The Counter Scripture Project

[airportkid]

From time to time a devout religionist tosses scripture into these threads, often like a grenade, with the expectation that it will strike atheists as an explosive revelation, changing our minds, knocking us into kneeling worship, and otherwise shaking our world into submission.

It never works as expected, but the religionists never tire of it.

What's needed is a Counter Scripture.  Every verse or passage flung into these threads should be immediately met with a devastating counter scripture that doesn't merely rebut it, but wholly eclipses it in every dimension of its meaning, with poetry, pith, essay, literature, film and theater from sources from across history.  If the scriptural intent is in fact positive, the Counter Scripture makes the point with superior art, form, science and arresting exposition, making the scripture pale and listless by comparison.

If the scriptural intent is incorrect, inhumane, dishonest or ignorant to the point of being wrong, the Counter Scripture displaces it with citations from literature, science and the arts.

The Compendium of Counter Scripture need not respond to every verse in classic scripture.  The KJV is not quite 800,000 words and 31,000 verses, but the verses cited 98% of the time amount to only a few hundred.  Nobody cites "And Jeohasius begat Aileena".  There're multiple web sites that rank verses by frequency of citation, so building Counter Scripture to them need not consume 100 lifetimes.

I think a Counter Scripture is long overdue, given the frequency of scriptural citation in many contexts of school, entertainment, politics and portions of law enforcement.

Any interest out there in joining me in putting a project like this into being?

[Minimalist]

Seems like a lot of work.

We already know its a pile of shit and the morons will never believe you.

[brewerb]

Can't I just point and laugh?

[Bucky Ball]

Seems like a lot of work.

We already know its a pile of shit and the morons will never believe you.

It would be a lot of work. But I agree it's needed.

Ever since Min posted the Haaretz article on how recent the Pentateuch was written/assembled, I've been looking at more recent research.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/what-matte...f-judaism/
There's an interesting guy with some work he did on how he thinks it was actually assembled "more recently" and what that was based on. I'll just post a link to him (he thinks it was "put together" by "the seventy" Jews in Alexandria, based on a book he found by Berosus, who wrote a work remarkably similar to Genesis, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Berosus
as discussed by Russell Gmirkin.


See what you think.

[Phaedrus]

Counter-scripturing, a.k.a., scriptural contradiction, is not perceived as inconsistency for the believer.

I have always found it best to not get sucked into their world of make-believe, but instead to refer to their nonsense for precisely what it is.

[Thethingaboutitis]

Any counter would be dismissed by the theist on the grounds of context or exact intent.

"You're taking that verse out of context."
"That's allegorical."

And so on.

[Gwaithmir]

This one usually stops the Jehovah's Witnesses in their tracks:

"And they shall stand in despair before the white cliffs of the world, and shall chant from their empty tomes in vain, for their words are nothing! And Erú shall prevail against His enemies, and they shall be cast into the Void, for their enchantments are naught and their gods are helpless before Him." (The Silmarillion, 17:82) 

[Jarsa]

I'm down to make this thing but I don't really know where to start. Any ideas that you have in mind?

[airportkid]

Any ideas that you have in mind?

Just roughly - top of the heap would be a quote or paragraph from literature, film, art or a scientific study that either makes the scripture trite, inane, bland by comparison; or refutes it utterly and obviously.  It'd serve as instant riposte.

But the heap wouldn't end there - for each passage of scripture there'd be additional excerpts to bury the scripture as pointless against more contemporary expressions of the "gist".

Applied relentlessly at every instance of cited scripture (which would take some years to reach), the scripture quoters would ultimately recognize that their "product" is flat and without appeal against the counter-scripture.

The idea isn't so much to disparage scripture as to replace it with all the more contemporary knowledge that SHOULD replace it.

