Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
Author Message
Kruciff Offline
Old Man from scene 24
*

Posts: 12,115
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 724
I Root For: The Bridge of Death
Location: Serious Poster
Post: #1
30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
Quote:Introduction
The mark of a person's intellectual honesty is that they actually care about what is true—not what they feel is true or want to be true. I was raised as a Christian, but as I got older, I realized that I had never really questioned my faith. I set out to learn more about the alleged problems with Christianity, and I was astounded by the diversity and depth of the criticisms I found. Because I cared about truth, I didn't resort to excuses and rationalizing when I reached the conclusion that Christianity is false. I embraced that verdict, and I don't regret doing so in the least.

I formulated this list of 30 questions in order to express why I don't think fundamentalist Christianity is a tenable position. It covers four basic topics: introspection, doctrine, errancy and morality. Not all of the questions are meant as direct objections to Christianity: some are meant to encourage critical thought over dogmatic thinking. I urge you to go through and answer them with an open mind—with an attitude that truth is important even if it doesn't align with your wishes. Even if these questions don't change your views, I sincerely hope that you will emerge from this experience with a more contemplative, critical approach to your faith.

Part 1: Introspection
1. Many adherents of other religions believe just as strongly as you do. They often even cite many of the same reasons for belief that you do, and cite reasons for not believing in your religion that mirror your reasons for not believing in theirs. Do these parallels concern you?

2. Religious people overwhelmingly follow the religion of their parents, their surrounding culture or both. If this applies to you, don't you find it convenient that you just happened to stumble upon the right religion without investigating the thousands of other potential options?

3. If faith is a reliable pathway to truth, why does it lead people to such inconsistent conclusions? Why does it result in so many thousands of religions, and even thousands of conflicting Christian sects?

4. When meditating Zen Buddhists feel a state of transcendent bliss and oneness with the universe, their brain activity looks the same as that of Franciscan nuns communing with God. "Religious" experiences also occur in other religious adherents, in users of drugs like psilocybin mushrooms and even in temporal lobe epileptics. Why would God give us brains that are so easily fooled by false religious experiences—and how do you know yours aren't among them?

5. One day in 1995, thousands of people across India and throughout the world allegedly witnessed statues of the Hindu god Ganesha drink milk that was fed to them from a spoon. The Hindu milk miracle has widespread, modern eyewitness testimony and even video evidence in its favor. Why do you believe in Christian miracles, but not in miracles of other religions that offer much better evidence?

6. You may expect God to have a positive impact on the world. But both good and bad things are bound to happen even if God doesn't exist. If you credit God for the good things that happen and never blame him for the bad, all without any sort of evidence, isn't your expectation self-fulfilling?

7. God is often said to answer prayer in three ways: "Yes," "No" and "Wait." But if God's responses are so vague, how could you distinguish them from the results of prayer to any other god?

Part 2: Doctrine
8. The gospel message—the very core of Christianity—seems fundamentally unjust: In what sense is temporarily punishing one innocent man an acceptable substitute for endlessly punishing billions of guilty people?

9. This message seems not only unjust, but patently illogical: God (the Father) has another part of God (the Son) killed to save humanity from being punished… by God. Why couldn't God just decide to forgive us without killing Jesus?

10. Salvation depends on belief in a specific event that most people who've ever lived never even knew about: people in remote parts of the world, human zygotes (half of which abort spontaneously before birth), the severely mentally disabled, etc. If these people go to hell, how is that consistent with a God of love? If they go to heaven, does that mean God doesn't value their free will to choose or reject God's gift of salvation?

11. God is supposedly a single being. But in what sense can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be considered one and the same God when they have different wills (Luke 22:41–42), different knowledge (Mark 13:32) and different levels of authority (John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3)?

12. We’d expect a perfectly wise, good God to have a composed, even-handed personality. Yet God brags that he'll make Israel's enemies eat their own children and grow drunk with their own blood (Isa. 49:26; Jer. 19:9), he delights in animal sacrifice (Lev. 1:1–9), he's so jealous of other gods that "Jealous" is his very name (Ex. 34:12–16), and Moses has to calm his fury to keep him from killing his own people (Ex. 32:1–14; Num. 16:41–55). Does this sound more like a transcendent deity or a vindictive tribal leader invented by a barbaric Iron Age culture?

13. Frontotemporal dementia can alter one's entire worldview, including one's religion, and severing connections between the two brain hemispheres reveals that they respond independently and hold different desires and beliefs. In one case, a brain’s right hemisphere professed theism, and the left, atheism. How do you explain the concept of the soul in light of such phenomena? Do these souls go to heaven or hell?

14. In Mark 16:15–18, Jesus lists several signs that "will follow those who believe," including drinking poison with no ill effects. The few Christians who try this fail unless they take special precautions, like ingesting it only in small, harmless amounts. Why is this? (If you believe this passage is a forgery, as most scholars do, why would God allow it into the Bible?)

15. God already has a perfect plan for the world. If we pray for something that's already in that plan, the prayer is redundant. If we pray for something that's not in that plan, the prayer is futile. What, then, is the point of asking for things in prayer?

16. If God made the universe for us, we would expect it to be hospitable and human-scaled. But the universe is billions of light-years across, composed mostly of dark energy and filled with black holes, cosmic radiation and the vacuum of space. Why is the universe so full of vast, uninhabitable emptiness?

Part 3: Errancy
Note: The following questions assume you believe the Bible to be the literal, inerrant and inspired word of God.

17. The Genesis creation story directly conflicts with evolution. Endogenous retroviruses— remains of viruses embedded in the genome millions of years ago—appear at the same place in human and other primate genomes. We've found many key transitional fossils like Tiktaalik (fish to tetrapods), Archaeopteryx (dinosaurs to birds) and Homo habilis (human ancestors). Atavisms like teeth in chickens, legs in whales and tails in humans sometimes reappear as relics of evolutionary history. Can creationism offer a better explanation for such evidence?

18. Biblical genealogies imply that the universe is about 6,000 years old instead of 13.75 billion. This is disproved by data from tree rings, ice layering, coral reefs, lunar craters, continental drift, distant starlight, human civilizations and more. As another example, scientists have traced back the orbits of the Baptistina asteroid family and found that they were formed by a collision that occurred 80 million years ago. Can the young earth view offer a better explanation for such evidence?

19. If 2 million Israelites resided as slaves in Egypt, wandered in the desert for 40 years and conquered a host of rival nations, we would expect to find massive, widespread archaeological evidence—but we don't. Instead, excavations have revealed the Israelites as a relatively small Canaanite tribe whose "conquered" cities were often uninhabited at the purported conquest date (e.g. Jericho was already in ruins a century earlier). How can inerrantists account for this?

20. Careful study of the Bible reveals many internal contradictions. For instance, Matthew 2:1–20 says Jesus was born a few years before Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Yet Luke 2:1–2 says Jesus was born during the Census of Quirinius, which occurred in 6 AD—well after Herod's death. Why do the two gospels contradict each other?

21. The Bible contains several instances of failed prophecy. For example, Jesus repeatedly said he would return to earth before the disciples and the rest of that generation had died (Matt. 10:23, 24:34; Mark 9:1, 14:61–62). The New Testament writers said his return was imminent and would not be delayed (1 Cor. 7:29–31; Heb. 10:36–37; 1 John 2:18). So why hasn't Jesus returned after almost 2,000 years?

