Usually when a Christian says this, they often get a bitter or sarcastic response back. In this blog, I am going to be dealing with two statements. One being "The Bible says so" and the other is going to be dealing with using the Bible to prove the Bible.
"But the Bible says so!"
Time and time again when I have been debating someone about Biblical issues, they will try to use the Bible against me. But when I bring up what the Bible teaches and what it says.. And when I say "the Bible says so" I get a sarcastic or bitter response. But why is it that when I am having a Biblical discussion, I'm not aloud to use the Bible!
Saying "the Bible says so" is actually saying a lot. It's not that easy to dismiss. The Bible contains so many facts and so much truth that it wouldn't be any different saying this book or that book says so. The Bible contains a lot of useful information. And if the debate topic is a Biblical discussion, then absolutely you can say "the Bible says so"!
Not to long ago, skeptics were bringing up a major problem to Christians about a lack of evidence for a certain people mentioned in the Bible. They were called the Edomites. For a long time, skeptics have been saying "look, there is no evidence for these people existing in the Bible! It's all made up!". But it wasn't to long ago when archeologists found evidence that these people did indeed exist. And if it wasn't for the Bible, we wouldn't of not known where to look and if it wasn't for the Bible, we wouldn't of know as much as we do about the Edomites today!
So it it perfectly okay to say 'but the Bible says so" in certain cases.
Now, what about trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible?
It actually isn't that easy to dismiss this and call it circular reasoning. Now don't get me wrong, if one is trying to prove something about the Bible by using the Bible, it is circular reasoning. But this doesn't have to be the case every time. The Bible is many books, which all contain many historical facts and truths in it. So would it be wrong if I used the Bible to try to prove something, like a Biblical story? The answer is no. A Christian most certainly can try to use the Bible to prove the Bible. Because as I already said, the Bible is many books, and you can use one book to prove another book. Let's say you are debating the historical Jesus to someone. You can actually use the Bible to prove Jesus' existence. If they claim you can't, then they have a misunderstanding of what the Bible really is. How come we can't use ancient texts and books, found in the Bible, who all speak about Jesus, to prove Jesus' historical existence? And if they try to pull "it was fabricated to make it seem like Jesus did all these things", then remind them that they are only telling you there opinion and faith that it was just all made up or fabricated.
Conclusion: Using the Bible to prove the Bible and simply just saying 'the Bible says so" is perfectly okay to say in certain cases.
God bless.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
What about those who have never heard of Jesus?
I have typed briefly about this issue in one of my previous blogs. But because I think it is such a fair question, I decided to make a whole blog about it. There could be a couple answers to this question, depending on your Theological perspective.
For one, this question makes Jesus a problem. But Jesus is not the problem, He is the solution. Jesus came and died for sins, and nothing will stop Him from saving people. The Bible says that God has revealed Himself in nature. Because of this, the person who has never heard of Jesus still has the chance to know about God. And if God will's it, it will be done. Something could be bothering this person who has never heard of Jesus. This person knows there is some sort of spirit or god out there. All this person has to do is simply ask this spirit to reveal Himself to him or her, and it will happen.
Keep in mind, being an Atheist, pagan or anything other than a Christian is not what sends ones to Hell. It's sin, that sends people to Hell. And everyone sins. But because God has revealed Himself in nature, He still has the right to judge those who have never heard of Jesus, due to there sinfulness.
Another answer could be that God simply didn't predestined them to salvation. A Calvinist might argue this.
But God works in mysterious ways. Throughout the Bible, like in Isaiah 49, God promises that salvation will be spread across the whole earth. The truth is, there are missionaries in countries that haven't heard of Jesus. In fact, there isn't one country that hasn't heard of Jesus. It's just probably the people within the country who never heard of Him. A very small, minority of people. Praise God that Jesus said He wouldn't return until that gospel is spread across the whole earth. So the truth is, God does reach out to those people.
God bless.
For one, this question makes Jesus a problem. But Jesus is not the problem, He is the solution. Jesus came and died for sins, and nothing will stop Him from saving people. The Bible says that God has revealed Himself in nature. Because of this, the person who has never heard of Jesus still has the chance to know about God. And if God will's it, it will be done. Something could be bothering this person who has never heard of Jesus. This person knows there is some sort of spirit or god out there. All this person has to do is simply ask this spirit to reveal Himself to him or her, and it will happen.
