Sickest Bible verses. You submit what you think are the sickest.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sickest Bible verses. You submit what you think are the sickest.

Atheists and theists alike. Jump in and either post the sickest bible verses you can think of. Or if you are theist, attempt "if you can" explain it away without using the "metaphore" cop out.

I'll start off.

Malichi 2:3 "Behold, I will coorupt your seed and spread DUNG upon your faces."

That is one of my favorites. But feel free to talk about others like "Lot's daughter" or "emmissions of horses".......Any verse dealing with incest, infanticide, genocide.......you name it, in this thread it is all fair game. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
"Thou shalt make them as a

"Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them." -- Psalm 21:9

I like this one because it sounds like the holocaust, doesn't it? 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
There's a part in Luke where

There's a part in Luke where Mary goes to visit her sister Martha (who is pregnant at that time with John the Baptist), and it says that she goes when Martha is in her third month, stays for six months, and then leaves. Luke then goes on to discuss the events surrounding John's birth. Meanwhile, I'm sitting there going "What the hell! Mary stays with  her sister six fucking months and then bolts right before the kid is born? So much for being 'full of grace.' What a bitch."


urbanrust
urbanrust's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-13
User is offlineOffline
God describes the torments

God describes the torments that he has planned for those who displease him. The usual stuff: plagues, burning fevers that will consume the eyes, etc. but he reserves the worst for the little children. He says "ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it," "I will send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children," and "ye shall eat the flesh of your sons and daughters." 

Leviticus 26 16 thru 42 

I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades...or a game of fake heart attack.


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Let me be the first in this

Let me be the first in this thread to point out II Kings 2:23-24. In this scene, a bunch of kids call a bald man "baldy" to his face.

God punishes those kids by sending a couple of grizzlies at them -

II Kings wrote:

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

 

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Here's one of many.


Here's another one of many.

Because the Samaritans chose to worship another deity.

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Meh. So far there's been

Meh. So far there's been some sorta sick Bible verses.

How about this:

"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." (Ezekiel 23:19-20 NIV)


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
This one's fun: 

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Those are great, keep em

Those are great, keep em comming.

And theists, feel free to attempt to justify why these words were included in your holy book. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:
There's a part in Luke where Mary goes to visit her sister Martha (who is pregnant at that time with John the Baptist), and it says that she goes when Martha is in her third month, stays for six months, and then leaves. Luke then goes on to discuss the events surrounding John's birth. Meanwhile, I'm sitting there going "What the hell! Mary stays with  her sister six fucking months and then bolts right before the kid is born? So much for being 'full of grace.' What a bitch."

The mother of John the Baptist was Mary's "kinswoman", more probably a cousin than a sister.  Her name was Elizabeth, not Martha (Martha and Mary were the sisters of Lazarus). 

The trip from Nazareth to the "hill country of Judea" was a distance of approximately 50 miles undertaken by a pregnant woman, alone.  Mary stayed for the delivery, then returned the fifty miles to her home while herself in the third month of her own pregnancy.  This journey was undertaken on foot, or at best on a donkey, no mean feat.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Sickest verses in the

Sickest verses in the bible?

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21. 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:

LosingStreak06 wrote:
There's a part in Luke where Mary goes to visit her sister Martha (who is pregnant at that time with John the Baptist), and it says that she goes when Martha is in her third month, stays for six months, and then leaves. Luke then goes on to discuss the events surrounding John's birth. Meanwhile, I'm sitting there going "What the hell! Mary stays with her sister six fucking months and then bolts right before the kid is born? So much for being 'full of grace.' What a bitch."

The mother of John the Baptist was Mary's "kinswoman", more probably a cousin than a sister. Her name was Elizabeth, not Martha (Martha and Mary were the sisters of Lazarus).

The trip from Nazareth to the "hill country of Judea" was a distance of approximately 50 miles undertaken by a pregnant woman, alone. Mary stayed for the delivery, then returned the fifty miles to her home while herself in the third month of her own pregnancy. This journey was undertaken on foot, or at best on a donkey, no mean feat.

