Hey dipshit, I dont care. Now, for the last time. The subject of this thread is "Sickest Bible verses". Cannnn youuuuu handle thatf? Or are youfdfsfsdfssfsfssssf going to continue being a jackass? 

"With its words translated into Old English" indeed I lack the capacity to think in Old English, so I couldn't be entirely certain of the entire sentence being correct in context

Aye thy ain't as green as cabbage looking

Which is far more Shakespearean, a language I can think in

"Throw out all standards of composition"

I believe this happened with the realization of mobile phone texting, the languages in for a bumpy ride, it's only a matter of time before this bleeds into such conversations

"We can figure out what he is trying to say, but that doesn't mean that it is correct"

This is the evolution process at work, I'm sure you should known this your-self

ante / ætforan / afore / before / b4

The evolution has not been smooth, because the evolution was made by lazy people that couldn't be bothered to fix their typographical errors, and it is correct because this process is not yet finished, thus if you understand it, it is correct

Eat shit and die. Pasta is the bread of life.

- FSM 

If I may I ask, I have a feeling based on your pic and what I've seen you post, that you may hold the same view of a Creator and the Bible that many of the Founding Fathers held including the venerable Thomas Paine.  Are you a Deist, sir?

This is something I sorta agree with. There are people who mix up its and it's; there, their, and they're; and to, too, and two. It's nothing more than a minor annoyance, since in these cases the context of the message is delivered flawlessly despite the flawed content (insofar as the message can be delivered intelligibly in the first place. )

Unless you are a grammar nazi or an English teacher. :P 

? is it. I wouldn't know

I try to avoid Microsoft products

http://www.evilbible.com/ 

1 Samuel 18:27 reads, David and his men went out and killed two
hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full
number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law.
Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

In a sense, the ancient Israelites "scalped" their enemies, and then used
the pieces of flesh as currency. While this type of thinking is
anthropologically significant, it has no place in modern society. Sure,
the Bible belongs in every library. But in the ancient history section.
Andrew Bernardin

Atheists on a mission to heal the world should know the buddhists ideas, it's helpful .... all is one they say

My understanding of very old English is limited to a few words, as my interest is in the evolution of words, and how far back one can trace common words, this is just a hobby that I find fascinating from time to time when I get the urge

I think Loucks has gone bye-bye, which I think is a pity such characters can be infuriating but they can also be quite effective at livening up a debate

You answered your own question.  In the patriarchal society of Israel in the 6th century B.C.  when this story was recorded, daughters and wives were property.  Hospitality to male visitors was much more important than the lives of mere daughters, so the morally correct choice in this case was to give up the daughters.

What this story really shows (and the one later where Lot's daughters get their father drunk and have sex with him) is that the supposedly "coherent" and "unchanging" morality of the Bible as characterized by 21st century American evangelicals is anything but.  The same people who rail against moral relativism are the first ones to step up and say "but it was appropriate for the time for Lot to give up his daughters..."

Wow.. I had no idea there was so much sick stuff in the bible (of all things). I'm actually shocked. I tried reading the bible once but I didn't get far because it was so boring. I wonder how the Quran compares to the bible in terms of sick shit. I would guess that the Quran is even worse. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Xposure, you're ignoring the fact that maybe half of the posters on this board are ex-Christians. How do you think we know so much about the Bible?

We've been there, done that, found that what you're calling "God's love" is at best a delusional neurochemical state, and at worst mind-control device used by some people to control others. 

I believe the Koran has half the number of 'sick' verse that the bible does.  It is, however, much shorter, so by comparison the Koran is virtually stuffed with 'sick shit'.  That being said, however, both books are just as sick as each other and both are just as stupid the bible may be more stupid because it is longer.

