Skip to main content

Outrageous Tales From the Old Testament?





































Some more genuine church signs from www.churchsigngenerator.com. I particularly like the last one. "A spirit filled church", is a nice touch.

Very Old Testament. Their God is a smiting, fighting God urging his people to take up arms against his enemies. Does anyone have a favourite Old Testament tale involving God's gratuitous smiting, genocide, etc.? What's the most outrageous tale? Personally, I think Abraham and Isaac is hard to beat.

As Alexander Waugh relates in his book God - The Biography.

Randolph Churchill, son of Winston, had been annoying his friends by talking too much. They wagered he could not keep quiet for a week. Churchill, a keen gambler, thought he could win the bet by reading the Bible. But he didn't last long. After a few pages, he was heard to exclaim, "God! God's a shit!"

Talking of which, I have been trying for ages to get hold of a copy of Outrageous Tales from the Old Testament, now out of print it seems. If anyone has any idea how I can get a copy, do let me know. Neither the NSS nor Forbidden Planet actually have it, despite what it says on their websites.

Comments

Anonymous said…
As a big fan of Neil Gaimen I'm going to have to order that!!

Abebooks have a few copies listed

http://tinyurl.com/374e5o

Cheers

Mike
Stephen Law said…
Ah - great. Just ordered it. Thanks Mike.
James James said…
I particularly like the first one:
"Tsunami - Aids - War
Do you hear me now!
- God"

I don't get the logic (because it doesn't work): We make the world a worse place by doing things bad according to the Bible, so God makes the world worse in retaliation!

"Outrageous Tales From the Old Testament" looks great. I just ordered myself a copy from Amazon. I found the ISBN number (0861660544) from Google and then it was quite easy to find copies.
Unknown said…
Hugo,

I think He's trying to make the point that, being omnipotent, He's not going to be outdone by a bunch of upstart mortals. Any 'evil' we can do He can do better! Does this also solve the problem of evil?
Paul C said…
Can I recommend Jay Pinkerton's Back of the Bible? It's quite a ride.
jeremy said…
I can do no better than to recommend the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com). It has a page-by-page humorous annotation of the King James version of the bible, or you can simply search by category: absurdity, intolerance, cruelty and violence, contradictions, etc., etc.

It really is loads of fun! Enjoy!
jeremy said…
Hmm - that link doesn't seem to be working... try this version of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible
Anonymous said…
As someone who actually reads Hebrew and has published exegetical articles on the Hebrew Scriptures, I would just like to say that I find that Christian fundamentalists and secular fundamentalists read the bible in the same way. How do they read it? Entirely without sophistication, unable to appreciate irony, humor, metaphor, or purposeful moral ambiguity. They leave everything they may have ever learned about literature behind them. If people read Shakespeare the way Skeptic's Annotated Bible reads scripture, they would say "Cassius was an imbecile - he thought that Caesar was some kind of huge monster-giant as big as Godzilla" after all, he did say that Caesar "doth bestride the world like a Colossus"!
Stephen Law said…
Hi Guess who - that's an interesting comment so will put into main posting for discussion, if that's ok...(say if not)
Anonymous said…
Customize your own custom church sign messages @ www.SignGenerator.org.
Stephen Law said…
btw don't make the mistake of thinking these aren't genuine signs. They do come from churchsigngenerator.ocm, but from their library og genuine signs.
Mike Hunt said…
http://www.thebricktestament.com/

could be a substitute?

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o