Shocking Bible Quotes

PopePalpatine

I don't mean to sound like a troll, but I'm wondering if there's any reason for a "Shocking Qur'an Quotes" thread.

pH

philologos wrote: »

Judges 20 condemns the action. That's why judgement was brought on Gibeah.

I'm not sure you're as stupid as you're pretending to be. The crux of the matter is not rape - it's the casual way the Levite threw the woman to the crowd to save himself. Nowhere in judges 20 is this condemned, the whole myth hinges on that fact.

Judges 21 doesn't describe rape, as much as you might like it to, textually there is no rape in that passage.

No, Judges 21 describes mass murder and executions and the sexual slavery of women/children who were not involved with the rape as some form of just and fair punishment for the rape and murder of a woman by some men,

Therefore, it's a lie to claim that Judges 19 or Judges 21 advocates rape. Especially when we have clear condemnations in 2 Samuel and in Genesis which back this point of view up.

And it's a lie to claim I did.

There's a deeper point to be tackled though:
Why do atheists insist on misquoting Scripture to make their point?

I'm still waiting for a quote from judges that condemns the Levite's actions - or are you happy to admit that no such quote exists - and saving oneself by throwing your concubines to the crowd seems to be fine with the people of Israel.

JimiTime

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Since when do you care about honest conversation? Your behavior in this forum consists of snide remarks and ignoring questions put to you while repeating the same thing over and over again.

Thats the second poor observation/false allegation you've made, and thats just in this thread. This forum, apart from some exceptions, is simply a mob more often than not, that has an interest in nothing more than backslapping and thanks whoring. My interest is mainly in honest conversation, unless I'm distracted by morons who I get my kicks out of teasing. And again, be you right or wrong (you're wrong btw) you've failed to actually deal with what I alluded to ONCE AGAIN. Again, if you think that I'm not interested in honesty, then at least be the bigger man, and be honest yourself.

JimiTime

philologos wrote: »

I've seen plenty of atheists do it. I've been rather careful in most cases to say many atheists, a lot of atheists, or some atheists when I mean many or some.

It's disappointing to see it happen time and time again though and for dishonesty to go unchallenged. If I saw someone being dishonest in terms of arguing for Christianity, I'd call it out and I have done on a few occasions on boards.ie before.

Thats it on the head. I think its time the freethinkers deal with the faulty cogs in their own gears. I know as a Christian that theres' scripture that leaves me thinking Hmmmmm, without resorting to wilful ignorance and lies. I'd seriously recommend a dose of honesty 'round these parts.

Worztron

The Lord is speaking to Abraham in this story where God commands him to sacrifice his son:
"Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you." (Genesis 22:2)

In this story from the Book of Judges, an Israelite leader, Jephthah, makes a rash vow to God, which has to be carried out:
"And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’" (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." (1 Peter 2:18)

pauldla

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats it on the head. I think its time the freethinkers deal with the faulty cogs in their own gears. I know as a Christian that theres' scripture that leaves me thinking Hmmmmm, without resorting to wilful ignorance and lies. I'd seriously recommend a dose of honesty 'round these parts.

A dose of honesty would be the death of religion. Sounds good to me....

Myrddin

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats it on the head. I think its time the freethinkers deal with the faulty cogs in their own gears. I know as a Christian that theres' scripture that leaves me thinking Hmmmmm, without resorting to wilful ignorance and lies. I'd seriously recommend a dose of honesty 'round these parts.

Are the faithful of other religions also guilty of this 'slander' against Christianity? Or are they excused from it because they're faithful to whatever deity they choose? It seems to me that from reading your post its a case of atheists=dishonest & theists=honest. Where do those who have their own religious beliefs stand?

philologos

EnterNow wrote: »

Are the faithful of other religions also guilty of this 'slander' against Christianity? Or are they excused from it because they're faithful to whatever deity they choose? It seems to me that from reading your post its a case of atheists=dishonest & theists=honest. Where do those who have their own religious beliefs stand?

