Why defend the Bible?

[unknown soldier]

Christian apologetics, understood as a defense of Christian beliefs, keeps busy defending the Bible. Why is it so important to defend the Bible?

I'm sure Christians have many reasons to defend the Bible which we can talk about, but here are four reasons we can begin to debate and discuss:

1. It is the "word of God" that communicates what he wants Christians to know.
2. It inspires and encourages them to remain steadfast in the faith.
3. It provides guidelines for living life wisely and morally.
4. It offers hope to them.

What exactly does the Bible need to be defended from? Again, we can discuss many reasons, but I'd like to start by discussing the following four reasons:

1. The Bible's pages are full of atrocities committed by God that no moral people can condone.
2. The Bible is full of internal inconsistencies that cannot be sensibly reconciled.
3. The Bible is often inconsistent with what we know from science and historical studies.
4. The Bible has failed to let Christians know what it really means, and that's why Christians have disagreed and even fought over it for centuries.

[DavidLeon]

If some Christian doctrine depends on various authors being in harmony with each other, a demonstrated claim of disharmony would mean that the doctrine is a false one.

Perhaps I'm obtuse but this still doesn't sit well with me. If you agree with the following there is no need for you to respond. I think it makes perfect sense but I'm unsure of exactly what you mean. You have a Christian doctrine, which, by definition is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church or other group. It isn't realistic to think it is totally harmonious, and I don't think you were suggesting that, so if some Christian doctrine depends on various authors being in harmony with each other, considering total harmony is unrealistic, a demonstrated claim of disharmony would indicate only some disharmony which should be reviewed and possibly revised. Not a total disharmony or entire false doctrine.

The Bible even being a perfect example. But not the inspired word of God.

In that instance, apologetic arguments will often assert that a claim of disharmony is "an attack on the Bible" or some such rather than being an attack on (or at least in conflict with) various doctrines of inerrancy.

Excellent. A very important fact. I don't like to argue about God because I'm not God. I don't presume to speak on his behalf. I don't presume to speak for the Watchtower or Jehovah's Witnesses, which are, by the way, two different things. I like to discuss the Bible but it isn't the Bible my opponent is criticizing, nor the Watchtower which I consider my primary source, nor the Jehovah's Witnesses who my beliefs are similar to but they are not responsible for what I believe, no matter how similar. My opponent is criticizing my position only. And that's the way I always try to debate my opponent. Though, it isn't a formal debate. I think of it like more of a discussion with elements of debate. My purpose is to introduce myself to different beliefs, opinions, facts etc. and express my own.

Which brings up another interesting question I've always wondered about. To me these discussions of mine aren't personal, they are impersonal, though sometimes the interaction becomes personal due more to the manner in which the discussion carries out. The topic isn't personal the expression is - the delivery and reception can often become personal. Perhaps emotional is even the better word. The question is who tends to be more emotionally involved, the theist or the atheist? I think it is equal unless there is a former theist. My experience is it is almost always the former theist.

[theophile]

Christian apologetics, understood as a defense of Christian beliefs, keeps busy defending the Bible. Why is it so important to defend the Bible?

I think you hit upon a number of them, but I might layer on a bit, notably to the following:

1. It is the "word of God" that communicates what he wants Christians to know.

I think it can reveal the word of God for those with ears to hear it. And by that I don't mean the special few who are gifted with some (un)natural capability, but rather those who put the effort in, and maintain an open posture to it. And that's the rub: there is this pernicious idea that the truths contained in the bible should be obvious. That the writers have made (or should have made) them plain for all to see. The fact that they are not has led surface readings into conflict after conflict, and to obstinate declarations and countless attacks that the book is incoherent among other things (i.e., immoral, historically inaccurate, prone to multiple interpretations, etc., etc.). But the fact that they are not obvious is precisely what I love about the bible, and why I will endlessly defend it.

The problem, I think, is a difference in opinion of what good wisdom literature is / ought to do. As wisdom literature, the bible is not trying to spoon-feed us the truth, as if once we have it we have everything that we need to be moral human beings. Rather, the bible is trying to build our wisdom by challenging us, because only through being challenged can we check ourselves and grow our own capabilities to discern right from wrong, and ultimately bring this power to the real world problems that we face.

