Shocking Bible Quotes

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Because none of you have shown either the capacity, integrity, or desire that would be required to have such an open and honest discussion.

Rather than dropping by to insult everybody before running away (again) as soon as you are asked to justify your insult or withdraw it, why don't you start a thread on "Wonderful bible quotes"?

Bear in mind that religious quotes are unlikely to be met with much enthusiasm -- and may even be moved to this thread -- but quotes which declare some universal human truth, some elegant and generous sentiment etc, are likely to be appreciated.

pauldla

JimiTime wrote: »

Because none of you have shown either the capacity, integrity, or desire that would be required to have such an open and honest discussion. I'm not easily shocked, and seeing a lot of the tasteless language about my Lord and King that goes on around these parts at times, I wouldn't want to be. However, the awful level of 'discussion' and insight, and honesty on display here has truly astounded me. I cannot believe you guys aren't embarrassed by it, and I don't say that to inflame, it is truly shocking.

Hi Jimi! I asked for some context about the Epistles of St Peter back on page 17 of this thread, but nobody answered. Maybe you'd like to...?

krudler

JimiTime wrote: »

Because none of you have shown either the capacity, integrity, or desire that would be required to have such an open and honest discussion. I'm not easily shocked, and seeing a lot of the tasteless language about my Lord and King that goes on around these parts at times, I wouldn't want to be. However, the awful level of 'discussion' and insight, and honesty on display here has truly astounded me. I cannot believe you guys aren't embarrassed by it, and I don't say that to inflame, it is truly shocking.

Sarky

Go away Jimi, you're boring.

legspin

JimiTime wrote: »

Because none of you have shown either the capacity, integrity, or desire that would be required to have such an open and honest discussion. I'm not easily shocked, and seeing a lot of the tasteless language about my Lord and King that goes on around these parts at times, I wouldn't want to be. However, the awful level of 'discussion' and insight, and honesty on display here has truly astounded me. I cannot believe you guys aren't embarrassed by it, and I don't say that to inflame, it is truly shocking.

Aw diddums.

JimiTime

legspin wrote: »

Aw diddums.

It neither insults me, nor offends me, nor annoy me for that matter what has gone on. I said what I said in the hope that some of you actually take stock of what you are doing/not doing. Its for YOUR sakes, I've said what I said. You let the term 'skeptic' down.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Go away Jimi, you're boring.

Oi, none of that please.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

You let the term 'skeptic' down.

What about helping up the term "religious" and start that thread I mentioned above which contains worthwhile bible quotes?

Newaglish

I'm getting seriously irritated with people floating in, calling everyone incorrect, intellectually dishonest, immature, out of context but not actually addressing what is out if context, how it's misquoted and what it's supposed to mean.

legspin

JimiTime wrote: »

It neither insults me, nor offends me, nor annoy me for that matter what has gone on. I said what I said in the hope that some of you actually take stock of what you are doing/not doing. Its for YOUR sakes, I've said what I said. You let the term 'skeptic' down.

Why complain about then if it makes no difference to you?

And as to it being for my sake, I really couldn't give the remotest blind monkey's cuss as to whether you or your god is insulted or peeved. If he is, he can come down here and sort it out himself and not send a serf i.e. yourself or any other religious fool, to do his menial tasks. If not then the ridicule will only continue.
To be quite honest about it, if your god does exists I will quite happily go to hell to avoid that nasty, ignorant, petty, mean spirited, little shít the bible tells us about.


Btw. if anyone complains about the use of the word serf, I can only point out that anyone who thinks they have a lord and king is so enamoured with the feudalism of their situation, then a serf is what they are.

I am still having trouble understanding how I (or we if you would prefer) am letting down scepticism.

pauldla

Newaglish wrote: »

I'm getting seriously irritated with people floating in, calling everyone incorrect, intellectually dishonest, immature, out of context but not actually addressing what is out if context, how it's misquoted and what it's supposed to mean.

Well, that would require integrity, honesty, and a capacity and desire for free and open discussion, I suppose...

Newaglish

pauldla wrote: »

Well, that would require integrity, honesty, and a capacity and desire for free and open discussion, I suppose...

I have that, unless you would like to argue to the contrary.

As someone who knows relatively little about the Bible, some of the quotes in this thread seem pretty out there. I actually would appreciate if you could take one or two and explain them to me outside of the literal meaning.

philologos

Newaglish wrote: »

I have that, unless you would like to argue to the contrary.

As someone who knows relatively little about the Bible, some of the quotes in this thread seem pretty out there. I actually would appreciate if you could take one or two and explain them to me outside of the literal meaning.

Even a literal reading would show most to be lacking. I literally read the three passages that I responded to a few weeks ago for example.

I can't for the life of me understand why any rational person would object to basic reading comprehension in reading a passage from Scripture when it is what they do when reading anything else (honestly that is).

pauldla

Newaglish wrote: »

I have that, unless you would like to argue to the contrary.

As someone who knows relatively little about the Bible, some of the quotes in this thread seem pretty out there. I actually would appreciate if you could take one or two and explain them to me outside of the literal meaning.

Sorry, Newaglish, I'm still waiting for somebody - anybody! - to get back to me about St Peter and his penpals.

They're not very good at this evangelizing lark, are they? Ask them a few questions and they run a mile...

Newaglish

pauldla wrote: »

Sorry, Newaglish, I'm still waiting for somebody - anybody! - to get back to me about St Peter and his penpals.

They're not very good at this evangelizing lark, are they? Ask them a few questions and they run a mile...

Can you point me in the direction of the question?

