As those who are friends with me on facebook you know that I frequently get into debates and discussions on various topics. Since the debates are open to public I will be posting several of them here on my blog. I think this helps others see how apologetics helps in real word situations and how to respond to many objections.
I am currently in a discussion with a guy names Adam. There has been numerous exchanges and I will put the discussion up as it is without me editing anything. So here is the first in numerous exchanges! The topic was on the recent Chick-fil-A fiasco and traditional marriage. Enjoy!
Adam : it's sad to see so many people supporting intolerance.
Adam : They are supporting keeping a group of people down. Jesus also supported slavery and the beating slaves (luke 12:45-48). Do you consider slavery a "christian value"?
It is absurd to cry for tolerance and yet be intolerant of those who disagree with you. Your view collapses on itself and is self defeating and you know this which is why you have to switch the topic to slavery and on top of it you misrepresent the passage which is a PARABLE not a historical account of a actual event. You are doing eisegesis instead of proper exegesis. You demonstrate
1) Your position on tolerance is self defeating in that you will not tolerate those whom you think are intolerant
2)You have NOT done your home work on the text you gave and demonstraye you are not familiar with hermenudicts and have wrongly accused Jesus of supporting "beating slaves".
You failed on both points.
I am on my phone so forgive my spelling :)
Great post Deangelo, Sola deo Gloria!
Adam,
You said
"You're taking the term "intolerant" too wholly"
What does this even mean?What you seem to be doing is using the word "intolerant" and changing the definition to what you think it means to suite your argument. Here is the definition from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerance
"lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc."
Again to claim that you will not be tolerant of those who you do not agree with is ALSO and makes you just as much as a "bigot" as those you blast.
You said
" I am not going to be tolerant of bigots who want to keep rights from a specific group of people."
Then you are not tolerant my friend. Which is your right but then do not turn around and claim we should all be tolerant. Does not matter how smart you are or how badly you believe you are right, your argument COLLAPSES on itself because it is self defeating. I have shown what the word tolerance means and you are having to redefine what the word means for you to try and escape a "self defeating" argument.
Next you said
" I fully support EVERYONE's right to have their own opinion but when it goes from opinion to actively funding trying to keep people down then that's where it crosses the line."
And this is the point Adam. If you think this then fine, but the whole point is the cry for "tolerance" does not work when you yourself refuse to be tolerant of those whom you think are crossing the line. Thats why the argument for "tolerance" fails.
What the debate should be about is whether "gay-marriage" is something that would be good for the country and whether a select few should have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. However Sir, that is not the approach you took but rather have used a self defeating premise and still cling to it even after showing it collapses on itself. We can not go much further if you throw out logic and proper reasoning and are willing to embrace self-refuting arguments. I do not say this to be rude or nasty, just a fact, your premise collapses on itself.
Next you said
"as for the point I made about Jesus, he told parables to teach lessons and prove points"
You are correct, I agree with you. The question is what is the points He is teaching in this parable, and as will be shown you did NOT do your homework.
You then said
"He told a parable about Slaves being beaten and said that it was fine"
As I said you did not do your homework at all. Lets do some proper exegesis and hopefully those reading this post will see that when people use this passage to claim Jesus supported "beating slaves" you can demonstrate they do not know what they are talking about and have slandered the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Luke 12:35-40 ESV)
“Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
This is speaking the the return of Jesus, NOT moral, ethical codes endorsing slavery. It is obvious to anyone who reads the passage that Jesus is giving us a warning to be alert and ready because the coming of Christ is imanent.
The second part
(Luke 12:41-48 ESV)
"Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."
This again uses the "Master-Slave" imagery and this time is talking about a wicked servant who was not waiting and ready for the Master and in the parallel account
(Matthew 24:45-51 ESV)
“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
The reference is very clear Christ is talking about Hell and those who refuse to repent and surrender to Christ will spend eternity in Hell.
The point is Adam, you did NOT do your homework when throwing this passage up and it is not at all hard to see, all one has to do is flip there and read the WHOLE passage. You have slandered Jesus Christ and really need to repent and retract your claim because it has been demonstrated that you did not do your homework.
Lastly you said
" So in my mind, I didn't fail on both points. you just failed to understand them."
I understand them perfectly well and have given a very long explanation as to why:
1-Your first point is based on a self refuting argument which was demonstrated
2-You did not do your homework on the text you quoted and I demonstrated that
I am thankful for the dialog and look forward to your response if you choose to
You said
"You're taking the term "intolerant" too wholly"
What does this even mean?What you seem to be doing is using the word "intolerant" and changing the definition to what you think it means to suite your argument. Here is the definition from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerance
"lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc."
