I recently saw some good thoughts in the "top ten list" that shows a person may be an ignorant and unquestioning Christian put together by some atheists and I have been having an enjoyable time looking at how they really do view believers. My purpose is to give them a hearing and see how we might answer their particular opinion. [At least some answers to the top ten evidences in their mind of our ignorance.]
So far the comments have been very good and, while probably not satisfactory to the group who composed the top ten list, have satisfied my desire to stir respectful conversation with those willing to do so.
I will continue today with "part three" and request the respectful replies continue on the part of anyone who comments. Ephesians 4:29 is our guiding verse and it says.. "Watch the way you talk. Let nothing foul or dirty come out of your mouth. Say only what helps, each word a gift." Thanks in advance for that.
THE TOP TEN REASONS A PERSON MAY BE AN IGNORANT AND UNQUESTIONING CHRISTIAN.
NUMBER SIX IS..
You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by prehistoric tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
NUMBER FIVE IS..
You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
As someone on TV says..What say you?
Paul B.
29 comments:
#6
Good point!
But, I would add that scientific theories change with time as new evidence is found.
The Physicist, Ernest Rutherford commented about a century ago...
A theory that you cannot explain to a bartender is probably no D--n
good.
A variation of this thought is Occam's razor (William of Ockham a 14th century logician and monk) who suggested that the simplest explanation for any given problem is usually the best.
However..."quantum physics (as Francis Collins writes in his book The Language of God) have relegated Rutherford and Ockham ideas to the dumpster!"
Classic Newtonian physics and quantum physics present two different views of the universe.
A worldview steeped in quantum concepts is much more compatible with a biblical worldview
At this point and time there is really only two ways to explain a universe that is fine-tuned for life.
A Creator
A string of cosmic coincidences
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator/
I would pose this question to an atheist friend if we were discussing the age of the universe...
Which is more detrimental to our respective “faith” positions?
An old universe or a fine tuned one?
#7
Also a good point
They are all ABSURD ideas but what if some of them are actually true?
I have personally always enjoyed being an ignorant Christian. Saves people asking me a lot of questions, or wanting my opinion.
And I never look at "scientific evidence". If I do that, to support the Bible, I have to look at it, when it contradicts the Bible, too. So I do neither.
Paul,
Neither of these fit me.
I have a saying, which gets me into trouble with a few of our brethren:
"I will defend the right of all to hold to their beliefs,even if they oppose mine.
I will defend my responsibility to convince them otherwise by my service, words and attitude towards them, thereby making disciples."
The Great Commission demands that!
It is my strong conviction that their are far too many folk who claim the name Christian, who are so because of the sheer power of argument from strong personalities, and guilt tripping sermons, rather than the gentle, but irresistible persuasion of the Holy Spirit convicting and convincing power.
#6: Not all Christians are young-earth folks.
#5: The comparitive religions stuff doesn't fly in these examples. Unlike hinduism, Jesus was not a man who became a god but a God who became a man. But because the deity was no confined to the man, the theistic concepts of God are not compromised. And the Holy Spirit didn't impregnate Mary (though Luke, admittedly, has wording that could make one wonder). It is a vision of creation ex nihilo once again.
Of course, an Atheist may have problems with the incarnation or creation ex nihilo. But if that is the case, then let's discuss that. Couching the real problems in inexact parallels does nobody any favors. Direct (and cordial) communication is always preferable to talking around the real issues.
Guys,
I'm out of pocket for a couple of days. A funeral for a longtime board member of VTM. [My ministry board.] Keep up the thoughts. I'm hoping we can interact on some of the ideas you guys have presented.
Paul,
#5
I don’t believe the Holy Spirit got Mary pregnant, and the DNA of Jesus would prove Mary was not his mother. I’m saying God transferred his Son from Heaven to Earth as a living person without the aid of an egg from Mary.
Impossible? How about “All things are…”
#6
I believe if God could make Eve appear old enough in one second that Adam said WOW, God could make everything he made each day appear as old as any scientist said it was.
Hey! Rodney. Did you read Paul quoting Ephesians 4:29 as our guiding verse? "Watch the way you talk. Let nothing foul or dirty come out of your mouth.”
Does repeating Ernest Rutherford’s foul language add anything to the discussion?
