10 Questions Every Christian Needs To Answer.

[GodsRevolt]

1. How is the method by which you became a Christian reliable?

Discernment.

2. Apart from church dogma, how can you know what happens when we die?

I can't. Just because I cannot be sure of something does not make it untrue.

3. What if you and your silly bible are wrong and there is no heaven, hell or afterlife of any kind?

Then nothing . . . mark my words.
Now, what if I reverse this question? Will I get an honest response?

4. If you are God's unthinking lacky, how can you call yourself moral? Do you really think morality is simply a question of rule following?

Free will. I do not have to follow the laws of God. Only if I want to be moral.

5. Even if there is a God, you are obviously free to do what you want. The prisons are full of Christians. Do you or do you not believe God gave man free will?

I do.

6. If all you do is follow God's rules, how does your life have any meaning? What makes it your life?

Don't you follow the laws of the country (or at least most of them). This is akin to saying, "If you follow the rules of the road, how do you ever get to where you want to go?"

7. Where did that which you believe created the universe come from? (And if anything can always have existed, why not the universe and all its prior conditions?)

Where is the logic that a creator must follow the same rules as the created? By definition, the creator is greater, unless you esteem yourself on the same intellectual and moral level as a doodle.

8. What about miracles? Aside from the most ridiculous claims, wouldn't most of what technology makes possible today have seemed miraculous to the ancients? So what's the big deal?

This is like the opposite of the "God of the gaps" argument. To say that we don't know how it happened but God definitely didn't do it.

9. What’s your view of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris? Do you read anything else but the bible?

Smart men, but they also seem very angry. Not sure what this has to do with being a Christian and why have to answer to it.

10. If there is but one God, then why does every society have a different religion? [Props to Jenny.]

This points out a very interesting fact. Every society has reached for that which they cannot explain and has done so most often through the spiritual. Every society seems to acknowledge that there is something beyond itself . . . that is until recently with atheism growing in the largely white middle class youth of the technological age. I guess having a computer makes people think that they are smarter than those who got us here.

TO answer the question, every society has a religion because humanity has always looked to the spiritual for those things which only the poets attempt to articulate.

[orangebox21]

@ Rhythm

I'm in need of some clarifications here.

Are you asserting that you can definitively prove that there were rainbows 4000 years ago?

What reasons do you have to suggest that it is "reasonable to suggest that people had never observed a rainbow at any point since homo sapiens were on this earth until whatever timeframe you care put this flood myth in"?

With respect to "Yes, a god would have to make changes, either to light or the human eye. That's the -how-, that's thinking "more deeply about how certain miracles could have been achieved through natural laws". Why would God have had to make changes either to light or the human eye in order to use a naturally occurring event as a sign of a covenant?

What is the 'liberal-turn' I am taking, and what do you mean by a 'just-so story'?

[Welsh cake]

5. Even if there is a God, you are obviously free to do what you want.

Yeah they believe they have free will, and their god gave them a choice. Except if they do anything their sky daddy deplores he will come after them and murder them. Resurrect them. And murder them again in a lake of fire.

Some retarded and grotesque notion of free will that is.

[Whateverist]

Could you possibly need for him to? Seriously?

[The Grand Nudger]

@ Rhythm

I'm in need of some clarifications here.

Are you asserting that you can definitively prove that there were rainbows 4000 years ago?

Nothing is ever "proven" in science, but I can lead you to some information which would suggest that light has not had a change of heart in the past 4k years.,...and also the sorts of things we might see if it had.

What reasons do you have to suggest that it is "reasonable to suggest that people had never observed a rainbow at any point since homo sapiens were on this earth until whatever timeframe you care put this flood myth in"?

I'm suggesting that it's unreasonable, because human beings have eyes. Suggesting that they had never observed a rainbow in the 46k years minimum -just since full modernity- stretches credulity to point break. And that span of time is just a drop in the bucket.

With respect to "Yes, a god would have to make changes, either to light or the human eye. That's the -how-, that's thinking "more deeply about how certain miracles could have been achieved through natural laws". Why would God have had to make changes either to light or the human eye in order to use a naturally occurring event as a sign of a covenant?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - I'm referring to why we might have "never observed a rainbow" or why there may have never been one. Both of -those- postulates can be addressed fairly easily. The "sign" bit is just low hanging fruit, easy to snipe at as irrelevant and devoid of value or meaning. Like Noah's daily deuce. Why indeed would god be referenced at all when it comes to a naturally occurring rainbow? He was too lazy to make a proper sign...so he just went with the stuff that happens regardless of whether or not he;s involved? In any case, that's not what the narrative suggests.