Again to claim that you will not be tolerant of those who you do not agree with is ALSO and makes you just as much as a "bigot" as those you blast.
You said
" I am not going to be tolerant of bigots who want to keep rights from a specific group of people."
Then you are not tolerant my friend. Which is your right but then do not turn around and claim we should all be tolerant. Does not matter how smart you are or how badly you believe you are right, your argument COLLAPSES on itself because it is self defeating. I have shown what the word tolerance means and you are having to redefine what the word means for you to try and escape a "self defeating" argument.
Next you said
" I fully support EVERYONE's right to have their own opinion but when it goes from opinion to actively funding trying to keep people down then that's where it crosses the line."
And this is the point Adam. If you think this then fine, but the whole point is the cry for "tolerance" does not work when you yourself refuse to be tolerant of those whom you think are crossing the line. Thats why the argument for "tolerance" fails.
What the debate should be about is whether "gay-marriage" is something that would be good for the country and whether a select few should have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. However Sir, that is not the approach you took but rather have used a self defeating premise and still cling to it even after showing it collapses on itself. We can not go much further if you throw out logic and proper reasoning and are willing to embrace self-refuting arguments. I do not say this to be rude or nasty, just a fact, your premise collapses on itself.
Next you said
"as for the point I made about Jesus, he told parables to teach lessons and prove points"
You are correct, I agree with you. The question is what is the points He is teaching in this parable, and as will be shown you did NOT do your homework.
You then said
"He told a parable about Slaves being beaten and said that it was fine"
As I said you did not do your homework at all. Lets do some proper exegesis and hopefully those reading this post will see that when people use this passage to claim Jesus supported "beating slaves" you can demonstrate they do not know what they are talking about and have slandered the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Luke 12:35-40 ESV)
“Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
This is speaking the the return of Jesus, NOT moral, ethical codes endorsing slavery. It is obvious to anyone who reads the passage that Jesus is giving us a warning to be alert and ready because the coming of Christ is imanent.
The second part
(Luke 12:41-48 ESV)
"Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."
This again uses the "Master-Slave" imagery and this time is talking about a wicked servant who was not waiting and ready for the Master and in the parallel account
(Matthew 24:45-51 ESV)
“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
The reference is very clear Christ is talking about Hell and those who refuse to repent and surrender to Christ will spend eternity in Hell.
The point is Adam, you did NOT do your homework when throwing this passage up and it is not at all hard to see, all one has to do is flip there and read the WHOLE passage. You have slandered Jesus Christ and really need to repent and retract your claim because it has been demonstrated that you did not do your homework.
Lastly you said
" So in my mind, I didn't fail on both points. you just failed to understand them."
I understand them perfectly well and have given a very long explanation as to why:
1-Your first point is based on a self refuting argument which was demonstrated
2-You did not do your homework on the text you quoted and I demonstrated that
I am thankful for the dialog and look forward to your response if you choose to
Adam Wilson
The term I used "wholly" was simply a failure to find the correct word on my part. Maybe my argument for "complete" tolerance is incorrect. If I see a bully beating up a small person and I step in, you can say I'm being intolerant of bullies but I wouldn't consider myself an intolerant person. I feel there is a big distinction between the two.
And you say the coming of Christ is imminent. Imminent, by definition, means menacingly close at hand, impending, and/or threatening to occur immediately. Jesus died over 2,000 years ago. I would say the deadline for an imminent return has come and gone.
And by definition, Christians are one who follow Christ. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality being wrong. He preached love and compassion and "do unto others..." homosexuality is condemned in the OT along with MANY other things that are widely accepted today. I do accept that I didn't read the whole passage in Luke and that's my bad. I will however not repent for anything seeing that I believe Jesus was just a man and not the son of god. It does kind of seem odd though that you believe in a LOVING god who will send people to an eternity of torture simply for not worshipping him. If you believe in God then you also believe he gave us rational thought. Based on purely rational thinking, it's unlikely to believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful god. It actually defies rational and logical thought. He is going to punish us for being rational when he created us that way? I think I'm starting to veer off course though. Sorry. The only reason I have a horse in this race is because chik fil a is actively trying to oppress a group of people. 50 years ago, Christians were saying the exact same things during the civil rights era. Now look where we are. 50 years from now, I hope things have changed. I'm not upset that Cathy has an opinion however I think he needs to keep his opinion in his house or in his church. I don't think he needs to push or force his beliefs onto other people. And that is exactly what he is doing when he funds anti-gay groups
And you say the coming of Christ is imminent. Imminent, by definition, means menacingly close at hand, impending, and/or threatening to occur immediately. Jesus died over 2,000 years ago. I would say the deadline for an imminent return has come and gone.