This is your old deacon trying to keep you on the straight and narrow. :)
BTW, what was good about #7? :)
Let me be the first to correct myself in refuting that Mary’s ‘egg’ was used in the birth of Jesus.
Not that what I said was untrue, but it was unnecessary for even man has transferred frozen embryos for a long time.
Maybe my age is catching up with me as tomorrow I’ll be 78.
Rodney,
This is off topic, but I’m glad our church does not ‘work’ like the one I learned of yesterday.
This couple of 83 in age donated $100 to our church for the construction of our small kid’s basketball goals because of some work I was doing for them.
Their church (the one I worked on last year) does not have deacons, but committees; and the pastor is in charge of each committee. They were perplexed on how many of their members were leaving.
I didn’t tell them that maybe the leaving members were like the couple that got divorced over biblical differences…she didn’t believe he was God. :)
Rex,
When you are are talking to an atheist it does no good to begin with Biblical truth. So you start where you can find common ground.
As Christ Ryan points out sometimes the arguments presented are not the issue at hand. So, number 6 (even the Rutherford quote) sets the stage for a discussion on common ground.
Number 7, does the same. I am not saying it is a point I agree with, but it is issue worth acknowleging.
There ARE parallel stories in various religious traditions.
If an atheist offers up #6, it is a "straw man. He does not believe any of the parallel stories. He wants to trip up the discussion. So, I have found that "what ifs" keep the conversation moving along.
Rodney,
I'm flattered by your last comment, but let me assure you that the "t" behind the "Chris" in my name is not deserved. :)
I understand. Perils of the ministry: you type "Christ" far too often to type "Chris" with no typos. My delete button hates it when I type sermons and return emails in close proximity!
Rex,
I removed your last comment. I have requested of you in the past and will do so again, please refrain from commenting in a personal nature about your Pastor or church in a negative fashion.
This blog is for discussion about the topic of the post and I would appreciate it if you would keep your comments to that subject or please do not comment at all.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation and.."happy birthday."
Rodney,
In light of our purpose which is to repectfully interact with the points made by an Atheist's blog about the evidence Christians are probably ignorant, I think Ernest Rutherford was probably right on in many ways.
I also think your comment here.."As Chris Ryan points out sometimes the arguments presented are not the issue at hand. So, number 6 (even the Rutherford quote) sets the stage for a discussion on common ground "..was right on also.
Bob,
I chuckle everytime I read your comments. You get to the core of my own feelings sometimes better than I do. I DO enjoy hearing others speak in areas like science that are far beyond me I assure you.
Aussie J,
I like your saying..."I have a saying, which gets me into trouble with a few of our brethren:
"I will defend the right of all to hold to their beliefs,even if they oppose mine.
I will defend my responsibility to convince them otherwise by my service, words and attitude towards them, thereby making disciples."
Chris,
I'm wondering out loud and desire some help here.."And the Holy Spirit didn't impregnate Mary (though Luke, admittedly, has wording that could make one wonder). It is a vision of creation ex nihilo once again."
I know of the creation ex nihilo [out of nothing] and understand your phrase that the incarnation was a "vision of creation ex nihilo once again."
What I'm wondering is, I have always thought of the miraculous, includng the incarnation, as God acting in one of two ways. One is putting on display in the natural world that which one day will be the norm. [The presence of angels, the Mt. of Transfiguration and the bodies of the other two present with our Lord, Peter walking on water, the lions being a pillow for Daniel etc.] The other is acting in a divine way that is built upon, interupts or adds to or hastens the natural processes. [Such as the cursing of the fig tree, raising Lazarus, healing the sick, etc.]
So with the incarnation I see Him acting in a divine manner in a virgin but the result is the ultimate natural birth of a baby.
So what began as a divine act [ex nihilo miracle] at conception eventuated into parthenogenesis (reproduction by a virgin) seems to me to have been the basic natural process that God used to accomplish the physical aspects of the Incarnation.
What this means as I understand it is that the Christmas carol that says "no crying he made" is completely untrue and unnecessary for the reality of "God with us" being a fact. I'm sure His ultimate birth had all the attendant pain and other things properly associated with the birth of a human being.
As I said, I'm asking for your thoughts [and any one else's thoughts] here. This is in keeping with #5.
