Many christians that i know tell me they have a very strong relationship with God but rarely read the bible. They sing worship songs and go to church often but do not actually care for God's word. Why do so many christians not want to read the bible?

Comments

• Thanks

  • Report
  

  by Strength on July 29th, 2009

• It's both, and 100% accurate

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on July 29th, 2009

• yay!! Thanks Randoley. It is also many other things too!

  • Report
  

  by Strength on July 29th, 2009

• It is the word of God who is living NOW and always will be :D:D People always wonder why God does not speak to them when they pray...all they need to do is read the bible..that is God's word.
  
  People are funny
  
  lol

  • Report
  

  by Strength on July 29th, 2009

• That's because people want something for nothing. Reading involves effort.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on July 29th, 2009

• Reading involves effort, but there's no reward for that effort when the book is the Bible.
  .
  You run into so many contradictions, then are told by the "true believers" that what is in front of your own eyes "doesn't exist."
  .
  You run into so many differing rules, many of which contradict each other (example: is divorce *ever* allowed in the Bible? Jesus says yes, Paul says no), but "true believers" insist that it is possible to obey *all* the rules in the Bible and that "none of the contradict each other."
  .
  Clearly being a "true believer" requires some form of hallucinogenic drug, probably only available once you've attended church a set number of times.
  .
  There are many other works of fiction like the fictional Bible, but which have a much greater reward for the effort in reading them. There are also non-fiction works on philosophy which provide a consistent set of rules for self-governance of your life, unlike the Bible.

  • Report
  

  by eternal0void on September 5th, 2009

• The Bible is a history book?
  .
  The Gospel of Matthew opens with a geneology list copied from the Book of Chronicles, missing four of the names so that the writer could claim "three sets of fourteen." BTW, This screws up the "calculations" of the Young Earth Creationists.
  .
  The "Massacre of the Innocents" didn't occur because there is no historical evidence that it occurred. Josephus, who would have been shocked at the act of the Jewish king killing hundreds of babies, doesn't mention anything remotely like "the Massacre of the Innocents."
  .
  Even the fake history in the Gospels doesn't agree with itself: Luke and Matthew contradict each other regarding the date of the Nativity. Matthew puts the Nativity during the lifetime of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C.E. Luke puts the Nativity during a particular census which Josephus dates as 6 C.E., well after the death of Herod the Great.
  .
  The Bible is as much a history book as "The Joy Of Cooking" is an airplane repair manual.

  • Report
  

  by eternal0void on September 5th, 2009

• Well, don't read it if you hate it so much. Why spend so much time on something you don't even like?

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on September 7th, 2009

• LOL agreed eternal0void

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Wright on September 7th, 2009

• Good question, Randoley. I can't speak for eternal0void, but I believe it is important to understand the Bible when the majority of the people in your society follow its practices. I may not agree with the Bible, but I have a good understanding of the beliefs of my friends and family. Knowing the contradictions and fallacies of the Bible also help to justify our attitude towards it. Knowing the teachings of the Bible is also a great way to show some Christians just how much of a hypocrite they are.

  • Report
  

  by Mr. Wright on September 7th, 2009

• Examples of both, please.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on September 7th, 2009

• I posted a contradiction already: Matthew puts the birth at 4 B.C.E., Luke puts it at no earlier than 6 C.E. This is also a fallacy if you don't think of it as a contradiction.
  .
  Randoley, you are already prepared to believe that any contradiction "simply does not exist", and make up any backstory or filler material to make any contradiction found "no longer a contradiction" despite the loads of non-Biblical <whatever> you're using to prop up your explanations.

  • Report
  

  by eternal0void on September 13th, 2009

• For example:
  .
  Is divorce ever allowed?
  .
  Jesus says "Yes." Matthew 5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, **saving for the cause of fornication,** causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Fornication (of which adultery is one type) allows divorce.
  .
  Paul says *God* says "No." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 "and to the married I announce -- not I, but the Lord -- let not a wife separate from a husband: but and if she may separate, let her remain unmarried, or to the husband let her be reconciled, and let not a husband send away a wife." Paul says *God* does not mention any exceptions to the ban on divorce which would allow a divorce.
  .
  No doubt you will come up with some clever explanation involving as many non-Biblical sources as possible, then paradoxically claim that the Bible "stands on its own."

  • Report
  

  by eternal0void on September 13th, 2009

• I only use the Bible as my source. Anyway Jesus said, "don't do it, unless...". Paul said, "don't do it, but if you do..." There is no contradiction just omission. Paul left out the only reason for a divorce when he was writing, but he continues with how to behave if there is a divorce. So, obviously Paul knew there was a condition for divorce or he wouldn't have added, "but and if she may separate" If he believed it wasn't possible to divorce then the other part wouldn't be in there. That is why you don't take verses here and there and compare them like that. Compared the verses look like contradictions, but as a whole, as in the Bible as a whole they do not.

  • Report
  

  by Randoley on September 13th, 2009