HAVING A GO AT THE STATUS QUO
it is obviously a multifaceted problem the church is facing, and my opinion is focussing on certain areas only, but, i believe wholeheartedly that the area of apologetics and an overarching understanding of the biblical narrative or ‘worldview’ is are two areas where the church has not come to grips with the present day reality.
our pastors are trained to engage in a world that does not exist anymore, modernism is dead and postmodernism reigns…
so many pastors i have spoken to have no idea about what postmodernism even is… how can they reach or train their congregations to reach a society they don’t understand and can’t relate to. most of the time they are preaching to the converted in an effort to make them feel better as opposed to equipping them to engage the world in a manner that is going to be effective in the slightest…
ask these questions of your average church goer..
1. can you show me reasonable evidence for the existence of God.
2. how can you say you are right and i am wrong when truth is relative
3. what is the purpose of humanity
4. hasn’t evolution disproved the existence of God
5. whats the difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Claus
6. don’t all religions lead to God
now some here will give great answers i know but you average Christian will have no idea and i know many pastors that would give the most pathetic kindergarten answers to these questions…
we are fighting a battle in the nuclear age with bows and arrows
posted by Ab Truth at 10:31 pm
5 Comments:
Christian Apologetics is important. As no one has yet to respond to the six questions put forward. I have placed possible responses with their web sources to each item.
1. can you show me reasonable evidence for the existence of God.
Prove your God is real.
I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it.
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
By using logic.
How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?
This approach is a bit more complicated. If you use this one, first be familiar with The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic.
First of all, when using logic, you should be familiar with basic laws of logic and logical fallacies. It is very useful to point out the various logical fallacies to atheists as they commit them. Therefore, please be familiar with Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation)
The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?
Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can't that be God?
Source: http://www.carm.org/cut/atheism.htm
2. how can you say you are right and i am wrong when truth is relative
What is truth?
"What is truth?" is a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception effect truth? We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves.
The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.
But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of "a" + 1/2 of the remainder + 1/2 of the remainder of that, etc.) does not equal a whole, we can "prove" that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watch it bounce off. Actually, the "1/2" equation above does not equal a whole -- mathematically. The problem is not in the truth, but in its application as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics.
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ," (Col. 2:8).
In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factually and logically correct statement. In other words, it would have to be true. But, perhaps we could look further look at truth by determining what it is not. Truth is not error. Truth is not self-contradictory. Truth is not deception. Of course, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn't truth.
In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer. But, the problem is that in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self contradictory.
Again, what is truth?
If there is such a thing as truth, then we should be able to find it. If truth cannot be known, then it probably doesn't exist. But, it does exist. For example, we know that it is true that you are reading this.
Is there such a thing as something that is always true all the time? Yes, there is. For example, "Something cannot bring itself into existence." This is an absolutely true statement. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist in order to be able to perform an action. But if it already existed, then it isn't possible to bring itself into existence since it already exists. Likewise, if it does not exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action since it doesn't exist in the first place. Therefore, "Something cannot bring itself into existence" is an absolute truth.
The preceding example is a truth found in logic. But, there are truths that are not logical by nature. It is true that I love my wife. This isn't logically provable via theorems and formulas and logic paradigms, but it is, nevertheless, true. Therefore, we can say that truth conforms and affirms reality and/or logic.
Is this what relativism does? Does relativism confirm to reality and logic? To be honest, it does to some degree. Relatively speaking, there is no absolute right or wrong regarding which side of your head you should part your hair, if you part it at all. To this we must concede relative "truths" that are different for different people. But, these are relativistic by nature. Examples of relativistic truths are, 1) people drive on the right side of the street in America and the left in England; 2) I prefer to watch science fiction over musicals; 3) snow is better than rain, etc. These things are relative to culture, individuals, preferences, etc., and rightfully so.
If we are to ever hope to determine if there is such a thing as truth apart from cultural and personal preferences, we must acknowledge that we are then aiming to discover something greater than ourselves, something that transcends culture and individual inclinations. To do this is to look beyond ourselves and outside of ourselves. In essence, it means that we are looking for God. God would be truth, the absolute and true essence of being and reality who is the author of all truth. If you are interested in truth beyond yourself, then you must look to God.
"I am the truth"
For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the Bible, in Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6). Of course, most philosophers and skeptics will dismiss His claim, but for the Christian, He is the mainstay of hope, security, and guidance. Jesus, who walked on water, claimed to be divine, and rose from the dead, said that He was the truth and the originator of truth. If Jesus is wrong, then we should ignore Him. But, if He is right, then it is true that we should listen to Him.
