Fun with bible scriptures!

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Fun with bible scriptures!

Author:

djhojo

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Sep 06, 2002

Comments:

Ok kiddies.....here are some fun bible scriptures that you can finally start to use!!!! Do your co-workers know that God wants to smear dung on their faces? Malachi 2:3 "Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces." Stone your children! Psalm 137:9 "Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." God wants you to eat your own crap and your children's too!! Deuteronomy 28:53 "And thou shalt eat of the fruit of thine own body, that of thy sons and of thy daughers, which the LORD thy God hath given thee." Trouble with the kids? Christ compells you to KILL THEM! Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death." Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son. . . bring him out unto the elders of his city. . . And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." May the god you created forgive you!!!!

More diaries by djhojo

this was a waste of time

	Skeptics' Bible (none / 0) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 09:30:48 AM PST

	There's a ton of these things at Skeptic's Bible.com. It's a great resource, and certainly gets fundies in a squirm, but to real Christians, it's not a problem. Their religious book has flaws, bigotry, inconsistancies, etc., etc., SO WHAT? It was written by human beings acting on the word of God, it wasn't written by God or Jesus. Why not visit any middle eastern country and examine their attitudes to foreigners and women, and their literacy levels. Not good. But these are reflective of the people who wrote the bible 2000 years ago. The Bible is just a book, it's not a rulebook for Club Christian. Christianity is centred around things that can't be examined and prodded, the entire point in faith is to have faith in them rather than try and prove or disprove them. Personally, I think it's all claptrap, but it doesn't mean I can't respect people who disagree. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	dear mr bcii sir, (none / 0) (#8)
	by nathan on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 05:41:42 PM PST

	Christianity is centred around things that can't be examined and prodded... With due respect sir, don't you think that death and the finitude of man are certainties of life rather than imponderable abstracts? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Certainly, that is true, (none / 0) (#9)
	by because it isnt on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 06:24:40 PM PST

	but Christianity is surely more concerned with the post-death scenario, i.e. Heaven/Hell/with God's love/not with God's love/grace only/deeds only/grace and deeds/neither grace nor deeds, etc. Despite differences between the many religions and secularities we have on this earth, I think most of them agree that a specific person's mortal existance ceases with death. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	well then (none / 0) (#10)
	by nathan on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 08:14:12 PM PST

	Christianity is, I would say, a rational response to the finitude of life and the recognition that man cannot be the measure of all things. That's how I came to it; not through adherence to mythology, but through refusal to give up the possibility of meaning in life. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Indeed. (none / 0) (#11)
	by tkatchev on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 02:20:15 AM PST

	Christian theology is a wholly rational and holistic philosophy, if you take the effort to study it carefully[1]. [1] Note that I'm talking about a certain philosophical aspect of Christianity, not Christianity as a whole. Christianity is way more than just a philosophy. -- Peace and much love...

	But there are any number (none / 0) (#12)
	by because it isnt on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 07:05:22 AM PST

	of secular and humanist philosophies of the meaning of life. There are even philosophies that are as honest as Christianity, i.e. are based around the idea that we're all greedy little shits and need something that appeals to our greed to keep us on the straight and narrow. Christians dream of immortality by hoping to placate an omnipotent, omniscient overlord. Secular folks know/believe (delete as applicable) they're nothing but worm food after death, so they go for immortality through offspring and works, hoping they can beat the obscurity odds and make an impact on history. I certainly agree that Christians have the best form of coping strategy for the horrible reality of people that don't maintain the veneer of society; it helps when turning the other cheek that you know/believe (delete as applicable) the shit who struck you is off to Hades at the end of the day. Personally, I think people delude themselves in some respects. They cannot accept that the world, the universe around them "just happened". They cannot accept there is no reason why gravity exists, why light exists, why life developed out of slime, why slime just happened to be near enough to other slime and rocks, etc. They want to bring order to the universe, to make sense of it all. Theists want the ultimate accolate of responsibility for creation to lie with some sort of god -- their god, naturally, other people's gods are all myths. Scientists are kindly, but they're dumb. They are all wrapped up in examining the how and leave the why as one of life's ponderables. There are almost as many answers to that question as there have been people in existance. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Coping strategies (none / 0) (#14)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 08:44:47 AM PST

