Free Republic:
As of October 9, 2009 AD, 51 comments were posted to the Free Republic mention, some pro some against and many carrying on discussions back and forth. Thus, I will focus on a few to which I personally responded.
As with ExChristian.Net Has Been X’d, part 2 one commentator did not seem to understand the concept of referring to something such as a website as being “dead”—as in EvilBible.com is Dead. No, it is not an IT related term such as “dead link” which refers to loss of functionality. Rather, it is a conceptual reference, a reference to discreditation. The comment was,
…the title of your post Evilbible is dead is misleading. Evilbible.com site is alive and fucntioning [sic] well.
They continued by stating,
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?
Thus, it began.
I had noted that, for some odd reason evilbible.com neglects to cite, quote or otherwise allude to the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of rape and I provided the hyperlink to Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com foolishly assuming that the curious skeptic would consider the information.
I responded thusly:
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
Ok, let us see what will become of a more specific reference to where the answer is to be found.
Since, there was a lot of copying, pasting and parsing what I wrote I will add ellipses for the sake of succinction:
Yes, Evilbible.com site is alive and functioning well—yet… That’s exactly what they say about Bible believers. They support their claims with scripural [sic] (OT) verses. You site Act 17:11 (about Bereans checking the scriputres [sic]). 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.
So, we have moved from not checking the initial reference, to not checking the additional reference whilst claiming that I was leaving them to taking my word for it to now asking me to then provide the scriptural support which I already provided twice. Please understand that, since this continues in this vein, I am not merely being difficult or evasive but I am seeing just what it will take to get them to actually consider the information that I am telling them I have provided via an essay on the matter and seeing just how many times they will accuse me of not providing the information which I provide.
My response was:
Sadly, I perceive that you are actually please [sic, I meant “pleased”] 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 think that we are dealing with a sluggish form of pseudo-skepticism which is quite unscholarly—apparently, they want to be spoon-fed rather than clicking on a hyperlink and reading.
Let us see what came of it as they begin with my reference to being pleased to be un-skeptical (again I will add ellipses only in order to make succinct or remove quotes from my previous statements):
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.
…if you actually click on the hyperlinks…
I did. I [sic] is really a lot of rationalizations. Nothing very convincing. The verses are there and they say very clearly what they say…I have no desire to besmirch the Bible.
… 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…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.
…evilbible.com neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text…
Which text is that, I am asking you, again?…I think they use the same argument about Bible believers.
…they tell you that the Bible commands human sacrifice when it actually condemns it…
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.
Did you catch the disconnect, or contradiction? First, the claim to have clicked on the hyperlinks aka have read the information and determined that I was rationalizing, unconvincing.
Yet, then they state that I did not “address those verses in particular” when they supposedly read my consideration of said verses, they emphasize that they are asking me again.
If I had to guess I would imagine that they did not click on my hyperlinks but went to evilbible.com, read the page again and said, “Yep, they quote the Bible so evilbible.com’s interpretation must be true.” The individual verses say, very clearly, what they say but they do not say what evilbible.com says that they say.
Also, note that they claim to have no desire to besmirch the Bible. But is promulgating the falsehood that the Bible does not condemn but allows for rape not a besmirchment?
Note also what I noted above about tu quoques granting the argument in the first place as it is applicable to the statement, “they use the same argument about Bible believers.”
‹ The Rape of Skepticism, part 1 up The Rape of Skepticism, part 3 ›