Your point one is one of the three traditional "proofs of God" and logically sound. Point two becomes more questionable. language is widespread among various creatures, moral consciousness seems present in many species and God consciousness is impossible to affirm or deny outside of humanity as we do not know what other species perceive. Ponts three through five are all opinion, not fact, especially as most all, if not all, of Jesus's teachings can be found expressed by other Jewish contemporaries, Paul was the most prolific writer in the NT, but not necessarily more profound that Peter or John. All this is leading to point six as also opinion.
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
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.
Your reply implies you do not believe Eph. 4:11-16 is God's Word.
What man taught you that?!
Everyone learns about the Lord from other people, including parents, friends, pastors, etc.
Care to share your testimony?
I said OF COURSE no one comes before the Lord!
And I say you need to harmonize Eph. 5:1 with Eph. 4:11-16.
Again, everyone learns about the Lord from other people, including parents, friends, pastors, etc.
I bet that if you shared your testimony you would admit that truth.
I know that was true in my case, and I still learn things from discussions with folks on CC.
I rejoice when they say they have also learned some truth from me.
Your critique is also opinion, so the question is, "Whose logic is better?" Disagreement with the PP implies the following:
1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God, but belief in natural causes/no God is better.
2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity, but belief these do not reflect God is better.
3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek ways to become immortal in a heavenly existence (where there is love and justice for all forever, the DOD), but it is better to believe there is no heaven.
4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus, but hoping in some other way with less evidence is better.
5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible, but believing something other than the NT is better.
6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah, but it is better to be atheist and anti-Christ.
Whose logic should people have a propensity to believe?
As I said, point one is widely, but clearly not universally accepted, the common approach to discredit it violates rules of logic.
On point 2, scripture tells us that humanity was created in the image/likeness of God. This suggests a qualitative difference between humanity and the rest of creation, but language and moral consciousness have been shown to exist in other species, God consciousness cannot be proven. If you wish to make this argument, you need a different approach. It is possible, but to my mind, you would need to get well outside the comfort zone of most people, and especially most Christians.
One point 3, sometimes if you talk to elderly people, especially the very old, you will sometimes hear them say something to the effect that sometimes people simply live too long. So again, should you wish to make this argument, you need to find better support, here I would suggest looking into NDE accounts, but I warn you that they might also challenge some of your Christian beliefs, forcing you to either change your beliefs, or adjust the accounts..
Pont 4, are you referring to resurrection as understood in the 21st century or as commonly understood in the 1st century? Please do not read into Paul's comments about seeing the risen Christ accounts that were written after his statement. Read his statement in the context of what resurrection commonly meant at the time he wrote it unless you can find some concurrent, not later, texts that changes the context
Point 5, the teachings of both Jesus and Paul can be found in many other sources, some from the BCE era. To claim that Jesus and/or Paul expressed these ideas in a better form is pure opinion. Who has expressed the ideas of Martin Luther King better than he did, many have tried, but who has succeded?
Point 6 follows from your expressed logic, but I believe I have pointed out fixable flaws, unless you intended to cite a preference to be atheist and anti-Christian, personally I think you left out a "not" in your concluding statement.