Dumbest Bible Verses

[Anders]

And the classic God vs. Tank battle:
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." (Judges 1:19)

I kinda like this one! First time I've seen it. Surely makes you think that the “original” god probably just was a ordinary human, perhaps a king that, who’s chronicals are the early part of the bible.

Just a theory, I’ve got absolutely nothing to back it up!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Maybe iron is to God like Kryptonite is to Super Man..

That's it! God is from the planet Iron!

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Hey Christian,

Hope my pun was clear and you see no offence by it.

The Bible is revered by millions of good people, who (if they are wrong) who deserve respect for their beliefs.

I’d say people deserve respect and when addressing anyone we should try to be civil. While I’d hope hurting one’s opponent isn’t a motivation, I don’t think beliefs, in themselves, deserve respect.

Also, sometime I know I’ve got to just let go of offence. People often tell jokes which poke fun at the sort of person I am, but if it’s all in good fun, so what? If they’re not out to harm me or others, I’m not going to care about a little non-PC humor. I mean, you gotta admit, even if it is a historical truth, a talking donkey is funny, just by itself.

These are people who have done nothing wrong, who are exercising their right to believe whatever they want.

Sure, believe whatever you want, but if it were just that I don’t think many of the people here would be here. Why argue with or even mock a belief that isn’t, at least in your mind, causing it’s believers to do wrong? I mean, you don’t see many folks debating or ridiculing Zoroastrianism here; it just doesn’t affect their everyday living. You hardly even see people debating the finer points of Islam here. That’s what you get for being popular I guess.

If you have a problem with a specific person or organization who uses the Bible to hurt society in any way, then it is completely legitimate to attach with all the legal weapons available that specific person or organization.

Can you see that it’s tricky though?

How many times can you listen to a Muslim call for your murder, using the Koran as their warrant, before you start thinking that the Koran is, at least in part, in need of your attack?

I enjoy the Bible; I’ve enjoyed the stories and appreciated many of the ethics all my life and they are an inseparable part of who I am. But sure, I’ve been and probably will be rude to Christians while aiming at their beliefs. I’ll do it because other Christians are using parts of your holy book to threaten my life, but if a Christian isn’t that sort of Christian, then I hope they can get me to understand their position. I also hope they can understand my hostility.

To simply attack a religion and its objects with mockery and insult is wrong, it is dangerous.

I agree; it is dangerous. That’s why you find it anonymous on the net and not in person at, say, a kkk rally .

 

[Christian]

Hey Christian,

Hope my pun was clear and you see no offence by it.



I’d say people deserve respect and when addressing anyone we should try to be civil. While I’d hope hurting one’s opponent isn’t a motivation, I don’t think beliefs, in themselves, deserve respect.

Also, sometime I know I’ve got to just let go of offence. People often tell jokes which poke fun at the sort of person I am, but if it’s all in good fun, so what? If they’re not out to harm me or others, I’m not going to care about a little non-PC humor. I mean, you gotta admit, even if it is a historical truth, a talking donkey is funny, just by itself.



Sure, believe whatever you want, but if it were just that I don’t think many of the people here would be here. Why argue with or even mock a belief that isn’t, at least in your mind, causing it’s believers to do wrong? I mean, you don’t see many folks debating or ridiculing Zoroastrianism here; it just doesn’t affect their everyday living. You hardly even see people debating the finer points of Islam here. That’s what you get for being popular I guess.



Can you see that it’s tricky though?

How many times can you listen to a Muslim call for your murder, using the Koran as their warrant, before you start thinking that the Koran is, at least in part, in need of your attack?

I enjoy the Bible; I’ve enjoyed the stories and appreciated many of the ethics all my life and they are an inseparable part of who I am. But sure, I’ve been and probably will be rude to Christians while aiming at their beliefs. I’ll do it because other Christians are using parts of your holy book to threaten my life, but if a Christian isn’t that sort of Christian, then I hope they can get me to understand their position. I also hope they can understand my hostility.



I agree; it is dangerous. That’s why you find it anonymous on the net and not in person at, say, a kkk rally .

I'm in basic agreement with what you say. I don't feel offended at all.

In any other context, it should be considered no more than normal behavior, in good fun.

In this context, (R&P), I suppose it is acceptable (no moderators intervened).

Specifically because it is this section, then I find myself compelled to making Ph considerations. It is not a protest. It is me, also pointing out inconsistencies. I'm sure you can understand that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If we have to post bible verses that are neither horrible, nor contradictions, and do not show the writer's ignorance of the world around them, what is left?

What about this non sequitur?

Woo hoo, god likes women shaved too!!

 

[Ossai]

Christian

The Bible is revered by millions of good people, who (if they are wrong) who deserve respect for their beliefs.

No one deserves respect for their beliefs. People deserve respect for their actions.

These are people who have done nothing wrong, who are exercising their right to believe whatever they want.

This is patently wrong. Or do you respect those who believe sex with a virgin will cure aids and then kidnap and rape young girls?