My mistake(s). To be fair though, I haven't read much of any of the gospels in a few years. Or the New Testament for that matter. The Jesus story feels old hat, and for the rest of it, Paul is running around rampant, and I don't really care for him that much (suffice to say that I imagine that had Paul lived during Freud's time, he would have been recorded as having a LOT of dreams about cigars). 


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
"Sometimes a cigar is just

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Laughing


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: And

Brian37 wrote:

And theists, feel free to attempt to justify why these words were included in your holy book.

 

Poetic license? 


nullusdeus
SuperfanBronze Member
nullusdeus's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote:

CrimsonEdge wrote:

Sickest verses in the bible?

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21.

Absolutely correct!!! In that group:

Numbers 31:17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”

Yeah, go ahead and kill the innocent little ones, they were born in sin anyway. 

 

Miracles don't exist. "Miracle" is a word given to a preposterous event that a theist considers dogmatically advantageous. Def. - Ecclesiastical sensationalism.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
nullusdeus

nullusdeus wrote:
CrimsonEdge wrote:

Sickest verses in the bible?

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21.

Absolutely correct!!! In that group:

Numbers 31:17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”

Yeah, go ahead and kill the innocent little ones, they were born in sin anyway.

 

Paraphrase:

Kill all the little fuckers and kill all the sluts. 


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
nullusdeus wrote:

Numbers 31:17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”

Yeah, go ahead and kill the innocent little ones, they were born in sin anyway.

 

Paraphrase:

Kill all the little fuckers and kill all the sluts.

Yes, kill 'em all, kill 'em with fire or something, except for the virgin girls:

Numbers 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Technarch
Posts: 127
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Joshua 5: 1 Now it came

Joshua 5:

1 Now it came about when all the kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan to the west, and all the kings of the Canaanites who were by the sea, heard how the LORD had dried up the waters of the Jordan before the sons of Israel until they had crossed, that their hearts melted, and there was no spirit in them any longer because of the sons of Israel.

2 At that time the LORD said to Joshua, “Make for yourself flint knives and circumcise again the sons of Israel the second time.” 3 So Joshua made himself flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
  Romans 8:38 For I am

 

Romans 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 Mawkish drivel to wheedle the naive into unquestioning fidelity.

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
The "sickest" Bible verses?

The "sickest" Bible verses? Are you people serious, or is this a poor attempt at humor?

 

Regardless, would someone please explain the purpose of this exercise? I fail to see how this qualifies as rational response.

Details of my timeout are posted here.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Loucks wrote: The

Loucks wrote:

The "sickest" Bible verses? Are you people serious, or is this a poor attempt at humor?

 

Regardless, would someone please explain the purpose of this exercise? I fail to see how this qualifies as rational response.

 

It's not. This is atheists excercising their own brand of comic relief. Atheists are not required to be rational all of the time. They are only  required to lack god belief.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Loucks wrote: The

Loucks wrote:

The "sickest" Bible verses? Are you people serious, or is this a poor attempt at humor?

 

Regardless, would someone please explain the purpose of this exercise? I fail to see how this qualifies as rational response.

The entire book is laughable.  There are, however, certain lines that are particularly hysterical.  Obviously, there was no intelligence requirement to add to the book; so, those particular imbeciles deserve to have others laugh at their expense.

To deny our human nature would be irrational in the extreme.  It is only natural to laugh at fools.  Surely, you have caught on to this fact.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: It's not.

wavefreak wrote:
It's not. This is atheists excercising their own brand of comic relief. Atheists are not required to be rational all of the time. They are only required to lack god belief.

 

That's a peculiar way of putting it. Are you suggesting that if one finds verses that are 'sick and twisted' (I.E. completely depraved acts that an omnibenevolent god would not consider?) in a book written a very long time ago that those people are irrational?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge

CrimsonEdge wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
It's not. This is atheists excercising their own brand of comic relief. Atheists are not required to be rational all of the time. They are only required to lack god belief.

 

That's a peculiar way of putting it. Are you suggesting that if one finds verses that are 'sick and twisted' (I.E. completely depraved acts that an omnibenevolent god would not consider?) in a book written a very long time ago that those people are irrational?

