ExChristian.Net Has Been X’d, part 9

Another comment related to my denial that the Bible commands human sacrifice—which it actually condemns:

Beneath is a comment from the "AtheismisDead"(Atheism is Dead) blog, which, the title itself, is a falsehood, since "Atheism" is alive, well, and growing.
"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." [emphasis added]
I have heard Christians insist that the offspring of "Yahweh", one "Jesus Christ", was/is 100% human/100% "Divine". Other times, I have heard them say he was/is 50% human/50% "Divine". In either case, what is being proposed above then becomes laughably contradictory, since one of the cornerstone tenets of the Christian doctrine is that one needs to accept the SACRIFICE of "Jesus", an INNOCENT individual, no less, all to prevent themselves from a perpetual existence of torture by fire for harboring a character "flaw" that is inherently in them, by nature.
In other words, we are being held accountable for a "transgression" that we had no say in, whatsoever, and the "Creator of the Universe" needs to "sacrifice"(execute) its own"Son"(itself) [sic], otherwise, said "Creator" cannot forgive us.
Holy mackerel!....all sorts of stupid, that Christian philosophy is! [the “[emphasis added]” statement in original as well as the other emphasis]

Being a connoisseur of atheist talking point, this is not the first time that I have encountered this fallacy. Actually, note that this statement is saturated with various fallacies. Let us parse them:

…"AtheismisDead"(Atheism is Dead) blog, which, the title itself, is a falsehood, since "Atheism" is alive, well, and growing.

Dealt with in part 1.

…what is being proposed above then becomes laughably contradictory, since one of the cornerstone tenets of the Christian doctrine is that one needs to accept the SACRIFICE of "Jesus", an INNOCENT individual, no less…

Let us begin by noting that within the context of the Bible, evilbible.com and Atheism is Deadthe issue is whether God commands humans to sacrifice other humans. Clearly, He does not but actually condemns it as I evidenced here.

Thus, my response was:

Your common misconception is contrived since, if you would have actually read what I wrote about evilbible.com you would know that, it is contrived to liken Jesus’ sacrifice as a “human sacrifice” since humans did not offer Jesus to God, did not do so in a temple, did not do so on an altar, etc.

Jesus was not a human sacrifice but a God sacrifice. God did not command humans to offer Jesus as a human sacrifice to Him but God offered a God sacrifice to humans. Therefore, my statement, “the Bible does not command but condemns human sacrifice” stands firm based on 1) the texts which I quoted, 2) the context in which my statement was made, 3) the fact that God did not command humans to offer Jesus and 4) the fact that God offered Jesus and/or Jesus offered Himself.

all to prevent themselves from a perpetual existence of torture by fire for harboring a character "flaw" that is inherently in them, by nature.

I was afraid that in dealing with pseudo-skeptical-ex-“Christian”-atheists I would be dealing with people who did not understand the Biblical concept of hell. Both “torture” and “fire” as they are commonly understood play no part in the Biblical concept of hell (for elucidation please see On Hell and Why Would Your Lord Send You to Hell?).
Is this commentator implying that we are generically (or theistically) predetermined to simply and un-challengingly give into character “flaw”s? Do we really give heed to the person who claims, as the actor Woody Harrelson’s murderous father did, that they are “a natural born killers” (which is whence came the title of Harrelson’s movie)? Does, “I was born with the alcoholic gene” excuse your alcoholism or your vehicular homicide due to DWI? What about the natural born pedophile? By nature or not “flaw”s are not meant to be excused but overcome—yes, despite the atheist consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability; we are still responsible: “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7).

In other words, we are being held accountable for a "transgression" that we had no say in, whatsoever, and the "Creator of the Universe" needs to "sacrifice"(execute) its own"Son"(itself), otherwise, said "Creator" cannot forgive us.

I may be reading too much into the term “needs” but: this is like looking down at the corpse of someone who pushed you out of the way of a speeding eighteen wheeler only to get hit themselves and saying, “Oh, you just had to do that didn’t you? You needed to do it didn’t you?” No. They wanted to, they chose to and by the way—you are welcome. Jesus loves you so very much that when the eighteen wheeler of your sin was barreling towards you He pushed you out of the way and got hit, He died in your place, and resurrected in order to demonstrate His power over death and sin.

This was the one and only specific response to a specific argument I presented—and for that I thank this individual (even though this came from the body of EvilBible.com is Dead which is a mere into and I be surprised if they actually read any examples of what evilbible.com versus what the Bible actually states).

Lastly, I wanted to note that a few of the red herrings sought to sidestep my argument by asking me to present evidence, sometimes empirical, for God’s existence. However, they did not define what would counts as evidence of God’s existence. They did not define what would count as empirical evidence of God’s existence. They did not provide a premise upon which to even request such evidence. Has such a demand been empirically evidenced? Do we look for wet evidence of a dry object? Do we likewise look for physical evidence of a non-physical being? Is evidence of God even required? (Peter S. Williams makes some very interesting points in this regard in his essay, Lewis Wolpert's Presumption of Atheism and the 'Insufficient Evidence' Objection to Belief in God).

In any regard, I offered them a taste of natural theology, as I noted previously (and can be seen in the parsed essay On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.), even though this too is a red herring since regardless of the Bible’s origins or the existence of God; the issue is the handling and mishandling of the text of the Bible.

While I suspect that the comments will keep coming in to the resurrected three and five year old posts I certainly cannot keep on responding to everyone on everything but can only state that I have done my best to treat them fairly, to take them seriously enough to respond to them, and to provide some crumbs with which to feed heurism ’s voracity.

I left ExChristian.Net with this statement (I will hereafter make them aware of this parsed essay and see what happens):

I think that I get it:
This website is an anti-Christian and anti-Jewish support group wherein Sunday School level assertions are made and anyone daring to disagree is merely barraged with ad hominems, arguments from outrage, arguments to ridicule, arguments to embarrassment, etc.
All of this mixed with stunning lack of knowledge of even a basic level understanding of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts. This is spiked very, very basic level misconceptions. And it is peppered with logical fallacies.
Worse yet, no one seemed to have basic integrity that is required to correct even those whom they cheer on.
I have learned a great lesson: mix rebellion, illogic, “science” as atheist tall tales, expressions of anger, baseless assertions, emotive condemnations and you have the making of an unbeliever.
How very sad—I love you all very much and my heart breaks for you.

I stated, “I left ExChristian.Net with this statement…” but, not surprising, that was not the end and more comments followed. I had originally planned on ending this parsed essay here yet, one more segments seemed necessary and so we will consider that which followed in the next portion.