A collection of evil, religious quotes

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Quote ANY religious book. Put the quote here, and please give us the name of the religion, name of the book, number of the verse plus a link to where you found it.

The goal of the thread it to get explanations as to why a quote isn't as evil as it sounds. If you've gotten an answer, you should edit your question and write ANSWERED, than including the explanation in spoiler tags (if the explanation is lengthy).

I'll begin.

Christianity, Bible.
Leviticus 20:13

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:13&version=NIV

Islam, hadith of Sahih Muslim
Book 041, Number 6985

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/041-smt.php#041.6985

Danyal:

Islam, hadith of Sahih Muslim
Book 041, Number 6985

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/041-smt.php#041.6985

Well if you think about this one its just a conditional (if this then that). The quote itself says nothing about whether or not people should actively try to cause the last hour, just that if this and that happen, then so will the last hour. If anything, it's the external context which would make this quote good or bad.

Christianity, Bible.
Leviticus 20:13

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:13&version=NIV

This one has an out as well. If I were to interpret it as requiring the relations to be exactly alike, then that would require a kind of genital mutilation which would probably indeed be detestable (in the sense that most people would find it to be abhorrent), and at the time this book was written, anyone undergoing such a procedure would probably die a slow death due to infections or other complications; killing him would be more akin to a mercy killing. Maybe you kill the other guy as well for letting his companion go through such an experience.

If you are angry at this post, you may have misunderstood it. I also understand anyone who thinks my interpretations are replicas of Stretch Armstrong.

If I were a paranoid man, which I am not, I would say that between SOPA and the latest wave of "HA we finally have proof religion is evil!" bs, this forum is deliberately trying to provoke me.

"All liars, as well as those who are fearful or unbelieving, will be cast into "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." 21:8"

And pretty much anything from the "cruelty and Violence" Section of the Skeptic's annotated Bible (brilliant resource by the way) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com

And i know many who would call themselves theists will simply dismiss these verses using things like "it's in the old testement, which means it's out of date" and say the things god did don't apply now, but to accept all of that you have to admit this:

The Bible is written by fallible human beings. But if you reject that and say that the bible is the true word of God, you must also admit God is as imperfect as us humans. How can an infallible God show fallible qualities as he does in The Holy Bible?.

Considering your reaction to anyone explaining anything to you in other threads, its clear this thread is about promoting hatred. You don't want an answer, you won't accept any answer given, you are just trying to poke people in the eye.

Seekster:
If I were a paranoid man, which I am not, I would say that between SOPA and the latest wave of "HA we finally have proof religion is evil!" bs, this forum is deliberately trying to provoke me.

Kendarik:
Considering your reaction to anyone explaining anything to you in other threads, its clear this thread is about promoting hatred. You don't want an answer, you won't accept any answer given, you are just trying to poke people in the eye.

-> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.338866-A-collection-of-nice-religious-quotes

I've heard some great explanations as to why some verses are a lot less evil than they seem when you first look at them.

Fact is, I collected 4 nice quotes and 2 evil quotes. I got 1 'nice' reply and 4 'evil' replies.

Who is paranoid now? Who is promoting hatred now?

Danyal:

Seekster:
If I were a paranoid man, which I am not, I would say that between SOPA and the latest wave of "HA we finally have proof religion is evil!" bs, this forum is deliberately trying to provoke me.

Kendarik:
Considering your reaction to anyone explaining anything to you in other threads, its clear this thread is about promoting hatred. You don't want an answer, you won't accept any answer given, you are just trying to poke people in the eye.

-> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.338866-A-collection-of-nice-religious-quotes

I've heard some great explanations as to why some verses are a lot less evil than they seem when you first look at them.

Fact is, I collected 4 nice quotes and 2 evil quotes. I got 1 'nice' reply and 4 'evil' replies.

Who is paranoid now? Who is promoting hatred now?

yeah you still are your just trying to cover your tracks this time and make it seem like your being neutral.

keiskay:

Danyal:

Seekster:
If I were a paranoid man, which I am not, I would say that between SOPA and the latest wave of "HA we finally have proof religion is evil!" bs, this forum is deliberately trying to provoke me.