It's not slander per sé. It's dishonesty. In all of Worztron's passages. It's intentionally not reading the passage properly in order to twist it. I'm not even accusing anyone of blasphemy, or anything else. All I'm saying is that people are intentionally misreading Scripture on this thread, and very very clearly doing so on examination.

And yes, I've noticed it a lot in terms of Islamic apologetics. So it's not just that many atheists do this.

And as I've said, it's simple reading. It's the stuff you learned to do at school. Reading things correctly in their proper context, with consideration of what the book is, what is the author trying to communicate, what is the place of the passage within the book, what comes next, what comes previous, how is the passage structured and so on. Basic literacy.

You're not a freethinker if you google for quotes to back your argument up without any knowledge of the book itself and what it is trying to communicate. You're subjecting yourself to someone else's judgement without rational scrutiny. That's not logical.

Myrddin

philologos wrote: »

You're not a freethinker if you google for quotes to back your argument up without any knowledge of the book itself and what it is trying to communicate. You're subjecting yourself to someone else's judgement without rational scrutiny. That's not logical.

But you make out that the context of the Bible is like an instruction manual, with clearly defined meanings & explanations. From the admittedly small bits I've read, its clearly the type of text that can be skewed by personal bias. You can read one thing & conclude another, some of it reads like constant metaphor allowing the passages to take on many different meanings.

So taking something out of context in the Bible to me seems not a matter of basic literacy, to me its seems like you get what you want out of it.

philologos

EnterNow wrote: »

But you make out that the context of the Bible is like an instruction manual, with clearly defined meanings & explanations. From the admittedly small bits I've read, its clearly the type of text that can be skewed by personal bias. You can read one thing & conclude another, some of it reads like constant metaphor allowing the passages to take on many different meanings.

So taking something out of context in the Bible to me seems not a matter of basic literacy, to me its seems like you get what you want out of it.

Not at all. When one takes Ephesians 5:22 to refer to the subjugation of women when the passage clearly explains that the husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church and to give his life up for her. That's when it becomes dishonest.

It's a matter of basic literacy to claim a passage says one thing when if you even just read over the page it doesn't say that at all.

What would you call someone who does a book review on the basis of looking at the last line of page 24 without reading the whole thing only to conclude it's a bad book? And even to claim that the book was talking about something it wasn't at all even in that chapter!

I'd call that person highly dishonest, disingenuous and incompetent as a reviewer, and I think with good justification.

I don't regard reading as a postmodern exercise. The author clearly has an intention that is explained to the reader. Moreover none of the passages yesterday are metaphor, if you read them yourself you'll see this.

The_Gatsby

I heard these being read out on the Ricky Gervais show a few years ago. Theten commandments and their punishments. Seems perfectly Christian to me...

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

I've seen plenty of atheists do it. I've been rather careful in most cases to say many atheists, a lot of atheists, or some atheists when I mean many or some.

It's disappointing to see it happen time and time again though and for dishonesty to go unchallenged. If I saw someone being dishonest in terms of arguing for Christianity, I'd call it out and I have done on a few occasions on boards.ie before.

Sorry, are you just talking about those three quotes or not?

philologos

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Sorry, are you just talking about those three quotes or not?

That's one example. But yes, I'm discussing it with basis in that example. There's plenty more like it on this forum and in this thread.

It seems like quite a lot of people don't care about honesty.

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

It seems like quite a lot of people don't care about honesty.

We call them "christians".

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

I'm talking about the three specific cases I've seen this morning. All three of them were easily explained by just reading.

Even if the Bible is bat**** crazy, if it says A rather than B then twisting Scripture to make it look like it is saying B when it rather clearly says A when you pay attention is dishonesty.

philologos wrote: »

I've seen plenty of atheists do it. I've been rather careful in most cases to say many atheists, a lot of atheists, or some atheists when I mean many or some.

