B
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I agree that I don't understand why pineapple tastes good on pizza but somehow it works and does taste good.
My brother was 16 years older than me and said he was an agnostic but our grandmother was religious and she raised him for a while I never knew her as she had died before I was born and brother Bill was out of the house by the time I was aware of what was going on. I feel he knew there was a God from grandmothers influence on him. He died at 39 and we didn't have a lot of time to talk about God and religion.
I see that my memory failed me. I meant 2Tim. 3:14, and verse 13 is also relevant, so 2Tim. 3:13-15 say, "Evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived, but as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
Evil men might include eyewitnesses, whereas those who should be believed are honest and proven/reputable truth tellers, who interpret life's lessons and Scripture correctly/wisely.
Now as for my questions:
Do you believe the water, blood and Spirit were eyewitnesses? Does your belief make it true?
As for why agreement was expressed in that fashion, if it were expressed in the other way,
would you be asking why it was expressed in that way rather than in this fashion? And again,
why is this question so important IYO? Is whatever answer you arrive at inerrant?
Over...
Defining agnostic as meaning "lacking certain knowledge", we all walk by faith regarding ultimate reality including God (2Cor. 5:7).
The God revealed by Jesus and Paul created everything else that exists (Gen. 1:1, Jer. 10:16, John 1:1-3), including the ability by volitional beings (souls) to choose to rebel against His Lordship (Gen. 2:16, Deut. 30:19). Our finite minds cannot comprehend how God does this (Isa. 40:28). However, neither are we able to understand why the universe exists without God (John 3:8). Theistic and atheistic cosmologies are both mind-boggling! Just as atheists believe that somehow the world always existed and somewhat intelligent beings evolved, so theists believe that for some reason the eternal Intelligence (GW) or Spirit of God (HS) created (John 1:1-3) and sustains the physical universe (Heb. 1:3), including the brains of those who freely will to spit in His face (Rom. 5:6-8, Matt. 27:30)! (What God was doing before the creation of time/space is as inconceivable as nothing/atheism.)
As Immanuel Kant indicated: humans do not have the mental categories or ability to imagine alternative or supernatural reality, which may be why the NT does not describe immortality and hell in detail (cf. 1Cor. 15:35-44 and Matt. 24:51, 25:30, 41&46.) However, I will share my understanding of the NT concept of God, “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1Tim. 1:17), in terms of seven words. Four terms are used to describe (but not explain and certainly not “box in”) the supernatural power of God: omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all-knowing/ intelligent), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnitemporal (eternal). “Natural laws” actually are God’s ongoing first miracle (Rom. 1:20), and supernatural resurrection to judgment will be the final miracle (Heb. 9:27-28, 1Cor. 15:12-26)......
In addition to the omni-attributes related to power, Paul referred to God’s “nature” (in Rom. 1:20), which may be described in three ways: love, truth and justice. These often are called the moral attributes of God. God is love and true love comes from God (1John 4:7-21, Rom. 5:5), so volitional creatures or souls can love only by reflecting, imitating or cooperating with the Creator’s love. Although the Bible speaks of God hating Esau (Mal. 1:3) and other evil people (Hos. 9:15), Jesus’ teaching of love for enemies (Matt. 5:44) reveals that God loves all creatures including Satan but hates their sinful choices (Ezek. 33:11). Seven NT Scriptural pearls teach divine omnilove: 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4.
It seems logical to assume that the all-loving God would create the best possible world or one in which the greatest percentage of persons may attain ultimate joy (1Tim. 2:3-4, 2PT 3:9). God may have created all possible kinds of worlds simultaneously: the world of dead matter, the world of living plants, the world of intelligent animals, and the world of morally accountable souls/humans. God’s world/way is best.
God is truth (John 1:17, 8:40, 15:26, 17:17), so all truth is from God and manifests God’s Spirit. If any atheists are truthseekers, then they are not far from the kingdom of God (Mark 12:34, 2Thes. 2:10, John 18:37), because Jesus promised that those who seek will find (Luke 11:9&13). Of course, if the truth is that there is no God or heaven, then what we believe is no more significant than the ideology of a rock or some other evolved collection of atoms (Eccl. 3:20)! Truth or God’s Word is represented in the Bible as light (John 1:1-9), which also signifies God’s glory (Luke 2:9).
God is justness or righteousness (Rom. 3:25-26, 9:14, 2Thes. 1:6). This doctrine is called theodicy. It means that we should be careful lest our explanations of God’s will seem unloving or unfair. If a person cannot explain how a loving God could order the execution of babies (Josh. 6:17, 8:2), then possibly He did not do so. Another synonym for justness is goodness (Isa. 5:16).
