Evidence for God from Science

Never before, in all my time being a bible believer or a Christian(Was baptized into Christ November 17, 2013), have I ever struggled with this more than I am now. How does one respond to this? It just bothers me. What if I was born in Saudi Arabia.. Would I be defending Islam like I am Christianity. It just bothers me. I've heard atheists throw this argument up all the time. I just can't respond to this right now. Have any of you had to deal with a question like this? Have you ever faced something like this? How did you reason with yourself?

FallenFromGrace wrote:Never before, in all my time being a bible believer or a Christian(Was baptized into Christ November 17, 2013), have I ever struggled with this more than I am now. How does one respond to this? It just bothers me. What if I was born in Saudi Arabia.. Would I be defending Islam like I am Christianity. It just bothers me. I've heard atheists throw this argument up all the time. I just can't respond to this right now. Have any of you had to deal with a question like this? Have you ever faced something like this? How did you reason with yourself?

Yes, lots of time...

My response is the same and goes along this line:

1-So what makes you think you were ever a Christian to begin with?

2-Are you really born again -- maybe you just thought you were?

Depends on the answer received which usually leads me to ask this:

3-Are you playing word semantics to catch a duped fish?

Then to address the born in a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist often posed - ask this - why do Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists born in non-Christian Countries after hearing the gospel, become saved, and no longer remain Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist?

Lastly ask - Have you actually heard the gospel for real - do you even know it?
-
-
-

Are they than saying that we cannot know truth because we are influenced by our family, culture and where we are born? An odd conclusion.

Furthermore, what of those who do in fact change their beliefs? That is, those who may have been raised Muslim or Atheist but become Christian or vice-versa.

What are those who ask the question trying to argue -- that we should just dismiss truth and/or that we can have any knowledge of truth? Interesting then that they believe it is true of us to be determined products of our social environments.

I was raised an atheist and was so until my 45th year. Nobody ever said, ''You are just an atheist because you were raised an atheist.''

Unbelievers hate God* so they'll use anything to throw you off balance. Be prepared.

FL

* Ro 8:7, James 4:4

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I was raised an atheist and was so until my 45th year. Nobody ever said, ''You are just an atheist because you were raised an atheist.''

Unbelievers hate God* so they'll use anything to throw you off balance. Be prepared.

FL

* Ro 8:7, James 4:4

lets say you say to an atheist that your only an atheist because you were raised as one. How could you say that if you were raised a christian?

People may follow a faith because they were born into it and others don't.
Some lose their faith and others chose another faith.
To say that a person is a Christian because they were born one doesn't really work that way though because a Christian must CHOOSE to be one even IF they are born into their faith.
A Christian must proclaim their faith in word and deed.
To be honest, most faith have that too, a "confirmation" of faith if you will.
To say that a person is a christian because they are born one carries no more significance then saying a person is an American because they are born one.

FallenFromGrace wrote:Never before, in all my time being a bible believer or a Christian(Was baptized into Christ November 17, 2013), have I ever struggled with this more than I am now. How does one respond to this? It just bothers me. What if I was born in Saudi Arabia.. Would I be defending Islam like I am Christianity. It just bothers me. I've heard atheists throw this argument up all the time. I just can't respond to this right now. Have any of you had to deal with a question like this? Have you ever faced something like this? How did you reason with yourself?

That is referred to as the Genetic fallacy. A belief is not invalidated just because of its origin.

Silvertusk wrote:That is referred to as the Genetic fallacy. A belief is not invalidated just because of its origin.

Does this apply to Christianity? It seems to me origin is of great significance, moreso than anything else I can think of. If Newton, Einstien, Siddhārtha Gautama, Aristotle, Alexander the Great or Lao Tzu are fictional characters it doesn't really impact the teachings we attribute to them, it doesn't matter too much if they lived, died or done the deeds history tells us they did. Christianity has always stood out for me in being grounded in origins, it is not simply that the message can be traced back to somone called Jesus, like we would trace back the history of a mathmatical theory, it seems really important that Jesus himself is the message and is further dependent on him having done certain deeds in the past and on him meeting future expectations.

On the other side of the coin Christianity has a wonderful history of disproving, or is that proving?, the gentic fallacy time & time again as it has spread across the globe over the past two thousand years displacing, or partially incorporating, indigenous religion on a massive scale. If the genetic fallacy were not a fallacy one would imagine Christianity would have a hard time gaining the global acceptance it has.

Proinsias wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:That is referred to as the Genetic fallacy. A belief is not invalidated just because of its origin.

Does this apply to Christianity? It seems to me origin is of great significance, moreso than anything else I can think of. If Newton, Einstien, Siddhārtha Gautama, Aristotle, Alexander the Great or Lao Tzu are fictional characters it doesn't really impact the teachings we attribute to them, it doesn't matter too much if they lived, died or done the deeds history tells us they did. Christianity has always stood out for me in being grounded in origins, it is not simply that the message can be traced back to somone called Jesus, like we would trace back the history of a mathmatical theory, it seems really important that Jesus himself is the message and is further dependent on him having done certain deeds in the past and on him meeting future expectations.

I think you've misunderstand ST, which is basically that a belief ought to be justified based on arguments for and against rather than who holds it.

Proinsias wrote:On the other side of the coin Christianity has a wonderful history of disproving, or is that proving?, the gentic fallacy time & time again as it has spread across the globe over the past two thousand years displacing, or partially incorporating, indigenous religion on a massive scale.