Part 4: Morality
Note: The following questions assume you believe your God to be all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good.

22. The Euthyphro Dilemma asks, "Is whatever God does good by definition, or does he merely follow some outside standard of goodness?" If the former, God would be good even if he did everything that we now call evil, so does it even mean anything to call God "good"? If the latter, shouldn't we judge him according to that standard?

23. Why is there so much manmade evil in the world? The usual response is that God allows it because he values our capacity to freely choose between goodness and sin. But in heaven, a place supposedly free from sin, people would presumably have free will. If God is capable of somehow allowing these two conditions to coexist, why not do the same on earth and prevent tremendous suffering?

24. Why does God allow natural evils like floods, earthquakes, wildfires, famine, hurricanes, pestilence and disease? Even if these phenomena are a punishment for human sin, it seems unjust for them to be doled out indiscriminately: For example, why must billions of animals suffer through no fault of their own, and why do about 17,000 children starve to death every day?

25. The billions of people who don't believe that Jesus died for their sins will supposedly suffer everlasting punishment in hell. Take a moment to really think about the gravity of a punishment that has no end. How is God justified in carrying out this punishment? What makes even the tiniest sin so heinous that it must be met with infinite suffering?

26. In the Bible, God directly sanctions permanent slavery (Lev. 25:44–46), as well as the beating of slaves to within an inch of their life (Ex. 21:20–21). There’s even a loophole allowing Israelites to use emotional blackmail to permanently enslave entire families (Ex. 21:2–6). Is this consistent with a God who claims to be the personification of love?

27. In the Bible, God bemoans the idea of female leadership (Isa. 3:12), says through his servant Paul that women are to be silent and submissive in church (1 Cor. 14:34–35; 1 Tim. 2:11–14), and sanctions the forced marriage and rape of female captives by the very men who had just slaughtered their families (Deut. 21:10–14). Is this compatible with a perfectly just and loving God?

28. In the Bible, God kills approximately 25 million people. He kills millions of innocent animals and children in Noah's Flood (Gen. 7:21–23), the firstborn of the Egyptians (Ex. 12:29–30) and countless others. Do you believe that in every last case, killing was the best possible course of action?

29. In Deuteronomy 13:6–10, God says that if an Israelite's loved one came to them suggesting serving other gods, the Israelite was to help stone that loved one to death—a slow, gruesome, agonizing fate. Imagine that you and your dearest loved one were Israelites, and they suggested worshipping some other god. Would you aid in killing them as God commanded?

30. If you see the passages above as perfectly good and just, would you still see them that way if you had read them in the Quran?

http://30questionsproject.weebly.com/the...tions.html
07-16-2012 10:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HtownOrange Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,164
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #2
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
Don't take this personal, but your questions are designed to elicit your answer and not what a person really thinks. The same tactics are used daily in court and in politics. Unfortunately, the same can be said of religionists (yes, you too are a religionist by definition of the Supreme Court, which includes atheism under its protection of religions).

I can only offer my own opinion. Religion is a faith. What a person bases their faith on is up to them. No one can know definitively by scientific method who is correct about God; the Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists, Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, gnostics, atheists, etc. That is their faith. You follow whatever book or leader you deem has the answers.

What you demand is proof that someone is right about the hereafter. Well, prove there is no hereafter. Neither you nor I can prove there is no hereafter any more than you or I or anyone else can prove there is an hereafter.

The real danger arises when one faith, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc. sets out to harm or abolish the other faiths. Debate is fine, healthy, even. Imposition is bad for any society.
07-17-2012 09:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kruciff Offline
Old Man from scene 24
*

Posts: 12,115
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 724
I Root For: The Bridge of Death
Location: Serious Poster
Post: #3
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
(07-17-2012 09:27 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Don't take this personal, but your questions are designed to elicit your answer and not what a person really thinks. The same tactics are used daily in court and in politics. Unfortunately, the same can be said of religionists (yes, you too are a religionist by definition of the Supreme Court, which includes atheism under its protection of religions).

I can only offer my own opinion. Religion is a faith. What a person bases their faith on is up to them. No one can know definitively by scientific method who is correct about God; the Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists, Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, gnostics, atheists, etc. That is their faith. You follow whatever book or leader you deem has the answers.

What you demand is proof that someone is right about the hereafter. Well, prove there is no hereafter. Neither you nor I can prove there is no hereafter any more than you or I or anyone else can prove there is an hereafter.

The real danger arises when one faith, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc. sets out to harm or abolish the other faiths. Debate is fine, healthy, even. Imposition is bad for any society.

"but your questions are designed to elicit your answer and not what a person really thinks"

All 30 are dismissed by this one statement? The purpose of these questions was to promote thought. In my opinion, dismissing them as merely a tactic is akin to admitting you did not bother to answer them yourself.

"yes, you too are a religionist by definition of the Supreme Court, which includes atheism under its protection of religions"

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

"Well, prove there is no hereafter. Neither you nor I can prove there is no hereafter any more than you or I or anyone else can prove there is an hereafter. "

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I should no further have to disprove your evidence-less claims as much as you would have to disprove my claims that I am the supreme overlord Zod.

"Debate is fine, healthy, even. Imposition is bad for any society."

Really, that's all I want. I'm not attacking anyone by asking these questions, but If logic and reason could be used effectively in debate against theists, then there would be no such thing as religion.
07-17-2012 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HtownOrange Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,164
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #4
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
(07-17-2012 10:16 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  
(07-17-2012 09:27 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Don't take this personal, but your questions are designed to elicit your answer and not what a person really thinks. The same tactics are used daily in court and in politics. Unfortunately, the same can be said of religionists (yes, you too are a religionist by definition of the Supreme Court, which includes atheism under its protection of religions).

I can only offer my own opinion. Religion is a faith. What a person bases their faith on is up to them. No one can know definitively by scientific method who is correct about God; the Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists, Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, gnostics, atheists, etc. That is their faith. You follow whatever book or leader you deem has the answers.

What you demand is proof that someone is right about the hereafter. Well, prove there is no hereafter. Neither you nor I can prove there is no hereafter any more than you or I or anyone else can prove there is an hereafter.

The real danger arises when one faith, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc. sets out to harm or abolish the other faiths. Debate is fine, healthy, even. Imposition is bad for any society.

"but your questions are designed to elicit your answer and not what a person really thinks"

All 30 are dismissed by this one statement? The purpose of these questions was to promote thought. In my opinion, dismissing them as merely a tactic is akin to admitting you did not bother to answer them yourself.

"yes, you too are a religionist by definition of the Supreme Court, which includes atheism under its protection of religions"

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

"Well, prove there is no hereafter. Neither you nor I can prove there is no hereafter any more than you or I or anyone else can prove there is an hereafter. "

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I should no further have to disprove your evidence-less claims as much as you would have to disprove my claims that I am the supreme overlord Zod.

"Debate is fine, healthy, even. Imposition is bad for any society."

Really, that's all I want. I'm not attacking anyone by asking these questions, but If logic and reason could be used effectively in debate against theists, then there would be no such thing as religion.

Wow, I commented on your tactics and you you attack my person. You neither know me nor do you know my background. For the record, I have asked myself many more questions than these 30. I can debate both sides of this issue equally and convincingly. I do not have all the answers. What I did find is that no one has all the answers, no philosophy has all the answers, no religion has all the answers and no science has all the answers. In my initial response, I merely stated a few things for you to consider as you are requesting others to do.

