• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Bible's Most Dangerous Stories

The video relates the Abraham/Isaac story to the Andrea Yates case, to another homicidal mother (didn't catch her name), and to the Jonestown murder/suicides. I suppose there may be a connection, but with Yates, anyway, she may have been a plain case of psychosis who would have committed her murders with or without a scripture in the mix.
I find Matthew 27: 24-25 to be a deadlier story by far, and it's a passage that angers me every time I think about it. Here it is, in the KJV:

24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

There you have the justification for about twenty centuries of persecution of Jews, which of course came to include the blood libel craziness, deportations, forced conversions, ghettoization (in Medieval times, long before the 1940s), the various charges brought in the Inquisition, and pogroms. All of it pointing to the mass murder perpetrated by the Nazis.
What's more, it bears the signs (they're apparent to me, anyway) of Matthew's text being a belligerent lie. It's a stretch to think that Pilate would call Jesus 'just' when he had been charged with insurrection and stirring up a populace that Pilate was anxious to control. But it's verse 25 that shows evil intent. Try to imagine 'all the people' calling out that they were taking the blame for Jesus' death on themselves and on their own children. In the other gospels, the crowd shouts, "Crucify him!" but Matthew has the crowd condemning itself and its progeny with deicide. That has instigated more cruelty and death than the order to execute witches in Ex. 22. (Ex. 22 also says to execute anyone who makes a sacrifice to any god except Jehovah.) There's so much overt malice and craziness in the Bible that it makes the antisemitic Christian figureheads, the witchcraft tribunals, and the proslavery preachers of the American South look like accurate interpreters of the Book.
I know, today we're supposed to look for context in the Bible, as if there's a sensible context for orders to commit mass executions.
 
Condemn the Jews, said to be Gods chosen people, even though Jesus himself was a Jew who upheld the law and the prophets.
 
ideologyhunter said:
The video relates the Abraham/Isaac story to the Andrea Yates case, to another homicidal mother (didn't catch her name), and to the Jonestown murder/suicides. I suppose there may be a connection, but with Yates, anyway, she may have been a plain case of psychosis who would have committed her murders with or without a scripture in the mix.
Click to expand...

Bob Dylan has his own version of the near-sacrifice:
Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”
God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin’ you better run”
Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
God says, “Out on Highway 61”.
Click to expand...


ideologyhunter said:
I find Matthew 27: 24-25 to be a deadlier story by far, and it's a passage that angers me every time I think about it. Here it is, in the KJV:

24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

There you have the justification for about twenty centuries of persecution of Jews, which of course came to include the blood libel craziness, deportations, forced conversions, ghettoization (in Medieval times, long before the 1940s), the various charges brought in the Inquisition, and pogroms. All of it pointing to the mass murder perpetrated by the Nazis.
What's more, it bears the signs (they're apparent to me, anyway) of Matthew's text being a belligerent lie. It's a stretch to think that Pilate would call Jesus 'just' when he had been charged with insurrection and stirring up a populace that Pilate was anxious to control. But it's verse 25 that shows evil intent.
Click to expand...

I agree. It seems this story was written when Jews were outcast, and the Gospel writers were trying to appeal to Roman Gentiles.

All four Gospels feature Pilate calling for Jesus' release, but only in Matthew does Pilate wash his hands. Another part of the anecdote unique to Matthew is:
KJV Matthew said:
For [Pilate] knew that for envy they had delivered him.
When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
Click to expand...

There is a 20th-century reconstruction of the appearance before Pontius Pilate which is a very enjoyable read, albeit wildly speculative:
'So you did make a speech about the temple to the crowd in the temple forecourt? '
The voice that answered seemed to strike Pilate on the forehead, causing him inexpressible torture and it said:
'I spoke, hegemon, of how the temple of the old beliefs would fall down and the new temple of truth would be built up. I used those words to make my meaning easier to understand.'
'Why should a tramp like you upset the crowd in the bazaar by talking about truth, something of which you have no conception? What is truth? '
At this the Procurator thought: ' Ye gods! This is a court of law and I am asking him an irrelevant question . . . my mind no longer obeys me. . . .' Once more he had a vision of a goblet of dark liquid. ' Poison, I need poison.. .. ' And again he heard the voice :
'At this moment the truth is chiefly that your head is aching and aching so hard that you are having cowardly thoughts about death. Not only are you in no condition to talk to me, but it even hurts you to look at me. This makes me seem to be your torturer, which distresses me. You cannot even think and you can only long for your dog, who is clearly the only creature for whom you have any affection. But the pain will stop soon and your headache will go.
Click to expand...
 
