Something that is puzzling me

[rocklobster]

Not to ask the obvious question here, but you did bother to find out from her why she's become an atheist, right?

Yes. She said she wasn't sure, so I decided to get some food for some of the arguments she may have heard.

[rocklobster]

Not to ask the obvious question here, but you did bother to find out from her why she's become an atheist, right?

Yes. She said she was unsure, though. Since I've never had any apologetic training, I thought I might get some pointers from you guys.

[Okami_Kunoichi]

Going onto the original post done by Rocklobster...I can very well understand the puzzlement.

I have met many who are atheist, however they came to that and my own household that I live in IS what I call combative atheist. While my sister supports me in my faith, she does not agree with it. She has read the Bible, Koran, Torah and actively studies religions.

For her, she uses the Bible as evidence against God, not towards Him. Satan used the Bible as well to tempt Jesus. The Enemy of God is smart, have his servants know the Bible better than the believer and you can trip them up more.

Its been my experience that reading the Bible can bring someone to the Lord, it opened up my heart at least.. it has been people professing his name that often has driven me away. I experienced spiritual abuse for a few years...both as a result of living in a combative atheistic home and not having the right roots. I have found a lot of recovery since then but I can definetely understand why reading the Word is only part of the battle. Networking with like-minded spiritual people can be such an asset.

I've gone on a tangent here, but thank you for letting me share

[Okami_Kunoichi]

Yes. She said she was unsure, though. Since I've never had any apologetic training, I thought I might get some pointers from you guys.

My experience is that I will never be able to "convince" someone else to believe in God. I may be able to give them best of the knowledge I have. I have found that my actions, my love and perhaps pointing them to someone with more knowledge then I can answer questions. I have told others in the past that if they willingly and honestly seek, then they will find how to fill the God-shaped hole in their heart.

I don't know if there is a "right" or "wrong" way to go about this situation...I have looked at Jesus and as i've heard in the traditions of 12 step recovery.."Based on attraction rather then promotion". She may not be at a point NOW to hear or listen, it may be a time later that she can.

[Atria35]

My experience is that I will never be able to "convince" someone else to believe in God. I may be able to give them best of the knowledge I have. I have found that my actions, my love and perhaps pointing them to someone with more knowledge then I can answer questions. I have told others in the past that if they willingly and honestly seek, then they will find how to fill the God-shaped hole in their heart.
...
She may not be at a point NOW to hear or listen, it may be a time later that she can.

*nodnod* I'm agreeing with this.

Also, unless she comes to you about it, then doing apologetics can drive her even farther away, or cement her new view about religion (which isn't necessarily wrong- a LOT of horrible things have been perpetuated in the name of Christianity- by full-on believers, nonetheless. You'd be surprised at how devout many of these people were, and found no real dissonance between their actions and the Bible. Mostly it was taking the 'shall not suffer a witch to live' bit and applying it to anyone and everyone who didn't agree with Christianity, or even their own denomination of Christianity. Catholics vs. Protestants, anyone?). But that's slightly beside the point- since she claims to be a Marxist, too, she might be coming to a realization that no followers of any religion are perfect, or can answer everything. Let her look for her own answers, and be ready to either talk with her or point her to someone else who may be able to answer questions you can't (or when she doesn't like your answers).

And, as someone pointed out earlier, apologetics aren't that effective at convincing non-believers.

[Okami_Kunoichi]

*nodnod* I'm agreeing with this.

Also, unless she comes to you about it, then doing apologetics can drive her even farther away, or cement her new view about religion (which isn't necessarily wrong- a LOT of horrible things have been perpetuated in the name of Christianity- by full-on believers, nonetheless. You'd be surprised at how devout many of these people were, and found no real dissonance between their actions and the Bible. Mostly it was taking the 'shall not suffer a witch to live' bit and applying it to anyone and everyone who didn't agree with Christianity, or even their own denomination of Christianity. Catholics vs. Protestants, anyone?). But that's slightly beside the point- since she claims to be a Marxist, too, she might be coming to a realization that no followers of any religion are perfect, or can answer everything. Let her look for her own answers, and be ready to either talk with her or point her to someone else who may be able to answer questions you can't (or when she doesn't like your answers).

