Shocking Bible Quotes

Worztron

I've come across these shocking bible quotes. Please feel free to add to them.
And they call him a loving God? WTF?

Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock.
- God
Psalm 137:9

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
- God
Deuteronomy 22:28

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.
- God
Leviticus 25

Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.
- God
Ezekiel 9:5

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
- God
Exodus 21:7

chin_grin

Yes. It was a more civilised time then you see!

fitz0

You're just taking it out of context! You horrible atheist you!

:pac:

Worztron

fitz0 wrote: »

You're just taking it out of context! You horrible atheist you!

:pac:

How can you dress up " Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock." to look any way good?

Get real!

chin_grin

Worztron wrote: »

How can you dress up " Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock." to look any way good?

Get real!

I think you need to switch on your Sarcasmeter there.

i was going to post the "be nice or bears will eat you" one, but i think those win

ps god really loves you even though you're worthless, he only hurts you sometimes because you make him so mad

MUSEIST

Phew, thank goodness this god fellow and santa claus don't exist then

fitz0

Worztron wrote: »

How can you dress up " Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock." to look any way good?

Get real!

I hope you're happy. I had to take 10 minutes out of my busy day to respond to you in amusing picture form.:p

Thomas Eshuis

´But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me´ Luke 19:27

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

1 John 2:15-17
New International Version (NIV)
On Not Loving the World
15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father[a] is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever

2 Kings 2:23-24 "From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."

Notice how the majority of these quotes come from the supposedly lovingly and improved New Testament.

blatantrereg

The fathers of two tribes are the offspring of father-daughter incest:

30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father." 33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

fitz0

I suppose I should contribute to this thread.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" Matthew 22:21

I find this to be one of the most abominable quotes of the Bible. Jesus basically tells people to just bear with their Roman conquest because it will be ok when you die. Take the meaning and apply it to anything and it basically says 'Don't try and make things better, God will fix it.'

MagicMarker

But that's old testament ****, god changed his mind in the new testament.

blatantrereg

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB

God is love yo

Paparazzo

Numbers 22:30
The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?" "No," he said

Deuteronomy 23:1
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

sbsquarepants

A nice bedtime story.......

Long version.....

At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near Minnith – twenty towns – and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter – his only child – ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter." (Judges 11:29-40 NLT)



Short version....
God, being all loving and shít, gave him a hand to kill his enemies, so he burned his daughter as a little thank you, and they all lived happily ever after (well, except the enemies and the daughter of course, they were dead) It's sweet really:rolleyes:

Thomas Eshuis

MagicMarker wrote: »

But that's old testament ****, god changed his mind in the new testament.

Did you happen to see my post? 5 quotes from the New Testament.

Sarky

Paparazzo wrote: »

Deuteronomy 23:1
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

How would they know, unless worship was a pantsless affair back then? Were there regular, ahem, inspections?

Thomas Eshuis

Sarky wrote: »

How would they know, unless worship was a pantsless affair back then? Were there regular, ahem, inspections?

Well Popes did get tested after the whole Johanna incident.

sensibleken

'I only had a starter and I had a beer while you all had wine' - Judas when Jesus tried to divide the bill after supper. Probably the worst thing he did.

Amtmann

It is genuinely sickening that so many people think this barbaric book is the key to a moral life.
When you read it, you know that atheism is the intellectually and morally superior position.

EDIT: You don't actually know this from reading the bible, but the morality of any atheist could hardly be worse, and is usually far superior, though that's not hard.

Paparazzo

Sarky wrote: »

How would they know, unless worship was a pantsless affair back then? Were there regular, ahem, inspections?

My local priest always inspected my willy to see if it was ok. Didn't yours

Tremelo

Tremelo wrote: »

It is genuinely sickening that so many people think this barbaric book is the key to a moral life.
When you read it, you know that atheism is the intellectually and morally superior position.

well, that or a different religion anyway

robindch

MagicMarker wrote: »

god changed his mind in the new testament.

God exists outside of time so he can never "change" his mind, since there's no before and after for him to be able to move betwee, with different mind states. Just a sign of his greatness and our patheticness! Or something like that.