Your accusation that I did not answer the questions proves that you expect me to answer in your desired manner and no other answer will suffice. You are already defensive and you do not know where I stand (hint, I agree with some of your points, disagree with others).

As to atheism not being a religion, that has been decided by the court and it is protected as a religion. You are free to take it up with the courts. The Supreme Court wins whether you or I agree or not.

The only "extraordinary" claim is by you that Christianity is false. "I reached the conclusion that Christianity is false" is your direct quote. You then simply ignore proving your point. If you are depending on your 30 questions, you have already failed as I pointed out the tactic is used to elicit a set response. For the record, a lot of religions use the same tactics to try to convert others.

I presume there are Christians of many denominations, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, and may other religions represented on these boards. My goal was to point out that your beliefs (even where I agree with you) are not absolute. My apologies for any confusion.

Your final statement is amazing; "If logic and reason could be used effectively in debate against theists, then there would be no such thing as religion." You simply impose your belief as the final word on everything, rather bold when you do not have all the answers. The mere fact that you present yourself as having all the answers "logic and reason" proves you are far less knowledgeable than you think you are. The more you know, the more you should realize that you really know very little.

On a finer point, your final statement disagrees with your claim that you want debate as you believe that you have all the final answers and your "logic and reason" will prevail. Philosophically, you are in the same position as every person who believes in their religion.

If you wish to take each point in turn, I can try to do so, but it will take a lot of time. Further, you will have to agree to abide by legal and standard definitions. You will also have the initial task of proving every one of your claims in turn (statistics, hard data, facts, not opinions). We have to be on the same page material wise to debate. I will then respond accordingly. Ex: Point 1: Cite statistic data to show ones strength in their belief. Cite parallels between religions (including atheism) as applicable. Cite reasons for belief and reasons for not believing.

As I am NOT a theologian, do not hold me to fully understanding the various religions, though I will try my best and will have to do additional research on specific religious points. I will offer you the same courtesy. I am willing to accept others input, pro or con, if you are willing to do so.

Finally, as it will be a debate, we will never actually resolve the specific issues nor fully convince each other of our respective views. I propose we debate for a while (whatever we agree on), reach an impasse and agree to move to the next point.

If you do not wish to debate, I wish you no ill will (except at game time, but I won't expect any from you at that time). We are all fans and this board is a place for debate with good friends. 04-cheers
07-18-2012 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kruciff Offline
Old Man from scene 24
*

Posts: 12,115
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 724
I Root For: The Bridge of Death
Location: Serious Poster
Post: #5
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
Agreed. However, allow me a bit of time to re read your (and my) argument. My seemingly obvious slip on logic seems to be from fatigue and frustration with my normal arguments being met with the same effect as water on rock. I simply don't have the patience I used to right now.

I'll get back to you on this.
07-18-2012 11:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HtownOrange Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,164
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #6
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
(07-18-2012 11:32 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Agreed. However, allow me a bit of time to re read your (and my) argument. My seemingly obvious slip on logic seems to be from fatigue and frustration with my normal arguments being met with the same effect as water on rock. I simply don't have the patience I used to right now.

I'll get back to you on this.

Same here. This will take a lot of time and post as you like. I will do the same. My work schedule often dictates that I have little time to post until late night.

We will address only one point at a time so as not to confuse issues, at least at first. Not sure I can address them all at once. Your points are thought provoking at the very least.

Hope others comment from all points of view. And remember, college players report in a couple weeks!
07-19-2012 09:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kruciff Offline
Old Man from scene 24
*

Posts: 12,115
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 724
I Root For: The Bridge of Death
Location: Serious Poster
Post: #7
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
(07-17-2012 09:27 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Don't take this personal, but your questions are designed to elicit your answer and not what a person really thinks. The same tactics are used daily in court and in politics. Unfortunately, the same can be said of religionists (yes, you too are a religionist by definition of the Supreme Court, which includes atheism under its protection of religions).

I can only offer my own opinion. Religion is a faith. What a person bases their faith on is up to them. No one can know definitively by scientific method who is correct about God; the Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists, Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, gnostics, atheists, etc. That is their faith. You follow whatever book or leader you deem has the answers.

What you demand is proof that someone is right about the hereafter. Well, prove there is no hereafter. Neither you nor I can prove there is no hereafter any more than you or I or anyone else can prove there is an hereafter.

The real danger arises when one faith, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc. sets out to harm or abolish the other faiths. Debate is fine, healthy, even. Imposition is bad for any society.

Ok i'll start over from here.

I don't intend to illicit any one particular answer, or even really a conclusion. This is merely an exercise in thought. To be quite honest, the answers don't really matter, so long as the reader (whether it be tonight, tomorrow, or a month from now) think things through. I can't tell you what to think or what to believe. I can only provide an initial spark of thought. Thinking is akin to a wildfire. One conclusion leads to the next, it makes you ponder over many things related to your chain of thought. I don't even anticipate honesty if someone were to respond to these questions individually, and frankly it doesn't matter to me. What someone cannot do, is lie to themselves (at least forever). This is partially why i took it grievously that you related my post to religious tactics, as the provocation of thought is (in my opinion) the last thing the church or the mosque or the temple wants.

Why I do not define atheists as a faith or religion (faith is actually a derogatory term, in my view) is because we do not follow a leader, we do not have a holy book, we do not lay claim to any part of the supernatural. We value logic, reason, evidence. That's it. We want people to think for themselves, to follow what should be common sense, to understand the world around them.

As to your third paragraph, I still mostly stand by my response to that. It annoyed me because many times I am forced to defend what should be known commonly. Topics like evolution (which has mountains of evidence), the ineffectiveness of prayer (the same ineffectiveness as psychics, prophecies, and others of the sort), etc etc. However, when I am criticized for my knowledge (which they interpret as belief) in science and mathematics, they (being the accuser) try to turn it around on me and force me to disprove their beliefs when they have presented no factual evidence to support theirs in the first place. While I admit that we cannot prove anything in the hereafter, why does that leave room for absurd claims of a heaven and hell? Why isn't the hindu version of the afterlife just as valid as christianity's? What about the greek religion, or the similar pre-Judaic Roman? Zoroastranism? Shinto? Daoist? If you take the chance that the christian faith has just as much claim to be correct as atheism, you have to allow for other religions too. The problem is, where I have a 50:50 chance of being correct, by picking just one of the hundred's of thousands of religions and their variants and hoping that that follower is worshiping in the correct way, that person has reduced their chance to a 1 in 2, to a near zero percent chance of being correct; strictly speaking from only a statistics point of view. (also Russel's Teapot)

To your last response, I'm not entirely sure this is in line with the rest of your responses. You assume that religion and faith follow a tangible, rational approach to everything. You are right, faith is the danger between separate cultures, and I thoroughly implore everyone and anyone to debate peacefully, except that is not happening, and doesn't seem to ever happen. If it did, the crusades would have been avoided; nonsense like the inquisition and Salem witch trials would have been laughed at; the Dark Ages would never have befallen mankind, and the progress of man would likely be exponentially advanced; people wouldn't have to fight every step of the way to ensure that creationism isn't being taught in schools (see my attachment for a collage of why I think the way I do).

The worst that ever happened with Atheism, is some poor sap got his feelings hurt when his thoughts were exposed for the nonsense they were.

Forgive me if my response seemed a bit aggressive. The last thing I want to do is force my views down people's throats, but this is a large issue with me.

