What is the BIGGEST argument you get?

[Dallas]

I'm in school and I come across basically two arguments. "If God Loved so much, why did he allow this to happen." And "There's is no proof."

Honestly, the no proof one is just ridiculous. I see so much proof, but only because I got the Holy Spirit. So no help there.

And for the If God loved..., I just don't know what to say. The best I can come up with is "It's Gods will." He knows what he is doing.

So what's your guys's? I'm happy to see what you guys say


Thank you,

-Dallas

[wrain62]

I get that it is a selfish idea that purpose exist within humans, cosidering our fragality, small size, and breif time in existence in the universe.

[Dallas]

I get that it is a selfish idea that purpose exist within humans, cosidering our fragality, small size, and breif time in existence in the universe.

I don't see how It's "Selfish"? I find it Loving that God himself died for his creations, instead of his creations dying for themselves, yeah?

[wrain62]

I get that it is a selfish idea that purpose exist within humans, cosidering our fragality, small size, and breif time in existence in the universe.

I don't see how It's "Selfish"? I find it Loving that God himself died for his creations, instead of his creations dying for themselves, yeah?

Selfish to think that we are actually loved and thought about by an almighty creator.

[Ivellious]

The only way I see it as selfish is when ego-driven Christians play it up like they are special (either because they feel they are right, or because they feel like their purpose is "better" than anyone else's). It doesn't happen too often, but when someone approaches the situation with an attitude of "My religion is so much better that you just can't understand how great I am," that's when people get ticked off.

More or less I feel like it's just a few "Christians" that give the rest of them a bad image by coming off so offensive and egotistical. The Westboro Baptist Church is a good example of this "Christianity gone wrong" problem. Unfortunately, when those are the only Christians that non-Christians see, it's really easy for them to pull out misconceptions about the religion and it's people as a whole. Same goes for practically every group of people out there; the most vocal and "out there" of the group get the most exposure, and thus everyone gets a bad impression of them.

[B. W.]

I'm in school and I come across basically two arguments. "If God Loved so much, why did he allow this to happen." And "There's is no proof."

Honestly, the no proof one is just ridiculous. I see so much proof, but only because I got the Holy Spirit. So no help there.

And for the If God loved..., I just don't know what to say. The best I can come up with is "It's Gods will." He knows what he is doing.

So what's your guys's? I'm happy to see what you guys say


Thank you,

-Dallas

Hi Dallas,

Problem comes with how people define love in this modern era. The meaning of love has shifted to mean unbridled complete tolerance. It no longer means love. Next, I think it was around the 1940’s though the 1980’s, agape (Greek work for love) was popularized and defined as an unconditional or self sacrificial love. What was intended by defining agape as unconditional love was what John 3:16 meant; that God loves and does things for the whole world of humanity, animals, earth, the universe without condition – taking care of it. Pertaining to humanity, God love is for all humanity so that some may be save who place their faith in Christ due to God’s own sacrifice – not ours.

The word sacrifice has also changed. The Hebrew word Korbon, sacrifice, meant – giving up something of great value that prevented one from drawing near into deep relational fellowship. The giving up something of great value was retained while the drawing near into deep personal fellowship has been largely left out in modern understanding of this word. Able offered a sacrifice of something that involved which was keeping him out of fellowship with God – an animal. Herding animals is a 24/7 job - feeding watering, watching leaves little time for much else. Lot of activity involved in tending animals that kept one away from fellowshipping deeply with God. Cain, on the other hand, gave something, harvest, which also takes effort but has lots of down time while you wait for the harvest to be harvested. See the difference between the two sacrifices?

God gave his own sacrifice, demonstrating the length he goes to draw people back into fellowship. That act was done out of love to draw people back into fellowship with the Godhead. Self sacrifice is only but one action of agape style love from God’s nature – not the sum. It is unconditional because God tosses people the life line, the rope of faith, to all people. His agape love also lets all people decide to take that rope or not, despite foreknowing those that refuse – he still sends all that rope of faith. If not, then that would not be love either. So by faith in Christ as Jesus said, is what is needed to draw nigh unto God back into fellowship.

