Posted on 07/29/2009 2:46:30 PM PDT by MarianoApologeticus
Large portions of evilbible.com have been considered, dissected and declared fallacious on very many levels.
Two examples of this fact are as follows:
Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of getting in the way of good fallacious assertions.
Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile Pagans who were not worshiping the God of the Bible but various false gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans in worshiping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but only condemns the Jews.
Some of the resources provided in the original post are as follows:
Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com
Atheism, EvilBible.com, “Theists Suck” and Christians are Hypocrites
Atheism, EvilBible.com and Jesus Lied
Atheism, Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible, and EvilBible.com
ADDENDUM TO: Atheism, Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible, and EvilBible.com
(Excerpt) Read more at atheismisdead.blogspot.com ...
I have never heard of this — I assume it is the virulent anti-Christians’ misquoting The Bible to prove some evil point?
Since objective evil cannot exist in the absence of the Creator of the Universe (Who is alone competent to define it), then to deny G-d while labeling something--anything--"evil" is to engage in self-contradiction on a grand scale.
That's fine, but the title of your post Evilbible is dead is misleading. Evilbible.com site is alive and fucntioning well.
Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape
What does Evilbible.com say about rape in the Bible and what is the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of rape? Why not post them so the readers can get the picture instead of taking your word for it?
***Since objective evil cannot exist in the absence of the Creator of the Universe ***
Would not evil be more or less defined as the absence of God?
No. The (chas veshalom!) "absence of G-d" would mean . . . nothing. Not empty space, but . . . nothing.
G-d and evil are rooted in G-d's nature and decrees. There is no independent morality or ethics based on any other consideration.
It is not Theists who have a "problem of evil" to solve (since G-d is absolutely necessary to objective evil to exist). It is atheists who insist that even in a self-existent universe devoid of all meaning, some things are still objectively "evil."
An absurd position utterly demolished by Plato's Euthyphro.
***Would not evil be more or less defined as the absence of God?
No. The (chas veshalom!) “absence of G-d” would mean . . . nothing. Not empty space, but . . . nothing.
G-d and evil are rooted in G-d’s nature and decrees. There is no independent morality or ethics based on any other consideration. ***
Interesting. If satan is an angel in opposition to God, then is satan an agent of God according to your understanding?
***It is not Theists who have a “problem of evil” to solve (since G-d is absolutely necessary to objective evil to exist). It is atheists who insist that even in a self-existent universe devoid of all meaning, some things are still objectively “evil.”***
Can you expand upon this?
Which is why the Maccabees fought the Greeks . . . pagan "philosophy."
Absolutely. And he's only doing his job. You must remember that there is no evil fallen angel warring against G-d in Torah.
***It is not Theists who have a “problem of evil” to solve (since G-d is absolutely necessary to objective evil to exist). It is atheists who insist that even in a self-existent universe devoid of all meaning, some things are still objectively “evil.”***
Can you expand upon this?
Sure. The whole point of morality/ethics is subjection and obedience to the Divine Will. Without a Divine Will to submit to all you have are subjective "hang-ups." Plus obedience and disobedience of G-d unleash spiritual forces (food in the case of the former, bad in the latter). In other words, to put it vulgarly, "mojo." If there is no G-d and all "morality" or "ethics" is based on "being nice to other people" (nice defined by whom, btw?) then obviously no spiritual forces are involved at all. Human beings are just pulling the whole thing out of their rears.
Zionist Conspirator: Absolutely. And he's only doing his job. You must remember that there is no evil fallen angel warring against G-d in Torah.
Mark, the concept of an independent and rebellious evil and the "conflict" between good and evil is a post-Babylonian, Persian import which made its way into messianic Judaism, and represents corruption of traditional Judaism. Jews do not believe that an angel, being created an obligate servant, can rebel against God.
The add insult to injury the Church added to this sectarian Jewish cult pagan Greek (Platonic) philosophy and created a new religion. In Judaism, man is in no need for salvation and ha-satan is a loyal servant (and son of) God, as all his angels are.
