-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Phillips seems to be better branded than Phil. This is why I no longer drink Pepsi.... Ladies and Gentlemen meet : Fanta. A nice orange soda, that was named after fantasy. A word that means the same - more or less - in every language.
Some people has been drinking too much Fanta-sia. Well Then I booked this plane to Nevernever land and met Elvis, etc etc.
Some people has been drinking too much Fanta-sia. Well Then I booked this plane to Nevernever land and met Elvis, etc etc.
S
Hi Zac1121
You do have a very long post but I didn't bother reading the replies as usually it leaves out what I would say so excuse me if I reiterate what was already said.
I truthfully was expecting anything other than a long read from how long it looked and as for offense God told me not to be offended easily nor to stand in judgment of others for my way is not perfect nor any other person on earth so excuse me while I pick away at your post
and may I add that it is YOUR truths and values besides Phil who is not in complete agreement with you since you say he is a lot similar to you.
So Phil has decided that mankind doesn't deserve to be forgiven for their worldly faults and should be condemned forever more even if they regret their wrong which is the essence of the New Testament. Love is Jesus testimony on which all the law and the prophets hang.
" is it not our mistakes that often teach us the most in life?" EXACTLY our sinful nature or wrong guidance but this is mankinds choice as God will NEVER push, pull or coerce us to do it his way. This is what makes us unique above all earthly creatures because we have a mind and we have a choice to our divine creator.
He also cannot comprehend that a child would be damned by default simply by being born into this earth.
An often misinterpreted verse indeed. Jesus said Suffer the little children to come unto me for such is the kingdom of heaven & He told Nicodemus that to be saved one must be reborn.
In correction we are all born into sin. It is our human nature BUT we are told that to SIN we must first know sin which babies do not. They have not yet reached that knowledge. My grandson is just 2 years old and lately he has been hitting, displays jealousy of his younger sister, throws violent temper tantrums, etc. All the lovely things of being a child BUT if he were to die tomorrow according to what you are presenting then he would be damned to hell (hell is another subject). I think not. I don't know what God Phil knows but he is dead wrong there.
When I was 23 I lost my first son who was 2 months old. This woman in the community comes to my place and says I heard your son died and that is too bad. Now he is condemned to hell forever and you ought to be ashamed because you couldn't save him.
I was shocked and appalled for her ignorance and insolence. I don't ever remember calling myself God so I was far from doing miracles at that time but when she told me he was damned to hell I rebuked her lying spirit. I went to the Bible and sought guidance. Hence the 'one must know sin to sin' and suffer the little children...
He also asks himself what about a divine man dying could benefit his life more than what he has already done for himself. This man has found a profound connection with a higher power which radiates goodness and love throughout all areas of his life. He makes mistakes, yes-- to be human is to make mistakes... but he wonders if Christianity is suggesting that to be human is to be a mistake -- a mistake that needs fixing from birth.. or "saving".
Hmmm... Phil sounds a little bit jealous here that there can be anyone more pure than himself like a 'god complex' you know. Of course we are all fallible mankind prone to mistakes, making blunders and wrong decisions. Seems to me that Phil is very presumptuous and hasn't even read the Bible, asked God, or really cares less but to vent his shortcomings on a Christian site.
I wonder if Phil was an OT believer or a NT believer?! Sounds like an OT by his judgments.
We all have a sinful nature and that is the reason the OT didn't work because of mankinds cruelty towards one another showing no love or mercy. They were giving lip service and forgot the greater seeking instead the power of the law for themselves.
"How does a divine man dying fix my so-called mistakes?" Phil wonders.
Sounds to me like Phil has some unresolved issues he can't forgive himself for when God already has. && no I am not going to quote Bible scriptures as if Phil has read the Bible they would already be spinning through his head faster than he can read or write.
Phil isn't upset with Christianity, nor does he hold any bitterness towards it. In fact he agrees with much of the ideologies that are taught. "After all," Phil reasons, "billions of people can't be entirely incorrect can they?" Perhaps not.
Phil is not an atheist. He very much believes in God. However, Phil cannot bring himself to be so arrogant as to believe that he has God all figured out.
Or maybe billions of people can't be right. Do we know the numbers for sure of which way they all lean and you do know that one day all beliefs will come into the ultimate knowledge. God said I will make the blind to see and those that see I will make blind. Now I wonder if Phil read the Bible with fleshly eyes or with God's guidance (I did say God not mankind who is prone to mistakes and the devil is good at twisting it all out of shape)
Phil believes that God extends so far beyond any specific book or religion that it is impossible to quantify. "Just look at all the belief systems in every culture throughout history." Phil says to himself. "Throughout time, every single organized society and culture has always had some form of belief in a higher power or deity. And most of which were certainly not Christian. This fact alone shows that God is bigger than Christianity. People were believing in God before the first page of the Bible was even thought to be written!" Phil states.
I would certainly hope that God is bigger than Christianity as God is the basis for Christianity.
Beyond all else, Phil is sure that there are no mysteries in the Universe for those who openly seek for truth.
Well if Phil is going to openly seek the truth He should seek it through the Alpha & Omega, the author and the finisher, God himself who is quite open to questions, doubts, and willingly guides whoever asks.
My God is God and I'll fly His banner high
You do have a very long post but I didn't bother reading the replies as usually it leaves out what I would say so excuse me if I reiterate what was already said.
I truthfully was expecting anything other than a long read from how long it looked and as for offense God told me not to be offended easily nor to stand in judgment of others for my way is not perfect nor any other person on earth so excuse me while I pick away at your post
and may I add that it is YOUR truths and values besides Phil who is not in complete agreement with you since you say he is a lot similar to you.So Phil has decided that mankind doesn't deserve to be forgiven for their worldly faults and should be condemned forever more even if they regret their wrong which is the essence of the New Testament. Love is Jesus testimony on which all the law and the prophets hang.
" is it not our mistakes that often teach us the most in life?" EXACTLY our sinful nature or wrong guidance but this is mankinds choice as God will NEVER push, pull or coerce us to do it his way. This is what makes us unique above all earthly creatures because we have a mind and we have a choice to our divine creator.
He also cannot comprehend that a child would be damned by default simply by being born into this earth.
An often misinterpreted verse indeed. Jesus said Suffer the little children to come unto me for such is the kingdom of heaven & He told Nicodemus that to be saved one must be reborn.
In correction we are all born into sin. It is our human nature BUT we are told that to SIN we must first know sin which babies do not. They have not yet reached that knowledge. My grandson is just 2 years old and lately he has been hitting, displays jealousy of his younger sister, throws violent temper tantrums, etc. All the lovely things of being a child BUT if he were to die tomorrow according to what you are presenting then he would be damned to hell (hell is another subject). I think not. I don't know what God Phil knows but he is dead wrong there.