Atheists have a negative or evil conception of God, which may be caused or reinforced by the words and deeds of those who claim to be theists (Rom. 2:24, 2Pet. 2:2). Who would want to believe in such a God? Rather than reject a caricature of God, an atheist should imagine the most perfect, loving and just God that he/she can, and choose to disbelieve in that benevolent Being, if good reason to do so can be found. God is NOT demonic!
What a person believes about the moral attributes of God affects how he or she interprets God’s Word in the Bible, which is called “hermeneutics”. A Scripture-based hermeneutic begins by believing that a person should triangulate from two key NT teachings in order to arrive at a correct understanding of problematic OT statements. First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11, Acts 17:26-28); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ). Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). All explanations of reality and interpretations of Scripture should conform to this certitude: “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” (Psa. 145:17) The Judge is just. It would be better not to attempt an explanation of God’s Word than to state one that impugns God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16).
If the NT is not too good to be true, then the Lord of the universe is neither dictatorial nor distant, but rather relates to humanity. Although we cannot comprehend the infinite God completely, hopefully we can do so sufficiently in order to achieve the type of relationship God desires to have with humanity (John 14:9-25). God desires communion. As finite morals our comprehension is limited, but Scripture indicates that God wills to exist in the physical dimensions and is omnipresent in space, but we should not idolize it as pantheism, just as we should not engage in Bibliolatry, even though God as the HS also exists in the dimension of Logos/GW. God is revealed via the human dimension as Jesus or God the Son.
Yes, MFW distinguishes humans from animals.
The Golden Rule is about as objective as we can be regarding morality.
Make my pizza pepperoni with mushrooms, black olives and jalapenos.
Over...
I am glad we are on the same wavelength as seekers of the truth regarding ultimate reality/God, who realize that everyone lives by faith, and the structure of earthly reality forces souls to choose between various contradictory beliefs and to make (albeit sometimes rather subconsciously) the two watershed choices described: between nihilism and moralism, and between the various atheistic beliefs and the highest type of theism, NT Christianity. Here is an explanation of why I believe the last is best, which I call the “Propensity Principle” (PP).
The PP points out that until proof is provided in the future at the eschaton, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life and ultimate justice (the duo of desirables or DOD) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will. IOW, it seems logical–given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice–that an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there is no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of reasonable comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of lucky/blind gambling.
The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:
1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.
2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.
3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek ways to become immortal in a heavenly existence (where there is love and justice for all forever, the DOD).
4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.
5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.
6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.
Atheists deny the validity of this argument, but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess.
As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear. True love for God is evoked by His love for humanity and is a reflection of His loving Holy Spirit (1John 4:7-12); it cannot be coerced, although it can be imitated (2Cor. 11:14 calls Satan an “angel of light”). Heaven may not be a mirage!
A biblical illustration of the PP is the OT story about Naaman being told to bathe in the dirty Jordan River to cure his leprosy (2Kings 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches us not to let sinful pride prevent us from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods we think are silly or do not fully understand. Some people might not understand why God ordained Messiah to atone for humanity’s sins, so they think the Gospel seems foolish or silly (cf. 1Cor. 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. John 3:8), and Jesus said that those who seek salvation will find it, which indicates that God graces every sinful soul with the ability or opportunity to understand how to be saved (Matt. 7:7, cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4), which might be called “seeking grace”.
Those who reject the PP (and Naaman Example) apparently employ a logical fallacy that might be called non praecedere (comparable to non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption is premature and thus inappropriate or illogical. The astute atheist will realize that the logical train of thought from Descartes to the PP that has been presented is common sense that is available to every normal human adult, which is why there is no excuse for disbelief in God (Rom. 1:20). On the contrary, it is the reason Christians can bet or have confidence that their faith is correct (Heb. 10:19&35, Phil. 3:3-7, Eph. 3:12) and it is the atheists whose faith is blind.
You ask questions that I have also pondered, and here are my answers:
[From Key OT Teachings]
Gen. 1:27. “God created man in his own image, male and female.” The word “image” seems to mean with the capacity to communicate with God and make moral choices (Gen. 1:26-31). The essential aspect of being a human rather than a robot or subhuman creature is God consciousness and moral conscience, which enables a person to experience love and meaning. This is what makes humans different from animals, whose behavior is governed mainly by instinct. Souls have awareness of “the requirements of the law”, which may be perceived via creation (Rom. 1:20). Although image refers to God’s personality rather than to sexuality, it does seem that here we have equality of the sexes indicated. Thus, this verse has political implications.
