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

[bhsmte]

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

As a general rule, I would tend to agree, with some caveats.

Some people are only defensive, when certain topics are raised, that are likely a very important part of their personal belief structure. No one likes their personal belief structure to be threatened and depending on the psyche of each individual, everyone will engage certain defense mechanisms to at least initially, protect their position.

Where the difference comes in, is the length each individual will go to defend their position and there are wide variations. Typically, the more fragile the belief structure internally, the more defensive a person will get, because they sense danger and they need to fend off the danger, before it gets to close to damaging their position.

 

[bhsmte]

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 find it entertaining in the sense that I am highly interested in human psychology and in one particular area; psychology of how we form our beliefs. This board, with so many differing positions (even amongst Christians) is a fertile ground to ask questions and to observe how people form their beliefs, how they support their beliefs and how even they respond to simple questions to explain their positions.

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!

Anti-Jesus post? Which post would this be, please point it out by giving me the post number and the thread. Thank you.

 

[Cearbhall]

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?

There are plenty who have thought through what they believe and do not respond with anger. As for the others, it can be a bit traumatizing the first time you feel that seed of doubt if you've never thought deeply about it before. I've actually seen people become frightened when they realize they don't have logical answers for their beliefs.

 

[Colter]

For the believer:

"The confusion about the experience of the certainty of God arises out of the dissimilar interpretations and relations of that experience by separate individuals and by different races of men. The experiencing of God may be wholly valid, but the discourse about God, being intellectual and philosophical, is divergent and oftentimes confusingly fallacious.

A good and noble man may be consummately in love with his wife but utterly unable to pass a satisfactory written examination on the psychology of marital love. Another man, having little or no love for his spouse, might pass such an examination most acceptably. The imperfection of the lover’s insight into the true nature of the beloved does not in the least invalidate either the reality or sincerity of his love.

If you truly believe in God — by faith know him and love him — do not permit the reality of such an experience to be in any way lessened or detracted from by the doubting insinuations of science, the caviling of logic, the postulates of philosophy, or the clever suggestions of well-meaning souls who would create a religion without God.

The certainty of the God-knowing religionist should not be disturbed by the uncertainty of the doubting materialist; rather should the uncertainty of the unbeliever be mightily challenged by the profound faith and unshakable certainty of the experiential believer." UB 1955
​

 

[Cearbhall]

The certainty of the God-knowing religionist should not be disturbed by the uncertainty of the doubting materialist; rather should the uncertainty of the unbeliever be mightily challenged by the profound faith and unshakable certainty of the experiential believer." UB 1955

I agree with the sentiment. I encourage all religious people to think critically about their beliefs as soon as possible in life, lest they find it upsetting and unsettling the first time they're faced with opposing viewpoints. If your happiness depends on maintaining a certain belief, then you better have a satisfactory justification for it.

 

[Albion]

There are plenty who have thought through what they believe and do not respond with anger. As for the others, it can be a bit traumatizing the first time you feel that seed of doubt if you've never thought deeply about it before. I've seen people get upset when this happens.

And it's worth keeping in mind that the OP said this:

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

"I notice...when I ask...Christians tend...."

To the extent that there's truth to the claim, the author of the OP began by noting that it's his personal experience being referred to, not something that's generally true; and that the alleged reaction(s) are related to how he asked the questions.

 

[Inkachu]

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.

This is a really good point. Asking someone to justify their beliefs carries the assumption that their beliefs are faulty to begin with, and they need to defend them. What's usually better received is someone who asks questions in a non-confrontational way, ie "Can you tell me what you believe about x-y-z, and why you believe it?"

 

[Inkachu]

For the believer:

"The confusion about the experience of the certainty of God arises out of the dissimilar interpretations and relations of that experience by separate individuals and by different races of men. The experiencing of God may be wholly valid, but the discourse about God, being intellectual and philosophical, is divergent and oftentimes confusingly fallacious.

A good and noble man may be consummately in love with his wife but utterly unable to pass a satisfactory written examination on the psychology of marital love. Another man, having little or no love for his spouse, might pass such an examination most acceptably. The imperfection of the lover’s insight into the true nature of the beloved does not in the least invalidate either the reality or sincerity of his love.

If you truly believe in God — by faith know him and love him — do not permit the reality of such an experience to be in any way lessened or detracted from by the doubting insinuations of science, the caviling of logic, the postulates of philosophy, or the clever suggestions of well-meaning souls who would create a religion without God.

The certainty of the God-knowing religionist should not be disturbed by the uncertainty of the doubting materialist; rather should the uncertainty of the unbeliever be mightily challenged by the profound faith and unshakable certainty of the experiential believer." UB 1955
​

Don't quite agree with this in total, but it's an interesting angle.

