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

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13496
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


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Loucks wrote: Your

Loucks wrote:

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.

Nice rebuttal. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13496
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Loucks wrote: Your

Loucks wrote:

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.

Hey dipshit, I dont care. Now, for the last time. The subject of this thread is "Sickest Bible verses". Cannnn youuuuu handle thatf? Or are youfdfsfsdfssfsfssssf going to continue being a jackass? 

"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
CrimsonEdge wrote: Loucks

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Loucks wrote:

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.

Nice rebuttal.

I didn't see anything in that post at which to direct a rebuttal. I thought it prudent to limit myself to complimenting him and moving on. He's clearly only interested in attacking me.

Details of my timeout are posted here.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
"With its words translated

"With its words translated into Old English" Smiling indeed I lack the capacity to think in Old English, so I couldn't be entirely certain of the entire sentence being correct in context

Aye thy ain't as green as cabbage looking Smiling

Which is far more Shakespearean, a language I can think in

"Throw out all standards of composition"

I believe this happened with the realization of mobile phone texting, the languages in for a bumpy ride, it's only a matter of time before this bleeds into such conversations

"We can figure out what he is trying to say, but that doesn't mean that it is correct"

This is the evolution process at work, I'm sure you should known this your-self

ante / ætforan / afore / before / b4

The evolution has not been smooth, because the evolution was made by lazy people that couldn't be bothered to fix their typographical errors, and it is correct because this process is not yet finished, thus if you understand it, it is correct

 


elmo
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-07-22
User is offlineOffline
He that is wounded in the

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Deuteronomy 23:1


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Eat shit and die. Pasta is

Eat shit and die. Pasta is the bread of life.

 

- FSM 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Psalm 137:8-9 (New

Psalm 137:8-9 (New American Standard Bible)



8: O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
9: How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

 

 

I think that's the worst.


Sentinel
Sentinel's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-09-21
User is offlineOffline
If I may I ask, I have a

If I may I ask, I have a feeling based on your pic and what I've seen you post, that you may hold the same view of a Creator and the Bible that many of the Founding Fathers held including the venerable Thomas Paine.  Are you a Deist, sir?

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. -Buddha


mileyp
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-08-23
User is offlineOffline
How about Hosea

How about 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" [KJV]

Samaria was the capital of the kingdom of Israel


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

Rev_Devilin wrote:
The evolution has not been smooth, because the evolution was made by lazy people that couldn't be bothered to fix their typographical errors, and it is correct because this process is not yet finished, thus if you understand it, it is correct

This is something I sorta agree with. There are people who mix up its and it's; there, their, and they're; and to, too, and two. It's nothing more than a minor annoyance, since in these cases the context of the message is delivered flawlessly despite the flawed content (insofar as the message can be delivered intelligibly in the first place. )

Quote:
if you understand it, it is correct

Unless you are a grammar nazi or an English teacher. :P 

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


lgnsttefrst
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-06-07
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.

I like having fresh "cherris" in my cereal. Perhaps its just my "emagination".

oh that and

Brian37 wrote:  exorsice

EXORCISE THE DEMONS!!!!!

 

Rev Devlin... nice avatar. MS paint is so versatile.


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

lgnsttefrst wrote:

Rev Devlin... nice avatar. MS paint is so versatile.

? is it. I wouldn't know

I try to avoid Microsoft products


 


rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Luke 19:27"But these

Luke 19:27

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." 

Matthew 18:8

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

 
1 Timothy 2,12

 
KJV: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: Brian37

totus_tuus wrote:
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.

We call the "whack" because they literally believe everything in the book is real.

Nero(in response to a Youth pastor) wrote:

You are afraid and should be thus.  We look to eradicate your god from everything but history books.  We bring rationality and clear thought to those who choose lives of ignorance.  We are the blazing, incandescent brand that will leave an "A" so livid, so scarlet on your mind that you will not go an hour without reflecting on reality.