Newaglish

philologos wrote: »

Even a literal reading would show most to be lacking. I literally read the three passages that I responded to a few weeks ago for example.

I can't for the life of me understand why any rational person would object to basic reading comprehension in reading a passage from Scripture when it is what they do when reading anything else (honestly that is).

Take the first quote as an example, I can't see how I could be misreading it?

krudler

philologos wrote: »

Even a literal reading would show most to be lacking. I literally read the three passages that I responded to a few weeks ago for example.

I can't for the life of me understand why any rational person would object to basic reading comprehension in reading a passage from Scripture when it is what they do when reading anything else (honestly that is).

You keep spouting this, how about you explain the context for us then?

pauldla

Newaglish wrote: »

Can you point me in the direction of the question?

Sure.

Perhaps we need a little more context on the Letters of Peter? Do we know who wrote them, when they were written, and why they were written?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Because none of you have shown either the capacity, integrity, or desire that would be required to have such an open and honest discussion.

pauldla wrote: »

Well, that would require integrity, honesty, and a capacity and desire for free and open discussion, I suppose...

Boys and girls -

My right hand is moving slowly across the desk to the little pack of yellow + red cards, and ban-sticks, that I keep just beside my monitor for use in this kind of conversation.

Newaglish

pauldla wrote: »

Sure.

Is that not a rhetorical question, of sorts? I would imagine Jimi or Philologos would be best placed to answer that in any case

Sierra 117

robindch wrote: »

Boys and girls -

My right hand is moving slowly across the desk to the little pack of yellow + red cards, and ban-sticks, that I keep just beside my monitor for use in this kind of conversation.

So... what's your left hand doing?

pauldla

Newaglish wrote: »

Is that not a rhetorical question, of sorts? I would imagine Jimi or Philologos would be best placed to answer that in any case

Indeed.

JimiTime

Can I ask, is there ANYONE here amongst the atheists that can actually see what I'm talking about, or does everyone genuinely see what I've said as merely an unsubstantiated insult of sorts? Genuine question.

SebBerkovich

JimiTime wrote: »

Can I ask, is there ANYONE here amongst the atheists that can actually see what I'm talking about, or does everyone genuinely see what I've said as merely an unsubstantiated insult of sorts? Genuine question.

I think you're trying to say that a forum that exists for content which is contrary to you're faith has somehow managed to include a thread that you find offensive, i do understand it.. just wondering why you're shocked to see it.

JimiTime

legspin wrote: »

Why complain about then if it makes no difference to you?

I didn't say it made no difference to me. I didn't say I'm apathetic. I would much prefer people took stock of themselves and I would especially love if people who believed that they were skeptics, and valued reason etc actually realised where they failed so badly at it. Like I said in an earlier post, there are bible accounts which can be troubling, but some of the stuff here has just left me scratching my head in terms of the lack of thought and analysis. Like I said originally, a joke was made of people being told about context as if it was some kind of unreasonable thing to say. Still, people make fun of 'context' being brought up.

And as to it being for my sake, I really couldn't give the remotest blind monkey's cuss as to whether you or your god is insulted or peeved.

Its nothing to do with anyone being insulted. Its about the standard of skepticism on display.

If he is, he can come down here and sort it out himself and not send a serf i.e. yourself or any other religious fool, to do his menial tasks. If not then the ridicule will only continue.
To be quite honest about it, if your god does exists I will quite happily go to hell to avoid that nasty, ignorant, petty, mean spirited, little shít the bible tells us about.

I think this type of bitterness is what its about IMO. People like to feel like they came to their positions rationally, reasonably, logically etc. Me included. And we can all fall down on that front at times, which is fine of course. However, I think this type of bitterness colours a lot of your views a lot more than you either realise, or let on. There is absolutley no context;), here for that rant, yet it raised up in you anyway.

Like I've repeated, there are biblical points, in correct context, that CAN be troubling, even for Christians, but what has been displayed here has been nothing short of illiterate at times. I don't get why you would settle for the poor level of critique, when you don't even need to.

JimiTime

SebBerkovich wrote: »

I think you're trying to say that a forum that exists for content which is contrary to you're faith has somehow managed to include a thread that you find offensive, i do understand it.. just wondering why you're shocked to see it.

Thats not it. I'm not offended. Not even remotely. The shock, is at the level of critical analysis here. The extreme lack of thought. Its surprising.

Newaglish

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats not it. I'm not offended. Not even remotely. The shock, is at the level of critical analysis here. The extreme lack of thought. Its surprising.

Could you give an example?

SebBerkovich

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats not it. I'm not offended. Not even remotely. The shock, is at the level of critical analysis here. The extreme lack of thought. Its surprising.

There are some things that are really worth close inspection and analysis, and unless you're studying it as an anecdotal guide to antiquated social texts. the Bible isn't worth your time. so why not just have a bit of fun with it

copeyhagen

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats not it. I'm not offended. Not even remotely. The shock, is at the level of critical analysis here. The extreme lack of thought. Its surprising.

i agree with you jimi, it makes me so angry i wanna smash babies against rocks.

SebBerkovich

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats not it. I'm not offended. Not even remotely. The shock, is at the level of critical analysis here. The extreme lack of thought. Its surprising.

Let me put it this way Jimi
This Thread is could also be reused as Shocking Twilight Quotes an another forum

It'll be posted on by people who think the book is hilariously awful, they're posting for the purposes of comedy mostly.
There isn't need for a debate about weather a quote is out of context because it's taken for granted that everyone knows it's a book not worth reading anyway.

and your responses are kinda like a twight fan showing up explaining that "yeah some bits are bad.. but you're taking them out of context" there's nothing for us to be embarrassed about.