Shocking Bible Quotes

beerbuddy

housetypeb wrote: »

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


Funny how the athiests are as fanatical and uneducated as the fanatics who misquote the bible for there own purposes,If you try and argue with somebody at least try and come up with the correct facts,The origional post was just quote mined and absolutly got everything wrong a fact overlooked by all the church bashers.It actually intrested me so i went an read the passage which the origional poster did not.Easy thing to do.Afterall Hitchens thinks beastality is ok morally i presume all athiests think that way ;

kowloon

beerbuddy wrote: »

housetypeb wrote: »

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


Funny how the atheists are as fanatical and uneducated as the fanatics who misquote the bible for their own purposes. If you try and argue with somebody at least try and come up with the correct facts. The original post was just quote mined and got absolutely everything wrong, a fact overlooked by all the church bashers. It actually interested me so i went an read the passage which the original poster did not. It's an easy thing to do. After all Hitchens thinks beastality is ok morally, so I presume all atheists think that way ;

Hitchens doesn't think anything anymore.

ShooterSF

beerbuddy wrote: »

housetypeb wrote: »

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

Funny how the athiests are as fanatical and uneducated as the fanatics who misquote the bible for there own purposes,If you try and argue with somebody at least try and come up with the correct facts,The origional post was just quote mined and absolutly got everything wrong a fact overlooked by all the church bashers.It actually intrested me so i went an read the passage which the origional poster did not.Easy thing to do.Afterall Hitchens thinks beastality is ok morally i presume all athiests think that way ;

Do you think Atheists have some kind of Geth or Borg hive mind kind of thing or something?

Mark Hamill

beerbuddy wrote: »

Afterall Hitchens thinks beastality is ok morally i presume all athiests think that way ;

Source?

beerbuddy

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_bestiality
or do a search on google

beerbuddy

ShooterSF wrote: »

Do you think Atheists have some kind of Geth or Borg hive mind kind of thing or something?

well we should be like the borg if you are correct because according to darwinist athiest teaching there is no point to life we are all prisioners of our genes.

Delirium

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Source?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

1:54:00 into the video approx.

Hitchens response to the question "is the bible right to prohibit sex with animals?" was "I have good advice with regards to having having sex with animals" or something to that effect.

The questioner took a passage of Hitchens writing that was with regard to the sexual oppression of women, and tries to gloss over that with a question about bestiality.

Hitchens does go on to say that some human behaviour polices itself as it with have a destructive/negative impact on the society. Cannibalism will lead to disease that could eventually wipe out the people. I presume he was putting bestiality into that same category.

Nowhere did he say bestiality is ok.

beerbuddy

He failed to answer the question and did not say that canabilism was wrong either .Surely in a darwinian world it i ¡s the survival of the fittest and therefore of no moral concequence. Basicaly he did not say it is wrong because decisions of a sexual nature should be left up to the individual adults to determine. He would be contradicting this if he was to actually answer yes .

Delirium

beerbuddy wrote: »

He failed to answer the question and did not say that canabilism was wrong either .Surely in a darwinian world it i ¡s the survival of the fittest and therefore of no moral concequence. Basicaly he did not say it is wrong because decisions of a sexual nature should be left up to the individual adults to determine. He would be contradicting this if he was to actually answer yes .

You honestly think that after saying that cannibalism causes kuru, which would over time wipe out a population, that it's the right way to go?

It's a bit ironic that you're complaining about posters attributing things not said to God, but then do the same with regards to Hitchens and bestiality.

beerbuddy

koth wrote: »

You honestly think that after saying that cannibalism causes kuru, which would over time wipe out a population, that it's the right way to go?

It's a bit ironic that you're complaining about posters attributing things not said to God, but then do the same with regards to Hitchens and bestiality.

sorry but he did not say that it was morally wrong.

Delirium

beerbuddy wrote: »

sorry but he did not say that it was morally wrong.

he didn't say it was morally right or wrong. You made a claim about something he didn't say, that's only point I was making.

robindch

beerbuddy wrote: »

he did not say that it was morally wrong.

And I don't recall him saying that people's forearms didn't taste of chicken, but that's hardly a reason to claim that this was his point of view, or to start demanding evidence that it wasn't.

This forum has had enough trouble with posters claiming "Hitchens didn't condemn X, therefore he was ok with X!", in denial of grammar, rhetorical practice and much else.

Let's try avoid the sophistic sensationalism.

.

ShooterSF

beerbuddy wrote: »

well we should be like the borg if you are correct because according to darwinist athiest teaching there is no point to life we are all prisioners of our genes.