When I was 23 I lost my first son who was 2 months old. This woman in the community comes to my place and says I heard your son died and that is too bad. Now he is condemned to hell forever and you ought to be ashamed because you couldn't save him.
I was shocked and appalled for her ignorance and insolence. I don't ever remember calling myself God so I was far from doing miracles at that time but when she told me he was damned to hell I rebuked her lying spirit. I went to the Bible and sought guidance. Hence the 'one must know sin to sin' and suffer the little children...
He also asks himself what about a divine man dying could benefit his life more than what he has already done for himself. This man has found a profound connection with a higher power which radiates goodness and love throughout all areas of his life. He makes mistakes, yes-- to be human is to make mistakes... but he wonders if Christianity is suggesting that to be human is to be a mistake -- a mistake that needs fixing from birth.. or "saving".
Hmmm... Phil sounds a little bit jealous here that there can be anyone more pure than himself like a 'god complex' you know. Of course we are all fallible mankind prone to mistakes, making blunders and wrong decisions. Seems to me that Phil is very presumptuous and hasn't even read the Bible, asked God, or really cares less but to vent his shortcomings on a Christian site.
I wonder if Phil was an OT believer or a NT believer?! Sounds like an OT by his judgments.
We all have a sinful nature and that is the reason the OT didn't work because of mankinds cruelty towards one another showing no love or mercy. They were giving lip service and forgot the greater seeking instead the power of the law for themselves.
"How does a divine man dying fix my so-called mistakes?" Phil wonders.
Sounds to me like Phil has some unresolved issues he can't forgive himself for when God already has.
&& no I am not going to quote Bible scriptures as if Phil has read the Bible they would already be spinning through his head faster than he can read or write.Phil isn't upset with Christianity, nor does he hold any bitterness towards it. In fact he agrees with much of the ideologies that are taught. "After all," Phil reasons, "billions of people can't be entirely incorrect can they?" Perhaps not.
Phil is not an atheist. He very much believes in God. However, Phil cannot bring himself to be so arrogant as to believe that he has God all figured out.
Or maybe billions of people can't be right. Do we know the numbers for sure of which way they all lean and you do know that one day all beliefs will come into the ultimate knowledge. God said I will make the blind to see and those that see I will make blind. Now I wonder if Phil read the Bible with fleshly eyes or with God's guidance (I did say God not mankind who is prone to mistakes and the devil is good at twisting it all out of shape)
Phil believes that God extends so far beyond any specific book or religion that it is impossible to quantify. "Just look at all the belief systems in every culture throughout history." Phil says to himself. "Throughout time, every single organized society and culture has always had some form of belief in a higher power or deity. And most of which were certainly not Christian. This fact alone shows that God is bigger than Christianity. People were believing in God before the first page of the Bible was even thought to be written!" Phil states.
I would certainly hope that God is bigger than Christianity as God is the basis for Christianity.
Beyond all else, Phil is sure that there are no mysteries in the Universe for those who openly seek for truth.
Well if Phil is going to openly seek the truth He should seek it through the Alpha & Omega, the author and the finisher, God himself who is quite open to questions, doubts, and willingly guides whoever asks.
My God is God and I'll fly His banner high
Hi ‘Phil’, I thought I would take some time to answer some of the points you’ve raised.
Why I Am No Longer A Christian
He agreed with the life that Jesus led, but does not believe that all universal truth can be defined in one specific book or belief system -- no matter what is popular or unpopular to believe.
Ok, neither does any Christian, Christians believe that truth can also be found in creation. But we do believe that all moral truth can only truly be known on the pages of scripture. If you don’t believe the latter, that’s ok, but you’ve given absolutely no reason why you don’t believe it. The bible claims to be the only comprehendible revelation of morality, and Jesus also claimed this, so if you say ‘you agree with the life Jesus led’, you have to give justification of why you don’t believe his statements on the sufficiency of scripture.
So, in essence he does not agree that Jesus was divine nor that a man (even a divine one) could take away the wrongdoings of the world.
Again, why? Jesus claimed to be divine, he did miracles to testify of his supernatural nature, history can affirm much of this. The Old Testament testified of him, the evidence is in favour of Jesus’s divinity, you have to prove otherwise.
He understands that humans are born into imperfection. He also understands that people will make mistakes in life. What he does not understand is why this is necessarily a bad thing. "After all," he reasons to himself, " is it not our mistakes that often teach us the most in life?"
Well this is a ridiculous statement, the definition of the word ‘mistake’ defines it as a bad thing itself. Now, yes, some do end up learning from there mistakes, but there are often consequences that you suffer as a result, many of which stay with you for your lifetime. If we followed the bibles advice in the first place we could avoid many of these mistakes and thus avoid the consequences also.
He also cannot comprehend that a child would be damned by default simply by being born into this earth.
A child is not ‘damned’ by no part of his own doing, if a child decided to reject all sin and live a holy life, then he would not be damned. But the truth of the matter is no child has ever done so, we all sin, we are slaves to sin and we need to be freed from that slavery.
This man has found a profound connection with a higher power which radiates goodness and love throughout all areas of his life.
This is a ‘nothing’ statement, if you cannot even describe or identify who this ‘higher power’ is, that means you know nothing about his character, if you know nothing about his character how can you even know you have a connection to him/her/it. Secondly, how do you know that what is radiating from you is ‘goodness and love’ because these are both moral concepts. And that means there must be an objective moral law. You cannot have an objective moral law without an objective moral law giver who somewhere has identified what that moral law is. Now, you clearly don’t believe that this so called ‘higher power’ has revealed to us his moral law objectively, so it is irrational to believe such a moral law exists and thus terms such as ‘goodness’ and ‘love’ really have no definition.
He makes mistakes, yes-- to be human is to make mistakes... but he wonders if Christianity is suggesting that to be human is to be a mistake -- a mistake that needs fixing from birth.. or "saving". This idea seems unfair to him (whom we shall henceforth call Phil), as no living being on earth chose to be born.
Well it’s true that no-one chose to be born, but, they did chose sin, God has given each person a choice between righteousness and sin. But we all continue to choose sin, thus we are without excuse as Romans 1 says.
. So the " why" and reason for a saviour is comprehensible to him under the extreme and unfortunate ideologies which have been previously mentioned. He doesn't like it, these ideas that no child is born innocent, but the man we are referring to as Phil can wrap his mind around the "why" of a saviour -- even though he cannot swallow the ludicrous idea of inherited guilt and shame.
You may believe these ideologies are ‘unfortunate’ and not like the ideal that you now have ‘guilt and shame’ (which is not by inheritance, but by your own doing), however that is like a cancer patient hating the fact that the doctor has told him he’s got cancer. Nobody likes to hear that diagnosis, but the rational response is not to say ‘ohhh I don’t like it therefore I don’t believe it’ the rational response is to say ‘ok, its not good news, but let me look for some good news, how can I be healed?’
