My Favourite Bible Quotes
"There is much in the BIBLE against which every instinct of my being rebels, so much that I regret the necessity which has compelled me to read it through from beginning to end. I do not think that the knowledge which I have gained of its history and sources compensates me for the unpleasant details it has forced upon my attention." Helen Keller
"De t’ings dat yo’ li’bleTo read in de BIBLE—It ain’t necessarily so." Ira Gershwin
"The BIBLE and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation." Elizabeth Cady Stanton
"Properly read, the BIBLE is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." Isaac Asimov
"If the BIBLE is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we're going?" Justin Brown
“It is not as in the BIBLE, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image.” Ludwig Feuerbach
"If all the historic books of the BIBLE were blotted from the memory of mankind, nothing of value would be lost.." Robert Ingersoll
"I read Shakespeare and the BIBLE, and I can shoot dice. That's what I call a liberal education." Tallulah Bankhead
"The BIBLE is one of the most genocidal books in history." Noam Chomsky
"We either accept weaknesses in good people or we have to tear pages out of the BIBLE." Robert Duvall
"Many of us view the BIBLE and other religious teachings as mythology." Richard King
"The BIBLE contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." Lynn Lavner
"What happens someday if more people own my record than the BIBLE? That will make me god because a lot more people believe in me than him? Because it's just about popularity. There are plenty of people in the world how have never heard of Jesus, while America takes him for granted." Marilyn Manson
"I know of no book which has been a source of brutality and sadistic conduct, both public and private, that can compare with the BIBLE." James Paget
"I got a book token for Christmas and exchanged it for a book called A History of Art, and that book (which I still have-battered and falling to pieces) became more precious to me than any BIBLE." Philip Pullman
"Suppose you went to your priest and asked for help - he would refer you to the BIBLE, but if you went the next day to your medical doctor, and he referred you to the book of Hippocrates, which was written at about the same time as the BIBLE, you would think that was old-fashioned." John Templeton
"It ain't those parts of the BIBLE that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." Mark Twain
posted by beepbeepitsme | 11:46 am
31 Comments:
Brilliant collction of quotes. But, intellectualism and its figureheads are anathema to the average, joe religion, in their unwavering support for supernaturalism. Apparently you have to engender a relationship with an imaginary being (your personal conscience) and re-define it as God speaking to you through a direct line. Extreme narcissistic behaviour perhaps?, or just pitiable self-justification.
"To deny God's existence is to deny man's nobility." (Francis Bacon) Ever heard of that quote? Maybe a bit of wisdom can enlighten your bit of stupidity. Sorry you don't know God... it's like not believing you had great-grandparents or something. Here's another 'bible quote' you could add to your wonderfully inane collection: "Only the fool saith, 'There is no God.'" Come one, man. Get with the program. Atheism is totally passe.
RE ashley:
I am sure you have favourite bible quotes. My favourites are not mentioned as evidence of the non-existence of god.
My favourites are merely mentioned to watch people like you poop your pants with indignation.
Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god -- The wise says it to the world.
Matthew 5:22 "but whoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
RE richard dawkins:
If you are really richard dawkins, I am honoured.
If you are not, well, welcome anyway. Always good to have a few visitors to the blog.
:)
Hey. I think you should stop taking the bible out of context. Matt 5:22 is a part of the beatitudes and is concerning Anger. You might have different views of the bible if you look into it a little deeper and understand who jesus was talking too. This passage is refering to saying "You Fool" to a fellow brother or sister in anger. Brother or sister as refering to another person, It has nothing to do with denying God.
Relating to your comment: if I say there is no God in my heart, then am I a fool and in danger of Hell fire? But if i say it to the world i am wise and not in Danger of hell fire? aren't you simply confirming your belief in hell, thus confirming the existance of evil and in turn the truth of a balance between good and evil? fool vs wise, good vs evil.......
I would love it if you could illustrate what you meant by the use of this passage?
Great Blog. thanks
RE kelso:
It is with never-ending fascination that when someone chooses to insult me via a bible quote, it is apparently NOT taken out of context, but when I reply with a bible quote; mine is out of context.
It seems there is one rule for believers and one for others, unless of course they don't care that their actions smack of hypocrisy.
So when I am insulted with "The fool says in his heart,"There is no God." ; I consider it more than appropriate to retaliate with: ~~ "But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Seems like a fair trade of insults if you ask me.