Kendarik:
Considering your reaction to anyone explaining anything to you in other threads, its clear this thread is about promoting hatred. You don't want an answer, you won't accept any answer given, you are just trying to poke people in the eye.

-> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.338866-A-collection-of-nice-religious-quotes

I've heard some great explanations as to why some verses are a lot less evil than they seem when you first look at them.

Fact is, I collected 4 nice quotes and 2 evil quotes. I got 1 'nice' reply and 4 'evil' replies.

Who is paranoid now? Who is promoting hatred now?

yeah you still are your just trying to cover your tracks this time and make it seem like your being neutral.

The fact remains he made two equal threads, one about evil quotes and one about nice quotes.

To be honest, the fact that this one is going strong says more about the athiests on this board than it does about religion.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

keiskay:

Danyal:

-> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.338866-A-collection-of-nice-religious-quotes

I've heard some great explanations as to why some verses are a lot less evil than they seem when you first look at them.

Fact is, I collected 4 nice quotes and 2 evil quotes. I got 1 'nice' reply and 4 'evil' replies.

Who is paranoid now? Who is promoting hatred now?

yeah you still are your just trying to cover your tracks this time and make it seem like your being neutral.

The fact remains he made two equal threads, one about evil quotes and one about nice quotes.

To be honest, the fact that this one is going strong says more about the athiests on this board than it does about religion.

why would they wanna discuss the positive sides of religion. it doesn't support their arguments. and why would theist want to disprove the "nice" verses as he puts it.

keiskay:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

keiskay:

yeah you still are your just trying to cover your tracks this time and make it seem like your being neutral.

The fact remains he made two equal threads, one about evil quotes and one about nice quotes.

To be honest, the fact that this one is going strong says more about the athiests on this board than it does about religion.

why would they wanna discuss the positive sides of religion. it doesn't support their arguments. and why would theist want to disprove the "nice" verses as he puts it.

Exactly. I don't believe his attempt is genuine.

Also I find it funny to be called evil by him lol

Danyal, as a fellow atheist, I beg of you: give it a rest.

Just for a little while, please? Three threads a day is overkill.

What was really the point of this thread? It seems to me it was just another thinly-veiled excuse to call religious people idiots. For God's sake (pun not intended), you're making the rest of us look bad. No wonder so many theists take issue with us.

wtf? I don't understand why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over this thread.

Cakes:
wtf? I don't understand why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over this thread.

it would be one thing if this was danyals first time doing something that bashes religion. but he makes multiple threads a day to support his views. some people are sick of it and are tired of it.

keiskay:

Cakes:
wtf? I don't understand why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over this thread.

it would be one thing if this was danyals first time doing something that bashes religion. but he makes multiple threads a day to support his views. some people are sick of it and are tired of it.

The goal of the thread it to get explanations as to why a quote isn't as evil as it sounds. If you've gotten an answer, you should edit your question and write ANSWERED, than including the explanation in spoiler tags (if the explanation is lengthy).

He's inviting us to respond to his and others' issues with certain religious texts, and he's done so pretty much respectfully. I'm not seeing how this is bashing religion.

- Not to say that he may not have done so elsewhere, but I think that's irrelevant to this thread.

Danyal:
Christianity, Bible.
Leviticus 20:13

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:13&version=NIV

In Christianity (disregarding the stranger groups such as Messianic Jews) the Hebrew Bible is seen as, among other things, a source of moral laws. The exact legal proceedings are seen as either outdated or misguided altogether, depending on whether one believes the Hebrew Bible to be the verbatim word of G-d. While adultery is still sinful, Jesus criticizes the punishment of stoning.

One can have a different argument over whether homosexual acts are sinful or not, but even if they are there is no way to justify carrying out any kind of punishment.

* This is based on my very limited understanding of Christianity. *

To the OP: Quoting anything out of context isn't only ignorant, it's also potentially dangerous behaviour. Please, for the love of anything resembling intelligence, learn something of the world and how to behave in it. Please.

Cakes:
...He's inviting us to respond to his and others' issues with certain religious texts, and he's done so pretty much respectfully. I'm not seeing how this is bashing religion...