There's no point to life? Are you kidding me? There's every point to life because it's all you get! It's not a test for the real life that happens after you die and it's not a test to see what cool animal you come back as next time. This is it. I repeat, this.is.it... This is all. Every moment of joy, every moment of happiness you are likely to feel are going to happen to you during "life" and they happen a hell of a lot more if you actively pursue them! Life, my confused friend, to an atheist, couldn't be more pointy if it were a porcupine.

beerbuddy

beerbuddy wrote: »

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_bestiality
or do a search on google

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Source fail.

i could make a joke about "believing everything you read"...

philologos

Galvasean wrote: »

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

Newaglish wrote: »

Where on earth did you get that idea?

I guess people like me have just signed up to a life time of being nasty then? :pac:

But seriously, some of the rhetoric in the posts on this forum is a little worrying. The jump from some to all that occurs on a regular basis here for example. You do know that it's quite easy to go quote fishing?

kylith

beerbuddy wrote: »

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_bestiality
or do a search on google

I got as far as "If I were ever to have attacked atheism by arguing that on the rare occasions when atheists manage to successfully reproduce," and I couldn't get any further for the laughing.

Newaglish

philologos wrote: »

I guess people like me have just signed up to a life time of being nasty then? :pac:

But seriously, some of the rhetoric in the posts on this forum is a little worrying. The jump from some to all that occurs on a regular basis here for example. You do know that it's quite easy to go quote fishing?

My point is that there is zero correlation between a) being a Christian and b) being nice. They come in all levels of nice, not nice and points in between. Being a Christian doesn't necessarily make you a good person, nor does being an atheist. You're the one who jumped from some to all and played the victim card.

fitz0

I always thought Conservapedia was an example of trolling on a truly gargantuan scale (34,000 articles) but sadly I'm wrong and there truly are people like that out there.

Thomas Eshuis

beerbuddy wrote: »

He failed to answer the question and did not say that canabilism was wrong either .Surely in a darwinian world it i ¡s the survival of the fittest and therefore of no moral concequence. Basicaly he did not say it is wrong because decisions of a sexual nature should be left up to the individual adults to determine. He would be contradicting this if he was to actually answer yes .

Because he knows there are no absolute moral laws.
There are rational arguments against bestiality and such things.
But no act or form of behaviour is objectively 'wrong' or 'immoral'.

Thomas Eshuis

This:

beerbuddy

koth wrote: »

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


That's messed up, especially for Obamas kids.

Nothing at all to do with the origional question just typical off topic bashing

beerbuddy

Michael Nugent wrote: »

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

Great more quote mining

beerbuddy

beerbuddy wrote: »

Great more quote mining

i dare you to say that at mass next time the priest reads from the bible

stand up and yell HEY! QUOTE MINING!

beerbuddy

bluewolf wrote: »

i dare you to say that at mass next time the priest reads from the bible

stand up and yell HEY! QUOTE MINING!

Nice reply but about as intellegent as the responces have gotten so far ill give you that.

The Mad Hatter

beerbuddy wrote: »

Nice reply but about as intellegent as the responces have gotten so far ill give you that.

Given that you misspelt "intelligent", "responses" and "I'll" in the space of a single sentence, you might want to hold off on the criticism of other people's intelligence.

Thomas Eshuis

beerbuddy wrote: »

Great more quote mining

It would help if you explained why we should not interpret those verses that way.

Saying it's quote-mining, without explanation is dismissing things out of hand.
Which makes it seem like you can't defend those verses.

beerbuddy

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Given that you misspelt "intelligent", "responses" and "I'll" in the space of a single sentence, you might want to hold off on the criticism of other people's intelligence.

ok im owned no spell check aghhh

Turtwig

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Given that you misspelt "intelligent", "responses" and "I'll" in the space of a single sentence, you might want to hold off on the criticism of other people's intelligence.

I hate to do this but inability to spell isn't always an indication of a lack of intelligence. It's odd but probably this time last year I'd probably have posted something similar to you now though I just find "spelling" posts kind of distasteful.

Edit : Although in this case it appears the poster was really just being genuinely ignorant.

The Mad Hatter

Jernal wrote: »

I hate to do this but inability to spell isn't always an indication of a lack of intelligence. It's odd but probably this time last year I'd probably have posted something similar to you now though I just find "spelling" posts kind of distasteful.

Edit : Although in this case it appears the poster was really just being genuinely ignorant.

Oh, I know that, and I'd very rarely have a go.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of friends of mine who I proof read for because for one reason or another they have pretty bad spelling, but who are still way smarter than me

Jernal

Jernal wrote: »

Edit : Although in this case it appears the poster was really just being genuinely ignorant.

Poor MH, don't be mean :pac:

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

Poor MH, don't be mean :pac:

Given how fussy you can be about your name bluewolf, I felt it was only fair.:p
It's TMH ya loon.:pac:

*runs*

Jernal

Jernal wrote: »

Given how fussy you can be about your name bluewolf, I felt it was only fair.:p
It's TMH ya loon.:pac:

*runs*

:D:D:D

now try saying "poor the mad hatter" :P

oh it's malty. jesus. hi malty...
https://www.tealuxe.com/ourteas/images/teas/tea101_lg.gif

Peregrinus

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

But no act or form of behaviour is objectively 'wrong' or 'immoral'.

