• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The dumbest Scripture contest

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Well I thought if Jesus knew it wasn't the season for figs and expected figs to be there, and then cursed at a tree because there were no figs. Seems to fit the definition.

I find Jesus was teaching his apostles an 'object lesson' in connection to Israel in the 11th chapter of Mark.
Like that fig tree that nation of Israel was deceptive in appearance.
Those people were in a contract or covenant relationship with God, but just outwardly appearing to observe the Law.
So, that nation not only lacked faith but was barren of producing good fruitage to the point of rejecting Jesus.
By finding of No figs on the tree then Jesus was demonstrating to his followers that the end of that ' fruitless nation ' was near at hand. In the year 70 the Roman armies destroyed un-faithful Jerusalem.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Ezekiel 23:20: There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
One of my favorite Bible verses.

IAKbEob.jpg
GENITALS LIKE DONKEYS.png

think daddys are that big.png
LETS SEE.png

.

.
 
Last edited:

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Please quote the scripture that you find more stupid than the rest.

The winner of this contest wins $50 Monopoly money. :D

I'm not going to quote it, but I think it was really stupid that Canaan and all of his descendants were cursed because Ham saw his drunk father butt naked.
This was not the reason.
This was the event that rose the reason.
[/QUOTE]
The reason this verse is so stupid to me, is his descendants were cursed, and there is indication that many of them would be slaves as a result of this curse.
Where is it written that Ham was curse? or his children?
I think of how much suffering his descendants went through because he looked at his father's nakedness. It just grinds my gears.
Anything in the Bible that suggest a person's descendants will be cursed because of actions they never did, is just really stupid to me!
Yet the reality we live in works like that.
Many times children suffer for their parents actions.
(The way all women have to go through such labor pains because Eve ate an apple, and how we are all cursed because of Adam and Eve's sins is also stupid.)
Its not a curse. its an outcome. there is a reason for the suffering.
Who do you think hams descendants are in the world today?
It actually written, yet the names are the ancient ones. I don't have enough knowledge about it but i can try and find out if you wish.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It's science. You can tell a disease by it's symptoms. Modern leprosy and the leprosy in the Bible are apparently not the same.

In fact leprosy in the Bible was kind of loosely defined. The Bible describes leprosy growing in and on people's walls. So it seems like some kind of mold.

Besides 1 in 20 is still pretty bad. I would try to stay away from lepers if the odds of me getting leprosy were so high.

I must have grasped those straws by trying to get a hold of your strawman argument! :p
There's two types of leprosy?

If the bible is true, it doesn't skip the nature of how illnesses work and what treats them. There are a lot of types of epilepsy and each of us have differing symptoms. Years ago, the doctors thought epilepsy was caused by demons (I kid you not...that or the holy spirit; personal experience) but its still epilepsy regardless the time period and what people Didn't know about it.

Also, environment can deeply affect the symptoms of leprosy. We have vacinations in the US for that sort so the symptoms may not be as appearant as in other countries Back Then with differing medical treatments.

How do you compare biblical cures and treatment with those today? I know the bible is useful for somethings but it's not a medical book. How do the two relate?

Totally scratchings my head.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The person was already cured of leprosy. Most likely from a miracle. This was simply a ritual cleansing.

How does the nature of cures for illnesses change in the last three thousand years?

Wouldnt we still have miracle cures today or did god take a break?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
He was cursing a fig tree symbolically.
I wonder how you came to figure that.

It just tells me Jesus wasn't too bright whether it's symbolic or not .

Imagine a picture of seeing guy going up to an apple tree out of season and doing the same thing , and then saying after yelling or cursing at a tree and then turning around and say, "Oh it's just symbolic".

*Yikes*
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Please quote the scripture that you find more stupid than the rest.

The winner of this contest wins $50 Monopoly money. :D

I'm not going to quote it, but I think it was really stupid that Canaan and all of his descendants were cursed because Ham saw his drunk father butt naked.

The reason this verse is so stupid to me, is his descendants were cursed, and there is indication that many of them would be slaves as a result of this curse.

I think of how much suffering his descendants went through because he looked at his father's nakedness. It just grinds my gears.

Anything in the Bible that suggest a person's descendants will be cursed because of actions they never did, is just really stupid to me!

(The way all women have to go through such labor pains because Eve ate an apple, and how we are all cursed because of Adam and Eve's sins is also stupid.)

Who do you think hams descendants are in the world today?
The Bible never claimed to be a perfect and complete record of anything, despite the claims of the less informed.

However, there are other records, both ancient and modern, that add some clarity to many of the "strange" things partially recorded in the Bible.

Whether or not the claims of these records can be believed is up to the individual and the inspiration that they would receive from the Lord.

I'm going to go back a ways to provide appropriate context, but I will not go into great depth or the quoting of records. If you want the specific references I can share them upon request.

After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, they gained the Knowledge of Good and Evil and became like the gods, the Lord, before casting them out of the Garden, gave unto Adam and Eve coats of skins, which were a symbol of the Lord's protection and Priesthood being upon them both as they entered into the cold and dreary mortal world.

Adam and Eve taught their children the ways of the Lord and Adam gave to his sons the Lord's Priesthood, so they could perform saving ordinances. The Genesis account recorded that both Abel and Cain had the Priesthood and were authorized to offer up sacrifices unto the Lord, according to the covenants that the Lord made with their parents.

Cain, however, harbored resentment toward his brother Abel. He envied Abel's righteousness and the fact that he had been called to tend to the flocks, while Cain was a tiller of the ground. There is also a record that Cain envied the wife that was given to Abel.

This resentment led to Cain rejecting the Lord (even first-hand appearances) and he sought out the counsels of Satan, who commanded Cain to make an offering unto the Lord of the fruits of the ground, which he knew would be rejected because it was not according to the covenant. This rejection made Cain more worth, which Satan delighted in, and he convinced Cain to make a covenant with him, to supersede the covenant made to Adam and Eve, and if Cain were obedient to Satan's commands then Satan would give to Cain the life of his brother Abel and his flocks.

Cain covenanted with Satan, as well as all those other children of Adam and Eve that followed after Cain, as well as Cain's own children, and afterwards he followed the commands of Satan and murdered his brother Abel. The Lord cursed Cain and his followers for what had been done. The curse was manifold and included a change to their physical appearance so that Adam and his faithful children could discern them by sight as well as a curse upon their labors, so that the Earth would not give them as much yield in its harvest, therefore they would need to be vagabonds and wanderers.

However, the most damaging aspect of the curse was that Cain and his followers would no longer have the right to His Priesthood.

The reason I brought all this up is to explain that Ham's wife, who was brought upon the Ark, was a descendant of Cain and it ties into why the curse was perpetuated through her unto Ham's children.

It is important to note that the curse placed upon Cain and his followers was passed down through their seed, however, many of the effects of the curse were conditioned upon the personal righteousness of the descendant. There were some of the descendants of Cain and his followers who repented the ways of their fathers and rejoined Adam's other children.

Keeping this in mind helps us understand how Ham's wife, a descendant of Cain, was able to live with Noah and be saved on the Ark, she did not live after the manner of Cain, therefore, the curse had been lifted.

The drama with Ham started after the Flood, for he envied Shem, his brother, who had received the Priesthood from Noah.

Noah not only had the Priesthood to give, but he also had in his possession the original coat of skins made and given to Adam by the Lord. It had passed from Adam to Enoch to Methuselah to Noah. He wore it as a symbol of his legitimacy as an inheritor of the Priesthood.

It was this very garment that Ham stole from his father while he slept and exposed his nakedness. He took this garment and gave it to his son Canaan, who accepted it and claimed that his owning it made him the legitimate heir to the Priesthood.

Obviously, the right to the Priesthood could not be taken by force, so when Noah discovered what had happened to the garment and that Canaan meant to keep it and use it as a means to claim false inheritance of the Priesthood, he cursed Canaan, denying him the right to the Priesthood and claiming that he would never rise to power and authority by this act, but would be a servant of servants.

This denial of right to the Priesthood persisted through Canaan's line as well as the descendants of those who followed after Canaan (similar to what happened to Cain and his followers).

Noah's cursing was more like a reigniting of the previous curse placed on Cain, with the added effect of becoming servants of servants. There may be descendants of Canaan living today, but the effects of the curse can be mitigated by righteous living.
 