ideologyhunter said:
The video relates the Abraham/Isaac story to the Andrea Yates case, to another homicidal mother (didn't catch her name), and to the Jonestown murder/suicides. I suppose there may be a connection, but with Yates, anyway, she may have been a plain case of psychosis who would have committed her murders with or without a scripture in the mix.
I find Matthew 27: 24-25 to be a deadlier story by far, and it's a passage that angers me every time I think about it. Here it is, in the KJV:

24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

There you have the justification for about twenty centuries of persecution of Jews, which of course came to include the blood libel craziness, deportations, forced conversions, ghettoization (in Medieval times, long before the 1940s), the various charges brought in the Inquisition, and pogroms. All of it pointing to the mass murder perpetrated by the Nazis.
What's more, it bears the signs (they're apparent to me, anyway) of Matthew's text being a belligerent lie. It's a stretch to think that Pilate would call Jesus 'just' when he had been charged with insurrection and stirring up a populace that Pilate was anxious to control. But it's verse 25 that shows evil intent. Try to imagine 'all the people' calling out that they were taking the blame for Jesus' death on themselves and on their own children. In the other gospels, the crowd shouts, "Crucify him!" but Matthew has the crowd condemning itself and its progeny with deicide. That has instigated more cruelty and death than the order to execute witches in Ex. 22. (Ex. 22 also says to execute anyone who makes a sacrifice to any god except Jehovah.) There's so much overt malice and craziness in the Bible that it makes the antisemitic Christian figureheads, the witchcraft tribunals, and the proslavery preachers of the American South look like accurate interpreters of the Book.
I know, today we're supposed to look for context in the Bible, as if there's a sensible context for orders to commit mass executions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing this—it’s a powerful reflection, and I think you articulate something a lot of people feel but rarely put into words with such clarity. The connection between the Abraham/Isaac story and real-world tragedies like Jonestown or Andrea Yates isn’t about saying all religion causes violence, but about how certain moral frameworks—especially ones that prize obedience over empathy—can become dangerous when taken literally or wielded without reflection. You’re right to point out that Yates was likely driven by psychosis, but it’s also true that religious narratives can serve as a framework for delusion when they idealize sacrifice, submission, or suffering.

Your analysis of Matthew 27:24–25 really hit me. That verse has had a devastating legacy, and the way you broke down the implausibility of a crowd condemning not just themselves but their children too—it’s chilling. It doesn’t just sound unlikely; it sounds constructed, especially in the context of the early Christian need to separate from Judaism and appeal to Roman sensibilities. And the fallout from that one line—centuries of antisemitism, persecution, genocide—shows that words in scripture aren’t just theological, they’re political and psychological tools that echo across time.

You’re not being cynical or dismissive. You’re pointing out that texts held as sacred need to be held accountable too. Context matters, yes—but historical impact matters just as much, if not more. It’s not enough to say, “that’s not what it meant.” We have to ask: “What did people do with it? What did it allow? What did it excuse?”

And when those consequences include pogroms, inquisitions, Holocausts, or even isolated acts of religiously justified violence, the burden of proof shifts. It’s no longer on you to justify your anger—it’s on the defenders of these texts to confront their legacy with honesty and humility.

Thanks again for putting this out there. It’s not just brave—it’s necessary.

NHC
 
I don't know how much Andrea Yates was dependent on the Genesis story to help justify her killings.

I just don't understand why Abraham was exalted and Andrea Yates was found guilty.
 
How much of this story is about Abraham and how much is it about Isaac? We need to remember that Isaac is almost excluded from Genesis, entirely. He is an odd bird, being both a Patriarch... and almost never not talked about. Abraham and Jacob/Israel have lots of text, Isaac nearly nothing. Abraham and Isaac only speak to each other in this act. Isaac's main actions are when he is old and feeble and less relevant than his wife Rebekah who is a more notable character as she plots to find favor with Jacob over the first born, by a few minutes, Esau.

