7/25/09

EvilBible.com is Dead

Please note; this post has been moved to this link.

Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

31 comments:

  1. XAtheistXJuly 26, 2009 at 3:56 PM

    you suck ass you morons youre so stupid and youre wrong about everything

    ReplyDelete
  2. KenJuly 26, 2009 at 8:06 PM

    Thank you so much for checking in and for the comment.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  3. mmcelhaneyJuly 26, 2009 at 9:51 PM

    @XAtheistX What no witty comeback? No rebuttal? No substantive demonstration that anything Mariano has written is mistaken? Name calling you've got. No good arguments, though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJuly 28, 2009 at 8:05 PM

    Your post title, "EvilBible.com is dead" and your line, "Yes, EvilBible.com had its fun, had its say and now has given up the ghost," imply to this reader that the website, evilbible.com, is no more. But I just went to its main page a minute ago. Did it rise in response to your epitath??

    ReplyDelete
  5. RhologyJuly 29, 2009 at 8:49 AM

    It didn't do anything in response to the utter destruction of criticism it has suffered at our hands. That's kinda the point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJuly 29, 2009 at 11:18 AM

    I wonder what Mariano will claim is dead next? trees? air? insects? the moon? This blog is silly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Irreverent Mr BlackJuly 29, 2009 at 8:56 PM

    Of course, the Codex Sinaiticus shows the bible in the process of yet *another* revision, and Bart Ehrman has debunked 19 of 27 New Testament books as forgeries. (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/15/bible.critic/)

    Still, I suppose there are experts on Tolkien's fiction too...

    ReplyDelete
  8. GrantJuly 30, 2009 at 10:51 AM

    You've probably noticed that you've been banned from the Dawkins forum for spamming. Perhaps next time you'll try and take the time to present your arguments properly rather than cut & paste the same text on multiple threads. Of course, that would only apply if you intended to take a part in an intelligent discussion of your position...

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousJuly 30, 2009 at 11:48 AM

    Has it been ressurected? Is this some strange irony where we find that evilbible.com is actually jesus?

    The website is one among hundreds of sites promoting free thought. While admittedly people who are not bound to the bible and attempt to help people out of their naivety often succumb to the very same missteps that those who bow before god make.

    The truth is that all those sites and all them bible thumpers sure do love to argue about nothing at all since debating the bible means debating specific translations, versions and religious sources.


    Atheists and Theists....all fools.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousJuly 30, 2009 at 6:00 PM

    "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."

    Methinks you need to read Judges chapter 11 verses 29-39:

    29Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

    30And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

    31Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

    32So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.

    33And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

    34And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

    35And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.

    36And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

    37And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.

    38And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

    39And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel

    Whoops!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jim MJuly 31, 2009 at 3:12 AM

    Ho-hum.

    Another spammer lying for Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  12. BenYachovJuly 31, 2009 at 8:52 PM

    It just means Jephthah "sacrificed" his daughter by keeping her a virgin her whole life. Not by killing her.

    Anyway God never told Jephthah to sacrifice anything in the first place & since he was a Gentile & not a Cohen he had no business usurping the job of God's Priests to offer the correct sacrifices in the correct manner.

    So it's his fault not God's.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BenYachovJuly 31, 2009 at 9:29 PM

    You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
    -Deuteronomy 12:31

    Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
    -Deuteronomy 18:10

    It would be weird for Jephthah to think that he could elicit God’s help during war by promising to offer Him a human sacrifice, that is, to do something that was in direct violation of the Torah. Such a proposal would be equivalent to a person requesting God’s blessing and assistance by offering to build a statue to Baal or the Temple.

    To quote Apologetics Press
    "Jephthah’s action may best be understood by recognizing that he was using ‘olah in a figurative sense. We use the term “sacrifice” in a similar fashion when we say, “I’ll sacrifice a few dollars for that charity.” Jephthah was offering to sacrifice a member of his extended household to permanent, religious service associated with the Tabernacle. The Bible indicates that such non-priestly service was available, particularly to women who chose to so dedicate themselves (e.g., Exodus 38:8). [Sadly, Eli’s sons were guilty of taking sexual liberties with them (1 Samuel 2:22).] Even in the first century, Anna must have been one woman who had dedicated herself to the Lord’s service, since she “did not depart from the temple” (Luke 2:37).

