Atheism: EvilBible.com is Dead

Atheism is Dead (blog) ^ | July 25, 2009 AD | Mariano

[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

[kosta50]

What is your authoritative source for a mythical, pre-Babylonian, Persian"traditional" Judaism which was corrupted by some variant "cult" of "messianic" Judaism?

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.

[kosta50]

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.

[kosta50]

Hmm. I knew this, but have never really thought about it in depth... (#18)

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

• the Son of Man (ben adam, the son of Adam, Adam=man; bar adam in Aramaic); we are all ben adams.
• The Kingdom of God (not the kingdom in heaven we think of, but Israel, the land God promised to Abraham and his children)
• The World to Come (Olam Ha Ba) is the spiritual life of the world after the mortal warrior-king anointed by God (the meshiyah,  messiah) defeats Israel's enemies and established peace on earth
• ha-satan (the accuser; an obedient servant and angel of God)
• the son of God (ben Elohyim, a title of all angels, as well as Adam)
• the anointed one (meshiyah, christos in Greek), a title of all Israeli kings, including the one who will bring world peace (the messiah); the title does not imply divinity .  

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 ?"

[Zionist Conspirator]

Again, all excellent observations, kosta, with the exception that Adam and Eve may have been created immortal and then lost that immortality after the sin. However, if this is so, it appears to be an esoteric doctrine, as the simple sense of the text seems to be that G-d threatened them with death but relented and expelled them from the Garden instead.

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.

[kosta50]

Thank you, CZ, very much for your clarifying comments. Just for your own conceptual benefit, the Church teaches Adam and Eve were created neither mortal nor immortal, but insists that had they not sinned they would not have died. They chose sin (rejected God, who is life) and became mortal. Thus, mortality became human nature. Whether our mortality is a "sin" (the so-called ancestral or original sin) or a consequence (damage) from sin we all inherit is where the East and West Christianity disagree; the East doesn't treat it as sin but as a fallen, defective product, and the east treats it as a personal sin.

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. :)

[kosta50]

errata: and the east treats it as a personal sin=and the West treats it as a personal sin

elieves = elieves

[Zionist Conspirator]

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.

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.

[kosta50]

Do not misunderstand--Judaism is a highly mystical and spiritual religion (though it has its rationalists). However, these doctrines are very esoteric.

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.

[Zionist Conspirator]

When were you a Fundamentalist Protestant?

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.

[kosta50]

From the time I was born until I converted to Catholicism. In fact, I'd say until after.

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).

[Zionist Conspirator]

Are you still Catholic?

You need to ask me that?

Of course not.

[kosta50]

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?

[Zionist Conspirator]

I don't like to assume anything. So, are you a Noahide or did you convert to Judaism?

I'm a Noachide.

[kosta50]

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?

[Zionist Conspirator]

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!

[kosta50]

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...)

[John Locke]

Perhaps the most helpful answer is in Genesis Chapter 18. That is where God promises to save the city of Sodom if there are but "fifty righteous" within it.

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.

[MarianoApologeticus]

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.

[MarianoApologeticus]

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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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!

I had the same feeling on reading Kosta's post, and my worldview is very far from both of yours!!!