I'm not suggesting anything other than atheists also capable of sarcasm, satire and (gasp!) have a sense of humor. What these bible verses actually mean is subject to endless debate in which I don't care to participate.


Tankalish
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-07-06
User is offlineOffline
Come on guys. The emergence

Come on guys. The emergence of the secular world justified communism and the dropping of the atomic bomb in the interest of the created entity known today as the nation state. And you're getting mad at us for committing atrocities in the name of our God? You have to see the hypocrisy in defaming our immorality in the name of the creator. If you want to enter into an actual dialogue about those quotes, thats one thing, but pretending to understand the word of God by reading the sparknotes is as laughable as me claiming to understand Derrida in the same fashion.


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Tankalish wrote:

Tankalish wrote:
Come on guys. The emergence of the secular world justified communism and the dropping of the atomic bomb in the interest of the created entity known today as the nation state.

Let me guess - you're of the "atheism=communism" school of thought, aren't you?

Quote:
And you're getting mad at us for committing atrocities in the name of our God?

Yes.

We ARE mad at you (well, not YOU in particular) for commiting atrocities in the first place, and for using the Bible to justify said atrocities.

Quote:
You have to see the hypocrisy in defaming our immorality in the name of the creator.

What hypocrisy? We were never defending ANYBODY'S atrocities, nevermind saying that it was okay to do them because of some sentences in a book written thousands of years ago by somebody who thought that even the most petty of crimes warrant capital punishment by means which would be considered grossly inhumane by today's standards.

Quote:
If you want to enter into an actual dialogue about those quotes, thats one thing, but pretending to understand the word of God by reading the sparknotes is as laughable as me claiming to understand Derrida in the same fashion.

This is exactly what we were doing in this thread - having a discussion about Bible quotes! And some of them are pretty clear about what happens if you break one of the rules - if you practice the wrong religion, do ANY work on a certain day of the week, or even want something that your neighbor has but you don't, you get "stoned to death with stones."

Why the Bible has to specify that you use stones to stone someone to death is beyond me.

{edit - fixed typo} 

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Loucks wrote: The

Loucks wrote:

The "sickest" Bible verses? Are you people serious, or is this a poor attempt at humor?

 

Regardless, would someone please explain the purpose of this exercise? I fail to see how this qualifies as rational response.

My question to you is ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Have you read the bible? It is convoluted epic centered around a head figure who doesnt stop at merely picking a switch out of the back yard tree to punish Johny for not finishing his homework.

GOD, from begining, middle and end of the book, doesnt just stop at a slap on the wrist. I am an atheist, and according to far to many Muslims and Christians ESPECIALLY, the mere transgretion of not buing fiction will buy me an eternity BEING TORTURED? 

This isnt based on a real deity, this is based on the people who believe in ancient myth and act on the words in these holy books. When shown the verses you read here the theist has no choice but to cherry pick the nice bits and ignore the sick crap.

Yes, I find spreading shit in someone's face SICK. THAT IS IN THE BIBLE.

I find trading your daughter's virginity to save a guest from being raped SICK. IT IS IN THE BIBLE!

I find genocide sick IT IS NOT ONLY IN THE BIBLE BUT ADVOCATED OR COMMITED BY GOD!

. But since you haven't read, or dont read all of the bible you probibly dont know the sick crap that is in it. 

The point of this thread is to wake people up to the books they believe are fact. It is to wake people up to the books they think are the source of human morality.

The best weapon against religion are their own holy books. If no one took their holy books seriously, then you would be right, this exorsize would be pointless. I only hope one day threads like this would be pointless because God would be treated like Dungeons and Dragons, as it should be.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: My question

Brian37 wrote:
My question to you is ARE YOU SERIOUS? Have you read the bible?

 
Yes, I am serious. Yes, I am familiar with the Bible. I don't know where you got the idea that I "haven't read, or dont read all of the bible," but that simply isn't the case.