Brief Collage of Atrocities
(This post was last modified: 07-20-2012 12:31 AM by Kruciff.)
07-19-2012 11:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kruciff Offline
Old Man from scene 24
*

Posts: 12,115
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 724
I Root For: The Bridge of Death
Location: Serious Poster
Post: #8
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
Oh and also, these are not my questions. This is copied from the link provided. The only original content is my responses
07-20-2012 12:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HtownOrange Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,164
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #9
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
(07-20-2012 12:06 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Oh and also, these are not my questions. This is copied from the link provided. The only original content is my responses

Thanks for correcting me. I overlooked the link.
07-21-2012 08:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HtownOrange Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,164
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #10
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
(07-19-2012 11:57 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  
(07-17-2012 09:27 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Don't take this personal, but your questions are designed to elicit your answer and not what a person really thinks. The same tactics are used daily in court and in politics. Unfortunately, the same can be said of religionists (yes, you too are a religionist by definition of the Supreme Court, which includes atheism under its protection of religions).

I can only offer my own opinion. Religion is a faith. What a person bases their faith on is up to them. No one can know definitively by scientific method who is correct about God; the Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists, Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, gnostics, atheists, etc. That is their faith. You follow whatever book or leader you deem has the answers.

What you demand is proof that someone is right about the hereafter. Well, prove there is no hereafter. Neither you nor I can prove there is no hereafter any more than you or I or anyone else can prove there is an hereafter.

The real danger arises when one faith, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc. sets out to harm or abolish the other faiths. Debate is fine, healthy, even. Imposition is bad for any society.

Ok i'll start over from here.

I don't intend to illicit any one particular answer, or even really a conclusion. This is merely an exercise in thought. To be quite honest, the answers don't really matter, so long as the reader (whether it be tonight, tomorrow, or a month from now) think things through. I can't tell you what to think or what to believe. I can only provide an initial spark of thought. Thinking is akin to a wildfire. One conclusion leads to the next, it makes you ponder over many things related to your chain of thought. I don't even anticipate honesty if someone were to respond to these questions individually, and frankly it doesn't matter to me. What someone cannot do, is lie to themselves (at least forever). This is partially why i took it grievously that you related my post to religious tactics, as the provocation of thought is (in my opinion) the last thing the church or the mosque or the temple wants.

Why I do not define atheists as a faith or religion (faith is actually a derogatory term, in my view) is because we do not follow a leader, we do not have a holy book, we do not lay claim to any part of the supernatural. We value logic, reason, evidence. That's it. We want people to think for themselves, to follow what should be common sense, to understand the world around them.

As to your third paragraph, I still mostly stand by my response to that. It annoyed me because many times I am forced to defend what should be known commonly. Topics like evolution (which has mountains of evidence), the ineffectiveness of prayer (the same ineffectiveness as psychics, prophecies, and others of the sort), etc etc. However, when I am criticized for my knowledge (which they interpret as belief) in science and mathematics, they (being the accuser) try to turn it around on me and force me to disprove their beliefs when they have presented no factual evidence to support theirs in the first place. While I admit that we cannot prove anything in the hereafter, why does that leave room for absurd claims of a heaven and hell? Why isn't the hindu version of the afterlife just as valid as christianity's? What about the greek religion, or the similar pre-Judaic Roman? Zoroastranism? Shinto? Daoist? If you take the chance that the christian faith has just as much claim to be correct as atheism, you have to allow for other religions too. The problem is, where I have a 50:50 chance of being correct, by picking just one of the hundred's of thousands of religions and their variants and hoping that that follower is worshiping in the correct way, that person has reduced their chance to a 1 in 2, to a near zero percent chance of being correct; strictly speaking from only a statistics point of view. (also Russel's Teapot)

To your last response, I'm not entirely sure this is in line with the rest of your responses. You assume that religion and faith follow a tangible, rational approach to everything. You are right, faith is the danger between separate cultures, and I thoroughly implore everyone and anyone to debate peacefully, except that is not happening, and doesn't seem to ever happen. If it did, the crusades would have been avoided; nonsense like the inquisition and Salem witch trials would have been laughed at; the Dark Ages would never have befallen mankind, and the progress of man would likely be exponentially advanced; people wouldn't have to fight every step of the way to ensure that creationism isn't being taught in schools (see my attachment for a collage of why I think the way I do).

The worst that ever happened with Atheism, is some poor sap got his feelings hurt when his thoughts were exposed for the nonsense they were.

Forgive me if my response seemed a bit aggressive. The last thing I want to do is force my views down people's throats, but this is a large issue with me.

Brief Collage of Atrocities

I can agree with you on though provocation. Whether arguing for or against a position, one should elicit thought more than "winning a convert" to their side. However, I did not relate your post to religious tactics, I related it to courtroom tactics and political tactics. I did state that religion uses the same tactics, too, though.

"The same tactics are used daily in court and in politics. Unfortunately, the same can be said of religionists..." Originally in post number 2 and quoted above.

The purpose of my statement is that you (and the original writer of the questions) are using the same tactics used to force people to answer in a specific manner as to trap them. You may not have intended to do so, personally, but you did post the link and the writer clearly intended to elicit responses in favor of his responses. As you posted no disclaimer to any of the questions, it is reasonable to assume and conclude that you subscribed to them. Even more so when compounded by my error of missing the link provided by you.

Regarding your position on faith:

faith [feyth] noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

World English Dictionary
faith (feɪθ) — n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
3. Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
7. allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith , break faith )
8. bad faith insincerity or dishonesty
9. good faith honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith )

Both definitions are from Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Faith?s=t

I understand that you are attempting to use faith in a strictly religious context. That is inaccurate for two main reasons: 1) faith is a much broader term. Ex. You have faith that drivers heading in the opposite direction from you will not cross the yellow lines and enter your pathway. You have faith that your accountant completes your tax forms correctly. You have faith that your boss will pay you for your work. 2) Belief in a specific religion or in "science" is equal under the above definitions of faith. Ex: As an atheist, you have faith that evolution is correct. You cannot know it is correct because you cannot observe it and nobody has observed it.

Your example of various religions being incompatible with each other is parallel to the various evolution theories that are incompatible with each other, incompatible with science and incompatible with mathematics. When dealing with one religion or one theory of evolution, it is relatively easy to weave a tale that appears logical. However, as you point out, when comparing religions, you are left with may more questions, which is true with your faith that there is no God.

Though atheists do not have a "holy" book, they do have many books and propagandists (same as religions) and they have an overriding philosophy that God (Christian or otherwise, plural for polytheistic beliefs) cannot exist.

Your mathematical logic fails in that the question of God or Gods existing is 50/50, yes or no, agreed. You then attempt to confuse the issue by asserting that anyone who believes in God is on one side of 50% while atheists are on the other 50%. That is incorrect. Each religion, as you pointed out, offers a different means to an end, each religion has an equal chance of its ultimate success, the same as atheism. Thus, if there are 99 religions and atheism, then each has a 1 in 100 chance from the start, no 1/2 X 1/99th for each religion and 1/2 for atheism. They are two separate questions, but you have co-mingled them.

Add to the fact that you cannot "know" evolution, you are completely dependent on "facts" presented as science. Your faith is in mankind. Your faith is in same race as you and the people you oppose on this issue. Yet, you have not critically analyzed each finding and finder; you do not critically analyze the motives; you don't critically analyze the people who do critically analyze so long as it conforms to your belief. Ironically, you will analyze and criticize anyone opposed to your beliefs. For the record, I dislike this in religion, science and philosophy. We are all human.

