Several months ago I had a very heated conversation with two militant atheists who are extremely mean-spirited.
They say that the Bible is entirely wicked.
What would have been your own reaction?
If you read the post, you will see that their accusations have a lot to do with the problem of eternal suffering.
Actually I would like to hear other people’s opinion in order to improve my approach but maybe also to feel a bit comforted, for it is always hard to deal with such disrecpectful opponents.
I think that their objections against Christianity are actually mainly objections against fundamentalism and conservative Christianity and nothing more.
I’ll read that as soon as I can - gonna be a busy week for me with the Christmas crowd.
Lotharson,
I left a comment at your blog – I hope that’s okay. I think you did fine in conversing with these two people and I also believe they aren’t particularly interested in anything you (or I) will have to say. They’re just proselytizing you for atheism, whatever they may claim to the contrary. You have to (IMO) approach these things with the thought that you are planting seeds which may sprout at a later time (and not only in the people you’re conversing with, but also in the many others who read but do not comment). It seems to me though, that it’s important to do well in these arguments at least for the sake of later observers. You don’t want to allow the lurker to be persuaded by the arguments of the atheists without making a good showing for your own (true) arguments. That doesn’t mean you need to persuade the other person, but only that you need to come off looking like the one who knows his stuff, and even more important, looking like (and being) the one who is kind and loving to opponents. (As you did.)
I forgot to click the subscribe to comments button, so if they do respond to me, I’d appreciate your letting me know if you think of it, as I know I’ll forget to check back there. 
I forget many things I want to remember these days, alas!
Just for the record, and not to needle you in any way or to disrespect your beliefs – atheists react nearly as badly to being told they’ll be annihilated if they refuse the love of God, as they do to being told they’ll be tormented forever. That’s just my experience, and I used to wonder why they didn’t see the love in just finishing them quickly (or after sufficient punishment) as opposed to torturing them forever. Now I kind of see their point, but I didn’t see it for a long time. Not that you told them that explicitly – you wouldn’t be so rude. The thing is, you did tell them you believed it, and while you could hardly avoid telling them that, they will respond negatively to that belief even though you mean it kindly.
Love, Cindy
Thanks Cindy for everything, I answered you shortly there 
Since I believe in conditional immortality, I don’t think that people naturally live forever, it is a gift of God He freely gives to those loving Him.
Yes, I understand that, Lotharson. I think just about everyone here believes that we are only alive because we are sustained by God, “for He alone has immortality.” We mostly believe, though, that He will eventually win the hearts of ALL that He loves (and of course that He loves all.)
It is difficult to discuss things with anyone who is militant about their views - christian or atheist. Militant philosophy always has the weapon of choice to deliberately offend you or disrespect you as part of their assault. There are different grades of militants: low, medium and high grade. The low grade militants can and will stop their assault and move onto other subjects. They will deliberately disrespect you and try to soil the discussion, but they will sometimes tire of the assault through lack of commitment. There are low grade militants on this forum; but they are generally modified by the tremendous compassion here. This is an example where “love your enemies” bears fruit.
Jesus did not have success with the high level militants of the pharisees. “Loving your enemy” does not always bring fruit with that person; and ‘loving your enemy’ at times still brought very hostile responses from Jesus (Matthew 23). I don’t believe Jesus contradicted himself when he called the pharisees vipers. There are times where a different tact needs to be taken to break down the enemies stronghold. Some enemies would even require prayer and fasting. Love is the guiding principal of which drives us; it is not the principal of “group hugs” and pretentious “do-gooders” who seek to be seen as noble on the outside only; while inside they are seathing with contempt. While Jesus was speaking to the Israelites; they were even then exacting retribution on their enemies, the Romans. There was a group called the Sicarii - the daggermen. These Israelite Sicarii went on vigilante sprees and knifed the Roman soldiers from behind in the thick of night. This was the mindset Jesus was dealing with. Jesus’ message of love was to demonstrate that God no longer supported the nationalistic agenda of the Jews; which had become perverse.