Crocoduck
Crocoduck's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Deuteronomy 23.1 No one

Deuteronomy 23.1

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.  (OK - so I guess I'm "in&quotEye-wink

Sura An-Naml 27:18-19   (Quran)At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."  (Yes, they are actually referring to those little bugs on the ground that bite your toes).2 Nephi   (Book of Mormon)30:14 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den.  (A cockatrice is a serpent hatched from a cock's egg that can kill with a glance.  They are quite rare today.)  Sucking?  Hole?  Asp?  Hand?  Cock a what??One of my favorite "churchy" terms is:"The erection of a bishopric"I've never seen one in action.

Crocoduck - A missing transitional link that theists have been hoping does not exist...


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
http://www.evilbible.com/ 

http://www.evilbible.com/ 

1 Samuel 18:27 reads, David and his men went out and killed two
hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full
number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law.
Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

In a sense, the ancient Israelites "scalped" their enemies, and then used
the pieces of flesh as currency. While this type of thinking is
anthropologically significant, it has no place in modern society. Sure,
the Bible belongs in every library. But in the ancient history section.
Andrew Bernardin

Atheists on a mission to heal the world should know the buddhists ideas, it's helpful .... all is one they say


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
  Loucks

 

Loucks wrote:

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.

Ha!  Ha!  Ha!  It really is funny.  You are indeed wrong; the words are ordered perfectly fine.  This form of early English is highly inflected and not highly syntactic as modern English is.  The word order is much freer and is necessarily quite different from the fixed word order (as opposed to inflection) that we derive grammatical meaning from currently.

Is Loucks still around?  I'm sorry to do this, but his preoccupation with other's poor editing infuriated me and I felt it necessary to post.  I'm sure he'd love my grammar.  (Perhaps he did get banned.  I'm not sad.)

As for sick bible versus, I'm not familiar, but isn't the multitude contained (as has been suggested) between the first verse and the last?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


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

 

Rev_Devilin wrote:

"With its words translated into Old English" Smiling indeed I lack the capacity to think in Old English, so I couldn't be entirely certain of the entire sentence being correct in context

Aye thy ain't as green as cabbage looking Smiling

My understanding of very old English is limited to a few words, as my interest is in the evolution of words, and how far back one can trace common words, this is just a hobby that I find fascinating from time to time when I get the urge

I think Loucks has gone bye-bye, which I think is a pity such characters can be infuriating but they can also be quite effective at livening up a debate


stevedave83
stevedave83's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
This one always comes to

This one always comes to mind for me...

Genesis 19:5-8 

5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

For those of you who don't remember this story, Lot is described as the only 'righteous' man is all of Sodom and Gamorrah.  Dictionary.com defines the word 'righteous' as "characterized by uprightness or morality".  Apparently, it's well within the bibles moral code to willingly offer up your virginal daughters to be raped by an entire city, rather that inconvenience a couple of angels who should be MORE than capable to taking care of themselves.

Please, I would LOVE for someone to explain this one to me. 

You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
stevedave83 wrote:

stevedave83 wrote:

Apparently, it's well within the bibles moral code to willingly offer up your virginal daughters to be raped by an entire city, rather that inconvenience a couple of angels who should be MORE than capable to taking care of themselves.

Please, I would LOVE for someone to explain this one to me.

You answered your own question.  In the patriarchal society of Israel in the 6th century B.C.  when this story was recorded, daughters and wives were property.  Hospitality to male visitors was much more important than the lives of mere daughters, so the morally correct choice in this case was to give up the daughters.

What this story really shows (and the one later where Lot's daughters get their father drunk and have sex with him) is that the supposedly "coherent" and "unchanging" morality of the Bible as characterized by 21st century American evangelicals is anything but.  The same people who rail against moral relativism are the first ones to step up and say "but it was appropriate for the time for Lot to give up his daughters..."