And, as someone pointed out earlier, apologetics aren't that effective at convincing non-believers.

SOmething that I noticed when I look at Jesus...was that he didn't sit there doing apologetics. He taught. he was a rabbi so was well in his way to teach. He left others come to him. He gave choices. If they had questions, he answered. Even with the religious leaders. He never sat there and pointed out all their faults and say how horrible they were. Instead he stated how there way may not be working but it wasn't that THEY were evil...its that there ways were evil.

Apologetics in my opinion should be left for the theological minds who wish to debate such things. Not to a struggling person who may not have interests in those things. Attraction..rather then promotion. Love her, be there for her. While may not agree with the person's beliefs and know that its not the way God wants...if we just say how bad that person is or how they are so sinful etc...we better look into that mirror. We are saved from grace...our actions express our faith in our God.

Kinda my thinking and experience i've had. When i stopped trying to convince others how righteous my God was and His way was, and instead loved them and accepted them for WHO they were...regardless, then I stopped tryign to Play God and let him do the work. It doesn't mean I water down the Truth just to empathisize.

[Atria35]

^ Okay, I see what you're saying. That's true- apologetics are for those who want to debate things.

[Radical Dreamer]

SOmething that I noticed when I look at Jesus...was that he didn't sit there doing apologetics. He taught. he was a rabbi so was well in his way to teach. He left others come to him. He gave choices. If they had questions, he answered. Even with the religious leaders. He never sat there and pointed out all their faults and say how horrible they were. Instead he stated how there way may not be working but it wasn't that THEY were evil...its that there ways were evil.

Apologetics in my opinion should be left for the theological minds who wish to debate such things. Not to a struggling person who may not have interests in those things. Attraction..rather then promotion. Love her, be there for her. While may not agree with the person's beliefs and know that its not the way God wants...if we just say how bad that person is or how they are so sinful etc...we better look into that mirror. We are saved from grace...our actions express our faith in our God.

Kinda my thinking and experience i've had. When i stopped trying to convince others how righteous my God was and His way was, and instead loved them and accepted them for WHO they were...regardless, then I stopped tryign to Play God and let him do the work. It doesn't mean I water down the Truth just to empathisize.

Absolutely. I used to be into apologetics in high school, and yeah, I would say it's wise to know the history of our faith, both for personal knowledge and for discussion if the situation presents itself. But I don't think apologetics should really be used as much as some people think it ought to be used when trying to bring others to Christ. You can be the most knowledgeable person in the world when it comes to Christianity and still not know a thing about love. And even then, when it comes to bringing others to Christ, God doesn't need our expertise to tell others about Him; we can't change hearts. God only needs our availability, and He'll do the work through us. All we really need to do is show others the same love that Jesus would show them; that'll do worlds more than shoving apologetical knowledge down their throats will. XD

[Rusty Claymore]

I have to disagree with you majorly on this one. All of us deserve to be eternally punished. The only reason anyone escapes damnation is through the grace and mercy of God. If he really wants to, he could send us all away and be completely justified since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I'll stop before I write a theological paper and/or spark a debate/discussion that isn't allowed on CAA.

Ummm, I thought that was what I had said...
As for the whole Love vs. Apologetics thing, you should never use either without the other.
But I have always been the know type, so that is my bais.

[Okami_Kunoichi]

Ummm, I thought that was what I had said...
As for the whole Love vs. Apologetics thing, you should never use either without the other.
But I have always been the know type, so that is my bais.

Oh I think apologetics can definetely be used while having Love for that person. I guess it depends on the situation. If the person is a apologetic person for atheism then using answering with Christian Apologetics can be really helpful for that person.

I guess i have found for me...i am well versed in the Bible, but i have found that i relate better personally to people on a emotional level versus a intellectual one.

[rocklobster]

Um, I'm gonna go ahead and open this up on another theologically-friendly forum (no offense, mods, but I want to follow the rules here and things seem to be headed towards a locked thread).

