Let us pick up where we left off last time:
15) Tattoos are anathema: (“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you. I am the Lord”–Leviticus 19:28) Despite this teaching I manage to see Mexican Catholics daily with tattoos of the Virgin Mary, Jesus or a set of praying hands on their forearms and shoulder blades.
Not much more to say except: OT=NT. This and many other laws were meant to differentiate the Israelites from the Gentile Pagans (whom evilbible.com’s author did not condemn for sex slavery, temple prostitution or human/child sacrifice; see here). Back then, tattoos were not about being hip or “Hey! Look at me!” attention begging but where ritualistic and indicative of false idolatrous god worship.
16) Money cannot be lent at interest to your brother, only to foreigners (Deuteronomy 23: 19-20) Ahhh, I’m recalling all the Christian banking corporations…. [ellipses in original-for whatever reason]
OT=NT.
17) Eating pork is forbidden (Deuteronomy 14:8). Hmm, I’ve never met a Christian who DIDN’T enjoy bacon and eggs.
OT=NT via another example of Charlotte’s lack of knowledge of even the most basic of biblical concepts and contents:
Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. And he became very hungry and desired to eat. But while they made ready, an ecstasy fell on him.And he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel like a sheet coming down to him, being bound at the four corners and let down to the earth; in which were all the four-footed animals of the earth, and the wild beasts, and the reptiles, and the birds of the heaven.And a voice came to him, saying, Rise, Peter! Kill and eat! But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has made clean, you do not call common.
This happened three times, and the vessel was received up again into the heaven (Acts 10:9-15, also see 11:5-10).
Charlotte continues thusly,
18) A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother’s wife (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). This goes without explaining of course.
OT=NT. To state that this goes without explaining is basically a Dan Barker tactic meant to imply something completely false as there were careful regulations in this regard; for example, the entire book of Ruth is premised upon the concept of the kinsman redeemer (for an example of the Barkerian tactic see here).
19) A seducer must marry an unengaged virgin whom he seduces (Exodus 22:16-17)
I am quite impressed with this one, I must admit, as Charlotte is the only atheist I have ever encountered who read a text such as the one cited here and did not spend their time imagining rape (see here for copious examples of atheists obviously spend tremendous amounts of time fantasizing about rape).
This is a case in which an unengaged virgin consents to engaging upon unmarried fornication and so a shotgun wedding ensues.
20) A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). What justice the “moral majority” advocates!
Oh well, I guess that I will take my compliment back. Now I understand why Charlotte cited the two texts but did not bother quoting then. This way she can both: merely propagandize while hiding what the texts actually states and knowing that atheists are generally far too pseudo-skeptical to actually look up the texts, read them, read the context and seek to actually understand them she could get away with it. Both the Exodus 22:16-17 and the Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are equivalent. Since I have dissected this issue in responding to evilbible.com’s authors fallacious assertions I will direct the interested reader to the post: Atheism, the Bible, Rape, EvilBible.com and Dan Barker.
21) There are several petty and silly little verses in the O.T., but none the less, they are to be followed. I guess it’s okay to disobey the lord for fashion’s sake. Beards can’t be rounded (Leviticus 19:27); A garment composed of wool and linen can’t be worn (Deuteronomy 22:11); Note: this explains why you will commonly see orthodox Jews with the long beards and black clothing. I say Christians should do this too so we can identify their stupidity upon first impression.
Interesting that the reason why orthodox Jews wear long beards and black clothing is Deuteronomy 22:11 while the text refers to not mixing fabrics and nothing about the color of the clothing-did I miss something? Moreover, if Deuteronomy 22:11 is the reason why orthodox Jews, meaning certain Hasidic sects, wear black clothing why did they not wear that sort of black clothing until the 18th century AD?
22) Bastards can’t enter the Lord’s congregation. (Deuteronomy 23:2) Hey, I know this is harsh, but God commands it, hence it must be “just”.
This is perhaps best understood by realizing that it has been by maintaining a lineage, a peoplehood, a nationhood (even whilst occasionally not technically a “nation”) that the Jews have survived as a people for millennia while others have so readily come and gone.
Having presented the 22 side dishes to her beef, Charlotte launches this salvo before ending with the statement with which we ended part 4:
All of these rules are part of the Old Covenant and of equal import. Why quote the Ten Commandments and ignore other tenets? A believer’s obligation to one is no less than his obligation to all. In fact, if under the New Covenant Christians have stepped into the shoes of the Israelites and become, in effect, the new Chosen People, then they should inherit all the privileges and duties of that office. They seem to want the former but not the latter. Biblicists teach, preach, and attempt to reach others with moralism, but are not averse to selectively using that which suits their interests.
By now we know that this is merely the old and tired OT=NT fallacy but with a new unbiblical element thrown in for further discrediting of Charlotte, “if under the New Covenant Christians have stepped into the shoes of the Israelites and become, in effect, the new Chosen People, then they should inherit all the privileges and duties of that office.”
Paul writes, “Did not God put away His people? Let it not be said! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin_” and goes on to explain that God is in no way done with the Jews and that Christians should be very careful to not become prideful in thinking that they have, as Charlotte puts it, “become, in effect, the new Chosen People.”
Thus, we have presented copious examples of how evilbible.com and Charlotte are a perfect match since:
1) Both are very good at taking advantage of pseudo-skeptical atheists.2) Both rain down condemnation and brimstone without providing a premised beyond arguments from impotent outrage.3) Both demonstrate a stunning lack of scholarship.4) Both demonstrate a shocking level of ignorance of even the most basic concepts and contents of the Bible.
5) Both leave God, Jesus, the Bible and Judeo-Christianity unscathed whilst discrediting themselves.
Evilbible.com and Charlotte; I have one question for you both: Where’s the beef?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.