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

[Aldebaran]

Yes, after having considered the answer, they might conclude that it's not good enough. You seem be under the impression that any answer, no matter how poor, is a good answer, and that the questioner should therefore just accept it as is. That's not how a dialogue works.

If the questioner concludes that the other person's answers are "not good enough" or poor, then the questioner should just move on and start a conversation with someone they feel gives them the answers they believe are up to their standards, rather than putting down the person. That just results in arguments which go nowhere.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If the questioner concludes that the other person's answers are "not good enough" or poor, then the questioner should just move on and start a conversation with someone they feel gives them the answers they believe are up to their standards, rather than putting down the person. That just results in arguments which go nowhere.

Well in all fairness...in regards to the conversation you linked, the poster who didn't accept your answer didn't just say "your answer isn't good enough" he went into detail of how it's wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If the questioner concludes that the other person's answers are "not good enough" or poor, then the questioner should just move on and start a conversation with someone they feel gives them the answers they believe are up to their standards, rather than putting down the person. That just results in arguments which go nowhere.

Putting down a poor argument is not the same as putting down a person. Would you rather that the questioner probe the argument and consider its merits or that he or she just abandon the conversation altogether? The latter approach doesn't lead anywhere, whereas the former might give rise to an edifying conversation where both participants can learn something.

 

[talquin]

I think you described humans, not one specific subset.

Ask me some difficult questions. I won't be evasive. I won't get angry. I won't get defensive.

 

[talquin]

Yes, atheist, who get off mocking the faith of Christians all dressed up as "intellectual stimulation" don't like having their doctrines of death challenged, and a guy who is the spokesman for some people at his office. Have you not noticed that I'm not seeking your good opinion of me?

I am an atheist and I don't have a doctrine of death which you can challenge. But if I did, I wouldn't be bothered if you did challenge my doctrine of death. BTW, what exactly do you consider a "doctrine of death" to be?

While I don't get off mocking the faith of Christians, I am highly entertained by their persistent use of conflicting positions and conflicting claims and how they respond when it is pointed out that such positions and claims are conflicting.

 

[talquin]

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. So do non-religious people get to dictate how religous people are supposed to act?

Actions speaking louder than words is a concept and practice that transcends all religions.

 

[talquin]

a devil can be many things

for example, a devil may be someone who forecloses on the right of others to express their emotions, in order to make the point that they should be less emotional for no reason (in the eyes of the Lord)

Is this definition from a human perspective or in the eyes of the Lord? If the latter, what is a Lord?

this can be done with evil intent, with good (or with neutral)

the point is, when you play the devil with people that have not developed enough character to be able to deal with it, in many cases you will get frustrating results (simply because you have not employed enough Wisdom yourself)

Asking people questions to help them critically evaluate their positions should help them develop character. It shouldn't cause them to get evasive or defensive.

 

[talquin]

Podcast on the problem of evil (reasonablefaith.org/problem-of-evil)

podcast on reasonable faith answers a lot of questions (reasonablefaith.org/reasonable-faith-podcast)


podcast on Christian doctrine (reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast)

Reasonable Faith and William Lane Craig don't adequately address the Problem of Evil.

Please provide an overview of how Reasonable Faith addresses the Problem of Evil and why you think it's sufficient.

 

[talquin]

Who says God is all loving?



If you were going to do something different, God would already know it.

God isn't like a puppy, where you pretend to throw a ball, but hold on to it and the puppy chases it and looks for it anyway.

God has ordained every move you make, to the day of your death.

I think the problem here isn't a contradiction between free will and omniscience, but a misunderstanding of free will on your part.

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.

 

[talquin]

I am quite familiar with him and have watched many of his debates.

He is a terrific debater, his arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny. He also only chooses certain debates, where he can make the ground rules. One of his best tactics, is to misrepresent his opponents position, so they have to spend time correcting this misconception, as opposed to presenting their own case.

This is excerpt from his debate with Sam Harris at Notre Dame, in which IMO, Harris destroyed him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HthQ6a7FZeA

Yep. Sam Harris destroyed him there. Dan Barker destroys Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument here. Cosmological Kalamity

 

[talquin]

Not all do. Just the ones who haven't developed a deep faith life by actually thinking through what they believe.

Yet Christians tend to get defensive, evasive or angry if I try to get them to think through what they believe. Are they not aware of the message they're sending by responding this way?

 

[talquin]

I'd agree. There is the "my church is the only real one; too bad about yours" crowd and they seem to be determined to argue about anything, with or without any facts. But the average Christian here, or Christians in general, seem to have been more than willing to answer just about any sincere question posed without obvious animosity towards the faith.

Of course, it it's posed this way:



The questioner has already stated that he will accept only the answer that agrees with his distaste for "most religious people."

And who is the questioner and how do you know this about him/her?

 

[talquin]

Why else post to a Christian forum? It can't possibly be curiosity, atheists seem to "know" more than Christians do about our beliefs.

Many atheists used to be Christians. Some, such as Dan Barker and Jerry DeWitt used to be ordained ministers or preachers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Many atheists used to be Christians. Some, such as Dan Barker and Jerry DeWitt used to be ordained ministers or preachers.

The standard reply to that seems to be that former Christians were never true Christians, with the implicit assumption that no true Christian would ever leave the faith. If they had met Barker or DeWitt when they were Christians, how would they know that they were not "true" Christians?

 

[quatona]

That's usually not what happens though. Someone will ask the Christian a question and then when they get the answer, they decide themselves that it's not good enough. I'm dealing with someone telling me repeatedly in another thread right now that my answers aren't good enough. http://www.christianforums.com/t7865165-46/

After having a short glance on some of your posts there I can surely see why that is.
Now, what would you expect me to do? Tell you your answers are great when I think they aren´t?
What do you think a discussion is?

 

[Colter]

I am an atheist and I don't have a doctrine of death which you can challenge. But if I did, I wouldn't be bothered if you did challenge my doctrine of death. BTW, what exactly do you consider a "doctrine of death" to be?

While I don't get off mocking the faith of Christians, I am highly entertained by their persistent use of conflicting positions and conflicting claims and how they respond when it is pointed out that such positions and claims are conflicting.

Decided atheist are committed to a godless faith, the final accomplishment of a life devoted to any values is eternal death. There is no recollection in death. Atheist can't disprove the God of religious people so in that discontented state they make a hobby out of joining Christian forums to undermine faith. When these big bad wolves can't stand the exposure of their deviant motives they run whine to the mods.

Atheist ask questions and for proofs that they know believers can definitively answer. They use the failure of the believers ability to provide these answers as a false positive. Some believers may not be aware of what is being done to them.

 

[quatona]

Decided atheist are committed to a godless faith, the final accomplishment of a life devoted to any values is eternal death. There is no recollection in death. Atheist can't disprove the God of religious people so in that discontented state they make a hobby out of joining Christian forums to undermine faith. When these big bad wolves can't stand the exposure of their deviant motives they run whine to the mods.

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

 

[Colter]

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

Many reasons I suppose.

What kind of a person would dedicate so much effort trying to undermine the faith of others?

 

[Colter]

Not good enough? I think you mean that the answer didn't meet with the satisfaction of the questioner. That's bound to happen in any discussion.

The darkness is never satisfied with any answer from the light. More often than not, questions from the darkness aren't really questions, they are statements as to why the believers faith is wrong all dressed up as a desire to understand.

 

[quatona]

Many reasons I suppose.

What kind of a person would dedicate so much effort trying to undermine the faith of others?

Like whom?