[From The Teachings of Jesus]
TOJ #127: Marriage is an earthly institution. [Matt. 22:29-30] Procreation will be passe, and genetic families will be superseded by the spiritual and universal family of God. People who idolize sex (see TOJ #109) will be enslaved by this passion until their minds are renewed (Rom. 1:24-32, 12:2).....
[From The Best Belief]
.....Regarding the triune God, we can denote the distinctions per Scripture by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Eph. 3:14-19, in which Paul prays to the Father that through His Spirit of love Christ would dwell in believers’ hearts (also see 1Cor. 8:6). A single verse in which all three persons are mentioned and identified with grace, love and fellowship respectively is 2Cor. 13:14.
When the Bible uses masculine words for God, it should be understood that only God the Son is human and had a sexual orientation while on earth (Heb. 2:14-18). Gen 1:26-27 states that both male and female were created in God’s image, referring not to androgyny but to personality, and Jesus said (in Matt. 22:30 & 19:11-12) that there is no marriage and thus no need for sexuality in heaven.
Because creation also manifests God (Rom. 1:20, cf. John 1:1-3 & Psa. 33:6), in a sense God may be viewed as a “Quadity”. As Paul told the Athenians (Acts 17:28), “In Him we live and move and have our being.” God as Creation is throughout physical reality (called “panentheism”). However, since this mode of revelation is impersonal, it has rightly been de-emphasized by most Christian denominations lest it lead to pantheism.
Over...
Well...
You tend to base your view of life from what some bearded men wrote some 2-2500 years ago. Sorry mate, that does not impress me.
On the other hand; what does an agnostic like me have to bring to the table? Not much, I'm afraid, except the usual things about democracy, equal (human) rights for everyone, a liberal way of organizing the society., and a policy that will bring the most unlucky ones to have a decent life.
So - what do you think about that .... ?
I think that both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27) .
The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following questions: For a humanist, “Is there any reason I should not be selfish?” [No/Yes, depending on how you feel or what the rulers decree or how the majority votes.] For a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.] For a naturalist, “Does instinct negate volition? [If not, then why is evil/hatred not equally right or existentially lawful?] And for a theist, “What does God desire?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]
Which option and opinion is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).
A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11), Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge. Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible. Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI, but rather it implies that what is, is right. However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.
While conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions is not my desire, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).
Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).
What do you think about what I think?
I'd forgotten about it. From the research I've read I tend to think it's not original, but would just point others to the research. Thanks for your input.
You asking questions that opinions can only be given as answers.
- Does there exist a God ?no way to prove unless Jesus comes back today. But most of the world would agree that a god exists.
- If there exists a God, what properties has this God ?again no way to prove and most of the world is not in agreement on the properties of the god they believe exists
- Do we humans have a free will?again no way to prove. We have choices. I can choose to do or not to do. But since I cannot do and not do at the same time, nor go back in time to choose the latter, there is no way to know that the choice I chose came from my decision or an external force. Some actually believe we are in some type of simulation like a video game with others controlling us.
- Is there something called an "objective moral" ?I would say yes or I don’t believe we would still exist on earth. We would’ve killed each other off by now. But again no way to prove it.
- And finally : Is Ananas (pineapple) accepted on a pizza ? That’s a hard yes 100% fact.
No religion can be proved. It takes faith to believe in any of them. It takes just as much faith to not believe any of them. All we can do is look at evidence in the world and compare what we see physically to what we see in each religion. Basically put on the goggles of said religion and look at humanity and the universe. With those goggles on, do things make more sense or not?
For instance I looked at the big bang theory and thought ok maybe it happened that way, but what was the force behind it? I look at theories such as evolution and see no evidence of the in between and how did all humans around the world evolve at the exact same rate? Makes no sense to me. Why do we wear clothes? I’ve heard that we needed protection after we lost our hair but why would we evolve to have no hair if we needed it for protection? These few plus many more drive me to believe that there is a creator.
As humans I believe we all wonder about the answers to these questions: How did we get here? What are we doing here? How are we leaving here? We have to look at evidence for the answers which produces a faith in the answers.
You asking questions that opinions can only be given as answers.
- Does there exist a God ?no way to prove unless Jesus comes back today. But most of the world would agree that a god exists.