You mean line in End of the Spear how Christian missionaries displaced natives in South America -- ensuring they were prepared to retain land before the governments took it out from underneath them?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS_RFrmFgyg[/youtube]

Perhaps you should actually look into what Christian missionaries have done around the world. Seems you have a rather naive and slanted view.

Sorry, it seems I misread your words in my last post.

I thought you were attacking Christianity reaching out to indigenous people, but rather it seems you meant Christianity absorbed other cultures and beliefs. What evidence is this?

If anything, Scripture serves as a self-correcting norm in Christian traditions that may develop after. For example, consider Luther during the Reformations.

Proinsias wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:That is referred to as the Genetic fallacy. A belief is not invalidated just because of its origin.

Does this apply to Christianity? It seems to me origin is of great significance, moreso than anything else I can think of. If Newton, Einstien, Siddhārtha Gautama, Aristotle, Alexander the Great or Lao Tzu are fictional characters it doesn't really impact the teachings we attribute to them, it doesn't matter too much if they lived, died or done the deeds history tells us they did. Christianity has always stood out for me in being grounded in origins, it is not simply that the message can be traced back to somone called Jesus, like we would trace back the history of a mathmatical theory, it seems really important that Jesus himself is the message and is further dependent on him having done certain deeds in the past and on him meeting future expectations.

On the other side of the coin Christianity has a wonderful history of disproving, or is that proving?, the gentic fallacy time & time again as it has spread across the globe over the past two thousand years displacing, or partially incorporating, indigenous religion on a massive scale. If the genetic fallacy were not a fallacy one would imagine Christianity would have a hard time gaining the global acceptance it has.

Like K said and to clarify that how you got your belief does not invalidate it or validate it for that matter - that is irrelevant. The truth factor of a religion should be judged on different merits not how you came to believe it.

Yes there was more chance of me being a Christian because I live in UK - but that does not mean the belief itself is false - that is the Genetic Fallacy in arguments.

Silvertusk wrote:Like K said and to clarify that how you got your belief does not invalidate it or validate it for that matter - that is irrelevant. The truth factor of a religion should be judged on different merits not how you came to believe it.

Yes there was more chance of me being a Christian because I live in UK - but that does not mean the belief itself is false - that is the Genetic Fallacy in arguments.

I appreciate that, in general, one is more likely to utilise the religious framework they are familiar with, accepting or rejecting, as opposed to seek out a new one and that this in no way invalidates, or validates, that particular framework. My understanding of the genetic fallacy is that is unconcerned with orgins and Christianity in particular, moreso than most examples I can think of, is heavily, perhaps absolutely, dependant on origins. I rarely hear the genetic fallacy brought up by anyone other than Christians in defense of thier faith and it strikes me as a standout example of something largely dependant on origins.

If I want to make use of Newtonian physics to solve a problem I encounter it matters little to me if the origin stories we have of a man called Issac Newton are true, false, reputable or heavily embellished. Whilst I find Christinity relevant, useful and of great interest regardless of origins, for many Christians I suspect its relevance stands and falls on the truth of those origins.

Kurieuo wrote:I thought you were attacking Christianity reaching out to indigenous people, but rather it seems you meant Christianity absorbed other cultures and beliefs. What evidence is this?

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Chrtianisation is the sort of thing I mean:

Christianization (or Christianisation) is the conversion of individuals to Christianity or the conversion of entire peoples at once.
Various strategies and techniques were employed in Christianization campaigns from Late Antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages: ancient holy sites were destroyed or converted to Christian churches, indigenous pagan gods were demonized, and traditional religious practices were condemned as witchcraft and even criminalized — sometimes upon penalty of death.[1] A notable strategy for Christianization was interpretatio christiana – the practice of converting native pagan practices and culture, pagan religious imagery, pagan sites and the pagan calendar to Christian uses, due to the Christian efforts at proselytism (evangelism) based on the Great Commission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianisation

Whilst having lived all my life in Scotland my blood and upbringing are Irish/Polish Catholic. After 1000+ years of Catholicism in those places it's hard to point the finger at what came from where but the general feeling I got was that much of focus on the Madonna, the Saints and the images of Satan is from something far preceeding Christianity in those areas.

FallenFromGrace wrote:Never before, in all my time being a bible believer or a Christian(Was baptized into Christ November 17, 2013), have I ever struggled with this more than I am now. How does one respond to this? It just bothers me. What if I was born in Saudi Arabia.. Would I be defending Islam like I am Christianity. It just bothers me. I've heard atheists throw this argument up all the time. I just can't respond to this right now. Have any of you had to deal with a question like this? Have you ever faced something like this? How did you reason with yourself?

This a very good question. I was brought up in a Christian family, went to church, vacation Bible school and attended church service. If someone had asked me back then if I was a Christian, I would have said yes. It wasn't until much, much later I realized I wasn't a Christian at all.

My mother was very devote but she never discussed the Christian faith with her children. She left it up to the church and that was a big mistake.

It has been only recently -- about 12 years now -- that I can truly say I am a Christian, not because my parents were or that is how I was brought up. It is because I took an academic approach to Christianity. I studied the beliefs, the history of the New Testament and searched the Scriptures for answers. God started answering my prayers.

The world is getter smaller and every Christian should be able to answer any question from an atheist, a Jew or a Muslim about why they are a Christian. "Because that is how I was brought up" is not a good answer.