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

[bhsmte]

I don't have any fear of you or anyone else calling atheism a religion. Rather than dealing with words which are often misunderstood, why not call the planet Neptune a human being.

Again, I find the desire for some folks to label non-believers as being religious as interesting in the sense, what is the motivation behind them needing to use this label of religion, in such a fashion.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

So why do you knowingly upset people? I could easily say that it seems to be a deep seated animosity towards the non religious. I mean look at the content of your previous post. Especially contrasted to this one, in which you seem to be backing off after being called out on your bad behavior.

I believe it's possible to have a conversation without all this, don't you?

 

[HonestTruth]

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

As a literary, legal, and historical scholar I have posed very, very tough questions on people from all religions. The angriest replies I have ever gotten were always from people who profess to be Christians.

While I do my best to avoid being judgmental, one cannot help but remember New Testament teachings that there are many antichrists.

 

[Albion]

So why do you knowingly upset people?

That innocent question upsets you? I'm sorry, but this is a religious discussion board so, presumably, anyone who chooses to discuss religious matters here can expect religious topics to be presented for their consideration.

You could, of course, switch to another forum if the mere raising of a question on a thread that's already discussing that issue (atheism and religion) troubles you. You didn't say the same thing about this thread, I notice, even though it begins with an assertion that's much more heated and potentially offensive--claiming that "Christians "get defensive or "angry" when confronted with "difficult questions."

 

[Hammster]

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

I don't.

Blows that theory.

 

[Inkachu]

The Christian God is often posited as having knowledge of everything - past, present and future. If God knows what you're going to do tomorrow and you freely choose to do something different from what god knows you will do, then what happens to God's infallible foreknowledge?

That's kind of a contradiction in terms: if God knows what you're going to do... you freely choose to do something different...

God knows what you're going to do, period. That doesn't take away from your free will. He isn't controlling your choices, He's just aware of them beforehand.

The Christian God is often described as loving everyone and being able to do anything. It would then follow that he would want to stop rapists from raping children and would be capable of doing so. But rapists do rape children. Same thing with typhoons which destroy millions of homes and kill thousands of people. How do you reconcile this?

I can't completely reconcile this. Anyone who says they can, I'd have trouble believing. I believe that you're correct that God is loving and all powerful. I don't think He's "okay" with the horrid state of the world, and that's why He has a plan in motion to rescue His people and ultimately "fix" the state of things. It may not happen as instantly as we wish it would. We know one reason for Him allowing the world to continue is that He wants to give everyone as much time as possible to repent and turn to Him. That doesn't make it easy to accept the sinful and cursed state of the world, though. I'm always asking "why" to the terrible realities of life. I don't have answers to every one of those questions, though. No human being ever will, because we're finite and limited in our understanding and perception.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That innocent question upsets you? I'm sorry, but this is a religious discussion board so, presumably, anyone who chooses to discuss religious matters here can expect religious topics to be presented for their consideration.

Like I've already mentioned, I don't let childish jabs upset me. I'm just questioning why you think it's necessary to engage in such obvious practices.

You could, of course, switch to another forum if the mere raising of a question on a thread that's already discussing that issue (atheism and religion) troubles you. You didn't say the same thing about this thread, I notice, even though it begins with an assertion that's much more heated and potentially offensive--claiming that "Christians "get defensive or "angry" when confronted with "difficult questions."

I will agree that this whole thread seems better suited in a different place than the Philosophy section.

 

[talquin]

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.

In your own words, please explain the difference between the "New Atheism" movement and atheism.

 

[talquin]

That's kind of a contradiction in terms: if God knows what you're going to do... you freely choose to do something different...

God knows what you're going to do, period. That doesn't take away from your free will. He isn't controlling your choices, He's just aware of them beforehand.

I suggest you read this:

Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, they’ll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, we’ll see that they are.

Let’s say Fred is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). We’ll call Fred’s day 2 A/B choice variable Y. This means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B – to be decided freely by Fred.

Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Fred will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, “if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?”. Christians would typically agree.

If asked for further specifics, such as what if Fred chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Fred will choose whatever God knows he will choose.