The Jews were preserved in history in order to secure the safe birth of the Son of God. That was part of the Will of God. Now, as the Son had been born; the WIll of God took on an international concern - which always existed anyway! The promise to Abraham was that all nations would be blessed by his seed. This time had come. There is no contradiction between the OT and the NT - it was merely a matter of timing to fulfill all of God’s plans for all nations. The Israelites were given protection during the early stages for this reason. The Israelites, however, misunderstood God’s objective, and they had truly come to despise the Goyim gentiles; whereas God was saying to love them, because this was always how God had viewed them.
The militant atheists (and christians) confuse these particulars, and they try to find fault with God based on their limited understanding. This has always been the case; so no biggy! All we can do is live with the truth that God has given us. Other people will fight and try and harm us; but we must recognize that all people must make their own choices, and we need not be offended by their antagonism. Sometimes it is necessary, in love, to expose a viper. This might seem counter-intuitive to the command to love, but it is not. I do it at times, and even though others look down their nose at me in horror, I think it is part of our mandate. The whole lovey-dovey idea of always greeting our opposition with warm hugs and smiles is not found in the bible. Instead, Jesus said lovingly: “I never knew you. Get away from me you workers of iniquity”.
Stefcui: this is truly brilliant!
Yes, militant intellectuals (I don’t want to call them philosophers) use ridicule, mockery and bullying as a way to push the other person to convert to their ideas.
Many militant atheists use this tactic and defend its use against ALL religious believers.
They are as bigoted as the pharisees our Lord dealt with.
By the way, Jesus did not only rebuke them but predicted their demise using old testament imageries meaning “utter destruction”.
This is what is going to happen to both religious and non-religious bigots who reject God’s love: they will be no more.
they will be no more.
Until the Love of God draws them into Life everlasting. 
Hello Son of Lothar
Is the Bible “utterly evil”? Of course not. Anyone who maintains that position either hasn’t read the Bible, or is an idiot. No, a moron. To condemn all the beauty, poetry, wisdom and deep moral goodness of so much of the Bible as “utterly evil” is cretinous in the extreme. It doesn’t surprise me that these militant atheists you have encountered on t’interweb maintain such a fatuous viewpoint. Their sort are the worst kind of fundamentalists, arguing always from an a priori position of supposed rationalist superiority - when of course they are only displaying their own utter ignorance. I wouldn’t waste my breath on them.
However, pose the question “are parts of the Bible utterly evil?”; or even “is the overarching message of the Bible, as preached by orthodox conservative Christians today, utterly evil?”, then I would answer quite possibly, yes.
You know where I stand. I reject the ‘evil’ bits of the Bible as not from God, and I reject the orthodox message of eternal damnation for unbelievers as total rubbish.
All the best
Johnny
Thank you, you are kind. I am too blunt for many with my appraisals, and I don’t mean to offend, but I think there is a time to stand up and be strong… this is a time when the enemy (so to speak) has made many advances against the church, and the church has become like a domestic house pet for the atheists to make fun at. I don’t like the corner that we are being painted in to, and I am resisting! Learning to do this gracefully is still on my bucket list 
It is exactly the same spirit at work that has always existed. Nothing has really changed. We are under the exact same spiritual attack that the apostles experienced, and Christ himself. We must also be victorious. This is our watch, and it is our time to stand tall.
Yes, I agree. Many things in scripture are written cryptically. The reason God has us in this fight in the first place is that we are trained in righteousness in defense of our God. This will always exist, and we have the privilege of learning this voluntarily; whereas the unbelievers will be brought under the rule of God in the resurrection. Our training now is of everlasting benefit. Even though I accept the premise of universalism; I also balance this with the rich benefit of faith for those who believe for all eternity. God will reward those much more who willingly bow their knee to the King of Kings, Lord of Lords.
Hi Steve and Son of Lothar
Something Steve just said in his most recent post prompted me to add this coda to what I just posted, to whit:
I agree with this most wholeheartedly. I should have said earlier “do parts of the Bible seem to be utterly evil?”. Because while my personal belief is that the so-called ‘genocide texts’ do not represent either the direct command or will of God, there is nevertheless a meaning, a message to these texts that is not evil.