Most Christians are not aware of how the Jews interpret their own scripture. Instead, Christians treat Judaism as an apostate "corruption," and offer the New Testament as a "correction." The Church even states clearly that we interpret everything, including the Old Testament, through the prism of the New Testament, and the New Testament through the prism of the Gospels.
In doing so, Christianity is to a Jew what Mormonism is to a Christian. When the Christians say they are the "extended" Israel" it is like the Mormons saying they are the "true Christians." When we offer the New Testament to a Jew as scripture, it is like LDS offering their Book of Mormon to a Christian.
When American evangelists speak of "Judeo-Christian" culture, it is as if we were speaking of a Mormon-Christian culture. It is an oxymoron. A Jew can even be an atheist and still be a Jew, and even acceptable to God, but he cannot be a Christian and still be considered a Jew. You cannot be Cathoic and a Mormon, but you can be a non-practicing Catholic if you have been properly baptized.
Most Christians do not realize the true width of the chasm that exists. Much of it has to do with the fact that Christians adopted Jewish scriptures and Christianized it, so we feel it's partial "ours." Trouble is, the way we read it and the way the Jews read it is like night and day.
If you want to imagine how a Jew feels in a Christian world, imagine a Catholic/Orthodox living in a Mormon world...
ZC, your thoughts?
Plato's Euthyphro demolishes nothing.
The two options presented in first premise of the modernized Euthyphro dilemma are intended to be logically exhaustive so that if divine command theory is true then one of the options must be the case.
If the two alternatives presented are not the only alternatives then what is being presented as only two options is a false dilemna. If the first premise is false the argument is invalid.
There is a third alternative.
Euthyphro's Dilemma
Gregory Koukl
Cordially,
kosta50,
Yes, Evilbible.com site is alive and functioning well—yet, their content has been proven to be saturated with misunderstandings, misinterpretations, misapplications, misleading and omissions of texts that are problematic to their points and thus, they are functionally dead.
As far as your claims that I am merely making assertions: this is the very reason for providing the hyperlinks in the original post above. You do not have to take my word for anything as the Bible teaches in Acts 17:11 but can consider the evidence for yourself. The link entitled “Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com” is the one that deals with atheism, the Bible, rape and Evilbible.com
John Locke,
Is something good because an atheist proclaims it good or does an atheist proclaim something good because it is good?
What is your authoritative source for a mythical, pre-Babylonian, Persian"traditional" Judaism which was corrupted by some variant "cult" of "messianic" Judaism?
Most Christians are not aware of how the Jews interpret their own scripture.
The question seems to presume a monolithic Jewish interpretation of Scripture which does not comport with your characterization of Jewish history above. Messianic Jews for thousands of years would certainly take exception to such a characterization of messianic Judaism as a corruption of some earlier, authentic Judaism.
Cordially,
Wow . . . for someone I’ve quarreled with so violently in the past and someone whose on worldview is so far from mine, I don’t think I’ve ever read a lovelier post on this forum. Thank you, honorable adversary!
***Interesting. If satan is an angel in opposition to God, then is satan an agent of God according to your understanding?
Absolutely. And he’s only doing his job. You must remember that there is no evil fallen angel warring against G-d in Torah. ***
I see. satan is a tempter and rabble rouser, who then accuses mankind before God. Job is a case in point. According to my sources, satan works for God and has to get permission before engaging in any activity. Is that how you understand it?
***Can you expand upon this?
Sure. The whole point of morality/ethics is subjection and obedience to the Divine Will. Without a Divine Will to submit to all you have are subjective “hang-ups.” Plus obedience and disobedience of G-d unleash spiritual forces (food in the case of the former, bad in the latter). In other words, to put it vulgarly, “mojo.” If there is no G-d and all “morality” or “ethics” is based on “being nice to other people” (nice defined by whom, btw?) then obviously no spiritual forces are involved at all. Human beings are just pulling the whole thing out of their rears.***
Would you say that sin is active or passive disobedience to God, then?
***Most Christians do not realize the true width of the chasm that exists. Much of it has to do with the fact that Christians adopted Jewish scriptures and Christianized it, so we feel it’s partial “ours.” Trouble is, the way we read it and the way the Jews read it is like night and day.