If the title of the thread wasn't any clear indiciation, then please view Danyal's thread history. He's posted more anti-religious rabble than most of the Anti-theists here combined, while making less sense than any of them alone.
I'm happy to debate religion, however "A Collection Of Evil, Religious Quotes" isn't a debate, and shouldn't even be treated as something approaching civility. People who present their views like Danyal has of late are what's wrong with the world today.

Cakes:
...The exact legal proceedings are seen as either outdated or misguided altogether, depending on whether one believes the Hebrew Bible to be the verbatim word of G-d. While adultery is still sinful, Jesus criticizes the punishment of stoning.
One can have a different argument over whether homosexual acts are sinful or not, but even if they are there is no way to justify carrying out any kind of punishment.

* This is based on my very limited understanding of Christianity. *

Firstly, why "G-d"? Does the letter "O" offend you?

Secondly, Jesus didn't criticise the punishment of stoning - he criticised the hypocratic nature of the people doing the stoning. They were punishing the woman for sinning, while they themselves were sinners.

The "kill men and who lay with men as a woman do" punishment can only be enacted by those living by Gods laws as handed to Moses - namely, live without sin (and I'm generalising terribly here, so please refer to the Bible itself).
None of the the people then did, and no one today does. Therefore, attemping to punish someone for violating those laws with the punishment as detailed within the aforementioned laws when you yourself don't live by those laws is hypocritical, and in-validates the claim one would have of "You've broken our holy laws and so you must be punished by them!".

Jesus didn't contradict scripture, he fullfilled it.

What's the point of this thread? Yes. Many holy books have crazy stories/parables in them.

Hosea 13:16 is probably one of the most evil and vile verses in the bible.

Samaria shall become desolate; for she has rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

King James 2000 Bible

keiskay:

yeah you still are your just trying to cover your tracks this time and make it seem like your being neutral.

Yes, am the Splinter Cell of these forums.

Kendarik:

Exactly. I don't believe his attempt is genuine.

Also I find it funny to be called evil by him lol

If people here put some genuine effort in this thread, we get a nice thread explaining how all those evil quotes make sense in context. If an atheist comes along quoting all kinds of horrible quotes from an evil book, they can just be pointed to this thread.

I didn't call you evil, I was talking about posts in the 'nice' thread and the 'evil' thread.

Hazy992:
What was really the point of this thread? It seems to me it was just another thinly-veiled excuse to call religious people idiots. For God's sake (pun not intended), you're making the rest of us look bad. No wonder so many theists take issue with us.

Where did I call you idiots?

theonewhois3:
What's the point of this thread? Yes. Many holy books have crazy stories/parables in them.

To get explanations as tho why the book is crazy and evil but religious people are not. If you look at the OP, you see a horrible crazy evil Leviticus quote and a nice ANSWERED quote that explains why modern day Christians have nothing to do with the quote.

Zeh Don:

Firstly, why "G-d"? Does the letter "O" offend you?

It's not uncommon for Jews, and some Christians, to do this. Here's a quick source on why

http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Why-Do-Some-Jews-Spell-God-G-D.htm

Danyal:

If people here put some genuine effort in this thread, we get a nice thread explaining how all those evil quotes make sense in context. If an atheist comes along quoting all kinds of horrible quotes from an evil book, they can just be pointed to this thread.

I didn't call you evil, I was talking about posts in the 'nice' thread and the 'evil' thread.

Ah, I apologize for misreading your comment about good an evil.

The problem with taking your thread seriously was your assumption that the quotes were evil (not for example "things that seem evil or seem wrong", you reached a conclusion before the discussion)

And then you go on to say stuff like this:

To get explanations as tho why the book is crazy and evil but religious people are not. If you look at the OP, you see a horrible crazy evil Leviticus quote and a nice ANSWERED quote that explains why modern day Christians have nothing to do with the quote.

You see, you still assume the quote and book are crazy and evil, even if you get an answer. You refuse to see a possiblity that maybe you just didn't understand the quote, or for that matter that "evil" is just you opinion on the subject.

Danyal:
-snipy-

Because, while modern religions have changed dramatically over the many centuries, their holy books have not.

Kendarik:

Danyal:

If people here put some genuine effort in this thread, we get a nice thread explaining how all those evil quotes make sense in context. If an atheist comes along quoting all kinds of horrible quotes from an evil book, they can just be pointed to this thread.