Last edited:

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
Please quote the scripture that you find more stupid than the rest.

The winner of this contest wins $50 Monopoly money. :D

I'm not going to quote it, but I think it was really stupid that Canaan and all of his descendants were cursed because Ham saw his drunk father butt naked.

Some say Canaan was a product of Ham sleeping with Noah's wife... which is what uncovered means... i.o.w., he knew/uncovered what his father knew.

Which is why I tend to think there's something to the Preadamite theory.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
Ahem...Ham "uncovered his Father's nakedness." See Leviticus 20:11 for what this means:

11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.​

Apparently Ham had sex with Noah's wife while Noah (and perhaps his wife as well) was drunk. That would make Canaan the son of Noah's wife by Ham. The curse on Canaan would be Noah not giving him part of a son of Noah's inheritance. (You could understand why Noah didn't have any more children if his wife was complicit in this.)

I could be wrong, however.

Reuben wasn't put to death... maybe Canaan's mom was a concubine, too?
In the beginning, the rule was one man and one wife. IMHO, that rule never changed.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
Mark 11: 12-14

12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.

Mark wrote by hear-say, not first-hand.

But here's what Matthew says about the very same event:

21:19 And when He saw a fig tree in the way, He came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, 'Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever.' And presently the fig tree withered away.
21:41 They say unto Him, 'He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [his] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render Him the fruits in their seasons.'
21:43 'Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.'

The parables are not given to all people to understand, apparently... Mark didn't get it.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
There is no possibility of "dumb or stupid scriptures", since the Bible is the word of an eternal Being who is the source of all wisdom. The stupidity lies with those who think they are smarter or wiser than an infinite Creator, mocking God's word out of ignorance of the actual point being expressed in passages of scripture or worse out of deliberate. arrogant hatred.

Which books belong in the Bible, IYO, IC?
Guess we're supposed to find out the definition of a false prophet.

20 "But the prophet whosoever shall impiously speak in My name a word which I have not commanded him to speak, and whosoever shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die."

Sound fair? Ok... since the verses before that one are the mirror of John 12:48... whomever doesn't agree with Jesus [and Moses before Him] is necessarily a false prophet. Sound about right to you?

The real crux of the matter would seem to be: what is Scripture? and what is not.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
Just because a book claims to be the word of God does not mean it is.

The first Christian Bible contained books that yours does not contain.

How do you know you have the right Bible?

so you think killing people for working on the wrong day of the week and a rapist marrying his rape victim is okay?

Didn't you understand that person doesn't use the Oldest Testament, by his tagline?

Working on the wrong day of the week changed, didn't it... times and laws, both.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, is the rule of Mosaic Law.
________________________
1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient...

IF IT WERE SCRIPTURE, that would be the stupidest line.

Jude wrote specifically against such a lifestyle.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
The cure for leprosy.....

Leviticus 14 (KJV)

"4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:
7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.
8 And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean: and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven days.
9 But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.
10 And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and..."

Hosea 6:7 For I will have mercy rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than whole-burnt-offerings.
Matthew 12:7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice', ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel

Mt.9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith He to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
God tested mankind to find out if mankind loved God at all.
That test is still happening. You're taking the test in this thread.

That is absolutely dumb. So, basically, you are saying your god is simply incapable of determining who "loves" it, and who doesn't without a goofy and irrational "test"?

Wow. So much for "all knowing" -- it appears your god... isn't. At all.

What's worse? It appears that the "test" is in some kind of code, that only a very limited select few are privy to (I have no doubt you consider yourself included), and to hell with the rest?

Literally? Your god is kind of a bully!
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
It appears that the "test" is in some kind of code, that only a very limited select few are privy to (I have no doubt you consider yourself included), and to hell with the rest?

Since you proudly proclaim yourself an Unbeliever, Bob, why would that anger you?

Those of who do love God, are told to prove it by keeping His commandments.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
The largest problem here is reading the darned bible !
Stupid is, as stupid does !

Stupid is showing up at book club without having read the book.

Well I thought if Jesus knew it wasn't the season for figs and expected figs to be there, and then cursed at a tree because there were no figs. Seems to fit the definition.

The wrong book to read is Mark and Luke... both are hear-say... and both fellow-travellers of Paul.
 
Last edited:
Top