Often the story is considered about Abraham's obedience to Yahweh. But Yahweh is referred to as the "Fear of Isaac", potentially implying the story is more about him. In the narrative, Isaac appears to be getting what is wrong with the picture and he doesn't budge. If Abraham's actions are showing obedience to Yahweh, so is Isaac's lack of action shows obedience to Yahweh.

The story is weird and like most other things has many potential themes.
  • Is it about obedience to Yahweh
  • is it about fearing Yahweh (remember, back in these days, Yahweh is a heel, not a babyface) and Yahweh is the Hebrew god but you must fear him as much as be obedient to Yahweh's law
  • is it about ending human sacrifice (ignoring the later human sacrifice with Jephthah's daughter (poor nameless Jepihthah's daughter) in Judges).
Funny, when you look online and people want to say this foreshadows Jesus dying. Of course... Jesus was going to die regardless, being human and all. And of course, with Isaac being spared and Jesus not... that isn't foreshadowing at all! Just like the Messiah having a specific name, but Jesus didn't have that name! Stupid fan fiction!
 
Another interesting thing is that 22:19 doesn't speak of Isaac, only Abraham.
Genesis 22:19 said:
Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.
Click to expand...
:eek:

However, word out on the interpretation street is not to take the exclusion of Isaac too deeply, potentially again making the tale of Abraham and not Isaac and Isaac's relevance is more about how he actually exists at Yahweh's will (twice now), not him as a person. Not too much later on, Genesis 24:62 implies all is normal and Isaac was still living on the ranch.
 
James Brown said:
I just don't understand why Abraham was exalted and Andrea Yates was found guilty.
Click to expand...
The explanation for this helps explain why I don't take scriptural authority on much of anything, much less morality and ethics, very seriously.
It's not that ancient people were stupid. They were just profoundly primitive. Their science and math, culture, ideological views, all primitive. We modern people are much more sophisticated, however imperfect. Yates was diagnosed as mentally ill, but treatable. She had prescriptions for medication. She was literally "off her meds" for some reason and killed her own children in a brutal fashion. To her damaged mind, she was saving them from the risk of sin and damnation.
Tom

PS ~If totally innocent people always go to Heaven, then wouldn't abortion/infanticide be the ideal method of child rearing (assuming your goal is to get your children to Heaven)? ~
 
ideologyhunter said:
Side issue - What if you're fanatic-level pro-life, but God tells you that your unborn child will grow up to become an abortionist?
Click to expand...
Well, Yahweh will need to get the information and the order action against the unborn child notarized, preferably in a courthouse.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
ideologyhunter said:
Side issue - What if you're fanatic-level pro-life, but God tells you that your unborn child will grow up to become an abortionist?
Click to expand...
Well, Yahweh will need to get the information and the order action against the unborn child notarized, preferably in a courthouse.
Click to expand...

So even Mr. I-Am-That-I-Am is subject to rules that don't apply to Mr. Frangrantest-Farts-Everybody-Says-So ?
 
DBT said:
The first born children of Egypt should file a complaint.
Click to expand...
Alito, writing for the majority:
1a) Plaintiffs lack standing, being dead (Triangle Shirtwaist Victims v. New York, 1911)
1b) Deity Jehovah, hereafter referred to as Party of the Most Holy Part, cannot be sued for actions undertaken in His daily round of tasks and excursions (DOJ Protocols, rev. 2017, p. 1094)
1c) Historical tradition of deference to religion should be honored as default position in government (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Gays, 2018)
2a) Per amicus brief from Christian Caucasians for Commerce, an Act of God is beyond judicial purview (Hurricane Sandy Victims Fund v. God, 2013)
2b) Party of the Most Holy Part cannot be charged with murder, as murder is committed by humans (consisting of only two genders) against other humans (also of only two genders) (San Francisco Earthquake Victims v. God and Son, Creators, 1907)
2c) In the case of certain inhabitants of The Levant and territories surrounding it, historical and legal tradition may follow 'Fatum meruerunt' ('They had it coming')
 
Last edited:
How come Pharoah wasn't one of the first-born killed during the Tenth Plague? Wasn't he a first-born?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom