Reading the bible: please help!

[vulcanlogician]

The OP is a liar and a fool. He has no interest in receiving any kind of explanation of how to approach biblical texts. And he's a jag-off too, like the others on this thread who would rather mock than engage in rational discussion.

There is a time and place for mockery. The OP seems to occupy the correct space/time coordinates to be deemed appropriate. 

But I'm curious about what kind of rational discussion can be had about those verses. Seriously. They make little sense to me as ultimate truth. By all outward appearances they are the barbaric/ignorant utterings of an ancient tribal culture. In that context, the verses make sense. In the context of being part of the Holy and Eternal word of benevolent supreme being, the creator of the majestic universe and its natural laws, they seem incoherent.

So that's my rational assessment of the OP's contents. Care to explain what I'm not getting?

[ignoramus]

VC, where ya been! You abandoned your post over the weekend just when I needed a wingman! lol

Yeah, I know, that pesky inconvenient thing called "life" got in the way I bet!

[Minimalist]

The shitheads probably think their bullshit is so superior to the Egyptian creation myth.

At first there was only Nun, the primal ocean of chaos that contained the beginnings of everything to come.
From these waters came Ra who, by himself, gave birth to Shu and Tefnut. 
Shu, the god of air, and Tefnut, the goddess of moisture gave birth to Geb and Nut, the earth god and the sky goddess. And so the physical universe was created. 
Men were created from Ra's tears. They proved to be ungrateful so Ra, and a council of gods, decided they should be destroyed. 
Hathor was dispatched to do the job. She was very efficient and slaughtered all but one remnant, when Ra relented and called her off. Thus was the present world created. 

It isn't.  It's the same stupid shit.

[Succubus]

The OP is a liar and a fool. He has no interest in receiving any kind of explanation of how to approach biblical texts.

You're right he's just a spiteful nasty bastard who hates God.
And all of the supposed conundrums he presents can be easily explained if he would just listen to the wisdom amply provided by the likes of you. Ingrate is wot they is.
Just look at this one piece advice as to how one should lead a good and decent sinful life.

You can kill a woman if she seizes a man's private parts without his permission: Deuteronomy 25:11-1: If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

I'm sure there's a perfectly clear explanation as to why those who lack a through understanding of scripture and are deeply confounded with the above utterly mind blowingly awesomely inanity of that passage.
No doubt you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for this?
Shirley you can help me out here?

And he's a jag-off too, like the others on this thread who would rather mock than engage in rational discussion.

He almost certainly is. Research indicates that 98% of the population stroke the pole/roughs up the clam, and the other 2% are lying bastards.

biblical texts.

18:25 And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines

A hundred foreskins! Me and my imagination with the help of Ann Hathaway have rubbed off thousand of the bastards.  Where I am I going wrong?
Please advise soonest

[The Grand Nudger]

[ignoramus]

^^



I shouldn't laugh (good to know I'm not alone in my thinking!)
If the smart people here think it's all bullshit, maybe there's something to it

[Neo-Scholastic]

The OP is a liar and a fool. He has no interest in receiving any kind of explanation of how to approach biblical texts. And he's a jag-off too, like the others on this thread who would rather mock than engage in rational discussion.

That's a pretty strong retort. Just pissed off or drunk and pissed off?

Mostly, drunk. But seriously, how can you read the OP any other way than disrespectful and disingenuous? These kinds of "please explain so I can just argue against you" posts fall into the category of general douchebaggery.

[Edwardo Piet]

The OP is a liar and a fool. He has no interest in receiving any kind of explanation of how to approach biblical texts. And he's a jag-off too, like the others on this thread who would rather mock than engage in rational discussion.

An uninspired, dusty, old, self-contradictory magic book cobbled together by goat herders suffering from acute psychosis that features nothing less than talking snakes, a hippy zombie that gets nailed to a piece of wood, and an invisible genocidal maniac sitting on a cloud wanting nothing but stoned homosexuals... doesn't deserve a rational discussion.

---

That's a pretty strong retort. Just pissed off or drunk and pissed off?

Mostly, drunk. But seriously, how can you read the OP any other way than disrespectful and disingenuous? These kinds of "please explain so I can just argue against you" posts fall into the category of general douchebaggery.

LOL like that book needs respect. It's literally the most poisonous book ever written in the history of humanity.

[Minimalist]

The OP gives it exactly what it deserves.  Do try to remember that most of us think it is a pile of ancient shit.

[Neo-Scholastic]

But I'm curious about what kind of rational discussion can be had about those verses. Seriously. They make little sense to me. By all outward appearances they are the barbaric/ignorant utterings of an ancient tribal culture. In that context, the verses make sense. In the context of being part of the Holy and Eternal word of benevolent supreme being, the creator of the majestic universe and its natural laws, they seem incoherent...So that's my rational assessment of the OP's contents. Care to explain what I'm not getting?

This reply is for Vulcanlogic only since he seems serious and respectful...the rest of you can go fuck yourselves.

Yes, vulcanlogic, you are exactly right or at least partially. A plain wooden reading of the text seems confusing to people living in 21st century post-industrial liberal democracies. The underlying assumption of your question is that any Divine text should be clearly understood across all epochs, by anyone regardless of culture, language, or education level. Why make the assumption that Holy Writ must be crystal clear, as opposed to the position of the Scholastics, who considered it a virtue that Holy Script could operated on multiple levels? It is able to instruct common people with parables and stories taken at face value and reward the deep study of highly educated scholars or contemplatively meditating on a single passage.

The idea that sundry ordinances can have direct application to a an nomadic people and still provide profound insights to open-minded modern thinkers seems to me quite remarkable. Even the bible itself admits its own obscurity when Paul says that for now we see through a glass darkly. The point is that God speaks to us where we are and His word is there waiting for us when we are ready to receive it. A 12-year old can get something out of the story of Daniel in the Lions Den or the parable of the wise man building his house on stone; whereas Revelation only truly opens up for those already intimately familiar with biblical symbols and allusions. Somedays all I can handle are the most basic admonitions from the Pauline letters from the NIV. Other days, I lock myself in the study with an NASB translation, concordance at hand, surrounded by reference books about things like ancient Hebrew customs.

If some joker's only intention is to find things in Scripture to mock, there is no shortage of material. But that says more about the intentions and character of the reader than the text itself.