Skeptics Prove Their Own Arrogance While Attacking Scripture

When attacking Scripture, one should show some evidence you know what you’re talking about.

If you’re a skeptic, looking for completely lame justifications for your unbelief in the God of the Bible, here’s the piece you’ve been looking for! The author does a fabulous job of presenting intellectual mush for the gullible and ignorant, in the name of attacking those who are allegedly gullible and ignorant.

The article is in the new reboot of Newsweek: “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin.”

They wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming their condemnations of homosexuals. They fall on their knees, worshipping at the base of granite monuments to the Ten Commandments while demanding prayer in school. They appeal to God to save America from their political opponents, mostly Democrats. They gather in football stadiums by the thousands to pray for the country’s salvation.

They are God’s frauds, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch. They are joined by religious rationalizers—fundamentalists who, unable to find Scripture supporting their biases and beliefs, twist phrases and modify translations to prove they are honoring the Bible’s words.

One of my life sayings is: “Truth has no fear of contradiction.” So… I printed this out—all 20 pages—grabbed my Bible and a pen, and started in, expecting a real mental and research challenge. What I found was laughable. If this is the best the skeptics have, they’ve got nothing but bluster.

Oh, it sounds intellectual and scholarly, but if you’ve done any real study of the subject—and have training in logic and communication—it takes no time to shred just about everything in here. Yes, many Evangelicals need to be ‘taken to the woodshed’ for not knowing their Bibles, but this article is about the furthest thing possible from a legitimate look at the issues it addresses.

Kurt Eichenwald either betrays a worse ignorance of the Bible than those he attacks, or a totally disingenuous spirit which has no intention of dealing fairly with the subject-matter in view.

My biggest difficulty is, when someone demonstrates no concern at all for accuracy or fairness, you almost don’t know where to begin. The writer begins with one lie, and then builds a 200-story skyscraper on top of it with so many additional lies that cloud the issue. I appreciate an honest skeptic. Eichenwald is not an honest skeptic; he’s a pretentious hit man, using his credentials to mask a seething antipathy for the Bible.

[See also, “Lying Journalists Are the Result of a Lying Worldview.”]

If the Bible were really as flawed and easily debunked as this author makes it out to be, then the biggest miracle of all is how such a poor human effort has influenced billions down through the years to sacrifice their lives and treasures for their neighbors, build hospitals and schools, and generally make the western world prosperous and civil, as compared with regions not thoroughly influenced by its message.

While I am glad I did my own assessment first, Al Mohler nails a bunch of the points in my own notes, and his conclusion is spot-on:

Newsweek’s cover story is exactly what happens when a writer fueled by open antipathy to evangelical Christianity tries to throw every argument he can think of against the Bible and its authority. To put the matter plainly, no honest historian would recognize the portrait of Christian history presented in this essay as accurate and no credible journalist would recognize this screed as balanced.

If this is an example of what we can expect from the “new” Newsweek, then it doesn’t say much for the awful caricature of journalism it will present in each issue.