Anyway, ya gotta read this stuff with you heart and not your brain. It all makes sense then apparently.

Galvasean

Now would be a good time for some of our regular contributors to jump in and defend / reinterpret the selected quotes.

i was curious about the smashing children one

so i looked up bible.cc

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Happy shall he be that taketh ... - Margin, as in Hebrew, rock. This refers to what was not uncommon in ancient warfare, as it is now among savage tribes - the indiscriminate slaughter of those of all ages, and of both sexes, in war. It was expressly foretold of Babylon that this would occur (see Isaiah 13:16, and the notes at that place), and there may be a reference here to that prediction, and the psalmist may mean to say that the man would be accounted happy, or would be happy, who wreaked vengeance on Babylon in carrying out that prophecy. The idea is, "This will certainly occur, for it is foretold, and happy or fortunate will he be who is the instrument in fulfilling it." Compare 2 Kings 8:12; Nahum 3:10; Hosea 13:16. See also Homer, II xxii. 63,373, following It is impossible to reconcile such barbarous customs with the idea of "honorable war," or with the principles of war as carried on among "civilized" nations now.

It should be added, however, that there is much - very much - that is practiced in war by "civilized" nations still, which it is equally impossible to reconcile with any just notions of morality or humanity, and which in coming ages, and when people shall come to view things aright, will seem to the people of those times to be not less monstrous, strange, and barbarous. In regard to this passage, we are not necessarily to suppose that the author of the psalm approved of this, or desired it, or prayed for it. He looked forward to the fulfillment of a prediction; he saw that a just and terrible judgment would certainly come upon Babylon; he expressed that in the common language of the times, and states the manner in which it would occur; he described the feelings - the gratification - of those who would execute the divine purpose in the overthrow of Babylon; he referred to the estimate in which the conqueror would be held by people, and the glory of the achievement as giving him fame among people.

It must be admitted that the feelings of the author of the psalm appear to accord with this; that he considers it proper that the city should be destroyed; and that he regards its overthrow as a righteous judgment, and as a thing to be desired in the divine administration. It is true that he might approve of such an overthrow, and see it to be right - he might describe the feelings of those by whom it would be done, their joy, their exultation, and even their barbarity, without himself approving of their barbarity, or sympathizing with their feelings, or partaking of their spirit; but still it cannot in fairness be denied that there is an apparent approval of the act here referred to, which savors more of imprecation than forgiveness, and which is apparently prompted more by the spirit of revenge than by a desire of just punishment. On this subject, however, see the General Introduction, Section 6 (4); and the notes at Psalm 109:10. A correct record may be made, whether of facts or of feelings, without any design of expressing either approbation or disapprobation on the part of the historian, the prophet, or the poet.

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

i was curious about the smashing children one

Try the sophist William Lane Craig on on the Canaanite genocide:

WC wrote:

By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

Summary: killing pagan kids is fine, but you gotta feel sorry for the guys who had to do the hacking.

He makes yesterday's Spanish bish look like a Jainist philosopher.

Galvasean

William Craig Lane wrote:

any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable.

Des Carter

Worztron wrote: »

How can you dress up " Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock." to look any way good?

Get real!

It was self defence obviously. He was attacked maliciously and unprovoked by a gang of babies in West Town Park. When that many babies get together they can be like piranha.Three eyewitnesses testified that if He hadn't killed those babies, they'd have killed him!

harney

Worztron wrote: »

Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock.
- God
Psalm 137:9

Did they mention if it was the left or the right rock, or doesn't it matter?

GLaDOS

Mark Hamill

8 Gratuitously Violent Horro Movie Scenes (from the Bible) (follow link to cracked.com to read full thing, only quoting the passages mentioned):
#8.

The Guy Getting Impaled on a 75-Foot Pole (Esther 7:9-10)

#7.

The Dismembering of the Dead Girl (Judges 19:25-29)

#6.

The Severed Head on a Platter (Mark 6:21-28)

#5.

The Farting of the Intestines (2 Chronicles 21:18-19)

#4.