[Nate]

I'm guessing for most of the tricky issues, the apologetics answer IS the answer... there is no other "agnostic-friendly" answer. In not accepting it, it shows how hard their heart is...

I don't believe that, not for a second.

The problem is the Bible doesn't come flat out and say "This is why evil exists if God is both omnipotent and benevolent." All we have is educated guesses. A wise Christian may say "I believe I have the answer," but doesn't the Bible itself say "The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man?"

In other words, we really can't know the answer, and regardless of whether his heart is hard or not, it is pretty arrogant to assume that we have the right answer and they're just dumb for not accepting it. Our reasoning for why evil exists may be completely wrong, and that's why it isn't convincing. It pacifies us believers, but we already believe, so that isn't really a good argument for it being convincing or not.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

Regarding the problem of evil and suffering:

This particular philosophical/theological issue will always be a problem, for Christians and non-Christians alike (unless you reject the good/evil dichotomy, as any good naturalist should, for the "meh, stuff happens" line) because it is really two problems disguised as one. There is the intellectual problem of evil and suffering and the emotional problem of evil and suffering. Solving the "mental puzzle" of why there is gratuitous evil and (seemingly) unjust suffering can be very little consolation to you, or a loved one, when they are undergoing serious pain and suffering. Similarly, what you say to yourself to get you through the night just might not be enough for your friendly neighborhood professor. The thing is, I don't think the emotional problem of evil/suffering can't be "solved" like the intellectual one. Someone who is going through this requires a loving support system and, instead of one-liner answers, needs their questions/anger/whatever validated as legitimate. Healing comes first, the search for answers resumes later. So, both theodicy and lovingly "just being there" are essential for different situations. Note that, while attempt at theodicy might not satisfy everyone all of the time, I think it is still a worthwhile endeavor.

FYI: I personally don't think that it's a bad thing to struggle with this problem or not have a definitive answer (please distinguish the former remarks from lazily not caring about the issue).

[Okami_Kunoichi]

Um, I'm gonna go ahead and open this up on another theologically-friendly forum (no offense, mods, but I want to follow the rules here and things seem to be headed towards a locked thread).

I hope that I wasn't being offensive. I will pray for your situation that you have guidance to what to say.

[Dante]

Looks at thread... wait, this thread has nothing to do with the problem of good and evil!



But anyways, lotsa fun stuff on here that I've enjoyed reading, but if I respond any more it would be via PM. I don't think anyone has gotten offensive, but I am amazed how topics wander.

[rocklobster]

As a final word, I want to say that I've always had the idea that there must be a balance. That the only reason evil exists is that it must be there to define good.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

That's more Buddhist than Christian thinking. Evil is a corruption, an absence of Good.

[K. Ayato]

I agree. Evil is the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light. God didn't create evil.

[Nate]

Cold is just the absence of heat but I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks the oven and the refrigerator are opposites.

Pssst this is a joke because stating my true feelings would definitely cross the line to theology debate.

[Sailor Kenshin]

The hope in this is Lee Strobel's story, if anyone has read the Case for Christ. He set out a hardcore atheist trying to disprove the Bible, and actually ended up proving it right. People don't believe, usually because they don't want to, whether they admit that or not. The best example of that is Richard Dawkins, writer of The God Delusion, who stated in the movie Expelled that "Higher Intelligence could have seeded life on the earth... not God though.. Aliens, maybe..." I LOL'd when he said something that ignorant.

And who created the aliens?

Atheists really do paint themselves into some very simple corners. Read Dean Koontz's One Door Away From Heaven for almost that very question.

[Nate]

No, they didn't paint themselves into a simple corner. At the very least, if they did, then so have Christians.

Richard Dawkins says aliens could have seeded life on Earth. Your response is, "Who created the aliens?" Okay, fine. But a Christian says "God seeded life on Earth." Their response is, "Who created God?"