[Dancefortwo]

I thought this thread was going to be the opposite of stuff in the Bible.  Like Leviticus 20:13

“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act   have committed an act of love. They must be  put to death,  happily married for life,  for they are   guilty of a capital offense  not hurting anyone else and it's nobody's damned business to begin with.  

[Bucky Ball]

I thought this thread was going to be the opposite of stuff in the Bible.  Like Leviticus 20:13

“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act   have committed an act of love. They must be  put to death,  happily married for life,  for they are   guilty of a capital offense  not hurting anyone else and it's nobody's damned business to begin with.  

Whoever translated that word as "homosexuality" made a foundational error.
Yes, same-sex behaviors (some anyway) were forbidden, but the *word* and concept ("homosexuality") did not exist until the mid-eighteen century, and we know when that happened. "Sexual orientation" did not arise in the history of human ideas until the SCIENCE of Sociology began to study the subject.

"Etymology. Borrowed from German homosexual, from homo- (“same”) + sexual (“relating to sex or sexuality”), coined by Karl Maria Kertbeny in 1868, and popularized in Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis (2nd ed.)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homosexua...0(2nd%20ed.

Also ... speaking of Bible texts, Yonaton Adler Israeli archaeologist, in one of his recent articles says that the widespread practice of Judaism has no evidence until the second century BCE.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/what-matte...f-judaism/

The whole ball of wax has to be rethought.

[adey67]

I'm not smart enough to be of any use but it's a good idea although a rather time consuming one.

[Thethingaboutitis]

I'm not smart enough to be of any use but it's a good idea although a rather time consuming one.

I wouldn't say that you're not smart. Time consuming I'd agree with.

Saying that, it depends upon how much time you've got to squander.

I get a fair bit of time to waste, even though I work full time.

[Chas]

From time to time a devout religionist tosses scripture into these threads, often like a grenade, with the expectation that it will strike atheists as an explosive revelation, changing our minds, knocking us into kneeling worship, and otherwise shaking our world into submission.

It never works as expected, but the religionists never tire of it.

What's needed is a Counter Scripture.  Every verse or passage flung into these threads should be immediately met with a devastating counter scripture that doesn't merely rebut it, but wholly eclipses it in every dimension of its meaning, with poetry, pith, essay, literature, film and theater from sources from across history.  If the scriptural intent is in fact positive, the Counter Scripture makes the point with superior art, form, science and arresting exposition, making the scripture pale and listless by comparison.

If the scriptural intent is incorrect, inhumane, dishonest or ignorant to the point of being wrong, the Counter Scripture displaces it with citations from literature, science and the arts.

The Compendium of Counter Scripture need not respond to every verse in classic scripture.  The KJV is not quite 800,000 words and 31,000 verses, but the verses cited 98% of the time amount to only a few hundred.  Nobody cites "And Jeohasius begat Aileena".  There're multiple web sites that rank verses by frequency of citation, so building Counter Scripture to them need not consume 100 lifetimes.

I think a Counter Scripture is long overdue, given the frequency of scriptural citation in many contexts of school, entertainment, politics and portions of law enforcement.

Any interest out there in joining me in putting a project like this into being?

It's far more important for the Forum Lords to implement the Irony and Sarcasm fonts. 

[Chas]

I thought this thread was going to be the opposite of stuff in the Bible.  Like Leviticus 20:13

“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act   have committed an act of love. They must be  put to death,  happily married for life,  for they are   guilty of a capital offense  not hurting anyone else and it's nobody's damned business to begin with.  

Aphorisms 3:22 of the New International Version?

[airportkid]

The most cited verse in the KJV is John 3:16.  Here it is, with the first riposte to it from the Counter Scripture Project:


For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Is that the same love he had for the 6 million Jews exterminated by the Nazis?

Is that the same love he has for the millions of children killed every year by starvation?

Is that the same love he has for the millions of children born every year killed by fatal deformities, often after years of relentless torture trying to survive?

