Why do some Christians act so hostile toward questions?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This should be something considered when having kids, in my opinion. Why not consider the future of your child - even if it is doom?

Even the animals have biological stunts to limit the number of their offspring, based on environment. We, as children of God, should be considering the same for the spirit of our children.

Well, that was a question that came up-

But YHWH (GOD CREATOR) shows us a WAY, Y'SHUA SAVIOR ,
and
also THE WAY (HIS INSTRUCTIONS) to raise up a child in the way he should go,
but most people do not - (it was a SHOCK to me, how many refused to -even from church goers and on so-called 'christian' forums) -

There are very clear instructions , good forever, in how to raise a child. (and more importantly for this spot we are - not with a future of doom, but in ongoing salvation)
I've only read / found/ heard of a few pastors and teachers and authors outside of SCRIPTURE who agree with SCRIPTURE and teach what is right.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

So 2 innocent kids, who didn't know what is right or wrong ( they had to eat the fruit to gain that knowledge ) were outsmarted by an entity that fooled them were punished harshly for it. How is it their fault? When an omniscient God who already know all that would happen, yet choose to let it go down that way? Yes God told them not to eat the fruit,...but they didn't know it was wrong to disobey God until after eating the fruit.

They knew it would lead to their death, they knew they were to obey God. The fact is they knew these things and did it anyways. Also what do you mean by God let it go down that way? Do you mean why did God create free beings, with the ability to make free choices, which have consequences, and did so even though he knew these free beings would rebel against him? If as you say he is omniscient then he surely knows the end result of creating such beings right? How are you in any position to say whether or not God did the right thing when you can't see the ending like him? How do you know he was wrong for what he did when he sees the ending and you don't? Atheists make these claims that God is evil because all they see is evil but the thing they don't see is what God can see and that is the end. Without that knowledge we are in no position to make any claim that God was wrong for creating humans.

 

[JD16]

They knew it would lead to their death, they knew they were to obey God. The fact is they knew these things and did it anyways. Also what do you mean by God let it go down that way? Do you mean why did God create free beings, with the ability to make free choices, which have consequences, and did so even though he knew these free beings would rebel against him? If as you say he is omniscient then he surely knows the end result of creating such beings right? How are you in any position to say whether or not God did the right thing when you can't see the ending like him? How do you know he was wrong for what he did when he sees the ending and you don't? Atheists make these claims that God is evil because all they see is evil but the thing they don't see is what God can see and that is the end. Without that knowledge we are in no position to make any claim that God was wrong for creating humans.

I didn't say anything about God being right or wrong, much less God being evil. But he knew exactly what would happen. He knows everything. I'm not judging anything, just asking why. And how would they know it's wrong? They had to eat the fruit before gaining that knowledge. So the question remains ...how is it their fault?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

I didn't say anything about God being right or wrong, much less God being evil. But he knew exactly what would happen. He knows everything. I'm not judging anything, just asking why. And how would they know it's wrong? They had to eat the fruit before gaining that knowledge. So the question remains ...how is it their fault.

It is their fault because like I said they knew to obey God and knew if they ate from that tree it would lead to their death. God laid everything out quite simply in front of them the instructions were quite simple. There is no denying that they did something that they were told not to do. Even without knowing about good and evil, they are capable of having knowledge, and they simply disobeyed. And the consequences of all sin is death.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And remember, ADAM and HAVAH (EVE) were tremendously more intelligent than any human has been for thousands of years. Their minds and their bodies were so much more healthy than anyone has seen for , well, maybe ever....
ADAM named ALL the animals of earth, with names that (probably ) meant something too.
And in the hundreds of years that ADAM and HAVAH lived, and others like them,
their minds and bodies remained so strong and healthy ,
almost no one today would understand, (that I've heard of) ......

illness industry today is gone wild !

 

[JD16]

It is their fault because like I said they knew to obey God and knew if they ate from that tree it would lead to their death. God laid everything out quite simply in front of them the instructions were quite simple. There is no denying that they did something that they were told not to do. Even without knowing about good and evil, they are capable of having knowledge, and they simply disobeyed. And the consequences of all sin is death.

I understand that they were told not to, but before eating the fruit they didn't know it was wrong to disobey God. If they had that knowledge of right and wrong before eating the fruit, then nothing would have been gain by eating the fruit. And like you said they were like kids,....so it's like leaving a loaded gun in the room with 3 year olds, telling them not to play with it, when an older smarter kid comes along and tells them that it would be fun. I'm not placing the blame on anyone. Just wondering why would an omniscient God who knew exactly what would happen, let it happen, and then punish them for it. It makes no sense from a logical standpoint..

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Just wondering why would an omniscient who knew exactly what would happen, let it happen, and then punish them for it. It makes no sense from a logical standpoint..

There are many logical reasons for doing so, reasons like, the good outweighs the bad, he knew his ultimate glorious plan for mankind would come about through his power regardless of their disobedience. I would see what you were saying if God created man, they disobeyed, they died, the end. However that is not what the bible says. The bible says God created man, they disobeyed, they died, God sent a savior into the world to pay the penalty of sin which is death so all who believe will live eternally, and here we are my friend. If things happened where there was no way for mankind to be redeemed, then I see your point. However God provided a way out for man. So can't you see with God doing so that there is at least some purpose?

