Yes, and because we are neither God nor pope, we must walk by faith in what we believe to be GW.
I am encouraged when our beliefs re GW agree and chagrined by disharmony on CC.
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.
Yes, and because we are neither God nor pope, we must walk by faith in what we believe to be GW.
I am encouraged when our beliefs re GW agree and chagrined by disharmony on CC.
We cannot perceive perfectly, but we must assume we can do so sufficiently for salvation or what is the point?
B
Blue155
Guest
You cite scripture but you don’t believe it.
2 Timothy 3:16 affirms Scripture is God-breathed. That supports my point: God inspired it, and He has the power to preserve it. Recognition by humans does not negate its divine authority. Scripture repeatedly affirms God preserves His Word perfectly (Ps. 12:6–7; Matt. 24:35). The temperature itself exists independently, regardless of whether man assigned a number or a name to a temperature. Measurement does not create the reality. Humans being sinful doesn’t prevent God from being able to use them in a way that preserves His word, which leads me to ask you the question “Did the Spirit inspire man to distort the Bible or inspire them write the truth? Do you have the courage to say that God has preserved His word and it has not been distorted?”
Sinful humans don’t weaken my position. They actually demonstrate God’s amazing authority and providence. It also shows human imperfection only makes it clearer that God alone is the source of Scripture’s authority and preservation, which harmonizes with scripture about the Spirit of Truth guiding them.
Try again.
How do you know what Paul meant in 2 Timothy 3:16? Please include why Paul invented a new word rather than use the word that had been commonly used up to that point.
As for proving God's action in protecting His word, it challenges your assertion. There exist three different Torah's, which is original? The official Protestant OT text is the least cited in the NT, why did the NT writers prefer other texts? And given the record of humanity to keep the correct version of God's word, what makes you think that any segment of the Christian community is able to maintain the proper understanding without having someone having to declare them wrong and provide a necessary correction? Note, I am not claiming that I am doing so, but you do not know enough of what I am saying to judge either. Rather you are taking the same position reportedly taken by the Pharisees in Jesus's day and defending the tradition you have learned.
We agree about being chagrined by disagreement, but the solution is to get the discussion back on the OP track.
I would be interested in learning more about your apologetics with regard to both Scripture and experience.
(1Pet. 3:15)
B
Blue155
Guest
I first got into defending Christianity by accident. I had a friend who I met online and she identified as an atheist. She said your typical atheists remarks and accusations. Until then, that had never really happened to me from someone I considered to be a friend. Ever since then, I began looking into the evidence for Christianity, the reliability of the Bible, refuting Bible “contradictions”, investigated other religions, the problem of evil, pain and suffering, and the goodness of God. Most atheists or skeptics who I have debated online are not seeking truth. They are very bitter and angry, criticize Christianity with straw-man arguments and are more about insulting the individual than refuting an argument. I’ve defended God, the Bible, the problem of evil, pain and suffering, as well as the events in the OT. Not a single objection or question I have read from them destroys the faith, because not a single objection or question disproves the resurrection of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Just about every argument or question they bring to the table is one that is hinged on their emotions and not the truth of who God is. They want to define God in their own terms instead of allowing God to define Himself. Even for the objections they bring up that’s not emotional (such as questioning the truth of the gospels), they’d never be consistent and apply to other ancient writings. They use double-standards.
I’ve tried to imagine the world without God…it makes absolutely no sense, as without God, what is the purpose of the world and life? To have us here as visitors to die, only to repeat the cycle over and over?
I’ve read books, articles, etc on apologetics, and the more I study the evidence and find answers the more I’m convinced Christianity is evidentially true.
Much more can be said, but I’ll stop here.
Yes, I would like for you to share more. How were you raised by your parents in what church and how old were you when you encountered atheism in your friend? I was a raised by Southern Baptist parents in an SBC church and was a senior in high school when I learned my favorite teacher was once a minister who had become an agnostic. Then a friend in our youth group who was the daughter of a missionary became an atheist, which prompted me to request a NEB for Christmas and begin looking into the matters you mentioned.
What answers did you find regarding them? 1. the Bible, 2. Other religions, 3. the problem of evil and suffering, 4. God.
How did you debate atheists online? How did they define God? I also learned that atheists also walk by faith (in no God/I-dolatry)
and are no more objective and open-minded than some folks we meet on CC. I debated them (and some homosexuals) in an army forum called AKO. I share the results of my studies and debates on CC threads including this one. Do you have a website?
Over...
Thanks for your answers. I do not remember gleaning from the DSS that STJs affirmed salvation via faith, so if you can cite the passage you have in mind it would be appreciated.
I agree that there are few surviving records regarding many of the issues that intrigue you including Paul making it to Spain. I agree that Revelation may have the fall of Jerusalem in mind, although that is not certain either. The absence of evidence is evidence that we walk by faith, and that may involve doubting our doubts.
Regarding hell, what is your opinion of mine?:
A person—even a theist—might think that God would not permit evil, suffering and hell to exist. People who are mystified by evil and repulsed by its punishment do not realize that the essential aspect of being a human rather than a robot or subhuman creature is moral free will (MFW), which is what enables a person to experience love and meaning. This is what makes humans different from animals, whose behavior is governed mainly by instinct. This is what it means to be created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27; robot or responsible).