It's disappointing to see it happen time and time again though and for dishonesty to go unchallenged. If I saw someone being dishonest in terms of arguing for Christianity, I'd call it out and I have done on a few occasions on boards.ie before.

philologos wrote: »

That's the only mental gymnastics happening on this thread so far.

Seems to me you're happy enough to play word and mind games when it suits you, tbh.

philologos

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Seems to me you're happy enough to play word and mind games when it suits you, tbh.

I've been making the same point repeatedly on the thread

To claim that I'm the one playing word games when this thread is essentially about misquoting Scripture is not just a little ironic but deeply so.

fitz0

JimiTime wrote: »

They covered the answer in the 3rd post when it was sarcastically declared:

"You're just taking it out of context! You horrible atheist you!"

When I'm being quoted I like to actually be quoted so that the gods of email notification tell me about it. In reference to that post, I think you'll find it's quite an accurate prediction of the hand-wringing that goes on in almost every thread that descends into Timothy said, Job said quote wars.

This started with EnterNow questioning phililogos on that Romans passage and his selective highlighting of parts of it. In almost every post since that, phililogos has stated and restated that old contextual chestnut.

Even in most of these cases, the context is as vile as the passage there emerges some hand wringing about not performing a thorough analysis of the bible. We've all been through this before. Most here, but I'll only speak for myself; I reject the bible as a historically accurate piece and see it as morally suspect from the parts I've read. The whole is the sum of it's parts and it's parts are very suspicious indeed. It doesn't justify a thorough analysis as it seems from the hundreds of Christian sects around the world that a thorough analysis will yield whatever the analyser wants to see. So what's the point?

On the Timothy passages that phililogos first went to great lengths to justify; it doesn't matter how much the bible says a man should love his wife and 'be as one flesh' with her, it still expects her to be subservient to him. Because 'man is the head of the family.' Try justifying that as a timeless piece of wisdom.

philologos

fitz0 wrote: »

When I'm being quoted I like to actually be quoted so that the gods of email notification tell me about it. In reference to that post, I think you'll find it's quite an accurate prediction of the hand-wringing that goes on in almost every thread that descends into Timothy said, Job said quote wars.

This started with EnterNow questioning phililogos on that Romans passage and his selective highlighting of parts of it. In almost every post since that, phililogos has stated and restated that old contextual chestnut.

Even in most of these cases, the context is as vile as the passage there emerges some hand wringing about not performing a thorough analysis of the bible. We've all been through this before. Most here, but I'll only speak for myself; I reject the bible as a historically accurate piece and see it as morally suspect from the parts I've read. The whole is the sum of it's parts and it's parts are very suspicious indeed. It doesn't justify a thorough analysis as it seems from the hundreds of Christian sects around the world that a thorough analysis will yield whatever the analyser wants to see. So what's the point?

On the Timothy passages that phililogos first went to great lengths to justify; it doesn't matter how much the bible says a man should love his wife and 'be as one flesh' with her, it still expects her to be subservient to him. Because 'man is the head of the family.' Try justifying that as a timeless piece of wisdom.

The passage was Ephesians 5:22. Nothing to do with Paul's letters to Timothy. I simply pointed Worztron (who has conveniently ignored this discussion) to Ephesians 5:19-33 for the fuller context of what it means to be a husband in respect to ones wife.

I guess I should apologise deeply to Worztron to pointing out clear lies in this thread?

Reading the whole section isn't "hand wringing". It's basic reading. That's all.

I'm done pointing it out. If you're happy to tolerate dishonesty on this thread, that's up to you.

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

I've been making the same point repeatedly on the thread

To claim that I'm the one playing word games when this thread is essentially about misquoting Scripture is not just a little ironic but deeply so.

I pointed out it's not fair to lump all atheists in on the strength of a couple posts. You said you were only talking about those posts specifically. Then you immediately went on to say most atheists do it.

