Beautiful words from the Christian Bible

[flauterfli]

Oh god they've got frost! emotion_0A0

[xChibi Cannibalx]

"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There, she lusted after her lovers' whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of a horse."

IS THIS A REAL VERSE
THIS CANT BE A REAL VERSE
IM DIEING HERE

EDIT: "Then because of the dire straits to which you will be reduced when your enemy besieges you, you will eat your own children, the flesh of your sons and daughters whom the Lord has given you."

[freelance lover]

My Bible knowledge is a little fuzzy, as it's been a few years since I've done any proper study. I feel like we talked about the first passage, but I don't remember exactly what was said. I haven't done much reading on the Mark passage though. My favorite Gospel has always been John's, because it displays Jesus as a radical here to shake things up. He overturns the money changers at the temple at the beginning of the book, rather than at the end, like in the synoptic gospels.

I think the Bible has a lot of good meat in it, regardless of what you believe. Proverbs to me has always been relatively religiously neutral (but full of wisdom), and Psalms has some beautiful writing in it.

[freelance lover]

xChibi Cannibalx

"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There, she lusted after her lovers' whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of a horse."

IS THIS A REAL VERSE
THIS CANT BE A REAL VERSE
IM DIEING HERE

EDIT: "Then because of the dire straits to which you will be reduced when your enemy besieges you, you will eat your own children, the flesh of your sons and daughters whom the Lord has given you."

What book is that from? I'm assuming the first portion is an allusion to slavery in Egypt in Exodus. The second is probably another "you dun ******** up" which is basically the whole OT. The Israelites beg God for good things, and he tells them not to do the thing, then they do the thing and incur his wrath.

The most important thing to me about approaching scripture is that each book has a different author, writing from a different place and time, with a different agenda to push. Depending on some translations, the language and stuff can seem weird, but it's an old text, so it would be different.

My personal favorite WTF Bible verse is the story of Jesus withering the fig tree. It's a weird a** story because it states in the text that it's not fig season, but Jesus still gets piss that the fig tree has no fruit and kills it. We talked about that story when I took a Gospels and Acts class, and the best answer to why he did the was "******** if I know."

[Darius Alexander Tate]

freelance lover

xChibi Cannibalx

"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There, she lusted after her lovers' whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of a horse."

IS THIS A REAL VERSE
THIS CANT BE A REAL VERSE
IM DIEING HERE

EDIT: "Then because of the dire straits to which you will be reduced when your enemy besieges you, you will eat your own children, the flesh of your sons and daughters whom the Lord has given you."

What book is that from? I'm assuming the first portion is an allusion to slavery in Egypt in Exodus. The second is probably another "you dun ******** up" which is basically the whole OT. The Israelites beg God for good things, and he tells them not to do the thing, then they do the thing and incur his wrath.

The most important thing to me about approaching scripture is that each book has a different author, writing from a different place and time, with a different agenda to push. Depending on some translations, the language and stuff can seem weird, but it's an old text, so it would be different.

My personal favorite WTF Bible verse is the story of Jesus withering the fig tree. It's a weird a** story because it states in the text that it's not fig season, but Jesus still gets piss that the fig tree has no fruit and kills it. We talked about that story when I took a Gospels and Acts class, and the best answer to why he did the was "******** if I know."

Each book doesn't have a different author. Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st Thessalonians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st Timothy, 2nd Timothy, Titus, and Philemon were all written by the apostle Paul. If you're going to try and bash the Bible, at least know what you're talking about. LOL

[xChibi Cannibalx]

freelance lover

xChibi Cannibalx

"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There, she lusted after her lovers' whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of a horse."

IS THIS A REAL VERSE
THIS CANT BE A REAL VERSE
IM DIEING HERE

EDIT: "Then because of the dire straits to which you will be reduced when your enemy besieges you, you will eat your own children, the flesh of your sons and daughters whom the Lord has given you."

What book is that from? I'm assuming the first portion is an allusion to slavery in Egypt in Exodus. The second is probably another "you dun ******** up" which is basically the whole OT. The Israelites beg God for good things, and he tells them not to do the thing, then they do the thing and incur his wrath.

The most important thing to me about approaching scripture is that each book has a different author, writing from a different place and time, with a different agenda to push. Depending on some translations, the language and stuff can seem weird, but it's an old text, so it would be different.

My personal favorite WTF Bible verse is the story of Jesus withering the fig tree. It's a weird a** story because it states in the text that it's not fig season, but Jesus still gets piss that the fig tree has no fruit and kills it. We talked about that story when I took a Gospels and Acts class, and the best answer to why he did the was "******** if I know."

I have no clue; i dont read the bible. I just look up stupid/hilarious bible quotes when bible things show up in the forums

But google says,
The first one is from: Ezekiel 23:20
And the second is from: Deuteronomy 28:53

[Raven Winter]

OH YEAH OH YEAH OH YEAH

[K-r-e-v-y-e-t-k-a]

Raven Winter

K-r-e-v-y-e-t-k-a

Raven Winter

"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Context matters:
Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
- Psalm 137

That's a personal prayer of the psalmist for God to repay the Babylonians for what they've done to Jerusalem when they sacked it. It's interpreted that the Babylonians had killed the children in the city, dashing them upon rocks, and when this was composed the psalmist is wishing that the same would happen to the Babylonians when they fall.

So what are you trying to convey? What's the importance of that distinction?