The point is this; we have limited the meaning of agape love and redefined it. That is why people misuse the love of God – in order to get away with what they are doing in order to reject the personal fellowship and nurturing from God, who, drew nigh to us. That is why they claim – God loves me and all people – so he can’t punish for an eternity – therefore, they can reject God, live as they please with no regard for the price of fellowship it cost of God’s love to draw nigh to us all (Philippians 2:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and John 3:14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 36c and 1 John 4:10c).

God’s agape love does not coerce – nor force – it seeks to demonstrate gently to persuade because if not, love ceases to be love by not giving honor to the gifts, callings, promises made to humanity which grants us the use of free moral reasoning needed to govern our own little worlds which we make for ourselves. Love does not seek its own ways; therefore, it does not coerce, or force. Instead, Love woos, seeks out, offers, demonstrates the nature of love in order to win, freely, a being.

Greeks used four words to translate love and the Hebrews used several also in various grammar forms. When combined with the translated word Agape a word picture emerges that only begins to reveal deep vastness of God’s love. The old KJV version of the Bible often used the word Charity to define Agape. Again, the Old English word Charity meant more than giving – it meant cherishing. The Hebrew word for love and Greek Agape all point to Love as acts of cherishing, nurturing, helping to grow/mature, edifying, helping, guiding, honoring, respectful, tends too, fostering, etc and etc, building up kinds of cherishing that is all relational and omni- personal. That is the type of Agape Love God has as part of his nature. It is these aspects, just mentioned, that has been left out of the modern interpretation about God’s love.

The modern translation of God’s love, Agape, or just agape, now means – unbridled complete tolerance. Blind acceptance of all who reject the nurturing / fostering that God offers through – Jesus Christ – that whosoever believes (Faithing) in him will not perish but have eternal life with God – restored/reconciled back into a personal living relationship with God again, reject. Those that reject – well – love angered righteously is more fearsome than our limited imagination can fathom so please note what John 3:36c says.

When people demand God to accept themselves and their ways by demanding him to acquiesce to their terms, conditions, and definitions of what love is and how it must act (according to unbridled unconditional tolerance), such do not realize that angers Love itself from God. It seeks to manipulate God’s love to avoid fellowship with God and the life altering reconciling sacrifice and sealing God offers. It is an affront to God. Such people, if allowed into heaven in their eternal state, would corrupt heaven by eternally manipulating and gaming all aspects of God’s own goodness against God himself, in order to – make God subservient to them and their desires.

That is one meaning from Isaiah 26:10 and why God’s wrath rest upon people. He knows what we don’t about ourselves. The love God has will not tolerate being used and gamed again in order to lovingly protect those who have come to their senses and sealed by the sacrifice he gave to reconcile those that accept his offer of grace and prove his own name sake as Isaiah 45:21, 22, 23, 24, 25 reveals.

Note also - Eph 2:15 – 2 Co 5:17 – Gal 6:15,,,

A new creation involves change. It is not an excuse to justify remaining the same old way you ( you-meaning people here not any individual) are. Such attitude as that is an attempt to game God’s goodness to remain the old man who pits attributes of God’s love against itself, in order to remain unchanged. That is a great affront to God.
-
-
-

[Dallas]

The only way I see it as selfish is when ego-driven Christians play it up like they are special (either because they feel they are right, or because they feel like their purpose is "better" than anyone else's). It doesn't happen too often, but when someone approaches the situation with an attitude of "My religion is so much better that you just can't understand how great I am," that's when people get ticked off.

More or less I feel like it's just a few "Christians" that give the rest of them a bad image by coming off so offensive and egotistical. The Westboro Baptist Church is a good example of this "Christianity gone wrong" problem. Unfortunately, when those are the only Christians that non-Christians see, it's really easy for them to pull out misconceptions about the religion and it's people as a whole. Same goes for practically every group of people out there; the most vocal and "out there" of the group get the most exposure, and thus everyone gets a bad impression of them.

I couldn't agree anymore. I just don't like it when people just get their premise for something off of just one thing. But, what can you do?

[B. W.]

The only way I see it as selfish is when ego-driven Christians play it up like they are special (either because they feel they are right, or because they feel like their purpose is "better" than anyone else's). It doesn't happen too often, but when someone approaches the situation with an attitude of "My religion is so much better that you just can't understand how great I am," that's when people get ticked off.

