Athiest tough questions

[Gerioke]

I am new here so take it easy on me. I went to an Apologetics conference last month taught by Richard G. Howe, Ph.D. from Southern Evangelical Seminary & Bible College in Matthews, NC. They came all the way to Naples, Italy (Napoli, Italia) to hold the conference. It was a total mind melt for me. However, I used the information I gained to help me in my ever going work debates with my Atheist co-workers. I am in the US Navy and have been so for 15 years. When I first got in to hear someone just run you through spiritual battles was not heard. However, now every day is a challenge. From one line puns to getting them Debunking God tracks. For me there nothing more then messages says in allot of words YOUR STUPID WE HATE YOU. After the apologetic conference I thought I would have enough ammo to fight back. WRONG the biggest question I get is how you believe in something you can't see. So I used the fact that I can't see gravity but I know it is there. The come back was well you know there is gravity because you can test it, but you can't test God. Being the Christian I am it is hard not to step out of my turn the other cheek and say WAKE UP to these guys. In the end it just comes down to one thing. The don't want to believe. Even if God was five feet in front of them they probably wouldn't believe. Anyway I am writing on and on so I will end it here. What do you tell an Atheist when they say you can test gravity but you can't test God?

Matthew 4

7 Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

[lekh l'kha]

It's only once the Spirit of Christ convicts that anyone's eyes can be opened, and only then will you understand the real truth about the words of Jesus when He said "unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, He cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Then what's the point of this thread? I mean, if it's entirely up to Christ to make a believer out of someone, why does the OP need to know how to respond to an atheist in the first place? Surely it doesn't matter what he says. He might as well just say nothing.

It's still up to Christians to tell others about Jesus and about the reason for the hope we have, without trying to force it down anyone's throat if they don't want to hear.

But it's not our job to convince the person we're talking to that what we say is true - only the Holy Spirit can do that.

Hope this answers the question, because it's the truth.

The church doors are wide open and I personally welcome you with open arms, Thracius. But if you come inside and start poking your nose into the conversations that Christians are having with one another and arguing with them about the things they say, don't expect a free ride. It just don't work that way.

Is this not the Outer Court where unbelievers are permitted to speak freely?

This thread was moved here from Worthy Welcome because you started to raise objections to the advice the Christians were giving the Christian who started this thread.

But your point is taken, and you're right about this board being here for that purpose.

And no, I don't want you to go away. Nor do I mind you challenging whatever I say... I can still learn a thing or two sometimes from a non-believer, and non-believers are sometimes nicer people than believers. Not all Christians are good people, and not all non-Christians are bad people, but every human being that ever lived (except Jesus) has sinned and fallen short of God's standard of Holiness.

The truth is no Christian can convict any other human being of sin (it's not even our job, since we're also sinners), nor can he convince any other human being that what we believe is true, because only God can do that. But we are responsible nevertheless to tell who we can, where we can, when we can - with permission (of the one we're talking to).

Can anyone reasonably (note the word "reasonably", because I'm using it in reference to unaided human reason) believe that a man who lived 2,000 years ago rose again from the dead?

Can anyone "reasonably" believe that the entire universe was once concentrated into one tiny particle which then exploded?

See, it's easy to look at something on the surface and say "That's ridiculous." That is where evidence and logic comes in. Anyone can reasonably believe anything provided there is sufficient evidence for it.

Are you saying there is insufficient evidence to prove the resurrection?

No. But no matter how much evidence there is, I know that people have told me that what I regard as evidence they regard as insufficient evidence or no evidence at all. Evidence about the resurrection is in the eye of the beholder: Before I believed, I would not accept the "testimony" of people who lived 2,000 years ago, and my argument would have continued "supposing that their testimony is in fact what we read in the Bible today, and that the Bible has not been corrupted." Fact of the matter is, there was no video-camera inside the tomb. Only the testimony of people who lived 2,000 years ago. Without the testimony of the Holy Spirit, I would never have believed.

I apologize for the doormat analogy. It wasn't necessary.

Lekh

[Arthur Durnan]

Nor would Jesus approve of a fallacious "atheist" god by name of "god Chance"! How is a "god Chance" better than the Creator-God Who comes down to our level?