Taking it out of its context and posting it like this makes it easy for a troll to say that the bible supports infanticide. Within context, it's clear that the psalm isn't speaking on God's behalf but on the behalf of the nation of Israel (specifically people in Jerusalem) of that time period, right after a horrible battle. The purpose of it is different when you include the context. It stops sounding like a proverb (since there was no citation), and it becomes clear that it's a prayer made out of anger and grieving by just normal people.

[Btch_lasagna_18]

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. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT

[Brothern]

K-r-e-v-y-e-t-k-a

Taking it out of its context and posting it like this makes it easy for a troll to say that the bible supports infanticide. Within context, it's clear that the psalm isn't speaking on God's behalf but on the behalf of the nation of Israel (specifically people in Jerusalem) of that time period, right after a horrible battle. The purpose of it is different when you include the context. It stops sounding like a proverb (since there was no citation), and it becomes clear that it's a prayer made out of anger and grieving by just normal people.

Easy?

With even more context, it's referring to not Israel, but the Kingdom of Judah during Babylonian's Siege of Jerusalem that ended in its eventual 587 BCE sacking. The nation of Israel, or the Northern Kingdom of Israel, had been been defunct for about two centuries that point.

Regardless I don't think that Judah is exactly guiltless. Judah conducted military campaigns in its four century history too. And after all, as Judah adopted Yahweh as it's dynastic cult, its rulers like King Josiah violently purged both non-believers -- largely political enemies of the ruling family -- from the kingdom. Including, I would bet, worshipers of the Assyrian gods. That it was invaded by the expanding Neo-Assyrian Empire? Hardly earth-shattering in a historical context.

But hey, maybe I'm being a poo-poo troll by pointing out how flipping silly it is to take solace in the cult writings of an Iron-aged culture that believed a magic god was following their every battle.

Raven Winter

"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

[K-r-e-v-y-e-t-k-a]

Brothern

K-r-e-v-y-e-t-k-a

Taking it out of its context and posting it like this makes it easy for a troll to say that the bible supports infanticide. Within context, it's clear that the psalm isn't speaking on God's behalf but on the behalf of the nation of Israel (specifically people in Jerusalem) of that time period, right after a horrible battle. The purpose of it is different when you include the context. It stops sounding like a proverb (since there was no citation), and it becomes clear that it's a prayer made out of anger and grieving by just normal people.

Easy?

With even more context, it's referring to not Israel, but the Kingdom of Judah during Babylonian's Siege of Jerusalem that ended in its eventual 587 BCE sacking. The nation of Israel, or the Northern Kingdom of Israel, had been been defunct for about two centuries that point.

Regardless I don't think that Judah is exactly guiltless. Judah conducted military campaigns in its four century history too. And after all, as Judah adopted Yahweh as it's dynastic cult, its rulers like King Josiah violently purged both non-believers -- largely political enemies of the ruling family -- from the kingdom. Including, I would bet, worshipers of the Assyrian gods. That it was invaded by the expanding Neo-Assyrian Empire? Hardly earth-shattering in a historical context.

But hey, maybe I'm being a poo-poo troll by pointing out how flipping silly it is to take solace in the cult writings of an Iron-aged culture that believed a magic god was following their every battle.

Raven Winter

"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

I'm perfectly okay with saying that Israel, belonging to whichever monarchy of the time, was warring with neighbors when it was to its own advantage. I'm also perfectly fine with saying that the ruling families were corrupt, as were the priests, at some points in history because it's present in the writings of the minor prophets. In fact, there's nothing surprising about nations going to war with weaker neighbors, because that's just how politics are. None of that particularly matters in relation to Psalm 137, though, and people's desire to treat verses like that as evidence of God's character being evil when it's actually talking about people and their feelings.

[Raven Winter]

K-r-e-v-y-e-t-k-a

Raven Winter

K-r-e-v-y-e-t-k-a

Raven Winter

"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Context matters:
Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
- Psalm 137

That's a personal prayer of the psalmist for God to repay the Babylonians for what they've done to Jerusalem when they sacked it. It's interpreted that the Babylonians had killed the children in the city, dashing them upon rocks, and when this was composed the psalmist is wishing that the same would happen to the Babylonians when they fall.

So what are you trying to convey? What's the importance of that distinction?

Taking it out of its context and posting it like this makes it easy for a troll to say that the bible supports infanticide. Within context, it's clear that the psalm isn't speaking on God's behalf but on the behalf of the nation of Israel (specifically people in Jerusalem) of that time period, right after a horrible battle. The purpose of it is different when you include the context. It stops sounding like a proverb (since there was no citation), and it becomes clear that it's a prayer made out of anger and grieving by just normal people.

Nah, I just like the way that one sounds. I think it is an adequate example of the spirit of the Old Testament, in its over-the-top vengeance, violence, vitriol, and other words that start with "V".
It's like reading a bloody renaissance play, and that happens to be a line that stood out to me within it.

I wouldn't say the Bible supports anything; it's an inanimate object and therefore does not have the cognitive ability to hold opinions. I would say that a lot of people defer to it for moral and ethical guidance rather than forming these things independently, and that concerns me. I wouldn't exactly consider its pages to spring forth with the waters of humanitarian compassion.

[Brother Kam]

I thought it said Christian Bale. Having noticed my mistake my interest in this thread has completely subsided.





******** the King.


Edit: The only commandments I live by:

[AVeryHungryTiger]

flauterfli

Oh god they've got frost! emotion_0A0

Your post just goes to show how INTOLERANT you so called LIBERAL people really are. Thanks for showing us your true nature flauterfli.