It is a question of giving a man a fish or teaching him to fish. Put otherwise, it is thinking of wisdom as more of a muscle, and as something that needs to be exercised and trained through the hard work of engaging in moral problems, and textual challenges, and the bible as a type of literature that is above all designed to do just this. The bible is, for all intents and purposes, the Peloton for moral fitness, which is why I will endlessly defend it. It is precisely for the difficulties inherent in it. The texts that appear to be conflicting. The moral atrocities that compel us to cry foul, and look closer to see what is really going on...

To circle back, the worst thing we could possibly do is fault the bible for not being clear / simple, or for not making its truths easier to attain, and closing down to it as a result. To do so would be a fundamental ignorance of the fact that questions of right and wrong are far from simple, as well as of our responsibility as human beings to grow in wisdom and be the source of truth in the world.

[unknown soldier]

How about one read, and study for themselves instead of taking the word of what Christians tell you that Christianity teaches?

What you're saying here is very odd. I can and have read and studied books about Christianity, and such books are mostly written by Christians. It appears that you take "listen" too literally. By "listen " I mean to take into consideration what another person communicates. So when I say I have "listened" to what Christians tell me about their faith, that means I have read what they have written as well as heard what they say in person.

You also seem to think that reading is somehow a better way to gather information than to speak to people in person. The latter can actually be a better way to learn than the former.

Yes, I have in fact read the passage, so let's think carefully about what is being said there. This is a letter authored by Paul addressed to Timothy. When Paul authored this letter, was there any such thing as the Bible? Well no, I do not think there was. Okay, when Paul authored this letter to Timothy, this letter that he is writing at the time could not possibly be considered "Scripture", now could it? In fact, most of the whole of what is contained in the NT would not have been written at this point, which would necessarily mean that Paul could not have been referring to anything at all contained in the NT as "Scripture", correct? So then, what could Paul be referring to? Well, he would only be referring to what is contained in the OT, since what is contained in the NT would have still been in the process of being written.

Actually, Paul thought that his knowledge of God came from direct revelations, so he no doubt considered his written word to be the equivalent of what the Jewish prophets had written. In other words, his epistles were basically the same as scripture.

What I found to be funny is, you have to borrow from the Christian world view in that you seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of moral code that would apply to me, which somewhere must say that I must be against "genocide" or else I am immoral? Exactly what is the moral code that you speak of which insist "genocide" is immoral?

Who said anything about a moral code? I just think for myself when it comes to what is right and wrong. The only moral code I might obey is that of the law of the land, but I must obey that code. If I'm free to make my own moral decisions, then I use reason. I use reason to conclude that genocide is immoral.

Now, if I lived by a moral code based in the Bible, then I must conclude that genocide is OK as long as God ordered it. Osama Bin Laden based his morals on a similar code.

Okay, so exactly what world view are you using which insists that there is some sort of moral code which we must follow, and if we go outside this code, we are immoral?

Again, I use reason to make moral decisions.

Your problem here is that fact that you have no way to define what, "decent people" would be, nor what an "atrocity" would be, unless you are suggesting that there is some sort of moral code outside of us we must adhere to?

I don't need a moral code to define either word--just a dictionary.

Otherwise, we are all left to what our opinions on these things would be. As an example, there are many folks who consider abortion to be an "atrocity" while there are others who see no problem with it at all. So then, unless you have some sort of moral code outside of us which you can point to, then it seems we are all left to our own opinion as to what would be an atrocity, and one opinion, is no better than the other, unless there is some sort of standard.

You are assuming there is only one moral code. There are many such codes created by different people, and those codes may conflict. Moral codes are no better than the people who made them up. So you cannot get away from opinions when it comes to morality. If you choose a code, then you are just trading your opinion for another person's opinion. And in your choosing a code, you base that choice on your own preference

If it is your own standard, then what would cause your standard to be better than anyone else's standard?

You need to ask yourself the same question. Like I said, I have no moral standard, and I should point out that your moral standard has not been demonstrated to be better than any other person's standard.

...how would you go about determining who has the moral opinion, without forcing your opinion upon others?

I can't force my opinion on others, and when making moral decisions, I consider many factors including harm and benefits to myself and others. I'd probably decide to do whatever minimizes harm and maximizes benefits.

...what causes you to believe that these complaints are any more legitimate, simply because you are not the one from which they originate? Makes no sense to me?

I've read and studied the Bible and Christian theology and have concluded from that study that the four criticisms of the Bible are correct. But again, I didn't post those criticisms because I necessarily agree with them but because they are some of the most common criticisms that apologists defend the Bible from.