Is this (moral) claim objectively true, or does it just represent your subjective position?

beerbuddy

fitz0 wrote: »

I suppose I should contribute to this thread.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" Matthew 22:21

I find this to be one of the most abominable quotes of the Bible. Jesus basically tells people to just bear with their Roman conquest because it will be ok when you die. Take the meaning and apply it to anything and it basically says 'Don't try and make things better, God will fix it.'

totaly wrong it is about the separation of church and state,Give to god what is his and to the state what is there's

Thomas Eshuis

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is this (moral) claim objectively true, or does it just represent your subjective position?

It is objectively true in the sense that different cultures have different moral rules and no one has ever been able to prove that there is an objective and universal moral law.

Thomas Eshuis

beerbuddy wrote: »

totaly wromg it is about the separation of church and sattate,Give to god what is his and to the state what is theres

And this is because jesus was in favour of secularism or because he was afraid of the roman military?

Peregrinus

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

. . . there are no absolute moral laws . . . no act or form of behaviour is objectively 'wrong' or 'immoral'.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is this (moral) claim objectively true, or does it just represent your subjective position?

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

It is objectively true in the sense that different cultures have different moral rules and no one has ever been able to prove that there is an objective and universal moral law.

That’s a fundamentally different proposition, though, isn’t it?

After all, no-one has ever been able to prove the proposition that there are infinitely many pairs of prime numbers of the form n and n+2 (e.g. 3 and 5, 17 and 19, 59 and 61, etc), but that doesn’t mean that the proposition is false, does it?

Your initial claim - that there are no absolute moral laws, and no act is objectively wrong or immoral -is itself a moral proposition, and is stated in absolute terms. That does seem to me to involve a nonsense - if it is absolutely true that there is no absolute moral law, then that claim is itself a moral law which is absolutely true. And that cannot be. Wisely, when pressed on this, you substitute a different claim.

The most we can say is that we cannot be certain if there are moral absolutes or, if there are, what they are. But this is a statement more about us than about absolute morality. And, ironically, it is a statement upon which we typically construct moral rules (such as “no-one has the right to impose his moral judgments on other people to the exclusion of theirs”). In other words, the recognition that moral absolutes are uncertain and unknowable does not lead to the conclusion that we should not attempt to discern and observe moral rules.

fitz0

beerbuddy wrote: »

totaly wromg it is about the separation of church and sattate,Give to god what is his and to the state what is theres

I didn't realise the absolute authority on the bible was here to show me the error of my understandings.

I've explained my reasoning behind this in a different post, if you want to tell me I'm wrong, look at that post and tell me where. You won't get far on this forum with posts like that, saying 'this is this and this is what it means' without some form of explanation.

Thomas Eshuis

Peregrinus wrote: »

That’s a fundamentally different proposition, though, isn’t it?

No, not really.

Peregrinus wrote: »

After all, no-one has ever been able to prove the proposition that there are infinitely many pairs of prime numbers of the form n and n+2 (e.g. 3 and 5, 17 and 19, 59 and 61, etc), but that doesn’t mean that the proposition is false, does it?

This can be logically proven. No one has yet given a logically sound argument for the existence of an absolute moral law.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your initial claim - that there are no absolute moral laws, and no act is objectively wrong or immoral -is itself a moral proposition, and is stated in absolute terms.

Non-sequitur. My statement says nothing about whether the existence of morals is 'right' or 'wrong'. Besides if there are no moral then stating so isn't a moral statement in any way. Sophistry isn't going to help you here.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That does seem to me to involve a nonsense - if it is absolutely true that there is no absolute moral law, then that claim is itself a moral law which is absolutely true. And that cannot be. Wisely, when pressed on this, you substitute a different claim.

Again this is a complete non-sequitur. Nor did I pose a different claim.
Why don't you stop the sophistry and trying to twist my words and give us some evidence that moral laws do exist.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The most we can say is that we cannot be certain if there are moral absolutes or, if there are, what they are. But this is a statement more about us than about absolute morality. And, ironically, it is a statement upon which we typically construct moral rules (such as “no-one has the right to impose his moral judgments on other people to the exclusion of theirs”). In other words, the recognition that moral absolutes are uncertain and unknowable does not lead to the conclusion that we should not attempt to discern and observe moral rules.

There is a difference between moral laws and rational arguments.
Morality is the idea that things are inherently 'good' or 'wrong'. Which differs per person and culture.
There are rational arguments for many actions and other things, but that does not make them moral rules.

beerbuddy

fitz0 wrote: »

I didn't realise the absolute authority on the bible was here to show me the error of my understandings.

