Evil Bible

A comprehensive reading of the Bible reveals that the majority of it, excluding some books of the Apocrypha and most of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, are racist and evil from the first page to the last page. Yet, the average American is expected to hold it in high esteem, even to the point placing one's hand on it in court and swearing to tell the truth. That is complete opposite to what the Jesus character said. He said that one should never swear any oaths at all. That just shows that the control freaks have never read the fairytale.

The purpose of this thread is to cite and comment on all of the racist and evil passage in the Bible. Feel free to participate and comment.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BibleData · M

[quote]A comprehensive reading of the Bible reveals that the majority of it, excluding some books of the Apocrypha and most of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, are racist and evil from the first page to the last page.[/quote]

So? What's your point?

[quote]Yet, the average American is expected to hold it in high esteem, even to the point placing one's hand on it in court and swearing to tell the truth.[/quote]

Everybody's a hypocrite. Americans especially. They don't do the Bible swearing in court anymore because the Bible doesn't mean what it used to to most of the people in those places.

[quote]That is complete opposite to what the Jesus character said. He said that one should never swear any oaths at all. [/quote]

Jesus and James were advising against the frivolous oath taking that had become an unfortunate habit of the Jewish people. Making an oath by the heavens, earth, and Jerusalem as a sort of collateral which they had no real authority over. It was, Jesus and James were pointing out, more significant to be honest and truthful in all matters so that it wasn't necessary to establish every trivial detail by a frivolous oath, undermining not only your integrity but those things that belonged to Jehovah God or his appointed king. (Matthew 5:34-37; James 5:12 Also see Matthew 23:16-22)

Jesus wasn’t prohibiting the taking of an oath as is evident by his giving answer without objection to being placed under oath before the high priest at his own trial. (Matthew 26:63-64)

An oath is a statement stressing the truthfulness of something someone promises to do or not to do. There are two Hebrew words translated as oath; shevuah, which is an oath or sworn statement. Shava is a related term that means “swear” and comes from the same root as the Hebrew word for “seven,” so swear originally meant to be under the influence of seven things. (Genesis 21:27-32) Beer-sheba means “well of the oath” or “well of seven.” (Genesis 26:28-33). Shevuah doesn’t contain the connotation of a curse or hardship placed upon the person making the oath should he not fulfill it.

The other Hebrew word translated as oath is alah, meaning “oath, cursing” or “oath of obligation.” (Genesis 24:41; 26:28)

The Greek horkos, “oath” and omnyo, “swear” are both found in James 5:12. The Greek anathematizo means to bind with a curse. (Acts 23:12, 14, 21)

[quote]That just shows that the control freaks have never read the fairytale.[/quote]

Hmmm. Interesting accusatory conclusion. Not very accurate, though, is it.

MethDozer · M

@BibleData no it's not stupid to judge the actions of the past by the norms of the present. It's excatly what we should do and is exactly how betterment progresses. Without judhing the actions of the past by the framework of the present we stay stuck in archaic and unreasonable systems of the past.

BibleData · M

@MethDozer No, by forgetting the past we repeat the mistakes. Judging harshly one's perspective without experience, knowledge or bias is passive aggressive memory selection. Only two causes. Ignorance and virtue signaling. Self righteousness.

MethDozer · M

@BibleData as by The Mayo Clinic

[quote] Passive-aggressive behavior is a pattern of indirectly expressing negative feelings instead of openly addressing them. [/quote]

BibleData · M

@MethDozer I'm not really using the Mayo Clinic definition of passive aggressive. I mean passive in that they are easily influenced by outside or emotional reflex and aggressive in that they are simultaneously very vocal and insistent, even to the point of violence when fake dumb virtue signaling. An example: animal rights activists torch a fake fur manufacturer. It may make them feel real good but they fuck it up, usually, perhaps fortunately, resulting in people being opposed to their nonsense. They waste their words.

MethDozer · M

@BibleData Well okie-dokie then. That makes perfect sense..... To somebody I suppose, maybe?

BibleData · M

@MethDozer Look up the word passive. Then look up the word aggressive. Not difficult. Mayo clinic forgot to trademark.

MethDozer · M

@BibleData

Your definiton for the term doesn't exist.

BibleData · M

@MethDozer I'll say it one more time, with a link to insure you don't get sidetracked.

Passive: receptive to outside impressions or influences

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passive

Aggressive: marked by combative readiness

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggressive

MethDozer · M

@BibleData Passive-aggressive is a defined term. You don't get to make up some willy-nilly nonsensical definition and expect people to know what you're talking about or take seriously. It makes you sound even more ignorant.

BibleData · M

@MethDozer Even more ignorant than what? You? Listen, I didn't use the term passive-aggressive as you and the Mayo Clinic are using it. Not that it's wrong to do that, just that there are other applications to those two words. It is acceptable to use the words passive and aggressive as I did and the definition I gave in defense to your pedantic insistence were copied word for word directly from the same source you gave in your screenshot. Do you understand? There I used the word screenshot but that doesn't mean I can't use the words screen and shot in a different context.

That isn't even necessary in my opinion because the term passive-aggressive could have been used in that context. Like covertly narcissistic. Just because the term is used in a specific context doesn't mean the words can't be used differently. What are you, like 5 years old?

MethDozer · M

@BibleData Nah, there really isn't. Passive-aggressive has a clear defined meaning. Well, if you want people to know what the hell left field tangent you're on. I mean go ahead and redefine terms on the fly but don't expec lt anyone to understand whatever nonsense you're trying to communicate

MethDozer · M

@BibleData Like I can say racism toward ls arabs is " antisemitism" because technically Arabs are a semitic people. Yet it wouldn't be correct or understood by anyone because the language has defined the term as racism towards Jews..

But I don't know, you think it's wrong to judge evils commited in the past because " diffurrrent tymes" so I can't expect anything less than ignorant.

Diotrephes · 70-79, M

@BibleData[quote] The other Hebrew word translated as oath is alah, meaning “oath, cursing” or “oath of obligation.” (Genesis 24:41; 26:28)

The Greek horkos, “oath” and omnyo, “swear” are both found in James 5:12. The Greek anathematizo means to bind with a curse. (Acts 23:12, 14, 21)[/quote]

You should know by now that the BIble, as a book, was originally written in Latin and that all other languages and versions are simply translations and revisions. There is simply no authentic original Greek or Hebrew versions written before 690 AD. And the Greek versions are written in the modern Greek language and not one of the ancient Greek alphabets.