He cannot imagine that a higher power would damn an entire world for one man and one woman's mistakes and label our very nature as "sinful" or unacceptable from birth -- that because of one couples choices, we are made to sin and therefore be indebted to this God that accuses all.
As I’ve said many times before, we can’t put all the blame on Adam and Eve as we continue to sin regardless.
He also wonders that if the first generation of humans sinned (according to the Bible) perhaps to be human is indeed to make mistakes, but that in and of itself is not a mistake.
Well no, you can’t speculate on this as God told us in the beginning everything was ‘good’. That means humans were without sin, however they were given choice. Had the choice not been there someone such as yourself probably would now be saying ‘he also wonders that if the first generation of humans didn’t have a choice to love God they must have been forced to love him, therefore we don’t have freewill and God has designed us without the ability to chose and that is not love at all’. We shouldn’t use double standards when we are analysing scripture, be consistent.
He wonders that if this first couple (Adam and Eve) did not make a mistake in their lives or. "sin", how many more generations would go by before someone slipped up and became angry, or cheated or stole something therefore starting the entire process and damning their sons and daughters for all eternity. He imagines that if such a god does exist under these principles, he should be dethroned immediately as no unfair tyrant such as he should reign over all and decide the fates of so many with so little regard.
Again, your deciding your fate, not God, if you came onto this forum totally sinless and said ‘why is God sending me to hell’ you may have an argument, however if you were totally sinless you would not be heading to hell so you wouldn’t make such a claim, you are heading to hell because of y our own sin. Secondly, as we have just worked out, you are sinful, thus you are in no morally position to pass judgment over the occupation of the throne of God who is a completely sinless being.
Now, despite all of his serious doubts, he can indeed understand the "why" or the need for a saviour given the unfair circumstances. But what our friend Phil cannot understand or comprehend under any circumstances thus far is the "how" of the whole saving sinners process --which he guesses probably isn't discussed much among Christian believers.
Ummm, I don’t know what churches you have been attending, but salvation (soteriology) is probably the main topic that is preached in most fundamental churches. There are even seminaries who dedicate whole bachelor and master degrees to such studies.
The "how" has got him stumped, stumped indeed. "How does a divine man dying fix my so-called mistakes?" Phil wonders. He is not looking for a cliche answer, which may sound something like "believing and accepting the gift cleans your ink-blot-of-an-existence, unless you make a mistake again , then your back to square one, pal." He is curious about the actual mechanics behind the saving process. Phil did decent at math and science in college, but as hard as he tries, the formula "one divine man's death + one inherited mistake-of-an-existence" (that phrase referring to the idea of being born with an evil, sinful nature) does not equal the sum of "saved and forever in heaven." How could it? Phil continues to ask: What logic is used to deduce this result from this equation?
Well, the logic behind it is simple, you have to start at God’s nature, if God created the universe, and morality and justification, I think he should have the right to define the terms on which morality is fulfilled. Now, although God is loving, he is also just, not many people like to accept the latter, but think of the uproar that would happen if a ‘loving civil judge’ started letting people off for murder because they wanted to express love. So God has decreed that all sin be paid with blood, just like the death penalty has existed in many countries and rapidly reduced crime rates when it was introduced. So if sin needs to be paid with blood, the question is who’s blood, and how much. And that is based on the severity of the sin, and the pureness of the blood, this analogy is found all throughout the Old Testament in the sacrificial offering system.
God has decreed that to gain moral merit one must be sinless, moral merit gives you the ability to atone for sins. Now if you don’t like this concept im sorry but you’re against most of the world, because religions all across the world (apart from Christianity) believe that when you get to heaven, if you’re good outweighs your bad, you will be accepted. Thus the concept a lack of sin gains moral merit which can atone for other sins. So now we see that this concept is not so far fetched, we can understand that the only person who has never ever sinned would have the most moral merit possible, thus if he was to offer his blood as a sacrifice it would have unlimited atonement to pay for sins. And as a gift of grace if he chose to use that unlimited atonement to pay for the sins of those he loves, that is perfectly within his liberty to do so.
Who is on trial that there is even a debt that needs to be paid? Since when is being imperfect a crime punishable by fire and brimstone?
You are on trial for rejecting your Lord and God and living in sin, you are not merely ‘imperfect’ you are a slave to sin, you love your sin and hate the Lord your God. And again, you don’t have the right to determine the punishment for your sin as you would obviously do it from a biased position, the one who is sinless has this right and him alone.
For it is said that the god of the Christians can only accept perfection in his kingdom. Therefore Christ steps in and covers us with his sacrifice. To whom was the sacrifice offered? To God the Father?
Yes
Who was the judge that needed to be satisfied with blood?
The Father
Phil believes that these are questions that cannot be reasonably answered and are therefore never asked.
I’m sorry, but only a little bit of research on Christian Apologetics would show you that these questions are always asked, and for the most part are completely reasonably answered, infact the poser of the question is often the one to be shown without logical rationality or consistency in such debates.
Phil is confident that if these questions are asked by the brave, individual thinkers among this popular religion, the answer will most assuredly sound something like: "Well our human minds just can't comprehend it.
As I have showed, this is almost never the answer given, these answers are laid out in many parts of the bible, that bible covers soteriology almost as much as any other doctrine.
You'll have to ask him when you get to heaven."
Again, I have never heard anyone answer such soteriological questions in that way
Phil's mind can also not comprehend how Santa Claus makes it all the way around the world and delivers presents to all the children in just one night. Perhaps when next Phil visits the North Pole he will have to ask Mr. Claus how he does it, as he has been wondering since his early childhood.
There are absolutely no relevant parallels in the two concepts.
Phil also wonders what would happen if he asked the individuals who told him about Christianity this question: "Statistically, what religion would you be a member of if you were born in India?" The answer to this of course would be more than likely Buddhist or Hindu. Phil knows and understands that humans are creatures of habit and tradition -- especially those of the American culture. He has a suspicion that most "personal religious beliefs" are inherited and passed down through cultural or literal parentage rather than divinely inspired. Based on statistics of religion around the world, his suspicion appears to be entirely accurate.
Although this is true, that has nothing to do with discerning who is right or wrong, just because somebody believes something because its tradition that doesn’t make it neither right or wrong. Christians don’t say ‘believe in Jesus because my father, and his father and his father believed in it’. We say, believe in Jesus because no other world religion can answer the questions that Christ does. Weather I was born in India and believed in Hinduism has no effect on what the true concept of God is.
