Biblical Abominations
The Bible prohibits a long list of things, some so severely that in the King James version they are called abominations. One of these is gay sex, but we'll get to that later. First, we should ask: is the Bible true, or just a made-up collection of fairy tales? To anyone looking at it objectively, it is obviously made up.
A good example is the story of Noah's Ark and the flood, which couldn't possibly have happened. You think the kangaroos swam from Australia to the Middle East to get onto the Ark, and then swam back again after the flood was over? The same thing for all the species native to North and South America, like the bison and the turkey and the llama: you think they swam across the Atlantic or the Pacific to get to the Ark and back again? Not to mention more than 350,000 different species of beetles that must have ridden in the Ark (two by two, that's over 700,000 beetles). The story is a charming fairy tale, but as a real event, it's patently ludicrous. So, if this part of the Bible is obviously false, why should we believe any other part of the Bible? The answer is, we shouldn't.
So, if the Bible prohibits something, please don't take it seriously.
We'll start with Leviticus, which has a huge list of prohibited things. Leviticus 11:7-8 prohibits eating swine, which is an "unclean" animal. So, no ham sandwiches (above).
.jpg)
No pork chops (above).
.jpg)
Leviticus 11:10-12 prohibits eating any seafood that does not have fins and scales, i.e. seafood that is not a standard fish. This isn't just prohibited, it's an abomination. Lobster (above) is an abomination. So is shrimp.
Caviar (above) is the eggs of the sturgeon, a fish with a smooth skin (no scales), so it's another abomination. The caviar above has been anointed with cum, but that's another story.
Is nudity prohibited in the Bible? No, it is not. Leviticus 18:6-19 prohibits "uncovering the nakedness" of a long list of relatives, starting with your father and mother, but being naked yourself is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible.
Leviticus 18:22 prohibits gay sex and calls it an abomination. But remember, it's just as much (or as little) of an abomination as eating shrimp is.
But then, what about the sin of Sodom? Ezekiel 16:49 explicitly says that the sin of Sodom was “pride, excess of food, prosperous ease, without care for the poor and the needy" (above). Not gay sex.
The suit above is a combination of wool and linen, which is prohibited in Leviticus 19:19. Some people have interpreted this to prohibit all mixed fabrics, but the Bible specifically bans only the wool-linen combo. It turns out that Jewish priests used an accessory made of wool and linen, and common people weren't allowed to have it. Still, it's one of the weirdest prohibitions in the Bible.
Leviticus 19:27 prohibits trimming the edges of your beard; for example, having a goatee like this guy is prohibited.
Leviticus 19:28 prohibits tattoos. Now, I admit that Logan McCree's tattoos (above) may be a bit overdone ...
but this one is kind of cute.
Deuteronomy 22:5 says that for a woman to wear "that which pertaineth unto a man", e.g. pants, is an abomination. Tell that to Melania Trump (or Kamala Harris, for that matter).
.jpeg)
We end with Exodus 20:4, the second of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Exodus 20:5 goes on to say "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them," implying that the images that are prohibited in Exodus 20:4 are idols of gods. But although that may be implied, that's not what it says. (The Bible is not written very clearly. God is a rather inept author.) What Exodus 20:4 says is that all likenesses are prohibited, period. Not just idols.
In other words, art is prohibited. Mona Lisa? Prohibited.
Statue of David by Michelangelo? Prohibited. I guess the Bible allows abstract art. Tell that to your religious friends.
14 comments:
Great post, thank you!
That book is nonsense.
Me thinks you are approaching the Bible with prejudice, before you even trying to understand it. Do not rely only on the views of conservative expounding. Yes a literal reading which reflects the understanding and culture of the days that the story tells does not equate with today's culture and understanding of the world. But the Bible holds solid truths that still apply to today, and should not be dismissed. You have to delve deeper to find those truths. The whole of western world culture is tied up in the stories of the Bible.