More or less I feel like it's just a few "Christians" that give the rest of them a bad image by coming off so offensive and egotistical. The Westboro Baptist Church is a good example of this "Christianity gone wrong" problem. Unfortunately, when those are the only Christians that non-Christians see, it's really easy for them to pull out misconceptions about the religion and it's people as a whole. Same goes for practically every group of people out there; the most vocal and "out there" of the group get the most exposure, and thus everyone gets a bad impression of them.

I couldn't agree anymore. I just don't like it when people just get their premise for something off of just one thing. But, what can you do?

Leave it to God's final judgment - the Westburro leadership has a lot to answer for - they will fade and be no more and any who follow after they are gone -they too must answer for gaming and staining the nature and character of God as they do. Fearful thing too fall into the hands of the living God.


-

[Ivellious]

The ONLY good news about the WBC is that they basically instill this belief that getting to know or becoming friends with non-church members is a sin, so none of the children (except those who have left the church) will likely ever have an opportunity to reproduce...Hopefully when Mr. Fred Phelps dies, the church flames out as well. I hate to wish ill on anyone, but for the good of this country I find it hard to not look forward to the end of such a bastardized Christian cult.

[Dallas]

Hopefully, It stops before his death. I don't want anyone to die

[Ivellious]

I don't wish for his death, that would be wrong (though I was trying to say that it is tempting to wish for it, much like I'm sure I would have been tempted to wish death on Hitler or Mao or any number of other evil people). Though, it is realistic to assume that he will die soon...he is in his nineties after all. The way I see it, he is the founder and the one thing that holds that cult together. No one else in that group (based on the documentaries I've seen on them) is nearly as charismatic or strong as a leader. The group will certainly be weakened after his death, and I certainly hope that when that day comes their cult will die out quickly.

[Dallas]

I don't wish for his death, that would be wrong (though I was trying to say that it is tempting to wish for it, much like I'm sure I would have been tempted to wish death on Hitler or Mao or any number of other evil people). Though, it is realistic to assume that he will die soon...he is in his nineties after all. The way I see it, he is the founder and the one thing that holds that cult together. No one else in that group (based on the documentaries I've seen on them) is nearly as charismatic or strong as a leader. The group will certainly be weakened after his death, and I certainly hope that when that day comes their cult will die out quickly.

Maybe he's just going senile from old age. Were they like this during his younger times?

[jlay]

Those are two big objections. The objection of proof or evidence. And then the objection questioning God's actions.

The proof objection is fundementally arbitrary as we know people who are utterly convinced based on the proof they have.And some who will not budge an inch no matter how strong the argument. No amount of proof can force someone to become convinced. If you've ever talked to a person even about non-religious matters, and although with clear evidence, they will still deny. For the most part, people believe what they want to believe. Just take a survey of people and ask if aliens have visited earth, or if Elvis is alive, or if OJ was guilty.


The latter argument has a lot of difficulties. Most of the time I find out that the person presenting the argument is simply regurgitating an argument that they haven't even studied. These arguments are littered with misconceptions about God and the Bible. These objections are based in emotional rebellion, and don't involve a lot of thought. The objector will typically result to elephant hurling, meaning you answer an objection, and they quickly move to another one while ignoring the answer you supplied. The problem here is that such people condemn Christianity for relying on faith in the authority of scripture, yet they rely by faith on their sources.

[Ivellious]

This guy has been a nutcase for a long time, but he didn't have any support until he indoctrinated his offspring. They have a big family, and almost all his followers are family members that he himself raised to believe his "gospel." Maybe he's just crazy, but he seems more like the power-hungry egomaniac type.

[Stu]

I'm in school and I come across basically two arguments. "If God Loved so much, why did he allow this to happen."

I'm not sure how people can't figure this one out.
Free-will; God is not a puppet master and we are not puppets, that is the amazing beauty of his creation.

I bought a movie the other day called The Adjustment Bureau starring Matt Damon; not a bad movie.
It revolves around a man who continually has "adjustments" made to his life by the "adjustment bureau" to steer his life in the "right" direction, even if it's something he disagrees with.
Not only him but humanity as a whole. Free-will within certain boundaries, beyond which "adjustments" are made.

Is that the preferred alternative then?

And "There's is no proof."

There is a ton of proof!