    Several contextual indicators support this conclusion. First, the two-month period of mourning that Jephthah granted to his daughter was not for the purpose of grieving over her impending loss of life, but over the fact that she would never be able to marry. She bewailed her virginity (bethulim)—not her death (11:37).

    Second, the text goes out of its way to state that Jephthah had no other children: “[S]he was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter” (11:34). For his daughter to be consigned to perpetual celibacy meant the extinction of Jephthah’s family line—an extremely serious and tragic matter to an Israelite (cf. Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1ff.). Third, the sacrifice is treated as unfortunate—again, not because of any concern over her death, but because she would not become a mother. After stating that Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed,” the inspired writer immediately adds, “and knew no man” (11:39). This statement would be a completely superfluous and callous remark if she had been put to death. Fourth, the declaration of Jephthah’s own sorrow (11:35) follows immediately after we are informed that he had no other children (11:34). Jephthah was not upset because his daughter would die a virgin. He was upset because she would live and remain a virgin.

    Hannah made a similar sacrifice when she turned her son over to the priestly direction of Eli for the rest of his life (1 Samuel 1:11). How many are willing to make such sacrifices? Actually, however, these tremendous acts of devotion were no greater than that which God requires of all Christians: to offer ourselves as spiritual burnt-offerings in service to God (Romans 12:1)."END QUOTE

    Really these New Atheists are clueless.

    The problem is they have too much contempt for religion & the Bible in general to even bother making a meaningful study of it. Hence they come up with all these lame polemics that convince nobody with an IQ of 3 or higher.

    Some advice. Stick to the commandments from God to slay the Canaanites or the Midianites for your polemics.

    This made up stuff about the Bible commanding Rape or human sacrifice....in short....not working for ya.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The WhymanAugust 1, 2009 at 9:42 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The WhymanAugust 1, 2009 at 9:52 PM

    There is another superficial argument popular with "atheists". It states that even if God exists, the morality He dictates is so abhorrent to the atheist and inferior to the atheist’s own moral sensibilities that the atheist cannot believe in Him. And in the unlikely event that the atheist is ever confronted by God, he will refuse to acknowledge His divine status let alone His right to rule over Mankind.

    I find it very difficult to take this argument seriously. It’s not so much the Biblical confidence that "every knee shall bow" that makes me skeptical about this theoretical atheist machismo in the face of the Almighty, it’s the part about how even the demons believe . . . and tremble. I don’t know what it takes to make a powerful fallen angel shake with terror just thinking about it, but I have a feeling that neither Richard Dawkins nor Bertrand Russell will be wagging their fingers at God and criticizing Him for insufficient evidence on the day their disbelief is conclusively destroyed.

    The argument is totally specious from the logical perspective, of course, because the fact of God’s existence no more depends on the quality of His character than does Charles Manson’s. Things exist or don’t exist regardless of whether we wish them to be or not.

    Most of these "intellectually enlightened" don't seem to be able to grasp this basic logic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. BenYachovAugust 1, 2009 at 11:17 PM

    The Whyman,

    Intelligent Atheists(i.e. Smith, Nagil etc which by definition excludes the New Atheists) would simply say the Argument from Evil(which is what this nonsense is when you sweep away all the crud & bad thinking) only calls into question the existence of the Biblical Judaeo Christian God & not a Deistic or Maltheistic God.

    Of course Reformed Philosopher Alvin Plantinga answered the Argument from Evil back in the 70's.

    So effective was it they had to redo the whole argument from evil. Since he did prove logically you could have a God who is both All-Good & All-Powerful at the same time.

    God Bless & Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The WhymanAugust 2, 2009 at 2:50 AM

    You are quite correct. They cannot escape which is obvious to all.
    So how do they resolve their obvious obstacles?

    They redefine words and terms so that they can claim that "x" was what they were saying all along. (It reminds me of George Orwell's "double-speak)
    Now, they expect us to believe that atheism means (and always has meant) "lack of belief in God(s)" as opposed to the absolute denial of the existence of God.

    So many issues..so little space to cover in sufficient detail.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Russell NashAugust 6, 2009 at 8:00 AM

    You two certainly are hilarious. "They?" Ah, the evil atheistic hive mind. Cracks me up every time.

    The same goes for your obvious Pascal's Wager's line of reasoning. Yeah, atheism is totally retarded. That leaves us with a choice between either the judeo-christian god and...wow, what a surprise - the judeo-christian god!