Perhaps you'd benefit from having a look at both the title of this subforum and the name of this website. "GUYS LOOK WUT TEH BIBLE SEZ LOL SO GROSS EW" is neither a rational response, nor does it qualify as "Atheist vs. Theist." That there are acts in the Bible which you find morally repugnant does not constitute a valid argument in favor of atheism.

Brian37 wrote:
The point of this thread is to wake people up to the books they believe are fact. It is to wake people up to the books they think are the source of human morality.

Hope no more: threads like this are pointless. This "exorsize" is absolutely without merit in terms of your stated intent.

Here's a slightly off-topic tip for you, Brian: Go get yourself a copy of Strunk & White and learn how to proofread. Your constant abuse of the English language makes your posts difficult to read.

Details of my timeout are posted here.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Atheists

Brian37 wrote:

Atheists and theists alike. Jump in and either post the sickest bible verses you can think of. Or if you are theist, attempt "if you can" explain it away without using the "metaphore" cop out.

I'll start off.

Malichi 2:3 "Behold, I will coorupt your seed and spread DUNG upon your faces."

That is one of my favorites. But feel free to talk about others like "Lot's daughter" or "emmissions of horses".......Any verse dealing with incest, infanticide, genocide.......you name it, in this thread it is all fair game. 

Quite interesting.  First theists who take the Bible literally are whack, but now we can't interpret any part of it as metaphor either.  Make up your mind.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Hope no more: threads like this are pointless.

He has shown that distasteful verses within cause discomfiture to those who wish to take the Bible gravely. Relating that underlying emotional entreaties for purpose establish irrational beliefs rather than the deceptively reputed veracity of the hallowed works.

Try reading the Bible without the supposition that it has divine merit my pusillanimous antagonist.

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: He has

Cernunnos wrote:

He has shown that distasteful verses within cause discomfiture to those who wish to take the Bible gravely. Relating that underlying emotional entreaties for purpose establish irrational beliefs rather than the deceptive reputed veracity of the hallowed works.

Eschew obfuscation: sell your thesaurus.

Cernunnos wrote:

Try reading the Bible without the supposition that it has merit my pusillanimous antagonist.

I don't recall asserting that the Bible has merit. Do you know something about my position that I don't, or have you made an assumption without the burden of evidence?

Details of my timeout are posted here.


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
So like, if ya like read

So like, if ya like read the bible and realise that it has little merit yeah. Then ya should know this discussion aint worthless 'cause it shows the base for Christian's theism aint where they tell it is innit, ya  know wobbles the foundations. On't tother hand if you value the book then attacking the thread topic over the contents exposes an inability to defend the book's words which should be the concern. These were the musings  before my guess on ya position over da book. If it aint the case then see that there is some relevance to this forum even if ya don't like the method.

 

 

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quite interesting.

Quote:

Quite interesting. First theists who take the Bible literally are whack, but now we can't interpret any part of it as metaphor either. Make up your mind.

Typical. It is YOU who dont get it. The point of saying, "Dont use the "metaphore" cop out, is to demonstrate THAT YOU CANT avoid it.

Who gets to chose what is real or metaphore in the bible? You? What about your neighbor, what about the Minister? Some see Moses as a litteral story, some see him as metaphore. 

The point is to show YOU that people cherri pick. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Tankalish
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-07-06
User is offlineOffline
Very well, if we are

Very well, if we are entering into an actual debate on the Bible, there are theological understandings of the Old Testament. The story behind this portion, as I am sure you guys know but just in case, is that God has chosen a people, the tribe of Abraham, to testify to him in the world and be a medium of reconciliation, back to himself, of all creation. When we get to the exodus, to Moses leading the people out of Egypt, what we see is God actually coming down to dwell with his people. Now to have God, a perfect being, dwelling among them, they are required to be pure. Which is why Leviticus and Deuteronomoy lays out a code of how to purify themselves in most any situation. If any impurity forces him out of his, I think it's called a tabernacle, then he's gotta find a new crew to roll with. Sooo, everything that goes down in the Old Testament is what God deserves from creation before the grace of the Christ figure. If someone rapes someone else, many believe death today, others believe jail for life, etc. Betrayal of ultimate unconditional love understandingly necessitates something stronger.