My friend, there is nothing "mysterious" about it. It is called, reading, and studying for yourself, and not simply taking the word of others, and coming to your own conclusions which you can defend, without the help of others. I know this may be foreign to many, but it is well worth the effort, especially if one wants to spend their time on a debate site.

Again, you are posting very strange comments. If I read and study, then I'm taking the word of the writer! You don't seem to understand that what people write is no less their "word" than what they may say in person. You are also unaware of research that can be done by talking to the people who are being studied. It is perfectly legitimate to conduct research by interviewing people.

This may be foreign to many as well, but there is a tremendous difference between reading, and listening to others, as opposed to simply allowing these others to think for you.

Who's allowing others to think for them? You don't seem to understand that asking people what they are thinking is not necessarily to agree with them. Asking people what their opinions are is a very legitimate way to research their beliefs.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #0]

What exactly does the Bible need to be defended from?

The Bible does not need to be defended at all. It has been around for over 2000 thousand years and it is not going anywhere. Christians do not defend the Bible because they believe it needs to be defended. God will take care of that Himself. We simply share the truth of God's word to a lost and dying world that is going to hell.

1. The Bible's pages are full of atrocities committed by God that no moral people can condone.

What are you calling atrocities and why?

Are there not consequences for actions done? When you overspend your budget do you not go into debt? When a person drives while intoxicated should he not be held responsible if he kills someone? When someone kills someone else in cold blood should they not be sentenced to some sort of punishment. Now some people may not like it that they do not get a vote in what is right and what is wrong. But the real issue is the desire not to be held to the same standard as everyone else. This is why for men absolute power corrupts. When men feel that there is no consequence for their actions men, there is no limit to the atrocities that men will preform The 20th century should have taught us that.

God on the other hand does judge all men equally. All men are condemned to die because of the sin in their lives. But that does not mean that God does not love the men that He sentences it means there is a greater good that supersedes the pardon of a life.

R.L. Dabney writes about Chief Justice Marshall who wrote a book called The Life of Washington, actually several volumes on the history of George Washington. And one section in that work on Washington deals with Major Andr, a famous name you remember, and Marshall in writing about Washington says this, "Perhaps on no occasion of his life did the Commander in Chief obey with more reluctance the stern mandates of duty and of policy," end quote. In other words, he felt compassion and love and affection for the man, but the standard of righteousness had to be upheld in order to maintain the integrity of his office in the dignity of his person.

About that incident, Dabney comments, "In this historical instance we have these facts. Washington had plenary power to kill or to save a life. He was Commander in Chief. Yet he signed his death warrant with spontaneous decisiveness." He goes on to say, "Every deliberate rational volition is regulated by the agents dominant subjective disposition and prompted by his own subjective motive, but that motive is a complex, not a simple modification of spirit." Thats well put.

To make that kind of judgment doesnt mean the only thing he felt was justice. There was a complex of motives, a complex of attitudes. But the end result was the result of the most compelling of those. Dabney goes on to say, "The motive of a single decision may be complex, involving many intellectual considerations of prudence or righteous policy and several distinct and even competing propensions of the optative powers. Dr. John Macarthur

How can men whose consciousness is tied to one instant in time ever hope to understand the "complex intellectual considerations" of a Being who consciousness transcends time and space?

2. The Bible is full of internal inconsistencies that cannot be sensibly reconciled.

3. The Bible is often inconsistent with what we know from science and historical studies.

I am not aware of any inconsistencies that cannot be sensibly reconciled. But there are ideas in the Bible that do go beyond the ability of man to comprehend.

Ideas like the "Hypostatic Union" and the "Trinity", even salvation itself goes beyond the ability of man to comprehend. How can God sovereignly chose men for salvation and yet man still has the ability to chose God. It is actually easier to understand the miracles of Jesus than it is to understand some of these ideas that describe God.

What men like to do is to put God on the same level as themselves. They do not remember that we are talking about a being that is all-powerful. He created the universe in a word with as much power left in Himself as when He started creating. He created every living thing in the universe. He is at every point in time and space all at the same time. He knows everything that ever was and that ever will be known and beyond. How could a man who is tied time and space and has no ability to change how time and space pulls him along ever understand a being who transcends both time and space? What form would a being who can transcend time and space have?

Man can't even comprehend the expanse of the Earth. We can calculate the size of the but that is not comprehending how large the Earth actually is. Just like we can calculate the size of the observable universe is 13.5 billion light-years across but there is no way for man to comprehend how big the universe is.

Outside of a Creator God, man has no idea of how or why the universe exists.

4. The Bible has failed to let Christians know what it really means, and that's why Christians have disagreed and even fought over it for

There seems to be some discussion on why are there so many different interpretations if God was trying to communicate with men one truth. One word sums it up sin. Men want to indulge in one type of sin or other. Men will then create an interpretation of the Scriptures in order to fulfill those sinful desires.

But the Scriptures make it clear that not all interpretations are the same. Revelations chapters 2 and 3 makes that abundantly clear that there are some doctrines more correct than others. Jesus has nothing to say against the church in Philadelphia. I am not saying that there are not believers in those different doctrines at least most of them, but there is one doctrine that is better than the rest. This doctrine is discernable because the church in Philadelphia was proclaiming it and living it.

There is nothing unclear in the Bible. Men simply make it unclear because of the sin in their lives.

The founding fathers of the United States seemed to think that the Bible could be interpreted with accuracy and precision.

The democracy that we see in the west (or at least what is left of it) was built on Christian principles. "All men are created equal" is a Christian principle. It comes from the belief that all men are created in the image of God. The only way that a democracy can survive according to George Washington is if men have an internal morally coming from religion.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion, and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."
George Washington

Laws come from the morality of the people. "Laws without morals are in vain."Benjamin Franklin (Motto of the University of Pennsylvania)"

Hitler had a morality. He believed, he was doing the right thing by making a master race and there were many that believed that with him. Stalin had a moral code that he lived by, Lenin had a moral code that he lived by. The evidence is quite clear that subjective morality is no morality at all.

The United States Constitution was built on principles that were interpreted out of the Bible. And at least most if not all of the men in the 1st continental congress agreed with these principles.

The Bible is not unclear in what it says. Today, the problem is that no one today reads their Bible so they do not know what it says. So they are open to any doctrine that sounds somewhat logical or sometimes not logical at all. In fact, I would say that there are many nonChristians and atheist on this site that know the Bible much better than your average churchgoer today.

[1213]

Christian apologetics, understood as a defense of Christian beliefs, keeps busy defending the Bible. Why is it so important to defend the Bible?
...

I try to defend truth so that people would not be led astray. And this means, if atheists falsely claim that Bible has something wrong, then I want to show it is not true so that other people would not be misled.

[Tcg]

And this means, if atheists falsely claim that Bible has something wrong...

We've been through this before, but it is worth repeating. It isn't atheists alone who recognize that the Bible isn't without error. Some theists recognize this fact and some of the theists who do so are Christians.


Tcg

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #23]

What you're saying here is very odd. I can and have read and studied books about Christianity, and such books are mostly written by Christians. It appears that you take "listen" too literally. By "listen " I mean to take into consideration what another person communicates. So when I say I have "listened" to what Christians tell me about their faith, that means I have read what they have written as well as heard what they say in person.

I am not going to spend a lot of time on this anymore, but what I mean is taking the word of what others have to say without thinking through what is actually being said. So then, when someone comes along talking about the Bible and says, "It (the Bible) is the word of God that communicates what he wants Christians to know" that is a clear indication to me one has simply taken the word of others, because a real student of the Bible would know that much of the Bible (the whole of the NT) could not possibly fit that description.

You also seem to think that reading is somehow a better way to gather information than to speak to people in person. The latter can actually be a better way to learn than the former.

NO! You are reading way to much into it, because it does not matter to me if one is simply taking the word of others straight out of their mouth, or from words on a page. Simply taking the word of others, is taking the word of others. In fact, it would be my guess that most Christians are taking the word of others, straight out of the mouth of others, because I doubt very many of them actually read very much.

Actually, Paul thought that his knowledge of God came from direct revelations, so he no doubt considered his written word to be the equivalent of what the Jewish prophets had written. In other words, his epistles were basically the same as scripture.

What you seem to be forgetting, or more than likely never considered, is the fact that Paul's letters were addressed to particular audiences at the time, many of them dealing with particular problems within that particular audience, and Paul would have had only that audience in mind as he wrote. This can be easily demonstrated by examining the letters of Paul, and we do not have the time, or the space to do this, so let us just take one example. What in the world would Paul's letter to Philemon have to do with me?

If I had to guess, (and only you know the answer here) I would not be surprised if you have no idea the subject Paul is addressing in this letter to Philemon without having to go and look. If I am correct, then are we really dealing with one who knows what is contained in the Bible?

Who said anything about a moral code?

My friend, you referred to "moral people" in post #5, and you have also spoke of "decent people" as well as what would be moral. The only way one can refer to such things, is if they can demonstrate exactly what those things would be? In other words, you cannot refer to morality unless this morality has been defined, and I believe you will be hard pressed to define it in such a way as to where everyone will agree. So then, when you refer to these things, you are at the very least borrowing from the Christian world view.

I just think for myself when it comes to what is right and wrong.

Okay, but simply because you think certain behavior is moral, and or immoral, does not in any way cause such behavior to be so. As an example, there are many folks who believe that those who flew the planes into the buildings on 9-11 were immoral. However, these folks believed they were behaving morally, and there are many who agree with them. So then, who is it that decides which it would be? There is either some sort of code, or standard you can point to, or we are all left to define good, bad, moral, and immoral anyway we individually wish, and the only way you can insist anyone would be wrong, is to demonstrate a definite standard.

The only moral code I might obey is that of the law of the land, but I must obey that code.

I certainly hope you understand that morality and law are 2 different things? As an example, I think you would believe slavery would be immoral (but I do not know how you could say this) but slavery was the law of the land in the U.S. at one time.

If I'm free to make my own moral decisions, then I use reason. I use reason to conclude that genocide is immoral.

But the thing is, simply because you conclude genocide to be immoral does not in any way cause genocide to be immoral. With this being the case, the best you can say is, "genocide is immoral in my mind". With the method you are using you cannot rightly say, "genocide is absolutely immoral".

I don't need a moral code to define either word--just a dictionary.

de-cent
/ds()nt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behavior.

2.
of an acceptable standard; satisfactory.

a-troc-i-ty
/trsd/
Learn to pronounce
noun
an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury.

As you can see the dictionary is not going to help you out because it uses the words moral, wicked, cruel, etc. and these things would have to be left to anyone's subjective opinion, unless there is some sort of standard outside of us.

You are assuming there is only one moral code.

This is where you are wrong! I am assuming no such thing. In fact, I am on record acknowledging that I cannot demonstrate what morality would be nor do I believe that anyone else can. The difference between you, and I is, I do not refer to the behavior of others as immoral, and I do not refer to myself as moral, exactly because I understand this.

So you cannot get away from opinions when it comes to morality. If you choose a code, then you are just trading your opinion for another person's opinion. And in your choosing a code, you base that choice on your own preference

Or, you can acknowledge the fact that what would be moral cannot be demonstrated, and so you do not refer to others as immoral, nor do you refer to yourself as being moral. Face the facts, either you can demonstrate that another's behavior is immoral? Or, you can only share your opinion, and we all have opinions.

You need to ask yourself the same question.

Not if I do not refer to what would be moral, and I do not. That would be you!

I should point out that your moral standard has not been demonstrated to be better than any other person's standard.

That's because I am not claiming to have any sort of moral standard. I do not condemn anyone as being immoral, and I do not refer to myself as being a moral person.

I can't force my opinion on others, and when making moral decisions, I consider many factors including harm and benefits to myself and others. I'd probably decide to do whatever minimizes harm and maximizes benefits.

Then you are a better person than I am. Because I can assure you that if someone was attempting to harm my family I would do everything I could to force my opinion upon them. The difference between you, and I would be, I would not then attempt to justify my actions as being the moral thing to do, because I understand that I cannot demonstrate what mortality would be.

Next, you are up against the fact that there may be many who would disagree with you over what would be harmful, and or beneficial. As an example, there are differing opinions between democrats, and republicans over what would be harmful, and or beneficial as far as those who are less fortunate in the U.S.

[brunumb]

And that's the rub: there is this pernicious idea that the truths contained in the bible should be obvious. That the writers have made (or should have made) them plain for all to see.

An interesting defense of the Bible. Thousands of years ago when the those things were written the majority of people were simple, illiterate folk. Those able to read and communicate the contents were not necessarily profound thinkers like we're surrounded with today, so it would not be unreasonable to expect the writers to have made the contents obvious and plain enough for all to see.

Even today, those who claim to have plumbed the depths of the Bible don't seem to be in agreement with others making the same claim. The confusion applies to all levels of study and possibly more so to those who see deep and meaningful messages that may not really be there. How to we really know who has got it right?

[unknown soldier]

The Bible does not need to be defended at all. It has been around for over 2000 thousand years and it is not going anywhere. Christians do not defend the Bible because they believe it needs to be defended. God will take care of that Himself. We simply share the truth of God's word to a lost and dying world that is going to hell.