I think I am approaching the Bible exactly without prejudice. I'm not saying everything in the Bible is false and without merit. I am saying that the position that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore you have to obey everything it tells you to do, is idiotic. Yes, Western culture is tied to the Bible, and it's worth studying for that reason, but that doesn't excuse the evil that has been and continues to be committed based on the Bible.
Don’t forget the part that says women who menstruate are unclean and must be kept apart from anyone else. Don’t ever sit on a chair that a menstruating woman has sat on! Do those who order us to take the Bible literally ever mention that? As for @peter mark, I agree with our host that some parts of the Bible are perfectly fine. Everything Jesus said, for example — including all that about caring for those less fortunate than we are. Too bad very few “Christians” actually follow what he said.
Melania is an abomination in or out of pants.
Another part of the bible mentions 7 pairs of clean animals on the Ark, but only 2 pairs of the other kind. But it doesn't specify the former residences of the ancestors of today's American and Australian animals that were on the Ark, nor if the continents were connected way back then.
@Jimboylan - If the continents were connected way back then? "Back then" is a few thousand years ago. 17th century Bishop James Ussher used Biblical genealogies to calculate the date of Noah's flood as 2350 BC (and by the way, he calculated the date of the creation of the world as 4004 BC). Based on geological evidence, scientists believe that the Americas started splitting off from Europe and Africa, creating the Atlantic Ocean, about 150 million years ago. Of course, the ignorant people who wrote the Bible didn't know that, and they had no idea that the Americas even existed.
Caviar anointed with cum, my favourite food !!
Given how the Mona Lisa is stored and displayed and the way people act in order to see it? Totally a graven image being worshipped.
Once read a portion of it and was quite surprised by what I read, but some of it makes sense in today's knowledge: You must kill a man who has had sex with animal is in fact a way to prevent animal diseases from spreading to humans. Sodomy: one has less resistance to catch stuff via anus than via penis/vagina. And all the food restrictions should be read as education to woken on how to carefully cook so your food doesn't get contaminaated and make everyone sick. Same thing for circumcision to reduce chance that the male who is circumcised will catch something via penis. When the population is small, one disease an eradicate the popuation of a whole region if there aren't basic hygiene rules. Someone who had good knowledge of hygiene for body and food and how diseases spread likely worte those rules in terms people could understand and with the authority of a "god" that would make sure people would follow. (consider how so many refused to follow simply mask wearing and vaccines during covid). You have to read those not in a context of moral values, but rather hygiene and disease control.
On Noah's ark: the world was a lot smaller back then. Perhaps the flood applied only to a valley, and Noah, who live in that valley, was warned of the rain and told to bring his farm animals to higher ground. Or perhaps the Nile would flood a whole area and he truly did build a wooden boat for his farm animals so he could restart his farm once waters receeded.
@Anon - Hygiene and disease control written by someone with good knowledge? I don't think so. The people who wrote the Bible were ignorant about modern medicine. Besides, you're making up most of your "facts". (1) Can you cite a source that shows that anal intercourse spreads disease more than vaginal intercourse? I'm not talking about AIDS, that didn't exist in Biblical times. But gonorrhea and other diseases transmitted via vaginal intercourse did. (2) Being circumcised does not reduce the chance of catching a disease. That's silly. The great majority of the Earth's population is uncircumcised, and they do not suffer from it. If anything, circumcision increases the threat to a small population, because a baby could die from infection due to the circumcision wound. (3) The Biblical restrictions aren't about how to carefully cook your food. They prohibit eating certain foods like pork and shrimp, which are perfectly safe when cooked, but they allow you to eat beef uncooked.
@Anon - I agree that the Noah's flood story could have been based on some small local flood. But that's not what the Bible says. The Bible says that God used the flood to destroy every living thing on Earth that he had created that was not on the Ark. The Bible also says that the flood rose 15 cubits (about 23 feet) and "the mountains were covered." Obviously the mountains were not covered by a 23 foot flood; this is idiotic. My point is that the Bible is not "God's truth"; it is full of idiotic lies, like the story of Noah's flood.
Post a Comment