Two other things that need to be added, one being that many of the stories are "contradicted" if you will by later stories. Please don't argue historiocity here, the Bible is a theological text, not a history book, and writings of the time periods had fundamentally different perspectives on what constituted validity. Just saying varying accounts testify to the fact that these are stories, exaggerations occur in histories of this nature. The point is God's continued faithfullness to Israel.

Another thing is that some claim the Israelites claimed God's mandate in doing these things but indeed wanted only to justify their own actions, and that this can be seen when it's read Christologically. Some perspectives, not all. Feel free to disect.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tankalish wrote: Come on

Tankalish wrote:
Come on guys. The emergence of the secular world justified communism and the dropping of the atomic bomb in the interest of the created entity known today as the nation state. And you're getting mad at us for committing atrocities in the name of our God? You have to see the hypocrisy in defaming our immorality in the name of the creator. If you want to enter into an actual dialogue about those quotes, thats one thing, but pretending to understand the word of God by reading the sparknotes is as laughable as me claiming to understand Derrida in the same fashion.

Ask a billion Christians what the word of God is and you will get a billion different answers.

The point of this thread is that YOU cherri pick and promote the warm fuzzy stuff and deny the sick stuff that doesnt put your god in a good light.

Now, if eternal torture beyond human emagination(hell) is possible, wouldnt the other nasty stuff be childs play in comparrison? So why is hell possible in the after life but God is not capable of litterally spreading dung in someone's face|? If you say God can do anything he wants, then certanly anything should be possible? 

Of course God cant spread dung in anyone's face. It is a fictional character, and hell is fictional too. So while the nasty stuff is fiction, so are the warm fuzzy stories. 

There is so much needless drama in the world because there is so much needless(and poorly written) drama in that work of fiction.

This exorsice is to face YOU with the fact YOU cherri pick. 

Quote:
The emergence of the secular world justified communism and the dropping of the atomic bomb in the interest of the created entity known today as the nation state.

Saying every atheist supports communism is like saying that every German today still loves Hitler. So I should assume that because you are a Christian you support Al Sharpton.

Secularism is what our Constitution is founded on and what maintains our freedom.

Worship of the state is the same as worship of a god. Blind obediance. Look what dad tells you to do "or else". It is tribalism at its worst. Most the atheists I know pride themselves on individuality not the sheepish behaivor of  minions following a state or a God.

You are an idiot if you think we want a facist state where robots exist. No, that is what dictators and deities want. Your daddy threatens to beat me up simply for denying his existance.

I'm not afraid of fictional beings, but I do fear those who believe in such fictional beings and threaten me with them. I'll treat your God like Stalin, because that is what a deity would deserve by any name if it saught to beat me up over something as petty as a dissagreement.

Fortunatly such a Magical tyrant doesnt not exist. Unfortunatly there are people who believe that their claimed daddy will kick my ass for my blasphemy, and those people seek political power.

Quote:
If you want to enter into an actual dialogue about those quotes, thats one thing, but pretending to understand the word of God 

OH YEA, you I am sure are the one person who got it right where everyone else got it wrong.

Ok, cut the crap, if you think we are wrong then adress any one of the quotes here and stick to it without petty diversionary tactics such as this I quoted you on.

Ok, since you know, you are more than welcome to attempt to tell us where we went wrong. 

Your next post should adress any one of the given quotes in this thread. Anything that does not adress the bible quotes mentioned will be considered a dodge.

NOW, on with it, lets play ball, or get out of the park. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:
metaphore

 

Brian37 wrote:
CANT

Brian37 wrote:
metaphore

Brian37 wrote:
litteral

Brian37 wrote:
metaphore

Brian37 wrote:
cherri

Brian37 wrote:
cherri

Brian37 wrote:
emagination

Brian37 wrote:
wouldnt

Brian37 wrote:
childs

Brian37 wrote:
comparrison

Brian37 wrote:
litterally

Brian37 wrote:
certanly

Brian37 wrote:
cant

Brian37 wrote:
exorsice

Brian37 wrote:
obediance

 

Brian37 wrote:
facist

Brian37 wrote:
dissagreement

Brian37 wrote:
Unfortunatly

Brian37 wrote:
adress

Brian37 wrote:
adress

 

You're not even trying, are you? 