MFW only exists when there is the possibility of choosing between two qualitatively opposite moral options that we call good and evil. These options are opposites because of essentially different consequences for choosing them. Choosing good results in blessing, life and heaven; and choosing evil results in cursing, death and hell (Deut. 30:19). This is why hell as well as heaven exists. It is the just consequence for choosing evil rather than God.
The Spirit of God is good: love, peace and joy (Gal. 5:22-23). Therefore, whoever rejects the Lord is spiritually separated from Him (Isa. 59:2) and thereby chooses the evil or satanic spirit of hatred, strife and misery and reaps the just consequence called “hell” in the afterlife (Gal. 6:7-9, Heb. 9:27-28). These options were presented by Moses to the Israelites (DT 30:19), and Jesus referred to this fundamental choice in terms of a fish or egg versus a snake or scorpion (Luke 11:11-13). Life… or Curse? (Gen. 3:24, Rev. 22:1-2)
God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (Gen. 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1John 3:8) and humanity (Rom. 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. The first people to choose the evil option were named Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:6).
Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word.
God loves a cheerful giver (2Cor. 9:7), which means He desires people to cooperate with Him happily because of love and gratitude for His grace rather than to cower before Him because of fear of hell. Love must be evoked; it cannot be coerced. And again, when souls sin or do NOT choose to love God freely, it is perfectly just (loving and logical) for them to reap the appropriate consequence (Gal. 6:7-9) or hell.
Thus, evil people punish/torture themselves by experiencing delayed karma, just as those who experience appropriate justice during this earthly existence also punish themselves or reap what they have sown and send themselves to jail. This view makes souls responsible for breaking the rules rather than blaming evil on the judges (or Judge) who enforce the rules. The purpose of earthly punishment is to promote repentance, but the reason for retribution in hell is to attain justice. It is difficult to imagine, but somehow even someone as evil as Hitler will receive perfect justice, perhaps experiencing the agony of the millions of deaths he caused in accordance with the principal of “eye for eye” (MT 5:38), after which their souls are destroyed forever (per John 17:12, Rom. 9:22, Gal. 6:8, Phil. 3:19, 2Thes. 1:9, 2Pet. 3:7 & Rev. 20:13-14).
First, on the DSS, look at the Manual of Discipline, non-Jews are admitted to the community without having to commit to follow the Mosaic laws. In fact, it appears that the concern over the Mosaic laws for the general population only dates back to the incident with Antiochus and the temple, the one that started the Maccabean revolt. A recently as at least 350 BCE the Jews tolerated images of humans on their coins, and it may have been even tolerated after that date, I am not certain. But while reading in the DSS I would caution you to be cautious about the Temple Scroll. There is one part in there, that once you catch what it is saying, you cannot forget it and given that both the Egyptian temple, which it seems to be referencing, and the Jerusalem temple were recognized as legitimate for sacrifices, it appears to be a major grain of sand in understanding some points.
As for your understanding of hell, I find it quite plausible, you are making a logical argument. But God created Hades, and it was recognized as a two-part realm, with restricted movement possible between the two realms, basically from the nasty side to the nice side. Why would God have created that. especially with the ability to move to the pleasant side from the nasty side only to ultimately condemn some individuals If the ultimate fate is to be punishment, why the delay? I will admit that at one point in time I advance logic very similar to yours, but those darn grains of sand kept irritating me.
Now are the grains of sand something to just ignore as meaningless, or a minor problem that, while it exists can be passed over as a mystery or are they indications that something is being imperfectly concealed for some reason. I have come to the conclusion that it is the last option, and if that is correct then Nero and Rome had excellent reasons to persecute Christians and a very logical reason to ask them to sacrifice to the emperor to be spared. I can present that case in the first roughly 40 pages of my writing and am spending the next 110+ pages, at present, providing additional support and suggesting implications.
I just a few days ago made contact with a Consciousness Studies expert who was part of the team that conducted a series of experiments that I want to cite in a new approach to "prove" God and I am waiting for him to rule on whether or not I am abusing the science to make the desired point. I hope he fins me following the science or it is back to the drawing board.
Well, I not see non-Jews not having to follow the Mosaic laws, putting faces on coins or the Temple Scroll to be significant grains of sand.
I am glad you find my rationale for hell plausible.
NT references to Hades may be metaphorical or semi-parables.
Yes, grains of sand are by definition not boulders that would be something significant unless a person magnifies them until irritation causes serious doubt.
Would you want to start a thread for the purpose of discussing your writing?
You christians disagree on so many matters that I sometimes wonder if you share the same religion.
Good to see you posting here again. I think your last post was #613, in which you said that you would have to think about what I said, which was this:
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.]
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).
So, what are your thoughts about this and what I said in prior posts?
Okay fellow TSer, I look forward to hearing from you when you are rested.
Feel free to ask questions about one part of my posts at a time.
The tortoise won the race.
But there is only one Bible and one correct way to understand its primary truths.
Just as there must be a correct way to build an aircraft.
Christians can sometimes disagree on certain things because they either have a bias or preference to what they desire to be true, they are not researching a topic in the Bible properly, and or they are not asking God for help in understanding His Word always.
Anyway, so what reasons or things are keeping you from believing in God and the Bible?
…..
Hm.
We can start with the problem of suffering.
Do you have solution to this problem?