And by definition, Christians are one who follow Christ. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality being wrong. He preached love and compassion and "do unto others..." homosexuality is condemned in the OT along with MANY other things that are widely accepted today. I do accept that I didn't read the whole passage in Luke and that's my bad. I will however not repent for anything seeing that I believe Jesus was just a man and not the son of god. It does kind of seem odd though that you believe in a LOVING god who will send people to an eternity of torture simply for not worshipping him. If you believe in God then you also believe he gave us rational thought. Based on purely rational thinking, it's unlikely to believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful god. It actually defies rational and logical thought. He is going to punish us for being rational when he created us that way? I think I'm starting to veer off course though. Sorry. The only reason I have a horse in this race is because chik fil a is actively trying to oppress a group of people. 50 years ago, Christians were saying the exact same things during the civil rights era. Now look where we are. 50 years from now, I hope things have changed. I'm not upset that Cathy has an opinion however I think he needs to keep his opinion in his house or in his church. I don't think he needs to push or force his beliefs onto other people. And that is exactly what he is doing when he funds anti-gay groups
Devin Pellew
Adam,
Thank you for your response and I am thankful for the thoughtful and friendly dialog.
You said
"The term I used "wholly" was simply a failure to find the correct word on my part. Maybe my argument for "complete" tolerance is incorrect"
Glad to see you recognize the argument as you stated it fails and collapses on itself.
Next you said
"And you say the coming of Christ is imminent. Imminent, by definition, means menacingly close at hand, impending, and/or threatening to occur immediately. Jesus died over 2,000 years ago. I would say the deadline for an imminent return has come and gone. "
Just so people watching this thread can see, Adam has changed the topic again from the original discussion to get attention off the original claims. In logic this is a fallacy called a "Red-Herring" when one brings in unrelated issues to get attention away from the original arguments. Be that as it may I will tackle the objection.
In theological terms imminent does not have to mean occurring soon but rather when it happens it will be in an instant. You are assuming it means with length of time when the passages clearly in Luke 12 are talking about He could show up at anytime and when he does it will not be a long process but rather it will happen instantly.
Mathew 24:27
"For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Matthew 24:44
So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Luke 17:24
For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.
Again, context means everything and thus I think your objection fails
Next you said
"And by definition, Christians are one who follow Christ. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality being wrong"
I see this claim a lot. The Bible is clear that ALL scripture is given by God, not just the red letters
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"
2 Peter 1:21
" For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Secondly Jesus affirmed all the books of the OT as inspired by God which would include the OT passages speaking about homosexuality. Further Jesus tells us in Mark the purpose of marriage and how it is defined
(Mark 10:6-9 ESV)
"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
1-Jesus certainly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman.
2- Jesus is God and ALL scripture is breathed by God
3-Jesus affirmed all the writings of the OT as inspired by God
This being the case your objection fails
Next you said
"He preached love and compassion and "do unto others..."
1- You do not define what you mean by love. Biblically to love someone is to desire the best for them, not affirm them in whatever sinful choices they want to do. A father loves his 2 year old but that does not mean he will let the child play in traffic if he wants to or eat nothing but cookies instead of vegetables. True love is desiring the best for the other person.
2-Secondly Why Jesus did preach Biblical love and compassion He also had many hard things to say as well.
(John 8:24 ESV)
I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
(Mark 8:34-38 ESV)
And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
We see in Isaiah 63 talking about the coming King Jesus
(Isaiah 63:3-6 ESV)
“I have trodden the winepress alone,
and from the peoples no one was with me;
I trod them in my anger
and trampled them in my wrath;
their lifeblood spattered on my garments,
and stained all my apparel.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and my year of redemption had come.
I looked, but there was no one to help;
I was appalled, but there was no one to uphold;
so my own arm brought me salvation,
and my wrath upheld me.
I trampled down the peoples in my anger;
I made them drunk in my wrath,
and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”
You need to have a Biblical understanding of love and need to know the whole of scripture, not just cherry pic the parts you like.