Phil thinks back to his days in university and remembers being quite fond of a class regarding Greek mythology. He was fascinated by the mentality of the people and how they gave nature and other life occurrences actual faces. He recalls the most famous of these deities called Zeus, the God of lightning and thunder. The similarities between artistic depictions of both Zeus and the god of Christianity always amused Phil. There are many other similarities between Greek mythology and Christianity that Phil can't help but notice. He wonders when Greek mythology stopped being a religion and started being called myth. He further wonders if one day in the future the culture of the time will coin the term "Christian Mythology."
Well, there’s no benefit in speculating about weather the world will in the future seeing Christianity as a ‘myth’ because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of scripture is mythical. If there was, believe me it would be all over the news, but as of yet there isn’t, so it is you future predictions that would be better described as mythical than the classification of Christianity amongst future generations.
Phil isn't upset with Christianity, nor does he hold any bitterness towards it. In fact he agrees with much of the ideologies that are taught. "After all," Phil reasons, "billions of people can't be entirely incorrect can they?" Perhaps not.
I disagree, I believe Phil has made it clear in this article that he doesn’t like many of the concepts in Christianity, but again, who would like being told that they are sinful, and a salve to sin. And of course billions of people can be right, but billions of people also can be wrong, the fact that a lot of people believe in Christianity does not categorically make the belief to be true or false, its rational reason and evidence that does that.
Phil is not an atheist. He very much believes in God.
Well, most likely, a God that he can mould to fit well with his ego and not confront his sin.
However, Phil cannot bring himself to be so arrogant as to believe that he has God all figured out.
Christians don’t believe ‘we have figured God out’, we believe God has revealed himself to us on the pages of scripture, and we believe if God is all powerful, and made the heavens and the earth, he probably has the ability to accurately and comprehendably convey truth about himself that he wants us to know.
Phil very much doubts that God resembles Santa Claus on a throne -- giving presents to the good children and coal to the bad.
Good, so do Christians, we don’t believe you can be saved by anything you do, it’s a supernatural work of God, who changes the heart that saves us.
Phil believes that God extends so far beyond any specific book or religion that it is impossible to quantify. "Just look at all the belief systems in every culture throughout history." Phil says to himself. "Throughout time, every single organized society and culture has always had some form of belief in a higher power or deity. And most of which were certainly not Christian
Well that’s because as the bible says God has revealed himself to all men, but men hated the true God and changed his image for an idol, that could justify their sins.
This fact alone shows that God is bigger than Christianity.
No it doesn’t, as I have said before, just because somebody believes in something doesn’t make it true. And here’s how your using double standards again, earlier in your article you stated that ‘billions of people can’t be entirely correct can they’ suggesting that just because the masses believe something, that doesn’t make it true. Now you’re trying to argue the opposite, your saying just because massive of people outside of Christianity believe in God, that must mean that God can’t only be the God of the bible. Again, if your going to pass judgment on a perfect God while being sinful, at least attempt to do it consistently.
People were believing in God before the first page of the Bible was even thought to be written!"
Yes they were, and many of them believed in the God who was later revealed in the bible, that’s why Moses had such a large following when he wrote the first 5 books of the bible.
Phil states. "So why then," he continues to himself, "are people so insistent that God can only properly exist between Genesis and Revelation.
He doesn’t only exist between those pages, but that is where he is fully comprehensively revealed, and people are so insistent on this concept because as I have said previously, scripture and Christ are the only concepts that can rationally account for mans issues of morality and spirituality.
I should think that God properly exists everywhere and always... simply because God is, not because a religion or doctrine says so.
Ummm, religion and doctrine is a belief based on God which HE has revealed, so if God reveals his existence through the bible, that isn’t the cause of his existence, but it is how we know he exists and who he is.
Why I Am No Longer A Christian
He agreed with the life that Jesus led, but does not believe that all universal truth can be defined in one specific book or belief system -- no matter what is popular or unpopular to believe.
Ok, neither does any Christian, Christians believe that truth can also be found in creation. But we do believe that all moral truth can only truly be known on the pages of scripture. If you don’t believe the latter, that’s ok, but you’ve given absolutely no reason why you don’t believe it. The bible claims to be the only comprehendible revelation of morality, and Jesus also claimed this, so if you say ‘you agree with the life Jesus led’, you have to give justification of why you don’t believe his statements on the sufficiency of scripture.
So, in essence he does not agree that Jesus was divine nor that a man (even a divine one) could take away the wrongdoings of the world.
Again, why? Jesus claimed to be divine, he did miracles to testify of his supernatural nature, history can affirm much of this. The Old Testament testified of him, the evidence is in favour of Jesus’s divinity, you have to prove otherwise.
He understands that humans are born into imperfection. He also understands that people will make mistakes in life. What he does not understand is why this is necessarily a bad thing. "After all," he reasons to himself, " is it not our mistakes that often teach us the most in life?"
Well this is a ridiculous statement, the definition of the word ‘mistake’ defines it as a bad thing itself. Now, yes, some do end up learning from there mistakes, but there are often consequences that you suffer as a result, many of which stay with you for your lifetime. If we followed the bibles advice in the first place we could avoid many of these mistakes and thus avoid the consequences also.
He also cannot comprehend that a child would be damned by default simply by being born into this earth.
A child is not ‘damned’ by no part of his own doing, if a child decided to reject all sin and live a holy life, then he would not be damned. But the truth of the matter is no child has ever done so, we all sin, we are slaves to sin and we need to be freed from that slavery.
This man has found a profound connection with a higher power which radiates goodness and love throughout all areas of his life.
This is a ‘nothing’ statement, if you cannot even describe or identify who this ‘higher power’ is, that means you know nothing about his character, if you know nothing about his character how can you even know you have a connection to him/her/it. Secondly, how do you know that what is radiating from you is ‘goodness and love’ because these are both moral concepts. And that means there must be an objective moral law. You cannot have an objective moral law without an objective moral law giver who somewhere has identified what that moral law is. Now, you clearly don’t believe that this so called ‘higher power’ has revealed to us his moral law objectively, so it is irrational to believe such a moral law exists and thus terms such as ‘goodness’ and ‘love’ really have no definition.
He makes mistakes, yes-- to be human is to make mistakes... but he wonders if Christianity is suggesting that to be human is to be a mistake -- a mistake that needs fixing from birth.. or "saving". This idea seems unfair to him (whom we shall henceforth call Phil), as no living being on earth chose to be born.
Well it’s true that no-one chose to be born, but, they did chose sin, God has given each person a choice between righteousness and sin. But we all continue to choose sin, thus we are without excuse as Romans 1 says.
. So the " why" and reason for a saviour is comprehensible to him under the extreme and unfortunate ideologies which have been previously mentioned. He doesn't like it, these ideas that no child is born innocent, but the man we are referring to as Phil can wrap his mind around the "why" of a saviour -- even though he cannot swallow the ludicrous idea of inherited guilt and shame.