If you say "No one created God, He always existed," then they can counter with "No one created aliens, they always existed." See why they haven't painted themselves into a corner? They can just answer with the same answers we give about God, for their beliefs. They say "The universe just always existed, no one created it." We say "God just always existed, no one created Him." If our answer is good enough for God, their answer is good enough for the universe.

There always has to be a start point. Their start point is just "the universe" and our start point is "God." You may say "But the universe is so complex and intricate, then obviously someone created it." They would say "But God is so complex and powerful, then obviously someone created him."

This is why Christians fail at evangelizing, because many of them refuse to see the valid points that the other side brings up, and think our arguments between other Christians will work on them, and when it doesn't we just go "Oh they're dumb" or "They just don't understand." No, it's that we don't have the answers, we just think we do.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

No, they didn't paint themselves into a simple corner. At the very least, if they did, then so have Christians.

Richard Dawkins says aliens could have seeded life on Earth. Your response is, "Who created the aliens?" Okay, fine. But a Christian says "God seeded life on Earth." Their response is, "Who created God?"

If you say "No one created God, He always existed," then they can counter with "No one created aliens, they always existed." See why they haven't painted themselves into a corner? They can just answer with the same answers we give about God, for their beliefs. They say "The universe just always existed, no one created it." We say "God just always existed, no one created Him." If our answer is good enough for God, their answer is good enough for the universe.

There always has to be a start point. Their start point is just "the universe" and our start point is "God." You may say "But the universe is so complex and intricate, then obviously someone created it." They would say "But God is so complex and powerful, then obviously someone created him."

This is why Christians fail at evangelizing, because many of them refuse to see the valid points that the other side brings up, and think our arguments between other Christians will work on them, and when it doesn't we just go "Oh they're dumb" or "They just don't understand." No, it's that we don't have the answers, we just think we do.

This 'un.

Though I will add that I do believe that suitable common ground exists to facilitate productive philosophical discourse/debate between a Christian and an atheist. As long as we avoid such "Nate-isms" as those above.

[Nate]

Oh I think there can be productive debates between Christians and atheists, no doubt. As long as we don't hold their beliefs to be foolish or stupid, and as long as we realize that they're going to try and find fault with our arguments, just as we try and find fault with theirs. And so long as we realize that some explanations are simply not going to work with people who are skeptical of our claims, such as the aforementioned "God just always existed" is not going to work, since their response will simply be to turn it around on us.

[Atria35]

As long as we don't hold their beliefs to be foolish or stupid, and as long as we realize that they're going to try and find fault with our arguments, just as we try and find fault with theirs. And so long as we realize that some explanations are simply not going to work with people who are skeptical of our claims... is not going to work, since their response will simply be to turn it around on us.

Agreed.
It also seems like this is a good practice to keep in mind even with other Christians, since different denominations have different interpretations of the Bible. Right now, that's happening between one of my closest friends and myself- she wants me to interpret it her way, and I try to explain why I don't feel morally right doing so.

It's a productive debate- to a point. At a certain point both sides need to say that they're at an impass. It happens. Now, if only I can find a polite way to tell that to my friend

[Sailor Kenshin]

No, they didn't paint themselves into a simple corner. At the very least, if they did, then so have Christians.

Richard Dawkins says aliens could have seeded life on Earth. Your response is, "Who created the aliens?" Okay, fine. But a Christian says "God seeded life on Earth." Their response is, "Who created God?"

If you say "No one created God, He always existed," then they can counter with "No one created aliens, they always existed." See why they haven't painted themselves into a corner? They can just answer with the same answers we give about God, for their beliefs. They say "The universe just always existed, no one created it." We say "God just always existed, no one created Him." If our answer is good enough for God, their answer is good enough for the universe.

There always has to be a start point. Their start point is just "the universe" and our start point is "God." You may say "But the universe is so complex and intricate, then obviously someone created it." They would say "But God is so complex and powerful, then obviously someone created him."

This is why Christians fail at evangelizing, because many of them refuse to see the valid points that the other side brings up, and think our arguments between other Christians will work on them, and when it doesn't we just go "Oh they're dumb" or "They just don't understand." No, it's that we don't have the answers, we just think we do.