 

[JD16]

There are many logical reasons for doing so, reasons like, the good outweighs the bad, he knew his ultimate glorious plan for mankind would come about through his power regardless of their disobedience. I would see what you were saying if God created man, they disobeyed, they died, the end. However that is not what the bible says. The bible says God created man, they disobeyed, they died, God sent a savior into the world to pay the penalty of sin which is death so all who believe will live eternally, and here we are my friend. If things happened where there was no way for mankind to be redeemed, then I see your point. However God provided a way out for man. So can't you see with God doing so that there is at least some purpose?

I would imagine it would have been much easier to not place the tree in that garden in the first place, and not letting the serpent (bad influence) anywhere near them knowing what would happen, instead of going the long way about it,...by hey thats just me. What's the serpent doing in the garden also? If it was satan, wasn't the creation of man after the angel's rebellion? Aren't they suppose to be in hell at that point?
If the story of Adam and Eve were taken allegory instead of literally, it would make more sense, as it does not require logical consistency,...just a tale to show what happens when man is disobedient against God. Its trying to take it literally that would introduce all sorts of issues...

 

[Rajni]

It seems like often when doubters/agnostics/atheists present questions or problems to Christians, some get hostile. They say that they're trying to spread deceit, that they aren't true Christians, that doubting is dangerous, that they'll go to hell, etc.

Why do many seem so afraid to question their faith and threaten or guilt-trip those who do? The truth doesn't hide from questioning. If Christians are so confident of the Truth, why do they rebuke others for honestly questioning?

I think your question touched upon one of the answers, the fear of being sent
to hell if one were to stray from the set of beliefs one thinks are the right ones.
If I were convinced that what I believed was key in my salvation, I would likely
reject quite vehemently even the mere suggestion that I could believe something
different.

In fact, I distinctly remember reacting like this when my fiancee at the time
suggested that I, then a devout Catholic, attend his bible church. I was all like
"No, I have to be Catholic, my kids have to be Catholic, if not you'll end up in
hell", etc.

Fear. It's fear.

Then there's being ostracized from one's church community, not to mention the
flack one might get from family. And what would the Pastor say?! He'll probably
be sending the Accountability Mafia after them in the middle of the night. So
yeah, there's all that running in the background as well.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think your question touched upon one of the answers, the fear of being sent
to hell if one were to stray from the set of beliefs one thinks are the right ones.
If I were convinced that what I believed was key in my salvation, I would likely
reject quite vehemently even the mere suggestion that I could believe something
different.

In fact, I distinctly remember reacting like this when my fiancee at the time
suggested that I, then a devout Catholic, attend his bible church. I was all like
"No, I have to be Catholic, my kids have to be Catholic, if not you'll end up in
hell", etc.

Fear. It's fear.

Then there's being ostracized from one's church community, not to mention the
flack one might get from family. And what would the Pastor say?! He'll probably
be sending the Accountability Mafia after them in the middle of the night. So
yeah, there's all that running in the background as well.

Catholics too? This is quite a common response among some evangelicals. The fear is that any question involves doubt involves lack of faith involves being "not saved". Some won't even be in earshot of questions or other points of view. It's as though they fear being brainwashed? I don't know.

If your hold on your faith/salvation is that tenuous, then that is a person to be compassionately pitied. I find God to be MUCH stronger and more reasonable than all of that.

But some sadly do believe or are taught that way. It makes sense, I suppose, not to let babes in the faith be deliberately confused. We understand even that certain things of the truth are "meat" and might choke babes. They shouldn't be expected to discern outright poison. But they should also grow, and become firm and understanding. Not remain infants forever.

Anyway ... you just made me think of that.

 

[Rajni]

Catholics too? This is quite a common response among some evangelicals. The fear is that any question involves doubt involves lack of faith involves being "not saved". Some won't even be in earshot of questions or other points of view. It's as though they fear being brainwashed? I don't know.

I think my brand of Catholicism back then was more heavily influenced by that
of my mom's, who was of a more strict, pre-Vatican-II variety. So I was
a bit less tolerant of alternative forms of Christianity.

And when I did leave the church after going born-again, the maternal side of
my family was pretty taken aback. It was rough at first, but they eventually
made their peace with it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think my brand of Catholicism back then was more heavily influenced by that
of my mom's, who was of a more strict, pre-Vatican-II variety. So I was
a bit less tolerant of alternative forms of Christianity.

And when I did leave the church after going born-again, the maternal side of
my family was pretty taken aback. It was rough at first, but they eventually
made their peace with it.

Thank you ... I'm not overly familiar with stages in Catholicism except as they relate to particular things I've looked into. And this wasn't one I was aware of.

Such changes are often hard ... I understand that. God be with you!

 

[pescador]

Not sure the Catholic Church has the same stance.

