Brief responses to Christianity’s most common objections

Today’s post is by no means in depth. Due to the format which I’m using to post articles the nature of my writing for now is brief and to the point. This article is designed to make you research the topics more in depth, again these are gong to be hit and run responses. For further questions please comment.

  1. ” Christians are hypocrites “

A vague sweeping generalization like this is hardly a sound argument let alone a challenge against the faith. I would force whoever said this to me to define Christians. All Christians? The ones in America? The ones in your state? The ones online? What exactly is meant here? Nobody has interacted with every Christian and therefore the challenge doesn’t work.

 

2. “Christians have done horrible things in the past.”

Again, vague generalizations. Every group and cause on the planet has not been perfect and the same could be said for every person on the planet. The truth is that Christianity cannot be dismissed based upon the behavior of it’s adherents. See my first post.

 

3. “There’s no evidence Jesus existed.”

Outright false. Nobody but people with a vested interest will reject the historical evidence for Christ. And they do so based upon arguments from silence and special pleading. The life and trial of Jesus under Pontius Pilate is historically attested to by extra biblical authors such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian of Samosata. That’s a topic for which volumes could be written so again this is meant to encourage research not be a final say.

4. ” How could a loving God allow evil. ”

While there are literally countless books written on this topic, the Book of Job being one of them, I’m not going to go into philosophical pontifications about the nature of the topic. I would simply ask, depending on who said this to me, how “evil” can truly exist without an unchanging standard of good to compare it to. My contention is God is that standard of good. Again massive topic.

5.” Christianity is the closest religion to Islam, both share the same ideologies. ”

This is actually an argument I have seen repeated by people. My response is simply for the person to do their research. The two are night and day and one would wonder if the statement were true why there exists such tension between the religions.

6 “Jesus never claimed to be God.”

This one liner is so often repeated I think Christians are starting to buy this.

Fact: Jesus claimed the divine name in John 8:58 and the title Son of man which is a heavenly Being in the Book of Daniel that is worshipped. He also said He’s Lord of the sabbath as early as Mark’s gospel. The Jews understood what He was saying which is why they wanted to stone Him. Much more could be said.

7. ” The Bible was written by men. ”

Indeed so, my response is so what? Something being written by men doesn’t make that writing automatically false. I however am of the belief that the Bible wasn’t written BY men but THROUGH men. There’s a difference.

That’s all for now

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

A brief explanation of why Christians don’t have premarital sex

A charge against Christianity is that we often repress human sexuality. The truth is that historically there may have been instances of this, with the Puritans for example. I’m no historian on Puritan teachings but apparently they were, err, Puritanical on sex even between married couples. I saw a documentary on the Amish where husbands and wives had to sit separately at the breakfast table so as not to be tempted. Again, I’m not Amish so please correct me on anything not 100 percent if you know something I don’t

Putting that aside, at core, I seek to offer an explanation on what we believe about sex, and why.

One might wonder why the Christian faith makes sex such a taboo. The truth is that Christianity has roots in Judaism, and Judaism is a religion of covenants.

God is a God of covenants. That’s how He deals with His creatures. He entered into a covenant with individuals and with a nation. He offers us all to enter a covenant with Him through His Son as the mediator of those He previously didn’t have as a people.

God created a covenant for humans too. That covenant is marriage and was one of the first covenants He created.

One might wonder why we believe pre-marital sex is forbidden. What’s the difference?  A ceremony and ring? How does that suddenly make sex acceptable?

However, those things are symbols of the covenant, not the covenant itself.

So what is the covenant?

The covenant is that one man and one woman will become one flesh and never  be separated.  The key is never be separated. What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. That is, once joined in a covenant, the man and woman will remain one until death.

Having sex outside of this covenant is re-inventing the covenant to say a man and woman will become one flesh but will not remain so, and will do this repeatedly with other humans becoming one flesh but never remaining so. That is not at all what God intended and therefore that is sin.