[lekh l'kha]

There's more evidence than that, surely. Almost every time I bring this issue up with a Christian, they go on and on about the massive, great, steaming wads of historical and archaeological evidence that you'd have to be a fool to ignore.

So here's what I don't understand. How can it be that a person can be convinced of a non-religious theory with very little evidence, or perhaps with no evidence at all, and yet when it comes to Christianity, it's just assumed that all of this (allegedly bulletproof) evidence and reasoning will fall flat and accomplish nothing? If you're so sure that it all adds up then why do you have so little confidence in it?

I don't have little confidence in the evidence, I have a great deal of confidence in the evidence, since I now know that it's true.

What I said was that before I believed, the evidence did not impress me (for the reasons I gave you), and that this is exactly the kind of reaction I get if I even try and go into the evidence with non-believers.

The Jewish Talmud began to be written about 100 A.D. Most of the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Rabbinic Judaism was formed at around 90 A.D (I think) - well, more or less 90 A.D, sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Roman armies in 70 A.D. It was the Rabbis who formed Rabbinic Judaism that began to write the Talmud.

The early Talmud makes frequent reference to Jesus of Nazareth in unfriendly terms, and also says that His disciples came to the tomb and stole the body of Jesus away and then claimed that He rose from the dead. The gospels in the Bible actually mention that this is what the Jewish religious leaders told the Roman guards who had been placed at their request in front of Christ's tomb to say, paying them to say so.

The Roman historian Tacitus (not a Christian) mentions the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth during the reign of Pontius Pilate.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was commisioned by Caesar at around 90 A.D to write a history of the Jews, whom the Romans had nearly annihilated and succeeded in dispersing throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.

He makes mention of Jesus of Nazareth, calling Him "the so-called Christ". He also makes mention of the James of the Bible, and states that he was stoned to death by the Jews because of his testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.

Josephus writes that James became known as "James the Just".

Neither the Bible nor any Christian history book or early church father mentions the stoning of James.

Josephus stated that many Jews believed that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D was God's punishment upon the Jews for the stoning of James, who was known to be an extremely righteous and just man, according to Josephus.

There are writings from other non-Christian sources that mention the crucifixion of Jesus. The crucifixion of Jesus is absolutely historical.

Now let's talk about the resurrection:

There is a huge amount of early Christian history written by the early church fathers about the 1st and second centuries A.D, and the amount of biblical + extra-biblical historical evidence pointing to the fact that not one or two, but hundreds of people claimed to have seen Jesus of Nazareth crucified, dead and buried - and then alive again after 3 days, and that these people (in addition to the apostles of Jesus) spread this message about the resurrection of Jesus far and wide, is huge.

There is also a huge amount of historical evidence that many of them were persecuted, jailed and some even tortured and killed because of this message. As far as we know from Christian history, all but one of the apostles was eventually killed because of this message. It was causing a religious and social revolution in the Roman Empire, and was hated by Rome and the Jewish Rabbis alike. This can be attested to by secular Roman history and by the Talmud and by Josephus.

First off, the idea that someone could rise again from the dead was preposterous to many. Think about this for a while. Put it into a modern context:

One man and one woman tells you they saw a space-ship land in Nebraska somewhere, and the space people brought an immensely important message crucial to the rest of mankind's future for all eternity.

You laugh it off. But later it becomes apparent that there are hundreds of people who had gathered together for a rock concert or something, and all of them are claiming the same thing, and they're absolutely convinced of it.

Now pretend that people don't like this message they're spreading, and begin to pass laws prohibiting them from spreading this message, because it begins to cause a social revolution in many countries, and so they begin to persecute, jail, and even kill some of them. But still the others do not stop spreading this message. They are absolutely convinced of it, and absolutely convinced that it is imperative to the world.

If you realize just how much historical evidence there is that so many people claimed to have been eye-witnesses to the fact that they saw this Jesus alive after He had died on a Roman crucifixion cross, you might ask yourself why these people all believed what they did. Then you might want to compare the fact that the gospels record that Jesus said that He was going to be put to death and rise again from the dead months before it happened, and that even His disciples did not believe it at the time He said it was going to happen.