Not really. IF they exist then aliens are creatures, not the created. God DID create everything, and it is not random. If creation itself was random, it would not be so well-ordered.

Dawkins and most other atheists (through their I'm-smarter-than-anyone) prove the folly of overintellectualizing things that seem obvious to a kindergartener with common sense.

Every atheist I've met or read about lacks humility. Humility is the key.

IF evangelization fails (and many, many times it succeeds brilliantly) then it does not fail for that one reason you stated alone.

Have you ever met a happy atheist?

I sure haven't. They seem miserable, and want to spread the misery.

I highly recommend reading Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is possible.

[Nate]

God DID create everything, and it is not random. If creation itself was random, it would not be so well-ordered.

God is not random, therefore someone created him. If God just always existed, he would not be so well-ordered.

See what I did there? And besides, you have no proof that "If Creation was random it wouldn't be well-ordered." You cannot prove that the universe would be random if God did not create it. Why? Because God did create it, so we have no idea what it would be like if He didn't.

This is why I said Christians like to pretend to have the answers when we don't.

Dawkins and most other atheists (through their I'm-smarter-than-anyone) prove the folly of overintellectualizing things that seem obvious to a kindergartener with common sense.

Oh yeah, I'm sure insulting them will totally make them listen to you. I know when someone calls me an idiot, it makes me receptive to their message, and I listen to them with an open mind.

Every atheist I've met or read about lacks humility. Humility is the key.

Oh, so saying "I know the absolute truth about the universe and am completely right and you are completely wrong about everything" is humility? Awesome. I've apparently misunderstood that word my whole life!

Have you ever met a happy atheist?

Yep. I've met lots of them. What's your point?

I sure haven't.

Oh, so only things you've personally seen exist. Okay. That's kind of a weird stance to take if you're going to say God exists since I'm sure you've never seen Him.

They seem miserable, and want to spread the misery.

The same could be said of Christians as far as atheists are concerned. Christians are uptight and miserable because they can't have any fun by having sex or getting drunk, so they want to spread their misery by preventing anyone else from having fun doing those things.

You're going to say, I know it, that those things are harmful and dangerous and that's why they aren't really fun, and I know that. The point is, most atheists (most, not all, there are atheists who are against having premarital sex and getting drunk, and I have met them) do not believe they are harmful and dangerous and you are only presenting them as such because of your religion.

And you know, I've seen far, far more miserable Christians than miserable atheists honestly. How many prayer requests, myself included, do I see that say "Guys I'm really hurting, God feels so far away" or "I feel like God doesn't love me" or "I don't know how to be closer to God" or "I am such a failure, God must hate me because I sin so much?" I don't know about you, but I've seen plenty. I've made plenty. I feel like that a lot. There are happy Christians, and happy atheists. There's miserable Christians, and miserable atheists.

*sigh* This whole post you just made is everything that is wrong with Christianity, and that's what I've been saying. When you stereotype atheists, when you call them dumb and ignorant, when you try to paint them all as unhappy jerks, why do you not expect them to do the same to us?

In other words, why is it okay to call atheists ignorant and foolish, but it's some great insult for atheists to call us ignorant and foolish? So that's why I'm saying you know maybe, just maybe if we treated them with respect and didn't call them dumb and actually listened to them instead of saying "LOLOLOLOLOL U DUMB, READ TEH BIBLE" they might be receptive to our message!

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not, no proof is possible.

There is an invisible pink unicorn in my sock drawer. I believe it, so no proof is necessary. Since you do not believe it, no proof is possible. But my invisible pink unicorn still exists in my sock drawer.

Nobody will ever be converted to Christianity with such empty statements.

[Mr. Rogers]

You can never really prove ANYTHING. When we make honest decisions about something, we look at the evidence as unbiased as we can (no one is unbiased) and we make the best decision from the evidence we have.

I do think apologetics have real great value. When it comes to science, we have been dominated by metaphysical/scientific/philosophical naturalism for some time in the western world now. Many people make decisions about the universe through this naturalist viewpoint without even realizing it (I would say Naturalism has even infected Christians to some degree).