Next you said
"homosexuality is condemned in the OT along with MANY other things that are widely accepted today. "
This is to make a "Category-Mistake" in that Israel was a theocracy and thus God had handed down the Civil/-Ceremonial-/Moral laws and so for example eating pork, wearing cotton, etc was given to separate Israel from the surrounding pagan nations. Jesus fulfilled the law in his death on the cross however the moral law is universal and is reaffirmed in numerous passages in the NT such as 1 Corinthians 6.
Again you do not understand Biblical theology and are attacking it and do not even understand what you are attacking. I hope you see that the objections you have given are very easily answered and that you really should think about some of these things because eternity is at stake. I say that because I care for you, not to be a jerk. You seem like a nice guy.
Part 2 is on the way
Thank you for your response and I am thankful for the thoughtful and friendly dialog.
You said
"The term I used "wholly" was simply a failure to find the correct word on my part. Maybe my argument for "complete" tolerance is incorrect"
Glad to see you recognize the argument as you stated it fails and collapses on itself.
Next you said
"And you say the coming of Christ is imminent. Imminent, by definition, means menacingly close at hand, impending, and/or threatening to occur immediately. Jesus died over 2,000 years ago. I would say the deadline for an imminent return has come and gone. "
Just so people watching this thread can see, Adam has changed the topic again from the original discussion to get attention off the original claims. In logic this is a fallacy called a "Red-Herring" when one brings in unrelated issues to get attention away from the original arguments. Be that as it may I will tackle the objection.
In theological terms imminent does not have to mean occurring soon but rather when it happens it will be in an instant. You are assuming it means with length of time when the passages clearly in Luke 12 are talking about He could show up at anytime and when he does it will not be a long process but rather it will happen instantly.
Mathew 24:27
"For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Matthew 24:44
So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Luke 17:24
For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.
Again, context means everything and thus I think your objection fails
Next you said
"And by definition, Christians are one who follow Christ. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality being wrong"
I see this claim a lot. The Bible is clear that ALL scripture is given by God, not just the red letters
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"
2 Peter 1:21
" For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Secondly Jesus affirmed all the books of the OT as inspired by God which would include the OT passages speaking about homosexuality. Further Jesus tells us in Mark the purpose of marriage and how it is defined
(Mark 10:6-9 ESV)
"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
1-Jesus certainly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman.
2- Jesus is God and ALL scripture is breathed by God
3-Jesus affirmed all the writings of the OT as inspired by God
This being the case your objection fails
Next you said
"He preached love and compassion and "do unto others..."
1- You do not define what you mean by love. Biblically to love someone is to desire the best for them, not affirm them in whatever sinful choices they want to do. A father loves his 2 year old but that does not mean he will let the child play in traffic if he wants to or eat nothing but cookies instead of vegetables. True love is desiring the best for the other person.
2-Secondly Why Jesus did preach Biblical love and compassion He also had many hard things to say as well.
(John 8:24 ESV)
I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
(Mark 8:34-38 ESV)
And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
We see in Isaiah 63 talking about the coming King Jesus
(Isaiah 63:3-6 ESV)
“I have trodden the winepress alone,
and from the peoples no one was with me;
I trod them in my anger
and trampled them in my wrath;
their lifeblood spattered on my garments,
and stained all my apparel.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and my year of redemption had come.
I looked, but there was no one to help;
I was appalled, but there was no one to uphold;
so my own arm brought me salvation,
and my wrath upheld me.
I trampled down the peoples in my anger;
I made them drunk in my wrath,
and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”
You need to have a Biblical understanding of love and need to know the whole of scripture, not just cherry pic the parts you like.
Next you said
"homosexuality is condemned in the OT along with MANY other things that are widely accepted today. "
This is to make a "Category-Mistake" in that Israel was a theocracy and thus God had handed down the Civil/-Ceremonial-/Moral laws and so for example eating pork, wearing cotton, etc was given to separate Israel from the surrounding pagan nations. Jesus fulfilled the law in his death on the cross however the moral law is universal and is reaffirmed in numerous passages in the NT such as 1 Corinthians 6.
Again you do not understand Biblical theology and are attacking it and do not even understand what you are attacking. I hope you see that the objections you have given are very easily answered and that you really should think about some of these things because eternity is at stake. I say that because I care for you, not to be a jerk. You seem like a nice guy.
