Atheism: EvilBible.com is Dead

Large portions of evilbible.com have been considered, dissected and declared fallacious on very many levels.

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.

Sadly, I perceive that you are actually please [sic] to be un-skeptical, simply believing whatever evilbible.com tells you and not bothering to consider the evidence that I have presented.

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?

The Old Testament doesn't condone rape it condemns it.

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.

What's we you? You respond every three months or so? Is that enough time for you too look up all the rationalizations people wrote to re-cast the Bible in their own image?

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?

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.

Thanks for responding again.

You have asked some good question and yet, I note that they are based on common misconceptions and could be alleviated by some basic considerations of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts.

I am not certain how God does not seem to mind if David took someone else's wife when God had commanded that Kings not have more than one wife.

I am also not certain how the society that God seems to like is one in which when a new king began to reign everyone in the kingdom was now under his rule when we consider that the only reason that there was this sort of kingship in Israel is because the people wanted it and God allowed them to exercise their free will.

This was not God’s idea:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them. (1st Samuel 8:4-9).

We are not imitating Biblical societies because this sort of society was agreed upon by those who chose to make the covenant with God. Note the chronological terminology and differentiation between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Such a society was for the Hebrews who lived in Israel millennia ago.

Yes, "the king…left ten concubines to keep the house" because their job was to keep the house. Indeed, when David took more concubines and wives he was breaking the law, as I already noted before you brought this up. Indeed, the Old Testament is “full of Israel's kings with more than one wife” and they all broke the law. Note that description does not equal prescription. Since it was prescribed that they do not do so and it is described that they did so it shows that their actions are being condemned by the Bible which is reporting their lawbreaking.

I actually did not know that mind reading is against forum rules. I inferred emotive reactions in your past comments and note that these were based on misunderstandings of the Bible’s statements.

I am afraid that you did not answer to upon what you premise your condemnation of rape but only listed more things that you condemn.

Upon what premise do you condemn: violence?

Upon what premise do you condemn: harm?

Upon what premise do you condemn: cruelty?

Upon what premise do you condemn: inflicting pain?

Upon what premise do you condemn: demeaning?

Upon what premise do you condemn: doing something insane to people or having insane people wanting certain things done to them?

Upon what premise do you condemn: being counterproductive?

Upon what premise do you condemn: being antisocial?

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.