Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

[B. W.]

Common Agnostic and Atheist Objection to the Bible

I just returned from Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Reservations in South Dakota late Wednesday from a ministry trip. We dropped off clothes from a clothing drive as well as Dr. Charles Stanley’s In Touch Ministries Mp3 players – The Messengers – to the First Nation people.

Before O left and while I was away, in my privet email, I was recently hit with a rash of email from agnostics and atheist who literally bombard a person with bible verses, questions, and comments designed to shipwreck a believers’ faith in Christ.

Most come from alleged Christian’s who claim to have lost their faith and join up with others of like mind who send emails to relatives, friends, public figures in an attempt to de-convert them. To do so, they ask the common questions and misuse of bible verses to score points off of. A new believer in Christ is often the target of such.

Therefore the purpose of this thread is to begin a topic that addresses these issues and if you know someone like this or have the same questions they pose please post here and we can take the time to answer these.

I would also suggest a book to read – Case For Faith – by Lee Strobel as he answers many of the issues brought up by such negative de-converting folk.
-
-
-

[B. W.]

To begin this thread, I was recently hit with this verse:

Matthew 10:37, "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” NASB

The comment made by the gentleman was this – How sick is this? Jesus demand love at the expense of family- how sick is that? That is a sick demand of affection… How can you love someone who tells you to hate your family?

Matthew 10:37 and Luke 14:26 are often uses as an appeal to a person to de-convert due to in their personal bias and opinion that implies - a God who demands one hate and abandon one’s family is sick –so how can Christian’s serve such a God.

These verses have been so misapplied and misused that even Christian believers often fail to note how the context of chapter 10 explains the text. The De-converters – militant agnostics and atheists fail to take notice of this as well attempting to win argument by emotional appeal alone.

Have you wondered what Matthew 10:37 really means?

Again, people do take this verse out of context. To illustrate this, let me lift their own words - Absolutely sick – off the page. Do you mean you are absolutely sick? What kind of illness do you have? Without context, you cannot make understand what another is tryng to convey.

Likewise, without applying context, one can make the bible says anything. Next, without the Holy Spirit, a person can distort bible verses without conscience. Without knowledge of basic Greek and Hebrew words, anyone can misinterpret a line of text as happens with the passages in question.

In fact Matthew 10:18-22 sets the stage for the context, and verses 32-33 as well put the correct light on the text. Let’s look at these from the NASB:

Mat 10:18 ...and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.
Mat 10:19 "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say.
Mat 10:20 "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.
Mat 10:21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.
Mat 10:22 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

Mat 10:32 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

Mat 10:36 ...and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.”

Verse 36 makes the context of chapter 10 very clear – are your brothers, mother, father, sisters, own family willing to put you to death, disown you, take all your possessions for believing in Christ and if so, would you deny Christ if they did?

That is the context…

One last thing about the text the quoted verse 37 out of context: Mat 10:37, "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”

So you can understand what Jesus is saying in the context of chapter Ten (Matthew 10:18-22,32-33, 36), let me phrase it this way:

Should your Christian relative or friend deny Christ to prove they really love you?

Must they turn away from Christ because you say it is the best thing to do, or else they are ignorant unenlightened peasant?

Should a Believer forsake Jesus Christ, deny him, or elase you’ll disown them and deny their inheritance, etc?

Look at what side of the context you are on and then look at the believer’s. I think you, the reader will get it…

Rabi Snyder from the show, the Jewish Jesus was faced with such a dilemma when he came to know Christ. His family disowned him but by remaining steadfast for Christ Jesus, he received many more new family members and even some of his own family have turned to Christ because his love was not divided.

That is the context of Matthew 10:37 now read…

Mat 10:36 ...and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
Mat 10:37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
Mat 10:38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

So if you are hit by this question, please feel free to answer using what was brought out here…
-
-
-

[Icthus]

I like the idea behind this topic, and I'd like to add that in the case of verses like those you've brought up, it also helps to take culture into account. At times, the language in the Bible can seem extremely harsh or overstated, such as in this instance, in which one (seemingly) is commanded to hate one's family in order to love God. It can be useful (and at times essential) to understand the culture in which the Biblical writers lived. Just as the Bible was composed in the common languages of the time (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), it reflects the literary conventions of the time as well, and it is often a failure to carefully examine difficult passages in their original context that fuels the objections skeptics tend to make.

I'm certainly no professional exegete, but I'll be willing to help answer objections where I can.