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Xposure
Theist
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Yes there are many verses

Yes there are many verses in the Bible which seem contradictory to the "God loves everyone mentality that people want to push onto God". That way of thinking simply just isnt the case according to the Bible. God loves everyone from the start as a creation and he wants everyone to follow Him, but when you reject God by not being the type of person He wants, then he rejects you and no longer loves you. He doesnt hear the prayers of the unrighteous, he doesnt help them, he doesnt love them. What he does do is in most cases in the Bible use them as an example then destroy them because He finds them useless.

As a follower of God it is our (or mine rather as most of you are not followers lol ) duty to love and help those who do now understand God in effort to show what His love is like so that they might see why the world is in the situation it is in.


davidnay2007
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Wow.. I had no idea there

Wow.. I had no idea there was so much sick stuff in the bible (of all things). I'm actually shocked. I tried reading the bible once but I didn't get far because it was so boring. I wonder how the Quran compares to the bible in terms of sick shit. I would guess that the Quran is even worse. Can anyone shed some light on this?


stevedave83
stevedave83's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
davidnay2007 wrote:

davidnay2007 wrote:
Wow.. I had no idea there was so much sick stuff in the bible (of all things). I'm actually shocked. I tried reading the bible once but I didn't get far because it was so boring. I wonder how the Quran compares to the bible in terms of sick shit. I would guess that the Quran is even worse. Can anyone shed some light on this?

If there's one thing that will make an atheist out of a believer, it would be to read the bible from cover to cover. I've read a good portion of it and I am appalled at almost everything in it. I'm not sure about the Quran...I'll have to look into it.

 

***************EDIT****************

I just remembered this one...

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NIV

I had a bit of a rebellious streak when I was in high school, but DAMN!

Actually, everyone should go right now and read deuteronomy.  You don't have to find a bible, just go to www.biblegateway.com

Deuteronomy has some particularly bad stuff in it. 

You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Xposure wrote: As a

Xposure wrote:

As a follower of God it is our (or mine rather as most of you are not followers lol ) duty to love and help those who do now understand God in effort to show what His love is like so that they might see why the world is in the situation it is in.

Xposure, you're ignoring the fact that maybe half of the posters on this board are ex-Christians. How do you think we know so much about the Bible?

We've been there, done that, found that what you're calling "God's love" is at best a delusional neurochemical state, and at worst mind-control device used by some people to control others. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


stevedave83
stevedave83's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
People can preach about

People can preach about god's love all they want, but the fact is that the bible also has a lot of hatred in it.

 Hatred for people of another nation, of another tribe, of a different belief, of a different sexual orientation.

For instance, look at Exodus 34:11-14

11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. [a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Whatever happened to "loving the sinners" and "winning them over by the love of god" that I hear so much about?  Or is this the argument that begins with, "...but that was the old testament..."? 

You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
davidnay2007 wrote: Wow.. I

davidnay2007 wrote:
Wow.. I had no idea there was so much sick stuff in the bible (of all things). I'm actually shocked. I tried reading the bible once but I didn't get far because it was so boring. I wonder how the Quran compares to the bible in terms of sick shit. I would guess that the Quran is even worse. Can anyone shed some light on this?

I believe the Koran has half the number of 'sick' verse that the bible does.  It is, however, much shorter, so by comparison the Koran is virtually stuffed with 'sick shit'.  That being said, however, both books are just as sick as each other and both are just as stupid the bible may be more stupid because it is longer.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


FranklinRobertson
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-10-19
User is offlineOffline
  Well why don’t we

 