If you want to imagine how a Jew feels in a Christian world, imagine a Catholic/Orthodox living in a Mormon world...***
Hmm. I knew this, but have never really thought about it in depth.
If I understand you correctly, yes.
Would you say that sin is active or passive disobedience to God, then?
There are sins of omission and sins of commission.
That's exactly what they say about Bible believers. They support their claims with scripural (OT) verses.
You site Act 17:11 (about Bereans checking the scriputres). It has nothing to do with rape and the way the OT treats rape.
I am not defending Evilbible.com, but if you are just interested in throwing undocumented mud on them you have succeeded. If you want to be taken seriously, then provide some scriptural support that shows their verses are not what they say they are.
they are functionally dead
Perhaps form your point of view, which so far doesn't account for much.
Don't you know the history? And it's not "pre" but rather "post" Babylonian Persioan influence (Zoroastrianism) on Judaism. This is where dualism is introduced among the Jews. You ask for authoritative source? I believe the there is no dualism anywhere in the Jewish canon, esepcially the Five Books of Moses.
Messianic Jews for thousands of years would certainly take exception to such a characterization of messianic Judaism as a corruption of some earlier, authentic Judaism.
What thousands of years? You mean to tell me there was messianic Judaism (as in worshiping Christ as the divine Savior) before Christ?
Ask any authentic Jew what he has in common with any other Jewish sect and they will tell you that they all reject Jesus and consider him an imposter rather than the Messiah. They will also deny that messianic Jews are Jews because any consideration of Jesus as a divine Person is incompatible with the Jewish belief that man cannot become God.
Thank you, and your are welcome. I am neither your adversary nor your advocate. I try to see beyond the box, that’s all, ZC.
Would you say that sin is active or passive disobedience to God, then?...(#17)
That is precisely how Judaism sees sin. Not absence or separation from God, but disobedience of the Law of God. The Christians talk about Ten Commandments as part of the "Judeo-Christian" culture, but fail to mention that the Jews have no less than 613 God's commandments, the mitzvot, and another dozen or so rabbinical ones.
The Jews don't practice their religion; they observe (obey) it (the Law). A religious Jew is an observant Jew, not a "practicing" Jew. What does that mean? That means, they either do (commit) some things pleasing to God, or refrain from doing (omit) some things displeasing to God. The mitzvot of commission (I believe) slightly outnumber the mitzvot of omission. As CZ wrote recently, to believe in God is a mitzvah (singular of mitzvot); to be compassionate is a mitzvah, an eye for an eye is a mitzvah, "righteous anger" (something so alien to Catholics and Orthodox) is a mitzvah, to not covet one's wife to observe the Sabbath, to not steal, to not worship idols, etc., etc. are all mitzvot.
The Ten Commandments are yet another excellent example of the unbridgeable is the chasm that exists between Christian and Jewish concepts, in this case sin. Christians cherry-picked ten out of 613!
Jewish approach to sin is also viewed from a different angle. Adam and Eve were disobedient and they received rightful punishment. They didn't need to be saved. By sparing their lives, God saved them. He just didn't reward them as he did before, because they were disobedient. (But, according tot he Bible, the debt of disobedience would have been paid back by the fourth generation, so I am not sure how why they were not restored to their previous state. Maybe CZ can helps us here with the Jewish perspective).
There is a whole slew of theological concepts the Christians borrowed from Judaism and then changed their meaning. Some that come to mind
So, now you can understand that the when John the Forerunner (Baptist) kept saying "repent, the Kingdom of God is near" he and his followers had something else in mind than what the Christians hear.
In Acts 1:4 Jesus tells the disciples to go to Jerusalem and stay there and wait "things concerning the Kingdom of God." In response (verse 6) the disciples ask "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel ?"
The World to Come isn't the Messianic Era, but the eternal world that succeeds it. Again, this is esoteric, as the Prophets prophesied only of the Messianic Era.