The Double Impaling (Numbers 25:6-8)

#3.

The Spike Through the Head (Judges 4:21-22)

#2.

The Guy Getting Eaten Alive by Worms (Acts 12:21-23)

#1.

Crushed Victims and the Lake of Blood (Revelation 14:20)

Newaglish

If I remember correctly, the defence to this one consists of:


Revelation has to be done over time, for some reason. Like, you know how in school they teach you that you can't take a bigger number away from a smaller number? They tell you later that you can do that, and introduce minus numbers. That's why it used to be OK to rape women as long as you paid their father fifty shekels.

blatantrereg

You can only rape one though, because you have to marry them afterwards. Then raping anyone else would be adultery - and that would be evil.

Amtmann

Biblical audioporn here: http://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/niv/Ezek.23.19-Ezek.23.20

RichieC

OMG...you guys looked up those bible quotes on biased websites!!!!!!

(Actual argument used here recently)

Peregrinus

fitz0 wrote: »

I suppose I should contribute to this thread.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" Matthew 22:21

I find this to be one of the most abominable quotes of the Bible. Jesus basically tells people to just bear with their Roman conquest because it will be ok when you die. Take the meaning and apply it to anything and it basically says 'Don't try and make things better, God will fix it.'

I look in vain for the word "die", or any language suggestive of death, or an afterlife in the quote. I look equally in vain for anything suggesting or recommend passivity, or any promsie that God will fix anything.

It seems to me that you're projecting a lot of things onto this text. The responsiblity for that is yours, not the text's.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I look equally in vain for anything suggesting or recommend passivity, or any promsie that God will fix anything.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/intercessory_prayer

John 16:23-24 ESV

In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

Except if it wouldn't look exactly like God did nothing at all, then you're out of luck.

Newaglish

Peregrinus wrote: »

I look in vain for the word "die", or any language suggestive of death, or an afterlife in the quote. I look equally in vain for anything suggesting or recommend passivity, or any promsie that God will fix anything.

It seems to me that you're projecting a lot of things onto this text. The responsiblity for that is yours, not the text's.

What does that quote mean then, if it has been misinterpreted?

Are we misinterpreting the rest of the quotes also? Or just that one?

Edit: This one actually has a wiki page. Neato

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

Peregrinus

Newaglish wrote: »

What does that quote mean then, if it has been misinterpreted?

Who am I to declare what it means? the rightness or justifiability of fitz0’s interpretation doesn’t depend on what I think; it depends on whether it is supported by the words of the quote.

Fitz0 has suggested a meaning for the quote. I don’t see how he gets that meaning out of the words of that quote. He seems to me to be saying things that are just not based on, or found in, the text he is quoting. I’m happy if others take a different view, and can point out what I am missing. But, until somebody does that in a convincing way, I think he is projecting his own meaning onto the quote, rather than reading the quote and extracting the sense of the language.

Newaglish wrote: »

Edit: This one actually has a wiki page. Neato

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

On a quick glance, wiki agrees with me. It summarises a variety of “modern interpretations” of the text, and they nearly all revolve around the issue of church-state interactions, which on the face of the quote, and given the context from which it comes, looks reasonable to me. None of them look anything like the meaning that fitz0 found (“it will be OK when you die . . . Don’t try and make things better. God will fix it”.) Nothing in the quote makes any direct or indirect reference to death, or to passivity, or to God doing anything. Does it?

Newaglish

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nothing in the quote makes any direct or indirect reference to death, or to passivity, or to God doing anything. Does it?

No, it doesn't. I asked because I (possibly incorrectly) assumed you would be familiar with the quote and what it meant. I actually provided that link to show that you're right - I think fitz0's interpretation is a bit random to be honest. That being said, I've always struggled understanding the gap between what it says in the Bible and what the general Christian opinion of what that means is. Even the wiki page is sort of unclear. Is Jesus saying that Jews shouldn't pay their taxes? I don't really follow.

Also, you deftly avoided my follow up question.

pH

Peregrinus wrote: »

It seems to me that you're projecting a lot of things onto this text. The responsiblity for that is yours, not the text's.