By the way Chris, this..."Jesus was not a man who became a god but a God who became a man. But because the deity was no confined to the man, the theistic concepts of God are not compromised."..is right on in my opinion.
Rex,
Again, "happy birthday." I'm not all that far behind you.
Paul,
Thanks for saying “happy birthday”, but I feel like Paul after church leaders called him “Dear brother”.
Rex,
I've learned a couple of things over the years. One is that "ambiguity" is usually present in whatever we hear another say. The other is that one's "feelings" are generally caused by one's thinking. Not by others.
But, that said, I trust you will honor my request of you.
Paul,
I think that you are correct in your understandings. Divine miracle causing a natural miracle. I was simply trying to distinguish YHWH from Zeus in that God did not swoop down and have sexual relations with Mary as Zeus was prone to do with women according to Greek myth.
But I should add that you're not being a very good Calvinist to saw that Jesus probably cried when he was born. Augustine believed that babies revealed that they were sinful because they cried: it showed that they were selfish and impatient. Calvin built on that as proof of original sin. To say that Jesus cried is to say that Jesus was born sinful... if you accept Calvin and Augustine's original propositions.
Just something to think about. ;)
I don't think "crying" is any more the evidence of sin [with due respect to all those who say otherwise whomever they may be] in an infant Jesus than the "weeping" was that He did at the tomb of His friend as an adult.
Our human nature creates responses to deprivation [hunger/sleep/the safety of the womb] in various ways emotionally from infancy on I would think. And since the scriptures say very little about any of this I will say very little also. ;)
By the way... "I was simply trying to distinguish YHWH from Zeus in that God did not swoop down and have sexual relations with Mary as Zeus was prone to do with women according to Greek myth"...is a very good point that needs to be made and you have, I think, correctly done so. Good stuff.
Paul,
Your saying, “One’s ‘feelings’ are generally caused by one’s thinking. Not by others” - would make a good sermon.
The insults made of Jesus on the Cross, did not hurt his feelings, but what people did to his Father’s House caused him to use a whip. (That’s why your “generally” is very important.)
My father, as a preacher, said a good sermon had three priorities:
1. Someone was saved.
2 Money was raised.
3. Made someone angry.
Needless to say, he never stayed at one church very long because he was better at #3.
I’m afraid fighting atheists or how big the Universe is from the pulpit does not accomplish any of the “three”, but goes against Jesus saying, “If I be lifted up…”
Rex,
Whatever the purpose of sermons, the purpose of this blog is to discuss the topic of the post with respect and civility. Let's fulfill that purpose.
Chris,
I thought you might enjoy what I read written by a neonatologist named McKay who said this.. "An infant crying at birth is an expression of it's current state of being. The infant is not evoking anything. It simply identifies the infant’s pursuit of homeostasis. Very much like temperament, the cry of the neonate is innate. It’s not a product of the environment or intention. It is a human being expressing that human's being."
I may be a bit weird but I don't know why a neonatologist can't be believed about a subject as much as a theologian [With due respect to Agustine or Calvin] when the bible is basically silent about said subject. But I thought you'd enjoy that quote.
Paul,
It's boring, I know, but I've got to agree with you again regarding 'crying'.
Jesus was fully human from conception until His death. I would be very surprised if the fully human child failed to cry indicating He was dependent on His mother for sustenance.
I'm not ashamed to admit that my own tears, at times, reflect the realization of my utter dependence on my Father and His sustenance of me and mine.
Aussie J,
I know some people find it hard to think of Jesus in His fully human nature. [Apart from the fall thus no human father.] And in their zeal to preserve His divine nature they sacrifice the former. Fully human/fully Divine is tough to talk about in language that cannot sometimes be found to explain it. You and I both know this side of eternity we will never fully comprehend it all anyway much less explain it.
But to discuss and hear arguments to the contrary from non-believers is a delight for me and certainly stretches me. The guys in this comment section, yourself included, have given some reat thoughts about it all.
By the way, to hear from someone who agrees with any view I have about anything is exciting for me. So few do. I still say we're going to have to check our geneology. ;)
Paul,
It's fine by me if you want to disagree with Calvin and Augustine. I sure do. I just wanted you to know that they would be rolling over in their graves right... about... now.