One important difference between Judaism and chr*stianity (and between Judaism and ancient pagan religions like that of Egypt) is that it isn't fixated on the afterlife. There is an afterlife (indeed, it has been cited as a reason for the prohibition of excessive mourning by cutting oneself), but Judaism doesn't concentrate on it. My own poor understanding is that this is because the soul descends from Heaven to enter the body, meaning that our assignment is down here. If it weren't, our souls could have remained in Heaven to begin with! Again, though, our job down here is rectifying the material world--the lowest world--via obedience to G-d, not by liberal utopianism or "social justice."
And kosta, there are 248 positive commandments and 365 negative ones (these are the 613 commandments given to Jews, not to non-Jews).
Again, thank you for your insights and observations.
Christian soterology, and what Christ's sacrifice means for our salvation in large part stems form these differing views, which in the case of Catholics is not too far form the Orthodox but in the case of Protestants it becomes another unbridgeable chasm.
One important difference between Judaism and chr*stianity (and between Judaism and ancient pagan religions like that of Egypt) is that it isn't fixated on the afterlife
Yes, thank you for bringing that up. That is a very, very crucial difference indeed. There is no specific teaching or "dogma" in Judaism about afterlife, nor is there excessive preoccupation with it. As you said, Judaism is concerned with mostly this life, here and now, although it believes in afterlife.
My own poor understanding is that this is because the soul descends from Heaven to enter the body, meaning that our assignment is down here. If it weren't, our souls could have remained in Heaven to begin with!
Here is where Judaism and Christianity (and even some who call themselves Christians) stand at extreme odds: the pre-existence of the souls. Gnostics believed it and were condemned for it since they claimed to be "Christian" as well.
Most Christians are not even remotely aware of this theological divide. In Christianity, any mention of such pre-existence is an automatic excommunication, so it is no wonder that such beliefs will be found among various Protestant sects.
However, even within the Church, there are doctrinal but not dogmatic departures on this subject: the West believes predominantly that God "creates" a new soul (that is gives his breath or life) at the moment of conception. (to me this makes no sese, biblically speaking, since God gave life to Adam by blowing life through his nostrills; and nothing similar takes pace at the conception for anatomical reasons)
The East predominantly believes elieves the life (originating from Adam) is passed on like the flame of a candle to a new candle, from generation to generation, and is the same life God gave to our ancestral father, Adam. In that, we are all connected.
And kosta, there are 248 positive commandments and 365 negative ones (these are the 613 commandments given to Jews, not to non-Jews).
I stand corrected. Much obliged. I had it the other way around (writing from memory which is never reliable!). Okay, mental note: there are more do not's then do's. :)
elieves = elieves
Do not misunderstand--Judaism is a highly mystical and spiritual religion (though it has its rationalists). However, these doctrines are very esoteric. I am currently studying a book (two pages a day) on the Noachide Laws endorsed by authentic Orthodox rabbis. It begins by noting that "the righteous of the nations [which means pious observants of the Noachide Laws, not "all nice people"] have a portion in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come," but after this focuses entirely on law, statute, and regulation. That is Judaism's exoteric systematic thrust.
Most Christians are not even remotely aware of this theological divide.
How many very sweet and sincere Judaeophilic "Bible chr*stians" know the important role of gilgul neshamot (ie, "reincarnation") in Orthodox Judaism? Of course, not all Orthodox Jews believe in it (it is rejected by the highly rationalistic).
I'm afraid I'll never understand classical chr*stianity. From my perspective as a Fundamentalist Protestant it simply makes no sense. Either we're messed up and and can only be passive recipients of salvation, or else the Law of G-d stands forever. But that we're "messed up" only enough to replace the Torah with something else? Um . . . illogical. As for the Catholic/classical Protestant argument over whether the "graces of the redemption" are "intrinsic or extrinsic," all I knew was that J*sus was vicariously damned in the place of each human individual, providing a loophole (you can't go to hell if you're already there!). This worldview makes Torah observance unnecessary, but it doesn't replace it with anything else and certainly isn't threatened if Jewish People continue to follow the commandments G-d gave them.
This view of chr*stianity which I held is, I believe, that of the vast majority in the American Heartland. Nothing is more confusing or makes less sense to one who holds such a view than authentic chr*stianity with its selective antinomianism.