Is the New Testament all a lie? Were all these people who were so convinced that Jesus rose from the dead and claimed to be eye-witnesses to this fact, and who were prepared to be mocked, persecuted, jailed and even tortured and killed for their message, all deluded?

That's the evidence. There may be more that other Christians know about, but I don't know about more evidence, unless I've forgotten about it.

But is that still enough to cause Chinese people, Indian people, African people, Europeans, Americans, etc etc 2,000 years down the line to still believe? And what of the millions who heard the message and believed down through the last 1,900 years +? Did we all just accept it by blind faith?

"And when the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me." (Joh 15:26).

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again. The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice, but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (Joh 3:6-8)

"He who believes on the Son of God has the witness in himself. He who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he does not believe the record that God gave of His Son." (1Jn 5:10)

Do you know, Thracius, that the first time I had this experience it made me tremble? Do you know the peace and joy when Jesus first enters your heart and says, "It's O.K. I've come. I took the penalty for your sins upon Myself. It is finished"

Many non-believers love the song "Amazing grace" just because it's a beautiful song.

But born-again Christians don't only love the song just because it's a beautiful song. When we sing the words, " 'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved",

then our whole human spirit resonates with the Spirit of God deep within ourselves, and our human spirits resonate with one another and with the Spirit of God as we sing those words.

Why?

Because we know the words intimately - the Spirit of God with our human spirit as we sing those words - because we know them, have experienced them, and because we always experience the loving presence of the witness of the Spirit of God to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

We know that the man who wrote those words experienced what we experienced, and our spirits resonate with him and with one another and with the spirit of God when we sing those words.

We don't sing "Amazing grace" just because it's a beautiful song - we sing it because we know the words intimately.

Non-believers might sing the song because they love the song just because it's a beautiful song - but they don't know the words intimately.

That's what it means to be born again of the Spirit of God. It does not mean we become perfect or without sin, but it does mean that our sins are forgiven. Not so that we can sin as much as we like, but so that we can sin no more.

This is why born-again Christians often become so extremely defensive in our defense of the gospel of God's salvation in Jesus Christ. You attack the gospel of God (I don't mean you, personally Thracius) it's like you're attacking our own child, our own father, our own mother, our own sister, brother, wife, husband, beloved friend. You're attacking our God, our Savior, our friend, our Lord, our redeemer, our advocate, our Life, our breath, our joy.

It's not right for Christians to react the way we do sometimes when our faith gets attacked or questioned, and it's not the way Jesus wants us to react - although there are times when a stern, Godly rebuke is acceptable (but not always). But we react that way because you're attacking our deepest love, who is the resurrected Jesus Christ of Nazareth who is in heaven and seated on God's throne, the right hand of the Father. He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. His Spirit is the Spirit of the Father - the Holy Spirit. And He is our deepest love.

There is evidence of the resurrection, Thracius. But those who do not believe will never acknowledge the evidence.

lekh

[Fez]

Faith alone is sufficient

[MorningGlory]

My opinion, if you really want it, is that I find it thoroughly ironic that the ones who don't claim to see, speak to, and have a loving relationship with some mysterious, omniscient super-being are the ones who are considered "completely deluded".

Ironic? To you maybe. But absolutely correct.

[lekh l'kha]

There is evidence of the resurrection, Thracius. But those who do not believe will never acknowledge the evidence.

I'm going to answer your second question first:

I also don't put much stock in this "Why would these people sacrifice themselves for a lie?" argument, because all I really have to do is point at religious suicide bombers. Is their religion "wrong"? According to you, yes. But are they prepared to die for it anyway? Yes. So are zeal and martyrdom indicative of truth?

Believe there's an equal comparison between the two groups, if you want to:

The one group had seen something, they were convinced they had seen it, and they were prepared to die for their testimony to what they had seen - not to kill for it.

The other group are convinced of something they have not seen, and are prepared to kill for it, even if they must die in the process of killing for it.

I'm not going to argue this point with you any further - you make up your mind about it. I don't agree with your implication, so if you stick to it, we're stale-mated on that issue.