 
What’s most obscene about this verse being the most popular verse of all the verses in a book generally proffered as “the” guidebook for humanitarian decency is its crass, narrow selfishness.  As an inspiration to live nobly, generously, commpasionately it is dead and vacant; its sole trivial concern is with living forever, and doing so with no effort.

One would expect the most popular verse to voice an aspiration to end misery, end human strife and affliction, advance prosperity, safety and happy demeanor globally.  But no, the most popular verse celebrates someone else’s torture suffered in order to personally escape death and live forever.  It’s an obscenity beyond all other obscenities.

There are several other things amiss with the verse, but this is enough to start.
 

[Full Circle]

From time to time a devout religionist tosses scripture into these threads, often like a grenade, with the expectation that it will strike atheists as an explosive revelation, changing our minds, knocking us into kneeling worship, and otherwise shaking our world into submission.

It never works as expected, but the religionists never tire of it.

What's needed is a Counter Scripture.  Every verse or passage flung into these threads should be immediately met with a devastating counter scripture that doesn't merely rebut it, but wholly eclipses it in every dimension of its meaning, with poetry, pith, essay, literature, film and theater from sources from across history.  If the scriptural intent is in fact positive, the Counter Scripture makes the point with superior art, form, science and arresting exposition, making the scripture pale and listless by comparison.

If the scriptural intent is incorrect, inhumane, dishonest or ignorant to the point of being wrong, the Counter Scripture displaces it with citations from literature, science and the arts.

The Compendium of Counter Scripture need not respond to every verse in classic scripture.  The KJV is not quite 800,000 words and 31,000 verses, but the verses cited 98% of the time amount to only a few hundred.  Nobody cites "And Jeohasius begat Aileena".  There're multiple web sites that rank verses by frequency of citation, so building Counter Scripture to them need not consume 100 lifetimes.

I think a Counter Scripture is long overdue, given the frequency of scriptural citation in many contexts of school, entertainment, politics and portions of law enforcement.

Any interest out there in joining me in putting a project like this into being?

Maybe you post one of those 100 verses and let the hive-mind respond to it? Then on to the next one.

[airportkid]

The second most cited verse is John 1:1, with a proposed Counter Scripture Project riposte:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So anything said about the Word has to be superfluous.

Otherwise all the trillions of words said across centuries that expound, enlarge upon, emphasize and comment on the Word must be superior to the Word, since they were deemed necessary to reinforce a Word that was found inadequate (imperfect) by itself.

If God is perfect so too must the Word be perfect; the most perfect expression of the sense of the Word, for every dialect, every age, every culture for all time.  Anyone saying anything about the Word is making themselves superior to a perfect God, whose word was and is perfect already.

This is borne out by the fact that all the trillions of words said about the Word perfectly agree, don't themselves raise questions, embody contradictions, are always crystal clear and are understood exactly the same.  They're superfluous.  Right?

[Dancefortwo]

Genesis 1:3  

"And God said, "Let there be light".  

So who was he talking to here?  Adam and Eve hadn't been created yet.  Was this god just muttering to himself?  Why would he mutter to himself and why would an all powerful god need to actually say the words - "Let there be light" when he could just think it? 

Who recorded this pronouncement?  How does anyone know what he said and if he acutally said this?   

Silliest things are in the bible.

[Thethingaboutitis]

Genesis 1:3  

"And God said, "Let there be light".  

So who was he talking to here?  Adam and Eve hadn't been created yet.  Was this god just muttering to himself?  Why would he mutter to himself and why would an all powerful god need to actually say the words - "Let there be light" when he could just think it? 

Who recorded this pronouncement?  How does anyone know what he said and if he acutally said this?   

Silliest things are in the bible.

He gets to the Bible eventually 
https://youtu.be/S_hnHSdh2Hw?feature=shared

[pythagorean]

I'm down to make this thing but I don't really know where to start. Any ideas that you have in mind?

It could backfire if they chose the proper quote.

They might respond with anthropological/historical arguments to back up their quote.

I'd be particularly wary of trying it with quotes on welcoming the stranger and the treatment of refugees, for example.

[pythagorean]

[quote="airportkid" pid='408784' dateline='1696568291']

It's far more important for the Forum Lords to implement the Irony and Sarcasm fonts. 

Even more important is the need for more devil smilies.



Does anybody know of any Bible Quotes in support of cattle rustling? ("Thou shalt steal thy neighbor's cattle.")

If somebody finds one, I'm going to start with that one.

I've developed an interest in the theology of cattle rustling. (I even have Juan Tumba's rap sheet from the 1700s.)

HACIENDA DE CHALGUAYACO EKLIPSE DE LUNA video oficial

EKLIPSE DE LUNA presenta este sencillo homenaje a las comunidades de Galindez y el Pilón cauca , gente trabajadora y emprendedora.

Agradecimientos muy especiales  al señor rector JOSE ALIRIO IBARRA GONZALES , a la profesora corrida LOLA GRUESO  y a su grupo de estudiantes de la institución educativa DOS RÍOS.

[Bucky Ball]

The second most cited verse is John 1:1, with a proposed Counter Scripture Project riposte:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So anything said about the Word has to be superfluous.

Otherwise all the trillions of words said across centuries that expound, enlarge upon, emphasize and comment on the Word must be superior to the Word, since they were deemed necessary to reinforce a Word that was found inadequate (imperfect) by itself.

If God is perfect so too must the Word be perfect; the most perfect expression of the sense of the Word, for every dialect, every age, every culture for all time.  Anyone saying anything about the Word is making themselves superior to a perfect God, whose word was and is perfect already.

This is borne out by the fact that all the trillions of words said about the Word perfectly agree, don't themselves raise questions, embody contradictions, are always crystal clear and are understood exactly the same.  They're superfluous.  Right?

That quote is straight from a Gnostic writer, as also are the lines that follow. I think it's also a direct quote from Philo of Alexandria, an early Jewish Gnostic, the writer imported for that gospel.
John is all about Gnosticism.

[Dancefortwo]

From time to time a devout religionist tosses scripture into these threads, often like a grenade, with the expectation that it will strike atheists as an explosive revelation, changing our minds, knocking us into kneeling worship, and otherwise shaking our world into submission.

It never works as expected, but the religionists never tire of it.

What's needed is a Counter Scripture.  Every verse or passage flung into these threads should be immediately met with a devastating counter scripture that doesn't merely rebut it, but wholly eclipses it in every dimension of its meaning, with poetry, pith, essay, literature, film and theater from sources from across history.  If the scriptural intent is in fact positive, the Counter Scripture makes the point with superior art, form, science and arresting exposition, making the scripture pale and listless by comparison.

If the scriptural intent is incorrect, inhumane, dishonest or ignorant to the point of being wrong, the Counter Scripture displaces it with citations from literature, science and the arts.

The Compendium of Counter Scripture need not respond to every verse in classic scripture.  The KJV is not quite 800,000 words and 31,000 verses, but the verses cited 98% of the time amount to only a few hundred.  Nobody cites "And Jeohasius begat Aileena".  There're multiple web sites that rank verses by frequency of citation, so building Counter Scripture to them need not consume 100 lifetimes.

I think a Counter Scripture is long overdue, given the frequency of scriptural citation in many contexts of school, entertainment, politics and portions of law enforcement.

Any interest out there in joining me in putting a project like this into being?

Half of the Book of Daniel is historically wrong.  Is this what you mean?

So in the Book of Daniel the writer claims that that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but the Nabonidus Cylinder found in Ur names Nabonidus as Belshazzar’s actual father.



There are so many historical problems with the Book of Daniel, it's unreal.

[Minimalist]

"But....but....but....it is Holy Horseshit.  It can't be WRONG.  So all of history must be wrong," said every religitard, ever!