I've explained my reasoning behind this in a different post, if you want to tell me I'm wrong, look at that post and tell me where. You won't get far on this forum with posts like that, saying 'this is this and this is what it means' without some form of explanation.

I think that goes both ways.

Mark Hamill

beerbuddy wrote: »

totaly wrong it is about the separation of church and state,Give to god what is his and to the state what is there's

And what is gods is decided by whoever is claiming to be his representative on earth (assuming god exists, of course):rolleyes:

I wonder if you can even comprehend the level of contradiction in what you said here. Secularism, by definition can not be a case of "give to god what is his, give to the state what is theirs", as this would require the state having a position on the relative existence of gods (it would need to decide which god it was giving to, or at least, which god gets it first) and on the desire of those gods (so it would know what to give). A secularist state cannot have a position on the existence of any god.

fitz0

beerbuddy wrote: »

fitz0 wrote: »

I didn't realise the absolute authority on the bible was here to show me the error of my understandings.

I've explained my reasoning behind this in a different post, if you want to tell me I'm wrong, look at that post and tell me where. You won't get far on this forum with posts like that, saying 'this is this and this is what it means' without some form of explanation.

I think that goes both ways.

I stated my reasoning for my understanding. Unless you address that there's not much else I can say. Otherwise I'm just restating what I've already said.

dead one

Worztron wrote: »

I've come across these shocking bible quotes. Please feel free to add to them.
And they call him a loving God? WTF?

Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock.
- God
Psalm 137:9

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
- God
Deuteronomy 22:28

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.
- God
Leviticus 25

Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.
- God
Ezekiel 9:5

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
- God
Exodus 21:7

Worztron, for Christ's sake please be honest.

beerbuddy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what is gods is decided by whoever is claiming to be his representative on earth (assuming god exists, of course):rolleyes:

I wonder if you can even comprehend the level of contradiction in what you said here. Secularism, by definition can not be a case of "give to god what is his, give to the state what is theirs", as this would require the state having a position on the relative existence of gods (it would need to decide which god it was giving to, or at least, which god gets it first) and on the desire of those gods (so it would know what to give). A secularist state cannot have a position on the existence of any god.

No it dosent i am a christian and i also believe in a Secular state.
I dont see a contradiction.What definition of secularism are you using ?

For me the First amendment in the American constitution is a sound principle and i wish it were copied elsewhere

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

This is for me is the first step for a truly secular state.
I dont know what you are trying to propose in you definition about God and the state recognising him. I think you have a totally different view from myself.

Worztron

dead one wrote: »

Worztron, for Christ's sake please be honest.

What are you babbling on about now?

Mark Hamill

beerbuddy wrote: »

No it dosent i am a christian and i also believe in a Secular state.
I dont see a contradiction.What definition of secularism are you using ?

Secularism.
Did you read my post? It explains the contradiction of the "give to god, what is gods..." quote, both on a personal level (who decides what is gods? How exactly can they know?) and a governmental level (it would require a state having a set opinion on various gods existences, desires and needs, which would obstruct the state making truly secularist laws, such as the Amendment below).

beerbuddy wrote: »

For me the First amendment in the American constitution is a sound principle and i wish it were copied elsewhere

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

This is for me is the first step for a truly secular state.
I dont know what you are trying to propose in you definition about God and the state recognising him. I think you have a totally different view from myself.

You notice how it doesn't have anything along the likes of "give to god, what is gods and give to the state, what is the states"?. You notice how it doesn't mention anything about how to determine if one religion is more likely than another, or what exactly its suppose to give to god and which god its supposed to give anything to?
I was right, you dont understand the contradiction in "give to god, what is gods and give to the state, what is the states". Its a phrase designed by religious organisations to justify their arguments that governments and states should defer to them in certain areas, because god (according to the religious organisations) says so :rolleyes:.

dead one

Worztron wrote: »

What are you babbling on about now?

find the word "cheating" in my babbling

sensibleken

This should be good

beerbuddy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secularism.
as this would require the state having a position on the relative existence of gods (it would need to decide which god it was giving to, or at least, which god gets it first) and on the desire of those gods (so it would know what to give). A secularist state cannot have a position on the existence of any god.:.

Yes i did read your post really i was trying to focus on this part you quoted above. In a roundabout way secular states do have a position on Gods because as in the first amendment they also guarantee the freedom of Religious expression. Most but not all religions have a God.Some athiest religions do not of course.

They are not recognising any God in an official sence but do recognise Religion and the freedom to express it.In that sence i think you are mistaken but it was a good point.

Dades

dead one wrote: »

find the word "cheating" in my babbling

The same warning applies here as it does to the Koran thread.