Ossai

 

[Christian]

Christian


No one deserves respect for their beliefs. People deserve respect for their actions.

You are not using the word respect the same way I am. I can say people deserve respect of all their human rights, regardless of their actions. It is in that context that I use the word respect.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You are not using the word respect the same way I am. I can say people deserve respect of all their human rights, regardless of their actions. It is in that context that I use the word respect.

You might be talking about tolerance...

 

[epepke]

Very different.

Support this claim. I don't see any difference. What difference do you see?

 

[spejic]

I think it's really sad that she had to remain a virgin for the rest of her life.

Didn't she spend a few months with her handmaidens out in the hills? Hmmmm...

Anyway, here is my addition:
Titus 1:12
Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true.

 

[Christian]

You might be talking about tolerance...

No, maybe it is not how the word is used. To make this more accurate maybe we can say that there are categories of respect.

There are some respects one earns, and there are some we are all born with. The latter ones don't require any merit.

Dignity comes to mind. We must respect others dignity. Nothing needs to be done to earn to be treated with dignity. And, further, in a truly moral world, no one should ever lose the right to expect respect of his or her dignity.

 

[Christian]

Mockery often works very well.

Back in the 1980s, there was this movie called Faces of Death that caused some stir. Like urban legends, people like to believe in things to be shocked by them. A bit after it came out, I was living as a student with some young punks. They had their friends over and rented Faces of Death. I invited my girlfriend over. I had never seen the film before, and at many points my girlfriend and I were laughing our butts off. This started to irk the young punks. So I started doing things like stopping the tape and saying, "OK, this guy is trapped down a cave and they can't get to him. We can see that clearly. Who's holding the camera?" By the end of the movie, the punks were competing with each other to see who could spot the next flaw. The amount of critical thinking in the world increased that day.

As for insult, how can a book take insult, especially when the authors are long since dead? If you choose to identify so strongly with a book that you consider mockery of it as a personal insult, then perhaps that is an indication that you need to re-examine your relationship with the book. Hey, I like the book Ubik, but I freely admit the part where a character says all ions are negative is dumb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very different.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Support this claim. I don't see any difference. What difference do you see?

Let's use your logic [and I wont be erecting any strawman]

Back in the 1990s, there was this movie called Schindler's List that caused some stir. Like urban legends, people like to believe in things to be shocked by them. A bit after it came out, I was living as a student with some young jews. They had their friends over and rented Schindler's List. I invited my girlfriend over. I had never seen the film before, and at many points my girlfriend and I were laughing our butts off. This started to irk the young jews. So I started doing things like stopping the tape and saying, "OK, Schindler was not that tall. We can see that clearly from real life pictures." By the end of the movie, the jews were competing with each other to see who could spot the next flaw. The amount of critical thinking in the world increased that day.

As I said, very different.

Important note: I'm sure we all know that, althought the movie is based on actual events, it is not a historical documentary. It is a fictionalized version of such actual events.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Important note: I'm sure we all know that, althought the movie is based on actual events, it is not a historical documentary. It is a fictionalized version of such actual events.

It is a fictionalized version of a very real event. Only the most repugnant and adolescent of 'skeptics' would have seen it an appropriate source of humor.

By the end of the movie, the jews were competing with each other to see who could spot the next flaw. The amount of critical thinking in the world increased that day.

Though impossible to prove, it is most probable that you are simply lying for effect - although it is certainly conceivable that these 'Jews' had no more class than you.

 

[Christian]

It is a fictionalized version of a very real event. Only the most repugnant and adolescent of 'skeptics' would have seen it an appropriate source of humor.

So, according to posters here it is completely valid to do so.

That is exactly my point. I agree 100% with you. We only need to change the content to see how repugnant and adolescent that is. And I'm glad you point it out.

Though impossible to prove, it is most probable that you are simply lying for effect - although it is certainly conceivable that these 'Jews' had no more class than you.

The problem is that you haven't read the entire thread. And your ignorance of my position makes your statements careless.

 

[spejic]

Let's use your logic [and I wont be erecting any strawman]

Back in the 1990s, there was this movie called Schindler's List that caused some stir. Like urban legends, people like to believe in things to be shocked by them. A bit after it came out, I was living as a student with some young jews. They had their friends over and rented Schindler's List. I invited my girlfriend over. I had never seen the film before, and at many points my girlfriend and I were laughing our butts off. This started to irk the young jews. So I started doing things like stopping the tape and saying, "OK, Schindler was not that tall. We can see that clearly from real life pictures." By the end of the movie, the jews were competing with each other to see who could spot the next flaw. The amount of critical thinking in the world increased that day.

Suppose at one point in Schindler's List, the main character said to himself "I wish there was a way I could save more people", and in response a little green alien named The Great Kazoo appeared and recommended Schindler promote a Devo concert to raise money for boat tickets. No matter how solemn and sad the rest of the movie is, the moment would still be one worthy of laughter and/or derision. There are lots of passages just like that in the Bible, and no matter how solemnly you or others hold the book, I see no problem in pointing out such incidents.

