Bizarre Bible Quotes

No other continent has endured such an unspeakably bizarre combination of foreign thievery and foreign goodwill.

Was there something … something evil …getting at Hugo? This bizarre and unwelcome thought surfaced in his mind. Were demons and evil spirits only to be found in the bible stories, or maybe this was some sort of challenge to him to deal with without help from anyone, least of all from the One who he constantly questioned and tried to understand …

The weird thing about the bible is that almost everything in it is a metaphor. So it seems to me that when the bible describes church as a place where two or more people discuss God, they don’t mean just the cathedral like churches. I don’t know what, who or where God is; but if everything is a metaphor, I think he or she is a comparison to us. I think we are like, or as God. I think when we get together, and talk about ourselves, about being human, about what hurts us; we are also talking about God. So that’s also church, right? I know this might seem blasphemous, but my priest tells me its okay to ask questions, even if they seem bizarre.

Many Christians say that they get their morality from the Bible, but this cannot be true because as holy books go the Bible is possibly the most unhelpful guide ever written for determining right from wrong. It’s chock-full of bizarre stories about dysfunctional families, advice about how to beat your slaves, how to kill your headstrong kids, how to sell your virgin daughters, and other clearly outdated practices that most cultures gave up centuries ago.

The Bible is so strange, so utterly bizarre, no human brain could have come up with it.

The entire Jesus concept, that human sacrifice should be the substratum of a moral religion of love, strikes me as incongruous. God condemned us and Jesus saved us, and they are actually the same being? Christianity is the idea that you are so abhorrent that God had to kill himself. He had to embody the human form and send himself on a bizarre suicide mission just to revoke the disgustingness of the humans he created. I balk at suggestions that these ideas dictate to the concepts of morality and love.

(I just used my Bible to smash a bug on my desk. That’s bad, isn’t it?) The

The Holy Spirit’s work in assisting the student to understand the Bible is, however, not to be feared as a work that will lead into bizarre interpretations previously unknown. In fact, “when the Spirit guides into all truth, it is actually a matter of bringing forth or eliciting what is already known.

The irrational bias of the myth of progress can be seen in the tendency to criticize orthodox church fathers for reading Greek metaphysics into the text, while overlooking Baruch Spinoza's rationalism and Bruno Bauer's Hegelianism on their own biblical interpretation. Is this because "Greek" metaphysics is bad, but "German" metaphysics is good? According to the history of hermeneutics as told from an Enlightenment perspective, if it were not for the pagan Enlightenment, Christians would still be reading Greek metaphysics into the Bible like Augustine and making it say whatever they pleased like Origen. Is it not rather bizarre that this narrative asks us to believe that it took the pagan Epicureanism of the Enlightenment to rescue us from the "subjectivism" of the Nicene fathers, medieval schoolmen, and Protestant Reformers?

Irenaeus argues that since these Gnostics could not support their bizarre teachings about the creation of the world or the identity of Christ simply by appealing to the texts, they reassembled them. In a memorable image, Irenaeus says the heretics are like someone who takes a gorgeous mosaic of a gallant king and rearranges the stones so they now portray a mangy dog, claiming this is what the artist intended all along. Even more, they insist this is a portrait of the king. For Irenaeus, this is no way to treat a book (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.8).

One of the crucial pennies to drop in the minds of those who find their way to faith in their adult years is often the realization that, if there really is a God such as the Bible reveals him to be, then he is smarter than I am and his judgement is more reliable than mine: if he and I differ on a matter, and if he is really God and I am really a creature, then it is more than reasonable to assume that he is correct and I am mistaken. To reach any other conclusion would require a bizarre routine of epistemological gymnastics. Either God is God and I am not, in which case his judgement is to be trusted over mine, or else God is not God, in which case there is no reliable way of satisfactorily arbitrating at all between what is reasonable and what is not.

God in the Hebrew Bible, as it emerged from its editing process, is almighty; he creates heaven and earth with a word, and he is above all other gods-but he creates a serpent who undoes all his creative work. Often he acts like a large and powerful and somewhat bad-tempered human being. Like any landlord, he walks in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day. He gets angry. He bargains with his people. He changes his mind. He falls into vindictive rages, as in the case of Noah's flood or the Tower of Babel or the unfortunate cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and he plays atrocious games, as in the case of his command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. He has a somewhat bizarre preoccupation with the length of Samson's hair. He performs prodigious wonders, such as slaughtering the first-born sons of Egypt and leading the Israelites to safety through the parted waters of the Red Sea-only to discover that those who have witnessed those stupendous miracles quickly forget them and turn to complaint and the worship of other gods. Like all of us, the God of the Hebrew Bible is a mess of contradictions.