Well said sir!

Now if only you'd apply the same insight to yourself - I feel you might achieve a small breakthrough.

Peregrinus

Newaglish wrote: »

No, it doesn't. I asked because I (possibly incorrectly) assumed you would be familiar with the quote and what it meant. I actually provided that link to show that you're right - I think fitz0's interpretation is a bit random to be honest. That being said, I've always struggled understanding the gap between what it says in the Bible and what the general Christian opinion of what that means is. Even the wiki page is sort of unclear. Is Jesus saying that Jews shouldn't pay their taxes? I don't really follow.

In the words of the immortal Peter Cooke (now there’s an authority figure!) his interlocutors are trying to force Jesus into a logical cleft stick from which there is but one escape. Should Jews pay taxes to the Roman authorities? If he says “no”, the Romans will nail him to a post (which, of course, in due course they do anyway). If he says “yes” he loses credibility with his audience, who consider the Roman occupation to be illegitimate.

Jesus, basically, gives an answer which is not an answer. “Render unto Caesar . . . render unto God” requires you to decide for yourself what is Caesar’s and what is God’s - in other words, grow a pair, and accept responsibility for making your own moral decisions; don’t look to an authority figure to make them for you.

And, of course, he says this to the Pharisees, who are supposed to be skilled in interpreting and applying the law, so they should be able to make judgments of this kind without asking the son of a carpenter from Nazareth.

In other words, he’s having a dig a the Pharisees - you guys should be able to work ths out for yourselves without having to ask me. The end result is that it is neither the authority of Rome nor the credibility of Jesus which is undermined, but the credibility and good faith of his interlocutors.

Now, of course, you can also read “Render unto Caesar . . . render unto God” as communicating some ideas about church and state. But that’s a very modern reading; it reflects a very modern preoccupation which simply would not have been on anybody’s agenda at the time. And, even if you are minded to read it this way, it’s hard to get any very specific message much beyond the idea that church and state each have their legitimate sphere; now go and work out what it is.

Newaglish wrote: »

Also, you deftly avoided my follow up question.

Not so much “deftly avoided” as “blatantly ignored”. But I see my stratagem has not succeeded!

I really don’t want to take on responsibility for issuing rulings about whether people are misinterpreting the rest of the quotes. I may, or may not, have useful ideas to offer on the meaning of any particular quote, but even if I do my ideas are just that; contributions to the discussion.

Besides, people are mostly not offering interpretations of the various quotes that have come up. Take the very first quote in the very first post - “Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock.”. Nobody offers any interpretation of it; the only point made about it is that it’s shocking (Worztron, post #1), that it’s not good (Worztron, post #4) and a suggestion from fitz0 (post #3) that it would be shocking in any context. I agree with all of these observations, but even if I didn’t (a) none of them are “interpretations”, and therefore the question of whether they are misinterpetations can’t arise, and (b) the quote is shocking; so what? Does this somehow invalidate it, or establish that religious faith is invalid, or . . . what? Is religion plausible, or respectable, or whatever, only if it’s cosy and comforting and cuddly? If that’s not the point of noting this quote as shocking, then what is? Nobody’s saying.

And the other shocking quotes mostly receive a similar treatment. Everybody agreeing with one another that, yes, this is pretty shocking. Well, duh.

Nobody really addresses the implications of the fact that parts of the bible are pretty shocking; nobody mounts any argument based on that fact; nobody draws any explicit conclusions. There’s nothing there for me to argue with - or agree with.

Peregrinus

pH wrote: »

Well said sir!

Now if only you'd apply the same insight to yourself - I feel you might achieve a small breakthrough.

Oh, it certainly applies to me. When have I ever suggested otherwise?

Newaglish

Peregrinus wrote: »

grow a pair, and accept responsibility for making your own moral decisions; don’t look to an authority figure to make them for you.

A central tenet of the church, I'm sure. No, wait...

Worztron

Gerald Massey: "They must find it difficult ... Those who have taken authority as the truth rather than truth as the authority."

Trying to reason with religious people is like eating soup with a fork.