 

Details of my timeout are posted here.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you have a point?

What is your point?


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:

aiia wrote:
What is your point?

That Brian's refusal to proof his work, or even to run it through a spell checker, is insulting and worthy of derision. It's even worse than TYPING EVERYTHING IN CAPS. It's difficult to take an argument seriously when it appears to have been composed while playing Counterstrike.

Details of my timeout are posted here.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Loucks wrote: aiia

Loucks wrote:


aiia wrote:
What is your point?


That Brian's refusal to proof his work,
Then say so, if you disagree it would be preferable to specify what you disagree with and discuss it
Quote:
or even to run it through a spell checker, is insulting and worthy of derision. It's even worse than TYPING EVERYTHING IN CAPS. It's difficult to take an argument seriously when it appears to have been composed while playing Counterstrike.
Taking issue with spelling is a personal issue, the majority of us here are interested in what is being said.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Loucks wrote: Brian37

Loucks wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
metaphore

Brian37 wrote:
CANT

Brian37 wrote:
metaphore

Brian37 wrote:
litteral

Brian37 wrote:
metaphore

Brian37 wrote:
cherri

Brian37 wrote:
cherri

 

Brian37 wrote:
emagination

Brian37 wrote:
wouldnt

Brian37 wrote:
childs

Brian37 wrote:
comparrison

Brian37 wrote:
litterally

Brian37 wrote:
certanly

Brian37 wrote:
cant

Brian37 wrote:
exorsice

Brian37 wrote:
obediance

Brian37 wrote:
facist

Brian37 wrote:
dissagreement

Brian37 wrote:
Unfortunatly

Brian37 wrote:
adress

Brian37 wrote:
adress

 

You're not even trying, are you?

 

Heey Nazzi, ifff u wer payng me toww write for a newspepr, then maybo I'd give a shit. But since this isnt a job and you are not payig, be.....get on with the post subjec. 

Obba caba butwheat? Cansa weez gets on wit da barbaquba, and dispense with your petty hangup? 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Loucks

aiia wrote:
Loucks wrote:


aiia wrote:
What is your point?


That Brian's refusal to proof his work,
Then say so, if you disagree it would be preferable to specify what you disagree with and discuss it

This is a perfect example of the importance of linguistic competence. I wrote "proof," as in "proofread," not "prove." Do you see how communication breaks down when one party isn't sufficiently proficient with the language?

aiia wrote:
Taking issue with spelling is a personal issue, the majority of us here are interested in what is being said.

If I'm reading your response correctly, you're offering a false dichotomy. I care about both what is being said and how it is said; the two aren't mutually exclusive. It is a sign of disrespect when the poster is unable or unwilling to exercise basic courtesy to those of us who read his/her work. For further evidence, have a look at Brian's puerile response to my objection.

Details of my timeout are posted here.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Loucks wrote: aiia

Loucks wrote:

aiia wrote:
Loucks wrote:


aiia wrote:
What is your point?


That Brian's refusal to proof his work,
Then say so, if you disagree it would be preferable to specify what you disagree with and discuss it

This is a perfect example of the importance of linguistic competence. I wrote "proof," as in "proofread," not "prove." Do you see how communication breaks down when one party isn't sufficiently proficient with the language?

aiia wrote:
Taking issue with spelling is a personal issue, the majority of us here are interested in what is being said.

If I'm reading your response correctly, you're offering a false dichotomy. I care about both what is being said and how it is said; the two aren't mutually exclusive. It is a sign of disrespect when the poster is unable or unwilling to exercise basic courtesy to those of us who read his/her work. For further evidence, have a look at Brian's puerile response to my objection.

If you are done pontificating about how important it is to tip your pinky while fucking Muffy, can we get on with the subject of the thread?

