Why do Christians get evasive, defensive or angry when faced with difficult questions

[Inkachu]

Do you believe that a human can freely make a choice out of two or more options? In other words, up until a human selects option b out of an a/b choice, could he still have selected option a?

Of course. And God knows which choice He will make. He can read every "hmm, a or b" thought in the person's head. He can see the day before they made the choice, the day of the choice, and the day after the choice.

 

[Inkachu]

If variable X represents God's knowledge as of our day 1 of what Fred's day 2 A/B choice will be, does variable X have a truth value as of our day 1?

Sorry, when you talk to me in math-speak, my brain goes blank lol.

 

[Inkachu]

Since each Christian is different I can only answer for myself.

I don't get offended in the least bit and I answer questions, when presented respectfully.

I often find that the people who are always saying the statement of OP always tend to ignore answers or discredit even when it is very helpful and proven. I also find that this type of person likes to label groups, especially Christians, as a whole. So the offense is taken mostly at argumentative questions, not valid questions. It is also aimed at disrespect toward God, and disrespect to belief system. A

But you know, this is just one Christians opinion.
This is not an open door to ask whatever you choose. I answer questions I am knowledgeable or have an idea about, or care to answer. I wont go off topic or feed into such bait as mentioned above.

I find it humorous that this thread is asking Christians a question but non Christians supposedly already "know" why? Do we have mind readers in here? Otherwise I do believe your statements are biased and inaccurate.

Your brain. It is awesome.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It has a moral code and religious beliefs, including a position concerning a supreme being.

What moral code does it have? What religious beliefs specifically?

It evangelizes and proselytizes.

In what way? Do you have any examples?

It has its own religious symbols and sacred history.

Such as?

It is organized with local chapters or congregations, functions, clergy-like leaders and "theologians," etc.

It is partially organised, but it doesn't have clergy.

It rejects the correctness of other religions.

Not other religions, but religion. It's not a religion itself.

It's not a typical religion in all respects, but it is undeniably as much a religion as other so-called "liberal" religions. And much more could be added, but that would require a new and separate thread.

I'm not convinced that it is a religion. It could be, if one adopts a strategically elastic definition of "religion," according to which any organised gathering of like-minded people is a "religion".

Maybe the question that would be better to ask and discuss is this:

"Why do Atheists take such offense at the suggestion that an organized Atheist movement is referred to as a religion?"

What's the cause of such fear? You'd think we'd held up a crucifix and sack of garlic in front of some of these folks' noses merely because we called a fact a fact!

We don't take offence at it. We just aren't convinced that it's "a fact". Besides which, given that religion is supposedly a good thing, isn't it a compliment to say that we are religious?

No, I think it has to be more than that. If I used "association" or "philosophical movement" or "ethical society" I doubt that the reaction would be the same. It seems to be something that grows out of a deep-seated animosity towards conventional religions and "religious people."

And bear in mind that this wasn't said of atheists or atheism, per se, but was in reference to the so-called "New Atheism" movement.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between "old" and "new" atheism is that new atheists tend to be more vocal critics of religion and its role in society. That's hardly a huge difference. When I'm quiet about religion, I'm simply an atheist. Yet when I speak out against religious interference in government, for example, I'm a "new atheist." Funnily enough, I'm often joined by religious people in loudly repudiating theocratic impulses, yet no one calls them "new" Christians, "new" Muslims, or "new" Jews.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I notice that when I ask some of the difficult questions, Christians tend to get evasive, defensive or angry. Why is this?

Why indeed?

You say it's "entertaining" for you, that's what I mean when I say ex-Christians visit these forums in the self deluded guise of "intellectual discussion" when really they derive a sick pleasure out of mocking people......all with the highest of intentions of coarse.

I've read your anti-Jesus post where you do in fact undermine the faith of Christians. You just are not an honest person. I would take the most unlearned and fragile Christian over your type any day!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If they provided evidence or support for what they said, you'd reply by saying, "That's not evidence", and then proceed to ask for it again, and again, and again. You do it all the time, and it's really gotten old.

Once again, you seem to be assuming that any answer, no matter how poor, is a good enough answer. That's ridiculous. If someone asks you a question, and you provide an answer, they are not obligated to accept your answer as definitive, especially if the reasoning behind your answer is flawed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That was nice of him, I suppose.

The first time I had a theological discussion with a fundamentalist was when I started university. Another girl was talking to her about it, and I joined in. She believed that the Bible is historically accurate and that the world is only a few thousand years old. She came from a town where this was not questioned and she had never been expected to back it up before, so she became distressed by the lack of evidence and asked if we could stop talking about it. I, of course, respected that. It's not my place to upset someone like that.

Eek. The only reason why I would try to pull someone away from theism completely is if it became apparent that the person really just couldn't function as a theist (for example, if the person couldn't handle being a theist without having terrible anxiety about Hell).