I didn't call you evil, I was talking about posts in the 'nice' thread and the 'evil' thread.

Ah, I apologize for misreading your comment about good an evil.

The problem with taking your thread seriously was your assumption that the quotes were evil (not for example "things that seem evil or seem wrong", you reached a conclusion before the discussion)

And then you go on to say stuff like this:

To get explanations as tho why the book is crazy and evil but religious people are not. If you look at the OP, you see a horrible crazy evil Leviticus quote and a nice ANSWERED quote that explains why modern day Christians have nothing to do with the quote.

You see, you still assume the quote and book are crazy and evil, even if you get an answer. You refuse to see a possiblity that maybe you just didn't understand the quote, or for that matter that "evil" is just you opinion on the subject.

Sorry, but if I read "WE MUST GET RID OF ALL THE JEWS!"


I think CRAZY EVIL CRAP. And the quote is crazy evil crap, but Zeh Don explained how it doesn't apply to modern christians anymore.

Zeh Don:
snip
Firstly, why "G-d"? Does the letter "O" offend you?
snip

OT: Yeah, no. This is obvious flame bait.

Kendarik:

Zeh Don:

Firstly, why "G-d"? Does the letter "O" offend you?

It's not uncommon for Jews, and some Christians, to do this. Here's a quick source on why

http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Why-Do-Some-Jews-Spell-God-G-D.htm

I don't often say this, so bookmark this page:
I didn't know that, and I had nothing resembling knowledge of this particular practice. Thank you for taking the time to address my question in a civil manner, and helping me get a better understanding of this. I truly mean it: thank you.

Zeh Don:

Kendarik:

Zeh Don:

Firstly, why "G-d"? Does the letter "O" offend you?

It's not uncommon for Jews, and some Christians, to do this. Here's a quick source on why

http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Why-Do-Some-Jews-Spell-God-G-D.htm

I don't often say this, so bookmark this page:
I didn't know that, and I had nothing resembling knowledge of this particular practice. Thank you for taking the time to address my question in a civil manner, and helping me get a better understanding of this. I truly mean it: thank you.

My pleasure.

And so this isn't low content...Just as a piece of side trivia (although maybe this belongs in the "good" thread, not the "evil" one). According to Torah there is only 1 acceptable time to destroy the name of god. If a man accused his wife of cheating without two independent witnesses who witnessed the sex act, the case was adjudicated by a priest. The priest would write the name of god on a piece of paper, and would then wash the ink off in a glass of normal water. The accused would drink the water. Unless by some miracle she became deathly ill and her stomach rapidly expanded as if it was going to explode, the man's claim was deemed false. He was considered shamed, he was forbidden from ever divorcing her or ever speaking ill of her again. As you might imagine, the ink made from plants didn't tend to make a woman that ill and thus it was a very effective shield to protect women from false accusations. A woman's honour and protection was considered so important important it is the only time that the holiness of god's name was secondary.

Cakes:
wtf? I don't understand why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over this thread.

It was the thread title that set me off. It made me suspect ill intent.

Danyal:

Hazy992:
What was really the point of this thread? It seems to me it was just another thinly-veiled excuse to call religious people idiots. For God's sake (pun not intended), you're making the rest of us look bad. No wonder so many theists take issue with us.

Where did I call you idiots?

You didn't call me personally an idiot as I'm an atheist. Thought I'd made that clear?

Anyway, you're not outright calling religious people idiots but the constant stream of 'look at this dumb thing theists believe lolololol' threads you keep putting out is implying that they're not as intelligent as you.

A few fun passages from the Bible.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you really want to get an idea about how "kind" God is, he has killed 2,476,633 people in the Bible, and that isn't counting the unknown amount of kills in huge massacres such as Noah's flood or the destroying of those two cities.

The quickest way to be an atheist is to read the Bible.

Not G. Ivingname:
A few fun passages from the Bible.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you really want to get an idea about how "kind" God is, he has killed 2,476,633 people in the Bible, and that isn't counting the unknown amount of kills in huge massacres such as Noah's flood or the destroying of those two cities.

The quickest way to be an atheist is to read the Bible.

No the quickest way to be an atheist is to read quotes off of Evilbible.com. You either havnt read the Bible yourself or you are purposely and deliberately trying to assign meaning the verses that completely ignore context.