You may believe these ideologies are ‘unfortunate’ and not like the ideal that you now have ‘guilt and shame’ (which is not by inheritance, but by your own doing), however that is like a cancer patient hating the fact that the doctor has told him he’s got cancer. Nobody likes to hear that diagnosis, but the rational response is not to say ‘ohhh I don’t like it therefore I don’t believe it’ the rational response is to say ‘ok, its not good news, but let me look for some good news, how can I be healed?’
He cannot imagine that a higher power would damn an entire world for one man and one woman's mistakes and label our very nature as "sinful" or unacceptable from birth -- that because of one couples choices, we are made to sin and therefore be indebted to this God that accuses all.
As I’ve said many times before, we can’t put all the blame on Adam and Eve as we continue to sin regardless.
He also wonders that if the first generation of humans sinned (according to the Bible) perhaps to be human is indeed to make mistakes, but that in and of itself is not a mistake.
Well no, you can’t speculate on this as God told us in the beginning everything was ‘good’. That means humans were without sin, however they were given choice. Had the choice not been there someone such as yourself probably would now be saying ‘he also wonders that if the first generation of humans didn’t have a choice to love God they must have been forced to love him, therefore we don’t have freewill and God has designed us without the ability to chose and that is not love at all’. We shouldn’t use double standards when we are analysing scripture, be consistent.
He wonders that if this first couple (Adam and Eve) did not make a mistake in their lives or. "sin", how many more generations would go by before someone slipped up and became angry, or cheated or stole something therefore starting the entire process and damning their sons and daughters for all eternity. He imagines that if such a god does exist under these principles, he should be dethroned immediately as no unfair tyrant such as he should reign over all and decide the fates of so many with so little regard.
Again, your deciding your fate, not God, if you came onto this forum totally sinless and said ‘why is God sending me to hell’ you may have an argument, however if you were totally sinless you would not be heading to hell so you wouldn’t make such a claim, you are heading to hell because of y our own sin. Secondly, as we have just worked out, you are sinful, thus you are in no morally position to pass judgment over the occupation of the throne of God who is a completely sinless being.
Now, despite all of his serious doubts, he can indeed understand the "why" or the need for a saviour given the unfair circumstances. But what our friend Phil cannot understand or comprehend under any circumstances thus far is the "how" of the whole saving sinners process --which he guesses probably isn't discussed much among Christian believers.
Ummm, I don’t know what churches you have been attending, but salvation (soteriology) is probably the main topic that is preached in most fundamental churches. There are even seminaries who dedicate whole bachelor and master degrees to such studies.
The "how" has got him stumped, stumped indeed. "How does a divine man dying fix my so-called mistakes?" Phil wonders. He is not looking for a cliche answer, which may sound something like "believing and accepting the gift cleans your ink-blot-of-an-existence, unless you make a mistake again , then your back to square one, pal." He is curious about the actual mechanics behind the saving process. Phil did decent at math and science in college, but as hard as he tries, the formula "one divine man's death + one inherited mistake-of-an-existence" (that phrase referring to the idea of being born with an evil, sinful nature) does not equal the sum of "saved and forever in heaven." How could it? Phil continues to ask: What logic is used to deduce this result from this equation?
Well, the logic behind it is simple, you have to start at God’s nature, if God created the universe, and morality and justification, I think he should have the right to define the terms on which morality is fulfilled. Now, although God is loving, he is also just, not many people like to accept the latter, but think of the uproar that would happen if a ‘loving civil judge’ started letting people off for murder because they wanted to express love. So God has decreed that all sin be paid with blood, just like the death penalty has existed in many countries and rapidly reduced crime rates when it was introduced. So if sin needs to be paid with blood, the question is who’s blood, and how much. And that is based on the severity of the sin, and the pureness of the blood, this analogy is found all throughout the Old Testament in the sacrificial offering system.
God has decreed that to gain moral merit one must be sinless, moral merit gives you the ability to atone for sins. Now if you don’t like this concept im sorry but you’re against most of the world, because religions all across the world (apart from Christianity) believe that when you get to heaven, if you’re good outweighs your bad, you will be accepted. Thus the concept a lack of sin gains moral merit which can atone for other sins. So now we see that this concept is not so far fetched, we can understand that the only person who has never ever sinned would have the most moral merit possible, thus if he was to offer his blood as a sacrifice it would have unlimited atonement to pay for sins. And as a gift of grace if he chose to use that unlimited atonement to pay for the sins of those he loves, that is perfectly within his liberty to do so.
Who is on trial that there is even a debt that needs to be paid? Since when is being imperfect a crime punishable by fire and brimstone?
You are on trial for rejecting your Lord and God and living in sin, you are not merely ‘imperfect’ you are a slave to sin, you love your sin and hate the Lord your God. And again, you don’t have the right to determine the punishment for your sin as you would obviously do it from a biased position, the one who is sinless has this right and him alone.
For it is said that the god of the Christians can only accept perfection in his kingdom. Therefore Christ steps in and covers us with his sacrifice. To whom was the sacrifice offered? To God the Father?
Yes
Who was the judge that needed to be satisfied with blood?
The Father
Phil believes that these are questions that cannot be reasonably answered and are therefore never asked.
I’m sorry, but only a little bit of research on Christian Apologetics would show you that these questions are always asked, and for the most part are completely reasonably answered, infact the poser of the question is often the one to be shown without logical rationality or consistency in such debates.
Phil is confident that if these questions are asked by the brave, individual thinkers among this popular religion, the answer will most assuredly sound something like: "Well our human minds just can't comprehend it.
As I have showed, this is almost never the answer given, these answers are laid out in many parts of the bible, that bible covers soteriology almost as much as any other doctrine.
You'll have to ask him when you get to heaven."
Again, I have never heard anyone answer such soteriological questions in that way
Phil's mind can also not comprehend how Santa Claus makes it all the way around the world and delivers presents to all the children in just one night. Perhaps when next Phil visits the North Pole he will have to ask Mr. Claus how he does it, as he has been wondering since his early childhood.
There are absolutely no relevant parallels in the two concepts.
Phil also wonders what would happen if he asked the individuals who told him about Christianity this question: "Statistically, what religion would you be a member of if you were born in India?" The answer to this of course would be more than likely Buddhist or Hindu. Phil knows and understands that humans are creatures of habit and tradition -- especially those of the American culture. He has a suspicion that most "personal religious beliefs" are inherited and passed down through cultural or literal parentage rather than divinely inspired. Based on statistics of religion around the world, his suspicion appears to be entirely accurate.
Although this is true, that has nothing to do with discerning who is right or wrong, just because somebody believes something because its tradition that doesn’t make it neither right or wrong. Christians don’t say ‘believe in Jesus because my father, and his father and his father believed in it’. We say, believe in Jesus because no other world religion can answer the questions that Christ does. Weather I was born in India and believed in Hinduism has no effect on what the true concept of God is.