My point is time place and context. This post is not formal and when you are hanging out at a bar, you dont always wear a suit and tie. I dont expect you to hire me to write for Harpers bud. So get off your high horse.

You do not have to be formal in every setting.

Quote:
It is a sign of disrespect when the poster is unable or unwilling to exercise basic courtesy

TRANSLATION:

"I cant handle my own hang ups so I'll blame someone else for them and demand that they be like me or call them disrespectfull when they dont agree with me"

Now, can we get on with the subject, or are you going to dwell on the fact that you walked into a bar(this post) and not the (Ritz).

If you are more comfortable in a formal setting, then dont respond to my posts.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Hello Loucks

Hello Loucks

You have an interesting but incorrect view of the English language

The language itself is flexible one might say fluid, it is not set in stone, and you are more than welcome to invent new words, edit old words, redefine words as you please, this is the beauty of the language

If you understand what is written, then it is by definition correct English

Brian's musings may yet end up in the Oxford English Smiling

I've abbreviated "the Oxford English dictionary" into the Oxford English, and as you understood this in the context of the sentence, this should simply be excepted

motan ic gerihtan eower gedwyld binnan se nytt ge seo Engliscgereorde

Thee above sentence is not gibberish it is the original written English language, the language has evolved, and it continues to evolve despite all efforts by those self-appointed guardians of the English language, if they took the time and effort to understand the true nature of an evolving language then they would have the common sense to accept the inevitable


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Loucks wrote: aiia

Loucks wrote:

aiia wrote:
What is your point?

That Brian's refusal to proof his work, or even to run it through a spell checker, is insulting and worthy of derision. It's even worse than TYPING EVERYTHING IN CAPS. It's difficult to take an argument seriously when it appears to have been composed while playing Counterstrike.

Okay, I will point out the obvious again.  This Loucks is just a giant, sandy vagina.  He is acting like a complete assbag across the forum.  Aiia, Sapient just spanked him hard in the avatar thread.  Can we be rid of his shitty attitude?

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: Sapient just

Nero wrote:

Sapient just spanked him hard in the avatar thread

 ? can we have a link I like a good spanking 


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: The

Rev_Devilin wrote:
The language itself is flexible one might say fluid, it is not set in stone, and you are more than welcome to invent new words, edit old words, redefine words as you please, this is the beauty of the language

If you understand what is written, then it is by definition correct English

Allow me to thank you, Rev, for a civilized response. Sapient seems to want to ban me, so I'll make this brief.

English is a living language, and is therefore in a constant state of transition. It's fascinating to trace the changes over the last few centuries in order to see just how the thing evolved. I fully agree that neologisms are perfectly acceptable in many contexts.

That does not, however, mean that it is acceptable to simply throw out all standards of composition. The term you are looking for is "comprehensible English," not "correct English." Brian is not creating terminology from whole cloth, or introducing loan words. He is simply butchering the language by ignoring spelling conventions. We can figure out what he is trying to say, but that doesn't mean that it is correct.

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Brian's musings may yet end up in the Oxford English Smiling

I've abbreviated "the Oxford English dictionary" into the Oxford English, and as you understood this in the context of the sentence, this should simply be excepted

I use "OED" (as an initialism, not an acronym), but I understand. It's a long shot, given the nature of Brian's linguistic foibles, but most things are possible.

Rev_Devilin wrote:
motan ic gerihtan eower gedwyld binnan se nytt ge seo Engliscgereorde

Now that is funny. Thanks for making my evening. I don't think the words are ordered properly, but I could be wrong.

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Thee above sentence is not gibberish it is the original written English language, the language has evolved, and it continues to evolve despite all efforts by those self-appointed guardians of the English language, if they took the time and effort to understand the true nature of an evolving language then they would have the common sense to accept the inevitable

Well, no. That's not the original English language, but rather a modern sentence with its words translated into Old English. Regardless, your point inre: linguistic dogmatists is valid, but it doesn't apply in this case. We're not dealing with an individual whose writings are likely to bring about significant changes in the language. He's just a person who is too lazy to fix his typographical errors. 

