To one who stands outside the Christian faith, it is utterly astonishing how ordinary a book can be and still be thought the product of omniscience.Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
BibleLies
read my profile
sign my guestbook

Visit BibleLies's Xanga Site!

Name: Krisko
Gender: Male


Interests: Biblical criticism.
Expertise: Showing the errors in an "inerrant" book.


Message: message me


Member Since: 3/1/2007

SubscriptionsSites I Read
tim223
soccerdadforlife
WAR_ON_ERROR
syncretic
Karanis
ChickTracts
Nicks_Nuggets_of_Joy
AskTheGodQuestion
An_Atheist_View
GOODGREYPOET
TheMonthlyDaily
ArgumentsFromtheLeft
evolutionexplained

Blogrings (10 of 18)
atheists v. christians
previous - random - next

Atheist & Freethinkers - Speak Your Mind
previous - random - next

Atheist
previous - random - next

Secular Humanism
previous - random - next

An Open Mind In A Closed World
previous - random - next

Christian Apologetics
previous - random - next

Religion is pointless
previous - random - next

C.S. Lewis Forum
previous - random - next

Is Christianity True?
previous - random - next

Campus Crusade for Christ
previous - random - next

View all blogrings

Posting Calendar

|<< oldest | newest >>|
view all weblog archives

Get Involved!

Suggest a link

Recommend to friend

Create a site


Sunday, September 02, 2007

Attention!

I will no longer be posting on this site. I have too many debate sites going, and I can't do them justice like this. So I am combining them all together in to one site: http://www.xanga.com/GodlessLiberal.

This site will incorporate aspects of my three debate sites (BibleLies, EvolutionExplained, and ArgumentsFromtheLeft). All three of these sites will remain up, mainly as archives. Please, if you enjoyed what I did on any of these sites, come join me on my new home. Especially now that the school year is approaching, which means I'll have lots of things I'll be wanting to avoid (the main fuel for these sites in the first place). If you will not be joining me on this move, then I'll miss you.

Peace, Love, Krisko Disko


Wednesday, April 25, 2007

My apologies

Between my poor health and the approach of finals week, I have no time for this site. Instead, enjoy a cartoon.





Your thoughts?


Thursday, April 05, 2007

Currently Reading
Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?
By Tim Callahan
see related

Failed Prophecies

Last week I was having a conversation (if you can call it that) with the Rev. Dwight Knight, who told me that every single prophecy in the Bible, with the exception of those about the end times, has been fulfilled. I decided to research that a bit. Here's what I've got:

Jeremiah informs us that God will smite all the Israelites migrating into Egypt (42:15-18). Even so, I think we can be reasonably certain that people from Israel have journeyed into Egypt without suffering God's wrath. Egypt isn't even the enemy of Israel it was in Biblical times, so what reason would God have for a jaunt into another neighboring country now?

Isaiah predicts that five cities in Egypt will undergo a language conversion to the Canaanite tongue (19:18). Of course, since this never happened, and since the language of the Canaanites is now dead, I don't see it happening any time in the near future. Of course, I'm not a true prophet.

Isaiah just a few verses later fortells of an alliance between Israel, Egypt and Assyria (19:23-25). Since Assyria is no longer a country, the odds of this prophecy being fulfilled have dropped considerably. And if Assyria were to reform, it wouldn't be the same Assyria that Isaiah, in all his God-given prescience, predicted.

Ezekiel purports God making claims that the Ammonites will be "no more remembered" (21:32). The difficulty with accepting this bold declaration is that it is printed in the Bible, which means that for the memory of the Ammonites to be truly erased, the Bible would have to be erased as well. Which would make the prophecy known to nobody, and hence useless. Apparently Ezekiel's God didn't take Logic 101.

I think that's enough for this evening's lesson. Your insights, class?


Monday, April 02, 2007

Currently Reading
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus)
By Bart D. Ehrman
see related

Questions for Bible Thumpers

The following are questions I have about the Bible and Christianity. I've asked most of them of folks who have written to complain about my site. I have not yet received adequate answers.

I realize that not all Christians are Bible-thumpers, and not all Bible-thumpers believe exactly the same thing. When answering these questions, feel free to skip those which do not apply to you. It might be helpful to explain why a certain question does not apply, but it's not required.

The KJV Bible as the literal word of God:

There are no questions in this section, because I don't consider it worthwhile discussing things with people who actually believe that God spoke to Moses in Elizabethan English. For The KJV Bible to be the literal word of God, that's exactly what would have had to have happened, that's what literal means: exactly, word for word, what someone said.

The Bible as the word of God:

Where in the bible, if anywhere, Does the Bible say it is the Word of God?