Phil thinks back to his days in university and remembers being quite fond of a class regarding Greek mythology. He was fascinated by the mentality of the people and how they gave nature and other life occurrences actual faces. He recalls the most famous of these deities called Zeus, the God of lightning and thunder. The similarities between artistic depictions of both Zeus and the god of Christianity always amused Phil. There are many other similarities between Greek mythology and Christianity that Phil can't help but notice. He wonders when Greek mythology stopped being a religion and started being called myth. He further wonders if one day in the future the culture of the time will coin the term "Christian Mythology."
Well, there’s no benefit in speculating about weather the world will in the future seeing Christianity as a ‘myth’ because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of scripture is mythical. If there was, believe me it would be all over the news, but as of yet there isn’t, so it is you future predictions that would be better described as mythical than the classification of Christianity amongst future generations.
Phil isn't upset with Christianity, nor does he hold any bitterness towards it. In fact he agrees with much of the ideologies that are taught. "After all," Phil reasons, "billions of people can't be entirely incorrect can they?" Perhaps not.
I disagree, I believe Phil has made it clear in this article that he doesn’t like many of the concepts in Christianity, but again, who would like being told that they are sinful, and a salve to sin. And of course billions of people can be right, but billions of people also can be wrong, the fact that a lot of people believe in Christianity does not categorically make the belief to be true or false, its rational reason and evidence that does that.
Phil is not an atheist. He very much believes in God.
Well, most likely, a God that he can mould to fit well with his ego and not confront his sin.
However, Phil cannot bring himself to be so arrogant as to believe that he has God all figured out.
Christians don’t believe ‘we have figured God out’, we believe God has revealed himself to us on the pages of scripture, and we believe if God is all powerful, and made the heavens and the earth, he probably has the ability to accurately and comprehendably convey truth about himself that he wants us to know.
Phil very much doubts that God resembles Santa Claus on a throne -- giving presents to the good children and coal to the bad.
Good, so do Christians, we don’t believe you can be saved by anything you do, it’s a supernatural work of God, who changes the heart that saves us.
Phil believes that God extends so far beyond any specific book or religion that it is impossible to quantify. "Just look at all the belief systems in every culture throughout history." Phil says to himself. "Throughout time, every single organized society and culture has always had some form of belief in a higher power or deity. And most of which were certainly not Christian
Well that’s because as the bible says God has revealed himself to all men, but men hated the true God and changed his image for an idol, that could justify their sins.
This fact alone shows that God is bigger than Christianity.
No it doesn’t, as I have said before, just because somebody believes in something doesn’t make it true. And here’s how your using double standards again, earlier in your article you stated that ‘billions of people can’t be entirely correct can they’ suggesting that just because the masses believe something, that doesn’t make it true. Now you’re trying to argue the opposite, your saying just because massive of people outside of Christianity believe in God, that must mean that God can’t only be the God of the bible. Again, if your going to pass judgment on a perfect God while being sinful, at least attempt to do it consistently.
People were believing in God before the first page of the Bible was even thought to be written!"
Yes they were, and many of them believed in the God who was later revealed in the bible, that’s why Moses had such a large following when he wrote the first 5 books of the bible.
Phil states. "So why then," he continues to himself, "are people so insistent that God can only properly exist between Genesis and Revelation.
He doesn’t only exist between those pages, but that is where he is fully comprehensively revealed, and people are so insistent on this concept because as I have said previously, scripture and Christ are the only concepts that can rationally account for mans issues of morality and spirituality.
I should think that God properly exists everywhere and always... simply because God is, not because a religion or doctrine says so.
Ummm, religion and doctrine is a belief based on God which HE has revealed, so if God reveals his existence through the bible, that isn’t the cause of his existence, but it is how we know he exists and who he is.
“Phil then wonders why humanity is so willing to be spoon fed the truth. One would think that the truth would be valuable enough to search out on one's own -- at all costs.
Well no, because all philosophers will tell you that all research is value laden, I.e. we see all evidence through certain lenses and paradigms which often distort the truth, on this understanding it makes much more sense that God would reveal himself in a book, with words, that are much harder to tamper with and change without being found to be inconsistent. Personal human experiences are not so, as they cannot be repeated, analysed and judged by all people.
"So why then are most people in the world part of the same religion as their parents, and there parents before that?"
Again, this has nothing to do with weather Christianity is true or not, if you witnessed the sinking of the titanic, and told your son, who told his son and so on, would your great great grandson then be foolish to believe the titanic sunk if he was also shown much more evidence to believe so? No! of course he wouldn’t, so use the same standards, be consistent.
Phil asks to himself. "There isn't anything wrong with that in and of itself I suppose. But do Christians ever say to themselves 'Boy, I'm sure glad my parents were Christians and that I was born in a Christian prevalent land so that I can be saved. I feel sorry for those Indians who don't know any better.
You are not saved by your parents beliefs, you have to be born again yourself, and many children of believing parents start of as so called ‘believers’ and leave the faith later in life, thus it shows what your parents believe does not directly secure what you will believe. And again, God has revealed himself through the scripture but also through creation, thus no ‘Indian’ or any other tribe who didn’t have the bible is without excuse, the bible says if you seek God, he will reveal more of himself to you. The truth is every person who failed to be saved did so because they ignored the revelation of God in creation and the moral law of God written on their heart.
Phil believes that people primarily stay in the same religion as their parents because the majority do not ask questions that cannot be answered among their faith.
Well, this is speculation, many do ask the same questions as you have asked, also many don’t, but again, that has nothing to do with weather Christianity is true or not. If someone questions the truth or doesn’t, that doesn’t have any bearing on the existence of such truth.
Either they do not think to ask the questions (which is a common case Phil believes) or they are afraid of what the answers might be and are afraid that they will not be satisfied with what they find -- or what they don't find. "Ignorance is bliss.
As I have said many do ask such questions, also many don’t and you may be right, some Christians may believe there isn’t sufficient evidence behind their beliefs, but that is not because they have researched the evidence, it is because of poor Christian education. All you have to do as read some literature on Christian apologetics to realise that the questions you have raised in this article are actually some of the poorest and weakest arguments against the existence of God. Athiestic apologetics very rarely submit such objections.
“Phil sighs to himself. At times he even wishes that his mind wouldn't ask so many questions-- that he could be satisfied with not knowing. But Phil knows that this goes against everything he knows to be true. "I will stop questioning and searching in this world the moment I exhale my last breath." Phil always said.
Well this is good, but I question the truthful ness of this claim, if Phil was really searching for the truth I don’t think he would have raised many of the questions that he has in this article, although they are common question, because of their commonness they have been refuted many times by Christian apologists. Thus if Phil had done his research he would have raised questions about the answers given to his objections by apologists, not merely raised the objections themselves.