I'm divided on this. Saying that someone cannot function without theism could be construed as somewhat of an insult, like saying that they are too weak to cope with life absent some reassuring religion to coddle them. Perhaps they could cope without that, but they just don't know it yet. We can acknowledge that religion ministers to certain needs in a person's life without assuming that, absent religion, this person's needs could not be met. Very often, the religious person already assumes this. If we join them in that assumption then we only reinforce it. This then affects the character of our interactions. Instead of contemplating the merits of religion together, we end up avoiding the conversation for fear that they are too fragile to handle it. We end up coddling their religion because we believe that it coddles them and that they need to be coddled.

I've often said that there is no polite way to question someone's deeply cherished religious beliefs. No matter how civil and amiable one approaches the matter, some believers will always take offence. So what are we to do? Avoid the conversation altogether simply because it makes one (or both) participants in the conversation feel awkward? That too is just a way of coddling. It's infantilising to treat the religious person as though they aren't intellectually mature enough to consider religious matters critically.

 

[WoundedDeep]

That doesn't take away from your free will. He isn't controlling your choices, He's just aware of them beforehand.

I hope this was raised up earlier. Atheists always have the false belief that God's foreknowledge puts a limit of people's free will, and they fail to understand how illogical and irrational that belief is.

 

[WoundedDeep]

You went beyond merely describing your particular experiences, claiming that "this is the general response you will get when you question Muslims about their faith."

Because it is the fact.

 

[talquin]

I believe there is the spirit of evil in existence and God who is good did not bring it into existence. So, He manages it, in vessels (evil spirits and evil humans . . . Romans 9:21) for the sake of organization of it, on its way to the flaming sewer which burns with fire and brimstone.

But no person I know has ever told me this or taught this, that I am aware of. But I do not believe God or any created being brought the spirit of evil into existence > there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience," Paul says in Ephesians 2:2.

Right now, God is in control of all the evil, and with Him we can do any good that is possible, no matter what evil there is > "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

This is my main reconciliation > not the explanation above, but simply trust God and submit to Him and do the loving good that He has me doing with Him

I think a number of people are major suckers for their own so-called free wills, and without God they get themselves into all sorts of major messes. They do not control themselves well. They do not freely choose to get free of their spiritual and emotional troubles and torments and bad relationships.

Because their own nature is their dictator. Their self-involving character has them wanting to believe they can operate themselves. Our character can have us believing what we want to be true. We see this in how we choose companions, among other things. We do not see the real truth about someone, but seek after what we want, while we filter out things which are evidence that we are making a bad choice.

But God can correct us, change our character so we are in His light for seeing how love has us seeing things. Then we discover being free from our own egos' free will ! ! !

But while we are operating on our own, or suppose we are (consider Ephesians 2:2), we do not have Jesus Christ's "rest for your souls" (please see Matthew 11:28-30). We have a way of not freely choosing to rest in Jesus and obey how He shares with us and leads us in His love's "rest for your souls."

And "God resists the proud," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5. So, God is not respecting our "free wills" of pride, but He is resisting us while we do things in ego. And our nature is our dictator; we are not really free, but slaves of our own selves, and yet really of Satan (Ephesians 2:2) while we are living like we are making choices on our own and not sharing all and submitting all to our Father.

However, we need to love others, not try to control anyone, but treat each one like one does have a free will, though ones without Jesus are not free > Romans 6:17 >

Only God is good to bring us to all that is so beautifully wonderful and personally sharing and caring of His Heaven-quality family love. We have not been choosing to live with Him in this, I would say. But our Father changes and corrects us, in spite of us. And then we choose, in union and communion with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17, Romans 5:5), to obey > Philippians 2:12-13 > God works us into obeying Him; He is the One who has given "the increase" of our obedience > 1 Corinthians 3:6-7, 2 Corinthians 3:5.

Therefore, I need to be patient and humble with each person, not trying to push and control anyone, understanding that only God can do all that is really right with any person; so I love each one by being a growing good love example, doing any loving things God has me doing, however trusting Him for the real results > "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3) Because only God can bring any of us to all that is so good and so better than we could try to get anyone to seek and find and choose on their own.

If your free will has you choosing things apart from God's personal guiding, aren't you acting somehow in separation from God? I have been told that "sin is separation from God"; so, if I act in separation from Him, in my own free will, isn't my will free from God (Romans 6:20) and therefore in sin?? If my "free will" is my ego's freedom from God and His constant sharing and guiding in His love, then my "free will" is a major problem and subject to my selfish character dictating. This is slavery to self, not really free.

But if we are in sharing with our Father guiding us "continually" (Isaiah 58:11), we share in His freedom of His will ! ! ! instead of being free from Him.