When people say "God can't exist", "Jesus couldn't rise from the dead", etc., it is usually based on that viewpoint. When you drop naturalism and just look at things with as open as a mind as you can muster, I think Science shows some pretty good suggestions that God might very well exist. There is an argument called The Kalam Argument that was made by a medieval Islam philosopher that shows that the universe must have had a beginning from a transcendent cause. This argument used to be dismissed because it was believed that the universe was eternal. Since the 20th century, when the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was discovered, it was scientifically proven that the universe did have a beginning. All other challenges to this idea (steady state universe) have since been dismissed. Modern scientific discovery shows that we can again use arguments like this. The Kalam Argument also helps with questions like, "who created God" since it demonstrates that an infinite cycle of events/creations/beings is not possible. There was a definite beginning which can be demonstrated mathematically, philosophically, and scientifically.

We see things in the study of Origins of Life Biochemistry and Molecular Biology that suggest irreducible complexity at the molecular level. Some discoveries have been made to the point where saying "future discoveries can fix this" are irrelevant.

There are also many historical and archeological evidences to suggest biblical things.

We cannot dismiss imperialism altogether, it does have some value.

Another great evidence of God is the way He changes lives. This has been a big one for me. I am also inspired by how much sense Jesus makes when looking at the world, others and myself - everything I see, I see Him.

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

In some ways people will find what they set out to find (whether they knew it or not from the beginning). Like in CS Lewis' Narnia story when the man who came with the children could only hear Aslan roaring at him when the children could hear what he was saying.

In CS Lewis' book, The Great Divorce (a must read) we see people on the edge of Paradise, but they turn away and take the Omnibus back to Hell because they do not want to give up control or whatever they are hanging on to. "If you could but for one minute quit thinking about yourself!", an angel says to one of the characters.

It becomes very complicated once you start delving into the personal reasons for ther beliefs we hold. The last few months I have heard a few people say, "I don't care if you can prove it to me, I will never follow it!". There can also be pain, bitterness and hurt in someone's life that blinds them from seeing things as they are. Also, some people just don't care

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.”

I am personally interest in Ryan's response to this.

[Nate]

I'm not Ryan. XP But I think maybe I can say what I think!

You can never really prove ANYTHING. When we make honest decisions about something, we look at the evidence as unbiased as we can (no one is unbiased) and we make the best decision from the evidence we have.

Eh...I think that's true, technically, but some stuff has to be accepted as proven regardless. For example, I believe that it is proven I exist. To quote Descartes, "I think, therefore I am." People also react to posts I make, things I say and do, so it is pretty much proven that I exist, unless we want to go the "THE ENTIRE WORLD IS AN ILLUSION INSIDE MY HEAD" route.

Likewise, certain processes in the world have been proven. For example, the laws of thermodynamics are just that--laws--because they are 100% proven. You can't get more energy out of a device that you put in, energy can't be created or destroyed (nor can matter).

You're right though that most stuff in the world isn't proven. Gravity isn't completely proven, nor is our explanation for fires. A lot of processes are still a mystery to us, and we just kind of explain it as best we can, and if we later find out it didn't fit, we change our theories.

(I would say Naturalism has even infected Christians to some degree).

I don't know that I'd use the word "infected." I think it honestly depends on the type of naturalism. In fact I'd say that there isn't really any contradiction between some types of naturalism and Christianity (some types, not all types).

In fact I think that naturalism is to a degree required in Christianity. Otherwise we'd still think that people with autism were demon-possessed and that the way to cure pneumonia is to pray really hard.

Since the 20th century, when the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was discovered, it was scientifically proven that the universe did have a beginning. All other challenges to this idea (steady state universe) have since been dismissed. Modern scientific discovery shows that we can again use arguments like this.

Right, but then the response is "Of course the universe had a beginning, it was called the Big Bang." When scientists say the universe always exists/is eternal, they don't mean in its current state. Going any further into this would break the cosmogony debate rule on CAA, so I'll just leave it at that.