Details of my timeout are posted here.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Jump in and

Brian37 wrote:
Jump in and either post the sickest bible verses you can think of.

Genesis I - "In the beginning....."

From there it is pretty much all downhill. 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Nero wrote:

Sapient just spanked him hard in the avatar thread

? can we have a link I like a good spanking

My pleasure, Devilin. A Mod will have to make this shorter, as I do not recall how.

Thread

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I love the bit where Jesus

I love the bit where Jesus gets pissed at a fig tree for not producing fruit out of season.  So, he curses the tree, and it shrivels before them.

Yeah, that seems loving and fair.  Do what I say, regardless of your true nature, or I will curse you.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Loucks wrote: Rev_Devilin

Loucks wrote:
Rev_Devilin wrote:
The language itself is flexible one might say fluid, it is not set in stone, and you are more than welcome to invent new words, edit old words, redefine words as you please, this is the beauty of the language

If you understand what is written, then it is by definition correct English

Allow me to thank you, Rev, for a civilized response. Sapient seems to want to ban me, so I'll make this brief.

English is a living language, and is therefore in a constant state of transition. It's fascinating to trace the changes over the last few centuries in order to see just how the thing evolved. I fully agree that neologisms are perfectly acceptable in many contexts.

That does not, however, mean that it is acceptable to simply throw out all standards of composition. The term you are looking for is "comprehensible English," not "correct English." Brian is not creating terminology from whole cloth, or introducing loan words. He is simply butchering the language by ignoring spelling conventions. We can figure out what he is trying to say, but that doesn't mean that it is correct.

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Brian's musings may yet end up in the Oxford English Smiling

I've abbreviated "the Oxford English dictionary" into the Oxford English, and as you understood this in the context of the sentence, this should simply be excepted

I use "OED" (as an initialism, not an acronym), but I understand. It's a long shot, given the nature of Brian's linguistic foibles, but most things are possible.

Rev_Devilin wrote:
motan ic gerihtan eower gedwyld binnan se nytt ge seo Engliscgereorde

Now that is funny. Thanks for making my evening. I don't think the words are ordered properly, but I could be wrong.

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Thee above sentence is not gibberish it is the original written English language, the language has evolved, and it continues to evolve despite all efforts by those self-appointed guardians of the English language, if they took the time and effort to understand the true nature of an evolving language then they would have the common sense to accept the inevitable

Well, no. That's not the original English language, but rather a modern sentence with its words translated into Old English. Regardless, your point inre: linguistic dogmatists is valid, but it doesn't apply in this case. We're not dealing with an individual whose writings are likely to bring about significant changes in the language. He's just a person who is too lazy to fix his typographical errors.

Listen dumbass, I have repeated this countless times. Take your Muffy loving ass to your library have your tea and tip your pinky all you wish. I am not against that.

TIME PLACE AND CONTEXT. Do you have personal conversations with people where you always talk like you have no sphincter?

FOR THE A.D.D AFLICTED..........If we were in a formal setting, such as a job, or college paper, THEN YOU WOULD BE RIGHT!

But, since you do not pay me a damned thing, I dont care.

SOOOOO HHEERRRE IS TO IRRRRITTTATING ANAL RETENTIVE PRICKS.

Get off your high horse. No one forced you to post in this thread. If my spelling habits bother you, go where you are comfortable.

SPELLING IS IMPORTANT DUMBASS! BUT WE ALSO DONT ACT LIKE TYRANTS WHEN WE ARE NOT AT WORK! YOU DONT PAY ME.

Do you drink beer, or fart? No, you dont, when you take a crap it is a bowel movement, not a shit. I take a shit. 

Now get on with the topic and stop worrrying about other people. You dont own me. GET OVER IT.

It is simple. You either post or dont post. I dont care. But this is a distraction  by you that has not been on topic. So please, either stop posting in this thread, or stick to the subject. 

Here is a suggestion, start another thread titled, "How to be anal retentive" 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Your spelling seems to have

Your spelling seems to have improved, Brian. You still omit punctuation in some places, but this is a far cry from your earlier posts.  Thank you for the effort.

Details of my timeout are posted here.