I think that both Calvin and Augustine had a very stoic view of life. That the baby wasn't content with deprivation (resulting in crying) was proof of sin. However, I think that wanting food and shelter and affection are not sinful desires. There are certainly ways those desires can be pursued which are sinful. But the desires in and of themselves are not. They are things God created us to need, and He enabled us to express those needs to Him and to those He gives the (earthly) power to meet those needs. I think your doctor friend is right! Consequently, so would you be.
Paul,
I agree with you saying, “Fully human/fully Devine…” “You and I both know this side of eternity we will never fully comprehend it all anyway much less explain it.”
Some have said (that I don't believe)sin was passed down through man, and since Jesus had no human father; he could not sin.
If Jesus could not sin, there could be no temptation and the Bible would be incorrect in saying Jesus was tempted.
I don’t understand what you mean in saying: “[Apart from the fall thus no human father.]”
I agree “no human father” and add ‘no human mother’.
I mentioned this in my first comment and assumed everyone agreed because of no refuting comments. Is that correct?
I just read of a clinic informing a couple their mistake of giving the wife the wrong embryo. After delivery, they gave the baby to the REAL parents.
Chris,
What can I say? I DO get a slight buzz out of making guys "roll over in their graves." Now THAT is perverse don't you think!! ;)
Rex,
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here..but I DO accept the language and it's meaning as I understand it in Matthew 1:l8 where it says, "Now the BIRTH of Jesus Christ was in this way: When, as His mother, Mary, was espoused [betrothed] to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."
The word "birth" is the very same term in the Greek as the word which is translated "genealogy" in 1:1 and culminates in verse 16 with the words about Mary.."of whom was born Jesus."
So Matthew is simply giving the genealogy of Jesus from the human side in 1:1 ff and the divine geneology in v18.."Now the BIRTH [geneology same word as in 1:1] of Jesus Christ was on this wise... before they came together SHE WAS FOUND with child by the Holy Spirit."
Then v25 says.."she brought forth her FIRSTBORN SON and called his name JESUS."
Speculation as to how that was done is alright I suppose but the end result is fully God/fully man and I would say that Mary was His mother and God was His Father and John wasn't being deceitful when he said in his gospel "When Jesus saw His MOTHER he said..."
More than that I will leave for those who have insights that I don't. There may be many who are included in that group.
But aren't we glad we can believe God arrived on the scene of human wreckage and brought real hope!!
I also believe the doctrine of the virgin birth to be essential to the message of the gospel despite what questions atheists or anyone one else might have about it all and I enjoy addressing their questions respectfully.
I'm glad we can talk of it here even with differences of understanding too. Thanks for commenting about it.
Paul,
I believe you would agree with what is taught in seminary: ‘It is not what the Bible says that’s important, but what the Bible means.’
“Standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother…When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple He loved standing there, He said to His mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then He said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” (John 19:27)
My cousin, Dan Ray, was a missionary to Korea for 38 years. I disagreed with him saying, “When it comes to the Bible, I will not argue words”, but the older I get the more I agree with him.
Arguing ‘words’; John was no more a son of Mary that she was his mother, and why would Jesus call Mary “Woman”? It’s the same reason when Lazarus was dead, and Jesus said he was asleep.
Jesus asked how could he tell his disciples of heavenly things when they didn’t understand earthly things.
I believe if the Bible was written today (Ecclesiastes 1:4-5) would not have the sun going around the earth and the mother of Jesus would be named his segerate (sp.?)mother. And we would believe ALL of what was in Mary was from the Holy Spirit and not just the male sperm.
But then everyone is entitled to their opinion and that comes from the freedom of believing like Baptists.
It’s been said if there are two Baptists in a room, there may be three opinions. :)
Rex,
You could be right. [Then there is the flip side to that statement. :)]
I will say I think you've given something to think about. I REALLY agree with your final sentence.
Paul, I do also enjoy hearing others speak of scientific evidence, both for or against scripture. That's because I know Whom I have believed.
I also enjoy hearing lawyers argue cases in a traffic court, too, but that doesn't mean they're acting in any sort of authority over the Supreme Court of the United States. Traffic law simply is what it is.
Same for science, which all revolves around observing things God has arranged.
:)
Paul,
One more shot. :)
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse to death, but do you think Jesus returned to heaven with the same DNA as he left?
Or does Jesus now have some of Mary’s DNA?
Post a Comment