That’s why sex is so important, because it’s a covenant act. We didn’t create sex and therefore have no say as to what to circumstances sex is acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Myths about Christianity: Answered

1.  We have a grudge against Judaism.

Not true at all. While some so called “Christian” groups promote anti-semitic teachings, such as the KKK, these group’s claims to anything remotely Christian cannot be taken seriously.  They aren’t, never were, and never will be. While Martin Luther unfortunately wrote against the Jewish people, Martin Luther doesn’t and never has represented the opinions of Christians as a whole. The majority of the New Testament was written by a Jewish man (Paul) about a Jewish Man (Jesus), the Bible as a whole is a Jewish Book and always will be.

2. We think all things sexual are sin.

Not true either. God created sex, but only as a covenant act (within marriage), not a commodity and most certainly not between people of the same gender. So while we believe MANY things sexual WITHIN the culture are sinful, (porn, prostitution, etcetera)

Sex in and of itself is a creation of God, and we like it.

 

3. We all want a theocracy.

I don’t. Christianity was not ever a political movement. I DO want the gospel spread to each nation, but that’s on an individual level, not a governmental level. I AM waiting for Christ’s kingdom to be established in person (I’m premillennial) with Christ ruling from the throne of David, until that happens though, I don’t want a church state combination simply because that’s not the goal. The goal is to tell souls about the work of Christ, not take over countries.

4. TV pastors are representatives of us.

Take a megachurch televangelist and a seasoned Christian apologist and sit them down and ask them the same set of questions, and be prepared to think two different religions were being interviewed. TV has been taken over by the word faith movement which teaches God exists to make us happy. PLEASE don’t listen to those guys.

5. We only use the O.T. when convenient.

I have repeatedly heard Christians must keep Jewish dietary laws and the sabbath if they are to say homosexuality is sinful. The argument goes that Christians ignore the laws of Moses they don’t want to follow and use the ones they want.

Not the case. While Christ fulfilled the law and we don’t follow those laws anymore, there are stills laws pre-dating the law of Moses that are written on our hearts. For example, murder is still wrong in both testaments, same with other such sins.

 

That’s all for now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The apostle Paul was a phony ” and other anti Christian slogans

A few days ago I was on the web reading some book reviews. I came across a skeptic who claimed he had a refutation of Christianity who was unanswered. The “refutation” was extremely long and had several parts most of which will be dealt with in future parts LORD willing. The foundation of the argument was that Paul’s  conversion was merely an act, and the proof of this was a “confession” which Paul revealed in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23

These are the verses wherein Paul says he became all things to all men. To the Jews as a Jew, to them that are under the law as under the law. So on.

The argument here was that Paul became as under the law and therefore that proves Paul simply blended in to whoever he was with. Among Christians as one who believes the Resurrection. As among Jews a lawkeeper.

That these verses somehow disprove the Christian faith is yet to be truly demonstrated.

One would ask first of all WHY Paul purposely made people think these things, and second of all why he would take an “act” so far as to actually be martyred.

Although not many atheists that I  know of make Paul the subject of their writings, I have seen much anti Paul sentiment from critics of Christianity from everyone from Muslims to liberals.

So what of these verses? Did Paul actually confess that the whole experience of his conversion was simply a “front”?

No.

These verses are not that at all.

When Paul said he became all things to all men, he was simply being sensitive to cultures for the sake of the gospel.

Suppose I was trying to spread atheism to the Buddhists of Japan.

Would I walk in their house with my shoes on, kick over their statute and refuse to bow to them?

Of course not. I would become ” as Japanese” for the sake of developing a rapport

This is not becoming something I’m not, no less an “act”

Now let’s think of a first century Jew. Who would believe news about a Jewish Messiah from a man eating a B.L.T while doing yard work on the sabbath?

Nobody.

Paul became as under the law to be sensitive to those he was trying to win. Not that he held on to Judaism because he didn’t believe the Resurrection.

A good analogy to this is the writing of Lucian. He told a story of a man named Peregrinus who did just that, pretend to be a Christian for the sake of showing how easy Christians can be deceived. Now can we imagine such a man actually being killed for his faith?

So no, Paul’s conversion WAS genuine and these verses say nothing against the testimony of Paul.

I think we can lay this slogan to rest as well.

  • One sorry apologist

“Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” And other anti Christian slogans.

Welcome back. Please excuse the format of my blog as this site is under construction and will be so for a while.