Phil believes that there is nothing in this Universe that cannot be explained by science. Nothing. After all, is it not God that created science and its laws? Therefore everything can be explained through them.
Now this is ridiculous, science is merely a study of ‘the natural’, it observes what can be repeatable and measurable. As of yet, no scientific theory can rationally account for mental concepts such as love and motives. It is totally unscientific to talk of a ‘motive of murder’; there is not science to explain such a concept. And scientists understand that, but it’s not what science is designed to do, so limiting all knowledge to that which is conducted in a lab, and interpreted in many different ways by many different scientists is irrational.
Now our understanding of those laws is in a continuous state of evolution, but each day we come closer and closer to unlocking what used to be mystery.
Yes in certain instances, but again there are many concepts that by definition, science will not be able to explain.
That belief has certainly evolved. Phil is certain that popular belief is not synonymous with fact -- he relates this to the popularity of religion as well. For example, Phil believes that he can use science to explain all of Christ's miracles (which, by the way, Phil tends to roll his eyes when hearing that if a Christian does something unexplainable its a miracle, but if a Buddhist does something unexplainable... its a demon working in him.)
Firstly, again, this is ridiculous; there exist tons and tons of Christian apologetic literature arguing for the miracles of Christ to be testified in history, and the fact that they must have been just that, miracles. A miracle is when got enters into the natural realm and does a supernatural act, that’s why most naturalistic atheists reject these claims of miracles, because they cannot be explained fully by observational science. So unless you’re a scientific mastermind that no one has every heard of, I highly doubt that you have come up with an observational scientific explanation in the natural realm for each of Jesus’s miracles. If this is the case, I would love to hear more about your theories.
Beyond all else, Phil is sure that there are no mysteries in the Universe for those who openly seek for truth.
Well again, and inconsistent statement, you have just agreed that science is in a state of constant flux, and it cannot explain everything, but now you are suggesting that everything can be explained within ones lifetime if one truly searches for the truth. If that was the case, science could end in this generation if a few people really put their minds to ‘searching for the truth’.
The Universe is in constant motion and always expanding. Therefore it would seem silly for one to say they have everything figured out or have found the whole truth.
Haha, there you go, contradicting your last statement, you have just said that one can find the whole truth on anything they wish to if they really search for it, and now your saying it silly for one to claim to have achieved such a thing, so you have just described yourself as silly. I’m not trying to mock you here, but I want you to recognize your own inconsistency, and you’re trying analysing God using double standards which normally suggest you have a bias or an ulterior motive. Scripture teaches that your bias is that you hate the true God.
The Universe is growing, and we must grow with it, Phil believes. Not being willing to look at all possibilities and stuck in the rut of tradition for tradition sake would be like a 30 year old man trying to wear his favorite Christmas sweater which he received when he was four.
Again, we don’t believe Christianity because it is traditional; we believe it because we believe God, Christ and scripture are the only rational answers for mans moral and spiritual questions.
It just won't fit anymore.
Well you have to show me some evidence that the Christian world view doesn’t fit any evidence that we know to be objectively true. And as you have not done so in this article, you have not the logical basis to say ‘Christianity doesn’t fit anymore’.
There are bigger sweaters out there though, fear not. And there are also sweaters of many different colors and fabrics. Which of you will hold your sweater high in your hand and shout "My sweater is most true to being a sweater!"? What makes your sweater more valid than Phil's? What makes Phil's sweater more valid than yours?
Again, the Christian ‘sweater’ worldview so to speak is true, this is supported by its ability to explain moral and spiritual issues more rationally and consistently than any other worldview, it also neither contradicts any evidence that we know to be absolutely true.
No, I am not Phil. He's much more gracious than I and tends to word things a little easier I think. I do think Phil is in there somewhere though. And I hope he never changes his fluidic ability to remain changeable and with thoughts in constant motion.
Well, that’s why I decided to respond to ‘Phil’s article’ and not speak directly to you. Now you say that Phil is much more ‘gracious’ than you. Maybe you have some more rational objections that your lack of ‘graciousness’ will allow you to express, but as for Phils objections, there is nothing he has asked that the scripture does not address directly and comprehensively. Now, there are questions that we don’t have the answer to, whereby we do say ‘you will have to wait to get to heaven to have that answered’ but none of Phil’s questions are such. If you really are looking for the ‘truth’ as Phil claims to be, I suggest you do a bit more research, read more Christian apologetic literature, and read more of the bible because if you agree with a lot of what Phil wrote, it seems to me that you must not be very familiar with scripture. As scripture addresses theses objections in many places. Secondly, you will have to deal with the law of God that is written on your heart, and although you may deny it, you feel guilt when you have don’t wrong and this guilt is almost impossible to argue away using theories of cultural religious teaches as when it comes to it every atheist wants to hold to some form of morality. So even if you reject Christ, you still have to somehow justify how things are right or wrong without someone who has set a moral law, and if someone has set a moral law they would have revealed that moral law to us, so rationally you are stuck with religions that have a holy book. Then, if you look at the major religions how have a holy book the bible is the only one that stands up against fierce scrutiny. For all the reasons I have addressed in this post, I believe you are dealing with a heart issue and not one of evidence, so I would call you to repent, and be born again and trust in Christ for your salvation.
Ill be praying for you
God bless
Well no, because all philosophers will tell you that all research is value laden, I.e. we see all evidence through certain lenses and paradigms which often distort the truth, on this understanding it makes much more sense that God would reveal himself in a book, with words, that are much harder to tamper with and change without being found to be inconsistent. Personal human experiences are not so, as they cannot be repeated, analysed and judged by all people.
"So why then are most people in the world part of the same religion as their parents, and there parents before that?"
Again, this has nothing to do with weather Christianity is true or not, if you witnessed the sinking of the titanic, and told your son, who told his son and so on, would your great great grandson then be foolish to believe the titanic sunk if he was also shown much more evidence to believe so? No! of course he wouldn’t, so use the same standards, be consistent.
Phil asks to himself. "There isn't anything wrong with that in and of itself I suppose. But do Christians ever say to themselves 'Boy, I'm sure glad my parents were Christians and that I was born in a Christian prevalent land so that I can be saved. I feel sorry for those Indians who don't know any better.
You are not saved by your parents beliefs, you have to be born again yourself, and many children of believing parents start of as so called ‘believers’ and leave the faith later in life, thus it shows what your parents believe does not directly secure what you will believe. And again, God has revealed himself through the scripture but also through creation, thus no ‘Indian’ or any other tribe who didn’t have the bible is without excuse, the bible says if you seek God, he will reveal more of himself to you. The truth is every person who failed to be saved did so because they ignored the revelation of God in creation and the moral law of God written on their heart.