So we’ll call God’s day 1 knowledge of Fred’s day 2 A/B choice variable X. If God knows infallibly on day 1 what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.

We now have three conditions:

1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Fred's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it willremain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.

2) Y (or Fred’s day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Fred freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Fred has free will or can freely make choices.

3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Fred chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.

Not all three of these conditions can be true.

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can’t be true, as X wouldn’t be equal to Y, nor would Y be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.

If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can’t be true. Fred wouldn’t be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Fred’s future choice is a function of Fred’s day 2 choice. But this doesn’t hold true if the answer to the question “if asked on day 1, does God know what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be?” is YES.

If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can’t be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God can’t have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Fred’s day 2 A/B choice.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.

 

[Inkachu]

Seriously? I don't suppose you could re-word that in a way that's a little more friendly to someone who abhors math problems? lol

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I suggest you read this:

Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, they’ll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, we’ll see that they are.

Let’s say Fred is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). We’ll call Fred’s day 2 A/B choice variable Y. This means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B – to be decided freely by Fred.

Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Fred will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, “if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?”. Christians would typically agree.

If asked for further specifics, such as what if Fred chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Fred will choose whatever God knows he will choose.

So we’ll call God’s day 1 knowledge of Fred’s day 2 A/B choice variable X. If God knows infallibly on day 1 what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.

We now have three conditions:

1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Fred's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it willremain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.

2) Y (or Fred’s day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Fred freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Fred has free will or can freely make choices.

3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Fred chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.

Not all three of these conditions can be true.

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can’t be true, as X wouldn’t be equal to Y, nor would Y be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.

If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can’t be true. Fred wouldn’t be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Fred’s future choice is a function of Fred’s day 2 choice. But this doesn’t hold true if the answer to the question “if asked on day 1, does God know what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be?” is YES.

If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can’t be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God can’t have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Fred’s day 2 A/B choice.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.

You have a problem with this. You're presupposing a god with the same frame of reference as us. Christians often say their god is "outside of time". If god sees everything as the past, then your argument falls apart.

 

[Inkachu]

You have a problem with this. You're presupposing a god with the same frame of reference as us. Christians often say their god is "outside of time". If god sees everything as the past, then your argument falls apart.

Even though I couldn't make heads nor tails of that post, you're correct in this: God is outside of time. He sees the past, present, and future all at once.

 

[Albion]

Like I've already mentioned, I don't let childish jabs upset me. I'm just questioning why you think it's necessary to engage in such obvious practices. .

That's good. But it wasn't a "jab" to say that discussing religion on a forum dedicated to religious discussion isn't something the average person who comes here to discuss religious topics would see as surprising or upsetting.

And if anyone actually DOES feel that way, it's hardly the fault of the poster who asked the question.

 

[keith99]

I'm going to point out that any question that starts out with an explicit or implied:

"How do you justify"

is more an attack than a question. That such questions often result in a counter attack is little surprise. Few have the self control to repeatedly turn the other cheek.

When directed at Christians (or for that matter most faiths) the demand to show justification can rise to demanding the Christian being asked defends conflicting doctrines from 2 different groups, neither of which the Christian in question is a member of and sometimes beliefs the person considers heretical. No surprise if someone pressed in that situation gets a bit testy.

I can also even understand why a Christian could get testy with some questions I would ask. Not that my questions or assumptions would be out of line, but because they are too close to ones the Christian has heard before and often that are out of line. My world view does not categorically exclude miracles, but I do expect strong evidence for such. I also read a claim differently when it clearly marks something that runs directly against the norms as a miracle than when it treats it as normal. Thus I DO NOT reject the claim of the virgin birth out of hand. The claim there very clearly shows the writers knew exactly how babies were made and are claiming the direct intervention of God. Claims about demon possession are a very different thing. If I were to point out that the first miracle of Jesus, turning water to wine, could easily have been done by a bit of sleight of hand I can see how I could be mistaken for one who rejects all miracles out of hand.

Going in a different direction. I can get testy when a Christian asserts my ignorance of Scripture without any basis or claims I am grossly biased just because I question all things. For example when it comes to the wedding at Cana I can definitively show it was WINE not grape juice. I can also make a pretty good argument it was a true Miracle and if not that Jesus at least had a very wealthy accomplice. I'm sure many Christians can do the first and at least some here can do the second. (Hint, the evidence in the text is plain and comes through in any translation).

