What Good is the Bible

I'm going to suggest that interested parties just go an read it for themselves. I believe quoting that Bible verse would violate the MA. I'm going to assume that literary porn is covered in the no profanity rule.

154, dude you really let your kids read a book with smut like that in it?

Exactly why we should discuss it.
So which is it, sweet nothing fairy tale or porn?
Duh duh Sky Daddy or the brutality of men accurately recorded?
The correct answer is The Book is an extremely accurate reflection of the truth and history of men.
No sugar-coating.
 
That isn't history, it's a scarytale that includes a gratuitous line of hardcore porn.
 
Exactly why we should discuss it.
So which is it, sweet nothing fairy tale or porn?
Duh duh Sky Daddy or the brutality of men accurately recorded?
The correct answer is The Book is an extremely accurate reflection of the truth and history of men.
No sugar-coating.

Why 'extremely accurate'? Why not just 'accurate'?
 
Now I know this is a story in which Sumeria and Jerusalem are being punished for not obeying God, but why in the hell is that bolded, italicized and underlined sentence in the bible????

Because it's true and more revealing of the truth.

God is about the unvarnished Truth, for better and for worse, not sky daddy fairy tale fiction
and the truth of people is often not very pretty.
 
Last edited:
And you support the entire punishment meted out to the two "sisters"?

eta: Keep in mind, Ezekiel is a book of prophecy, not current events.

I'd be happy to have some historical references to confirm these events took place. Can you provide these?
 
Last edited:
Exactly why we should discuss it.
So which is it, sweet nothing fairy tale or porn?
Duh duh Sky Daddy or the brutality of men accurately recorded?
The correct answer is The Book is an extremely accurate reflection of the truth and history of men.
No sugar-coating.

I never said sweet nothing fairy tale. There are lots of really disturbing fairy tales. Little Red Ridding Hood is is pretty far out there.

It's not an accurate history of men. Not only does the Chirst's birth story hose up the names of the rulers at the time, it invents an census out of whole cloth. Not much accuracy there.
 
It is quite evident that manly men wrote Ezekiel 23.

I think if I were ever a preacher, Ezekiel 23 would be my go-to piece to keep the flock in line. In all its sexy, bloody glory!
 
Last edited:
As a gay man, I'd have to disagree.

That verse is VERY pretty. :D

Incidentally, it seems to me to be a fair observation that quite a few posters here are homosexual. I would guess that among the regularly active posters, the percentage of homosexuals is a good bit higher than their average number of the population.

My guess is that for many if not most of those, they did not arrive at their positions here because of any strict intellectual, skeptical, critical analysis, but their sexuality governs foremost and dictates their opposition to God as a skeptic/atheist.
 
Really? So how does that account for gay christians?

And I'm pretty sure I realized I was atheist before I realized I was gay.

You're aware that being born gay and KNOWING your gay are seperate things, right?


ETA: But let's not change the subject. Back to Ezekiel 23 please. Or other fascinating and true stories from the bible.
 
Last edited:
understanding of the bible is pretty important to an understanding of much of western art and literature.
it is central to western culture and history.
it is however, absolutely useless as a manual for living.
it is an important collection of myths and stories, but has little or no practical value as a handbook.
 
Ahh I see where you went wrong. I would start with William Wilberforce and follow the bread crumbs

I don't think there's any going wrong. There was no shortage of people who looked in the bible and found a justification for slavery. It's not even hard. Even Jesus and Paul are ok with it.

The ones who needed to twist the words to name-drop God were the abolitionists. They had to start from humans being created equal, and pretty much pretend that the rest of the OT (e.g., the curse of Ham which made them inequal right back) never happened.

But at the very least, if there's some anti-slavery morals in the bible, it must be pretty damned well hidden, if a million people and several popes over a millennium and a half missed it. Just as a comparison, Zoroastrianism had that loud and clear -- which is why the Persians freed the Jews in Babylon after they took Babylon.
 
btw...i believe that jesus' stories are really cool. he's a pretty interesting guy.
to bad about paul, though.

Well, that cool guy was ok with whipping a slave if he does something you didn't want, even if he didn't even know you don't want that. Check out Luke 12:47-48. As long as the guy who wasn't told what not to do, gets less hits than the ones who knew whatnot to do, Buddy Jesus seems to find that normal and just enough to illustrate a parable with that.

And apparently for really really bad behaviour, he finds it just enough to _kill_ the slave. See Luke 12:46.

Note that while the word used is a bit broader in meaning than "slave", and those who want to pretend their bible didn't ever support slavery insist on translating it as simply "servant"... well, think about it. If he meant paid servant, now Buddy Jesus is also A-OK with beating and even killing a paid servant. It's not a more moral version, is it?
 
Well, that cool guy was ok with whipping a slave if he does something you didn't want, even if he didn't even know you don't want that. Check out Luke 12:47-48. As long as the guy who wasn't told what not to do, gets less hits than the ones who knew whatnot to do, Buddy Jesus seems to find that normal and just enough to illustrate a parable with that.

And apparently for really really bad behaviour, he finds it just enough to _kill_ the slave. See Luke 12:46.

Note that while the word used is a bit broader in meaning than "slave", and those who want to pretend their bible didn't ever support slavery insist on translating it as simply "servant"... well, think about it. If he meant paid servant, now Buddy Jesus is also A-OK with beating and even killing a paid servant. It's not a more moral version, is it?

said that i thought that he was interesting...i never said that i agreed with everything he did or said...
the gnostic gospels really expand his character too.
i think that the topic about jesus and slavery is in another thread...
 
Incidentally, it seems to me to be a fair observation that quite a few posters here are homosexual. I would guess that among the regularly active posters, the percentage of homosexuals is a good bit higher than their average number of the population.

My guess is that for many if not most of those, they did not arrive at their positions here because of any strict intellectual, skeptical, critical analysis, but their sexuality governs foremost and dictates their opposition to God as a skeptic/atheist.

Exactly what did Jesus say about homosexuality?
 
There is only one thing I like about the bible.

Ezekiel 23:20

It is my favorite verse because I just cannot fathom why it is there. There is really nothing else like it in the bible.

When I tell people what is says, I'm called a liar. I've won money betting that it does say what it says. Nobody believes me.

I love Ezekiel 23:20!

Please explain in detail for the class.

I see that the "two girls, one cup" meme goes way back...

32 “This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

“You will drink your sister’s cup,
a cup large and deep;
it will bring scorn and derision,
for it holds so much.
33 You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow,
the cup of ruin and desolation,
the cup of your sister Samaria.
34 You will drink it and drain it dry
and chew on its pieces—
and you will tear your breasts.

I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.
 

Back
Top Bottom