What is the 'liberal-turn' I am taking, and what do you mean by a 'just-so story'?

The "just-so" element of this story is that in the misty dreamtime god put his bow in the sky as a sign. It "explains" the origin of rainbows (which are salient to a flood narrative) while tying them to some theological proposition. Common for this sort of literature.

[orangebox21]

Nothing is ever "proven" in science, but I can lead you to some information which would suggest that light has not had a change of heart in the past 4k years.,...and also the sorts of things we might see if it had.

I never asserted that the properties of light have changed, that was your assertion.

I'm suggesting that it's unreasonable, because human beings have eyes. Suggesting that they had never observed a rainbow in the 46k years minimum -just since full modernity- stretches credulity to point break. And that span of time is just a drop in the bucket.

I mean some scientific, historical, or philosophical reason that you have come to the conclusion that there have always been rainbows.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - I'm referring to why we might have "never observed a rainbow" or why there may have never been one. Both of -those- postulates can be addressed fairly easily.

Did you address these postulates and I just missed it?

The "sign" bit is just low hanging fruit, easy to snipe at as irrelevant and devoid of value or meaning. Like Noah's daily deuce.

Bare assertions don't make anything devoid of value or meaning.

Why indeed would god be referenced at all when it comes to a naturally occurring rainbow?

When two people make a covenant it's nonsensical to assume only one party is involved.

He was too lazy to make a proper sign...so he just went with the stuff that happens regardless of whether or not he;s involved?

He created the rainbow, then used it as a sign. What would be a 'proper sign' and how would that creation differ from creating light, water, their inherent properties and thus the rainbow?

The "just-so" element of this story is that in the misty dreamtime god put his bow in the sky as a sign. It "explains" the origin of rainbows (which are salient to a flood narrative) while tying them to some theological proposition. Common for this sort of literature.

How do you know God hadn't put His bow in the sky in the past but this was the first time He put His bow in the sky as a bow and a sign?

[Neo-Scholastic]

1. How is the method by which you became a Christian reliable?

If reason applied to experience were not reliable then knowledge would not be possible. Nevertheless, I am human and prone to error.

2. Apart from church dogma, how can you know what happens when we die?

I consider the spiritual things Swedenborg saw and heard credible. YMMV

3. What if you and your silly bible are wrong and there is no heaven, hell or afterlife of any kind?

Whateverist, calling the Bible “silly” is a cheap shot. Even if the Holy Scriptures were fabricated by human imagination, they are still endlessly fascinating. Besides, answering the question requires clarifying exactly what you mean by wrong. Complete veracity about everything? Only fundamentalists, including atheist fundamentalists like Bart Ehrmann, hold that position. Most Christians consider it a sufficient guide for spiritual instruction and some, like Swedenborgians, look to the inner meaning below the surface.

4. If you are God's unthinking lacky, how can you call yourself moral? Do you really think morality is simply a question of rule following?

Straw man! moral behavior requires the exercise of reason.

5. Even if there is a God, you are obviously free to do what you want. The prisons are full of Christians. Do you or do you not believe God gave man free will?

There is no escape from freedom; the burden of choice is part of the human condition. In fact, choice, along with intellect, is what makes us human. Some people, including Christians, being human, choose poorly based on flawed reasoning.

6. If all you do is follow God's rules, how does your life have any meaning? What makes it your life?

Strictly speaking, meaning refers to the relationship between a sign and that which it signifies. So the marks C, A, & T can form the word the word “cat” that points to a certain type of animal. “C-A-T” is the sign that signifies all types of actual felines. Thus obedience to a principle can make someone’s words and deeds a sign that refers to some value. For example, a soldier’s valor refers something beyond himself, perhaps love of country or, if less noble, his ambition. For a Christian, a life of piety serves as a sign of God’s Grace. His life’s meaning comes from the relationship between the sign, his life of piety, and that to which it points, God’s Grace. "Preach the Gospel; sometimes use words." In the case of atheism, there are no transcendent principles, thus atheists cannot believe without contradiction that their lives have meaning (all protesting aside.)

7. Where did that which you believe created the universe come from? (And if anything can always have existed, why not the universe and all its prior conditions?)