In short I do not find Christians all that defensive, thought of course there are some exceptions.

 

[kristina411]

I suggest you read this:

Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, they’ll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, we’ll see that they are.

Let’s say Fred is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). We’ll call Fred’s day 2 A/B choice variable Y. This means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B – to be decided freely by Fred.

Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Fred will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, “if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?”. Christians would typically agree.

If asked for further specifics, such as what if Fred chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Fred will choose whatever God knows he will choose.

So we’ll call God’s day 1 knowledge of Fred’s day 2 A/B choice variable X. If God knows infallibly on day 1 what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.

We now have three conditions:

1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Fred's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it willremain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.

2) Y (or Fred’s day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Fred freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Fred has free will or can freely make choices.

3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Fred chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.

Not all three of these conditions can be true.

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can’t be true, as X wouldn’t be equal to Y, nor would Y be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.

If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can’t be true. Fred wouldn’t be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Fred’s future choice is a function of Fred’s day 2 choice. But this doesn’t hold true if the answer to the question “if asked on day 1, does God know what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be?” is YES.

If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can’t be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God can’t have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Fred’s day 2 A/B choice.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.

Simple
Variable y and variable x have the same value.

You ask yourself, from a human limited even to the use of their own brain.

We are limited greatly by time. If it were not for time we would be much more open to ideas.
Take away the time in which God is aware of your choices and it makes your equation very much plausible.

We are assuming God understands on our time schedule. God understands today what happens tomorrow. But for all we know God could be in tomorrow already, if tomorrow exists at all with God.

Does he know before, during, or after? Was it known the moment the Earth gained form? Everyone has differing opinions and I doubt any two Christians would fully agree with each other in all of the ideas but I may be wrong. My idea would be that, since God is all knowing, even what is in our hearts more than we ourselves know, he is aware of our own choices before they are made on a different time scale than we are. We are limited even in our understanding of time.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That's good. But it wasn't a "jab" to say that discussing religion on a forum dedicated to religious discussion isn't something the average person who comes here to discuss religious topics would see as surprising or upsetting.

And if anyone actually DOES feel that way, it's hardly the fault of the poster who asked the question.

You didn't ask a question. You ridiculously pronounced something a religion knowing it would upset people. It's as pointless to the conversation as me referring to Christianity as a cult.

 

[abysmul]

In short I do not find Christians all that defensive, thought of course there are some exceptions.

I find Christians as defensive (statistically) as any other human.


/shrug

 

[Albion]

I find Christians as defensive (statistically) as any other human.


/shrug

That seems fair.

 

[Jesse2014]

As a general rule, faith beliefs are developed and are protected, because they are an important part of a person's psyche and the belief provides comfort, amongst other things.

In many people, when this faith belief is challenged with pointed questions, it can pose a serious risk, because doubt can then come into the picture, in regards to something that is very important to them.

We call this "cognitive dissonance" and it is unpleasant. When a person is experiencing cognitive dissonance, you are almost certain to see; denial, confirmation bias and selective reasoning exhibited, as the powerful defense mechanisms utilized to protect the faith belief.

Wow. Thank you for this.

You see I can learn even from people who don't believe as I do.

 

[Colter]

In regards to displaying intellectual honesty, my observations on this board would not match up with yours.

Now, some people come here for actual "intellectual discussion" and that usually includes; understanding the other persons position and asking pointed questions to better understand it. It also involves, pointing out when someone responds and it simply makes no logical sense or their response is contradictory to what they have already said (which I see a lot from certain Christians).

Intellectual discussion with just people who agree with you is boring and is why some seek discussion with those who do not agree with them, because it is more stimulating to discuss where they differ and why.

I come here not to undermine anyone's faith belief, I come here to engage in discussion with those who may disagree with me and to learn why they feel differently then me.

At the end of the day, it isn't one's belief that interests me so much, it is how each person justifies to themselves, why they believe what they do. That is where the psychology part of this whole discussion, can get highly entertaining.

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!