	The best working "coping strategy" is a honest combination of cynicism, nihilism, and skepticism. Of course, it works for you only if you are strong enough to walk without the crutches made of religious concepts (including, but not limited to, atheism). They are all wrapped up in examining the how and leave the why as one of life's ponderables. There are almost as many answers to that question as there have been people in existance. There is no "why", and it is irrelevant anyway. At least it is fun to watch the babbling philosophers coming up with often mutually exclusive empty speculations.

	I doubt you're a skeptic (n/t) (none / 0) (#15)
	by gzt on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 01:21:33 PM PST

	you're missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#18)
	by nathan on Mon Sep 9th, 2002 at 07:04:05 AM PST

	If life is 'meaningless' and the universe is mechanistic, then all things are possible, all things are permissible, and there is no such thing as evil. Do you believe this? Or is your belief in this a form of protest against it not being disproven? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Buy more meat. (none / 0) (#20)
	by because it isnt on Mon Sep 9th, 2002 at 08:31:44 PM PST

	["] If life is 'meaningless' and the universe is mechanistic, then all things are possible, all things are permissible, and there is no such thing as evil. [ " -- d]o you believe this? In answer to your question: no, I don't believe that. To be honest, it sounds like the sort of theory concocted by either a) a shifty, immoral* fucker who wants to feel morally righteous in burgling your house, or b) a theist who is so offended at people not giving his God the time of day, that he wants to label them as all like person a). I stipulate: The universe is insanely huge. Each molecule is individual, as is every atom that keeps its electrons to itself. There are no mechanisms for every molecule in the universe to simultaneously communicate with H.Q., no matter how far away from it they are, to ensure each molecule can be certain it's doing the right thing. You can write otherwise, but you can also write "This sentence is false.". Writing, like thought, is an abstraction free from logic and the basic rule of natural laws. Therefore, in my opinion/belief/faith, molecules are autonomous. Ergo, the universe is autonomous. There is no central overlord of creation, a.k.a. God in the Christian branch of theism. With reference to point 1, there is ample room for all the billions of billions of possible transitions that don't end up with living beings who form societies, play music, throw frisbees, have unhappy marriage breakups, etc. We were lucky. Of science, quarks, etc: much like the Filthy Critic's movie, atoms have the magical ability to make no sense (as quarks, superstrings, etc) and yet still be entirely predictable (at atom level). : 'moral' being 'going along with society for mutual benefit' rather than 'appeasing my God'. adequacy.org -- because it isn't*

	look, this is not all that original (none / 0) (#21)
	by nathan on Tue Sep 10th, 2002 at 06:40:46 AM PST

	Do you also think that "logic and the basic rule of natural laws" are inherent in the universe? Are they mechanistic properties? I guess the real question is, do you believe that the universe is self-created and self-sustaining? If so, isn't it a mechanical system? And if that is so, then doesn't that just mean that you have a particular existence only as a conglomeration of temporary, partially self-sustaining mechanistic phenomena? Pretty poor life, I'd say. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Wind it up. (none / 0) (#22)
	by because it isnt on Tue Sep 10th, 2002 at 12:51:01 PM PST

