[chuck]I don’t know why anyone would bother now, but we were hacked a few days ago (February 21 at 2:32PM according to the logs). You may have noticed being redirected to some random porn site or being told by your browser that Irreligiosophy was a “dangerous site.” True enough, I guess.
We’re back up and running, and I’ll look for some ways to harden the default WordPress install. The forums are not going to make it, because the hacker injected code into every php file, and I don’t really want to go back and remove it or even bother to reinstall phpBB. Everything else should be up and running. But if this becomes too much of a problem — if I’m going to have to come back here frequently and clean up some script kiddy’s mess, or if it takes too much of my time hardening the site, it will go away too. I have too much to do to babysit a site that isn’t really active any more. So save those mp3s now, because who knows what some asshole will do in the future. And by “some asshole,” I mean me.
And if you haven’t signed up already, here’s the Unapologetics Announcement List:[ALO-EASYMAIL-PAGE]
18 Responses to “Hacked!”
Who knew the Evidence4Faith guys were geeks? (I jest. )
It must be the ghost of Inchil getting you back for all those bad Korean jokes!
The offending IP address (176.8.89.223) resolves to somewhere in the Ukraine. I think the joke’s on them.
Forum restored. I think I’m going to troll through the “Topics” thread for material.
Chuck,
Could you restore the irrelig_rss.xml file?
That way it will be easy to fetch all the podcasts before “some asshole” does something in the future, as you say. -kt
Whoops, I deleted that along with the rest of the stuff. I have a backup at home on an external hard drive. I’ll upload that tonight when I get back.
This sucks!
You guys had the best podcast!
I guess that ‘tard kirk was correct (for all the wrong reasons) and god IS real and you guys pissed him off!
I love the professional endorsement you left on the Haunt Haven sitef or you former co-host. Nice.
(Okay, okay…so I googled his name. I worry about that guy.)
Chuckles. Baptism of the dead is in heavy rotation on the news these days. It’s kind of fun watching this stupidity evolve in the public square. I listened to your podcast on this topic when it first aired, but that teeny-bopper guest was like, so like, annoying. (Leighton’s intellectual equal apparently.)
What is the doctrinal basis for this practice? Is the Mormon church retracting on its practice of baptizing the dead? Is the it once again compromising its religious practices due to societal pressure? Or is this a case where the Church’s position was more rational (or less irrational, if you will) and you have a set of rougue members taking the practice to an extreme. Are we going to have another separatist Mormon group as a result?
Is this another fail for the Prophet and for God?
Yeah, I would have preferred to leave it alone, but since Leighton put his Haunt Haven experience down on his resume (and listed himself as “CEO”), I thought I’d set the record straight for any future employers. And what do you know, it comes up on the first page when you search for “Leighton Allred.”
The doctrinal basis for the LDS practice of baptism for the dead is found in 1 Corinthians 15:29: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” Joseph Smith introduced the idea of baptizing living members of the church in proxy for dead people, ostensibly so if the dead person accepted Mormonism in the afterlife, they’d already have their temple work done for them (apparently temple work can only be done here, by the living, for some reason).
Two important things that aren’t usually brought up in the discussion: 1) the numbers of the dead baptisees aren’t added to LDS membership rolls, and 2) this “baptism” is conditional on the acceptance of the dead person. The church has agreed not to baptize Jews killed in the Holocaust (after an uproar in the 90s, I think), but in practice it’s hard to enforce at the local level. I find it hard to get worked up about the practice because if Mormonism isn’t true, the practice is just another superstitious ritual. Feel free to baptize my corpse after I’m gone into whatever religion you want, I’m gone. On the other hand, there is a long history of forcible Jewish conversion, and Mormons are guilty of being insensitive to that history.
Interestingly, Joseph Smith wasn’t the first to do it. A Protestant preacher named Emanuel Eckering came up with the idea in 1738, almost a full century before the Mormon church was founded. I think it was done in New England near the area where Smith grew up, so maybe (like so much else) he wasn’t the originator of the practice but merely swiped it.
The way to get things done isn’t to mind who gets the credit for doing them.
Should you owe the financial institution $100 that’s your problem. If you owe the lending company $100 million, that is the bank’s problem.
Thanks for the details, Chuck. While you and I know that baptism of the dead is just a superstitious LDS ritural, it surely does seem to offend the true-believers of other faiths.
What’s more offensive, baptizing non-mormons into the LDS faith or unbaptizing dead LDS members and making them gay? http://alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com/
What century are we living in?
Why are you mad? That was the will of Allah, and Allah knows best.
Who says I’m mad? I’ve booked my ticket to Morocco; the future Mrs. 12th Apostle awaits.
I don’t know what those Moroccans are so upset about. Article 475 just codifies “traditional marriage” — and we all know that if it’s traditional, it’s all good.
Some fucking supreme being. He can’t even destroy an unsympathetic web site…he has to enlist nerds to hack it. Reminds me of Allah…the almighty power who wants infidels killed but can’t do it without an endless parade of dimwits making shoe bombs, exploding underwear, and dud explosives using the wrong kind of fertilizer.