Shocking Bible Quotes

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.

King Mob

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.

coffee_cake

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?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

the quote is shocking; so what? Does this somehow invalidate it, or establish that religious faith is invalid, or . . . what?

It means that people who hold up the bible's moral rules as describing a "perfect absolute morality" are hypocrites. It's a detestable from of intellectual dishonesty.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

The inevitable conclusion is that the bible is a despicable book, clearly a product of its time and its savage intellectual, political and social climate and clearly not the work of a deity, possessed of infinite wisdom, love or any other admirable quality.

The deity, on the contrary, is the heated, dry and savage product of the heated, dry and savage environment in which claims for existence were found to be politically useful.

Lest you think this is another hollow intellectual argument, there are humans out there who put this kind of "morality" into practice. This sad, sad story from a few months ago:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/130830448.html

The "parents" were following the spirit, and occasionally, the letter of an old-testament-inspired a book on Training up a child. As far as I'm concerned, the book's authors should be hauled up as accessories for murder.

pH

Not so much shocking, but this is in the Christian bible and it does describe chopping up a goat, putting its bloody head on the altar and sprinkling the blood around the altar - because, well God likes dead sheep, killed for him and burnt in a particular way.

And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.

11And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

12And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

13But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+1&version=KJV

The first 7 or so chapters of Leviticus continue in this manner, well worth a read. I really wonder what 99% of modern Christians would think of a religious sect that performed these rituals today - blood splattered altars and all.

And yes, before someone comes along, I know you now claim that this stuff doesn't matter any more because Jesus - but this stuff used to please the Lord - who is eternal unchanging and apart from time, yet it no longer pleases him greatly - though time has no influence on him.

maximoose

robindch wrote: »

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/130830448.html

The "parents" were following the spirit, and occasionally, the letter of an old-testament-inspired a book on Training up a child. As far as I'm concerned, the book's authors should be hauled up as accessories for murder.

Just had a quick skim through that, it really is sad to think of how many idiot parents there must be out there who use these kind of methods.

Galvasean

sensibleken wrote: »

My favourite is this from leviticus



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



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

Hey! Mildew was a BIG problem in those days...

Sarky

Undermining the very fabric of your pants. Much more important than the fabric of society.

sensibleken

HI IM GOD, AND THIS IS NEW CILLIT BANG BATHROOM SPRAY!!!!

Amtmann

Some great quotes here about smashing little children against rocks, the characteristics of mould, the dismemberment of goats, and stallion-like ejaculations.

I am almost tempted to marry in a church, merely so that I can choose these as my readings.

fitz0

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.

The context (the all important context) of this quote is the Middle East under Roman occupation. Caesar has no right to anything beyond through force of arms. So Jesus is proposing meek obedience to their Roman overlords. Personally I find this lie-down attitude detestable.

'and unto God what is God's' says to me that you should devote the rest of your life to your god, relying on him in your life. People devote their lives to god for 'salvation' in the afterlife. So, maybe I am stretching the connection quite a bit but to me, this quote sums up one of the fundamentally wrong things about religion, it's pacifying nature. It sickens me.

iguana

maximoose wrote: »

Just had a quick skim through that, it really is sad to think of how many idiot parents there must be out there who use these kind of methods.

I got as far as his cheerful description of beating his 4 month old daughter with a stick.:mad:

Peregrinus

Newaglish wrote: »

The assumption I've made is that the quotes are being interpreted literally.

Why on earth would you make such an assumption?

And, if your assumption leads to bizarre or difficult-to-accept conclusions, would that not lead you to reconsider your assumption, and perhaps realise that it was arbitrarily made to begin with?

Newaglish wrote: »

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.

The child-smashing quote is from Psalms, Newaglish. The psalms are song lyrics. Do you always interpret song-lyrics literally?

And, even if you do, how could you possibly read Ps 137 and think that it’s a song about child-rearing?

Newaglish wrote: »

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.

What makes you think the psalms were written to teach morals and a way of life to anyone? Is this another arbitrary assumption?

Newaglish wrote: »

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.

The unstated but fundamental premise is that any God who could have inspired the Psalms must think like Newaglish. (There are other unstated premises about what the purpose of the text is, and what “inspired” means, but let those pass.) As a criticism of the text, it’s fairly subjective, isn’t it?