About this blog:

This site was not developed with the intention of drawing a large number of visitors using trivial methods and shallowness. There is rejoicing among the angels when even one sinner repents and believes in Jesus Christ. (Luke 15:10) If, for as long as this site exists, just one sinner is led to repentance and belief in Christ with the aid of the material presented here, the purpose of this site has been served.

Profile

My Photo

Married to @SueBirdChaplin, LaneCh on Youtube, Host of Rightly Divided, Reagan Conservative, J.D., Deacon at Christ Reformed of Anaheim (Rom.7:24-25a)

Connect

Puritan Picks

Instagram

Instagram

Google+ Followers

The Tip Jar

*Buying from any of the ads below helps support future Youtube projects.

Go Stand Speak

Monergism Books

Thank You Cards

Links

Follow by Email

Popular Posts

There was an error in this gadget

Blog Archive

Visitors

Paid Advertising

    • Site Meter

      Answering an Atheist Honestly

      Saturday, October 27, 2007


      Here's the scenario:

      You're a Christian. You've come out from among the "Honorary-Altar-Call Society" and the mentality of the "Get-Your-Ticket-to-Heaven-Punched" prayer and are truly professing and believing in Jesus Christ. You're starting to believe and what happens? Of course. An unbeliever comes along and tries to dissuade you from "growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." What do you do? Well, if you ask much of the modern church, they would either tell you to "avoid confrontation all together because the Christian religion means that everyone gets along" or simply not care at all because College football is coming on soon. Since they're no help, where do you go when you're confronted by someone with an atheistic-gun pointed at you alone in a dark alley? The answer is clear: The Scriptures.

      Recently, a friend of mine posted a response to the atheist/theist debate that aired on ABC with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and the (ir)Rational Repsonse Squad that she just got around to watching recently. Less than 24 hours later, a member of the "WOTM Watch-Dog" team was posting on her site trying to refute claims about the Bible. Notice what I just said, "trying to refute CLAIMS about the Bible." He was not trying to refute what the Bible actually says, but caricatures he has made by comparing an incomparable book to other religions. I wanted to post this so you can see how these people work and why it is vitally important to not only know the Scriptures, but to believe them as being true and use them accordingly. The atheist goes by the name of "morsecode". (If you ever go on great sites like Truth Matters or Extreme Theology, you'll notice that the people that are usually in objection to the truth never use their real names, but some username like bigguns2437 or godseeker972 or something of the sort. Saul, later renamed Paul, stood up for the truth with giving his own real life, and these people won't even share their own real names, but this is an aside...)

      This is a quick story that will help you immensely before I share the dialog. R.C. Sproul spoke of a lecture he was involved in when he was a student. His teacher was the late John Gerstner. The subject was "If a Mormon comes up to you and tries to tell you that God has a body, how would you refute that?" Gerstner said, "I'll play the Mormon. You all refute me." So he went to a few then came to Sproul. Sproul immediately took him to (John 4:24) where it says that "God is a Spirit." Sproul said, "There is NO WAY that God can have a body because here it is clearly stated that God is a Spirit!" Gerstner said, "Oh, no, no... I don't believe that.", and he went on asking others. The entire class went by focused on the same question. Sproul says facetiously that he was considering converting to Mormonism because Gerstner just wouldn't give up. So finally just before the bell, Sproul said, "We give up. What is it!? What do we do!?" "Well," Gerstner said, "You take them to John 4:24." "I DID THAT!" said Sproul. "Then", Gerstner continued, "you tell them that there is no possible way that God could have a body because God is a Spirit." "I DID THAT, TOO!" said Sproul. "What else could I have possibly done?" Gerstner said, "Yes, you had me. The problem is, you let me get away. The debate was over when you said John 4:24, but you let me persist."

      Even though a person doesn't believe what the Scripture says, it isn't necessary for you to believe it as being true and stick to that truth. Here, Sproul's debate was over, but he acted in such a way that he needed the unbeliever to agree with him. That's not what needs to be the case because truth stands on its own. The argument is over when Scripture is presented regardless if the person you're conversing with believes it. There were unbelievers from way before Christ came in the flesh as there will be to the time he will come back. The object of a Christian's faith is not involved in needing unbelievers to believe in sound doctrine in order for it to be true because it is true whether they believe in it or not.

      With that said, here are the comments shared on the recent blog post. What I want you to notice is not only how he evades direct questions, but tries to direct me into agreeing with a characterization of Christianity which is nothing but fallen man's "logic". Also, I want you to notice the subjectivity of his arguments versus the objectivity of the Bible. His arguments were trying to lure me away into a subjective form of reason which is opposite of objective truth as revealed in the Bible. (ie If I said, "Well, to me, the earth is square." It would be my subjective opinion instead of the objective truth that the earth is round. Notice how holding onto objective truth defeats a subjective argument always without fail.) Finally, I want you to notice how he doesn't answer the direct question because when he does, well, he has to come to the light in order to do so, and what does an unbeliever not want to do? Come to the light lest their deeds be exposed. (John 3:19-21)

      (Below, I will comment further. You can click on these posts to increase their size.)












      In his second comment, notice what he does. He tries to get me to agree to something I do not agree with. He says, "So to you, it is rational to prove a book because the book says the book what the book says is true? If that is so, then the koran has just as much validity as the bible." This is not what I believe at all. I believe the Bible because it is true, and its claims are valid. There is a difference there. If I believed everything that claims itself as being true, I would be one naive person, but the reason I believe the Bible is because it is true. Me believing the Bible does not make it true, and anything that claims itself to be true, must have evidence of it being true. Some evidence that the Bible is true is shown in the latter part of the comments when our screennamed "truth-bearer" is confronted as being himself evidence that the Bible is true as it will speak directly about him.


      In his third comment, after I talked of martyrs, he tried to make my argument into another subjective reason. He said, "I once believed, and then changed my mind when I realized what I believed was irrational and not based on evidence. (Subjective) If being a martyr means that your belief is true, then isn't every suicide bomber who thinks he will get his heavenly reward proving Islam true?" Again, I did not say that I believed that the Bible is true because of martyrs, I believe it is true because it is true, which is what he could not and would not consider. Only the grace of God can reveal this to an infidel.

      Notice what happened when he was asked a direct question. The entire conversation turned from one of subjective interpretation to one of objective truth. I asked an objective question: "Do you agree that the only people that are going to agree that the record of the Bible is false is you, your unbelieving friends, and every unbeliever in the world and the only people that are going to agree that it is true is me, my believing friends, and every believer scattered throughout the world?" What did he do? Well, three consecutive responses he avoids the question until the end of the last when, after much rambling, he says, "No. (I do not agree with that statement.)"

      The objective truth was then brought into full light. Him, an unbeliever and me, a believer, cannot have any agreement. What does the Bible say? "What agreement does he that believes have with an unbeliever? " (2Cor 6:15)

      That is why I believe the Bible. It is objectively true. It is not left for the subjective opinion of anyone to verify its validity. With this verse, I added a command made by our Lord Jesus: "Let your conversation be "Yes, yes" or "No, no" for whatever is more than that comes from evil." (Matt. 5:37) The atheist proved our Lord to be true by his actions.

      What did our subjective inquisitor say after he realized the objective point was made?
      "It should probably read more accurately "Never think about your answers, only say yes or no...thought only leads to evil."

      Again, he attempted to change what the Bible objectively says and give yet one more subjective interpretation to an objective command of truth. It's completely irrational to deal with people if one won't even consider what the text has to say and take it at that.

      Finally, look at his last sentence:
      "You believe that. I hope it makes you happy, I really do."

      So much for a "rational response". He wouldn't even deal with the text honestly and rationally in the end.


      10 comments:

      MorseCode said...

      Not dealing with the text honestly and not understanding the question you posed are two different things. I have absolutely no problem pleading ignorance in this case, as there are many things I don't know. One of which is what your question meant.

      Oh, and thanks very much for the free publicity.

      MorseCode said...

      Wow Lane, you certainly make a lot of assumptions.

      The 'publicity' line was a joke. Feel free to turn it into proof of my arrogance if you like.

      I have the humility to acknowledge that I do not know the ultimate answers. And I feel humble enough about the entire human race to believe none of us have those ultimate answers. So, I choose to be skeptical when someone says they have the objective truth. If that makes me arrogant in your eyes, so be it. But your claims make you look arrogant in my eyes...so there we are.

      To go back to your question...will believers ad unbelievers agree? (At least on the subject of said belief.) No. But that does nothing to prove the validity of either the believer or unbeliever's argument.

      Lane Chaplin said...

      morsecode said, "Not dealing with the text honestly and not understanding the question you posed are two different things. I have absolutely no problem pleading ignorance in this case, as there are many things I don't know. One of which is what your question meant."


      So are you saying that you now understand the question seeing that you have made the distinction between the two? If so, then answer the question truthfully. If not, well, the truth is your excuse of "many things you don't know" is really meant to say "many things you won't humble yourself and confess".


      As far as free publicity, you are probably the only person Google searching your own username much less your real one so don't flatter yourself even when no one else is doing that for you since you desire such a thing. I am actually surprised that it took you this long to find this post and reply because what else is someone who denies the truth going to be consumed with but their self? When someone comes to this blog, they are not interested in what you are selling so "advertising for you" is really misunderstanding what this post is about. The intention of posting this was, in a way, publicity for you, though. It was to show what happens when a person is engulfed in arrogance, ignorance, and vanity and to demonstrate the danger of a lack of humility. As the Apostle Paul says, "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." (Eph 5:11) And in another, "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you no longer walk as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto licentiousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But you have not so learned Christ;
      (Eph 4:17-20)

      The only people who would be interested in your nonsense are those same people who won't deal with questions honestly. Those people go to your website now already, though. For those that don't and would and do happen to find your website through this, at least they will have some rationality presented to them before they get there.

      Lane Chaplin said...

      morsecode said, "I have the humility to acknowledge that I do not know the ultimate answers. And I feel humble enough about the entire human race to believe none of us have those ultimate answers. So, I choose to be skeptical when someone says they have the objective truth. If that makes me arrogant in your eyes, so be it. But your claims make you look arrogant in my eyes...so there we are."


      You call it humility, but the truth of the matter is that it is arrogance, and this is evidence why there is no agreement between us. We do not and will not agree even to definitions of terms. If there is agreement between us, either I would have to become a fool and denounce God or you would have to confess your sin and become a believer. There is no agreement. You may call it "humility", but it is arrogance. If you are in need of proof and are indeed as open minded as you claim, consider this:

      You say, "So, I choose to be skeptical when someone says they have the objective truth. If that makes me arrogant in your eyes, so be it. But your claims make you look arrogant in my eyes...so there we are." You misunderstand the position I stand for. You do not merely "look arrogant in my eyes", you are arrogant, period. If you are not, then words do not have definite meaning. It is not a case of "your eyes vs. my eyes" regardless of your desire to disavow the knowledge of God. God exists whether you acknowledge him or not, but if you don't, that doesn't mean that all of a sudden believers are required cater to your ignorance and foolishness. So when you say, "You look arrogant to me, and I look arrogant to you" (in so many terms), it isn't that way. The fact that you deny your Creator makes you arrogant by definition. It doesn't matter how many atheists you have that agree with you, a definition is a definition, regardless.



      You proclaim to not claim to know objective truth (or "ultimate answers" as you call it), and I will grant that you express this, but I want to ask you this:


      Did Jesus Christ ever exist as a human being in the flesh? Is so, is He the only begotten Son of God? (These are "Yes or no" questions.)

      MorseCode said...

      Just to be clear, I don't deny my creator. I don't think I have one (unless my parents could be said to have 'created' me). If I did believe in one, I would not be so stupid as to deny it. That is what an atheist is...someone who does not believe in a god or gods. I have a feeling you will argue with me on that definition, or tell me that the bible disputes it, but both you and the bible are wrong in that case.

      I also want to forgive you for calling me arrogant. I know that it's your religion that says I am, so it's not really your fault and I don't blame you for it.

      Now to your latest questions. I'm afraid I can't answer them simply "yes or no", because answering with either of those would insinuate that I have absolute knowledge, which I do not have. But I'll do the best I can.

      "Did Jesus Christ ever exist as a human being in the flesh?"

      From the evidence that I have seen and read, I would say that it is very likely that there was a historical man who lived in the first century in Palestine and was called Jesus of Nazareth (or some similar name...Yeshua, Jesus the Nazarene, Christ, etc.). So from what I know, probably yes. I could, of course, be wrong.

      "If so, is He the only begotten Son of God?"

      I see no good evidence for it. Therefore, I don't believe he was. If there was sufficient evidence to support this claim, I would believe it.

      So at the moment, no, I don't think so. But again, I could be wrong.

      I know those weren't the perfect one word answers you asked for, but they were honest.

      Lane Chaplin said...

      morsecode says, "I also want to forgive you for calling me arrogant. I know that it's your religion that says I am, so it's not really your fault and I don't blame you for it."

      Of course. It's the mentality that logically comes from denying obligation to the Creator who made you. When you accept unbelief instead of the God who will forgive you if you believe and repent, you expect that others conform to your philosophies that come from unbelief as well. I am not that way. I take full responsibility for saying that you are arrogant, and there is no need to forgive me because I did not come to you and say, "I repent", because I do not repent of it. It is a statement of fact, not an subjective opinion. For me to deny objective truth is to be, well, atheistic.


      morsecode: "Just to be clear, I don't deny my creator. I don't think I have one."

      Then you do deny him in word and in deed. He doesn't need your belief to justify His existence but you do need belief to justify your sin. You sound more like an agnostic than an atheist, but either way, whether you are unsure about Him or profess to deny him outright, you're still an unbeliever.

      An atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of God. You believe in a god, but you believe that you are in yourself the summation of existence and hence your own God. You believe that you have to answer only to yourself because "there is no God in existence", but even that is false because you are controlled by the opinions of your fellow unbelievers since you deem their subjective opinions to be of the utmost worth. You believe that you are autonomous and have no need for a God, but that is because you are not sensitive to your sin. You hate the true God at the core which is proof enough that he exists. Why do you deny him? Is it because you love Him? Hardly, and it's certainly not because because you keep His commandments.


      morsecode said, (Regarding the Lord Jesus as the only begotten Son of God) "So at the moment, no, I don't think so. But again, I could be wrong."

      You need to believe the truth is not that "you could be wrong", but you are wrong because that is the truth. None of your atheist friends will tell you that, ever. Because if they did, they would no longer be atheists by definition, they would be believers.

      The burden of proof is usually put on the believer to prove the existence of God, Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, and Jesus Christ as the Only begotten Son of God, but very rarely do you ever see a believer put the burden of proof on the one making the claim against Him.

      Do you have evidence that Jesus Christ is not the Only begotten Son of God? I'm talking about objective evidence, not how it makes you feel or your own personal experience. We have already presented evidence here that he does. There was the part about letting your communication be yes or no for whatever more than that comes from evil which is directly from the Lord's mouth. Also, we proved another part of the Bible to be true: A believer and an unbeliever cannot agree. We don't agree on definitions, we don't agree on God's existence and revelation as revealed in Scripture, and we don't agree about Jesus Christ being the only begotten Son of God. I affirm He is, you deny he is. So the objective evidence has been clearly stated. Where is your objective evidence that refutes it? Again, I'm not looking for "How does Jesus make you feel?" I'm looking for objective evidence that refutes the Lord as revealed in Scripture and not a comparison to some other religion. That, of course, you can do if you know Scripture. (You do know Scripture, I hope, well enough to come and talk against it.)

      MorseCode said...

      "We have already presented evidence here that he does. There was the part about letting your communication be yes or no for whatever more than that comes from evil which is directly from the Lord's mouth."

      This is not evidence of anything.

      "Also, we proved another part of the Bible to be true: A believer and an unbeliever cannot agree."

      This is also not evidence of anything.

      "Do you have evidence that Jesus Christ is not the Only begotten Son of God?"

      It is not my place to give evidence. You claim that Jesus not only existed but was god/god's son. Therefore, you must prove it...or be content that I don't believe it. The burden of proof is on you and the bible, because you make the claim.

      Do I have evidence that Jesus wasn't god? No. But I also don't have evidence that leprechauns don't exist. That doesn't prove leprechauns, and I don't believe in them either.

      Perhaps you should read a book or two other than the one that you believe god inspired, and it would help you understand something about reason and evidence.

      Cheers.

      Lane Chaplin said...

      "We have already presented evidence here that he does. There was the part about letting your communication be yes or no for whatever more than that comes from evil which is directly from the Lord's mouth."

      This is not evidence of anything.

      (Again, just because you don't accept evidence doesn't mean that it is not true. Truth is not contingent upon you accepting it or denying it.)


      "Also, we proved another part of the Bible to be true: A believer and an unbeliever cannot agree."

      This is also not evidence of anything.

      (See above.)


      "Do you have evidence that Jesus Christ is not the Only begotten Son of God?"

      It is not my place to give evidence. You claim that Jesus not only existed but was god/god's son. Therefore, you must prove it...or be content that I don't believe it. The burden of proof is on you and the bible, because you make the claim.

      Do I have evidence that Jesus wasn't god? No. But I also don't have evidence that leprechauns don't exist. That doesn't prove leprechauns, and I don't believe in them either.

      (It is very much your place to. You came to make a claim so prove it. I claim that Jesus Christ existed and that he is the only begotten Son of God. There are records of this that have not been disproven, but only not accepted by biased, subjective unbelievers. I make the claim and instead of dealing with the facts, you choose to compare him to leprechauns. Leprechauns are not what I am addressing, but if you reread what I wrote, that is exactly what I asked you not to do. You could ask me to prove you were born from your mother, and I could say, "No, but that doesn't prove anything because I can't prove that Alf was taken off the air years ago, either." Does that have any bearing on proving the fact that you were born from your mother? No. That's what strawmen do. If you have a real argument, again, and not your own personal subjective opinion, or how Jesus makes you feel, then do share. Otherwise, don't make up scenarios if you have nothing that can meet the facts and not caricatures you choose to make up.)


      Perhaps you should read a book or two other than the one that you believe god inspired, and it would help you understand something about reason and evidence.

      (You should read the good book, the Bible. You've already proved it as being true. The very fact that you deny it as being true proves that it is. Again, as counter-intuitive this is to the "autonomous" man, just because you don't accept it as being true doesn't mean everyone has to march in line behind you. Why are you pressing your un-beliefs on others? Isn't that what you "warned" me against on the other post? If you are totally honest, completely honest, you will realize that if you stay this way, if you stay unbelieving and unloving, your entire life, from now until you die, you will be spending it as a subjective hypocrite. There is nothing to look forward to in that state. Maybe you had a bad experience with Christianity when you were growing up, maybe you had none at all. Maybe you just love your sin. I don't know, but I'm not going to develop a strawman for my argument. The fact is that if you stay in this way, all you have, all you're ever going to be is a subjective hypocrite (a person who says one thing and does another, and a person who judges things not based on facts, but on opinion.) The Bible is not that way. It is based on facts. The very fact that you have to take the road of "disproving" it by comparing Jesus to a leprechaun is proof enough. I've heard that argument before, but it was actually "The flying Spaghetti Monster" in that case. That actually built my faith (belief) because if we are debating caricatures then it would hold, but we are debating an actual person, Jesus Christ who has come in the flesh, and that is the best you have to give (something subjective). Maybe you need to quit reading books on "logic and reason" and ask yourself if these people's arguments are really objective or merely subjective. You have to deal with the text honestly and objectively or the only people who will ever take you "seriously" are the people who produce that subjective jargon which will not be "seriously" at all, but another play on true definitions.

      I'm sure this won't make much of a difference to someone who believes there is no God, but to God it makes much: I've been praying for you to repent and believe. That subjective road leads straight to eternal hell. I will agree with you that there have been many false prophets (I am mostly thinking of mega-churches and TV evangelists) who have defamed the name of Christ, but there are sound theological books out there, too, that present God reasonably. I've watched much of Richard Dawkins, and his arguments are entirely subjective. He does the same sort of thing that you do by producing caricatures to "defend" his position, but if you think about it, his position is a false one to begin with because he claims there is no God. What else is someone who takes a false position going to do but make up false comparisons to "bolster" his position? It's absurd. At least it is if you truly care about things like logic and reason.

      I know of a book that you can download online by a late Princeton theologian where he logically and reasonably discusses the subject "What is Faith?" I will share the link with you if you would like. It certainly isn't a "Joel Osteen" approach to Jesus (which I don't agree with by the way. Joel Osteen does not preach the Gospel at all.)

      MorseCode said...

      "(Again, just because you don't accept evidence doesn't mean that it is not true. Truth is not contingent upon you accepting it or denying it.)"

      Again, just because your holy book says it and just because you keep repeating it doesn't mean it is true. Truth or lack thereof is not contingent upon a book written by people with the specific desire to get people to believe it.

      “(It is very much your place to. You came to make a claim so prove it.”

      Wrong. I make no claim. I simply refuse to believe your claim without adequate evidence.

      “I claim that Jesus Christ existed and that he is the only begotten Son of God. There are records of this that have not been disproven, but only not accepted by biased, subjective unbelievers.”

      Wrong again. Records can barely give us enough evidence that Jesus existed. All that the New Testament tells us is that either the writers believed what they wrote, or they wanted others to believe it and didn’t actually believe it themselves. Their belief, however, is not good enough evidence to prove anything conclusive. Especially things of a supernatural nature.

      “I make the claim and instead of dealing with the facts, you choose to compare him to leprechauns. Leprechauns are not what I am addressing, but if you reread what I wrote, that is exactly what I asked you not to do. You could ask me to prove you were born from your mother, and I could say, "No, but that doesn't prove anything because I can't prove that Alf was taken off the air years ago, either." Does that have any bearing on proving the fact that you were born from your mother? No. That's what strawmen do.”

      I know you are not addressing leprechauns. I am using what is called an analogy to make my point. Your analogy makes no sense. Allow me to explain mine again to help you understand.

      Leprechauns are mythical, supernatural creatures. I don’t believe that they exist or ever existed. But I can’t prove that they don’t exist. Why? Because the people who believed in them said that they were supernatural. So, maybe I never saw any, but that’s because they were invisible. They’re magic, and so even though there’s no evidence that they exist, they still COULD exist because people say they’re magic, and they can trick the senses.

      Jesus/god is similar. I don’t believe that god exists, and if Jesus existed, I don’t think he was god. Can I prove god doesn’t exist? No. Why? Because the people who believe in god say that god is supernatural. So, maybe I never saw god, but that’s because god can be invisible and hide. God is supposed to be omnipotent, and so even though there’s no evidence that god exists, it still COULD exist because people say god has powers, and they can trick the senses.

      The difference is that you can find evidence that I was born from my mother. There’s documentation, for one, which could be compared to the bible. But documents can be faked. But luckily there’s other evidence. You can take our blood and compare our DNA. You can ask people who were alive when I was born and still are alive today for their testimony. You can compare our physical characteristics for similarities. And, of course, you can ask my mother. All of these are types of evidence that the bible and your god claims don’t have.

      “Why are you pressing your un-beliefs on others? Isn't that what you "warned" me against on the other post?”

      Am I doing this? I thought I was having a lively debate with a Christian online. I have no desire to press my un-beliefs on anyone, but I will answer questions. What you believe does not bother me, except when what you believe causes harm to yourself or others. Then it bothers me quite a bit.

      “If you are totally honest, completely honest, you will realize that if you stay this way, if you stay unbelieving and unloving, your entire life, from now until you die, you will be spending it as a subjective hypocrite.”

      Who said I was unloving? I am quite loving, thank you. Unbelieving is a title I don’t mind having, however, except when it comes to believing something that has evidence for it.

      “There is nothing to look forward to in that state.”

      Do you really mean this? Do you mean to say that if god didn’t exist, you would have nothing to look forward to? Your family? Your friends? Your job? Learning new things? Meeting new people? If you think none of that is worth anything, I feel truly sorry for you.

      Your problem, Lane, is that you begin with an assumption...that there is a god. And you search for only the information that bolsters your claim. I start without any assumptions, and let the evidence lead me. And that, in my opinion, is the best way to live my life. If choosing to listen to the brain I was born with makes you think I’m going to hell, then again, I am sorry for you Lane. And if praying for me makes you fell better, by all means do it.

      I will gladly think for you.

      Lane Chaplin said...

      This reply is meant more for the people who read these comments than it is for you because you don't deal with things honestly and it valuable to those that do to see this. This is the last time I will reply to you. The basic problem here is not only that you are an unbeliever and I am a believer so there will be no agreement between us, but it is because we have different views on epistemology. You derive how you know things from your experiences. I derive it from the God-breathed Scriptures. If you look at our comments, it is evident throughout. Because you don't have the experience of SEEING, or FEELING, or etc. you do not believe it as being true, but "Blessed are the ones who have not seen but yet believe." - Jesus Christ (John 20:29) How you know things and how I know things are in themselves derived differently so if you are wanting me to give you physical evidence that you can see that Christ has come in the flesh, died on a cross, and ascended into Heaven, you're not going to find that in a fossil. Archeology can prove much, but it doesn't combat the hard heart and darkened understanding of an individual. Jesus Christ never claimed "believe Noah's ark will be found on top of a mountain and you will have eternal life" even though it was. He said, "Believe in me." To dismiss that does not deal with the claims of Scripture (ie the Bible), but it is genuinely dishonest to say the least.


      "Wrong. I make no claim. I simply refuse to believe your claim without adequate evidence."

      You do make a claim. You claim that there is no God. You deny that there is a God. If you didn't, then you would accept Him. What is the opposite of deny? You have more than adequate evidence. What you are really saying is that you refuse to believe the claim of the Bible because you don't believe in adequate evidence. Any rational person reading this blog will agree that this is the case.


      "Wrong again. Records can barely give us enough evidence that Jesus existed. All that the New Testament tells us is that either the writers believed what they wrote, or they wanted others to believe it and didn’t actually believe it themselves. Their belief, however, is not good enough evidence to prove anything conclusive. Especially things of a supernatural nature."

      It's only as much as you can accept. If you haven't had your heart opened to the truth, you won't believe it. It's as simple as that. Faith and repentance are gifts, not something you choose to do when you believe yourself to have sufficient evidence. The truth is, if God does not move on your behalf, you will forever deny Him and forever burn in hell where the worm does not die. That is the truth. Oh, you don't believe it? Well, I thank God He doesn't answer to man and truth isn't contingent upon your biased acknowledgment or denial of it. All you will say is, there is not sufficient evidence of it, but the fact is, there is plenty and you just won't accept it. That's not a problem with the God-breathed Scripture, that's a problem with you.


      "I know you are not addressing leprechauns. I am using what is called an analogy to make my point. Your analogy makes no sense. Allow me to explain mine again to help you understand."

      If you know I am addressing not leprechauns then why persist to make a metaphor of God to a nonexistent being? It is true that my analogy made no sense. That was the point.


      "Leprechauns are mythical, supernatural creatures. I don’t believe that they exist or ever existed. But I can’t prove that they don’t exist. Why? Because the people who believed in them said that they were supernatural. So, maybe I never saw any, but that’s because they were invisible. They’re magic, and so even though there’s no evidence that they exist, they still COULD exist because people say they’re magic, and they can trick the senses.

      Jesus/god is similar. I don’t believe that god exists, and if Jesus existed, I don’t think he was god. Can I prove god doesn’t exist? No. Why? Because the people who believe in god say that god is supernatural. So, maybe I never saw god, but that’s because god can be invisible and hide. God is supposed to be omnipotent, and so even though there’s no evidence that god exists, it still COULD exist because people say god has powers, and they can trick the senses."


      (Jesus, God is similar.)? Either you have never taken into account the Scripture could be true after reading it, have never read it, or suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness. God, as revealed in Scripture, does not in the least resemble a leprechaun.


      "The difference is that you can find evidence that I was born from my mother. There’s documentation, for one, which could be compared to the bible. But documents can be faked. But luckily there’s other evidence. You can take our blood and compare our DNA. You can ask people who were alive when I was born and still are alive today for their testimony. You can compare our physical characteristics for similarities. And, of course, you can ask my mother. All of these are types of evidence that the bible and your god claims don’t have."

      You can compare the characteristics of truth with Scripture and have enough evidence as the Bible as being true as well. We have already proven this several times, just within our comments regardless if you affirm this or not. Seriously, if truth is contingent on unbelievers who do not deal honestly with the Bible but instead use straw men for their arguments, then God would not be God. Thank God it isn't. (Well, I am at least.)



      "Am I doing this? I thought I was having a lively debate with a Christian online. I have no desire to press my un-beliefs on anyone, but I will answer questions. What you believe does not bother me, except when what you believe causes harm to yourself or others. Then it bothers me quite a bit."

      Who posted on my friend's blog first? And what were your words?:
      "Would you, perhaps, reiterate the 'evidence' of god that was provided by Kirk and Ray? Because I would really like to hear it.

      To me it looked and sounded like circular reasoning and appeals to emotion...but if there was actual evidence there that I missed, please let me know."

      You're the one who came to the blog to present your biased, subjective, "how does Jesus make you feel", unbeliefs on her.


      "Do you really mean this? Do you mean to say that if god didn’t exist, you would have nothing to look forward to? Your family? Your friends? Your job? Learning new things? Meeting new people? If you think none of that is worth anything, I feel truly sorry for you.

      Yes. Without God, all of these things are meaningless because what is the true meaning of a friend but one that tells you the truth regardless of how it affects your ego? That is true love. Without it, we are nothing. We just walk around in a haze, thinking we're something when we're actually not, listening to the Alkaline Trio and Marilyn Manson, and lying to others about forcing our unbeliefs on them. Without God we are nothing more than a never ending circular argument destined to eternity in hell. If I had friendship with the world, it would not make up for being right with God, ever. When you put things like family, friends, job, etc. over God, it is sin against Him called idolatry. Many people do it, and the road is wide that leads to destruction.


      "Your problem, Lane, is that you begin with an assumption...that there is a god. And you search for only the information that bolsters your claim. I start without any assumptions, and let the evidence lead me. And that, in my opinion, is the best way to live my life. If choosing to listen to the brain I was born with makes you think I’m going to hell, then again, I am sorry for you Lane. And if praying for me makes you fell better, by all means do it."

      The problem again is your definition of truth as opposed to the definition of truth. I do not start out with an assumption. I start out with the truth. YOU make the assumption that there is no God because, based on your epistemology, He does not fit in to your way of thinking. God is not meant to fit into any carnal man's way of thinking. He is Spirit and He is truth. Many people do this, and this too is making a God in our image which is idolatry. The truth is, I start with the truth that God made the world and everything in it. He is Sovereign. Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. He shed his blood. He rose again the third day. Everyone that believes on Him shall never die. You make the assumption that all of this never happened and God isn't really God and continue to draw arugments based on your assumption. There is no neutrality here. You are %100 biased in your approach as am I. You take the road of denying truth. I accept truth. You make arguments about what truth really is. I make arguments for what truth really is. The winner of the argument, is, however, truth, and the truth is that you suppress the knowledge of God in unrighteousness and refuse to acknowledge Him. I confess my sins against Him and love Him. There is no agreement with us and that alone, as we have proven, is proof that what is written in the Bible is valid.


      After this, I refuse to engage in any more debate with a person who does not take truth into consideration. Any comment you post will not be approved. I say this so everyone who reads this knows it, and so no one claims that I was being unfair about letting you answer. You have had adequate space and adequate evidence to either believe or not believe the truth. Replying and replying to more and more circular arguments will will only distract me from what the Lord wants me doing. The way is not circular, the way is straight and few there are that find it. (Matt. 7:14) Regardless, I have been praying for you, and I will continue, Lord willing. The statement that "You will think for me." may be an accurate assessment, but the assessment that you think for me according to truth is absurd. If you are willing to reason according to truth for someone else, it implies that you reason according to truth for yourself which you have, yourself proven not to be so.

      Related Posts with Thumbnails



      A Blue Ink Blog