Logically, I agree that if the Bible is authored by an all-mighty God, then he could take care of his own book. However, the fact of the matter is that apologists are busy defending the Bible. Why do they defend the Bible if presumably they don't need to defend it? That's the main issue of this thread.

What are you calling atrocities and why?

Bible critics object to the Bible glorifying the violent and deadly acts of its God. If the Bible is such a wonderful book, then nobody would be expected to object to its contents, yet many people do object. Why do they object to its stories and injunctions seeing them as cruel and evil?

...the real issue is the desire not to be held to the same standard as everyone else. This is why for men absolute power corrupts. When men feel that there is no consequence for their actions men, there is no limit to the atrocities that men will preform The 20th century should have taught us that.

Hmmm. So you think that people who criticize the Bible do so because they are bad and want to get away with their bad ways. Can you post an example of such a critic?

While you're coming up with that example, allow me to post a counter-example. I'm a Bible critic, and I live a good life. I live that good life not so much out of fear of punishment but out of a desire to live in harmony with others for the common good.

Oh, and would you be evil if you thought there was no God to punish you?

How can men whose consciousness is tied to one instant in time ever hope to understand the "complex intellectual considerations" of a Being who consciousness transcends time and space?

I suppose we cannot comprehend that which is evidently incoherent--the idea of the Christian God. But it's not sensible, in my opinion, to posit a violent being whose death dealing supposedly cannot be understood, and then justify those acts telling people that they are too stupid to to see why those deadly acts are justified! Although we are indeed limited in what we can understand, let's recognize those limits when we encounter them and not when some theologian tells us what they are. So as far as I'm concerned, we can indeed understand the Bible's horrors for what they are.

But there are ideas in the Bible that do go beyond the ability of man to comprehend.

I say let's test people's understanding of the Bible's ideas and then base our judgment of their understanding on the outcome of that test rather than have you declare that they cannot understand the Bible's ideas. After all, you might be wrong and people do understand the Bible's ideas.

How could a man who is tied time and space and has no ability to change how time and space pulls him along ever understand a being who transcends both time and space? What form would a being who can transcend time and space have?

It's your God--you tell us. It appears that Christians have created a God concept that is nonsensical.

Outside of a Creator God, man has no idea of how or why the universe exists.

Not really. Some scientists have come up with ideas of why the universe exists that involve no Gods. In fact, cosmology involves no Gods at all.

Men want to indulge in one type of sin or other. Men will then create an interpretation of the Scriptures in order to fulfill those sinful desires.

Those bad men! Is it safe to assume you are not one of those men?

There is nothing unclear in the Bible. Men simply make it unclear because of the sin in their lives.

May I test your understanding of the Bible? Since you are a sin-free interpreter of scripture, it should be clear to you what Luke 23:34 (NRSV) is telling us:

Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."

In this passage, who is "them" and how do you know?

The democracy that we see in the west (or at least what is left of it) was built on Christian principles. "All men are created equal" is a Christian principle. It comes from the belief that all men are created in the image of God. The only way that a democracy can survive according to George Washington is if men have an internal morally coming from religion.

Are you saying that people criticize the Bible because they oppose democracy?

Hitler had a morality. He believed, he was doing the right thing by making a master race and there were many that believed that with him. Stalin had a moral code that he lived by, Lenin had a moral code that he lived by. The evidence is quite clear that subjective morality is no morality at all.

So those who object to the Bible's morality are like Hitler and Stalin. My subjective morality frees me to see the acts of Hitler and Stalin as unacceptable, so I don't seem to fit your profile of a Bible critic.

...I would say that there are many nonChristians and atheist on this site that know the Bible much better than your average churchgoer today.

That might be why they aren't Christians; they've read the Bible.

[brunumb]

What men like to do is to put God on the same level as themselves. They do not remember that we are talking about a being that is all-powerful. He created the universe in a word with as much power left in Himself as when He started creating. He created every living thing in the universe. He is at every point in time and space all at the same time. He knows everything that ever was and that ever will be known and beyond. How could a man who is tied time and space and has no ability to change how time and space pulls him along ever understand a being who transcends both time and space? What form would a being who can transcend time and space have?

When has God ever actually demonstrated any of those attributes?

It would be more accurate to say that humans have attributed all of that to a being of their own creation and placed it out of reach of human scrutiny.