As to the dangers of allowing religion to run amok, I concede, it is not what I want. But your claim that atheism is harmless if a fraud perpetrated by atheists who fail to acknowledge any self criticism. I refer you to the USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam. All officially atheistic societies, more than 100 million dead, one billion+ oppressed and the indirect cause of many millions more dead across the globe. If you apply all tragedies caused by various religionists throughout history to all individual religionists, then you must equally apply your analysis and criticism of atheism for the atrocities caused by atheists throughout history to each individual atheist.

Also, before you put too much faith in men of science, remember that Dr. Mengele was a man of science. The Soviet Union, China, North Korea, had/have men of science. That Men of Science are given to the same passions that men of religion are given to: lust for power, glory, money, etc. Advancements in technology are usually found in stable tolerant societies.

On a side note, you start by claiming, "I don't intend to illicit any one particular answer, or even really a conclusion." Later you claim, "We want people to think for themselves, to follow what should be common sense, to understand the world around them." This gives the impression that if people don't agree with you, they lack common sense. Though I personally don't believe that was your intent, it does give pause to point out that what you dislike in religion is their assumption of "common sense" is really the same assumption from your part which they dislike.
07-21-2012 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HtownOrange Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,164
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #11
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
We will probably have to take this debate in smaller bites. Sorry for the long post. I will try to keep it smaller.
07-21-2012 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #12
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
Your questions are all valid. Now with that said, I question, if you truely have a real relationship with Jesus. Why do I say this, because if you do would nolonger strugle with all these issues. Keep seeking, however, and you will find peace in Jesus some day.
07-25-2012 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #13
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
Romans 15: 4-6 And the Scriptures were written to teach us and encourage us by giving us hope. God is the one who makes us patient and cheerful. I pray that he will help you live at peace with each other, as you follow Christ. Then all of you together will praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
07-25-2012 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HtownOrange Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,164
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #14
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
An example of two evolutionary theories that cannot co-exist and disprove each other. One must be false.

Darwin's theory that every organic thing evolved slowly over time (I'm not locking anyone into Darwin's time frame, though, that is another proof that evolution doesn't always get it right) v. Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Most Americans are taught and believe that everything evolves slowly over time, minute changes occur, slight change by slight change. The fossil record far more agrees with Gould's theory as there are simply too many gaps in the fossil record to support Darwin's theory. Furthermore, the geological tables and many other evidences point to Gould's theory as much more workable. There are many more theories.

(Gould's theory is one of the reasons I have rejected evolution as having more value than religion. He provides a theory that is more workable with all facts than Darwin - though it, too, leaves more questions than answers.)

We have yet to introduce the Big Bang, biology, geology, gravity, laws of thermodynamics, etc. Remember, all of these theories MUST meld into one and be workable without disrupting any other before we can reason that it is an acceptable theory. Just like, religion, which one do you place your faith in?
07-30-2012 08:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eagle4Christ Offline
Thread killer
*

Posts: 2,034
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Far-Off Lands
Post: #15
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
I agree with the premise: a faith that cannot stand up against rational thought is no faith at all. Here is how I answer the 30 questions (my answers in bold).

------
Part 1: Introspection
1. Many adherents of other religions believe just as strongly as you do. They often even cite many of the same reasons for belief that you do, and cite reasons for not believing in your religion that mirror your reasons for not believing in theirs. Do these parallels concern you?
Yes, they did concern me when I was first exposed to them. This forced me to see if there is any reason for my faith beyond my personal enthusiasm. The rationality and positive influence of Christianity won me over.

2. Religious people overwhelmingly follow the religion of their parents, their surrounding culture or both. If this applies to you, don't you find it convenient that you just happened to stumble upon the right religion without investigating the thousands of other potential options?
Yes, but no more convenient than the fact that I believe in free markets in a free-market economy. I don't need to investigate all other options, because free markets work. The supremacy of Christianity can be seen in the positive effect it has had (and still has) on cultures, economies, and governments world-wide. Rather than thinking it merely convenient that I was born here to Christian parents, I consider myself blessed by God.

3. If faith is a reliable pathway to truth, why does it lead people to such inconsistent conclusions? Why does it result in so many thousands of religions, and even thousands of conflicting Christian sects?
Faith is not a reasonable pathway to truth. Revelation is. In the Bible, we have revelation from God, that is believed due to faith. Other religions arise because Satan directs the production of counterfeit revelations, to confuse people and keep them in darkness.

4. When meditating Zen Buddhists feel a state of transcendent bliss and oneness with the universe, their brain activity looks the same as that of Franciscan nuns communing with God. "Religious" experiences also occur in other religious adherents, in users of drugs like psilocybin mushrooms and even in temporal lobe epileptics. Why would God give us brains that are so easily fooled by false religious experiences—and how do you know yours aren't among them?
I don't think I've ever had any 'religious experience.' Nor do I base my faith around them. But the reason we have brains that are so easily fooled is because of the fall of Man, at which moment we lost our innocence, and our ability to hear God directly. Suddenly, due to Adam's desire to be like God, we found ourselves open to be deceived, by experience as well as words.

5. One day in 1995, thousands of people across India and throughout the world allegedly witnessed statues of the Hindu god Ganesha drink milk that was fed to them from a spoon. The Hindu milk miracle has widespread, modern eyewitness testimony and even video evidence in its favor. Why do you believe in Christian miracles, but not in miracles of other religions that offer much better evidence?
I do believe in well-documented miracles in other religions, because I believe in an actual and active deceiver, named Satan, who masquarades as an Angel of Light to cause men to stray from God.

6. You may expect God to have a positive impact on the world. But both good and bad things are bound to happen even if God doesn't exist. If you credit God for the good things that happen and never blame him for the bad, all without any sort of evidence, isn't your expectation self-fulfilling?
God is in control, both indirectly allowing good and bad, and directly causing good and bad. We may see events as positive or negative due to our lack of perspective, but God is using all these events to bring about his good purpose in the end. So God is to be praised both in the rainbow and the tornado, by the one who has faith in his goodness.

7. God is often said to answer prayer in three ways: "Yes," "No" and "Wait." But if God's responses are so vague, how could you distinguish them from the results of prayer to any other god?
That maxim is not in the Bible. It is a good saying to help us understand how God acts, but it is just a man-made illustration. I concede it is not perfect, but what illustration is?

Part 2: Doctrine
8. The gospel message—the very core of Christianity—seems fundamentally unjust: In what sense is temporarily punishing one innocent man an acceptable substitute for endlessly punishing billions of guilty people?
Who knows? You're asking questions about metaphysics that we can't completely understand. That being said, God had set up the world so that rebellion against God must be forgiven with the shedding of blood. This how crucial sin is--rebelling against God, even in a small (to our eyes) way, is a deadly offense.
As far as the unjustness is concerned: of course it is unjust! Praise God that it is. Were it not, we would all be in big trouble.
That being said, it was not merely an innocent man that was punished for our sins, but a person of the godhead himself. That changes things somewhat, making it less unjust and more sacrificial.