Keep in mind, being an Atheist, pagan or anything other than a Christian is not what sends ones to Hell. It's sin, that sends people to Hell. And everyone sins. But because God has revealed Himself in nature, He still has the right to judge those who have never heard of Jesus, due to there sinfulness.
Another answer could be that God simply didn't predestined them to salvation. A Calvinist might argue this.
But God works in mysterious ways. Throughout the Bible, like in Isaiah 49, God promises that salvation will be spread across the whole earth. The truth is, there are missionaries in countries that haven't heard of Jesus. In fact, there isn't one country that hasn't heard of Jesus. It's just probably the people within the country who never heard of Him. A very small, minority of people. Praise God that Jesus said He wouldn't return until that gospel is spread across the whole earth. So the truth is, God does reach out to those people.
God bless.
Did God create evil?
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
Did God create evil? Is He the author of evil? Does this verse suggest it? At first glance, it appears to be suggesting it, but this is not the case. It's important to define what evil really is in the Hebrew tradition and it is important to read this verse in the context it is in.
First, just what is "evil"? Is evil some dark thing that goes around in the earth and causes bad things to happen? I don't think so, and many of great Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas also don't think so. Evil is the absence of good. Where good is not, is where evil is. Much like how darkness doesn't really exist, it's merely the absence of of light. It is where light is not. Another analogy would be a donut and a donut hole. No, I am not talking about those balls you buy and eat. I'm actually talking about the donut hole, in the center of the donut. The donut hole does not exist. It is where the donut is not. We can compare all of these analogies to evil. God is good, and He is not evil. Because He is so good, He cannot be evil. So if He created the light, and said it was good, then there has to be some sort of evil and bad. No, I am not suggesting that good can't exist without evil, I am merely trying to explain better. God is indeed not the author of evil. He said His creation was "good".
Second, it's always important to see what evil means here in this verse. The Hebrew word "ra (rah)" does indeed mean "evil or bad", but in Hebrew culture, it was viewed as being like a disaster, something bad or something simply, not good. And I think this is what this verse is suggesting. Before God said He creates evil, it says He brings peace. Other Bible translations translate the word "evil" into "disaster" because the Hebrew word for evil can mean just that. I think this verse is suggesting that God brings the good times and the bad times.
Conclusion: God is good, and He is not the author of evil. This verse is just trying to draw a picture, kind of. It is suggesting that God brings peace and disaster, and indeed He does.
Did God create evil? Is He the author of evil? Does this verse suggest it? At first glance, it appears to be suggesting it, but this is not the case. It's important to define what evil really is in the Hebrew tradition and it is important to read this verse in the context it is in.
First, just what is "evil"? Is evil some dark thing that goes around in the earth and causes bad things to happen? I don't think so, and many of great Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas also don't think so. Evil is the absence of good. Where good is not, is where evil is. Much like how darkness doesn't really exist, it's merely the absence of of light. It is where light is not. Another analogy would be a donut and a donut hole. No, I am not talking about those balls you buy and eat. I'm actually talking about the donut hole, in the center of the donut. The donut hole does not exist. It is where the donut is not. We can compare all of these analogies to evil. God is good, and He is not evil. Because He is so good, He cannot be evil. So if He created the light, and said it was good, then there has to be some sort of evil and bad. No, I am not suggesting that good can't exist without evil, I am merely trying to explain better. God is indeed not the author of evil. He said His creation was "good".
Second, it's always important to see what evil means here in this verse. The Hebrew word "ra (rah)" does indeed mean "evil or bad", but in Hebrew culture, it was viewed as being like a disaster, something bad or something simply, not good. And I think this is what this verse is suggesting. Before God said He creates evil, it says He brings peace. Other Bible translations translate the word "evil" into "disaster" because the Hebrew word for evil can mean just that. I think this verse is suggesting that God brings the good times and the bad times.
Conclusion: God is good, and He is not the author of evil. This verse is just trying to draw a picture, kind of. It is suggesting that God brings peace and disaster, and indeed He does.
The "ex-Christian"
This is just going to be a short blog.
First, in order to become a Christian, something supernatural must take place. The Bible tells us about what will happen after we get saved. We will recieve the free gift of the Holy Spirit. It's a dramatic change in one's life. Now, the skeptic might argue that he or she thought this happened to him or her, but they could of been delusional. They will argue that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, so therefore, some other answer has to be correct. But how sure are they of this? And it's not a simple matter of "thinking" you were saved. You will KNOW when you are saved. So, if the skeptic is now saying that they thought they were saved, yet they don't believe in the supernatural now, then it follows that the supernatural never existed and they never became a Christian in the first place!
Second, scripture tells us what happens when one becomes saved. Ephesians chapter 1 says that God predestined us to come to Christ that we are sealed in the Holy Spirit. So, ex-Christians can't exist then. The only alternative answer is to say that the one who is claiming to be an ex-Christian, never really was a Christian. That person, was really never saved.
Now I know I have no business telling them what they are and are not and I know I am arguing from my personal Christian beliefs. But the reasons why I think an "ex-Christian" is an oxymoronic term is for the reasons I have stated above.
God bless.
First, in order to become a Christian, something supernatural must take place. The Bible tells us about what will happen after we get saved. We will recieve the free gift of the Holy Spirit. It's a dramatic change in one's life. Now, the skeptic might argue that he or she thought this happened to him or her, but they could of been delusional. They will argue that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, so therefore, some other answer has to be correct. But how sure are they of this? And it's not a simple matter of "thinking" you were saved. You will KNOW when you are saved. So, if the skeptic is now saying that they thought they were saved, yet they don't believe in the supernatural now, then it follows that the supernatural never existed and they never became a Christian in the first place!
Second, scripture tells us what happens when one becomes saved. Ephesians chapter 1 says that God predestined us to come to Christ that we are sealed in the Holy Spirit. So, ex-Christians can't exist then. The only alternative answer is to say that the one who is claiming to be an ex-Christian, never really was a Christian. That person, was really never saved.
Now I know I have no business telling them what they are and are not and I know I am arguing from my personal Christian beliefs. But the reasons why I think an "ex-Christian" is an oxymoronic term is for the reasons I have stated above.
God bless.
Is the belief in God the same as a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink unicorns, or Satna Claus?
I have typed about this topic on a couple of my blogs before. But I decided to dedicate a entire blog to this issue. The main answer I plan on giving is of course, no! I will propose a few answers to this.
First, comparing God, a being that is transcendent of time, space and matter to Santa Claus, invisible pink unicorns or The Flying Spaghetti monster is silly! It's silly for the reason I just said at the beginning of this sentence. God is an eternal, immaterial, omnipresent being. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that this being created the universe. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that this being is the best explainable for why everything exists rather than nothing. God can be the best answer for these things. Yet comparing that, to something like Santa Claus, invisible pink unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti monster is completely absurd! Why, there are some major philosophical problems when trying to compare these things to God. Besides, if the Flying Spaghetti monster did have the characteristics of God, then the Flying Spaghetti monster would be God. It would only just be called something different.
I think this is the first mistake the Atheist or skeptic could make when trying to argue for this statement. It is a mistake because it assumes so much. You simply can't belittle what God really is, and compare it to something you please.
I want to know though. Are there good reasons to believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns or even Santa Claus? People, when mature and grown up don't hold these beliefs obviously for good reasons. It's simply silly to believe in such things. Now, I know some would like to think it's just as silly to believe in God, but think about it. People don't hold these beliefs for good reasons. But why isn't this the case for God? People have good reasons to believe in God. Personal experiences, philosophical reasons, theological reasons and maybe even scientific reasons. But are there philosophical, scientific, or theological reasons to believe in The Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus? I certainly hope you all can see how the belief in God has more to offer. It certainly has more weight, if you will.
I also want to know. Are there arguments for the existence of The Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus? There are for God. Whether you think these arguments fail or that these arguments are bad, is not the point. At least there are arguments offered for the existence of God. This is something that is at least debatable. But none of this, is the case for the Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus.
Does the Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus have a holy book or text? Does this text contain fulfilled prophecies? Is this text based on truth with true stories and true events? Again, whether you think what the Bible has to offer is good enough is not the issue. At least we can clearly see it has something to offer over the Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus!