All of this is not said as an insult to you or to anyone else but as a sincere attempt to explain how things look from my side.
Sadducees did not believe any of that as far as I know, and most of this mysticism is not biblical, or is it?
I am currently studying a book (two pages a day) on the Noachide Laws endorsed by authentic Orthodox rabbis. It begins by noting that "the righteous of the nations [which means pious observants of the Noachide Laws, not "all nice people"] have a portion in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come," but after this focuses entirely on law, statute, and regulation. That is Judaism's exoteric systematic thrust.
I thought the life of the World to Come follows the Messianic Age as a mid-stage spiritual bliss, before the Great Judgment and the eternal World of Resurrection.
How many very sweet and sincere Judaeophilic "Bible chr*stians" know the important role of gilgul neshamot (ie, "reincarnation") in Orthodox Judaism? Of course, not all Orthodox Jews believe in it (it is rejected by the highly rationalistic).
I am willing to bet that most extreme Judaephillic Christians would find it acceptable. Most mainline Protetsants would not. They are simply still too "Catholic." Of course, the Church flatly reject incarnation on the premise that the "self" would be lost and that we as individuals do not exist.
I'm afraid I'll never understand classical chr*stianity. From my perspective as a Fundamentalist Protestant...
When were you a Fundamentalist Protestant?
But that we're "messed up" only enough to replace the Torah with something else?
It's not that simple...but that's another topic.
From the time I was born until I converted to Catholicism. In fact, I'd say until after.
Gilgul neshamot and the doctrine of the soul are very complicated.
You are right, the Tzadduqqim rejected everything not written in the Torah. They were the "Protestants" of their day.
What kind (denominationally speaking) of a "Fundamentalist Protestant" were you, and what moved you to convert to Catholicism, if you don't mind me asking (since you mentioned it)? Are you still Catholic?
Gilgul neshamot and the doctrine of the soul are very complicated.
Mysticism belongs more to the Chasidim, if I remember correctly, and they are not exactly the "mainstream" even in the Pharisaical rabbinical Judaism.
You are right, the Tzadduqqim rejected everything not written in the Torah. They were the "Protestants" of their day.
But they were the "Catholics" in terms of being the 'establishment' (i.e. control over the Temple).
You need to ask me that?
Of course not.
I don't like to assume anything. So, are you a Noahide or did you convert to Judaism?
I'm a Noachide.
Thank you ZC. I like to read your posts because, obviously, you were not afraid to look outside the box when your conscience guided you there.
But does that mean you are still, "technically" speaking, Catholic, the way I am, technically speaking, Eastern Orthodox?
As an adult convert to Catholicism I was of course baptized by intinction, but whether that means I am "Catholic" I don't know and don't care. Besides, don't I incur automatic excommunication for my belief in the pre-existence of souls? And if that don't do it, my "Biblical literalism" certainly does!
Biblical literalism would not prevent you from receiving communion but belief in the pre-existence of the souls is not just grounds for the denial of communion, but grounds to be considered anathema—you no longer qualify as a Christian.
It's really amusing to see how different religions made their little man-made rules with which they mete "God's" justice. I was just scolded on an Orthodox site for not using capitalized personal pronouns for God. Does God really care if I write "His" with an upper-case or "his" with a lower-case letter "h," or would he be more interested in how much I am the way he wants mankind to be? (of course, this is all assuming there is God and we have a way of positively identifying him based on somehow knowing what God is...)
But how can they be righteous? They don't worship God, they don't obey his commands - they don't even know what his commands are - (except of course for Lot, who was an immigrant). Clearly, then, according to this narrative, one can be "righteous" other than by obeying God, and this premise is agreed to by both God and Abraham. So the Torah here directly contradicts the "Divine Command" theory of ethics.
You seem to be confused on at least one point: God has not only given us ethical instructions via the written text but has placed them within us—written in their hearts—as the Bible states and managed by our consciences.
Thus, even before the giving of the Ten Commandments to the Jews God’s ethos was infused within human kind.
Sadly, I perceive that you are actually please to be un-skeptical, simply believing whatever evilbible.com tells you and not bothering to consider the evidence that I have presented.
