Evidence for God from Science

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed ... more-30125

It's from an apologetics website that talks about how we as apologists not should just answer arguments, but also try to make Christianity desirable to people.

I know though one shouldn't try to go too far with trying to make Christianity look desirable because if you go too far to the extreme you may lead to something like the prosperity gospel.

But this article doesn't try to push apologists to something like that is more of along the lines of fine tuning their presentations of Christianity to people. Overall I find it to be a very nice article, what do you all think?

Lets talk about making Christianity more "desriable" because isn't that what Christ did?
Made God more accessible and desriable to those that needed Him the most?
The issue is in doing that we must NOT change what does bring salvation.

Christianity is a religion of peace, love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance and understanding.
There were all things embodied by Jesus.
Love is the core of Christianity - Love of God and Christ for Us and love between Us.
If you do NOT have love you do NOT have Christ.

How is that NOT desirable to anyone?

The issues that make Christianity undesirable are those like hell, condemnation for those that do not believe and so forth, BUT the truth of the matter is that once those things are explained correctly ( with love,compassion and understanding), they are not obstacles at all.

Not everyone will believe or can believe ( for various reasons) but there is no reason for "undesirability" to be one of those reasons.

That was a fantastic article. It really made me think about how I should focus my apologetics. Of course, if they want reason, then they can have it.

Also, it appears I wasn't the first to say that most atheistic arguments are not arguments, but illogical insults:

Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, Penn Jillette, Richard Dawkins, etc, specialize—not in philosophical thought—but in ridicule. And that means the new atheists excel on the only evangelistically-effective playing field that matters—that of human emotion and desire.

That was a great observation. But what's ironic is that I often see many atheists using a "wish fulfillment" argument against Christianity. This was one of the hardest ones for me to get over in my early apologetics journey-whatever. We can discuss refutals on another post. However, it seems very ironic that atheists seem to use this argument in a more social, "in the moment" form, simply mock people and spew insults so they think it is more desibrable to be atheists. Then, again, they spew out this argument in order to support how atheism is somehow more desirable.

This also reminds me of a quote from Dinesh D'Souza's book, What's So Great About Christianity: "If religion is the opiate for the masses, then atheism is the opiate for the morally corrupt. It is intellectually baseless. It's simply a rejection to God's laws on your lifestyle." It was one of the book's most powerful quotes to me, along with my tagline, but no lists of "Dinesh D'Souza" quotes that I saw on the internet had it, so I probably messed it up. It's in the chapter called "Opiate for the Morally Corrupt", which is near the end.

Many of the atheist arguments against Christianity are arguments from ignorance and a lack of understanding of the bible.
Although when Hitchens ( I think it was Hitchnes) went after Mother Teresa, it was quite obvious that a deep seeded hatred of religion can blind them to even the most gracious acts of love.
Of course, for the atheist that is a naturalist, true selfless love (far beyond simple altruism) is something beyond their understanding.

Dudeacus97 wrote: What's So Great About Christianity: "If religion is the opiate for the masses, then atheism is the opiate for the morally corrupt. It is intellectually baseless. It's simply a rejection to God's laws on your lifestyle." It was one of the book's most powerful quotes to me, along with my tagline, but no lists of "Dinesh D'Souza" quotes that I saw on the internet had it, so I probably messed it up. It's in the chapter called "Opiate for the Morally Corrupt", which is near the end.

I'm sure he has used that phrasing more than once.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jwalking/2007/10/dinesh.html/

In a powerful essay, “The Discreet Charm of Nihilism,” Nobel laureate Czeslaw Milosz argues that in order to escape from an eternal fate in which our sins are punished, man seeks to free himself from religion. “A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death—the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.” So the Marxist doctrine needs to be revised. It is not religion that is the opiate of the people, but atheism that is the opiate of the morally corrupt.

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/jwalking/2007 ... z21fl9NVO7

http://www.nappaland.com/archives1999-2 ... erview.htm

Dinesh D’Souza: As you know, Karl Marx famously described religion as “the opiate of the masses”—“opiate” referring to a drug. What he was saying was that religion dulls people to social injustice. In fact, religion historically has made people more sensitive to social injustice; so, I wanted to turn that idea around. What I asked myself was, “Why is anyone attracted to unbelief?” … What atheism provides … is not intellectual satisfaction but moral license. It’s a release from moral accountability and ultimate responsibility. … The atheist releases himself from moral justice by denying the existence of a judge. So, his beliefs do become “the opiate of the morally corrupt.”

I've never read Marx, but i have always assumed that he was referring to the use of opium to dull pain and endure hardships. So he meant religion let people put up with social injustices and earthly hardships rather than rebel. What is the consensus on this? In that sense, atheism wouldn't seem to qualify as it blocks thoughts of future retribution rather than current difficulties. [I must have unconsciously read all of the above quote, i just thought i read the end. So i plagiarized the social injustice bit without knowing it or else i was thinking the same thing.]

Let's be careful how we say "more desireable." I agree with the article. All too often we elevate apologetics to a place it doesn't deserve. A person doesn't trust Christ because of some great argument. A person trusts Christ because they see the need of saving. There is nothing more desireable to a drowning man, than a life preserver.
The problem with the unsaved is that they often do not see the peril they are in. They will argue and argue even to the point of abandoning reason. Just as the article points out, you can win the debate but not win the person.

jlay wrote:Let's be careful how we say "more desireable." I agree with the article. All too often we elevate apologetics to a place it doesn't deserve. A person doesn't trust Christ because of some great argument. A person trusts Christ because they see the need of saving. There is nothing more desireable to a drowning man, than a life preserver.

But a drowning man can't take a life preserver if he thinks foam is not real. Apologetics brings the horse to water, but it cannot make it drink.

Dudeacus97 wrote:

jlay wrote:Let's be careful how we say "more desireable." I agree with the article. All too often we elevate apologetics to a place it doesn't deserve. A person doesn't trust Christ because of some great argument. A person trusts Christ because they see the need of saving. There is nothing more desireable to a drowning man, than a life preserver.

But a drowning man can't take a life preserver if he thinks foam is not real. Apologetics brings the horse to water, but it cannot make it drink.

So, what does make the horse drink? Does God regenerate the horse first, before it is able to drink? Or, does the horse simply have free will to choose if it wants to drink, or pretend it really doesn't need water?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Philip, has been a bad influence on me.

Dud,
I don't disagree. Apologetics has its place, and I use them. But there are many who substitute them for the Gospel.

However, I have found most the answers on this side of salvation, not the other way around. I doubt a drowning man is going to start questioning, "is the preserver real?" I find that most of the objections are volitional in nature and not intellectual. For example, recently on the board, I've seen a couple of threads where Jac and K mopped the floor (for lack of a better descirption) with a coupl eof our resident atheists. They seem totally unaware that it even happened, and continue to stubbornly hold. The reality of sin and the need of the Gospel cuts to the heart. Apologetics works on the mind, and hopefully opens the door to get to the heart. All too often I see the mind addressed and the heart neglected.