Id like to start a series concerning popular anti Christian slogans that are oft repeated without actually having a basis in fact.

While these slogans are not really true arguments against the faith, they can serve as a stumbling block to those new to the faith and don’t have an answer.

One such slogan is that Jesus Himself never mentioned homosexuality.

The conclusion is then that Christians are rejecting such behavior based upon personal bias or selective reading of the OT.

There are many, many fallacies within this one particular line.

For starters, let’s grant the premise that Jesus truly didn’t speak on the topic (a premise I will show to be not exactly true)

This would mean nothing for or against the topic as silence works both ways. One could argue that Jesus never said anything FOR the behavior and therefore reverse the situation.

The truth is that the premise is false to begin with for several reasons.

  1. The context in which Jesus spoke.

In order for this argument to work one has to remove Jesus from the social setting in which He preached.

Jesus lived, worked, and preached among pious Jews who adhered strictly to the law of Moses.

In other words, He didn’t NEED to mention homosexuality.

Jesus going around saying the behavior was wrong would be akin to me telling a group of police officers breaking the speed limit will get people pulled over.

THEY ALREADY KNOW.

Every Jew living in first century Palestine already had the law of Moses to tell them what they needed to know about sexual sin.

Which brings me to my second point.

2. Jesus did mention the topic.

One must look at Jesus as merely a moral teacher in order for the argument to work. The truth is if that one believes in the Deity of Christ, the argument disappears.

Jesus Christ being the Second member of the Triune God was in fact present and in agreement with the giving of the law at mount Sinai. Jesus is always in agreement with the Father and Holy Ghost (who is blessed forever) because they are one.

So considering the fact that Jesus preached to people who already assumed this behavior to be wrong, and that He’s the one who gave the law (which served to point us to Himself) I think we can lay this slogan to rest.

See you next time.

  • One sorry apologist

Judging Christianity through experience?

Hello and welcome to my blog. This blog is currently under construction and posting will not be frequent as I have limited internet access and I cannot post photos.

However as my first post and introduction to the topic of Christian apologetics as done from a layman such as me, I wanted to write about a theme I see throughout the society of those who professed faith and are now “unbelievers” or who simply don’t believe to begin with.

The question is if any person is justified in judging the truth of a religion, in this case, the Christian faith, as true or untrue based on their personal experience and their agreement with our doctrines. It is common for many people (in my experience) to judge that Christianity is not the correct worldview based on their experiences with the faith OR their approval of doctrines within the religion.

EXAMPLE: “The church mistreats (insert group)”

“Christians act like (insert behavior the skeptic doesn’t like)

“The Bible teaches (insert doctrine skeptic doesn’t like)”

“When I was a Christian nobody taught me to think critically”

“When I was a Christian (insert bad experience)”

The list could go on and on. The question is not if the skeptic is justified in FEELING these, the question is if their conclusion that the Christian faith is any less true because they had certain experiences that they didn’t like or they have a hard time accepting certain doctrines. Many “de-conversion” stories are exactly these.

I however have the contention, that as Christians, we need to look at Christianity as independent from human experience. I could not classify Christian faith as a subjective experience as say, Mormonism (burning in the bosom) or something that needs our experience to validate our veracity.

THE TRUTH is that whether you had a great experience in the church or not, or whether certain doctrines appeal to you or not, these have no bearing on the truthfulness of Christianity.

WHY?

Because Christianity is a faith based solely upon the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as a historical event, and NOT  on the behavior of the adherents.

Christianity is true because Jesus rose from the dead. Christianity is not true because we claim you will have a great experience in every church every time.

Again the faith is rooted in history, not claims of happiness or ultimate “feel goodness” despite what some people may indeed advocate.

Don’t get me wrong, I WANT everyone to have a great experience within the faith. However as a Christian even I have been to churches where I left and walked out.

I may not always have a great experience when I get into my car, or may not like certain features within any given vehicle, but cars exist nonetheless.

So I urge fellow Christian to not forget that the faith is rooted in a historical event, and not that we claim to be a solution to all human problems (ultimately, Jesus Himself is the solution to  all problems eternal, but in this life “ye shall have tribulation.”)

 

-One sorry apologist