- If there exists a God, what properties has this God ?again no way to prove and most of the world is not in agreement on the properties of the god they believe exists
- Do we humans have a free will?again no way to prove. We have choices. I can choose to do or not to do. But since I cannot do and not do at the same time, nor go back in time to choose the latter, there is no way to know that the choice I chose came from my decision or an external force. Some actually believe we are in some type of simulation like a video game with others controlling us.
- Is there something called an "objective moral" ?I would say yes or I don’t believe we would still exist on earth. We would’ve killed each other off by now. But again no way to prove it.
- And finally : Is Ananas (pineapple) accepted on a pizza ? That’s a hard yes 100% fact.
No religion can be proved. It takes faith to believe in any of them. It takes just as much faith to not believe any of them. All we can do is look at evidence in the world and compare what we see physically to what we see in each religion. Basically put on the goggles of said religion and look at humanity and the universe. With those goggles on, do things make more sense or not?
For instance I looked at the big bang theory and thought ok maybe it happened that way, but what was the force behind it? I look at theories such as evolution and see no evidence of the in between and how did all humans around the world evolve at the exact same rate? Makes no sense to me. Why do we wear clothes? I’ve heard that we needed protection after we lost our hair but why would we evolve to have no hair if we needed it for protection? These few plus many more drive me to believe that there is a creator.
As humans I believe we all wonder about the answers to these questions: How did we get here? What are we doing here? How are we leaving here? We have to look at evidence for the answers which produces a faith in the answers.
Yes, A neutral statement about ultimate reality is the following: “It is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true.” Alternatively, the Bible indicates that the purpose of this life is rather for humans to prove to God they are worthy of—or qualify for—heaven (cf. Deut. 6:16 & Matt. 4:7).
This discussion shows that everyone lives by faith regarding God or ultimate reality (2Cor. 5:7), and the structure of earthly reality forces souls to choose between various contradictory beliefs and to make (albeit sometimes rather subconsciously) the two watershed choices described: between nihilism and moralism, and between the various atheistic beliefs and the highest type of theism, NT Christianity. (I believe the last is best: Let there be God!)
B
Blue155
Guest
Oh I fully agree that eyewitnesses can be evil and can lie, but that is why they need to be questioned. Can their eyewitness testimony stay consistent? Now looking at consistency, one thing that is clearly not consistent is the written record. Things have clearly been added or taken away as the multitude of manuscripts attest. We simply do not know what the original text was, we only know what appears to be the most likely.
Now in contrast to relying on manuscripts that have gone through many hands, change in ways we do not know, how does one corrupt a historic object? There exist numerous written and archeological records that suggest the blood, water and spirit have consistently been known, key word is consistently, as in not changing. Something that can be examined/questioned that does not change, unlike the scriptural record which has changes, mostly minor but some downright serious.
So, let's put it this way, you are on the jury. There are various witnesses. Do you believe the ones who remain consistent in their testimony over all questions no matter how they are posed or the ones who change their testimony depending on how the questions are posed?
As I noted, as nearly as anyone can tell, the testimony from blood, water and Spirit has not changed over 20000 years, while the biblical texts have. Further, the testimony from blood, water and Spirit is consistent with other testimony from archeology and other ancient written records. Do you know what is not always consistent with testimony from these other ancient sources? If you guessed scripture, you win the prize. Scripture is often consistent to be certain, but not always.
Personally, I prefer consistency in what I am asked to believe, just as the Bible commands and warns about. As you yourself noted, Paul was aware of humans tampering with the truthful testimony while he was alive, how much then do you trust what humans have had the chance to tamper with over 2000 years as opposed to what they cannot tamper with.
I fully agree. Much of what we "have to accept", at least according to some individuals, came into effect well after the NT was written. Some of it even came into effect only within the Roman Empire, the requirements did not apply to Christians living outside of Rome's control, yet we today "must believe" these things. One such thing is the doctrine of the Trinity, were you aware that for a time it was so controversial that Roman law had to support it? Another was Christ's divinity, until Constantine threw his weight behind it, and even at times after his death, Jesus was accepted as just a normal, exceptionally close to God but still totally normal, human by the majority of Christians.
I learned to love sausage, mushrooms and hot peppers on my pizza in college, way back in the day. Others in the dorm would descend when I got a pizza, but when they saw hot peppers, they departed rapidly. As far as I know, mine was the only pizza that was not mobbed when it arrived.
Actually, there is biblical evidence for at least some aspect of God to be female, God even describes himself in female terms at times. But then also be aware that in Hebrew, the plural for "man" carries a feminine ending, not a masculine one.