Phil believes that people primarily stay in the same religion as their parents because the majority do not ask questions that cannot be answered among their faith.
Well, this is speculation, many do ask the same questions as you have asked, also many don’t, but again, that has nothing to do with weather Christianity is true or not. If someone questions the truth or doesn’t, that doesn’t have any bearing on the existence of such truth.
Either they do not think to ask the questions (which is a common case Phil believes) or they are afraid of what the answers might be and are afraid that they will not be satisfied with what they find -- or what they don't find. "Ignorance is bliss.
As I have said many do ask such questions, also many don’t and you may be right, some Christians may believe there isn’t sufficient evidence behind their beliefs, but that is not because they have researched the evidence, it is because of poor Christian education. All you have to do as read some literature on Christian apologetics to realise that the questions you have raised in this article are actually some of the poorest and weakest arguments against the existence of God. Athiestic apologetics very rarely submit such objections.
“Phil sighs to himself. At times he even wishes that his mind wouldn't ask so many questions-- that he could be satisfied with not knowing. But Phil knows that this goes against everything he knows to be true. "I will stop questioning and searching in this world the moment I exhale my last breath." Phil always said.
Well this is good, but I question the truthful ness of this claim, if Phil was really searching for the truth I don’t think he would have raised many of the questions that he has in this article, although they are common question, because of their commonness they have been refuted many times by Christian apologists. Thus if Phil had done his research he would have raised questions about the answers given to his objections by apologists, not merely raised the objections themselves.
Phil believes that there is nothing in this Universe that cannot be explained by science. Nothing. After all, is it not God that created science and its laws? Therefore everything can be explained through them.
Now this is ridiculous, science is merely a study of ‘the natural’, it observes what can be repeatable and measurable. As of yet, no scientific theory can rationally account for mental concepts such as love and motives. It is totally unscientific to talk of a ‘motive of murder’; there is not science to explain such a concept. And scientists understand that, but it’s not what science is designed to do, so limiting all knowledge to that which is conducted in a lab, and interpreted in many different ways by many different scientists is irrational.
Now our understanding of those laws is in a continuous state of evolution, but each day we come closer and closer to unlocking what used to be mystery.
Yes in certain instances, but again there are many concepts that by definition, science will not be able to explain.
That belief has certainly evolved. Phil is certain that popular belief is not synonymous with fact -- he relates this to the popularity of religion as well. For example, Phil believes that he can use science to explain all of Christ's miracles (which, by the way, Phil tends to roll his eyes when hearing that if a Christian does something unexplainable its a miracle, but if a Buddhist does something unexplainable... its a demon working in him.)
Firstly, again, this is ridiculous; there exist tons and tons of Christian apologetic literature arguing for the miracles of Christ to be testified in history, and the fact that they must have been just that, miracles. A miracle is when got enters into the natural realm and does a supernatural act, that’s why most naturalistic atheists reject these claims of miracles, because they cannot be explained fully by observational science. So unless you’re a scientific mastermind that no one has every heard of, I highly doubt that you have come up with an observational scientific explanation in the natural realm for each of Jesus’s miracles. If this is the case, I would love to hear more about your theories.
Beyond all else, Phil is sure that there are no mysteries in the Universe for those who openly seek for truth.
Well again, and inconsistent statement, you have just agreed that science is in a state of constant flux, and it cannot explain everything, but now you are suggesting that everything can be explained within ones lifetime if one truly searches for the truth. If that was the case, science could end in this generation if a few people really put their minds to ‘searching for the truth’.
The Universe is in constant motion and always expanding. Therefore it would seem silly for one to say they have everything figured out or have found the whole truth.
Haha, there you go, contradicting your last statement, you have just said that one can find the whole truth on anything they wish to if they really search for it, and now your saying it silly for one to claim to have achieved such a thing, so you have just described yourself as silly. I’m not trying to mock you here, but I want you to recognize your own inconsistency, and you’re trying analysing God using double standards which normally suggest you have a bias or an ulterior motive. Scripture teaches that your bias is that you hate the true God.
The Universe is growing, and we must grow with it, Phil believes. Not being willing to look at all possibilities and stuck in the rut of tradition for tradition sake would be like a 30 year old man trying to wear his favorite Christmas sweater which he received when he was four.
Again, we don’t believe Christianity because it is traditional; we believe it because we believe God, Christ and scripture are the only rational answers for mans moral and spiritual questions.
It just won't fit anymore.
Well you have to show me some evidence that the Christian world view doesn’t fit any evidence that we know to be objectively true. And as you have not done so in this article, you have not the logical basis to say ‘Christianity doesn’t fit anymore’.
There are bigger sweaters out there though, fear not. And there are also sweaters of many different colors and fabrics. Which of you will hold your sweater high in your hand and shout "My sweater is most true to being a sweater!"? What makes your sweater more valid than Phil's? What makes Phil's sweater more valid than yours?
Again, the Christian ‘sweater’ worldview so to speak is true, this is supported by its ability to explain moral and spiritual issues more rationally and consistently than any other worldview, it also neither contradicts any evidence that we know to be absolutely true.
No, I am not Phil. He's much more gracious than I and tends to word things a little easier I think. I do think Phil is in there somewhere though. And I hope he never changes his fluidic ability to remain changeable and with thoughts in constant motion.
Well, that’s why I decided to respond to ‘Phil’s article’ and not speak directly to you. Now you say that Phil is much more ‘gracious’ than you. Maybe you have some more rational objections that your lack of ‘graciousness’ will allow you to express, but as for Phils objections, there is nothing he has asked that the scripture does not address directly and comprehensively. Now, there are questions that we don’t have the answer to, whereby we do say ‘you will have to wait to get to heaven to have that answered’ but none of Phil’s questions are such. If you really are looking for the ‘truth’ as Phil claims to be, I suggest you do a bit more research, read more Christian apologetic literature, and read more of the bible because if you agree with a lot of what Phil wrote, it seems to me that you must not be very familiar with scripture. As scripture addresses theses objections in many places. Secondly, you will have to deal with the law of God that is written on your heart, and although you may deny it, you feel guilt when you have don’t wrong and this guilt is almost impossible to argue away using theories of cultural religious teaches as when it comes to it every atheist wants to hold to some form of morality. So even if you reject Christ, you still have to somehow justify how things are right or wrong without someone who has set a moral law, and if someone has set a moral law they would have revealed that moral law to us, so rationally you are stuck with religions that have a holy book. Then, if you look at the major religions how have a holy book the bible is the only one that stands up against fierce scrutiny. For all the reasons I have addressed in this post, I believe you are dealing with a heart issue and not one of evidence, so I would call you to repent, and be born again and trust in Christ for your salvation.
Ill be praying for you
God bless