So which is it?

fitz0

philologos wrote: »

The passage was Ephesians 5:22. Nothing to do with Paul's letters to Timothy. I simply pointed Worztron (who has conveniently ignored this discussion) to Ephesians 5:19-33 for the fuller context of what it means to be a husband in respect to ones wife.

I guess I should apologise deeply to Worztron to pointing out clear lies in this thread?

Reading the whole section isn't "hand wringing". It's basic reading. That's all.

I'm done pointing it out. If you're happy to tolerate dishonesty on this thread, that's up to you.

Apologies on the misquotation. Ephesians it is. My point lies in that he fuller quotation does nothing to justify the initial one made by Worztron. The subservient attitude is still there. It's also exemplified in quite a lot of Christian history. But I guess those priests et al didn't really understand the bible and were misogynist for other reasons.

The hand wringing comment was in reference to all the other back and forth nonsense in this thread.

philologos

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I pointed out it's not fair to lump all atheists in on the strength of a couple posts. You said you were only talking about those posts specifically. Then you immediately went on to say most atheists do it.

So which is it?

If you read my posts I used "many atheists", "some atheists", "lots of atheists". I never said all atheists. If I have, show me and I'll apologise and take it back.

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

If you read my posts I used "many atheists", "some atheists", "lots of atheists". I never said all atheists. If I have, show me and I'll apologise and take it back.

You started with "these three posts only".

I didn't even say "all atheists" in the post you quoted.

philologos

Doctor DooM wrote: »

You started with "these three posts only".

I used Worztron's three quotes. However, this has happened multiple times on After Hours, the A&A forum, and the Christianity forum before.

It's happened many many times. This is just one small sample of something that has happened far far more. A lot of atheists do this on boards.ie I've seen it a lot. Worztron's example is one of many.

I've pointed it out, it's up to you if you want to tolerate it.

philologos

Doctor DooM wrote: »

When I called you on it, you said I'm only specifically talking about those three posts.

Now you've been called on that and it's a small sample of what going on?

Why should I talk to you when your argument shifts constantly? Why should anyone?

It's been the same from the start. I've mentioned that I was basing my comments in Worztron's posts but this has happened far more elsewhere.

I'm done anyway. I've pointed out the constant dishonesty that many atheists use when reading the Bible. It's disappointing to hear people who claim that they are interested in coming to rational conclusions use such an irrational approach when it comes to the Bible.

Worztron

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Lol.

You mightn't realise this, but there's a saying in certain atheist circles; the best thing you can possibly do to get people to become an atheist is actually read the bible.

The person who says it the most is Matt Dillahunty, who of course was training to be a pastor when he lost his faith.

Quote from Isaac Asimov: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

Gordon

Philologos, I get where you're coming from, but considering we get bombarded by out of context bible snippets from god believers regularly, you can surely understand why snippets are seen by non believers. For example, we see these little bible snippets in your signature, on the front of churches' daily placards, hear them being spoken as if the word of truth in newspapers to back up ridiculous sexist/anti homosexual positions. I'm not commenting on worztron's 'out of context' quotes incidentally, as I haven't compared yours and his yet.

pauldla

The worst example of quoting the Bible out of context is when it is presented as the Word of God.

The Bible is not the Word of God. It is a compiled series of books, authored anonymously over a period of centuries, and it is consistently presented by believers with virtually no historical veracity whatsoever.

If we can start referring to the Bible as The Greatest Collection Of Iron Age Semitic Goatherd Fables In The World…Ever! Vol. 1 & 2, then we can have a conversation about context.

Worztron

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I don't mean to sound like a troll, but I'm wondering if there's any reason for a "Shocking Qur'an Quotes" thread.

I made one here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056529166

JimiTime

pauldla wrote: »

A dose of honesty would be the death of religion. Sounds good to me....

