Home

Stuff in the bible that has dated badly.

roc_abilly

Member
There's nothing worse than religionistas who take their holy books literally, rather than seeking out its wisdom in the understanding that these are books set in the social reality of millennia ago.

So in honour of the fundamentalist preacher who for right or wrong got reefed off the streets of the UK last week for dwelling too much on some of more discriminatory, homophobic sentiment in the bible (and worse, rubbing it in the faces of gay people) - I thought, let's have a thread highlighting some more completely outdated stuff you find in the bible.

I'll kick off the proceedings.

“You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.”

“You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.” (No rashers and sausages or greasy pig throwing contests).

"Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.” (No pulling out before you come)

"You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.” (No polyester - I agree with this one, actually).

"A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord.” (Workplace accidents included I presume).

“Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.”

“But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.” (Mind those seafood menus).

“If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.”

Any others?
 
Yeah I've lit up a few bible pages in my time stuck out on the range and no shop nearby. I did actually read quite a lot of it when I was stuck in some shit-hole for a few days.

mad stuff. There is no way the average xtian has ever read the bible. If they seriously had tried they wouldn't be xtians today.
 
I have found quite a few bible thumpers to be almost anti-Christian in the sense of how they want to force other people to be more like themselves.

There are noble exceptions of course. But particularly in what we see in America, evangelical Catholicism and so on, and that seems to be worsening in this country more and more. Or perhaps it was always like this.
 
Yup. There are kids growing up in the US who think mr jesus was a member of the Rotary Club of Jerusalem, a free marketeer, a right wing nutcase like his Da who is all for gun ownership. If mr jesus were to turn up anywhere public in the US between the Potomac and the Mississippi calling out in Aramaic and looking nicely arabic in his robes he'd be filled full of holes inside a minute.

All it proves is that the vast majority of US evangelical xtians have never read their bible. Rarely seen without one, but as for opening it? Nah. Only ever done when someone is looking.

Fake Xtianity is probably one of the world's largest Fake Abrahamic religions.

Mind you, bound to happen. With the casual disregard for critical thinking and actually reading anything bigger than a voucher a large part of the US midwest is just full of idiots.

Stuff in the bible that has aged badly? Probably the much ignored rule that women should remain outside the family home when 'unclean'. Can't see that becoming popular again any time soon without an explosive exchange of pots, frying pans, bunkbeds....

Seriously though, the bible would be alright as a literary curiosity and of course it has its racy bits but overall I think it would be much better if it had been drawings rather than a gabble of centuries of plagiarism.

It is also deeply mental by the way and most of the people who wrote it should have been locked up. Probably would be today. Curious to think that the entire catholic church may well be founded on the fallout of an early Roman Care in the Community policy in Judea a couple of thousand years back.

Means in Ireland in about 2,000 years we'll all be able to worship the great god Anco who brought work to the faithful.
 
It is hard to understand that there are still some people who fail to grasp why most people in Ireland had such a strong natural reaction against the Catholic church, and its hypocrisies, and rejected her.

Notwithstanding they may possibly have jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

I mean in taking up with a similar fervour a variety of secular deities and substitute "religions", including librralism and modern ideologies revolving around the world wide institutions of international human rights.

But there is the answer to why they would condemn the catholic church and defend the muslim church. Namely, at the root of the human rights creed is the belief in the inherent dignity and equality of each individual whetever and whoever they are.

So the religious fervour of that flock emanates from granting this dignity and equality to the "other". I.e. Gay, Muslim, anyone in particular who may possibly be less equal or be perceived as granted less dignity than their own community.

In the same vein I think the reason that you find "90 per cent of Irish racists and homophobes are Catholics" (granted this may be exaggerated) is that those who remained Catholic see the new secular religion of human rights as a competing religion, and that is the root of their predictable antipathy to the positions that arise out of the competing dogma.
 
I suspect it might be in the nature of a cult that appears to have thousands of child molesters in it and much of the rest seem somewhat ambivalent about that issue.

Not a great look for an organised religion.