The eyewitnesses wrote what they saw. They were with Him. They watched Him perform many miracles, heal the sick, calm a storm with a command, and even rise from the dead. Either you believe or dismiss these claims. If you dismiss them, that is your prerogative. But, if you accept them, then you are faced with decisions to make about Jesus. What will you believe about Him? What will you decide about Him? Is He true? Is what He said true?
Truth conforms to reality. Jesus performed many miracles and rose from the dead.
Source: http://www.carm.org/relativism/whatistruth.htm
3. what is the purpose of humanity
Why are we here? Or, Why did God make us?
God made us so we could glorify Him and have fellowship with Him (1 John 1:1-3). He made Adam and Eve and put them in the garden, and then He walked in fellowship with them. He gave them the greatest thing they could have, His love and presence. After they sinned, God said, "Adam, where are you?" God sought Adam. In Exodus 25:8 God said to Moses while Israel was in the wilderness, "And let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them." In the New Testament in John 1:14 it says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us..."(1) God seeks our presence. He wants to have fellowship with us. He made us to give us His love and enjoy His presence. But, man sinned and separated Himself from God. That is why Christ died for sins, that our fellowship with God would be restored.
Source: http://www.carm.org/40_objections/40-3.htm#_1_19
4. hasn’t evolution disproved the existence of God
Extract from: "Is atheism viable?"
"For him to say there is proof that God does not exist is really quite a statement. How do you prove a negative? How do you prove that God, the creator of the universe, who exists outside of time and space, does not exist? That is a tall order and I would truly love to see the proof. If it is indeed proof, I will abandon my Christianity. After all, proof is proof. I have asked atheists for proofs and have not yet seen one offered that has stood the test of cross examination.
Mr. Lonovy fails to understand that even though science has answered many issues about life, medicine, mechanics, the universe, etc., it does not invalidate God's existence nor is it in any way a proof or evidence that God does not exist. The only thing science does is explain things using naturalistic principles. But, since Christians define God as being outside of time and space (yet able to interact within it), explaining things naturalistically does not effect the proposed existence of God or not since He is not limited to a naturalistic system. After all, the Bible states that God created the naturalistic principles working in the universe. Since these principles exist, how is it that it means that God does not exist? It doesn't. Therefore, Mr. Lonovy is again failing to make his point.
As for the rest of the paragraph, Mr. Lonovy again begs the question regarding evolution, abiogenesis, et. al. He assumes that all of it occurs due to naturalistic principles in the universe though he has not offered any evidence for this. The topics he introduces are too deep and varied to address here (as they have been addressed elsewhere on my site), but the principle of his presuppositions clouding his objectivity is, to me, very obvious."
Source: http://www.carm.org/atheism/lonovyb.htm
5. whats the difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Claus
Why do you believe in Jesus but not Santa Claus?
Sometimes atheists will ask why Christians believe in Jesus and not Santa Claus. Some atheists say that you cannot prove Jesus existed anymore than you can prove Santa Claus exists. Of course, this is not accurate for several reasons."For an atheist to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical verifiable documents and known constructed children's' stories."
First of all, Jesus is presented as an historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. Santa Claus is simply presented as a fictional character.
Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles. These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably; the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. Santa Claus is intentionally and knowing presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole.
Third, the intention of the gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults where the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children. This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.1
Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit an historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality. Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral contextualization except to state that there is a north pole and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night.
Fifth, the facts are that parents are the ones who buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. This latter point is worth commenting on since we additionally have no evidence at all that reindeer can fly which further adds to the irrationality of the Santa Claus story. Additionally, if a large sleigh (sufficient to carry millions of toys) approached the Washington D.C. area (surely there are at least some good children there), we would expect to hear of military fighter jets being scrambled to intercept the intruder. No records of this have yet surfaced.
Sixth, given that the gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him), that the gospels are historically accurate, superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least, that Jesus was an actual historical person. But, we have no hard evidence to establish the validity of Santa Claus. We have found no reindeer tracts on the roofs of snow covered homes strewn about millions of homes on Christmas Eve. There are no video accounts of Santa roaming throughout peoples' homes. We know of no flying reindeer, and no one has yet established how Santa can live at the North Pole for hundreds of years without being detected -- particularly in this technologically advanced culture. Add to that the lack of Santa Disciples going about the world, risking their lives, being ridiculed by religious and political adversaries, writing inspirational text, performing miracles, etc., and you really don't have much evidence at all that Santa exists except in the mind of children.
Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can be reasonably supported to exist. Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus and though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality -- particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them that Santa is real.
For an atheist to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical verifiable documents and known constructed children's' stories. Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.
___________
1. Granted there are probably some adults why may believe in Santa Claus as a reality, but I suspect they would be mental patients or some other such people not fully in touch with reality.
Source: http://www.carm.org/atheism/santa.htm
6. don’t all religions lead to God
All religions are different paths to the same place.
If all religions are different paths to the same place, then why do the paths contradict each other? Does truth contradict itself? Let's review the teachings of just three religions:
Buddhism is pantheistic and says there is no personal God and everyone can reach "godlikeness" on his own. Islam says that Jesus was just a prophet, and not the only way to God. Christianity says that there is a personal God, and that the only way to Him is through Jesus (John 14:6). If these three religions are, as you say, different paths to the same place, then why do they contradict each other? Does truth contradict itself?
Source: http://www.carm.org/40_objections/40-4.htm
All religions are not the same — Biblical Christianity is absolutely unique among all the religions and philosophies of mankind. Its claim to be necessary for salvation is based squarely on the uniquely powerful evidences for its truth and finality. Actually, true Christianity is not a religion, but a person, Jesus Christ.
“By Him, and for Him, were all things created” (note Colossians 1:16, 17).
Thus, Christianity is unique in the following fundamental respects, among many others.
Only in the Bible is God revealed as the one eternal, personal Creator, who brought the entire universe into existence by His own Word.
All other religions start with the material universe as the only eternal reality, with their “gods” being essentially personifications of the natural forces which develop the universe into its present form.
On the other hand, the Creator-God of the Bible has all power and is Himself, therefore, not only the One who created the universe but also the One who establishes the basis for human salvation.
Christianity alone is centered in the historical events associated with a Person - the birth, death, resurrection, and imminent, glorious return of Jesus Christ.
Other religions are invariably based on the teachings, rather than the acts, of their founders.
Jesus Christ alone, of all men in history, has conquered man's greatest enemy - death.
The founders of other religions are all dead and their tombs venerated. The tomb of Christ is empty, and His bodily resurrection from the grave is the best proved fact of all history. The fact that He alone could overcome death demonstrates that He alone has all power. He Himself said,
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6).
All other religions of the world are fundamentally just one religion — one of salvation by works. Each religion sets up a particular set of religious rites, of commands and restrictions, and of ethical principles to follow, and then teaches that if a man does these things he will be saved. The human origin of each of these systems is indicated by the fact that each is humanly attainable.
The Bible, however, sets its moral and ethical standard as the very holiness and perfection of God Himself, and demands nothing less than this for salvation. Obviously, no man would invent a standard which was utterly impossible for any man to keep.
The man Christ Jesus, alone of all men who ever lived, maintained in every respect a life of perfect holiness and full obedience to the Father, thus demonstrating that He was the God-Man. He then died for the sins of all men and thus can offer full pardon and His own nature of perfect holiness to anyone who receives Him .
Christ alone offers salvation by grace alone, to be received only through faith in Him.
To the one who truly believes on Him, He then gives through the Holy Spirit a new nature, enabling that one to live a life pleasing to God.
There is no mere “religion” in all the world like this. Jesus Christ is the world's Creator, and its only true Redeemer.
“Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Authors: Henry Morris and Martin Clark, adapted from their book The Bible Has the Answer, published by Master Books.
Supplied by Eden Communications with permission from Master Books
Copyright © 1995, Master Books, All Rights Reserved.
Source: http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/religionssame.html
very good anonymous
i like your part on logic
and in that vein i would pose the thought that in your answer to question 1 you partially contradicted yourself (no great worry though)
as you said 'i can no more prove you that God is real than i can prove to you that i love my family'
yet the rest of the answer provides excellent logical proofs to the fact that there must be a 'god' of some sort for the existence of the universe to make sense.
this is the 'kalaam cosmological argument' for the existence of God.
why do i say that it is a contradiction of the first statement. proofs of love rely on declaration of it to be so - no logic required - whereas the 6 main proofs for Gods existence are logically consistent and conclusive .. to deny them one has to make some sort of existential leap into disbelief... a dogsastic voluntarist decision not to believe
in other words
a declaration of love can be denied by the hearer without being logically incoherent
but if you deny
a. all men are mortal
b. socrates is a man
c. socrates is mortal
you are being illogical and denying rational intuition
Very good questions and comments; thanks. Sounds a little like JP Moreland's work, no?
not as far as i know...
JP Moreland would have said it better..
Post a Comment
<< Home