Well, I'm up for it and see where it ends even if you're right. I'll always be on the side of honesty, and If honesty kills religion, then good riddance to it.

pauldla

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, I'm up for it and see where it ends even if you're right. I'll always be on the side of honesty, and If honesty kills religion, then good riddance to it.

Very glad to hear it!

We should probably open a new thread on it; it would be sure to make interesting reading.

Liamario

To be fair, the whole bible and what it tries to teach is out of context with modern society.

Worztron

philologos wrote: »

The passage was Ephesians 5:22. Nothing to do with Paul's letters to Timothy. I simply pointed Worztron (who has conveniently ignored this discussion) to Ephesians 5:19-33 for the fuller context of what it means to be a husband in respect to ones wife.

I guess I should apologise deeply to Worztron to pointing out clear lies in this thread?

Reading the whole section isn't "hand wringing". It's basic reading. That's all.

I'm done pointing it out. If you're happy to tolerate dishonesty on this thread, that's up to you.

It seems it does not matter what bible quote(s) you hear - you will continue to wriggle your way around them through vagueness. Your tiresome hackneyed "taken out of" comeback wont get you far.

Go and try to justify every single shocking bible quote on this thread. No doubt you will not be able to use the "taken out of context" routine for them all.

Arguing with a religious person is like trying to bang in nails with a rubber hammer.

The lies are by yourself in believing this horrid fairytale.

philologos

Worztron wrote: »

It seems it does not matter what bible quote(s) you hear - you will continue to wriggle your way around them through vagueness. Your tiresome hackneyed "taken out of" comeback wont get you far.

Go and try to justify every single shocking bible quote on this thread. No doubt you will not be able to use the "taken out of context" routine for them all.

Arguing with a religious person is like trying to bang in nails with a rubber hammer.

The lies are by yourself in believing this horrid fairytale.

I know it must be very tiresome to see your dishonesty shown for what it is.

I guess intentionally distorting Scripture and then getting caught doing so is like trying to bang in nails with a rubber hammer because on any serious examination of those three passages you were going to be shown to be dishonest.

robindch

^^^ Boys and girls, pop outside for a while, go have an orange juice or a mars bar, calm down, then come back and try again!

TwoShedsJackson

philologos wrote: »

I know it must be very tiresome to see your dishonesty shown for what it is.

I guess intentionally distorting Scripture and then getting caught doing so is like trying to bang in nails with a rubber hammer because on any serious examination of those three passages you were going to be shown to be dishonest.

All you'll do is trot out the 'context' argument to defend the rubbish written in the Bible, before eventually declaring yourself out of the thread due to lack of time, or you're opponents perceived unworthiness to debate you.

Andrewf20

Maybe not so shocking but still bizarre:

Matthew 5:38-42 – "Don’t Resist An Evil Person"

pH

philologos wrote: »

I know it must be very tiresome to see your dishonesty shown for what it is.

I guess intentionally distorting Scripture and then getting caught doing so is like trying to bang in nails with a rubber hammer because on any serious examination of those three passages you were going to be shown to be dishonest.

I notice that you still haven't provided the bible quote from Judges that condemns saving yourself by throwing a woman to the crowd to be raped.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

Which church?


I read the Bible as a whole. I didn't cherrypick anything in my responses. In all of these cases I looked to the adjacent passage. I had no choice in what passage was adjacent in all of these cases.

Judges 19 was mentioned. I looked to Judges 20.

Romans 1:26-27 was mentioned I looked to Romans chapter 1 as a whole.

In Ephesians 5 I looked to the whole section from 5:19-33.

I didn't jump around. Not that looking to the other parts of the Bible isn't a good thing to do, but I didn't do it in this case.



I suspect that's because you've not read the whole Old Testament, or it in context.

Yeah people just quoting lines out of the bible are dishonest.

Hey Phil, nice thread.

philologos

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yeah people just quoting lines out of the bible are dishonest.

Hey Phil, nice thread.

