Common Questions from Atheist.

[Honey12]

Atheist (suspiciously) are always asking question and looking for answers.
Questions like

Why does God allow people to suffer?

Why doesn't he just show himself and prove it once and for all?

Why does the bible contradict itself so often?

Why are parts of the bible so harsh and hateful sounding?

Why do people of other religions go to hell? They are born into a religion through culture, the same as Christians, and think the same about you? (I really have yet to come up with an answer for this one)

What are your answers to these questions? What are some that you hear a lot and how do you answer them?

 

[leelee]

Sometimes we learn from suffering, it makes us stronger and brings us to people we are supposed to be brought to (not always all of those)
Because then we wouldn't need the full measure of faith given to us.
God doesn't say the same thing to every person (my pastor had a fantastic example of this) and the bible was written by people
The bible has of course been translated not only from a different language, but a different time. Sometimes things are lost in translation and tbh I think a lot of bits are more metaphorical.
And the last one I will discuss in pms if you like but I am fed up of being attacked for expressing my views, if you are interested however let me know.

 

[zeroturbulence]

Why do people of other religions go to hell? They are born into a religion through culture, the same as Christians, and think the same about you? (I really have yet to come up with an answer for this one)

I have an answer for this one because of what I believe as a catholic, but I don't want to say it here because it will just start a debate. And NO, I don't believe they are saved.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Super duper short version (longest version take several books per question... lol).

1. God allows natural and free-will suffering to exist temporarily to accomplish a much greater eternal good.

2. He did.

3. It doesn't. Systematic theology is the study of how scripture fits and works together.

4. They aren't if you read them in context.

5. Consider that many gentiles and Jews that existed before Christ's physical birth into this world are "in Christ" and going to heaven. I would argue that many who have never heard of Jesus Christ, but sought God with all their heart eventually found Him and are going to heaven. False religious systems are a bad stumbling block for humanity but God used even these rivals to spread the knowledge of Himself throughout history so that people would know He existed and could appeal to Him. The only way to heaven is through Christ but God has shown a willingness to reveal Himself to those that earnestly seek Him. We may be surprised at whom God permitted to be "in Christ" one day. I am constantly surprised when I look at myself and all of you all... lol.

Atheist (suspiciously) are always asking question and looking for answers.
Questions like

Why does God allow people to suffer?

Why doesn't he just show himself and prove it once and for all?

Why does the bible contradict itself so often?

Why are parts of the bible so harsh and hateful sounding?

Why do people of other religions go to hell? They are born into a religion through culture, the same as Christians, and think the same about you? (I really have yet to come up with an answer for this one)

What are your answers to these questions? What are some that you hear a lot and how do you answer them?

 

[jimmydiggs]

Atheist (suspiciously) are always asking question and looking for answers.
Questions like

Why does God allow people to suffer?

Depending on how they argue this, there could be several ways to go about it.

Generally it is intended to be an argument against God's existance. However, if there is no God, we lose Objective morality. So by using Evil, to argue against God, we actually validate his existed by using something that is contingent/conditional upon his existance.

On another note, if they argue more in the manner of, "Isn't it a problem for Christians?" then the approach is slightly different. To put it bluntly, one only has to accept that God is Objectivelly Good, and then it's solved. It may be difficult to understand why things happen that we don't like, admittedly. I'm not sure anything in the bible says pain and suffering in and of themselves are evil. So that might be a point to make as well.

Why doesn't he just show himself and prove it once and for all?

Without a glorified body, we'd die. (kind of defeats the purpose, huh?)

Why does the bible contradict itself so often?

I've never met a supposed contradiction, that couldn't be easily and obviously resolved by reading the verses fore and aft.

There is only one disagreeance I know of outside of the Gospels, and it's in Chronicles and Kings, and it's an inventory of items taken from a battle. The numbers are off by a few digits. (I.E. 1000 vs. 100)

Why are parts of the bible so harsh and hateful sounding?

See my earlier point on God and morality. Without God, how can anything be harsh and or hateful beyond the subjective?

Why do people of other religions go to hell?

Consider this. Without hell, what's the point of mercy and grace?

They are born into a religion through culture, the same as Christians, and think the same about you? (I really have yet to come up with an answer for this one)

People aren't "born into" a religion. This is committing the Genetic Fallacy.

Genetic Fallacy

A Genetic Fallacy occurs when the origin a belief or idea is presented as grounds to accept or reject the idea. Of course, this doesn't apply when the the origin itself is the issue, or that it is relevant to a truth claim (e.g., a strong argument can be made that the truth of Christianity is contingent on the truth of the Resurrection. If this is the case, then appealing to the supposed truth [or falsity] of the Resurrection does not commit the Genetic Fallacy). This is a common example of a genetic fallacy:

Most Christians are believers because their parents were
​

Fallacies in Argumentation <--- click

Also, just because it's a multiple choice test, that doesn't mean therefore all options are wrong.

What are your answers to these questions? What are some that you hear a lot and how do you answer them?

This is pretty basic, you may have to argue some of the points though to sustain it.