Why is this relevant? Words on a page don't commit evil acts, people do.

Not G. Ivingname:

Actually this law provides new protections to slaves. Previously slaves had no rights and you could kill them at will (and of course remained so in some cultures right up until the US civil war, and remain so to this very day in some countries). This prevented you from killing slaves. It also prevented excessive beatings because you didn't want to accidentally end up killing them. In addition, in other sections of the text other laws were added for the protection of slaves including a six day work week (same as their masters), having the right to food and shelter, and being automatically freed by abuse in some circumstances.

Actually that did't allow raping, although it did allow you to take wives. There is another section of law making this clear. Also if you look at the records showing how this was understood, and other parts of Torah, and if you start at 10:1 so you see its about fighting enemies, then you get a clearer picture of what they are saying.

1) You can't just sack a town, even if they are your enemy. You must give them a chance to surrender.
2) If they surrendered they were required to pay taxes, perform national service like other citizens, and accept the Seven Noahide Laws if they were going to stay in the land.

[spoiler=God's PUNISHMENT FOR RAPE... victims]If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

Nope. This is one of the most commonly misunderstood copy/paste quote. Jewish law is very clear, a woman MUST consent to any marriage, even a previously arranged one. This law was actually designed to protect the woman. The fine payable by the man is hefty (half a year's earnings) so its serious restitution. The woman can then choose to marry him or not, but HE has no choice. If she wants him, she gets him. Basically They were screwing around, got caught, and now there basically he's in for shotgun wedding if she wants.

For a rape victim there is no punishment, and in fact in law she was still a virgin (although society being jerks may not have treated her as such)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

Yeah, that one seems completely bizarre doesn't it? A couple things you need to consider though. First off that's only half of the law that you've quoted. The other half basically said 'if she was outside of earshot, give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was raped and not willing'. Taken in combination, that's actually an improvement in the treatment of women.

The inside of town thing came at a time when if you screamed in town someone would have heard and responded. Current cities don't fit that bill so the context no longer makes sense.

Well if you read 8-12, which is one section, you will see that this is saying "if there is a dispute you can't settle, take it to a judge or priest, but when you do so, you are bound by the decision". Although the sentence is harsh, it isn't really that odd a thing if you expect the law to have any meaning. They didn't have prisons to lock you up in, multi level appeals courts, etc, they literally had some guys standing at the gates of town acting as binding arbitrators of the law. I doubt any country at the time acted differently.

If you read the quote your summary is inaccurate. It isn't because a guy prays to another god. It's if a town that agreed to follow the laws of Noah then not only broke that promise but actively incited Israelites to join their ways then that became a capital crime. Once again you may see that as harsh, but it was the equivalent of organizing a rebellion of sorts.

If you really want to get an idea about how "kind" God is, he has killed 2,476,633 people in the Bible, and that isn't counting the unknown amount of kills in huge massacres such as Noah's flood or the destroying of those two cities.

I think its funny someone counted that up. Actually I'd say for tens of centuries that's pretty low. Look how many humans killed in the last decade lol.

Seriously though, kind isn't a term I'd attach to god. He is a judge, sometimes judges order death.

The quickest way to be an atheist is to read the Bible.

It is possible to read animal farm and think its about talking animals on a farm. Not everyone gets a greater understanding than that. But that's fine, nothing says you need to believe if it adds no value for you :)

chewbacca1010:
Why is this relevant? Words on a page don't commit evil acts, people do.

History is jam packed with atrocities caused by words in some holy book. Present day then. Christianity in general view homosexuality as sin and condemn gays. Why? Because it is mention negatively 8 times in the old testament. So there you go. Words on a paper. And when people holds a book containing vile passages up in the air attempting to teach you moral values from it, people who are not ignorant of it's content get's a problem with it.

Not G. Ivingname:
A few fun passages from the Bible.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you really want to get an idea about how "kind" God is, he has killed 2,476,633 people in the Bible, and that isn't counting the unknown amount of kills in huge massacres such as Noah's flood or the destroying of those two cities.

The quickest way to be an atheist is to read the Bible.

You do realize the Torah is read throughout the whole year in the synagogue? So why are all Jews still Jewish? Well, of those that regularly go.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked