I'm reminded of just how undude the christian god is...

[Hominid]

With Pulp Fiction coming out on Blu-Ray, I was put in mind of Sam Jackson's famous bible quote:

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.

Now, it's a kind of a misquote, but its essence still displays the angry, vengeful, jealous god of the bible. Not meaning to offend anyone, but it's just SO undude to go around wiping out entire cities just because they won't worship you, women and children included.   

So undude... hard to believe such a religion ever got off the ground.

Now Dudeism - that's one positive way of living one's life! 

[BikerDude]

Old testament God is that.
Not that I find any of it very righteous.
But the old testament is full of such vitriol.
It also by they way advocates slavery, genocide, infanticide and a host of other atrocities.
Not a worthy scripture by any measure.

http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm

[Hominid]

Old testament God is that.
Not that I find any of it very righteous.
But the old testament is full of such vitriol.
It also by they way advocates slavery, genocide, infanticide and a host of other atrocities.
Not a worthy scripture by any measure.

http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm

Good contribution BD.  You seen Zeitgeist?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie

[Ninjabob27]

    I don't think He's saying he'll strike you down for not believing in this famous verse. He's saying he'll strike down those who attempt to "poison and destroy" His brothers. That's defending loved ones. Of course, blowing these aggressors off the face of the Earth is very un-dude. Hence, I don't take much of anything from the Bible (old and new testaments) to be factual. I figure it was written by the corruptible scum-bags known as humans, and since, at the time, religion was growing mainly through the powers of fear and control, they really wanted God to be a badass overlord who would fuck you up if you crossed Him.     
   
    Sure, He's got the power to level cities and generally fuck up your day like a human paraquat, but I don't think He'd go annihilating folks willy-nilly. The church says over and over how He's a God of Love, not hate. That being said, when I see passages about Him getting furious over little stuff, I don't buy it for a second.
 
   I've always considered God to be a Dude. But that's just my opinion, man.

[meekon5]

Bible was word of mouth for a long time, and you know what happens to stories as they are told from one person to another.

There was a cartoon edition of certain books from the bible (old testament), it had to have an x-rating because it was so violent and full of sex.

[Dirty Hippie]

Well Dudes, man created god to control other men. Chazz Palminteri says fear lasts longer than love. There ya go.

[Hominid]

Sure, He's got the power to level cities and generally fuck up your day like a human paraquat, but I don't think He'd go annihilating folks willy-nilly. The church says over and over how He's a God of Love, not hate.

No, he doesn't annihilate willy nilly - only those who aren't his chosen ones! (anyone other than the tribe of Isreal). How's that for hate! The church can say what they want to sugar-coat the message, but the source itself is quite clear about god's nature. Like you, I don't buy it. I'm just puzzled over people that DO buy it. Or, they ignore the facts, plugging their ears with their fingers, singing "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so..."

[Ninjabob27]

@ Hominid: I agree that the followers puzzle me. To just say, "Everything from this book is fact and anybody who says otherwise is under the influence of Satan!" I'm actually quite terrified of that level of blind loyalty. They always perceive God as being so... I dunno... Angry! I think they toned Him down in the New Testament though, like having a kid mellowed Him out or something. (Not that I buy anything from either book)

    My own personal experiences and intuition tell me that God probably never wrote a single commandment. He just wants us to get along without fucking each other up. He's a Dude. He doesn't have to intervene in every action of the universe because He designed it to run by itself (seriously, look at the genius of the Water Cycle! The thing runs constantly without God having to do shit!). He's not going to Command me to do anything. He'll just give me a nudge in the right direction then leave it up me to me to carry on or not. God is a Dude, y'all. IMHO

[Hominid]

That nudging comes from inside you dude.  The water cycle, DNA, all that amazing shit, we're all part of it. Like NDW says - god is the ocean, we are the waves...

[Hominid]

Another note to this stream of thought:
I've lost track of the number of people I've helped get out of their own skin, embrace their paradigm shift, and drop religion like it's a disease. All over a bottle of rum, of course...

[Hominid]

Bible was word of mouth for a long time, and you know what happens to stories as they are told from one person to another.

There was a cartoon edition of certain books from the bible (old testament), it had to have an x-rating because it was so violent and full of sex.

Actually the scriptures were verbal and written down. Each word counted and a single animal hair placed in-between line per line. The last chapter in the book of revelation states do not add nor take away from this book (this includes the entire Bible for the record). God fearing scholars wrote the book, and so if they want to feel God's wrath don't mess up. Everyone is entitled to their opinions for or against God. That's your roll this is only my opinion, and I respect my compeers opinions. As I have said "Be right, or be wrong" cause in the end it will be too late. The Dude Abide. Peace.

~thinkingdude

---Start of flame---

Fuck man, you're pushing your christian shit again.  You are DEAD wrong on the following counts:

1) Stating that the passage from the book of revelations is referring to the entire bible is SO flawed, simply because the bible didn't exist when revelations was written.

2) God fearing scholars wrote it... how do YOU know? Were you around when these men wrote it? And, they DID mess up, because when they decided what books to include in the bible, they tossed out many ones that contradicted their idea of what should make up "christianity". It's well documented.

3) If it's just your "opinion", why do you present it as truth? Who says god's wrath will come on those who add or take away from the bible? Oh right - the BIBLE does. You're the only one here (that I know of) that takes that to be the highest authority, and the final answer.  Well dude, you haven't performed your due diligence, because christianity as a belief system is full of holes, contradictions, and non-truths.  Need I start naming them for you?  Got all day?

My main point here is you insult us over and over with your christian drivel. Perhaps another hobby horse would stop you from being holier than thou...

---End of flame---

Just take'r easy man, and be a little more dude-like. Catch ya later on down the trail...

[BikerDude]

As I have said "Be right, or be wrong" cause in the end it will be too late. The Dude Abide. Peace.

~thinkingdude

Meaning what? Eternal Hell fire for not believing in the right "God"?
How dare you or anyone else hope or suggest that I or anyone else should suffer eternal torture because of not sharing a set of beliefs.

[BikerDude]

Sounds very familiar...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_PfBuyR6E&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTUon6st8N0&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Ii_D3uDDY&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheThinkingAtheist#p/u/4/1Rwioe1SGkQ

[BikerDude]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM&feature=fvwrel

[meekon5]

Actually the scriptures were verbal and written down. Each word counted and a single animal hair placed in-between line per line. The last chapter in the book of revelation states do not add nor take away from this book (this includes the entire Bible for the record). God fearing scholars wrote the book, and so if they want to feel God's wrath don't mess up. Everyone is entitled to their opinions for or against God. That's your roll this is only my opinion, and I respect my compeers opinions. As I have said "Be right, or be wrong" cause in the end it will be too late. The Dude Abide. Peace.

This is something I referenced in my dissertation, which was actually about manipulations and amendments to the bible (the first quote is based on information published in Encarta, the proper accademic reference is:  "Bible," Microsoft Encarta 96 Encyclopedia. 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.)

Peshitta, Old Latin, Vulgate, and Targums

Other versions of the bible  include the Peshitta, or Syriac, begun perhaps as early as the 1st century CE; the Old Latin, translated not from the Hebrew but from the Septuagint in the 2nd century; and the Vulgate, translated from the Hebrew into Latin by St. Jerome at the end of the 4th century CE.
Also to be considered with the versions are the Aramaic Targums. In Judaism, when Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the language of everyday life, translations became necessary, first accompanying the oral reading of Scriptures in the synagogue and later set down in writing. The Targums were not literal translations, but rather paraphrases or interpretations of the original. The two major Targums are those that originated in Palestine and those that were revised in Babylon. Recently a complete manuscript of the Palestinian Targum has come to light?Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. The best-known Babylonian Targums are Onkelos for the Pentateuch and Jonathan for the Prophets. The versions often are good, sometimes even the best, witnesses to the original text. Moreover, they are important as evidence for the history of thought among the communities that took the Bible seriously

Anyone of any academic background or reasonably informed is aware there were many versions of the bible, as there were many versions of christianity. From the Vandals following Arianism, to the Coptics that we get the Dead sea scrolls and much of the Nag Hamadi Libraries from.

The Nag Hamadi Library is in itself interesting because it includes parts of (amongst other things) the gospel according to Mary Magdalene, the gospel according to Thomas The Doubter, and fragments of writings  by Judas.

In fact the current "accepted" version of the bible was not distilled until the fourth century CE (current Era):

The Latin Bible's official form was the Vulgate of St. Jerome, close to the Septuagint; the Vulgate's list and order were the canon of the Western Church.

Saint Jerome, also called by the Latin name Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus, 340?-420? CE, a Latin scholar who is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin, the Vulgate the first authentic Latin translation of the Bible from Hebrew. . The ecumenical Council of Trent recognised the authenticity of the translation, which was used extensively by the Roman Catholic church for many centuries. The Latin edition or translation of the Bible made by Saint Jerome at the end of the fourth century CE, is now used in a revised form as the Roman Catholic authorised version.

Please note that this is only the Latin version used by the catholics.

Then there is the discrepancy in the number of "books" of the old testament between the versions, all three versions the jewish, the catholic, and the protestant contain varying numbers of books, improbable if "The last chapter in the book of revelation states do not add nor take away from this book" is true, because someone obviously has.

Also there is the question of:

Apocrypha
The 14 books of the Septuagint included in the Vulgate but considered uncanonical by Protestants because they are not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Roman Catholic canon accepts 11 of these books and includes them in the Douay Bible. Various early Christian writings proposed as additions to the New Testament but rejected by the major canons. Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity. [Middle English apocripha, not authentic, from Late Latin Apocrypha, the Apocrypha, from Greek Apokrupha, neuter pl. of apokruphos, secret, hidden, from apokruptein, to hide away : apo-, apo- + kruptein, kruph-, to hide.]

Apocrypha, in biblical literature, are works outside an accepted canon or scripture   At the Reformation, the English Protestants considered only those books appearing in the Masora canonical; the others, regarded as suitable for instruction but not necessarily inspired, were placed by translators of the Authorised Version (AV) in an appendix to the Old Testament, the Apocrypha.

The first part in italics is a quote from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.

The reason I have included the heavy academic references is to show this is not just my opinion, but published historical fact.

The commonly accepted English version (realise that by the time the Bible is being translated into English it has already been Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin, in parts) The King James the 1st version has in itself some dubious translations of original text.
Even the King James version (commissioned in 1604, completed in 1611) underwent extensive revisions, the most notable being the English Revised Version (1881-85).

King James himself insisted on being very involved in the translation, and the choosing of "appropriate" text in areas of doubt, e.g. 'prove' being used for 'test' rather than demonstrate, some of the animals mentioned in the Leviticus dietary proscription are not translated correctly, they simply did not exist in the area.  The classic example being his inclusion of the phrase in Exodus 22:18, which in the King James I Bible is translated "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Concentrating on the word witch, the Hebrew word is KShPh ('kashaph').   It only occurs in two verses in the Torah, Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:10.  Its exact meaning in biblical Hebrew is uncertain, as is that of the entire phrase--the word translated "to live" is ChYH ('chayah'), and can mean either "to live," "to make a living (prosper)," or one of several other variant usage?s.  It is clear from the passage in Deuteronomy (which is a catalogue of specific prohibitions) that 'kashaph' is a specific term, not the overall catchall that "witch" represents in modern English. One of  the most credible arguments translates 'kashaph' as "poisoner," and Exodus 22:18 as "do no business with a poisoner."  If the passage had meant "to live" as the opposite of "to die", the verb ChY ('chay') would be probably have been used instead. Another translation for 'kashaph' might be "herbalist," which would share some connotations with "witch," but in any case it refers to some specific practice, probably one popular in one of the surrounding cultures at the time.

The above quote is mostly from discussions with academics at the time (whilst writing my dissertation). From e-mail article by Amanda Walker, and confirmed in e-mail correspondence with Edna Kalef  (Israel).

Finally please understand that a dissertation (for those of you who don't know) is an accredited and published piece of work that must uphold various academic criteria. Once the Hypothesis is set the student must then prove or disprove it by referring to published fact, and correct research.