Thus, I will say it again: if you actually click on the hyperlinks I provided above you will acquire access to that which you, again, claim that I did not provide.
If you do not do so but merely continue attempting to besmirch the Bible for what you have been told about the way that the OT treats rape you will know that you are being intellectually dishonest and passed up an opportunity to educate yourself—you will know that you are pseudo-skeptical and are engaging upon emotive argumentation even whilst you keep claiming that since evilbible.com said it—it must be true—without question.
I sincerely urge you to actually consider my carefully researched evidence as it will help you determine what they contents, concepts and contexts of the Bible are. You have trouble discerning basic texts such as pointing out that “Act 17:11…has nothing to do with rape” even though I implied no such thing but wrote, “You do not have to take my word for anything as the Bible teaches in Acts 17:11 but can consider the evidence for yourself.”
Why is it that evilbible.com neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape? Did you know that they did that? Do you wonder why?
You are being manipulated by them and they succeed because you will not question them.
Why do they tell you that the Bible commands human sacrifice when it actually condemns it? Why do they not condemn the Gentile Pagans who actually did perform the human sacrifices which God condemns but are content to condemn the Jews? Do you know that they did that? Do you wonder why?
I am actually begging you to practice honest skepticism.
I had the same feeling on reading Kosta's post, and my worldview is very far from both of yours!!!
Interesting. What is your worldview?
I was raised an Orthodox Jew (modern Orthodox, not Hassidic or haredi), currently a Reform Jew, but with great respect for the Pharisaic Jewish tradition.
Thank you. I can see why your worldview would be different from mine, by that of the ZC as well?
This is not about pleasure, or pain. I think it pains me more to see that they find things they find, except I don't bury my head in the sand and pretend the sun doesn't shine. Their references are pretty clear, your protests notwithstanding.
Thus, I will say it again: if you actually click on the hyperlinks I provided above you will acquire access to that which you, again, claim that I did not provide.
I did. I is really a lot of rationalizations. Nothing very convincing. The verses are there and they say very clearly what they say.
If you do not do so but merely continue attempting to besmirch the Bible
I have no desire to besmirch the Bible.
for what you have been told about the way that the OT treats rape you will know that you are being intellectually dishonest and passed up an opportunity to educate yourself
That just sounds like a lot of hot air, all fluff and no substance, and lots of making it personal.
—you will know that you are pseudo-skeptical and are engaging upon emotive argumentation even whilst you keep claiming that since evilbible.com said it—it must be true—without question.
I never said it must be true because evilbible.com.com says it is. The evidence is not fabricated but pulled out of the Bible. You have yet to address those verses in particular and show that they don't say what they say.
Why is it that evilbible.com neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape?
Which text is that, I am asking you, again?
You are being manipulated by them and they succeed because you will not question them.
I think they use the same argument about Bible believers.
Why do they tell you that the Bible commands human sacrifice when it actually condemns it? Why do they not condemn the Gentile Pagans who actually did perform the human sacrifices which God condemns but are content to condemn the Jews? Do you know that they did that? Do you wonder why?
They mention Abraham being told to kill his son (Genesis 22:1-18). No matter how you look at it, putting Abraham through such an ordeal is rather cruel in some people's eyes. But, then some people don't think torturing animals is cruel. I guess we must not agree on what constitutes cruel.
They quote Lev 27:28-29 where everything that is not redeemed must be put to death (including humans I suppose).
They quote Judges 11:29-40 NLT, and Jephthah's daughter.
They quote Joshua 7:15 NLT God, and so on. In other words they go on to make their case. If you feel their case is worthless, in an absolute sense, then prove it.
I am actually begging you to practice honest skepticism.
I believe I am.
kosta50,
I am surprised that you are, again, asking which is the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of, and law about, rape since my essays on this issue related to evilbible.com makes it very clear.
Apparently, you are simply not going to challenge what you have been told by evilbible.com and you have not read my proof of their manipulations, fallacies and basic lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents, contexts and concepts.
