The Bible stories are not about the same god, they are not from the same sources, they're directly influenced by the opinions of the individual writers and they reflect both "love all" and "kill all" mentalities that constantly conflict with one another.

Basically it's a book full of nonsense... just wondering if you follow it, have ever read it etc - if you are part of a religion that supports the Bible - serious question: What are you smoking?

I suggest Harry Potter, it's far more consistent, humane, and entertaining. It doesn't tell you to murder your own kin just because they rebel against you like the Bible does.

Of course, and although their is plenty of that 'kill all' rhetoric in books like exodus, judges, kings, numbers, samuel etc..but you need to read the book in its totality to understand how these things were more human sinfulness at work that God was merely tolerating rather than endorsing on the whole, even with what he commanded with the amalekites (and in their case it was NOT simply because they were 'rebellious', they were cruel and relentless enemies towards the early israelites).

If you want to put all your eggs in the atheist/rationalist basket and leave no room for things that call for faith to make sense of what we're unable to explain thats fine, but their are reasons beyond paying attention to religion beyond whether or not it seems appealing to you like Lord of the Rings.

Edited January 5Jan 5 by Red Robert

19 hours ago, Red Robert said:

Of course, and although their is plenty of that 'kill all' rhetoric in books like exodus, judges, kings, numbers, samuel etc..but you need to read the book in its totality to understand how these things were more human sinfulness at work that God was merely tolerating rather than endorsing on the whole, even with what he commanded with the amalekites (and in their case it was NOT simply because they were 'rebellious', they were cruel and relentless enemies towards the early israelites).

If you want to put all your eggs in the atheist/rationalist basket and leave no room for things that call for faith to make sense of what we're unable to explain thats fine, but their are reasons beyond paying attention to religion beyond whether or not it seems appealing to you like Lord of the Rings.

What you are doing is trying to excuse the text instead of honestly dealing with what it actually says. The violent passages in Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Samuel and others are not simply people acting badly while God “tolerates” it. The text repeatedly says God commands, approves, or rewards it. With the Amalekites specifically, the command is explicit: wipe out men, women, children, even animals. You cannot turn that into “human sinfulness God merely tolerated” without rewriting the story into something it never claimed to be.

If the only way to defend a book is to constantly reinterpret plain statements so they mean the opposite of what they say, that is not serious reading. That is protecting a conclusion you already decided to keep.

Appealing to “faith” does not fix the problem either. If something is morally indefensible when any other religion or government does it, calling it “God’s plan” does not magically make it good. If a modern group said their deity told them to destroy entire populations, no one would say, “read it in totality and it makes sense.” We would call it wrong, full stop.

And comparing it to fantasy like Lord of the Rings actually proves the point. We all understand Tolkien is myth. Once you strip away the automatic assumption that the Bible must be special, you see that it reads like a mix of tribal history, politics, and mythology shaped by the people who wrote it. That explains the violence far better than trying to force it into a perfect moral system.

If a belief requires constant excuses, endless reinterpretation, and lowering the moral bar to defend it, the problem is not with the critics. The problem is with the belief itself.

18 hours ago, K.C. said:

The Hebrew and Christian scriptures repeatedly depict God commanding or sanctioning things that, by any modern moral standard, are catastrophic: extermination of entire peoples, including infants; collective punishment for the actions of a few; endorsement and regulation of slavery; laws treating women and daughters as property; forced marriages to captors; lethal penalties for religious doubt, blasphemy, sorcery, same-sex behavior, working on the Sabbath, or violating ritual purity. At the same time, many of the heroes presented as “chosen” or blessed are involved in deception, rape, genocide, betrayal, and political violence, yet still receive divine favor. When God condemns these things in outsiders but permits or excuses them among insiders, it creates an unavoidable double standard.

Layered on top of that are the deep internal contradictions. God is described as unchanging, yet his rules and moral expectations shift across books. He forbids killing, then orders massacres. He values justice, yet institutes systems that privilege one ethnicity and one priestly class above all others. Narratives disagree about events, laws are repeated with conflicting details, genealogies and timelines collide, and prophecies are reinterpreted after the fact to make them “fit.” When taken together, the picture is not a coherent, consistent moral revelation. It reads like a patchwork of competing voices, political needs, and cultural norms, stitched together over centuries and repeatedly justified as divine.

The more you read the bible, the more you realize God is just a bi-polar teenager.

55 minutes ago, Onision said:

What you are doing is trying to excuse the text instead of honestly dealing with what it actually says. The violent passages in Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Samuel and others are not simply people acting badly while God “tolerates” it. The text repeatedly says God commands, approves, or rewards it. With the Amalekites specifically, the command is explicit: wipe out men, women, children, even animals. You cannot turn that into “human sinfulness God merely tolerated” without rewriting the story into something it never claimed to be.

If the only way to defend a book is to constantly reinterpret plain statements so they mean the opposite of what they say, that is not serious reading. That is protecting a conclusion you already decided to keep.