 

[evildave]

The fact that there are multiple versions of the Jesus testaments.

You'd think if something was THAT important, the so-called 'witnesses' would get their stories straight.

If a cop had four suspects whose stories were this far off from one another, he would be right to think that up to four of the possible four were lying.

Of course we know from history that the Bible was compiled, and had to contain elements to appease several kinds of Christians when they formed the 'official' bible for the 'official' church over three hundred years after these events allegedly took place from the various collections of stories various sects of Christiandom knew with perfect faith were 'right'.

 

[Christian]

Suppose at one point in Schindler's List, the main character said to himself "I wish there was a way I could save more people", and in response a little green alien named The Great Kazoo appeared and recommended Schindler promote a Devo concert to raise money for boat tickets. No matter how solemn and sad the rest of the movie is, the moment would still be one worthy of laughter and/or derision. There are lots of passages just like that in the Bible, and no matter how solemnly you or others hold the book, I see no problem in pointing out such incidents.

You are rationalizing. There are funny memorable scenes in the List. And we could point them out. For many people there can be many funny things about Jews [orthodox Jews: women wearing wigs in the middle of summer in NY, come on] but we don't mock those things. Hey, their Holy is part of the Bible. I have not seen once in this forum mockery of the Tora and what the Jews believe. Why is that? Don't tell me they are less relevant than Christians. Jews, one could argue, are more influential and noteworthy than Christians.

The point is that moral people respect what is considered sacred to others. Yes, we can mock the national anthem of Guatemala and their flag. But those are the symbols dearest to them.

We don't call African-American the n word, and we don't make jokes about any of their physical features or anything that would link them to any form of slavery.

The Bible is a symbol, just like a flag. I may be in disagreement with a particular US policy but I would never burn their flag to show it.

Yes, it is your right to mock it and that it comes from the sincere place of genuine critizism. But, it is not moral to do so. One can't have it both ways.

An atheist can't claim moral purity and mock a symbol of a religion.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

... your ignorance of my position makes your statements careless.

I was speaking of your purported actions which were, if accurately portrayed, juvenile and insensitive to the point of being repugnant. Your "position" is irrelevant to this observation.

 

[Christian]

I was speaking of your purported actions which were, if accurately portrayed, juvenile and insensitive to the point of being repugnant. Your "position" is irrelevant to this observation.

What are you talking about? Purported actions? What purpoted actions?

 

[wollery]

Sigh , Christian gets completely the wrong end of the stick and makes himself look like a prat.

Originally posted by Epepke

Mockery often works very well.

Back in the 1980s, there was this movie called Faces of Death that caused some stir. Like urban legends, people like to believe in things to be shocked by them. A bit after it came out, I was living as a student with some young punks. They had their friends over and rented Faces of Death. I invited my girlfriend over. I had never seen the film before, and at many points my girlfriend and I were laughing our butts off. This started to irk the young punks. So I started doing things like stopping the tape and saying, "OK, this guy is trapped down a cave and they can't get to him. We can see that clearly. Who's holding the camera?" By the end of the movie, the punks were competing with each other to see who could spot the next flaw. The amount of critical thinking in the world increased that day.

As for insult, how can a book take insult, especially when the authors are long since dead? If you choose to identify so strongly with a book that you consider mockery of it as a personal insult, then perhaps that is an indication that you need to re-examine your relationship with the book. Hey, I like the book Ubik, but I freely admit the part where a character says all ions are negative is dumb.

Originally posted by Christian

Let's use your logic [and I wont be erecting any strawman]

Back in the 1990s, there was this movie called Schindler's List that caused some stir. Like urban legends, people like to believe in things to be shocked by them. A bit after it came out, I was living as a student with some young jews. They had their friends over and rented Schindler's List. I invited my girlfriend over. I had never seen the film before, and at many points my girlfriend and I were laughing our butts off. This started to irk the young jews. So I started doing things like stopping the tape and saying, "OK, Schindler was not that tall. We can see that clearly from real life pictures." By the end of the movie, the jews were competing with each other to see who could spot the next flaw. The amount of critical thinking in the world increased that day.

As I said, very different.

Important note: I'm sure we all know that, althought the movie is based on actual events, it is not a historical documentary. It is a fictionalized version of such actual events.

Faces of death was a movie which consisted of lots of short films of people dying. It was supposed to be real footage of real people actually dying. It was marketed as such, in the same way that the Blair Witch Project was. However, in many of the scenes there are obvious flaws which show that they could not be film of people actually dying, such as in the example Epepke gave (someone supposedly trapped alone in a cave, yet someone is there to film him). This is a movie that purports to be real, and yet is demonstrably false. This makes it fair game for derision and mockery.

Schindlers list is a dramatisation, that's what it says it is, very clearly, and we should therefore not expect it to be historically 100% accurate. It is a recreation of horrific events that actually occured, and therefore anyone mocking or deriding it for any minor historical inaccuracies deserves a kick in the teeth, at the very least, which I would be more than happy to administer.