The situation with Sodom and Gomorrah is another interesting consideration within the study of the Bible. First and foremost, before I begin explicating this situation, I wish to point out something that most history students out there (who are worth their salt) should recognize: you should not easily judge an ancient society based upon today’s mores. What was done then, what was socially acceptable then, should not be so clearly and closely examined through the lens we have today. That doesn’t necessarily mean that what is being witnessed or explored is right, but it does mean that…historically speaking…we should keep an open mind on what the text has to say, what the wording of the text has to say, what the surrounding texts has to say (i.e., what do other Bible verses that mention Sodom and Gomorrah have to say about what happened there). Lot is not pictured as a hero. He does not end as a hero. Nor does the Bible say that what his daughters did were right in what they did. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a story of judgment. These people were wicked. And before you call this a homophobic set of passages, I would like to point to you to examine what other passages in Scripture has to say about the pericope of Sodom and Gomorrah (for example, Jesus Christ mentions S&G, doesn’t say a thing about homosexuality, but does say that this is not unlike what it will be like on the great and terrible Day of the Lord, the Day of judgment against sin in all its fashions). The sins of S&G were in-depth, more than just sexual sins, but sins against hospitality, sins against those who needed help, sins against the name of God. This society was not a righteous society. Yes Lot did try to deal with justice toward the angels, and he did plea for justice and righteousness with the people of S&G, but no one was a clear hero in this situation…unless, and I would insist, that God is the hero because He judged what was vile and sinful and unrighteous. The actions of integrated sinfulness could be seen in what the daughters do later in the pericope, they get their father drunk because they see a wasted world outside the cave. And if you further trace the lineage you will see that these children born of the daughters will cause some interesting situations later in the history of the People of God, the Israelites. Looking carefully at the pericope of S&G, along with the point when God declares that judgment will befall these peoples, you will see that Lot was spared because of Abraham and Abraham’s wishes alone. Of course considers Lot a righteous man. And concerning your interest in righteousness, here are some reasons why Scripture says Lot…with all his faults…had some dignity and righteousness about him. First off, Lot was the only one willing to welcome strangers into the city. That was high priority in lawfulness in this particular historical time period. To turn one’s back on visitors and strangers to the city was low and unheard of. Also, while we can all (and even the Bible points to this) say that the offering of the daughters was a stupid idea, we can also gain an understanding that (in all his befuddlement) he was indeed trying to protect these strangers—whether or not he fully realized who these strangers were, we don’t fully know, but we can guess to a point that he recognized forces of God. Like many other pericopes throughout the Bible, a person must be careful at understanding and gaining insight from what Scripture has to say. This isn’t like reading a Stephen King novel or reading the latest book on world history. This is a series of Scriptures tied together across space and time through the foundations of covenantal redemptive history. The works of the Old Testament especially should not be seen as fully linear, but more toward a cat’s cradle with the common start (i.e. the Torah), for most of the Major and Minor Prophets (for example) are situated throughout the books 1^st and 2^nd Kings and 1^st and 2^nd Chronicles (these four books also, it should be noted, deal with the same situations but with different time and theological perspectives).

Given morality is an evolving beast we should make our judgments on the basis of the beliefs of our own time. We can scarcely do anything else. In this light most of the bible is a disgraceful outpouring of bigotry and violence that has no place in decent society. Monotheism should be outlawed - legislated against in the same way we legislate against racism, sexism and homophobia. Its singular refusal to accept alternative belief systems and its relentless attempts to trademark human morality and to denigrate non believers as evil on the basis of nothing but personal bigotry supported by naked assertion should be seen for what it is. Monotheism must be destroyed. 

HOW you do that is important. Forced compliance doesn't work. Appeal and ridicule do.

And I don't see how human evolution is going to change. Even IF the gods of Abraham in the future get relegated to as Jefferson put it, "Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter", even IF the gods of Abraham in the future get treated like the myths of the past, what would stop humans from creating new fictional gods?

You push with force on any species, it will fight back, no matter if you know you are merely trying to help it.

Belief should be treated the same way. You don't get rid of bad claims, you debate and ridicule and debunk them out of existence.