Dumbest Bible Verses

[Brown]

That seems like an OK arrangement all around. Afterall what are the chances that drinking a glass of mud will make your thigh rot?

I forgot to mention that according to some translations, the dirty water also includes ink. The priest is supposed to write the curses in a book, then blot up the ink with the water, then make the woman drink the water. Presumably, "the ink remembers" the curses.

Now, I'm not sure what the ancients used for inks and dyes, but some modern inks and dyes are poisonous. Inks and dyes are often not selected for how well they are ingested.

If the woman drinks poison, there's a possibility of belly bloat whether she's guilty or innocent. So I'm sure the priest will want to examine the woman's thighs thoroughly for any sign of rot.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I'm sure the priest will want to examine the woman's thighs thoroughly for any sign of rot.

That and The Song of Solomon must have been the only sexual outing for those poor priests.

 

[Brown]

That and The Song of Solomon must have been the only sexual outing for those poor priests.

Don't forget Ezekiel 23.

 

[Dogwood]

Genesis 30:37-39 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.


Lamark had nothing on this guy.

 

[epepke]

But it has a great title. When you mention Balaam's talking ass, grade school kids all start to snicker.

Didn't John Waters do the movie version?

 

[Christian]

What is the purpose of this thread?

You know, this is exactly the kind of behavior that unmasks the true nature of some people.

I'm sure most of the same posters would gladly participate in any thread that champions the moral quality of atheists.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm sure most of the same posters would gladly participate in any thread that champions the moral quality of atheists.

Undoubtedly. What's your point?

 

[Christian]

Undoubtedly. What's your point?

I think the point is obvious.

What is the moral quality of mockery and insult?, specially that directed at people who are ignorant and in the dark.

What is the moral quality of someone who mocks and laughs at the blind man that crashes into a wall?

Will the justification be "my laughter and humiliation will be so loud, he will learn not to hit a wall next time."

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think the point is obvious.

What is the moral quality of mockery and insult?, specially that directed at people who are ignorant and in the dark.

Perhaps there isn't a moral valuation for everything? Perhaps people who believe absurdities might come to their senses when the absurdities are exposed as such? Or perhaps people just find the follies of others entertaining?

If you want to live in a world where nothing is criticized, out of respect for the tender feelings of others, then you will live in a world filled with crap. If something can't stand up to criticism, then it doesn't deserve to stand up. If you want to shield the Bible from attack, then you are admitting those attacks are capable of damaging it.

 

[epepke]

What is the moral quality of mockery and insult?, specially that directed at people who are ignorant and in the dark.

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.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

How’bout

Job 27:4

My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit.

Eh, okay… bad pun.

 

[Brown]

I would think that it would be within the scope of the thread to explain why the passages cited here are not stupid. If we're wrong, set us straight.

The late Steve Allen used to set forth his analysis of a "questionable" passage, and he invited anyone to explain to him the merits of the passage to him.

 

[Christian]

Perhaps there isn't a moral valuation for everything? Perhaps people who believe absurdities might come to their senses when the absurdities are exposed as such? Or perhaps people just find the follies of others entertaining?

If you want to live in a world where nothing is criticized, out of respect for the tender feelings of others, then you will live in a world filled with crap. If something can't stand up to criticism, then it doesn't deserve to stand up. If you want to shield the Bible from attack, then you are admitting those attacks are capable of damaging it.

I understand your position. In your view, (by logical analogy). I can critizice (specifically mock) black people for their statistical lot in life, I can critizice Jews for their statistical lot in life too. They should be shielded from attack, right? Hey, the world would be filled with crap if we didn't. Why would we want to show respect for the tender feelings of them?

What would you define as religious intolerance? How is it different from racial intolerance?

 

[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.

 

[Christian]

I would think that it would be within the scope of the thread to explain why the passages cited here are not stupid. If we're wrong, set us straight.

The late Steve Allen used to set forth his analysis of a "questionable" passage, and he invited anyone to explain to him the merits of the passage to him.

Brown, this is very different approach. This one uses the correct strategy to show someone he is wrong.

I just don't think it is morally acceptable to mock an ignorant person for his ignorance.

The Bible is revered by millions of good people, who (if they are wrong) who deserve respect for their beliefs. These are people who have done nothing wrong, who are exercising their right to believe whatever they want.

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.

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

 

[phildonnia]

In Ezekiel 4:12, God tells the prophet to eat s***.

 

[wollery]

I understand your position. In your view, (by logical analogy). I can critizice (specifically mock) black people for their statistical lot in life, I can critizice Jews for their statistical lot in life too. They should be shielded from attack, right? Hey, the world would be filled with crap if we didn't. Why would we want to show respect for the tender feelings of them?

What would you define as religious intolerance? How is it different from racial intolerance?

Pointing out absurd verses in the bible is not mocking the religious. It is simply pointing out inconsistencies in a book of words. If that book can't be held up to scrutiny then what good is it?

 

[Christian]

Pointing out absurd verses in the bible is not mocking the religious. It is simply pointing out inconsistencies in a book of words. If that book can't be held up to scrutiny then what good is it?

I know what you are trying to do, believe me. But do you really want to defend this:

We've had threads on horrible bible verses, contradiction, the writers's ignorance of the world around them(flat earth, stars falling from heaven, mythological creatures etc.) Lets have a Stupid Verse thread. Here is my first one; it must be one of the most oxymoronic things ever put down in writing.

The poster clearly does not want to have a thread where inconsistencies are pointed out. The poster want to have a thread where the Bible is mocked. He/she wants to have a Stupid Verse thread. And if his last statement is not meant as a hyperbole, then he/she has not read much.


My appreciation is not wrong look at the next response to this opening statement:

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?

The next response (to this one), gives a tacit confirmation.

 

[wollery]

No I don't want to defend the language used in those posts, I agree that the tone of them is a bit unpleasant. But please point out how the verses that have been quoted aren't self contradictory.

Do you have any idea how galling and frustrating it is to live in a society where you are continually told that the bible is the literal word of God, (and it's taken for granted that you're a christian, unless you state otherwise) when it's obvious to anyone who takes the time to read the bible and think about it that any God who could write that stuff is either schizophrenic or simply a nasty piece of work. Unless of course it isn't the literal word of God, which means it was written by men, without divine inspiration. In which case how can anyone put their faith in it?

Personally I think that there are also some good points in the bible. A lot of what Jesus was supposed to have said is very deep and profound, and I agree with.

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

What is the purpose of this thread?

To have a disscusion about inane bible verses, just like the tread title says. A few of the people who posted to this thread seem to have not read the rules;"no violent verses" We've done those before. It must be hard having your sacred book shown to be flawed. To bad for you atheists, agnostics and deists have no need for very outdated dogmatic books you can attack. If our info and morality is faulty we change it. I'm not saying I'm better than you; just "lucky" to have an adaptable world view based on observed reality.

edited to add: [irony]This thread was started just to p*ss you off[irony]