Reality is eternal. The physical universe, on the other hand, displays accidental and contingent properties.

8. What about miracles? Aside from the most ridiculous claims, wouldn't most of what technology makes possible today have seemed miraculous to the ancients? So what's the big deal?

Miracles are not important as mere violations of physical law. Something odd and rare is simply something odd and rare. What IS important is what the miracles signify. Take any miracle and ask yourself what it contributes to the narrative.

9. What’s your view of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris? Do you read anything else but the bible?

They’re a bunch of clowns. Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus are more challenging. Are you assuming that Christians are ignorant of contrary opinions? Kinda prejudiced don’t you think? How many atheists have seriously studied Plotinus or Aquinas?

10. If there is but one God, then why does every society have a different religion? [Props to Jenny.]

A single bright light reflects of the various objects of a room in different ways. It all depends on the ability of a culture and individuals within that culture, to receive Divine Light.

[Jenny A]

@ ChadWooters

Can't say I agree with you, but it's refreshing to see some clear eyed answers that don't involve undoing everything we do know about the world.

P.S. Can't say I've studied him deeply but I have read Aquinas, not to mention Dante, Milton, C.S. Lewis, Martin Niemöller, Martin Luther, and others. The world is full of Christians writers and many of them are worth reading.

[Whateverist]

3. What if you and your silly bible are wrong and there is no heaven, hell or afterlife of any kind?

Whateverist, calling the Bible “silly” is a cheap shot. Even if the Holy Scriptures were fabricated by human imagination, they are still endlessly fascinating. Besides, answering the question requires clarifying exactly what you mean by wrong. Complete veracity about everything? Only fundamentalists, including atheist fundamentalists like Bart Ehrmann, hold that position. Most Christians consider it a sufficient guide for spiritual instruction and some, like Swedenborgians, look to the inner meaning below the surface.

No offense intended. This was a parody of 10 question posted at a Christian site which had the same provocative tenor. As usual your answers are those of a reasonable human being with whom I have a few disagreements.

[The Grand Nudger]

I never asserted that the properties of light have changed, that was your assertion.

That would be the implication of a world without rainbows before that moment. Understand?

I mean some scientific, historical, or philosophical reason that you have come to the conclusion that there have always been rainbows.

A scientific reason, would be that the properties of light don't seem to be variable. Rainbows are an effect of our planets water cycle, and the water cycle is pretty well tied to the properties of what we call "light" coming from the sun. If the relationship between light and water that allows a rainbow to exist now did not exist prior 4k years ago - we'd be pressed to explain all the vegetation that -did- exist prior to 4k years ago..just for starters. A historical reason would be that they are mentioned in the epic of gilgamesh, fully 1k years older than where you've placed your story, and a philosophical reason would be that any statement that claimed that the properties of light could have been altered around 4k years ago runs afoul of being described as "sound" based on little more than the scientific and historical examples offered. The conditions which allow for a rainbow did occur, and people did see them.

He created the rainbow, then used it as a sign.

Clearly not 4k years ago though, eh?

How do you know God hadn't put His bow in the sky in the past but this was the first time He put His bow in the sky as a bow and a sign?

-beyond the fact that it's turned into a word game?

A couple of posts back you were talking about spinning electrons and shit, deep stuff, remember, I thought it would be fun. But now we're on to text based apologetics? Count me out on that. I was simply thrilled at the prospect of someone looking to explain a god that interacts with this world by reference to that interaction. The "how" of creating a rainbow, where before there were none. When we make statements like that - they are demonstrable - (and often have been tested). We would expect to see evidence of a change in the water cycle. The same property that allows light (in our case solar energy-more specifically) to drive the water cycle also allows us to see rainbows(and for rainbows to exist so that they might be seen). Bit of a package deal. The evidence would be vast, uniform, and pretty much undeniable (mostly because of how much is tied into the water cycle here-and has been for a much longer stretch of time than some 4k years). It's a good postulate (as far as building one goes), whether right or wrong - simply because it can be demonstrated. It is, as far as we can tell, wrong - but just the act of wondering about things in that manner makes god (and the miracles he's said to have gotten up to) a more reasonable and ultimately "knowable" proposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecohydrology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleobotany

Some starter stuff on why that idea doesn't pan out. Just from the science angle. The historical angle is meh, some folks decided to talk about rainbows in a story that's older than your flood. That one is pretty cut and dry and doesn't take too much thought to work out.