I never said there was not evidence. I asked if that evidence was sufficient. If you only considered it to be sufficient after you started believing, that does not lend much credibility to it. Sufficient evidence should be able to convince those that do not already hold that which it allegedly proves to be true. That is the whole point of evidence. If you already believe in something, you don't need to be shown evidence of it.

Here's the catch 22 of the non-believer: If he believes that there is sufficient evidence of the resurrection and yet (for whatever reason - and there are many reasons why people would do this) he does not want to believe in the resurrection, then either he must accept the resurrection even if he doesn't want to, or he must deny that there is sufficient evidence, even though his logic tells him there is sufficient evidence.

It is up to the individual to decide for himself whether or not there is sufficient evidence of the resurrection, and let each man be a free man.

But I notice that you did not comment on my insistence that ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit of God Himself who gives God's testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps you've done that out of respect, because you don't believe what I said about it, perhaps not, I don't know. If you've been quiet out of respect, then thank you.

Nevertheless, I personally feel (from previous experience in these sorts of threads) that if you and I go on much further about the issue of evidence for the resurrection, we'll be arguing the same points over and over again, and going round and round in circles.

In some Christian forums, you'll find people doing just that for fun. But to me, going round and round in circles and not getting anywhere is no fun, it's stupidity.

But that doesn't mean that I'm denying you the opportunity of bringing a fresh argument or that I won't necessarily answer you - it only means that I'm asking you to please not be one of those non-believers who argues and argues round and round in circles with Christians in Christian internet forums just for fun. Once two opposing viewpoints have reached a stalemate with no room to budge, there's no point in continuing to win the game (not that I think this is a game, believe me, I don't).

lekh

[MorningGlory]

Ironic? To you maybe. But absolutely correct.

To you, maybe.

No....not just to me. To anyone who's not delusional.

[MorningGlory]

Well...not really. This was incorporated into my own catch-22 statement. OK, we have to receive the Holy Spirit's testimony in order to believe. Fine. But we have to believe in order to get the testimony. But in order to believe, we need the testimony. But in order to get the testimony we have to believe. But in order to believe...

[lekh l'kha]

I'm not going to argue this point with you any further - you make up your mind about it. I don't agree with your implication, so if you stick to it, we're stale-mated on that issue.

I debate with Christians a lot.

I'm used to stalemates.

Good, and by the tone of what you said, you go round and round in circles just for fun. I regard that as stupidity. So after this final reply to you, I'm outta this thread.

Here's the catch 22 of the non-believer: If he believes that there is sufficient evidence of the resurrection and yet (for whatever reason - and there are many reasons why people would do this) he does not want to believe in the resurrection, then either he must accept the resurrection even if he doesn't want to

...OK, see, people do this all the time. It's called "admitting you're wrong". Nobody likes doing it, but (generally speaking) we still do it anyway when we've been shown that we are. This is not a catch-22.

I've been around for too long and known too many people who fought against what they knew to be true, and who did exactly what I mentioned above, only to eventually at a time of crisis own up to it, and then later admit that they knew it was true all along, even though for years they would throw the same arguments you are throwing up in these posts of yours in this thread.

But I notice that you did not comment on my insistence that ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit of God Himself who gives God's testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.

Well...not really. This was incorporated into my own catch-22 statement. OK, we have to receive the Holy Spirit's testimony in order to believe. Fine. But we have to believe in order to get the testimony. But in order to believe, we need the testimony. But in order to get the testimony we have to believe. But in order to believe...

See what I'm getting at?

No. Wesley taught that. Calvin taught something else. Personally, I don't care who taught what - because I know that the Spirit of God had to testify to my human spirit before I could believe - I did not have to believe in order to receive the conviction and testimony of God - He gave both to me while I was still in unbelief.

It is God who produced the faith in Me, and still produces it (it never stops, as long as I do not deliberately turn away from Him or push Him away). Without the constant and consistent presence and witness and comfort and guidance and conviction and rebuke and inspiration of the Spirit of Christ, I know I would fall away from believing in Him. It is all of His mercy, every single day of my life. That is my experience, and I don't care which Christian big-shot taught what about it.

I'm outta this thread now. Have fun terrorizing some other Christian while you're having fun going round and round in circles arguing with him, Thracious. You get your kick out of it, if that's what your kick is.

lekh