For those who can read and have an inquiring mind, not an accusation that could be levelled at many of that cult's adherents, the whole thing falls apart rather quickly on looking at the origins of it.
 
The thing that hasn't dated badly:

According to Rabbi Raphael Samson Hirsch, in about 1900 he said,

The thing that has been the most enduring about the Torah is this:

The Sons of Noah were white, Black and asian. Whites would prosper, Blacks would be their slaves, and Asians would live in their boundaries.
 
The Torah would probably have been written in a time when jewish tribes considered themselves to be the whitest in the known world (so a bout of wishful thinking there) , blacks would have been a memory of the hatred of Egyptians from the Upper Nile and points south and of course 'Asians' to the writers of the Torah would have been the Persians.

Objects in the real view mirror of history often appear handier than they are in the modern era.
 
For example the Judaic tribes who were hired as oarsmen in the Attic-Persian Wars for the Athenian nav y were referred to by chroniclers of the era as 'Palestinians' which wouldn't be popular at all now in Jerusalem :)
 
1 Timothy 2:12 - "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."

Leviticus 15:20 : "And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean."
 
Thoughts behind the 'special place' for women in xtianity...

ORIGEN​

Theologian and Greek Father, 2nd–3rd centuries

“Men should not sit and listen to a woman . . . ‘For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly,’ no matter what she says, even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman.”
Fragments on 1 Corinthians 74 (Read it here.)[2]

“What is seen with the eyes of the Creator is masculine, and not feminine, for God does not stoop to look upon what is feminine and of the flesh.”
Selecta in Exodum (Fragments on Exodus), Patrologia Graeca 12, Column 296–297 (Latin and Greek, my translation) [See footnote 3 for context.]

TERTULLIAN​

The Father of Latin Christianity, 155–245

”And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?”
De Cultu Feminarium (On the Apparel of Women), Chapter 1 (Read it here.)

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM​

Archbishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church, 4th century

“The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he says, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively.”
Homily 9 on First Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11–15) (Read it here.)

“Man was first formed, and elsewhere he shows their superiority.”
Homily 9 on First Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11–15) (Read it here.)

“God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman.”
The Kind of Women who ought to be taken as Wives (Read a longer quotation from this treatise here.)

“Hearken about the women of old; they were great characters, great women and admirable; such were Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Deborah, and Hannah; and such there were also in the days of Christ. Yet did they in no case outstrip the men, but occupied the second rank.”
Homily 13 on Ephesians (Ephesians 4:24) (Read it here.)

AUGUSTINE​

Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, 354–430

“I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?”
De Genesi ad literam (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) 9.5.9 (Read it here.)

“. . . woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?”
De Genesi ad literam Book 11.42 (Read it here.)
My article on the apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:7 is here.

“. . . the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.”
On the Trinity, 12.7.10 (Read it here.)

“Watch out that she does not twist and turn you for the worse. What difference does it make whether it is in a wife or in a mother, provided we nonetheless avoid Eve in any woman?
Letter to Laetus (Letter 243.10) (Read it here. A discussion on the letter is on page 164 here.)
A different translation of the second sentence is: “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman.”

THOMAS AQUINAS​

Doctor of the church, 13th century

“But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man . . .”
Summa Theologica, Volume 1, Question 92, Article 1, Objection 2. (Read it here.)

Aquinas agrees with the philosopher Aristotle: “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. Such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes” (On the Generation of Animals 4.2). ”
However, Aquinas adds, “… as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation.”
Summa Theologica, Vol. I, Q. 92, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 1. (Read it here.)

Aquinas speaks about two kinds of subjection for women: “One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates.”
Summa Theologica, Vol. I, Q. 92, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 2. (Read it here.)
More on Aquinas’ views on women, here.

MARTIN LUTHER​

German priest, theologian and Protestant Reformer, 16th century

“For woman seems to be a creature somewhat different from man, in that she has dissimilar members, a varied form and a mind weaker than man. Although Eve was a most excellent and beautiful creature, like unto Adam in reference to the image of God, that is with respect to righteousness, wisdom and salvation, yet she was a woman. For as the sun is more glorious than the moon, though the moon is a most glorious body, so woman, though she was a most beautiful work of God, yet she did not equal the glory of the male creature.”
Commentary on Genesis, Chapter 2, Part V, 27b. (Read it here.)