Well why don’t we explicate the passage and see what the passage is talking about? The full passage brought together is this from the Septuagint: "And now O priests, this commandment is to you. If ye will not hearken, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory to my name, saith the Lord Almighty, then I will send forth the curse upon you, and I will bring a curse upon your blessing; yea, I will curse it, and I will scatter your blessing, and it shall not exist among you, because ye lay not this to heart. Behold I turn my back upon you, and I will scatter dung upon your faces, the dung of your feasts, and I will carry you away at the same time. And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment to you, that my covenant might be with the sons of Levi, saith the Lord Almighty." The Hebrew/NIV interlinear goes like this: "Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will spread on your faces the offal from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it…" What we have here is a complex situation where God is brought into having to point toward punishment for the iniquity and the sinfulness of the priests. The priests have sinned against the Lord, the priests have turned their backs on the truth. Should the God above all not punish those that are meant to represent Him? Should the God above all, who is a Just God and a Righteous God, not punish sins and sinfulness? What should be understood is that in the Torah God had laid down both the Deuteronomic blessings and the Deuteronomic curses toward the people of God. Sin is a serious business. Sin is not just an action, sin is a state of mind, body, and soul. We may speak evil, but the evil doesn’t fully come from our lips, though our lips do speak the evil, when we speak evil the evil comes from the spiritual heart of a man. When a man sins, when a man has placed full rapture toward his sinfulness, instead of going to God through Christ, a man courts only darkness and bleakness and hopelessness. Thus the reason for the seriousness in this statement from God’s prophet to the priests. Furthermore, I wish to point out something that a chap named Craig A. Blaising has to say about this passage: "The Lord said He would spread on their faces the waste matter from the sacrifice, which ironically were described as festive. ‘Spread,’ from the verb zarah, is a pun on the word zera’ (‘seed’), the descendants who were the object of God’s rebuke. The priests would be made as unclean as the offal. Much as it was discarded, so they would be disposed of as well. In other words, they would be cast out of service. Then they would realize that the Lord was speaking to them. His purpose in admonishing them was to purify the priesthood so that His covenant with Levi could continue."


FranklinRobertson
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-10-19
User is offlineOffline
considering your question

The situation with Sodom and Gomorrah is another interesting consideration within the study of the Bible. First and foremost, before I begin explicating this situation, I wish to point out something that most history students out there (who are worth their salt) should recognize: you should not easily judge an ancient society based upon today’s mores. What was done then, what was socially acceptable then, should not be so clearly and closely examined through the lens we have today. That doesn’t necessarily mean that what is being witnessed or explored is right, but it does mean that…historically speaking…we should keep an open mind on what the text has to say, what the wording of the text has to say, what the surrounding texts has to say (i.e., what do other Bible verses that mention Sodom and Gomorrah have to say about what happened there). Lot is not pictured as a hero. He does not end as a hero. Nor does the Bible say that what his daughters did were right in what they did. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a story of judgment. These people were wicked. And before you call this a homophobic set of passages, I would like to point to you to examine what other passages in Scripture has to say about the pericope of Sodom and Gomorrah (for example, Jesus Christ mentions S&G, doesn’t say a thing about homosexuality, but does say that this is not unlike what it will be like on the great and terrible Day of the Lord, the Day of judgment against sin in all its fashions). The sins of S&G were in-depth, more than just sexual sins, but sins against hospitality, sins against those who needed help, sins against the name of God. This society was not a righteous society. Yes Lot did try to deal with justice toward the angels, and he did plea for justice and righteousness with the people of S&G, but no one was a clear hero in this situation…unless, and I would insist, that God is the hero because He judged what was vile and sinful and unrighteous. The actions of integrated sinfulness could be seen in what the daughters do later in the pericope, they get their father drunk because they see a wasted world outside the cave. And if you further trace the lineage you will see that these children born of the daughters will cause some interesting situations later in the history of the People of God, the Israelites. Looking carefully at the pericope of S&G, along with the point when God declares that judgment will befall these peoples, you will see that Lot was spared because of Abraham and Abraham’s wishes alone. Of course considers Lot a righteous man. And concerning your interest in righteousness, here are some reasons why Scripture says Lot…with all his faults…had some dignity and righteousness about him. First off, Lot was the only one willing to welcome strangers into the city. That was high priority in lawfulness in this particular historical time period. To turn one’s back on visitors and strangers to the city was low and unheard of. Also, while we can all (and even the Bible points to this) say that the offering of the daughters was a stupid idea, we can also gain an understanding that (in all his befuddlement) he was indeed trying to protect these strangers—whether or not he fully realized who these strangers were, we don’t fully know, but we can guess to a point that he recognized forces of God. Like many other pericopes throughout the Bible, a person must be careful at understanding and gaining insight from what Scripture has to say. This isn’t like reading a Stephen King novel or reading the latest book on world history. This is a series of Scriptures tied together across space and time through the foundations of covenantal redemptive history. The works of the Old Testament especially should not be seen as fully linear, but more toward a cat’s cradle with the common start (i.e. the Torah), for most of the Major and Minor Prophets (for example) are situated throughout the books 1st and 2nd Kings and 1st and 2nd Chronicles (these four books also, it should be noted, deal with the same situations but with different time and theological perspectives).