Newaglish

Peregrinus wrote: »

...people are mostly not offering interpretations of the various quotes that have come up. Take the very first quote in the very first post - “Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock.”. Nobody offers any interpretation of it; the only point made about it is that it’s shocking (Worztron, post #1), that it’s not good (Worztron, post #4) and a suggestion from fitz0 (post #3) that it would be shocking in any context. I agree with all of these observations, but even if I didn’t (a) none of them are “interpretations”, and therefore the question of whether they are misinterpetations can’t arise, and (b) the quote is shocking; so what? Does this somehow invalidate it, or establish that religious faith is invalid, or . . . what? Is religion plausible, or respectable, or whatever, only if it’s cosy and comforting and cuddly? If that’s not the point of noting this quote as shocking, then what is? Nobody’s saying.

The assumption I've made is that the quotes are being interpreted literally. The child-smashing quote above for example... it doesn't seem particularly nuanced in such a way that it would actually be a metaphor for lovingly disciplining your children in a non-violent and constructive fashion, through mutual understanding of each individual's feelings.

Certainly if I were writing a book for the purposes of teaching morals and a way of life to a population that was largely uneducated I would keep my messages as simple and literal as possible. If I were a God I'd like to think I'd be pretty darn good at conveying a clear and concise message to those who were writing it.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Besides, people are mostly not offering interpretations of the various quotes that have come up. Take the very first quote in the very first post - “Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock.”. Nobody offers any interpretation of it; the only point made about it is that it’s shocking (Worztron, post #1), that it’s not good (Worztron, post #4) and a suggestion from fitz0 (post #3) that it would be shocking in any context. I agree with all of these observations, but even if I didn’t (a) none of them are “interpretations”, and therefore the question of whether they are misinterpetations can’t arise, and (b) the quote is shocking; so what? Does this somehow invalidate it, or establish that religious faith is invalid, or . . . what? Is religion plausible, or respectable, or whatever, only if it’s cosy and comforting and cuddly? If that’s not the point of noting this quote as shocking, then what is? Nobody’s saying.
.

Except for the interpretations posted by robin and myself

A Primal Nut

It's of religious teachers, sunday school teachers etc blatantly ignore all this stuff. I can't imagine them making their students read over some of these lines.

windingo

"Thou shalt not kill"

A tad hypocritical one thinks.

sensibleken

My favourite is this from leviticus

47 “As for any fabric that is spoiled with a defiling mold—any woolen or linen clothing, 48 any woven or knitted material of linen or wool, any leather or anything made of leather— 49 if the affected area in the fabric, the leather, the woven or knitted material, or any leather article, is greenish or reddish, it is a defiling mold and must be shown to the priest. 50 The priest is to examine the affected area and isolate the article for seven days. 51 On the seventh day he is to examine it, and if the mold has spread in the fabric, the woven or knitted material, or the leather, whatever its use, it is a persistent defiling mold; the article is unclean. 52 He must burn the fabric, the woven or knitted material of wool or linen, or any leather article that has been spoiled; because the defiling mold is persistent, the article must be burned.

53 “But if, when the priest examines it, the mold has not spread in the fabric, the woven or knitted material, or the leather article, 54 he shall order that the spoiled article be washed. Then he is to isolate it for another seven days. 55 After the article has been washed, the priest is to examine it again, and if the mold has not changed its appearance, even though it has not spread, it is unclean. Burn it, no matter which side of the fabric has been spoiled. 56 If, when the priest examines it, the mold has faded after the article has been washed, he is to tear the spoiled part out of the fabric, the leather, or the woven or knitted material. 57 But if it reappears in the fabric, in the woven or knitted material, or in the leather article, it is a spreading mold; whatever has the mold must be burned. 58 Any fabric, woven or knitted material, or any leather article that has been washed and is rid of the mold, must be washed again. Then it will be clean.” 59 These are the regulations concerning defiling molds in woolen or linen clothing, woven or knitted material, or any leather article, for pronouncing them clean or unclean.

TL;DR? This is the wall of text where god goes on and on about how mildew is bad

18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

This is the bit about the gays. Which one do you think is of more concern to the big man?