How do you know this applies to the Bible as we know it today, and not some other collection of books? For example, how do you know it refers to the gospels of John, Mark, Luke and Matthew, and not the gospel of Simon, Thomas, and Peter?


What's to keep someone from writing whatever they want, or altering existing stories to fit their need, then using this passage to prove God wrote it? Today, of course, we could compare with other versions of the Bible, but what about hundreds or thousands of years ago? Did God correct the mistakes and strike down the blasphemers?

Depending on your answer to the last question, tell me how you feel about the fact that this page was typed by God himself. James's name is just on it for legal reasons. By the way: I, your Creator, say you're a poop head, the Bible is bogus, and you should send Reverend James 10% of your gross income.

The Bible, The Koran, The Book of Mormon, and other books are supposedly the word of God. Many other works are supposedly inspired by God, gods, god-like aliens from the Pleiades, etc. Why should I accept your favorite, and not one of the others?

Biblical Inerrancy:

I claim that the Bible contains contradictions, errors of fact, and suspicious omissions...especially regarding matters of physical science. A number of people have tried to explain away these errors. I am not impressed. If you intend to defend Biblical inerrancy with one or more of the following arguments, please be prepared to answer the associated objections. You do not need to reply to answers to objections that you don't plan to use. If you see the Bible as containing mostly metaphor, as opposed to literal truth, you can skip down to the section on Biblical Metaphor.

If you claim that there are no apparent flaws in Bible, and thus there is nothing to explain, Why do I see flaws?

If your answer involves a defect in my mental ability, Why is it more likely that I suffer from this disorder than you?

If your answer involves a lack of faith on my part, how does this apply to Islamic fundamentalists, who are quite willing to die for their faith?

If your answer involves rude comments about my parentage, please keep it to yourself.

If you claim that the apparent flaws in the Bible are the result of misrepresentations and passages taken out of context:

Why is it so easy for me to distort the word of God? Shouldn't an all-powerfull, all-knowing being be able to write more clearly?

Why should I believe that your religion's leaders are not similarly distorting the word of God for their own selfish gain?

If you claim the King James Version is linguistically flawed due to archaic language and / or poor translation:

Why did God allow this to happen?

If God allows flaws in some versions of the Bible, Why should we presume that he corrected any version?

Why should I accept your favorite version as being the one version God decided to correct?

If you rely on "original" versions in a variety of archaic languages, please pay special attention to the next questions.

If you claim it requires extensive interpretation, study and research to properly understand the Bible:

Why did God make his word so hard to understand?

Why should I accept your favorite interpretation as being correct?

Why not just study nature instead, as science does? There is, after all, no chance that nature is a fraud.

If you claim it requires divine revelation to properly understand the Bible:

Why should we accept divine revelations that point to the Bible while rejecting revelations that point to the Koran, The Vedas, The Kalevala, or any of countless other texts?

If revelation is a reliable source of information, why not just rely on it, instead of a book?

If you claim apparent contradictions are the result of metaphoric use of language:

Why did God make his word so hard to understand?

Why should I accept your guess as to which parts are metaphoric, and which are literal?

When I use metaphor, I use it to get around the limitations of language and the human mind. If you assume God uses metaphor for the same reason, why would he have created those limitations in the first place? If you assume God uses metaphor for a different reason, please explain that reason.

Occasionally people write to tell me they see the Bible as just another inspirational work:

What do you find inspiring about the atrocities that constitute much of the old testament?

What do you find inspiring about the new testament's message of eternal damnation for those who fail to embrace exactly the right set of beliefs?

Why should I slog through the racism, sexism, absurdities and atrocities to find the occasional bit of inspiration when there are thousands of other inspirational works available?

Why should I rely on any book for inspiration when sunsets, flowers, and big piles of sauerkraut with wieners chopped up in them are all readily available?

Gays:

Most Christians are pretty nice folk, but one loathsome sort of Christian uses the Bible to justify homophobia, gay bashing, and a lack of compassion towards those suffering from AIDS. I have little tolerance for this, as the tone of these questions might suggest:

If AIDS is God's punishment to Gays for anal intercourse, does that mean lung cancer is God's punishment for smoking? If so, do you plan to picket Aunt Mildred's funeral carrying signs saying "God hates Smokers?"

If AIDS is God's punishment for sex, why is a little piece of rubber so effective at preventing it? Are all sins absolved when committed in conjunction with rubber, or just those related to sex? Can I, for example, worship graven images so long as they're made out of rubber?

In forty years do you expect your discrimination against gays be more or less embarrassing to your grandchildren than your grandparents' discrimination against blacks is to you? You may, of course, skip this question as irrelevant if you're a racist too.