Simply stated: the Old Testament law about rape is that when a rape occurs the rapist receives the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Yet, since it is evilbible.com’s contention that the Bible commands or simply does not condemn rape they did not make any reference to this text at all since they would have to give up their promulgation of falsehoods.
I see that you are joining the evilbible.com rank by condemning the Jew Abraham for human sacrifice (which he never engaged in) while not condemning Gentile Pagans (who actually did engage in it).
Please allow me to make one thing clear evilbile.com is not, I repeat not, making their case. They are prepping you by making highly emotive statements, then offering you little crumbs of partial texts and finally, they tell you what you should think that these texts mean.
Meanwhile, they hide texts that are no convenient to their premise and selectively quote texts that they can then manipulate.
You write, “…Lev 27:28-29, where everything that is not redeemed must be put to death (including humans I suppose).” That is just the point; please do not “suppose” but inform yourself so that you do not continue holding to and spreading falsehoods about the Bible.
I can barely understand what you are asking or rather, why you keep insisting that I prove my case. I have been begging you to consider the evidence which I have provided because I have proved it.
Genesis 22:1-18, Lev 27:28-29, Judges 11:29-40, Joshua 7:15—I have dealt with all of these. I have personally dealt with every single text that evilbible.com quotes or otherwise cites related to rape, human sacrifice, Jesus having lied, and charges of Jewish and Christian hypocrisy.
I taken evilbible.com seriously enough to specifically respond to each and every one of their claims related to the above mentioned issues.
As far as I can tell, you are not willing to consider that they might even be mistaken on any of their claims and will simply believe what they tell you.
Now, you are responsible for yourself: you have made claims premised upon evilbible.com’s statements and have been told where to find point by point, specific refutations of each and every one of those points—it is up to you.
Well, since you mention Deuteronomy 22, let's see what it says, beside the cherry-picked verses you list. Verses 28 and 29 say that if a man finds a girl in the field who is not engaged and seizes her and lies with her, he can make her his wife by paying 50 shekels to the father [quote ] "because he has VIOLATED her."
But he doesn't die for his rape. He pays for the "damaged goods" and they are his. And the fact that the girls was raped? Obviously the issue of violating women is not considered evil in itself in the eyes of the Hebrew God (if the Bible is truly God's word, that is), but a suitable means of acquiring a wife (for a nominal fee)!
There is no penalty for rape itself in the OT . There is penalty for violating someone else's property because it's considered stealing. It has to do with property, and women are treated like property in the Hebrew Bible. If she is "paid for" or otherwise claimed by a man, you may not touch her. But if she is free, and you want her, you can simply rape her, pay 50 shekels in silver, and she is yours! No automatic death penalty for rape for a nominal fee.
And you are telling me the Old Testament doesn't condone rape?
Since you had previously been made aware of Deuteronomy 22:25-27 you know that it is an utter falsehood to write that “There is no penalty for rape itself in the OT.”
You will note that I provided the URL to Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com which discusses the issue at length.
Also, within that series, I dissected all of the Deuteronomy 22 texts at this post.
Therein, I explain that the Hebrew “taphas” refers to catching, handling, taking hold, grasping, etc. and “shakab” refers to laying down. There is actually no reason to think that the woman was raped as in this scenario both consented and so restitution is made and a shotgun wedding ensues.
Well, “VIOLATE” is certain an interesting and translation of ′amah but even granting the inflammatory translation—and I realize that this is very difficult cultural context of we moderners to understand—unmarried loss of virginity was considered a violation or cultural norms.
The various scenarios that Deuteronomy 22 are very clear (if you have not been told to read “rape” into all of them) in this case she willingly engages him when he makes his advances and so she has to marry him and he makes restitution to the family which he has otherwise shamed.
Read 2 Sam 12:8, where God doesn't mind if someone takes someone else's wife; he gave David Saul's wives as if they were transferable property.
Read what God ordered done (2 Sam 12:11) with David's wives as punishment for his manner of acting (not because he took someone else's wife) and then tell me that it refers to catching, handling, taking hold, grasping.
What do you think people do with other people's wives? Hold them, play catch with them? You are desperately trying to rationalize and justify primitive biblical condoning of rape.