Quoting the Bible doesn't reconcile it. There are logical inconsistencies in the problem of evil and the problem of free will.

Free will - Iron Chariots Wiki

Problem of evil - Iron Chariots Wiki

 

[talquin]

Of course. And God knows which choice He will make. He can read every "hmm, a or b" thought in the person's head. He can see the day before they made the choice, the day of the choice, and the day after the choice.

Let's say it's day 1. God knows that you will choose A out of an A/B choice tomorrow. Since you agree you can choose either A or B up until the time you make the choice, let's say you then freely choose B. What does this do to God's omniscience?

 

[talquin]

Sorry, when you talk to me in math-speak, my brain goes blank lol.

I'll rephrase it for you:

If variable X represents God's knowledge as of our day 1 of what Fred's day 2 A/B choice will be, does variable X have a truth value as of our day 1?
=
Given: As of day 1, God has infallible knowledge of Fred's day 2 A/B choice will be. At point in time of day 1, does God's knowledge of Fred's choice consist of a value of either A or B? And can it change after day 1?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'll rephrase it for you:

If variable X represents God's knowledge as of our day 1 of what Fred's day 2 A/B choice will be, does variable X have a truth value as of our day 1?
=
Given: As of day 1, God has infallible knowledge of Fred's day 2 A/B choice will be. At point in time of day 1, does God's knowledge of Fred's choice consist of a value of either A or B? And can it change after day 1?

I already addressed this in a previous post. There is no "Day 1" for this god. Everything is the past.

 

[Colter]

And our point is, what has led you to make this claim, considering that many Christian scholars spend their whole careers doing the exact same thing? Why are you assuming he has ill intentions simply because he isn't a member of your religion?

Christianity and other religions are strengthened by historical truth, which is one reason why many people, Christian or not, engage in this discipline. I'd go so far as to say that these Christian scholars are the ones truly defending Christianity, since their faith is strong enough to believe that it will stand up to reason. They're more interested in learning the truth and seeing God's work in reality than sticking with preconceived notions regardless of evidence.

Or perhaps he knows himself better than you do, and you're simply having trouble grasping how scholarship works.

It's all about motive, there is nothing wrong with scholarly analysis of biblical documents. One could use such for good or for evil. I believe Atheist exploit these findings for evil purposes; the undermining of faith in God.

[I recall ToddNotTodd lamenting the closure of General Apologetics, he speculated that it was because the Christians were losing.]

 

[quatona]

It's all about motive, there is nothing wrong with scholarly analysis of biblical documents. One could use such for good or for evil. I believe Atheist exploit these findings for evil purposes; the undermining of faith in God.

You should do something about your negative assumptions concerning other people´s motives. It isn´t doing you any good.

 

[Colter]

You should do something about your negative assumptions concerning other people´s motives. It isn´t doing you any good.

Quatona, who has a negative and corroding approach to believers on practically every thread on a religious forum, has taken to offering advice.

Being wise as a serpent does the believer great good, keeps the termites at bay.

 

[quatona]

Quatona, who has a negative and corroding approach to believers on practically every thread on a religious forum, has taken to offering advice.

Yes, it´s good advice, even if you consider me a poor expert.

Care to show some examples for your claim (or is this just another one of your negative preconceptions/beliefs about atheists)?
And care to show examples where I make negative assumptions about believers´ motives?

Being wise as a serpent does the believer great good, keeps the termites at bay.

Aggrandizing yourself doesn´t do you any good.

 

[Colter]

Yes, it´s good advice, even if you consider me a poor expert.

Care to show some examples for your claim (or is this just another one of your negative preconceptions/beliefs about atheists)?
And care to show examples where I make negative assumptions about believers´ motives?


Aggrandizing yourself doesn´t do you any good.

On these forums you are an activist Atheist, I'm simply reflecting back to you your aroma.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I care about being liked by Atheist?


[deleted, probably out of context sarcasm from one of Quatona's post, that could be seen as flaming, I apologize]

 

[kristina411]

Let's say it's day 1. God knows that you will choose A out of an A/B choice tomorrow. Since you agree you can choose either A or B up until the time you make the choice, let's say you then freely choose B. What does this do to God's omniscience?

I responded to your question (^) on page 22 comment 215. I am assuming you did not see it, easy for posts to get swallowed in some of these threads.

 

[quatona]

On these forums you are an activist Atheist,

What is that?

I'm simply reflecting back to you your aroma.

No, all you are reflecting back on are your preconceptions.
And you accused me of something, concretely, without being willing and/or able to back it up. You lied about me.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I care about being liked by Atheist?

No, I am not assuming that. I was assuming, though, that you want to be taken seriously. But I may be have mistaken there.
And what the heck is "by Atheist"? That isn´t even English. Unless you are assuming some superiour God-like entity named "Atheist".

And when you were still a Christian, did you really steal old lady's underwear?