JOHN CALVIN​

French theologian, pastor, and Protestant Reformer, 1509–1564

Regarding the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to women rather than to men:
“I consider this was done by way of reproach, because they [the men] had been so tardy and sluggish to believe. And indeed, they deserve not only to have women for their teachers, but even oxen and asses. . . . Yet it pleased the Lord, by means of those weak and contemptible vessels, to give display of his power.”
Commentary on the Gospel of John (John 20) (Read it here.)

“On this account, all women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior in consequence to the superiority of the male sex.”
Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11) (Read it here.)

“. . . there is no absurdity in the same person commanding and likewise obeying when viewed in different relations. But this does not apply to the case of woman, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey; for γυναικοκρατία (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and, therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach. Accordingly, he bids them be “quiet,” that is, keep within their own rank (Il commande donc qu’elles demeurent en silence; c’est a dire, qu’elles se contiennent dedans leurs limites, et la condition de leur sexe).”
A different translation of the last line is, “He therefore commands them to remain in silence; that is, to keep within their limits and the condition of their sex.”
Commentary on Timothy, Titus and Philemon (1 Timothy 2:12) (Read it here.)
My article 1 Timothy 2:12 in a Nutshell is here.

“Now Moses shews that the woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was joined to the man on the express condition, that she should be at hand to render obedience to him. (Genesis 2:21) Since, therefore, God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid, the apostle [Paul] justly reminds us of that order of creation in which the eternal and inviolable appointment of God is strikingly displayed.”
Commentary on Timothy, Titus and Philemon (1 Timothy 2:13) (Read it here.)
My article The Significance of the Created Order, in a Nutshell, is here.

JOHN KNOX​

Scottish clergyman and Protestant Reformer, 16th century

“Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man . . .”
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. (Read it here.)

“Nature I say, paints [women] further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment [or, leadership].”
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. (Read it here.)
 
One thing I can never abide by is the smugness / pontificating of Arsefield's sorts who make a habit of pointing out xyz's sins, as if they weren't themselves breaking a rule or two here and there. Who exactly do they think they're fooling? Certainly not the biblical deity if his purported omnipotence is anything to go by, aka. you can bullshit / pull the wool over the eyes of John and Mary next door, yet never the big man himself above. Ever since the Bible itself was written - followed by catechisms - men have been breaking every single rule in the book. One need look no further than ourselves in Ireland - supposedly pious, yet the biggest bunch of chancers around, e.g. leave sincerity and earnestness to the prods, we've a get-out-of-jail-card in the confession box after all.

The reason commandments / catechisms were written down in the first place using traditional religious logic was not simply the matter concerning the sins of past generations, but the added realisation that men, every man would continue to break every rule in those books forevermore. A sin is a sin irregardless of whether you arrogantly assume xyz's wrongdoing carries ten times the weight of your own wrongdoing - it's all the same in the eyes of the one and only entity who should matter concerning your own individual salvation at the end of the day. So perhaps these bastards should be less smug and self-assured, taking a good look at themselves before a mirror in the process.

Early church missionaries converted the masses of Celtic, Mediterranean, Germanic and Slavic tribes through gentle persuasion, with a certain leeway given here and there through the incorporation of traditional pagan beliefs into early Christianity, all in the hope of spreading the faith throughout the continent. Had they taken the brash approach of loudmouth Arsefielder types they'd have been met with an axe to the head, or banishment under more fortunate circumstances. Arsefielder types really need to fuck off with themselves, be politer in their attempts at bringing others around to the (their) faith for diplomacy goes a long way after all. Yet I get the feeling these clowns are merely in it for the bragging rights / personal ego massaging as opposed to any genuine desire to spead the word amongst the so-called unconverted. Sinners with a misplaced superiority complex relative to other sinners.
 
Top Bottom