will fix anything.

It seems to me that you're projecting a lot of things onto this text. The responsiblity for that is yours, not the text's.

The context (the all important context) of this quote is the Middle East under Roman occupation. Caesar has no right to anything beyond through force of arms. So Jesus is proposing meek obedience to their Roman overlords. Personally I find this lie-down attitude detestable.

'and unto God what is God's' says to me that you should devote the rest of your life to your god, relying on him in your life. People devote their lives to god for 'salvation' in the afterlife. So, maybe I am stretching the connection quite a bit but to me, this quote sums up one of the fundamentally wrong things about religion, it's pacifying nature. It sickens me.

iguana

maximoose wrote: »

Just had a quick skim through that, it really is sad to think of how many idiot parents there must be out there who use these kind of methods.

I got as far as his cheerful description of beating his 4 month old daughter with a stick.:mad:

Peregrinus

Newaglish wrote: »

The assumption I've made is that the quotes are being interpreted literally.

Why on earth would you make such an assumption?

And, if your assumption leads to bizarre or difficult-to-accept conclusions, would that not lead you to reconsider your assumption, and perhaps realise that it was arbitrarily made to begin with?

Newaglish wrote: »

The child-smashing quote above for example... it doesn't seem particularly nuanced in such a way that it would actually be a metaphor for lovingly disciplining your children in a non-violent and constructive fashion, through mutual understanding of each individual's feelings.

The child-smashing quote is from Psalms, Newaglish. The psalms are song lyrics. Do you always interpret song-lyrics literally?

And, even if you do, how could you possibly read Ps 137 and think that it’s a song about child-rearing?

Newaglish wrote: »

Certainly if I were writing a book for the purposes of teaching morals and a way of life to a population that was largely uneducated I would keep my messages as simple and literal as possible.

What makes you think the psalms were written to teach morals and a way of life to anyone? Is this another arbitrary assumption?

Newaglish wrote: »

If I were a God I'd like to think I'd be pretty darn good at conveying a clear and concise message to those who were writing it.

The unstated but fundamental premise is that any God who could have inspired the Psalms must think like Newaglish. (There are other unstated premises about what the purpose of the text is, and what “inspired” means, but let those pass.) As a criticism of the text, it’s fairly subjective, isn’t it?

MrStuffins

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why on earth would you make such an assumption?

Dades

Peregrinus, responding to a post by asking a question in every single line of your reply doesn't really get anyone anywhere. It certainly doesn't show the poster you quoted to be mistaken. You really need to go about answering, rather than asking your own questions.

pere, why are you so wrong?

TwoShedsJackson

Tremelo wrote: »

Some great quotes here about smashing little children against rocks, the characteristics of mould, the dismemberment of goats, and stallion-like ejaculations.

I am almost tempted to marry in a church, merely so that I can choose these as my readings.

If you do read the mildew one at your wedding, please record it for posterity

And of course:

Ezekiel 23:19-20

New International Version (NIV)

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Sindri

I saw this in National Geographic on an article about the King James Bible. (Some beautiful English in it).

National Geographic wrote:

The famous Wicked Bible of 1631 printed Deuteronomy 5:24-meant to celebrate God's ''greatnesse''-as

Wicked Bible of 1631 wrote:

''And ye said, Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory, and his great asse''.

The same edition also left out a crucial word in Exodus 20:14, which as a result read,

Wicked Bible of 1631 wrote:

'' Thou shalt commit adultery''.

The printers were heavily fined.

Kivaro

Sindri wrote: »

Originally Posted by Wicked Bible of 1631
'' Thou shalt commit adultery''.
The printers were heavily fined.

I happen to like the 'command' above.

IMAGINE if there were other mistakes in the first edition of the bible i.e. the one written hundreds of years after the actual events supposedly happened.

A 'Spirit' told me that it contained the following (but he was over-ruled because the committee wanted the subjects to live in misery):

"Thou shalt enjoy life" (as thereth so little of it in the grand scheme of things).
"Thou shalt live each day to its fullest, as if it's your last."
"Thou shalt not waste the most precious resource of time wishing for the impossible/impractical".
"Believeth in empirical evidence".
"Seek truth in the current day, and not from stolen fables of millenia past".

This is fun ...............

Michael Nugent

My favorite five threats from the Christian God:

5. God will bring so much evil that it will make your ears tingle Jer 19:3

4. If you disobey God, he will make you eat your own children Lev 26:27-29

3. God will smite your knees with an unhealable sore botch Deut 28:35

2. God will smite you with hemorrhoids, scabs and an unhealable itch Deut 28:27

1. God will make you flee even though nobody is chasing you Lev 26:17

Worztron

Michael Nugent wrote: »

My favorite five threats from the Christian God:
4. If you disobey God, he will make you eat your own children Lev 26:27-29

So the bible promotes cannibalism. :eek:

fitz0

Michael Nugent wrote: »

3. God will smite your knees with an unhealable sore botch Deut 28:35

I used to obey God...

...then I took an arrow incurable sore to the knee.

Newaglish

Peregrinus wrote: »

The unstated but fundamental premise is that any God who could have inspired the Psalms must think like Newaglish. (There are other unstated premises about what the purpose of the text is, and what “inspired” means, but let those pass.) As a criticism of the text, it’s fairly subjective, isn’t it?

say what now

Sindri

Dades and robindch sucking up to Nugent.

:rolleyes:

MrStuffins

Sindri wrote: »

Dades and robindch sucking up to Nugent.

:rolleyes:

Which book is that in exactly?

Galvasean

Sindri wrote: »

Dades and robindch sucking up to Nugent.

:rolleyes:

In fairness I, Keano was a lot of fun.

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

Peregrinus, responding to a post by asking a question in every single line of your reply doesn't really get anyone anywhere. It certainly doesn't show the poster you quoted to be mistaken. You really need to go about answering, rather than asking your own questions.

Fair enough.

Newaglish wrote: »

The assumption I've made is that the quotes are being interpreted literally.

Remember, Newaglish, that I’m addressing the question you originally raised in post #39 in this thread, which was “Are we misinterpreting the rest of the quotes also”?

Implicit in that question is the notion that there is (at least) one interpretation which is in some sense “correct”, and others which are “misinterpretations”.

When, in post #47, you say “the assumption I’ve mad is that the quotes are being interpreted literally”, I’m unsure how to understand that. You don’t have to assume that biblical quotes are interpreted literally; it’s a matter of common knowledge that there are some believers who do interpret the bible in a very literal way (and others who do not). Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the context of your earlier question about misinterpretation, it seems to me that what you’re saying here, in fact, is that you assume that the “correct” or “valid” interpretation is likely to be a literal one.

I don’t share that assumption, and I won’t be able to offer you an answer to your question that will satisfy you unless you prepared to examine and justify your assumption that the correct interpretation will be a literal one.

Dades wrote: »

The child-smashing quote above for example... it doesn't seem particularly nuanced in such a way that it would actually be a metaphor for lovingly disciplining your children in a non-violent and constructive fashion, through mutual understanding of each individual's feelings.

Well, sure. But it’s a line from a song (and the song is not a song about child-rearing). Song lyrics frequently employ hyperbole, and in this instance the song is expressing a sense of guilt and despair in the experience of exile and oppression. So he’s saying (a) we are miserable, so miserable that our children would be better off to be murdered than to grow up in the situation we are in, and (b) we have brought our misery upon ourselves and our children.

You may not like this message, but it’s certainly not the message about childcare that your assumed literal reading extracted. Plus, I should point out, this song (Ps 137) is part of a larger song cycle in which people are encouraged to move through feelings of despair, guilt and so on towards feelings of hope and renewal.

Leonard Cohen, to pick an example that could easily be multiplied, has written lots of Tunes To Slit Your Wrists By, and yet he is still alive today at the age of 77 and apparently creative, happy, healthy and active. Does that “invalidate” in some way the songs he wrote at an earlier period, or undermine the authenticity of whatever insights they contain? That’s not how songs work. And it’s not how these songs work either.

Dades wrote: »

Certainly if I were writing a book for the purposes of teaching morals and a way of life to a population that was largely uneducated I would keep my messages as simple and literal as possible. If I were a God I'd like to think I'd be pretty darn good at conveying a clear and concise message to those who were writing it.

I think what you are doing here is what I invite you do to above; justify the idea that a literal reading is likely to be correct on the basis that, for the reasons you point out, God would inspire a literal text, wouldn’t he?

But, again, the justification is based on other assumptions - that the bible texts are “a book for the purposes of teaching morals and a way of life”, that every text extracted from the bible can be understood as a short and plainly-stated moral lesson, that a God (if he inspires the bible) inspires not just the ideas in the bible but the literary forms and/or the precise words employed to express them, and that the ideas that a God might want to communicate are all such as can be conveyed in a “clear and concise” way, if necessary in a single sentence read in isolation. And other assumptions besides.

Put in those terms, you’ll see readily enough that your assumptions are not obviously correct. And, I imagine you’re aware, they are not shared (to put it no higher) by all believers, or even by most of them. Nor are they universally held by unbelievers. Again, they are all assumptions that I would challenge, and I would encourage you to examine and attempt to justify them.

Not to get at you personally, Newaglish - perish the thought! - but effectively you are making a set of assumptions here which are shared only by a minority of religious believers, who are simplistic fundamentalist biblical literalists. It seems to me that you are assuming, in effect, that the simplistic fundamentalist, literalist, context-free, allegedly culture-free approach to the bible has some validity or authenticity which other approaches lack. This is ironic, because it means that you’re togging out with a bunch of believers normally derided as anti-intellectual, regressive, insecure, intolerant and living with permanent cognitive dissonance. It’s surprising company in which to find a thoughtful, critical, skeptical thinker.

I think if you actually examine the assumptions you are working from, you will find it hard to defend them.

Newaglish

On my phone so I'm going to be brief. You said other posters hadn't provided interpretations of the quotes. Despite the fact that some people did actually provide interpretations, those posters who simply provided the quotes themselves with no extrapolation, I am assuming (without further evidence) that those posters are interpreting the quotes they presented literally.

I'll read the rest of your post later but I'm going to lose interest soon if you don't take a lesson in brevity.

Peregrinus

Newaglish wrote: »

On my phone so I'm going to be brief. You said other posters hadn't provided interpretations of the quotes. Despite the fact that some people did actually provide interpretations, those posters who simply provided the quotes themselves with no extrapolation, I am assuming (without further evidence) that those posters are interpreting the quotes they presented literally.

OK. Now I get you.

They may intend to imply that the quotes should be interpreted literally, free of context, etc.

If that is their intention, then the various things which I addressed to you in my last post could be adressed to them - i.e. why do they think the simple literal context-free interpretation is "correct"? I don't favour such an interpretation, for the reasons already given.

Thomas Eshuis

Peregrinus wrote: »

why do they think the simple literal context-free interpretation is "correct"?

Well for the quotes I provided, there is, in my modest opinion, no 'right' interpretation or context.

Amtmann

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

Well for the quotes I provided, there is, in my modest opinion, no 'right' interpretation or context.

The context is Bronze Age viciousness.

krudler

Paparazzo wrote: »

Numbers 22:30
The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?" "No," he said

now read this in Eddie Murphy's voice

Sarky

Bam! Suddenly the bible is fun to read. I think all the prophets trying to bring Good News to everyone should sound like Professor Farnsworth.

Delirium

good news everybody. I'm going to kill your first-born!


:pac:

robindch

koth wrote: »

I'm going to kill your first-born!

Or, if you've had an abortion, the all-loving god will punish you with disabled children, according to Bob Marshall, a Republican lawmaker:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/22/83337/disabled-abortion

Meanwhile, down in Kansas, Speaker of the House Mike O'Neal, hopes for Obama to die, for Michelle to be widowed, for their children to be beggared. Mr O'Neal is a bible-believing christian and a Republican lawmaker.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/13/403911/kansas-gop-house-speaker-prays-that-obamas-children-be-fatherless-and-his-wife-a-widow/

Delirium

robindch wrote: »

Or, if you've had an abortion, the all-loving god will punish you with disabled children, according to Bob Marshall, a Republican lawmaker:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/22/83337/disabled-abortion

parents of disabled children are being punished by God? f*cking charming:mad:

Meanwhile, down in Kansas, Speaker of the House Mike O'Neal, hopes for Obama to die, for Michelle to be widowed, for their children to be beggared. Mr O'Neal is a bible-believing christian and a Republican lawmaker.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/13/403911/kansas-gop-house-speaker-prays-that-obamas-children-be-fatherless-and-his-wife-a-widow/

That's messed up, especially for Obamas kids.

Galvasean

Wait a minute, I thought Christians were supposed to be nice...

Newaglish

Galvasean wrote: »

Wait a minute, I thought Christians were supposed to be nice...

Where on earth did you get that idea?

Sarky

A Christian told hi-


:eek:

fisgon

"Blessed be the meek."

Not exactly as shocking and horrifying as the others quoted here, but terrible advice nonetheless. Telling people to be meek, in other words submissive, passive, is of course useful to a church that relies on this submission in its followers, but really an awful thing to desire in someone. It is a recipe for slaves and those who do nothing in the face of oppression and prejudice.

easychair

Isn't that just the message given by the first 4 commandments - I am god, you must worship me, and if you do I'll be all warm and cuddly, but if you don't worship me I shall be angry and punish you.

That's remarkably similar to the message given by the leaders of totalatarian regiemes. Christianity, like most religions, is nasty and vindictive, often preoccupied with what we get up to in bed, with whom, and in what positions.

The only thing you have to do to get good people to do wicked and disgusting things is to tell them that its what god wants, and so long as its what god wants then its ok to smite his enemies, kill them and their families, torture them and generally spread the hate. The Bible, and Koran, are full of hate and misogyny, and most christians and muslims simply choose to ignore the bits they don't like.

Lon Dubh

Do you believe the bible is literally true?

The Internet Explorer

Lon Dubh wrote: »

Do you believe the bible is literally true?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95hH1H5qK08

(I don't know how to do the inserting of a video so just put the link to it)

Edit: Doesn't matter. You got it.

fisgon

Lon Dubh wrote: »

Do you believe the bible is literally true?

Love this
Especially love the guy going "you're twisting it". Sound familiar?

joseph brand

“Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces!” (So sayeth the Lord!) – Malachi 2:2-3
“Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, to eat their own dung, and drink their own p*** with you?” – II Kings 18:27

AKA The Holy Sanchez.

beerbuddy

It is called lament go look it up the Bible is full of these.
This is not a quote from God as you seem to imply .All you have is a person crying out to god in frustration.

His city was just destroyed and people massacred. I don’t think he is going to talk about tea and scones. This quote has nothing to do with god alsothe psalmist does not say, "I am going to go out and smash his little ones against the rock!" This is the feeling of man.This is exactly why were are told never to try and interprate the Old testemant literally because of posts like this.

Please use your brain and stop quote minning

sensibleken

beerbuddy wrote: »

Please use your brain

lol

kylith

beerbuddy wrote: »

It is called lament go look it up the Bible is full of these.
This is not a quote from God as you seem to imply .All you have is a person crying out to god in frustration.

His city was just destroyed and people massacred. I don’t think he is going to talk about tea and scones. This quote has nothing to do with god alsothe psalmist does not say, "I am going to go out and smash his little ones against the rock!" This is the feeling of man.This is exactly why were are told never to try and interprate the Old testemant literally because of posts like this.

Please use your brain and stop quote minning

Can you tell this to all the other Christians, please? They seem to think that some bits, like the bit about gay sex, should be interperated literally.

Shame God didn't think to put the bits that are supposed to be taken literally and the bits that aren't in different fonts or something, it would save a lot of confusion.

beerbuddy

kylith wrote: »

Can you tell this to all the other Christians, please? They seem to think that some bits, like the bit about gay sex, should be interperated literally.

Shame God didn't think to put the bits that are supposed to be taken literally and the bits that aren't in different fonts or something, it would save a lot of confusion.

Can you tell me which part of the Bible was written by God?

housetypeb

beerbuddy wrote: »

Can you tell me which part of the Bible was written by God?

Isn't that our line?
And then you go-"it was inspired by god-written by man"

Mankind sure made up some tall tales in the old days.

jack.h

Has any one else noticed the metaphor of how the lord is a Shepherd and we are his sheep.But what happens to Lambs and sheep in the bible they get sacrificed.:D

Galvasean

CONTEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

Worztron

jack.h wrote: »

Has any one else noticed the metaphor of how the lord is a Shepherd and we are his sheep.But what happens to Lambs and sheep in the bible they get sacrificed.:D

Good point.

The most shocking aspect of the Bible to me is that people actually believe the BS within it.