I'm sure that they don't. I don't like to be told that I must accept "the party line" or else. I'm a human being with thoughts and emotions, the way that God made me. It says that all of us will be guided by the Holy Spirit, not by some rigid corporate body (which is the way it was for the Jews). The basic premise of believers' status is that we are a notion of priests, with no hierarchy except for Jesus being the head.

 

[Galatea]

If my wife and I found ourselves naked in a garden talking to a serpent, I guarantee you I would not be swayed by anything it said...

That's the problem, right there. It wasn't a talking snake. It was Satan, the hater of God and man. I think we don't give him nearly enough credit for his winsomeness. He is able to coax and wheedle and seduce people every day.

 

[CrystalDragon]

That's the problem, right there. It wasn't a talking snake. It was Satan, the hater of God and man. I think we don't give him nearly enough credit for his winsomeness. He is able to coax and wheedle and seduce people every day.

Genesis itself never says the serpent was Satan. That view came much later. The punishment God gives it indicates it was a talking serpent, but not Satan.

 

[AvgJoe]

Genesis itself never says the serpent was Satan. That view came much later. The punishment God gives it indicates it was a talking serpent, but not Satan.

Yes, the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was Satan. Satan was either appearing as a serpent, possessing the serpent, or deceiving Adam and Eve into believing that it was the serpent who was talking to them. Serpents / snakes do not possess the ability to speak. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both describe Satan as a serpent. "He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years" (Revelation 20:2). "The great dragon was hurled down, that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him" (Revelation 12:9).

While the Bible is not clear as to whether or not the serpent stood up or walked before the curse, it appears likely that, like other reptiles, it probably did walk on four legs. That would seem to be the best explanation of Genesis 3:14, "So the LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.'" The fact that the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly and eat the dust of the earth forever is also a way of indicating that the serpent would be forever despised and looked upon as a vile and despicable creature and an object of scorn and contempt.

Why did God curse the serpent when He knew that it was actually Satan who had led Adam and Eve into sin? The fate of the serpent is an illustration. The curse of the serpent will one day be the fate of Satan himself (Revelation 20:10; Ezekiel 28:18-19).

www.gotquestions.org/Satan-serpent.html

 

[Galatea]

Genesis itself never says the serpent was Satan. That view came much later. The punishment God gives it indicates it was a talking serpent, but not Satan.

Genesis is not the Bible in total. There are many verses that state that Satan was the serpent, he probably inhabited the body of the serpent- just as the demons who were driven out of the Gadarene man inhabited the bodies of swine.
Rev. 20:2, Num.21:5-9, II Corinthians 11:3, Rev 12:9.

Why would a creature want to cause man to sin? The only creature up to that point who had sinned was Satan. Satan hates God and people. He is on a mission to destroy as much as he can to thwart God and any created intelligence that would worship God.

 

[AvgJoe]

Who is the "father of lies," Satan or the serpent? Satan is the "father of lies" (John 8:44) and he told the first lie in recorded history to Eve, in the Garden of Eden.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There is also the point that God told them the serpent would bruise the son's heel, and he would crush its head.

 

[CrystalDragon]

There is also the point that God told them the serpent would bruise the son's heel, and he would crush its head.

But it says also "between your offspring and hers". Satan never had any offspring. It doesn't say anything about "the son" it says basically that the offspring of Eve (that is, many many many people) will basically not let the serpent trouble them anymore.

Genesis is not the Bible in total. There are many verses that state that Satan was the serpent, he probably inhabited the body of the serpent- just as the demons who were driven out of the Gadarene man inhabited the bodies of swine.
Rev. 20:2, Num.21:5-9, II Corinthians 11:3, Rev 12:9.

Why would a creature want to cause man to sin? The only creature up to that point who had sinned was Satan. Satan hates God and people. He is on a mission to destroy as much as he can to thwart God and any created intelligence that would worship God.

Yes, the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was Satan. Satan was either appearing as a serpent, possessing the serpent, or deceiving Adam and Eve into believing that it was the serpent who was talking to them. Serpents / snakes do not possess the ability to speak. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both describe Satan as a serpent. "He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years" (Revelation 20:2). "The great dragon was hurled down, that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him" (Revelation 12:9).

While the Bible is not clear as to whether or not the serpent stood up or walked before the curse, it appears likely that, like other reptiles, it probably did walk on four legs. That would seem to be the best explanation of Genesis 3:14, "So the LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.'" The fact that the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly and eat the dust of the earth forever is also a way of indicating that the serpent would be forever despised and looked upon as a vile and despicable creature and an object of scorn and contempt.

Why did God curse the serpent when He knew that it was actually Satan who had led Adam and Eve into sin? The fate of the serpent is an illustration. The curse of the serpent will one day be the fate of Satan himself (Revelation 20:10; Ezekiel 28:18-19).

www.gotquestions.org/Satan-serpent.html

Revelation was a long time after, and Ezekiel is a proverb referring to the King of Tyre.

All that Satan was in the Old Testament was a prosecutor in Job, that's it. The other parts commonly cited as references to Satan rebelling are proverbs in relation to arrogant kings, in Revelation was written hundreds of years after all of it and was heavily symbolic. Those in the Old Testament had no concept of a devil.

How the Serpent Became Satan - Biblical Archaeology Society