Prove to me that anything I've quoted on that thread is twisting the passage to say something it isn't and we'll talk

Sarky

You never actually talk with anyone phil. Only ever at them.

TherapyBoy

pH wrote: »

I notice that you still haven't provided the bible quote from Judges that condemns saving yourself by throwing a woman to the crowd to be raped.

Can we hear your response to this please Phil.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

Prove to me that anything I've quoted on that thread is twisting the passage to say something it isn't and we'll talk

That would be impossible as you would be asking me to prove that you posted something that differs to how you interpret that passage. I'm sure another christian sect could "prove" you wrong by offering up their interpretation of the passage.

I could of course go through and find quotes which are followed by nastier verses in the same book and do a reverse of what you are doing to the OP here but I think it better to get back on topic so,

1 Peter 2

2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
2:19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
2:20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

"Fear God". Ok. "Honour the King", lol, I wonder if a certain royalty got their spoke in in the editing room. Finally "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." Looks like the slave masters got their edit in too.

pauldla

ShooterSF wrote: »

That would be impossible as you would be asking me to prove that you posted something that differs to how you interpret that passage. I'm sure another christian sect could "prove" you wrong by offering up their interpretation of the passage.

I could of course go through and find quotes which are followed by nastier verses in the same book and do a reverse of what you are doing to the OP here but I think it better to get back on topic so,



"Fear God". Ok. "Honour the King", lol, I wonder if a certain royalty got their spoke in in the editing room. Finally "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." Looks like the slave masters got their edit in too.

Perhaps we need a little more context on the Letters of Peter? Do we know who wrote them, when they were written, and why they were written?

TwoShedsJackson

pauldla wrote: »

Perhaps we need a little more context on the Letters of Peter? Do we know who wrote them, when they were written, and why they were written?

Here's someone else ready to defend it on the basis that because we don't know everything single thing about the 'context', who wrote them, when, and why, that it can't mean what it appears to say.

Amazing how that argument disappears when coming to the supposed non-offensive verses of The Bible. All of a sudden it is the Word of the Lord then, and should context be mentioned, why suddenly the context makes it right!! Amazing!

pauldla

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Here's someone else ready to defend it on the basis that because we don't know everything single thing about the 'context', who wrote them, when, and why, that it can't mean what it appears to say.

Amazing how that argument disappears when coming to the supposed non-offensive verses of The Bible. All of a sudden it is the Word of the Lord then, and should context be mentioned, why suddenly the context makes it right!! Amazing!

Who, me?

What am I defending?

TwoShedsJackson

pauldla wrote: »

Who, me?

What am I defending?

I'm sorry, I thought you were going all Philologos on the context thing, if you were actually getting his context argument in first then ignore that last post.

Happy New Year

Gordon

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

I'm sorry, I thought you were going all Philologos on the context thing, if you were actually getting his context argument in first then ignore that last post.

Happy New Year

Were you not reading pauldla's posts in the full context of this thread? :pac:

Also, in the spirit of the Bible Wordcount thread, can I just point out that there are zero instances of the word 'context' in the KJV.

Without Context:

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

With Context:

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

John 13:34 - A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Romans 1:27 - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

etc

etc

fitz0

Gordon wrote: »

Were you not reading pauldla's posts in the full context of this thread? :pac:

Also, in the spirit of the Bible Wordcount thread, can I just point out that there are zero instances of the word 'context' in the KJV.

Worztron

Ezekiel 16:17
You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them.

Job 31:9-10
9 “If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, 10 then may my wife grind another man’s grain, and may other men sleep with her.

Malachi 2:2-3
2 If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name, says the Lord Almighty, I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.
3 Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it.

ShooterSF

Worztron wrote: »

Ezekiel 16:17

Malachi 2:2-3
2 If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name, says the Lord Almighty, I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.
3 Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it.

Ha ha stupid god I got you here. I simply don't have any festival sacrifices so where you goona get the dung? Huh? HUH?