[PaulSacramento]

The dangers of proof texting.
Taken out of context AND interpreted with preconceived notions, ANY text can mane almost anything.
RE: the warning of Jesus to his apostles.
Jesus KNEW what was gonna happen and He KNEW how important family ties where in the Jewish community and He wanted his disciples to know that family WOULD turn on them ( as they did).
BUT we must try to understand what it means to "Love Jesus".
Jesus preached love and compassion, He preached forgiveness and a new existence under God in the Kingdom of God, He preached against rebellion ( whic would be the destruction of Jerusalem like he foretold) and preached against legalizim that sacrificed the people for the instiution.
So, to go against Jesus was to go against ALL he taught and stood for.
If our families were trying to make us hate others, go against what we knew was right, create an environment that would lead to destruction, wouldn't we "HATE" them as well ?

[B. W.]

Great points Paul and Icthus made!

Here is a new one from an agnostic person regarding reincarnation as evidence that the bible isn’t true. Wiki define Reincarnation:

Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality of the previous life's actions. This doctrine is a central tenet of the Indian religions[ and is a belief that was held by such historic figures as Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates. It is also a common belief of pagan religions such as Druidism, Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar and is found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

The idea was that due to past life studies, the bible presentation of who God is, salvation, etc… not necessary.

To respond I made this Point in a question:

What is the world’s current population?

Close to 7 Billion was the answer I received so I responded again…

What was the world’s population, say around 5000 BC?

Please note: http://worldhistorysite.com/population.html

The answer would be around 4 to 5 million was the reply.

So I responded: Reincarnation – for it to be true – where did the all the souls come from past lives to fill up 7 billion now?

The pat answer was animals, bacteria, etc…

From this – how would you answer?

Must be a lot of bad bacteria and animals out there for there only to be 7 billion human beings...
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Regarding Reincarnation as a proof text against Christianity:

Just to follow up. Please note the definition again

Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality of the previous life's actions.

This doctrine is a central tenet of the Indian religions[ and is a belief that was held by such historic figures as Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates. It is also a common belief of pagan religions such as Druidism, Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar and is found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

The tenants of Reincarnation depend on the moral quality of the previous life's actions in how one progresses.

So when confronted with the pure number of Human Beings, nowadays compared to those living in 5000 BCE, where did all the other souls come from?

The answer is usually, animals, bacteria, and such – so according to the tenants of reincarnation can anyone prove the morality standards that bacteria and animals use to determine if such comes back to life in a higher life form thru personal altruistic actions?

Remember that a departed soul must inhabit a human being who is being born so that the person being born can even exist. Where did all the extra souls come from to currently make close to 7 billion?

I have heard argued after making this point, space alien souls that have died caused the increase in world’s human population …

Does anyone know if any past life research has anyone saying any of their past lives were from another planet?

How do any of you deal with reincarnation questions posed to disprove Christianity?

I’ll get into another topic often brought out soon , unless someone else has one…

[B. W.]

Let’s move on from the reincarnation issue. When confronted with reincarnation alswys remember to reduce it down to numbers and keep going – where did all the original souls come from? Algea, animals? What moral standard of altruism did these have to advance up the reincarnation laddr and where did this standard come form and from who?

Next point is the age old comments non-Christian people have and make about Christians. These assumptions are not without merit. I made them myself back during the 1970’s. Today, these same assumptions fuel militant agnostic and atheist rejection of Christian faith. So how do we answer these?

Christians faith is too judgmental, hypocritical, too involved in politics, out of touch-aloof, old fashioned and insensitive, too pushy, very confusing, bible is outdated – not inspired, bible reveals God as a moral mixed up monster, has an us versus them mentality, too materialistic/ phony, unanswered prayers, death of loved ones, death of little kids, all the evil in the world and these are only a few comments people make to try to de-covert.

So how do you answer these if someone comes at you to deconvert you. We, on this Forum deal with this all the time and have several ongoing current threads on these very issues. Here on this thread, how do you go about answering any one of these? Pick one and go with it so we can learn from each other.

[Reactionary]

Next point is the age old comments non-Christian people have and make about Christians. These assumptions are not without merit. I made them myself back during the 1970’s. Today, these same assumptions fuel militant agnostic and atheist rejection of Christian faith. So how do we answer these?

I'll give it a shot, B.W. I was thinking about this recently.

Christians faith is too judgmental,

I'd say this is arbitrary. I understand that some people are attracted to impresonal "gods" like "karma" because it doesn't judge them in person like a personal God who will undoubtedly ask them to answer for what they did and why. That way they have both a meaning of life and freedom to do whatever they want without eternal consequences. In reincarnation you have an unlimited number of attempts, like in a video game when you respawn.

hypocritical,

I witness this one often, especially because Catholicism is very influential in my country. It's very popular to look for priests who committed something immoral or illegal (usually paedophilia) and to use it as evidence against Christianity. I don't see how it makes any sense, but if it makes certain people feel morally superior, yet they hold to a worldview that denies objective morality, who am I to judge them for living in their little worlds of contradiction. It's just that it becomes (slightly) irritating when they do it all the time, and always in the same way.

too involved in politics,

Everyone is entitled to having political views, including the Church.

out of touch-aloof, old fashioned and insensitive,

There might be truth in this to some extent. But this has nothing to with the validity of Christian faith. It can only serve as an excuse to those who want to reject it, to have something to complain about.

too pushy,

I don't see anything pushy about Christianity. The fact that some can't and won't face it that our civilization was built on Christian heritage, is their problem.

very confusing,

Some issues about Christianity are (still) subject to debates. This doesn't mean that it's confusing.

bible is outdated – not inspired,

Chronological snobbery is dangerous because it makes one conform to anything and everything that becomes a fad, yet nothing is ultimately true or right.

bible reveals God as a moral mixed up monster,

It's inconsistent to morally judge the creator of morality. Plus, understanding the circumstances of the stories written in the Bible would also help, in my opinion.

unanswered prayers,

God is not a cosmic vending machine. Ultimately, it will be the way He wants. "Your will be done", says the Lord's prayer.

death of loved ones, death of little kids, all the evil in the world

This creation was not meant to be perfect. Most of the bad things happening in the world are a result of human free will that resulted in sin. Many complain about poverty, yet how much have they done for the poor? They could have understood by now that God won't just appear from the sky and simply remove all the sorrow and pain. Oh wait... He will. When the time comes.

[PaulSacramento]

The reality is that skeptics, be them agnostic or atheist, are correct in questioning what is written in the bible, in pointing out what appears to be contradictions, in pointing out where God appears to be less moral than Humans are today, etc,etc.
There is nothing wrong in critiquing the bible and in questioning its teachings.
Even if they are basing their "yard stick of morality" on a morality that comes from the bible.
That is perfectly fine.
It is up to the believer to defend what he/she believes in.
Certainly not all answers will be acceptable to the skeptic BUT it falls on the skeptic to explain WHY they are unaccetable.
To say there are no answers to these questions is incorrect.
To say that one doesn't agree with the answers is perfectly fine, it is a person's right to agree or disagree.
You just can't say there are no answers when what you mean is you don't like/agree with them.

[PaulSacramento]

As an example, on another website a fundamentalist answered the issue of what God allowed Satan to do with Job as "God's right" and that, in the end, God rewarded Job anyway.
The atheist rightly point out that was of small consolation to the dead children of Job and that allowing a being to terrorize another, just to make a point, is quite horrific and immoral.
The fundamentalist answered that we can't judge God.
Now, I don't agree with the fundamentalist in HOW we put his answer, BUT it was AN answer.

[B. W.]

As an example, on another website a fundamentalist answered the issue of what God allowed Satan to do with Job as "God's right" and that, in the end, God rewarded Job anyway.

The atheist rightly point out that was of small consolation to the dead children of Job and that allowing a being to terrorize another, just to make a point, is quite horrific and immoral.
The fundamentalist answered that we can't judge God.

Now, I don't agree with the fundamentalist in HOW we put his answer, BUT it was AN answer.

There is so much in the book of Job in the first three chapters from chapters 33-42 - Look at Job 3:1,8 for example and then Job 41:34 - this answers a lot.

Only one who can draw out draw out Leviathan and hook him (Job 41:1-2) is the Lord - not Job. So you might see what was really going on, instead of the Adversary hooking, ensnaring God (Job 2:3), God entrapped the adversary by his treatment of Job.

There is also God declaring Job righteous (Job 1:8) and his ability to carry it out and fulfill it as well.

The militant agnostic and atheists insert their personal presuppositions into the text in an attempt to prove God a moral evil monster for allowing killing of Job’s adult children by the adversary. Bible does not mention their eternal state but since Job made an offering continually for his children Job 1:5 one can assume they made it to paradise under the Old Testament covenant ways of atonement. So, mortal life cut short, but eternal life in paradise forever –hmmm who was really unjust? Not God, nor Job, but the Adversary proven unjust – he was uncovered.

God was exposing the Adversary and all the sons of pride in this book, even so today evidenced by the militant agnostic and atheists attempts to indict God as a moral monster, or doesn’t exist, or have others follow their lead to curse God.
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Very good points Reactionary...

Next point is the age old comments non-Christian people have and make about Christians. These assumptions are not without merit. I made them myself back during the 1970’s. Today, these same assumptions fuel militant agnostic and atheist rejection of Christian faith. So how do we answer these?

I'll give it a shot, B.W. I was thinking about this recently.

Christians faith is too judgmental,

I'd say this is arbitrary. I understand that some people are attracted to impresonal "gods" like "karma" because it doesn't judge them in person like a personal God who will undoubtedly ask them to answer for what they did and why. That way they have both a meaning of life and freedom to do whatever they want without eternal consequences. In reincarnation you have an unlimited number of attempts, like in a video game when you respawn.

hypocritical,

I witness this one often, especially because Catholicism is very influential in my country. It's very popular to look for priests who committed something immoral or illegal (usually paedophilia) and to use it as evidence against Christianity. I don't see how it makes any sense, but if it makes certain people feel morally superior, yet they hold to a worldview that denies objective morality, who am I to judge them for living in their little worlds of contradiction. It's just that it becomes (slightly) irritating when they do it all the time, and always in the same way.

too involved in politics,

Everyone is entitled to having political views, including the Church.

out of touch-aloof, old fashioned and insensitive,

There might be truth in this to some extent. But this has nothing to with the validity of Christian faith. It can only serve as an excuse to those who want to reject it, to have something to complain about.

too pushy,

I don't see anything pushy about Christianity. The fact that some can't and won't face it that our civilization was built on Christian heritage, is their problem.

very confusing,

Some issues about Christianity are (still) subject to debates. This doesn't mean that it's confusing.

bible is outdated – not inspired,

Chronological snobbery is dangerous because it makes one conform to anything and everything that becomes a fad, yet nothing is ultimately true or right.

bible reveals God as a moral mixed up monster,

It's inconsistent to morally judge the creator of morality. Plus, understanding the circumstances of the stories written in the Bible would also help, in my opinion.

unanswered prayers,

God is not a cosmic vending machine. Ultimately, it will be the way He wants. "Your will be done", says the Lord's prayer.

death of loved ones, death of little kids, all the evil in the world

This creation was not meant to be perfect. Most of the bad things happening in the world are a result of human free will that resulted in sin. Many complain about poverty, yet how much have they done for the poor? They could have understood by now that God won't just appear from the sky and simply remove all the sorrow and pain. Oh wait... He will. When the time comes.

[PaulSacramento]

As an example, on another website a fundamentalist answered the issue of what God allowed Satan to do with Job as "God's right" and that, in the end, God rewarded Job anyway.

The atheist rightly point out that was of small consolation to the dead children of Job and that allowing a being to terrorize another, just to make a point, is quite horrific and immoral.
The fundamentalist answered that we can't judge God.

Now, I don't agree with the fundamentalist in HOW we put his answer, BUT it was AN answer.

There is so much in the book of Job in the first three chapters from chapters 33-42 - Look at Job 3:1,8 for example and then Job 41:34 - this answers a lot.

Only one who can draw out draw out Leviathan and hook him (Job 41:1-2) is the Lord - not Job. So you might see what was really going on, instead of the Adversary hooking, ensnaring God (Job 2:3), God entrapped the adversary by his treatment of Job.

There is also God declaring Job righteous (Job 1:8) and his ability to carry it out and fulfill it as well.

The militant agnostic and atheists insert their personal presuppositions into the text in an attempt to prove God a moral evil monster for allowing killing of Job’s adult children by the adversary. Bible does not mention their eternal state but since Job made an offering continually for his children Job 1:5 one can assume they made it to paradise under the Old Testament covenant ways of atonement. So, mortal life cut short, but eternal life in paradise forever –hmmm who was really unjust? Not God, nor Job, but the Adversary proven unjust – he was uncovered.

God was exposing the Adversary and all the sons of pride in this book, even so today evidenced by the militant agnostic and atheists attempts to indict God as a moral monster, or doesn’t exist, or have others follow their lead to curse God.
-
-
-

We ALL insert our personal presuppisitions, we just have to be aware of them.
Look at Augustine for example, to him, all the bible pointed to a loving God and to loving they neighbour, that is the presupposition he went in with when he read and interepreted the bible.
He based that on being a Christian first ( NT) and a "jew" (OT) second, so when he interpreted the OT texts, he did it through the eyes of a "christian".
When he hot to parts that, in the literal sense, went a gainst that view, he had to interprete them to SUIT that view, the case of the Pslam where those that dash the infants of Babylon against the rocks are blessed ( or however it goes) Pslam 137:9, He interpreted that as an anology of dashing our sins in their "infantile" stage and destroying them.
To Augustine, there was no LITERAL and CONCRETE way to reconcile that Pslam with the Message of Christ.

[ultimate777]

Regarding Reincarnation as a proof text against Christianity:

Just to follow up. Please note the definition again

Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality of the previous life's actions.

This doctrine is a central tenet of the Indian religions[ and is a belief that was held by such historic figures as Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates. It is also a common belief of pagan religions such as Druidism, Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar and is found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

The tenants of Reincarnation depend on the moral quality of the previous life's actions in how one progresses.

So when confronted with the pure number of Human Beings, nowadays compared to those living in 5000 BCE, where did all the other souls come from?

The answer is usually, animals, bacteria, and such – so according to the tenants of reincarnation can anyone prove the morality standards that bacteria and animals use to determine if such comes back to life in a higher life form thru personal altruistic actions?

Remember that a departed soul must inhabit a human being who is being born so that the person being born can even exist. Where did all the extra souls come from to currently make close to 7 billion?

I have heard argued after making this point, space alien souls that have died caused the increase in world’s human population …

Does anyone know if any past life research has anyone saying any of their past lives were from another planet?

How do any of you deal with reincarnation questions posed to disprove Christianity?

I’ll get into another topic often brought out soon , unless someone else has one…

I don't believe in reincarnation. But if it's true here is where the other souls came from. A person can have a brand new soul.
If there are not enough used souls to go around brand new souls are supplied to the exess of new people.
I am amazed you had to be told that. All souls were once brand new and had an origional owner that was human. Bad karma made some reincarnate as lower forms of life.

[B. W.]

Regarding Reincarnation as a proof text against Christianity:

Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality of the previous life's actions.

This doctrine is a central tenet of the Indian religions[ and is a belief that was held by such historic figures as Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates. It is also a common belief of pagan religions such as Druidism, Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar and is found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

...The tenants of Reincarnation depend on the moral quality of the previous life's actions in how one progresses.…

I don't believe in reincarnation. But if it's true here is where the other souls came from. A person can have a brand new soul.
If there are not enough used souls to go around brand new souls are supplied to the exess of new people.
I am amazed you had to be told that. All souls were once brand new and had an origional owner that was human. Bad karma made some reincarnate as lower forms of life.

You bring up a good point regarding recantation and those that adhere in its philosophy.

Souls had to have a beginning and if a beginning how could reincarnation work?

The basic broad brush concept of reincarnation is evolution from a lower order state of life into a higher order life form by some sort of existing moral code in which judges the acts of lower order life forms to move in either a higher order life form (by Altruistic acts) or move to a lower order life form (by bad acts).

This begs the question: Where did all the souls come from?

Simple single life cells appear to be the most common mode of life that comes first – algae, bacteria, etc… and that could explain the beginning of souls but however – what moral acts do such single cell organisms perform in order to gain a higher order life form? Can such single cell actually do moral acts?

Reincarnation is a works based system built upon a adhering to a moral code – altruism is the means in which to progress, do nothing stagnate, do bad go in reverse.

Another part of reincarnation philosophy teaches the divine causation (divine hum of the universe for a lack of word) emits souls because all life is part or is divine. So that all divine perfect souls begin from the highest order but rather regress automatically to a lower form to climb back to where they began. This begs another question, if all souls are part of the same divine and began there, what moral act did they do wrong to cause them to regress, since they were at one with the divine and perfect to begin with?

You have a contradiction in this. A perfect divine being, fragmenting self into smaller beings (souls) to be a lower form, algae, or sea slug, or frogs without any of these perfect parts doing any moral badness that justifies their placement. They are sent to be lower life forms to progress by performing altruism in hope of attaining the highest of life form inserted back into the Divine, and for what purpose? - To be sent lower again and endlessly repeat to get what right?

See how from reduction, the philosophy of reincarnation begins to fall apart.

So what about the study of past life regression where some person claims to have lived before as a common ordinary person, and actually verifies names and places of that past person, in a new state? Is that proof for reincarnation or something the bible terms and identifies as – familiar spirits / necromancy?
-
-
-