Thank you for your answer. I'm not angry with you at all or did i set out to insult you. i apologise. i am just interested in your use of a book you deny. isn't it hypocritical to use the bible as a tool for your argument, when you deny it's validity. You must agree that your choice of passage in reference to God, is a little misguided. You quote Mark twain in your post - "It ain't those parts of the BIBLE that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." Mark Twain. Maybe he chose to view the bible as number and passages - 2:3 or 3:16 - The bible should only be used in context ofthe entire document, and some would argue that this includes the apocrypha.
Simply taking the bible or using quotes to confirm your argument is not a good academic practice, nor is something that should be taken seriously, a good practice in to use it in context of the whole document. This is where Christians and Athiests alike have failed in reading the bible correctly. Ashley must also use scripture in the context that it was meant to be used, not simply to form an argument.
Thank you for answering my post. I think it is great for Christians to be challenged in this way, especially as we argueably are the greatest cause of disbelief in Christ in the western world.
Thanks
"Only the fool saith, 'There is no God.'"
Why not say "Only the Communist saith, 'There is no God.'" or "If thou sayest 'There is no God,' thy mother wearest army boots?"
Ipsedixitism.
Get with the program. Atheism is totally passe.
Ad populum. Apparently logic and reason are totally passe as well.
Re kelso:
"i am just interested in your use of a book you deny. isn't it hypocritical to use the bible as a tool for your argument, when you deny it's validity."
For the record, I don't deny the existence of the book, the bible.
Hence, I am able to use it as evidence either for or against itself.
And I do not deny the existence of gods, as there is nothing obvious about the existence of gods. (Either your god, or allah, or apollo, or odin etc etc)
I DO NOT BELIEVE in the existence of gods, which is an entirely different kettle of fish from denying the existence of the obvious. A book is obvious. What is written about in that book, is NOT obvious.
There is nothing obvious about the existence of Thor either. What we have are writings about Thor. We also have writings about "The Ninja Turtles".
Neither writings about "The Ninja Turtles" or writings about Thor or Papa Smurf mean that any of them exist in any real sense except as the imaginings of the human mind.
And of course, I also don't believe in the existence of all the egyptian gods which are written about on thousands of papyrus scrolls.
I know that THEY believed, as the written record of their egyptian history gives me a glimpse into their belief systems.
And the written record of christian history also gives me a glimpse into the belief system of christians.
But I don't believe in the existence of Ra, Re, AmenRa, or any of the other gods they wrote about, and neither do you.
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
--Stephen F Roberts
RE arthur:
The majority of people I know who are atheists are capitalists. This doesn't mean that ALL atheists are capitalists, but it certainly doesn't mean that ALL atheists are communists either.
I also doesn't mean that I am employing the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity. But there is a false perception that atheist = communist.
The "all communists are atheists" is a propaganda conflation which is popular in Western culture.
It is the conflation of 2 separate, discrete terms, in an attempt to make them appear analogous.
I can't imagine the richest man alive, Bill Gates, who is also an atheist, being a communist.
An atheist is merely someone who lacks a belief in gods, it has nothing to do with the lack of belief in an economic system.
Beepbeep: my comments were directed to Ashley.
RE arthur:
Oooops..
Hi Beep,
Re: "quoting the Bible out of context" - usually the people who pick you up for this little double standard are the same racist kooks who love to quote the Qu'ran out of context just so they can demonstrate how "bloodthirsty" Islam is compared to Christianity.
Then they go nuts if you quote from Deuteronomy.
Not that I'm necessarily saying that Kelso falls into that category...
Islam isn't a race...
RE the troll:
No one said that islam was a race.
Claiming that racist kooks use the quran as negative propaganda against muslims, is not stating that islam is a race.
Why call them racist, then?
RE the troll:
Ask dikki, he made the comment.
My guess would be because many people see "muslims" AS other races.
They see all muslims as arabs, asians or africans. If they are racist towards these groups, they conflate their hatred of these groups with their hatred of islam.
Beep wrote:
They see all muslims as arabs, asians or africans. If they are racist towards these groups, they conflate their hatred of these groups with their hatred of islam.
Pretty much how I would answer that.
If most muslims were blond-haired and blue-eyed, there would be a lot less ignorance about Islam in the Western world, thats for sure.