Twisting Scripture? Theologians have long pointed out that you can prove anything from the Bible. The atheist looks at scripture and sees errors compounded on more errors; the cultist looks on scripture and sees bizarre interpretations; the Christian looks upon scripture and sees the wondrous God that is described therein. Truth, like her sister Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But Truth, Reality insists, is an absolute, and they that ignore it do so at the peril of their souls.

The Peg Technique The peg technique is slightly similar to memorizing by association in that it uses a second memory to help the mind recall it. It is different in that you create the memory on the spot. The peg technique is meant to give your mind something extra to hang onto the memory with. Thus the memory hangs on the peg (image object etc), hence it is called the peg technique. The peg however is more than just a simple mental image you form. It is a ridiculous or silly image you create in the hopes that your mind will better remember it. How is this supposed to work? The mind many times can remember things that are bizarre in regard to its surroundings. Being a naturally inquisitive creature fueled by a thirst to understand the world around us, we must examine and better understand any discrepancies in our environment. For example men are fascinated with the workings of atoms and their bizarre behavior when broken apart. People have devoted their entire lives to figuring out these mysteries. When things function in a different way than expected, people can’t stop examining the subject until the can fully understand it. The peg technique was created on this basic premise with the hope that the concept would cross over with silly mental images. In the end this technique is proven to work well with numbers, and lists, among other things. It does not however help one to retain the meaning. In order to remember certain things one would need to create a memorable image in mind that would help bring to memory what they’re trying to recall. How this would apply to scriptures, is that you would choose to make the scripture into a silly image in your mind in order to help you remember it.

For example for John 3:16 someone would imagine God growing a heart shape in his hand while handing a little toddler son dangled by his toes to a globe. Being dangled by his toes would help someone remember it because it is not something people would do. There have been books written about this subject, claiming that it works well for memorizing scripture. But turning the scripture into a ridiculous image is blaspheming the word of God by which you are saved. It is better to remember the scripture with the meaning of it. When you create a ridiculous image, you are no longer focusing on the meaning behind the scripture. In the end you are exchanging the meaning of the scriptures with a bizarre mental image. This is profaning the scripture in your mind! Even though this method may help you remember a verse or two it is not worth the trouble behind it. In the amount of time it takes to create a single image you could have memorized the scripture using other techniques. Also you’ll only be able to retain as many verses as you can remember silly images. And finally it does not help you retain the meaning of the scripture when it is time for the application of it, but rather it blasphemes the word of God.

Instead of learning from the failures of his bizarre behavior, Robert developed a theology to justify it. God “told” him somewhere along his journey that his ministry would be rejected. Armed with the weird incidents of the Bible and a divine promise of rejection, he would always be able to justify his antisocial ways and blame someone else for his failures in ministry.

We need to step back and look at the more fundamental question: What was the author originally saying? We cannot simply read our own understandings into the meaning of a word or statement someone else wrote or said. And when we look at some often bizarre-sounding parts of the Bible, we have to try to discover who the original audience was and view the text through their lens, not ours. If we don't, the possibilities for confusion are endless.

One of the problems with ancient Greek texts (which would include all the earliest Christian writings, including those of the New Testament) is that when they were copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction made between lowercase and uppercase letters, and, even more bizarre to modern readers, no spaces used to separate words. This kind of continuous writing is called scriptuo continua, and it obviously could make it difficult at times to read, let alone understand, a text.

It is up to us to atone for the deadly sin of Zionism, the Satmar Rebbe said in his manifesto, the Vayoel Moshe. Every Satmar home has a copy of that anti-Zionist bible. The book relates the history of Zionism, how it started in the early twentieth century, how a small group of Jews took up the bizarre idea of carving a Jewish homeland out for themselves. Back then, everyone thought they were crazy, but the rebbe, he knew what they would become. He predicted it. Many times they attempted to bring about their evil goals, he wrote, but only after the Holocaust did they garner sufficient political and social clout to actually achieve power. To use the Holocaust for sympathy is an affront to all the souls who perished, Zeidy relates; certainly these innocent Jews did not martyr themselves so that the Zionists could take control. Bubby is very bitter about the Zionists too. She tells me of all the Jewish people who tried to escape to Israel to get away from the Nazis, and how the Zionists turned the ships away upon arrival, sending them all back to the camps. They didn’t want to populate their new land with ignorant Jews from religious shtetls, she tells me; they wanted a new kind of Jew, educated, enlightened, devoted to the cause. So instead, she says, they took little children, who were still young enough to be molded, and when people heard that, they realized that if there was a chance their children could survive, it was worth separating from them.