	Do you also think that "logic and the basic rule of natural laws" are inherent in the universe? Well, not logic, as that's a man-made invention. But still, man can write down nonsensical things of fancy that cannot possibly be mirrored in reality. I'm sure you know this. I guess the real question is, do you believe that the universe is self-created and self-sustaining? I do. Obviously, self-creation is as circular as saying God exists, which is why I take it as an article of faith rather than look for proof. And, naturally, the universe isn't self-sustaining, but I'll be long gone before it reaches heat death, so I don't actually care. If so, isn't it a mechanical system? Liberalist word tricks. In the philosophical sense, yes. In the aesthetic sense, no. And if that is so, then doesn't that just mean that you have a particular existence only as a conglomeration of temporary, partially self-sustaining mechanistic phenomena? Yes, and our existence has turned out to be identical to the life we'd live under a theistic overlord! Isn't that a kicker? I, for one, am not threatened by the brutal truth of existance. Anyway, have a pleasant day, Nathan. I must go save some kittens from a well, make busty wenches swoon, etc., etc. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	one more kick at the cat (none / 0) (#23)
	by nathan on Tue Sep 10th, 2002 at 04:34:49 PM PST

	I, for one, am not threatened by the brutal truth of existance... Or of spelling, apparently. Anyhow, to business. I find it interesting how, when forced to admit that you see the universe as a pointless giant machine, you claim that it 'aesthetically' is not. Fine, you might not experience it as being machinelike in your daily life, but that begs the question. How can the experience of a comparitively infinitesimal speck of organised space-dust hope to attain any insights of any value at all into the nature of its own existence? Even its judgments are useless because they aren't autonomous from the universe they purport to be judging. You might say that they're exactly as valid as whatever 'conclusions' amoebae draw in response to chemical stimuli. So, to recap. You claim as an article of faith that man's life is impervious to the possibility of meaning, then write off the idea of God as a nonsensical flight of fancy. Well, that's your right. You have to realise, though, that I am not taking anything more on faith than are you. In fact, your decision is more 'aesthetic' than mine, because there can't conceivably be any evidence suggesting the non-existence of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator, whereas there can conceivably be evidence suggesting the existence of one. One more note. ...our existence has turned out to be identical* to the life we'd live under a theistic overlord! That's a meaningless statement because it contains the assumption that a universe apart from this universe is conceivable. You can't 'imagine' two universes, one mechanistic and one theistic, and compare them; unless, of course, you already hold a conclusion as to what they'd look like. * As opposed to the God of Falwell, in Whom I pretty obviously don't believe. Any more than I believe in orgone energy or cold fusion. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Meaning in Life (none / 0) (#16)
	by gzt on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 01:49:47 PM PST

	While I've never been too concerned about the meaning in life, sometimes I wonder whether Christianity provides any. It tells us the chief end of man, for instance, but that does not give our life meaning. It gives purpose and perhaps a reason for our creation, which to me is not the same as a meaning. Of course, I suppose to discuss this further, we would have to decide what would be considered "meaning in life". And, since I'm not good at defining things, we'd probably end up with a definition where I'd have to concede there is meaning in life. So, erm, that's all I have to say about that. I'll just get back to my catechisms now. Cheers, GZ

	Leviticus is in the Old Testament, not New (none / 0) (#2)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 11:08:58 AM PST

	so it isn't the end all and be all of law, unless your a Judaist, and it certainly isn't the word of Christ (that would be the Gospels, in the New Testament). Christians pay more heed to the New Testament. In Lunixer terms, Old Testament = God FAQ 1.0, New Testament = GOD FAQ 2.0. A. Rightmann

	I'd go even farther. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
	by tkatchev on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 01:24:50 PM PST

	The Old Testament is the word of God worded in such a way as to be understandable by illiterate goat herdsmen in 3000 B.C. The New Testament is the word of God worded in such a way as to be understandable by people who have already figured out what literacy, rational thought and philosophy is all about. -- Peace and much love...