9. This message seems not only unjust, but patently illogical: God (the Father) has another part of God (the Son) killed to save humanity from being punished… by God. Why couldn't God just decide to forgive us without killing Jesus?
I don't think it's illogical at all. Think of it in the words of John. God is light, and in him is no darkness. Due to our sin, we are covered in darkness. When you turn the light on in a room, what happens to the darkness? It ceases to exist. In the same way, we are unable to exist in the presense of God, because we are sinful, and unable to stand in his purity. Christ cloaks the Christian in his own purity.
So why didn't God just make us pure? I think it has something to do with God wanting children and not slaves. He desires worship--people who follow him out of choice. Christ allows us to choose to follow God, and makes it possible to obey God, thus increasing our worship of God.


10. Salvation depends on belief in a specific event that most people who've ever lived never even knew about: people in remote parts of the world, human zygotes (half of which abort spontaneously before birth), the severely mentally disabled, etc. If these people go to hell, how is that consistent with a God of love? If they go to heaven, does that mean God doesn't value their free will to choose or reject God's gift of salvation?
Most evangelicals believe in the age of accountability, which states that a child who dies before he is able to understand what Jesus did is covered in his salvation. For those who have never heard, we have to trust in God's wisdom and love; that he will provide a way to follow Christ for anyone who would, and that people who never hear about Jesus would not have followed him if they had.

11. God is supposedly a single being. But in what sense can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be considered one and the same God when they have different wills (Luke 22:41–42), different knowledge (Mark 13:32) and different levels of authority (John 14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3)?
Who knows? We're talking about God, who is different from and higher than we are. Why should we expect to understand every element of him? Wouldn't it be disappointing and suspicious if we could?

12. We’d expect a perfectly wise, good God to have a composed, even-handed personality. Yet God brags that he'll make Israel's enemies eat their own children and grow drunk with their own blood (Isa. 49:26; Jer. 19:9), he delights in animal sacrifice (Lev. 1:1–9), he's so jealous of other gods that "Jealous" is his very name (Ex. 34:12–16), and Moses has to calm his fury to keep him from killing his own people (Ex. 32:1–14; Num. 16:41–55). Does this sound more like a transcendent deity or a vindictive tribal leader invented by a barbaric Iron Age culture?
Why would we expect this? Because most wise, good people are composed and even-handed? But surely that is false; I know many wise and good people who can be very dangerous when they are angered.
The question is whether in these situations God's anger is based upon ration or irrational means. What we see is that in all the above examples, his actions are consistant with his attributes of justice and righteousness. He is acting against sin, and thus his actions are severe. This is very composed and even-handed. Sin is treated severely, in every situation. The only exception to this is when a righteous man (Moses) asked God to spare his anger, proving that the prayers of a righteous man availeth much, as Jesus said.


13. Frontotemporal dementia can alter one's entire worldview, including one's religion, and severing connections between the two brain hemispheres reveals that they respond independently and hold different desires and beliefs. In one case, a brain’s right hemisphere professed theism, and the left, atheism. How do you explain the concept of the soul in light of such phenomena? Do these souls go to heaven or hell?
Just as no one would blame a person with a broken leg for failing to save a drowning child, no one should blame a person with a diseased brain for having changes in personality or for saying strange things.
The soul is spiritual, and may be expressed by material things (ie. the brain), but is separate from material things. So, this would be a situation where we could not tell based upon someone's actions whether he was a Christian or not. So what? Presumably, God knows the state of his soul. His salvation and damnation will be based upon something other than a physical injury.


14. In Mark 16:15–18, Jesus lists several signs that "will follow those who believe," including drinking poison with no ill effects. The few Christians who try this fail unless they take special precautions, like ingesting it only in small, harmless amounts. Why is this? (If you believe this passage is a forgery, as most scholars do, why would God allow it into the Bible?)
This passage was likely included later, and not refelctive of the actual words of Jesus. The reason why God would allow it to be included are the same reasons why God allows people to do evil. People are fallen. They make errors and commit sins. God doesn't stop them because without free will there is no worship. Inspired texts will undergo textual corruption just like uninspired texts, unless there are people who are very dedicated to maintaining accuracy.

15. God already has a perfect plan for the world. If we pray for something that's already in that plan, the prayer is redundant. If we pray for something that's not in that plan, the prayer is futile. What, then, is the point of asking for things in prayer?
Bringing us along with God's way of thinking. Additionally, you can presume that God knows what will be prayed for when he creates his plan, and takes that into account, meaning that our prayer may influence things. Again, it's difficult to fully understand because we're talking about a being who is very different from us.

16. If God made the universe for us, we would expect it to be hospitable and human-scaled. But the universe is billions of light-years across, composed mostly of dark energy and filled with black holes, cosmic radiation and the vacuum of space. Why is the universe so full of vast, uninhabitable emptiness?
It is heresy to say that God made the universe for us. He made it for himself. He also made us for himself.

Part 3: Errancy
Note: The following questions assume you believe the Bible to be the literal, inerrant and inspired word of God.

17. The Genesis creation story directly conflicts with evolution. Endogenous retroviruses— remains of viruses embedded in the genome millions of years ago—appear at the same place in human and other primate genomes. We've found many key transitional fossils like Tiktaalik (fish to tetrapods), Archaeopteryx (dinosaurs to birds) and **** habilis (human ancestors). Atavisms like teeth in chickens, legs in whales and tails in humans sometimes reappear as relics of evolutionary history. Can creationism offer a better explanation for such evidence?
Too big to be argued here. Suffice it to say that their are many Creation-believing scientists who would say "yes."

18. Biblical genealogies imply that the universe is about 6,000 years old instead of 13.75 billion. This is disproved by data from tree rings, ice layering, coral reefs, lunar craters, continental drift, distant starlight, human civilizations and more. As another example, scientists have traced back the orbits of the Baptistina asteroid family and found that they were formed by a collision that occurred 80 million years ago. Can the young earth view offer a better explanation for such evidence?
I don't personally hold to a young earth view, because the days of creation occur before the sun is created, implying that the word "day" is better translated as "time." Many earth years could pass in that time.

19. If 2 million Israelites resided as slaves in Egypt, wandered in the desert for 40 years and conquered a host of rival nations, we would expect to find massive, widespread archaeological evidence—but we don't. Instead, excavations have revealed the Israelites as a relatively small Canaanite tribe whose "conquered" cities were often uninhabited at the purported conquest date (e.g. Jericho was already in ruins a century earlier). How can inerrantists account for this?
Not being an archaeologist, it is difficult for me to comment, except to say that there have been many arcaeological findings over the years that have seemed to contradict the Bible, yet further discoveries have proved those implications false. I don't worry myself too much with recent findings that 'disprove' the Bible, for this reason.

20. Careful study of the Bible reveals many internal contradictions. For instance, Matthew 2:1–20 says Jesus was born a few years before Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Yet Luke 2:1–2 says Jesus was born during the Census of Quirinius, which occurred in 6 AD—well after Herod's death. Why do the two gospels contradict each other?
I'm not an expert on this, though what little research I did revealed that some have argued that Luke 2:1-2 should be translated to say that the census occured before Quirinius was ruler of Syria, rather than during his reign, as it is commonly translated. As to why this mistranslation happened, I refer you to my reply to point 14 above.

21. The Bible contains several instances of failed prophecy. For example, Jesus repeatedly said he would return to earth before the disciples and the rest of that generation had died (Matt. 10:23, 24:34; Mark 9:1, 14:61–62). The New Testament writers said his return was imminent and would not be delayed (1 Cor. 7:29–31; Heb. 10:36–37; 1 John 2:18). So why hasn't Jesus returned after almost 2,000 years?
The first issue: it is generally taught that that "generation" Jesus was referring to was in reference to the jewish race, or the Christian church, and not a generation as is generally understood.
The second issue: New Testament writers continually say that Jesus is returning soon. Most explainations I have heard refer us to the timelessness of God (his soon may take many years for us). Also, some hold that language of Jesus' imminent return is merely stating that we live in the last age of the earth (often called the "church age"), and that Jesus will come at the end of this age. He coming is soon from the perspective of the ages of the earth, which would not seem soon in relation to the span of one human life.


Part 4: Morality
Note: The following questions assume you believe your God to be all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good.

22. The Euthyphro Dilemma asks, "Is whatever God does good by definition, or does he merely follow some outside standard of goodness?" If the former, God would be good even if he did everything that we now call evil, so does it even mean anything to call God "good"? If the latter, shouldn't we judge him according to that standard?
The former. God follows his nature. Evil is acting against the nature or will of God. God cannot do evil because he cannot act against his own nature and will. Goodness is what God does. What God does is good.

23. Why is there so much manmade evil in the world? The usual response is that God allows it because he values our capacity to freely choose between goodness and sin. But in heaven, a place supposedly free from sin, people would presumably have free will. If God is capable of somehow allowing these two conditions to coexist, why not do the same on earth and prevent tremendous suffering?
There will be free will in heaven, but the people there will already be followers of God. Upon arriving at a place where that which they have worshipped by faith is now present in sight, why would they choose to do anything but worship him?
So why doesn't just make earth like heaven? I guess he has his reasons--they're probably the same reasons he had for creating the universe in the first place.
In re: tremendous suffering, again, if God were to remove suffering from the world, he would be removing one of the tools that best draws us to God--suffering and pain caused by sin. It is this that forces us to deal with God and leads us to understand that we are sinners and need a savior. If we sinned without suffering, few would ever repent.


24. Why does God allow natural evils like floods, earthquakes, wildfires, famine, hurricanes, pestilence and disease? Even if these phenomena are a punishment for human sin, it seems unjust for them to be doled out indiscriminately: For example, why must billions of animals suffer through no fault of their own, and why do about 17,000 children starve to death every day?
Everyone dies. Surely you have noticed this? What difference does it makes if they die young, old, in comfort, in pain, in disaster, or quietly?
When Adam sinned, his consequence was death (eventually). Adam being the head of humans, passed sin and death on to all of us. It is our consequence for our sin too.
Adam was also given authority over nature, so when he fell, nature was corrupted with him. Thus, animals die.
The point is that sin is not to be trifled with; it's deadly stuff.


25. The billions of people who don't believe that Jesus died for their sins will supposedly suffer everlasting punishment in hell. Take a moment to really think about the gravity of a punishment that has no end. How is God justified in carrying out this punishment? What makes even the tiniest sin so heinous that it must be met with infinite suffering?
The person who commits a sin (tiny or big) is rebelling against God. And it is not just the tiny sin that we commit. We constantly sin, by thinking primarily of ourselves and not of God, who deserves our worship. As to the eternity of suffering, some have posited that Hell is a place of torment precisely because God is not there; that when he leaves us to ourselves, we realize that all the good we knew flowed from him. Hell, by this thought, is being left alone with our pride, hatred, spite, self-importance, and desire forever, but without any of the good that, on earth, can mask its true horror. In a sense, we create this hell by living as if we wish God would leave us alone. How can we say he is unjust when he finally gives us what we've asked for?

26. In the Bible, God directly sanctions permanent slavery (Lev. 25:44–46), as well as the beating of slaves to within an inch of their life (Ex. 21:20–21). There’s even a loophole allowing Israelites to use emotional blackmail to permanently enslave entire families (Ex. 21:2–6). Is this consistent with a God who claims to be the personification of love?
Sure it is. It was a moral step forward in that time to punish a person who killed his slave (the part of Ex. 21:20 that was not mentioned above). There would have been no such punishment prior to the giving of this law.
It sounds barbaric to our ears to allow a person to buy slaves or beat them without consequence, but, ask yourself, why does this sound barbaric? It is because of the actions of Christians, who were following to its logical conclusions the idea taught in the New Testament that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. Were it not for Christians following God, no abolition movement would have likely succeeded.
Abolition of slavery was a slow process. In the Old Testament, we see rules for governing slaves, which were a moral breakthrough for its day. For two thousand years, this law ruled Israel. Then came the New Testament, and the idea that all are equal in Christ. Another two thousand years (almost) went by before abolition of slavery arose.
In the passages shared above, God started his followers down a long path of removing slavery from the world. I don't know why the length of the path was needed. Perhaps hearts were so hard that no one would have listened had he abolished slavery right then. Regardless, God showed his love by starting us down a long 4000-year path, and guiding us along the way.


27. In the Bible, God bemoans the idea of female leadership (Isa. 3:12), says through his servant Paul that women are to be silent and submissive in church (1 Cor. 14:34–35; 1 Tim. 2:11–14), and sanctions the forced marriage and rape of female captives by the very men who had just slaughtered their families (Deut. 21:10–14). Is this compatible with a perfectly just and loving God?
Sure. God has set men as leaders in church and family (The Isiah passage seems to be referring to the family, not the nation), much in the same way that God the Father is above God the Son. It's not a question of who is better, but what the roles are.
As for the Deuteronomy passage, see 26. above. The barbarism was present sure, but the point of the passage was a moral breakthrough--if you're going to rape a woman as spoils of war, you cannot sell her into slavery. This seems obvious to us, but was a major shift in those days. As with slavery, this was the first of many steps that led to women's equality, which, again, has only happened in countries under the influence of Christians, due to the idea that all are equal in Christ.


28. In the Bible, God kills approximately 25 million people. He kills millions of innocent animals and children in Noah's Flood (Gen. 7:21–23), the firstborn of the Egyptians (Ex. 12:29–30) and countless others. Do you believe that in every last case, killing was the best possible course of action?
As stated above, every one dies because everyone is fallen and sinful. I trust that God knows when and where they should die.

29. In Deuteronomy 13:6–10, God says that if an Israelite's loved one came to them suggesting serving other gods, the Israelite was to help stone that loved one to death—a slow, gruesome, agonizing fate. Imagine that you and your dearest loved one were Israelites, and they suggested worshipping some other god. Would you aid in killing them as God commanded?
It would be hard, for sure. But one should be more zealous for God than for family (even Jesus echoes this in the New Testament, though less violently, in saying that a follower of Christ must hate his family, in comparison with his devotion to Christ. This is why we don't stone anymore, because we are not under the law, thanks to Christ). Being a Christian is not an easy road. The one who is not willing to follow God first, forsaking all others, is not worthy of it.

30. If you see the passages above as perfectly good and just, would you still see them that way if you had read them in the Quran?
Possibly not, but I don't disbelieve the Quran because it is barbaric. I disbelieve it because it says things about God that are untrue.

-----
Sorry for the length. This is how I deal with these difficult questions. Some are Christian doctrine, and others are my own thoughts.
08-03-2012 06:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #16
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. But your questions show that you're lacking even a novice's knowledge about why Christians believe what they do. Except for the errancy section, the rest of your questions are actually all geared towards Christians in general.

I believe that you're asking honestly, and Eagle4Christ's answers are a good starting point. To be quiet honest, I've found that if you're seeking education on why Christians believe these things that Catholic churches are the best place to look. They tend to be more philosophical than any other denomination in Christianity (which is why I'm Catholic). Definitely avoid the Protestant mega-churches, as a large portion of them are quasi-atheist in their philosophies. Not that they're bad people, or teach bad morals (at least, not too much :) ). Just saying that they won't give you any answers to your questions.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2012 04:24 PM by Captain Bearcat.)
10-05-2012 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fresno St. Alum Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,408
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 306
I Root For: Fresno St.
Location: CA
Post: #17
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
(10-05-2012 04:22 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. But your questions show that you're lacking even a novice's knowledge about why Christians believe what they do. Except for the errancy section, the rest of your questions are actually all geared towards Christians in general.

I believe that you're asking honestly, and Eagle4Christ's answers are a good starting point. To be quiet honest, I've found that if you're seeking education on why Christians believe these things that Catholic churches are the best place to look. They tend to be more philosophical than any other denomination in Christianity (which is why I'm Catholic). Definitely avoid the Protestant mega-churches, as a large portion of them are quasi-atheist in their philosophies. Not that they're bad people, or teach bad morals (at least, not too much :) ). Just saying that they won't give you any answers to your questions.
I'm Catholic(w/ lots of questions), b/c my family is, they made me go to church and all that stuff.

I think the bible is more of a guide than factual(santa for adults), what make my profits any more believable than the Mormon ones? Old testament god and new testament god, don't even sound like the same god. I don't buy that noah lived to 600 or whatever or got a bunch of animals that may or may not have roamed the region, and they were all cool w/ being in a boat w/o eating each other. Or jonah being in a whale for 3 days.

It bugs me that the bible was written 300+ years after jesus died. I can't imagine the 1st book about the revolutionary war not coming out until 2076. Let alone having be the end all be all of how we should act. It also bugs me about similar saviors that were born around x mas from a virgin to save us, up to 1200 years before the bible's version. It's like Finding out there was a book called Howie Potter 1200 years before Harry Potter w/ most of the same stuff.

I don't like that my church has become political, trying to make us sign petitions to not allow PUBLIC SCHOOLS to put anything in the history books mentioning any historic gay person(Harvey Milk, maybe). Who cares keep your damn kid in private school if you want to shelter them. They were also telling us to vote for Romney b/c he's pro life(now). Even though the Arch Bishops and Nuns were backing Obama b/c he's for the poor. (other catholic guy, did they do this at yours too or just my backwards ass town?)

My sis in law just swapped Catholic for some protestant church. I told her they get you to join by being a social group, we guilt you into it.

So my overly religious mom, stepdad and nut case sis in law(different from the one above) push me more away from the church w/ their shoving it down my throat, she thinks I'm going to switch, I said ours is just as good as any w/ the Peter is Rock and on that rock I'll build my church(Catholic, if any of this happened). My sis in law, thinks that prayer will save her if its not her time if she were to get cancer. WTF! I told her, uh go to the doctor and pray they cut it all out or you'll die for sure.

For the Atheist guy, I believe there is a god b/c of Fatima. In the early 1917 up to 70,000 people there saw the clouds part and the sun come close then dance around, drying the wet ground instantly all because he told 3 kids this would happen. Scientists said well it could have been a sunburst that caused the sun to appear to move and possibly dry the ground, also the people's eyes could have made the sun look like it was dancing b/c the image was burnt in. The one thing no one could explain is that the kids told their family and the town that it would happen at Noon on Oct. 13, 1917 and it did, I have no clue how 3 kids got that many people to show up. It's not like today where the weather man tells you there will be a meteor shower next Fri at 1 am.

Anyway I think god doesn't care what religion you are since people seem to mess w/ it so much, as a form of control by fear.
So I'm almost positive there is a god, not sure on jesus, not sure on heaven or hell.
01-12-2013 06:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


HtownOrange Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,164
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #18
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
FSA,

You've said a lot. Without a monster post, I cannot respond to everything, my apologies. A simple answer as to which God would be to sincerely ask God to reveal Himself. Then do some searching. Via your sig name, you are educated so study is not new to you. I recommend that you read the Bible. I can offer my personal opinion, but that will not convince you one way or another, this is a task you will have to perform for yourself.

As to the various religions, you will find good and bad in every one of them. Of the Christian denominations; any sect that does not hold to taking care of the poor, helping the helpless, being good to others (golden rule) etc. is simply not a good one. Churches that demand a political stance are questionable, though you will tend to find a church that you aline with politically, if politics are #1, you probably can assume they are not for you. Yes, abortion, welfare and other social issues are legitimate religious issues, but you will have to resolve your beliefs against what God says (Bible, for Christians).

Another thing to watch for is nonsense. You've already identified that one SIL that believes she will not get cancer or that god will save her even if she seeks no treatment. Luke, the writer of two books in the New Testament, was a physician. Jesus never discouraged using medicine. God gave us wise men and women why would He not want us to use those resources? Personally, I believe God gave us intelligent men and women who discover more and more about the body and we ARE to use them to help us live better lives.

God and science are not mutually exclusive. People on both sides are full of faith.

As for Jonah, research James Bartley, a sailor on a British whaler. It is a scientific possibility. And, on a lighter note, see: http://cryscresc.net/modern-day-jonah-in-sitka-alaska
01-13-2013 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fresno St. Alum Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,408
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 306
I Root For: Fresno St.
Location: CA
Post: #19
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
(01-13-2013 04:12 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  FSA,

You've said a lot. Without a monster post, I cannot respond to everything, my apologies. A simple answer as to which God would be to sincerely ask God to reveal Himself. Then do some searching. Via your sig name, you are educated so study is not new to you. I recommend that you read the Bible. I can offer my personal opinion, but that will not convince you one way or another, this is a task you will have to perform for yourself.

As to the various religions, you will find good and bad in every one of them. Of the Christian denominations; any sect that does not hold to taking care of the poor, helping the helpless, being good to others (golden rule) etc. is simply not a good one. Churches that demand a political stance are questionable, though you will tend to find a church that you aline with politically, if politics are #1, you probably can assume they are not for you. Yes, abortion, welfare and other social issues are legitimate religious issues, but you will have to resolve your beliefs against what God says (Bible, for Christians).

Another thing to watch for is nonsense. You've already identified that one SIL that believes she will not get cancer or that god will save her even if she seeks no treatment. Luke, the writer of two books in the New Testament, was a physician. Jesus never discouraged using medicine. God gave us wise men and women why would He not want us to use those resources? Personally, I believe God gave us intelligent men and women who discover more and more about the body and we ARE to use them to help us live better lives.

God and science are not mutually exclusive. People on both sides are full of faith.

As for Jonah, research James Bartley, a sailor on a British whaler. It is a scientific possibility. And, on a lighter note, see: http://cryscresc.net/modern-day-jonah-in-sitka-alaska
The Catholic church takes about 3 years to get though the bible. So for 28 of 35 years I've heard and re-heard the bible. Plus my problem is the bible might have lots of mistakes and guesses. Also the older stories(pre bible) of a savior being born around winter that had god as a father, virgin mother. I feel duped, the bible can't answer that for me.
01-13-2013 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GLinPa Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 196
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #20
RE: 30 Questions for Fundamentalist Christians
My view as a Catholic Christian is that truth is sacred. Its source is a divine creator. The more faith expressions that promote the common good the better.
06-29-2014 10:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.