One of my mates contends that the key reason that the USA always takes Israel's side is, not because Jewish-Americans make up a large voting bloc, but because the vast majority of Israelis are ethnically European.
I'm not prepared to go this far myself, but it is food for thought.
"One of my mates contends that the key reason that the USA always takes Israel's side is, not because Jewish-Americans make up a large voting bloc, but because the vast majority of Israelis are ethnically European."
If this is the case, then can you please explain why the US has also agreed to take Taiwan's side if it was invaded by China?
RE jeff:
I don't think anyone claimed that it was the ONLY reason.
Jeff wrote:
If this is the case, then can you please explain why the US has also agreed to take Taiwan's side if it was invaded by China?
...and the relevance of this comment is what, exactly?
Taiwan isn't a European country, nor are the majority of it's inhabitants European. Can we say that your theory has now been completely debunked? Hmmmmm?
RE jeff: Stop pretending that ethnocentricism, zenophobia, and racism were the only reasons given.
Your response is straight out of the handbook for trolls. You wish to imply that recognising ethnic similarities was the only reason given for preferential treatment.
Jeff wrote:
Taiwan isn't a European country, nor are the majority of it's inhabitants European. Can we say that your theory has now been completely debunked? Hmmmmm?
Yes, Jeff, you're right. The Middle East and East Asia are totally similar. I never could tell apart someone of Chinese extraction from someone who's Lebanese. By crikey, I never even knew that Taiwan was Jewish like Israel and that China was Christian/Muslim just like Lebanon. I certainly never knew that Lebanon has a territorial claim over Israel. In fact, stick a cricket bat up my arse and call me the Paddle Pop Lion, but I never knew that Taiwan was created by post-World War II partitioning of China by Britain, who also appear to have colonised vast swathes of China, too and not just Hong Kong.
You've debunked "me" good and proper, Jeff (even though I also wrote, "I'm not prepared to go this far myself"). I'm so glad you put me straight on my general knowledge and history.
It's good to know there are sources of information like you out there, Jeff. Without you, I can't imagine what life would be like.
It was the only reason given! lol
Jeff, like many believers, has a problem with comprehension. It was the only reason given, but nowhere in the reason was it presumed that it was the ONLY reason.
The wording was this, jeff. (Now let's see how good your comprehension skills are.)
Dikki's comment > "One of my mates contends that the key reason that the USA always takes Israel's side is, not because Jewish-Americans make up a large voting bloc, but because the vast majority of Israelis are ethnically European.
I'm not prepared to go this far myself, but it is food for thought."
Now read it again jeff. Does it say that it is ONLY reason?
No.
It says that it might be a key reason. But specifically in the case in point it might be a key reason. It doesn't say that EVERY case would have the same key reason. Nor does it say that other cases would have a key reason.
What was being discussed was the possible reasons specifically for the US's support of Israel. Nowhere was it assumed, presumed or asserted that the reasons would be identical in each case where the US picks a side to support.
Instead of throwing in the red herring of Taiwan, you should have been prepared to discuss the comment on its own merit.
Beep,
There's no point bothering with regards to Jeff.
His reading and comprehension is clearly far superior to ours.
I'm sure that his personal hygiene is above reproach as well.
Don't be bitter, Dikki! Be better!
Now, let's see if I can debunk your 'theory' a little further. Hmmm, ah yes! The US also supports South Korea from their North Korean android cousins.
This is fun! I love debunking silly theories......
RE the troll:
Tsk tsk. You mean after all this time trolling this site, you still haven't learnt what a strawman argument is?
lol...and that last post of yours is otherwise known as a Red Herring! :)
RE the troll:
You still want to pretend that the comment concerning support in the case of Israel was meant to translate to every country that the US supports.
You are trying to turn a specific comment into an absolute. One of the major giveaways for "trollism",
to misrepresent a specific and to pretend that the person meant "in all instances."
But seriously, jeffie, I am beginning to think that you are not smart enough to know when you make logical fallacies.
Strawman Argument:
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
You continue to misrepresent Dikki's position and his comment concerning US support. Therefore you are engaging in the logical fallacy called a strawman argument.
Like many theists, you have a habit of profecting your own flaws and faults onto others, because in the act of conducting your own red herring, you have failed in refuting the opponent's actual argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home