Right now I'm working on some criticsm from my mythology professor, and from a guy in my world religions class who proposed that God cannot exist outside of time. (latter is easier to deal with, former is new to me)

 

[Possum]

I agree with what has been said so far to the first four.
I find the fifth a very interesting one. As a relatively new Christian myself, I talk through these things and the questions I have with a friend.
I really liked her answer when I asked about people from, say, tribes that have no contact with Christian people and don't know about Jesus. How is it fair that they are excluded from heaven? She replied saying that God knows people's hearts, and if they would accept Christ as the saviour, given the right circumstances. After all, people born into a culture where Christianity is very much in the minority can of course be forgiven for not following it. It's like asking someone in the UK in a largely Christian city to be Muslim, based on all they know of Islam. It's understandable that people with minimal understanding of Christianity and little access to it would not be a Christian.
I find the fact that some people believe that a non-Christian will get into heaven based on people praying for their souls a strange concept. It's not that I reject it, I just don't have enough information to understand it.

I just love what my friend said about God knowing everyone's hearts. It's comforting to believe that souls won't be excluded from heaven because of not having exposure to Christianity.

 

[jimmydiggs]

I would like to add more to one of the points, that I felt was not dealt with sufficiently.

Why do people of other religions go to hell?

Here at SEMO I went to one of the little advertising fairs, where all the campus groups get to try and make you join their pointless endeavors. As I was walking through I chatted with one of the Campus Ministries (won't name what group, for good reasons) and we ended up discussing this topic. This young gal who said she was a missionary, asked "What about the people who live in the villages and never hear the gospel?"


The most important part of my response (although it was 15 minutes long or so) was this: According to the bible, those that are the elect, will be elected, those that aren't, won't be.

What does that mean? Transalation:"Those that God choses to save, will be saved, and those God has chosen not to save, will not be saved."

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

One doesn't have to take a strict hyper-Calvinistic perspective, as our friend Jimmydiggs has, to answer the fifth question.

It's easy to state that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4) and the freewill of individuals to that is the deciding factor.

"Those that God choses to save, will be saved, and those God has chosen not to save, will not be saved."

 

[jimmydiggs]

One doesn't have to take a strict hyper-Calvinistic perspective, as our friend Jimmydiggs has, to answer the fifth question.

It's easy to state that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4) and the freewill of individuals to that is the deciding factor.

I fail to see how it constitutes hyper-calvinism.


Let's see...

The below list comes from Monergism.com

that God is the author of sin and of evil [Nope, don't believe this]
- that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect [Nope, don't believe this]
- that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men [Nope, don't believe this]
- that it is wrong to evangelize [Nope, don't believe this]
- that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith [not sure this even makes sense]
- that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do [not sure what is being said here]
- that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others [Nope, don't believe this]
- that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned [Nope, don't believe this]
- that God does not command everyone to repent [Nope, don't believe this]
- that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone. [don't really understand this one]
- that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church [not sure this makes sense]
- that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church. [i don't care for the word interpret, it makes it sound like a painting, but otherwise I don't see how the two can be divorced]
- that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority [Nope, don't believe this]
- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men [don't know much about this]
- that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination [Nope, don't believe this]
- that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism [Nope, don't believe this]
(source)

Given that of the things listed, I don't believe any of them, how am I a hyper-calvinist?

I'm just one of them ther' neighborhood calvinists, who believes you and I didn't chose God, but God chose us. That we were so afflicited by sin, that we hated God in our most basic nature, and loved sin.

If you think I'm a Hyper-Calvinist, I wonder what you think about People like Charles Heddon Spurgeon, George Whitefield, John Piper, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, and Paul Washer. To name a few.

Now that the accusation of heresy is out of the way.

What I meant( I thought about explaining in that post, but assumed it would be understood) is that if God has willed for Ratuur of Calcutta to be saved, he will make sure he is saved. How it will happen, I don't know.

The question wasn't about whether we chose or not, but why people of other religions go to hell. It is used as an argument against Christianity (if you notice, that was even the context she gave, indreictly albeit) so you have to give the most relevant response. Often what is unstated is that the people in mind also have not heard the gospel.

If they haven't heard the gospel, they can't really chose can they?

If someone has had the Gospel presented to them, and they are not of the elect, then they are doomed to hell because they will die apart from saving Grace. It's so simple, even a cave man could understand it!

 

[apocalypseArisen]

JimmyDiggs: Chronicles and Kings are RIPE with contradiction, just because of when/how they were written. Kings, along with Samuel, Joshua, and Judges, were made about 622 BC, and were commisioned as a history by King Josiah of Judah to try and understand why the north fell to Assyria about 100 years earlier. It's about how they thought that the reason the north fall was by not keeping gods commandments.

Chronicles wasn't written until after the Babylonian exile, when the Persians told the priests of Judah to go back to Jerusalem and lead their people. When they got back, they wrote the Torah, the which was the basis of their law, and Chronicles, which was a polemic re-telling of Samuel and Kings that glorified the priests role in history.

BTW, I got this info from my theology professor. She's a published Biblical scholar, and a reverend to boot, so she's not on some sort of quest to defame the Bible or anything. She believes it, she just needs the full context.