 

[Cearbhall]

And it's worth keeping in mind that the OP said this:

"I notice...when I ask...Christians tend...."

To the extent that there's truth to the claim, the author of the OP began by noting that it's his personal experience being referred to, not something that's generally true; and that the alleged reaction(s) are related to how he asked the questions.

Indeed. For me personally, such a reaction is a rare experience. Most people seem to love learning about other faiths and talking about why they believe what they do.

 

[Colter]

I find it entertaining in the sense that I am highly interested in human psychology and in one particular area; psychology of how we form our beliefs. This board, with so many differing positions (even amongst Christians) is a fertile ground to ask questions and to observe how people form their beliefs, how they support their beliefs and how even they respond to simple questions to explain their positions.



Anti-Jesus post? Which post would this be, please point it out by giving me the post number and the thread. Thank you.

You were debunking the gospels in some discussion within the last couple of months, I recall you did that last year as well.

The psychology of how a person thinks their way into a distorted view of the universe is also an interesting study.

 

[bhsmte]

You were debunking the gospels in some discussion within the last couple of months, I recall you did that last year as well.

The psychology of how a person thinks their way into a distorted view of the universe is also an interesting study.

I will ask again, you claimed I made an anti-Jesus post, so lets see if you can demonstrate and support your accusation. If not, please recant your claim against me.

My record in regards to what you discuss is clear on this board in regards to Jesus and I believe he was a real historical figure. My discussion the other day, revolved around NT scholars and historians view on the gospels and the fact that many of those professionals question the historical credibility of the same and it just so happens, most of those professionals are Christians themselves.

So, either back up your claim against me, or retract it and we will see how intellectual honesty comes into play here.

 

[Cearbhall]

You were debunking the gospels in some discussion within the last couple of months, I recall you did that last year as well.

How is that "anti-Jesus?" There are plenty of Christian scholars who spend time debunking aspects of the Gospels. It's only "anti" anything if your conclusion is biased. If you're presenting facts and the truth, then why would a Christian be against that?

My discussion the other day, revolved around NT scholars and historians view on the gospels and the fact that many of those professionals question the historical credibility of the same and it just so happens, most of those professionals are Christians themselves.

^

Exactly. Intellectualism and academia are not anti-Christian. To say otherwise would be an insult to Christianity.

 

[Jesse2014]

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 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.

Exactly.

Thank you for answering. I can't understand why horrible things happen to. But it doesn't stop me from believing in God and in his Son, Jesus.

I don't know why Christians would get mad at answering these questions. It's OK to say I don't know.

 

[Inkachu]

Exactly.

Thank you for answering. I can't understand why horrible things happen to. But it doesn't stop me from believing in God and in his Son, Jesus.

I don't know why Christians would get mad at answering these questions. It's OK to say I don't know.

True dat, lil bro

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly. Intellectualism and academia are not anti-Christian. To say otherwise would be an insult to Christianity.

Yes, there are many Christian NT scholars and historians, that question the validity of portions of the gospels and they do so using their professional observations, based on scholarly work and the historical method.

Now, since Colter has called me dishonest, lets see how intellectually honest, he can be.

 

[talquin]

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

Please take the time to follow it through. Draw yourself a little time line and plot when X & Y each get their values. Then you'll see my point.

 

[Colter]

I will ask again, you claimed I made an anti-Jesus post, so lets see if you can demonstrate and support your accusation. If not, please recant your claim against me.

My record in regards to what you discuss is clear on this board in regards to Jesus and I believe he was a real historical figure. My discussion the other day, revolved around NT scholars and historians view on the gospels and the fact that many of those professionals question the historical credibility of the same and it just so happens, most of those professionals are Christians themselves.

So, either back up your claim against me, or retract it and we will see how intellectual honesty comes into play here.

Ok, I will retract my claim that you were debunking Jesus when citing NT scholars and historians who question the "historical credibility" of the gospels.

Was that psychologically stimulating for you?

 

[talquin]

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 if you apply the argument to an outside of time being, it still shows that nothing can have infallible knowledge of events which are yet to occur. Draw a timeline and put X and Y on the timeline and you'll see what I mean.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok, I will retract my claim that you were debunking Jesus when citing NT scholars and historians who question the "historical credibility" of the gospels.

Was that psychologically stimulating for you?

I think a better question would be, what motivated you to make a false claim about me, the one you call "intellectually dishonest"?

 

[talquin]

Simple
Variable y and variable x have the same value.

If true and they always have the same value, then X can't have a value before Y gets its value on day 2.

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.

You're not addressing the central issue. What if we do something which is in conflict with what God knew we would do?