Why do so many hate the Bible?

Originally posted by frogstomp
That was part of Christ's message. Why are you puzzled by it?

My apologies. I was wondering where Moses gave me that it was coincidence...

Okay. Sure. Christ said many times that Moses told you this and gave you that, but by my frugal knowledge, I don't remember Him ever contradicting Moses.

Originally posted by Halitose
My apologies. I was wondering where Moses gave me that it was coincidence...

Okay. Sure. Christ said many times that Moses told you this and gave you that, but by my frugal knowledge, I don't remember Him ever contradicting Moses.

OK ,, read
Mark 3
Mark 10
Matthew 19

in their entirety, and that's just a start

Originally posted by frogstomp
OK ,, read
Mark 3
Mark 10
Matthew 19

in their entirety, and that's just a start

This is ganna take a while. Okay. I'll do that. Will bring up my points for consideration tomorrow. I opened up a thread where we can discuss this, so as not to hijack the discussion, or do you prefer PM.

Originally posted by Halitose
This is ganna take a while. Okay. I'll do that. Will bring up my points for consideration tomorrow. I opened up a thread where we can discuss this, so as not to hijack the discussion, or do you prefer PM.

I hate Pming and Yogurt

Fine. It looks like you at least have more culture than yoghurt. 😉

(Am I bordering on gratuitous insults here?)

Originally posted by LemonJello
i don't understand what fundies mean when they say the bible has 'withstood' attacks. the general defenses 'goddunnit' and 'the bible is right because it is the bible' can be used until you are blue in the face; you can play that ...[text shortened]... indefensible claims. i don't see why you are proud of this fact.

I'm trying to make sense of your comments LJ.

Here are some of the premises behind them, as I see it:

1) Worthless and weak defenses will always win

2) All that is required to defeat wisdom and scholarship is stubborness and intolerance

3) My stubborness and intolerance somehow limits the ability of others to test.

4) All attacks (assumed to be the utmost in wisdom and scholarlship) can easily be refuted by repeating 'indefensible' claims.

I must say that none of these ideas can be true.

1) Most commanders will advocate the stongest defensive line, not the weakest. A worthwhile attack generally can overpower even a strong defense over time.

2) I remember the old "oh yeah?', "yeah!' arguments we had as children. They always ended when someone with a clear head rolled her eyes and introduced some maturity into the problem solving. If simple 'stubborness' is all the Church had, it would have been overwhelmed long ago.

3) If all I relied on was stubborness to defend my confidence in the Bible's authority, that should not limit anyone else's 'testing' of that authority. I suggest that it has been this very testing by skeptics that has repeatedly affirmed the unique value (to say the least) of the Bible.

4) If the claims of believers are 'indefensible', and yet the Book stands, then I guess the claims of doubters are quite weak. If I don't even lock my door, and yet the burglar can't get in, it would suggest that he has come very ill-equipped.

To summarize:

The defense of Scripture is not weak.

It is the scholarship AND the testimony of the experienced, that have long established the value of Scripture.

Scripture has been tested and found satisfactory by every new generation.

Attacks have been refuted succesfully because the claims of believers about the Bible are true.

Originally posted by chinking58
I'm trying to make sense of your comments LJ.

Here are some of the premises behind them, as I see it:

1) Worthless and weak defenses will always win

2) All that is required to defeat wisdom and scholarship is stubborness and intolerance

3) My stubborness and intolerance somehow limits the ability of others to test.

4) All attacks (assumed ...[text shortened]...
Attacks have been refuted succesfully because the claims of believers about the Bible are true.

Scripture has been tested and found satisfactory by every new generation.

Could you give us some examples of these tests, and how they've been found to be satisfactory?

Attacks have been refuted succesfully because the claims of believers about the Bible are true.

Could you give us some examples of which attacks these might be, and how they've been refuted?

Originally posted by Pullhard
I don't think it's the book people hate - it's the destruction, hate and control unleashed in the, purportedly, promotion, honour and defence of the book.

Rec'd again. I don't think many really "hate" the Bible. Pullhard hit it on the head. The Bible presents a great deal of decent morality that a great many other religions also possess.

And if the many, not all, people who do regard it as the undisputable word of God would quit attempting to ramrod it down the throats of people who feel differently there might be more acceptance of what it is trying to say.

Originally posted by rwingett
[b]Scripture has been tested and found satisfactory by every new generation.

Could you give us some examples of these tests, and how they've been found to be satisfactory?

Attacks have been refuted succesfully because the claims of believers about the Bible are true.

Could you give us some examples of which attacks these might be, and how they've been refuted?[/b]

I'm referring to the kinds of tests that people like those here use all the time. Questions about authorship, historical validity, consistency etc. Questions that have been addressed repeatedly, and to the point where eventually the arguing stops without the Bible being put aside once and for all as some kind of fraud.

Most importantly, it is the tests of individuals who are sincere and bold enough to say, "Ok, I will direct my life as if this book were true." which ultimately establish its real value in the real world. Such people who accept God's invitation to "Taste and see that the Lord is good." always find that He is good, and that His Word is true!


The attacks are everywhere. They come from scholars who start with a predjudice against the possibility of the miraculous. They come from their followers who choose to ignore or deny the refutations given. But mostly, again, they are inherent in those individuals who 'know' that accepting the Bible as from God, means they have to admit they are sinners and need salvation. This is abhorrent to most people, though 'God is not willing that any should perish'. And so, rather than surrender even to a God who loves them so much, they would abide in a sad world of doubt and cynicism.

Refutations of the attacks can be found in great books like: Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, and The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Many and various 'attacks' are addressed here point by point.

Originally posted by chinking58
I'm referring to the kinds of tests that people like those here use all the time. Questions about authorship, historical validity, consistency etc. Questions that have been addressed repeatedly, and to the point where eventually the a ...[text shortened]... Many and various 'attacks' are addressed here point by point.

Yeah but it is YOU that instigates these attacks to begin with!!! I don't recall the great Children's Crusade for the cause of Agnosticism. Or the Manifest Destiny preposed by the cause of Atheism.

You actually believe that goodness and any moral purity of existence can come from no other place aside from the teachings of Christ yet there a millions of Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, etc that can prove you wrong. So the rest of us are "cowards" because we are not Christians? Hey as whacko as I think they are, I don't notice a great many Christians strapping a bomb to a backpack and running into a crowd of people for their beliefs. You are so "brave" that you feel the most effective spreading your word here on an online chess forum....wow, how courageous you are.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
Yeah but it is [b]YOU that instigates these attacks to begin with!!! I don't recall the great Children's Crusade for the cause of Agnosticism. Or the Manifest Destiny preposed by the cause of Atheism.

You actually believe that goodness and any moral purity of existence can come from no other place aside from the teachings of Christ yet there a mi ...[text shortened]... most effective spreading your word here on an online chess forum....wow, how courageous you are.[/b]

C'mon Joe. Do you really believe that selling children into slavery, slaughtering thousands of indiginous people and killing women and children with home made bombs are part and parcel of the Christian religion? Then I'm gonna start heralding Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler and Pot as the champions of atheism. But that's not gonna get us anywhere is it?

Originally posted by Halitose
C'mon Joe. Do you really believe that selling children into slavery, slaughtering thousands of indiginous people and killing women and children with home made bombs are part and parcel of the Christian religion? Then I'm gonna start hera ...[text shortened]... hampions of atheism. But that's not gonna get us anywhere is it?

Ask the Mayans except for the homemade bombs thingy. You could also read their books, but unfortunately Christians burned all of 'em.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Ask the Mayans except for the homemade bombs thingy. You could also read their books, but unfortunately Christians burned all of 'em.

I asked them. They weren't very responsive.

Just a thought. If all of their books were burnt, what proof do you have that they had any books in the first place and that it was true Christians that burned 'em?

Originally posted by Joe Fist
Yeah but it is [b]YOU that instigates these attacks to begin with!!! I don't recall the great Children's Crusade for the cause of Agnosticism. Or the Manifest Destiny preposed by the cause of Atheism.

You actually believe that g ...[text shortened]... word here on an online chess forum....wow, how courageous you are.[/b]

Whoa Dude!

I thought we were talking about intellectual attacks on the validity of the Bible. Some early believers got a bunch of documents together and found them to be so special that they decided they must be inspired by God. This idea has been held up by many others over time.

In the meantime, others who did not find these papers so special found reason to 'attack' the original claimant's conclusion. I'm simply saying that the arguement for inspiration wins.

As far as the crusades go, they have long been repented of. Yes, many many people have done many horrible things in the name of Christ. According to Jesus Himself, these are not true believers; they do not represent Christ, as beleivers are called upon to do. I expect these verses below have already been applied to many crusaders when they died.

Mathew 7: 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I'm not sure where you get your other claims about me. I believe that goodness etc. comes from God. Any who are open to 'God's ness' being expressed through them will exhibit such goodness. I believe that the teachings of Christ contain the full body of truth necessary for us to live well, and no errors, while other religions may each contain some truth (how can they help it?), but many errors.

Don't fault me for finding all religions irreconcilable, by the way, because they can't all be all true.

And what's this about being cowards? What did I say to that effect?
And are you saying that suicide bombing is more a sign of courage than of anything else?

I guess, now that you mention it, that it does take some guts to really give God a chance to show Himself in your life. Becoming a Christian is as easy as inviting Jesus into your life. Living as a Christian is not such a walk in the park; it demands more introspection and hard honesty than anybody wants.

Originally posted by Halitose
C'mon Joe. Do you really believe that selling children into slavery, slaughtering thousands of indiginous people and killing women and children with home made bombs are part and parcel of the Christian religion? Then I'm gonna start heralding Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler and Pot as the champions of atheism. But that's not gonna get us anywhere is it?

You've missed my point entirely. The first words out of my mouth is that I think they are whacko. Chinking wrote:

Most importantly, it is the tests of individuals who are sincere and bold enough to say, "Ok, I will direct my life as if this book were true." which ultimately establish its real value in the real world. Such people who accept God's invitation to "Taste and see that the Lord is good." always find that He is good, and that His Word is true!

So implied by this is that all others who live commonly moral lives, absent of the Christian faith, are "insincere" and "timid". Has the Christian ever "tasted" Buddha and maybe found truth in that? My point is that as much as I am disgusted by suicide bombers and the like, I think it would be hard to question the degree of their "faith". Chinking makes it sound like it is more "heroic" to be a Christian and live by the Bible than anything else? It is so silly to believe that one's religious preference (or lack there of) constitutes something of that nature. Tell that to a poor homosexual Christian (I know many of you believe that is an oxymoron) who is just trying to live their life without ridicule.