The Kalam Argument also helps with questions like, "who created God" since it demonstrates that an infinite cycle of events/creations/beings is not possible. There was a definite beginning which can be demonstrated mathematically, philosophically, and scientifically.

Oh, absolutely. An infinite cycle of events and created beings isn't possible. What I am saying is, we differ from atheists as to where the beginning of that cycle is. Their beginning is "the universe" and our beginning is "God." Again, when we ask "Who created the universe?" their response will be "Who created God?" To us, God needed no creator because of His nature. To them, the universe needed no creator because of its nature. We're "adding an unnecessary step" in other words.

And the problem is, any argument we can make about how we know the universe has to be created, they can make as to how God has to have been created. The universe is ordered, therefore it was created. God is ordered, therefore he was created. Things like that. Or as I've heard said before "If God knows the difference between right and wrong, then someone must above God must have dictated what is right and wrong. Who was that then?"

Our response is that God Himself dictates what is right and wrong, obviously, but to them, the fact that there is a universal "idea" of right and wrong shows there must be an even higher power. In other words, instead of seeing God as the embodiment of righteousness as we do, they instead see him as just having knowledge of it. And that gets tricky to try and explain.

that suggest irreducible complexity at the molecular level.

That is a pretty loaded statement. The problem is that you can't really say what is irreducibly complex. "We aren't sure how this happens" is a completely different statement from "There's no way this could happen without someone designing it." Again, to avoid breaking CAA's rules, I won't say more on the subject.

Another great evidence of God is the way He changes lives. This has been a big one for me. I am also inspired by how much sense Jesus makes when looking at the world, others and myself - everything I see, I see Him.

Which is awesome, and a good argument. However, what is the response to people of different religions who say the same thing? Personal feelings about something are hardly evidence]The last few months I have heard a few people say, "I don't care if you can prove it to me, I will never follow it!". There can also be pain, bitterness and hurt in someone's life that blinds them from seeing things as they are. Also, some people just don't care [/QUOTE]
Well yeah. See, these things are only applicable to people who are willing to accept God as Christianity says He is, they just don't think He exists. It doesn't account for those who believe that, say, God is a horrible tyrant and the embodiment of evil.

Certain types of Satanists, the ones who actually believe in Satan and God (there are many kinds of Satanists, most of which from what I understand don't think Satan is a real being, but symbolic), say that God is evil and Satan is good. They base this on Genesis, where God forbids Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. They say no good, loving God would forbid humans to have knowledge, and so Satan was the hero for going against God and giving humans knowledge.

Those people are a little bit harder to deal with.

Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.

I don't believe that. Hell was never intended to hold human souls. Hell was created as a place of torment for the fallen angels and Satan. It was only after sin infected humans that it turned into a destination for humans. So even if humanity had remained sin-free, there would still be a Hell...just no humans would be in it.

[Mithrandir]

Theology Debates - These are strongly discouraged on these forums, due to their destructive effect on the community. If you want to discuss such things, we recommend that you check out TheologyWeb.

We were really hoping this thread had run it's course and would go away on it's own, given its volatility on the theology front. Unfortunately, when it came back, the theological boundary was clearly crossed. For this reason, we're locking it. Let me put this as succinctly as I can: DO NOT DEBATE THEOLOGY ON THIS BOARD.

Again, some people are able to debate without being sarcastic, cutting, personally attacking, etc. Others do not appear to be. This is precisely what we mean by "destructive effect on the community." Making a good point so someone listens to you is acceptable behavior. Making them feel bad about themselves 1) makes you look like a jerk to everyone else on the board, and 2) doesn't make them any more likely to listen to what you said. Given that debate is not the main focus of the site, it's not highly probable that all our members are mature enough to debate in a clear, polite manner. Therefore, we ask that you not go there - don't debate theology.

Updated by Mith 5/4 @ 10:00 PM, PST. Apparently the first draft of a single paragraph was posted earlier, not the actual final post I wanted. Sorry for the mix-up! I've quickly redrafted this one - hopefully it's a little clearer.