	Heads Up for Version 3.0 (none / 0) (#4)
	by eSolutions on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 05:04:56 PM PST

	_Dianetics_ by renouned psychologist and scientist L. Ron Hubbard. In it, he spells out the true Christianity, and the true Islam, and the true Bhuddihsm, and the true Science. It's all in there, spelled out plain as day, if only people would bother to pay attention. I bet I'll get flamed for this, but I don't care. I'm doing you a favor. If I offered you some magic pill that could take away your problems, and make you see things with a new-found clarity, you'd take it. No questions asked. Anyone would, and they'd be right to. Scientology is that pill. I kid you not, straight up, extreme to the hilt, it just plain works. Truth, undiluted, eternal. That's what Diantetics is. Peace. ------- You wanna play the blind man, go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open.

	were you illiterate (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 06:39:35 PM PST

	before you got hooked on Diantetics (sic.)?

	You will not sway me. (none / 0) (#6)
	by eSolutions on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 08:48:35 PM PST

	You spelled "dianetics" wrong, FYI. Scientology is a system of thought unlike any other, one which is necessarily ridiculed and feared. I don't doubt that fearful, small-minded folk like yourself will resist the pull of Truth, but hope that more impressionable readers will keep an open mind. As Jesus himself might say, "first they riducule you, then they fight you, then they ignore you, then you win." Chew on them balls, sucka. ------- You wanna play the blind man, go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open.

	But the clams, eSolutions! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
	by because it isnt on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 07:19:01 AM PST

	Won't you think about the clams? The clams, they want to close so very much but they want to open even more! The conflict plays out; snap snap snap! Snap snap snap! Each time the clams open their hinges and snap them shut! Snap snap snap! Oh, my jaw! Snap snap snap! Snap snap snap! Oh, the pain! Snap snap snap! Please, think about the clams, eSolutions! You're not helping! The clams are still snapping! Snap snap snap! Why aren't you helping, eSolutions? Help the poor little clams! adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	what's so great about it? (none / 0) (#17)
	by Mr Somebody on Mon Sep 9th, 2002 at 05:28:00 AM PST

	give us a taster then, a few pearls of Hubbard wisdom - or would I have to agree to donate all my worldly wealth to the church for such a disclosure? Seriously folks, don't all you pious folk feel a little like Linus from Peanuts? Shed that blanket, for it blindeth thee! step into the light of secularism, and turn all your churches into something more useful, like galleries or nightclubs

	A Better Proposition (none / 0) (#19)
	by eSolutions on Mon Sep 9th, 2002 at 09:16:16 AM PST

	I could explain the precepts of Dianetics to you, but have been working on a way to spread Hubbard's message to a wider community (a la "Shaolin Soccer"). So if you really do want to learn more about Scientology, you can come see my rap group "clearYo" perform at the Empty Bottle in Chicago this Saturday, opening for OKGO. My rapper name is "Dah Doo Ron Ron Hubbard." My compatriot "Engramophone" and I will be handing out free personality tests and literature between our def jammin' sizongs. "Straight Outta Dianetics, Y'all" will be our first single, if we get signed. ------- You wanna play the blind man, go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open.

	You're not much of a people person, are you? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Illiterate Bum on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 10:29:02 PM PST

	Honestly, why do you care so much? Are you suffering from a lack of attention as a child? You are the exact reason why the term "atheist" (or, as you prescribe to be, "agnostic") are no longer respected in any way, shape, or form. Pointing out the inconsistencies of a particular religious text does not compromise the validity of the message behind the religion, especially to those that realize that such texts are merely artifacts that must be interpreted in a historical context (as Tkatchev pointed out in my own diary entry). I believe that Mr. Isn't says just as much above, and as a bonus, he put it into words that someone like you can understand! In fact, it just makes you look rather silly. How old are you? I'm pegging you as being 14. Maybe 15. Do you wear all black and listen to Marilyn Manson? Have you passed puberty yet? Don't worry, kiddo, all those changes are natural and are supposed to happen. And that funny feeling that you get in that no-touch area whenever you see a pretty girl walk by? It's called an erection. It looks a bit silly, but trust me, it's completely safe and a normal reaction to have. Here, have a cookie. Do you want a hug? XOXOXO -IB ----- "...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.