Anonymous72 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Deuteronomy 13 part 6 (is really sick!)

 6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5092
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Au contraire

 

FranklinRobertson wrote:

You should not easily judge an ancient society based upon today’s mores. What was done then, what was socially acceptable then, should not be so clearly and closely examined through the lens we have today. That doesn’t necessarily mean that what is being witnessed or explored is right, but it does mean that…historically speaking…we should keep an open mind on what the text has to say, what the wording of the text has to say...

 

 

Given morality is an evolving beast we should make our judgments on the basis of the beliefs of our own time. We can scarcely do anything else. In this light most of the bible is a disgraceful outpouring of bigotry and violence that has no place in decent society. Monotheism should be outlawed - legislated against in the same way we legislate against racism, sexism and homophobia. Its singular refusal to accept alternative belief systems and its relentless attempts to trademark human morality and to denigrate non believers as evil on the basis of nothing but personal bigotry supported by naked assertion should be seen for what it is. Monotheism must be destroyed. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13496
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Monotheism should be

Quote:
Monotheism should be outlawed -

Way to go. Play right into the false stereotypes believers have of atheists.

There is no such thing as a utopia and force via government BY ANY LABEL will not work long term. The best we can do is work within a pluralistic society that protects dissent.

The only civil realistic thing we can do is use the same tool of the free market of ideas to blaspheme and ridicule all absurd claims to marginalize them. But to suggest force is what their god does. I do not think skeptics and scientists should advocate the same tyranny that the god of Abraham subjects on outsiders.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god" Thomas Jefferson

THAT is how you defeat superstition. You cannot force people not to believe absurd things, you can only laugh at them and debunk what they claim. There are 7 billion people on this planet. You are not going to get all of them to stop believing absurd things, even outside the issue of religion.

You cannot outlaw religion in a free society. You can and should promote science and common law which can marginalize the nuts, and keep them on a leash. Human nature and human evolution should always account for differences and irrational thought. It is just as irrational for an atheist to try to force a utopia on the rest of the world as it is to force a theists utopia on the rest of the world.

USE YOUR VOICE, not your fists.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13496
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Monotheism must be

Quote:
Monotheism must be destroyed.

HOW you do that is important. Forced compliance doesn't work. Appeal and ridicule do.

And I don't see how human evolution is going to change. Even IF the gods of Abraham in the future get relegated to as Jefferson put it, "Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter", even IF the gods of Abraham in the future get treated like the myths of the past, what would stop humans from creating new fictional gods?

You push with force on any species, it will fight back, no matter if you know you are merely trying to help it.

Belief should be treated the same way. You don't get rid of bad claims, you debate and ridicule and debunk them out of existence.

 

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course it is reasonable

Of course it is reasonable to make some allowances, when judging the 'morals' back then, for the fact that we have developed somewhat over the intervening period, and many, but certainly not all all, societies have come to see various practises as no longer acceptable.

But this attitude makes a nonsense of the idea that morals are ordained by an eternal and infinitely wise and just God.

You can't really have it both ways.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology