The Most Misunderstood Book: Christopher Hitchens on the Bible

[Forsaken]

What do you guys have to say about this:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicat...m=2&id=773

What I gather is more Christianity bullshit.

[Cyberman]

This guy certainly loves the word "antitheist": he uses it nine times in all, six of those in the first two paragraphs. The rest of his article, as far as I can see (I only glanced through it for now), where he isn't panning the Hitch's magnum opus, appears to be a serving of the usual warmed-over bull about the bible and its highly overrated place in literature.

In short, Christopher Hitchens will continue to be remembered and read long after this guy turns to dust.

[Minimalist]

What I gather is more Christianity bullshit.

That comes in the Giant Economy Size.

[Faith No More]

Whatever problems Hitchens purports to discover in the Bible in terms of historicity, disputed authorship, barbaric morality, or antiquated science can be equally found in Homer, for example. Yet we never see overwrought antitheists wringing their hands in distress and writing books exposing the supposed absurdities of the Iliad.

Too long to read it all, but this quote here is quite telling. People don't attack the Iliad because there aren't masses of people basing their lives off of it and trying to dictate how everyone lives because of it. If people understood that the bible is as ficticious as the Iliad, there would be no problem.

[Abracadabra]

I didn't read the whole article either. But I agree that the Bible is the most confusing collection of fables on Earth. I don't think there can be any question about that. Just look at what it has given rise to. Judaism (from what it supposedly originated), the many disagreeing Muslim faiths of Islam, Catholicism, and a countless myriad of protesting Protestantisms that even continue to grow in number to this very day.

If anything, it's crystal clear that even people who would like to understand these writings cannot come up with a single coherent picture of what these stories supposedly have to say.

There can only be one conclusion from all of this - The author of these stories was a horrible communicator.

Therefore if these stories had been written by the creator of humanity, that creator would have automatically condemned the vast majority of his creation simply because he's a horrible communicator.

That very fact right there pretty much rules out that these fables could have come from a divine source.

If they are the most misunderstood writings in the world, it can only be because they are very poor quality writings. Thus to believe that they are the "Word of God" requires also believing that a supposedly "Perfect Divine Being" is a bumbling fool when it comes to trying to communicate with his own creation. But that's an oxymoron. Thus the only rational conclusion available is that these writings have absolutely nothing to do with any supposed all-wise all-perfect God.

That conclusion solves ALL the problems associated with the whole stupid mess.

[RW_9]

Like others, I couldn't make it through the whole thing. Maybe some evening when I'm incredibly bored. But it seemed very much like an overcooked term paper from a sophmore at bible college. That Homer comment was especially ridiculous, as Faith No More said.

[Xavier]

Hes right on the point of the Bible being the most misunderstood book and its Christians who don't get it.

The God of the Bible would wholly approve of Christians going round killing all Hindus, Buddhists , Atheists, Homosexuals etc in cold blood and taking their daughter as sex slaves.

At least a lot of the viloent Christians of the Dark Ages followed what the thing said to a large extent.

[Forsaken]

Just wanted to point out that the author himself is a Christian, so we can expect a lot of bias in that article.

[LEDO]

The Bible is not confusing myths. In fact I understand them quite well. I understand why they are used for prophecy and I understand why they are believed to be inerrant. I also understand why people believe they come from a divine source when men wrote them. I think I may have wrote about it somewhere...

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Apologists attack Hitchens because he is popular, not because he was an especially good philosopher,he was not.


Certainly an intelligent ,articulate journalist, excellent polemicist and debater, but a weak a philosopher with nothing original to say in my opinion.


I found "God Is Not Great" underwhelming,spoiled by his prejudices which he presents as fact. Although more disciplined (as a professional academic should be) neither is Dawkins an original thinker,also preaching to the choir.

However, profound ideas simply presented have helped a lot of people start to think rationally,perhaps for the first time.I think that makes the smarter believers feel threatened, as well it might.