Christian Metaphysics:

Can anyone explain:

Why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself so that He could correct a mistake He made Himself?

How does the crucifixion count as an appropriate sacrifice? Jesus spent a few hours, maybe a day, in agonizing pain; but it was no greater pain than millions of others have suffered. If Jesus really is God, then He knew exactly what was happening, and exactly how long it would last. When it was done, He supposedly ascended to heaven and became the all-powerful ruler of the universe. This is infinitely greater compensation than even the faithful will receive, and infinitely less torture that the damned will receive.

Please reconcile these two statements: "Without evil, there can be no good", "God is all-good."

Please reconcile these two statements: "With God, nothing is impossible", "You can't be saved unless you accept Jesus as your savior."

Extra-Credit Questions:

If you answered any question beginning "Why did God..." by saying it is not our place to question God, explain why you feel free to question his decision to make me an Atheist.

List at least three ways God is better than Santa Claus. Here's my list of ways Santa is better:

  1. The only punishment Santa delivers is a withholding of presents. Even at that, he usually brings coal. Useful stuff, coal.
  2. If you're not good enough, Santa gives you another chance next year.
  3. The evidence for the existence of Santa is much stronger: I get presents from Santa and hear radar tracking reports about Santa on the news every year. Millions have even seen Santa, I am among them. Even if 99.99999% of the sightings are false, that is still certain proof of Santa.
  4. Santa doesn't care if you believe in him, only if you're good or bad.

If there is an afterlife, why haven't Isaac Asimov, or Carl Sagan written books about it yet? "Paper burns" is not an acceptable answer. Funny, in a twisted sort of way, but not acceptable. (Lest anyone mistake my feeling, these men were among the greatest intellects to ever walk the face of the Earth, and I miss them both terribly.)

If you only have time to answer one Question:

There are many books that are so good that once I start reading them, I can't put them down. The Bible is not one of them. How is it that God, or an author directly inspired by God, does not write as well as (for example) Michael Crichton?


Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Currently Reading
Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?
By Robert M. Price
see related

Rape in the Bible

Rape, the paramount of fears for many women, rears its ugly head in the Bible. Fortunately, God ensures that the authors list it as a crime under a few circumstances. Unfortunately, God permits the sexual violation of woman on more than one occasion. Even more unfortunately, the fine for committing one of the most heinous acts known to man (without God's permission)  is only a pound of silver to her father and a forced marriage to the victim if she's not already engaged or married (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Yes, God's idea of justice for the female victim is to be horrendously punished again by being forced to marry her rapist. This disgusting rule is nowhere near what most people would consider an ethical resolution, and it's certainly not a decision rendered by any court I'd like to be facing.

If a man rapes an engaged virgin who doesn't cry loud enough to draw attention, the community should consider the attack consensual if it took place within the city. Thus, the "whore" must be stoned to death per God's instructions. It obviously doesn't matter if the woman is threatened or too frightened to scream because the law obviously makes no such exceptions. The man will be stoned to death as well, but not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but only because he "hath humbled his neighbour's wife" (Deuteronomy 22:24). Note the shamefully sharp contrast in disciplinary action between raping a woman with a husband and raping a woman without a husband: death versus a pound of silver. Since it's all the same to the woman, it now becomes clear that God feels the husband is the one who is the victim of the attack.

As I previously mentioned, the Bible regrettably provides some situations in which rape is entirely permissible, even encouraged, by the Hebrew god. Recall the rule of marriage specifying how a man can force his daughter to marry and sleep with another man (Exodus 21:7-11). This in itself is completely reprehensible and rises to the level of rape if the woman is unwilling.

In Moses' war victory over the Midianites, God had previously commanded him to build an army and defeat the enemy. After doing this successfully, his army takes thousands of war prisoners. Moses then orders his army to kill the remaining men, boys, and womane who have already slept with a man, "but all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31:17-18). If taking a human war trophy based solely on the prisoner's gender and sexual status isn't implied permission to commit rape, I honestly don't know what is. Even God gets 32 virgins as part of his spoils, but they are handed over to the priests for obvious reasons (Numbers 31:40-41).

The "women children" mentioned in the passage certainly included young girls. Some female inhabitants of the city had to have been several years away from puberty, but don't pretend these barbaric savages capable of killing defenseless women and children thought twice about waiting a few years for the girls to mature. So what eventually becomes of these foreign women kidnapped in battle?

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails. And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)"

EDIT: Rape is wrong. That was added in for the sake of AFTR, who apparently couldn't get that message from this post.



Next 5 >>

Lookup a word or passage in the Bible



BibleGateway.com
Include this form on your page