Cheers
J
That is an interesting thing to ponder, Johnny. I wonder if there is found in scripture any actual example where genocide was literally carried out - beyond any doubt? I think that these texts should mostly be “expressions” of hyperbole. My grandmother (wife’s side!) once said to the kids, “stop touching that or I’ll cut your bloody arms off!” She never meant it, of course… it was an expression. I found this expression to be very offensive. I certainly didn’t want the expression used in my home - but - people who are familiar with a certain kind of expression do not find this offensive at all. I am inclined to think that many of these expressions are “lost in translation”. It is like when Coke-a-Cola first went to China and the words, “Coke adds life!” were translated as “Coke brings back your dead ancestors!” A clear case of lost in translation. Many of the poems in the Psalms are lost to us (I think) because we just don’t speak that way today. The ideas seem foreign to us. Anyway, I still wonder about the genocide texts as to whether or not there is any historical evidence that genocide was ever truly accomplished.
Hi Steve
I think you cut right to the heart of the “problem” posed by the so-called genocide texts. I’m no Bible scholar - I have gaps in my Bible reading and knowledge big enough to drive a convoy of trucks through - but I certainly do not know of any direct, cast iron scriptural evidence for actual genocide, carried out as the will of God. (Although one might argue that final clause is redundant, under the circumstances.)
Neither do I have the knowledge or the scholarship to give an opinion on whether archaeological or extra-Biblical evidence indicates this to be the case or not. (Although Dick, for example, who has read widely on these subjects, has argued that it does not.)
I agree that reading the genocide texts as hyperbole of the “I’ll kill you for that!” variety is legitimate. I also agree that, as you say, “Many of the poems in the Psalms are lost to us (I think) because we just don’t speak that way today.”
As you know, I have a strong commitment to the - for me - defining concept that God never commands genocide, and indeed is incapable of doing so, because it would be a contradiction of his essence as love. I would just add the thought that, for me, this is not us ‘judging God’; rather it is us using the moral sense he has instilled in us, to ‘judge’ certain things in the Bible.
I know my beliefs might be seen as either naive or arrogant (among other things ). But this is something I ‘feel’ in my heart as fiercely as I ‘feel’ that Universalism is true.
All the best
Johnny
The threats of hellfire and gnashing teeth are probably the best examples of hyperbole. They warn us (me) to read the bible with a very poetic twist that appears on the surface to be offensive and contradictory. I enjoy the poetic bible of Eugene Peterson: The Message. It places many of the phrases into similar modern language that conveys the same meaning. For instance, Luke 13:28 in the NIV says:
“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth…”
Whereas the Message has:
“That’s when you’ll find yourselves out in the cold, strangers to grace…”
The problems with The Message is that it is translated with Peterson’s own doctrinal bias, which is sometimes very limited; but it gives you the idea of how most scriptures were intended to be understood as “expressions”; not as a legal document. It takes a lot of time to unravel the cryptic nature of scripture; yet God had intended this to occur. It is the conviction of the Spirit in us that drives us to presevere and not give up. It helps to sort out the children of God from the atheistic. It is a process of refinement, IMO.
Neither naive or arrogant, Johnny. You present a very good argument which needs to be considered and heard. The morality argument is certainly very relevant.
Thanks Steve.
The Message sounds like an interesting, challenging translation. And it’s good for us to have our preconceptions and assumptions about Scripture challenged. I confess, until I started exploring Universalism I never paid much attention to the various translations, and the theological biases they betray. Now I consider my Greek Interlinear Bible my most important theological book.
I think we see Scripture in similar ways. I have come to believe that Scripture is often deliberately obscure, cryptic, as you say. After all, Jesus tells the disciples that he taught in parables so that the people “may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!”
It doesn’t get much more explicit than that!
All the best
Johnny
+1 for The Message.
Absolutely!
+1 too