Appealing to “faith” does not fix the problem either. If something is morally indefensible when any other religion or government does it, calling it “God’s plan” does not magically make it good. If a modern group said their deity told them to destroy entire populations, no one would say, “read it in totality and it makes sense.” We would call it wrong, full stop.

And comparing it to fantasy like Lord of the Rings actually proves the point. We all understand Tolkien is myth. Once you strip away the automatic assumption that the Bible must be special, you see that it reads like a mix of tribal history, politics, and mythology shaped by the people who wrote it. That explains the violence far better than trying to force it into a perfect moral system.

If a belief requires constant excuses, endless reinterpretation, and lowering the moral bar to defend it, the problem is not with the critics. The problem is with the belief itself.

The Hebrew and Christian scriptures repeatedly depict God commanding or sanctioning things that, by any modern moral standard, are catastrophic: extermination of entire peoples, including infants; collective punishment for the actions of a few; endorsement and regulation of slavery; laws treating women and daughters as property; forced marriages to captors; lethal penalties for religious doubt, blasphemy, sorcery, same-sex behavior, working on the Sabbath, or violating ritual purity. At the same time, many of the heroes presented as “chosen” or blessed are involved in deception, rape, genocide, betrayal, and political violence, yet still receive divine favor. When God condemns these things in outsiders but permits or excuses them among insiders, it creates an unavoidable double standard.

Layered on top of that are the deep internal contradictions. God is described as unchanging, yet his rules and moral expectations shift across books. He forbids killing, then orders massacres. He values justice, yet institutes systems that privilege one ethnicity and one priestly class above all others. Narratives disagree about events, laws are repeated with conflicting details, genealogies and timelines collide, and prophecies are reinterpreted after the fact to make them “fit.” When taken together, the picture is not a coherent, consistent moral revelation. It reads like a patchwork of competing voices, political needs, and cultural norms, stitched together over centuries and repeatedly justified as divine.

The more you read the bible, the more you realize God is just a bi-polar teenager.

Thats why I specifically focused on them, the amalekites. Because they're uniquely thought of in the bible when anyone brings up the controversial subject of divinely endorsed violence.

But here's the thing about the amalekites. They WEREN'T just rebellious towards God.

They were unique amongst the early canaanite tribes as fostering a uniquely vicious culture. Key reasons for the severity of the judgment:

• Cowardly Attack on the Weak: The Amalekites launched an unprovoked surprise attack on the Israelites at Rephidim, specifically targeting the elderly, women, and children who were straggling at the rear of the camp when they were tired and weary. This was seen as a particularly cruel act that "did not fear God".

• Persistent Enmity: The Amalekites became a persistent enemy of Israel, continuing their attacks and raids over generations. This demonstrated a sustained, entrenched opposition to God and His purposes, which reached a "full measure" over time, warranting severe, corporate judgment.

• Opposition to God's Plan: Israel was the "line of promise" through which God intended to bless all nations. By repeatedly attempting to destroy Israel, the Amalekites were actively trying to thwart God's plan for salvation.

• Opportunity for Repentance: God is described as being "slow to anger" and just. The Amalekites were given a long period (hundreds of years, from Moses to Saul) to turn from their wicked ways, unlike the Ninevites who repented after Jonah's warning; the Amalekites, however, did not repent and persisted in sin.

• Preventing Spiritual Contamination: The command for total destruction (known as herem, or being "put under the ban") was also a means to prevent the Israelites from being infected by the Amalekites' detestable practices and idolatrous culture, which included child sacrifice and other severe immoralities.

• Divine Justice: The action was an act of divine judgment against a nation whose collective sins had reached a tipping point, serving as an example of the consequences for those who set themselves irrevocably against God.
  

This is something not really understood well enough when dealing with the God of the bible. God is not merely considered the *source* and Creator of life, he's considered literally the only being who truly *is* alive. Everything else has life on a lone so to speak. As such, whenever God endorses death, whether through warfare or natural disasters, it isn't by nature an attack on life on God's part but rather a calling back of that life and soul to its source.

Prolly a majority of it . Did you know the bible has been translated over 300 times from its original language, and its original language is so old we have no way of knowing if any of the translations are accurate besides maybe a handful of words? Oh and like, 1/3 was lost just before it was first printed/distributed, like physically lost. I was raised Christian but always thought the bible didn't make much sense, I mean the story of Noah's ark, even as a kid I was like "lions and zebras on the same boat....and where'd all the poop go?".

Still believe in God, but also in my humble opinion, the bible is "The words of God from the mouths of man." There's plenty to be taken from a lot of the stories, that are true in life and are actual good examples of morality and prolly what a good God would want, but also as we've seen very obviously in history, people use God and his word for wrong and some of these beliefs have become conflicting.

Excuse me while I get graphic but, we're made in the image of God but also a lotta Christians gotta problem with gays/trans, here's an obvious thought, if God didn't want some fellas bein' gay, then why would he make'em with a gspot in their ass??? I mean I've never met a butt baby, so what else is it there for besides fun? (I know straight men have them too Im js men are literally made to like that, so the 'unnatrual' argument has always seemed insane to me.)