    I love you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  19. BenYachovAugust 6, 2009 at 5:24 PM

    I love you too.

    A rational Atheist would have correctly concluded (by actually reading what we wrote)we where not bashing all Atheists. Just New Atheists.

    OTOH a New Atheist can't make that intellectual distiction. Much like the religious fundamentalist who can't tell the difference between Chriticising the excesses of Jimmy Swaggard vs irrationally dismissing the thought of either Aquinas or Calvin.

    Quite pathetic these New Atheists. They are in essense "Fundies without God belief" only twice as stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AnonymousAugust 6, 2009 at 5:58 PM

    But evilbible.com is still functioning. What are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousAugust 9, 2009 at 9:25 PM

    Ok, what's a "new atheist"? A newborn baby?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The WhymanAugust 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM

    The strawman..another classic line of fallacious reasoning by the "atheist" who has run out of arguements, following by the #1 ad hominem.

    As for Pascals Wager, it is misused by Christians, but it is largely misunderstood by skeptics like Russell Nash above who feel the need to misrepresent the position and defeat that instead.

    Try this on for size:
    http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/whats_new.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. The WhymanAugust 23, 2009 at 7:32 PM

    Just a nitpick, BenYachov. I consider myself to be a fundamentalist. The media and "atheists" give us a bad name by pointing to hypocrites and by misrepresenting what it means to be a fundamentalist Christian.

    The word fundamentalist was historically first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws in regards to describing a Christian who stood for the historic core doctrines of the Christian faith:
    1) Inerrancy of Scriptures.
    2) The Miracles of Christ. (including virgin birth)
    3) The literal, bodily resurrection of Christ. 4) The substitutionary atonement of Christ. 5) The deity of Christ

    If you believe this, then technically, you are a fundamentalist Christian too.

    My advice: The broad brush covers more, but isn't nearly as accurate as the fine tip.

    ReplyDelete
  24. MarkAugust 26, 2009 at 8:06 AM

    Mariano is merely pointing out Evilbible's fallacious arguments and ignorance of the context of the texts in which they use to condemn the Bible. The person quoting Judges above also ignored the fact that there is nothing in the passage that has God condoning any wrongful behavior. There is no "whoops!" about it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The WhymanAugust 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM

    You are right, Hustada. They -often deliberately- overlook the context of the passage and willfully forget that the historical narrative in scripture is often *descriptive* and not *prescriptive*.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Connor RSeptember 4, 2009 at 11:13 AM

    Whyman, my blog seem accurate to you? I'm honestly curious.

    ReplyDelete
  27. AnonymousOctober 5, 2009 at 11:36 AM

    Not really sure what this guy is trying to get at,
    don't you see the hypocrisy?:

    God says go rape those girls. God says don't rape at all. God says go take those girls for yourself (and kill the women who aren't virgins/unpure). But wait, God says DON'T RAPE!!!

    In other words the Bible is the written word of a bunch of barely literate, bloodthirsty, uncultured and incestuous fartheads, who sat in a desert arguing amongst themselves and basically anyone that didn't agree with them.

    ReplyDelete
  28. tremorOctober 6, 2009 at 4:43 AM

    @anon
    God never commanded or approved rape. Never.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Liberator_RevNovember 8, 2009 at 10:43 PM

    By defending the most indefensible parts of the bible this blog is helping to bring the WHOLE bible into disrepute and causing the BEST parts of the bible to be thrown out with the WORST parts. See http://LiberalslikeChrist.Org/ which does the opposite, in an effort to preserve and promote what is BEST in the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  30. tremorNovember 9, 2009 at 2:06 PM

    @Liberator

    Oh yeah, rev, esp. successfully defending indefensible parts is such a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  31. AnonymousDecember 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM

    @BenYachov

    You rely on Plantinga for your arguments?? Oh dear, this is the Plantinga who can't do simple math, the Plantinga in whose world: "if we queried the inhabitants with some simple question, such as, "Is fire hot?", 50% would say no, and 50% would say yes." (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/alvin_plantinga_gives_philosop.php)

    How does Plantinga support the assertion that your god is all-powerful? If he is powerful, then, presumably, he can create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it. If he can't lift it, then he's not all-powerful.

    And don't give me the: "He wouldn't want to do that" argument, that's not a logical argument.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)