The God of the OT treats women as commodity to be exchanged for damages done. Thank (some other) God, we have evolved from that level of OT sponsored 'morality.'
I am afraid that my personal schedule and how much free time it allows is not up for discussion.
Of course, I do not need any time to look up any rationalizations since I have been alerting you to the fact that I have already written on the subject since July 25, 2009 while your last mention of Deuteronomy 22 was in August 12, 2009. You would not have had to bring that up 18 days later if you would have only considered the information that I presented to you from the start.
I understand quite well:
Tactic 1): I provide information, you ignore it, you ask for information, I provide it again, you ignore it, you charge that I am not providing information, I provide it again and you ignore it, etc.
Tactic 2): You essentially ask, “What about this?,” I respond, you ignore it and ask “What about this?,” I respond, you ignore it and ask, “What about this?...What about this?...,” etc. which merely ads to the confusion, misunderstanding and pile red herring upon red herring.
What I cannot figure out is whether people think that believers take the Bible too literally or rationalize it too much. I suppose that people will just pick up whatever club is handy at the time in order to beat us over our metaphorical heads. Besides, I was not rationalizing anything (as if there is something wrong with that) I was merely reading beyond your preferred parameters and also considering the original language.
I am very surprised that you purport to have read, at least some portions of, 2nd Samuel and think that the retribution was “not because he took someone else’s wife” when the entire point of the chapter, Samuel’s parable and God’s condemnation is precisely because he took someone else’s wife.
You reference verse 8 when it is in the very next verse where David is being condemned because he “struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own.”
Beyond not considering grammatical context you also, or so it seems to me, do not consider historical and cultural context. When a new king began to reign everyone in the kingdom—male, female, farmer, soldier, wife, husband, etc.—was now under his rule.
You read that God gave “gave David Saul’s wives” and read into the text that He meant for them to be David’s wives. Moreover, you think this because you do not read for context, or so it seems, and you cannot, apparently, imaging what else it means. Yet, Saul’s wives, his concubines, had the job of taking care of the palace (2nd Samuel chapters 15, 16 and 20).
Also, you appear to not be able to imagine otherwise because you may not be aware of the fact that it was against the law for Israeli kings to have more than one wife, “Nor shall he multiply wives to himself” (Deuteronomy 17:15, 17). The fact that some, such as David, did so in another matter—they were violating the law.
You are clearly angry at your own misunderstandings and not with the actual contents, concepts and contexts of the Bible.
By the way, I do play catch with other people’s wives when I play softball—nothing more.
Lastly, I wonder upon what premise do you condemn rape?
It's not the fact that he took someone else's wife, but the manner by which he did, that angered God. You miss the point that the OT God does not seem to mind if someone just "takes" someone else's wife, but how it is done.
And then the "just" punishment for David is to have his other wives raped by his neighbor! It doesn't get much better than that...
When a new king began to reign everyone in the kingdom—male, female, farmer, soldier, wife, husband, etc.—was now under his rule
I guess that makes it right. That's the society the OT God seems to like. Why are we not imitating Biblical societies then?
You read that God gave “gave David Saul’s wives” and read into the text that He meant for them to be David’s wives. Moreover, you think this because you do not read for context, or so it seems, and you cannot, apparently, imaging what else it means. Yet, Saul’s wives, his concubines, had the job of taking care of the palace (2nd Samuel chapters 15, 16 and 20).
He left them behind. Did you miss that part? "So the king went out and all his household with him. But the king left ten concubines to keep the house" (2 Sam 15;16)
But also, conveniently, you leave out 2 Sam 5:13 which says "Meanwhile David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David."
it was against the law for Israeli kings to have more than one wife
The OT is full of Israel's kings with more than one wife.
You are clearly angry at your own misunderstandings
I am not angry at all. And unlike you I am not reading another poster's mind (which is against FR Religion Forum rules, fyi).
Lastly, I wonder upon what premise do you condemn rape?
Violence, harm, cruelty, inflicting pain, demeaning, not something anyone sane wants done to him/her, counterproductive, antisocial, etc., etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.