2 hours ago, Rylent said:

if God didn't want some fellas bein' gay, then why would he make'em with a gspot in their ass???

WITCH!!!! HE'S A WITCH!!!!

not to mention the constant incest --- Adam and Eve had offspring... THEN WHAT?

Noah's arc had only a few families on it... THEN WHAT?

We're talking about repopulating the Earth... so where did all the Earth's races come from?

The Bible is so stupid and clearly made up by a bunch of people stuck in the desert jotting down whatever comes to mind. The numerous activities recorded in the book literally do not exist during the same time period most anywhere else --- it's all documented bullshit - that's why when people say "I'm christian" --- I'm like "Only because you have never actually thought about the shit show the bible your religion is based on, actually is"

Then we have the "I believe in God" --- why? Why would anyone be so dense as to believe in the Christian God? How is "god" more valid than Ra? Or Thor? You are worshiping Marvel Superheroes - who by the way, also aren't real.

People often then, somehow... not sure how intelligent people do this, but they do ---- resort to "I have faith" --- really? I have faith that your god is actually a three headed penguin in a Satan costume --- what makes your faith any more valid than mine? Nothing? Great, so your faith is worthless.

I read it in a hotel once

It was in the drawer

Catholic version... I was raised Catholic.... Haven't been to Mass or read the Bible in years.

11 hours ago, Sheila89 said:

Haven't been to Mass or read the Bible in years.

There's probably a good reason for that.

I'm reading it now. Second attempt -- my first was as a teenager flirting with Paganism. I attended a course on the meaning of life, and everyone else there was furiously church going. After being judged and rebuked and sentenced to hell for eternity a few times for asking what I thought were fairly reasonable questions, I started to realise people using the Bible to castigate me didn't seem to have read it. They couldn't give me specifics. They couldn't give me the why.

I read most of it out of curiosity. To see for myself. It bored me, quite honestly. I was approaching it from the "fuck god and fuck you people" perspective, too -- I'm not sure what I expected, really

I'm not agnostic and not religious but I'm curious about what holy books say. So now at 34 I'm going to read them all

Edited Friday at 09:19 PM3 days by perpetually

6 hours ago, perpetually said:

After being judged and rebuked and sentenced to hell for eternity a few times for asking what I thought were fairly reasonable questions, I started to realise people using the Bible to castigate me didn't seem to have read it.

The Bible sells a God who is supposedly all loving, all knowing, and perfectly just, then immediately undercuts that claim by depicting him committing or ordering genocide, killing children, hardening people’s hearts so he can punish them, regretting his own actions, and changing his mind like an insecure ruler with impulse control problems. It bans killing but makes endless exceptions when God wants blood, preaches free will while predestining outcomes, demands faith without evidence while repeatedly proving he could provide evidence at any time, and promises answered prayers that conveniently fail often enough to be rebranded as “mystery.” It condemns pride but demands total submission, claims moral absolutes while endorsing slavery, misogyny, and collective punishment, and insists finite human mistakes justify infinite punishment. Forgiveness supposedly requires blood sacrifice, culminating in God sacrificing himself to himself to fix rules he made, all while blaming humanity for a flaw they inherited before they could even understand right and wrong. The result is not divine consistency but a patchwork of control, fear, and post hoc justification that only works if you stop asking basic questions.

1 hour ago, Onision said:

The Bible sells a God who is supposedly all loving, all knowing, and perfectly just, then immediately undercuts that claim by depicting him committing or ordering genocide, killing children, hardening people’s hearts so he can punish them, regretting his own actions, and changing his mind like an insecure ruler with impulse control problems. It bans killing but makes endless exceptions when God wants blood, preaches free will while predestining outcomes, demands faith without evidence while repeatedly proving he could provide evidence at any time, and promises answered prayers that conveniently fail often enough to be rebranded as “mystery.” It condemns pride but demands total submission, claims moral absolutes while endorsing slavery, misogyny, and collective punishment, and insists finite human mistakes justify infinite punishment. Forgiveness supposedly requires blood sacrifice, culminating in God sacrificing himself to himself to fix rules he made, all while blaming humanity for a flaw they inherited before they could even understand right and wrong. The result is not divine consistency but a patchwork of control, fear, and post hoc justification that only works if you stop asking basic questions.

Reading so far, old testament god is terrifying. I think based on this alone, if I believed in this God, I'd hate and fear him like you would a domineering, hypocritical father full of blind rage and unfair rules. It feels incongruent to have gone to catholic school and remember how my teachers and priests described god. This kindly grandfather figure.

On 1/6/2026 at 4:59 PM, Onision said:

The more you read the bible, the more you realize God is just a bi-polar teenager.

This might be the funniest unintentional TLDR I've ever seen 😂

I've read a chunk of the bible, could never claim to have read the whole of it. There is as much in there that you can use to debunk the logic of Christianity as there is that supports the idea of it. The Old Testament is jokes at how silly a lot of it is. There's obviously different levels of religious zealot and how much they "follow" the teachings of the bible. I think as society has evolved, so has the concept of right and wrong, and the bible is no longer the moral compass that some people saw it as over a millennium ago.