Part 2 is on the way
Part 2
Next you said
"I do accept that I didn't read the whole passage in Luke and that's my bad."
So you conceeded BOTH points! I am glad that you admit this and hope in future debates with others you will not use the same arguments now you have been shown they are self refuting and taking scripture out of context.
Next you said
"I will however not repent for anything seeing that I believe Jesus was just a man and not the son of god. "
So you now change the topic AGAIN to bring in unrelated topics. I however will take your challenge. What reasons do you have for believing this? Are you an Atheist? If so maybe we can start for looking at some arguments for the existence of God and start from there. If God does not exist then miracles are not possible, however if God does exist then Jesus being God is at least possible and we need to look at the arguments put forth to defend that. I will await your response.
You go on to ANOTHER objection when you say
"It does kind of seem odd though that you believe in a LOVING god who will send people to an eternity of torture simply for not worshipping him."
There are several assumptions you are making that need to be corrected
1-It is because God is loving He does not force people into heaven against their will but rather gives them exactly what they want. If one does not want to even sit in church or read His word for 20 min a day then why would they want to go be with Him for eternity? It is because God is not a divine rapist and lets people freely choose that he does not force people into heaven against their wishes
2-The Bible NEVER uses the word "torture" but rather "torment". They ae tormented in that they must live apart from the most Holy Beautiful being in existence and live with their sinful, selfish choices. As one Atheist commented that the doors of Hell are locked from the inside.
3-Man goes to Hell because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and man wilfully sins against God and because He is Holy and Just (Attributes you ignore) sin can not be in His presence.
4-The reason God created us was for His glory and the purpose of man as the Westminster confession of faith says is "to worship God and enjoy Him forever". To not do that is for us to never be satisfied and find our purpose. God is perfectly happy Triune being whom in His goodness invites us to partake in union with Him. Those who reject Him are the ones missing out, not Him.
Next you said
"If you believe in God then you also believe he gave us rational thought. Based on purely rational thinking, it's unlikely to believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful god. It actually defies rational and logical thought"
More errors that need to be flushed out
1-As a Theist I can explain the basis for rational thought and the laws of logic as well as a metaphysical part of man which is the mind. The Atheists is reduced to materialism which is known as a real problem for atheism because now you have no free will and your thought are reduced to chemical reactions in the brain. How can one who rapes a child be held accountable if there is no metaphysical mind where he is able to make volitional choices? It is like a branch going on a tree, he did not freely choose to do that and it was nothing more than the laws of physics and chemistry in his brain.
2-To claim it defies logic I would ask you to please point out the logical contradiction in saying God is all knowing and all powerful? Please state the law of logic that is being violated.
Next you said
"He is going to punish us for being rational when he created us that way?"
I think being a Theist is FAR more rational than being an atheist. When we look at the evidence it is not even close from
1-Origin of the universe
2-Fine tuning of the universe
3-Origin of life
4-Complexity in biological systems including Irreducible complexity
5-The failure of Gradualism and neo-darwinism
6-The Argument for morality
7-The existence of metaphysical properties such as minds, laws of logic, and objective moral values.
The existence of God can be established by the points listed above and the fact we know that the God who exists is the God of the Bible can be shown by the fact that
1-The NT is the best attested work in ainceint history with over 5,700 manuscripts in Greek alone
2-The events that happened are recorded closer to the actual events then any work in ainceint history
3-The evidence for the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus
So to claim the Theist is irrational I would GLADLY debate you on that.
Next you said
"I'm not upset that Cathy has an opinion however I think he needs to keep his opinion in his house or in his church."
How very tolerant of you sir. We can disagree with you as long as it is not in public. You sir are the poster child of bigotry and last I checked this is America, NOT Iran and we have freedom of speech. If you do not like what Christians believe then that is your right, but to banish all those who disagree with you to church or their house is bigotry at its worst. You do not want Christian ideas in public because you know if they are there naturalism will be shown to look silly and does not have a chance. You showed all reading this post who the true bigot is
Lastly you said
"I don't think he needs to push or force his beliefs onto other people. And that is exactly what he is doing when he funds anti-gay groups."
We all have a right to our opinions Adam. If you do not agree then fine, but as a Christian I see a select few wanting to redefine marriage for all and it is a DISASTER waiting to happen. I am not getting into the arguments against gay marriage here because I have already written a ton. But your intolerance and bigtry is shocking sir!
Again I enjoy the dialog and look forward to your reply
No comments:
Post a Comment