People can just make up anything in there mind. Any creature or deity. But this doesn't have to be so for God. This argument fails because it assumes God is just made up, like Santa Claus, etc. But of course this is something you can't be too sure of. The belief in the Judeo-Christian God is a very historical belief too. And most importantly, it based on truth. The Jews were not a myth making people. They deeply believed that the events in the Bible did come from God. But of course, yet again, The Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns and Santa Claus doesn't even come close to this.
Lastly, here is something interesting to think about when it comes to Santa Claus. Did you guys know that almost every big fairy tale, has a true origin? Santa Claus comes from a real man named St. Nicholas who used to ride into towns giving gifts to children. The person Christians worship was a real historical man who claimed to be God and proved it by rising from the dead. All of this is rooted in history, and is based on truth. Plus, there is actually evidence AGAINST the existence of Santa Claus. None of this is a problem for Christianity.
While I am ranting on about this. I figure I would install a final paragraph to this blog. Usually Atheists will try to make it seem like the belief in God is childish, like the belief in Santa Claus. Aside from all the good reasons to believe in God and not to believe in Santa Claus, people usually stop believing in Santa Claus before the age of 18. But did you know a lot of people start believing in God after the age of 18?
Conclusion: This argument is quite silly indeed. There are plenty of good reasons to believe in God over The Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus.
First, comparing God, a being that is transcendent of time, space and matter to Santa Claus, invisible pink unicorns or The Flying Spaghetti monster is silly! It's silly for the reason I just said at the beginning of this sentence. God is an eternal, immaterial, omnipresent being. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that this being created the universe. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that this being is the best explainable for why everything exists rather than nothing. God can be the best answer for these things. Yet comparing that, to something like Santa Claus, invisible pink unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti monster is completely absurd! Why, there are some major philosophical problems when trying to compare these things to God. Besides, if the Flying Spaghetti monster did have the characteristics of God, then the Flying Spaghetti monster would be God. It would only just be called something different.
I think this is the first mistake the Atheist or skeptic could make when trying to argue for this statement. It is a mistake because it assumes so much. You simply can't belittle what God really is, and compare it to something you please.
I want to know though. Are there good reasons to believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns or even Santa Claus? People, when mature and grown up don't hold these beliefs obviously for good reasons. It's simply silly to believe in such things. Now, I know some would like to think it's just as silly to believe in God, but think about it. People don't hold these beliefs for good reasons. But why isn't this the case for God? People have good reasons to believe in God. Personal experiences, philosophical reasons, theological reasons and maybe even scientific reasons. But are there philosophical, scientific, or theological reasons to believe in The Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus? I certainly hope you all can see how the belief in God has more to offer. It certainly has more weight, if you will.
I also want to know. Are there arguments for the existence of The Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus? There are for God. Whether you think these arguments fail or that these arguments are bad, is not the point. At least there are arguments offered for the existence of God. This is something that is at least debatable. But none of this, is the case for the Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus.
Does the Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus have a holy book or text? Does this text contain fulfilled prophecies? Is this text based on truth with true stories and true events? Again, whether you think what the Bible has to offer is good enough is not the issue. At least we can clearly see it has something to offer over the Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus!
People can just make up anything in there mind. Any creature or deity. But this doesn't have to be so for God. This argument fails because it assumes God is just made up, like Santa Claus, etc. But of course this is something you can't be too sure of. The belief in the Judeo-Christian God is a very historical belief too. And most importantly, it based on truth. The Jews were not a myth making people. They deeply believed that the events in the Bible did come from God. But of course, yet again, The Flying Spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns and Santa Claus doesn't even come close to this.
Lastly, here is something interesting to think about when it comes to Santa Claus. Did you guys know that almost every big fairy tale, has a true origin? Santa Claus comes from a real man named St. Nicholas who used to ride into towns giving gifts to children. The person Christians worship was a real historical man who claimed to be God and proved it by rising from the dead. All of this is rooted in history, and is based on truth. Plus, there is actually evidence AGAINST the existence of Santa Claus. None of this is a problem for Christianity.
While I am ranting on about this. I figure I would install a final paragraph to this blog. Usually Atheists will try to make it seem like the belief in God is childish, like the belief in Santa Claus. Aside from all the good reasons to believe in God and not to believe in Santa Claus, people usually stop believing in Santa Claus before the age of 18. But did you know a lot of people start believing in God after the age of 18?
Conclusion: This argument is quite silly indeed. There are plenty of good reasons to believe in God over The Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
