A circular room

“At 9:38 AM, April 17, 2006, exbeliever said...”

David,

“Speaking about people who left the faith, 1 John 2:19 says, ‘They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.’

Christianity seems to have a convenient answer for everything. People who leave the faith never really had it. Perhaps, this is true, or perhaps, this is just a convenient way to keep Christians from having to question their own beliefs.”

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/

Okay, so if we (Christians) don’t have answers, that just goes to show that our faith is irrational—blind, unreasoning faith.

But if we do have answers, that’s just a convenient way of keeping us from having to question our beliefs.

What, exactly, is wrong with a “convenient” answer, anyway? If you get into an argument with someone, it’s very convenient to be right, to have the facts on your side.

So, according to Exbeliever, the mark of a bad answer is that it’s successful in fielding the objection.

I guess it would only be a good answer if it failed to field the objection.

Come to think of it, doesn’t Exbeliever’s double-standard strike you as a splendid example of blind faith in atheism?

If a Christian can’t answer his objection, that confirms his atheism—but if a Christian can answer his objection, that confirms his atheism as well.

The fact that the Bible has the internal resources to address these objections should be taken as evidence of its inspiration, rather than the absence thereof.

If 1 Jn 2:19 were merely ad hoc, Exbeliever would have a point. But it’s not some makeshift explanation.

For, as a matter of phenomenology and theology alike, we really do see two different kinds of believers.

There are believers who believe as a consequence of social conditioning. They don’t believe for themselves. Rather, they believe in their peer group or authority figures.

And as soon as you transplant them into a different peer group with different authority figures, they instantly change their intellectual allegiance.

Take the hackneyed example of the young man, raised in a fundamentalist church, who loses his faith when he goes off to college.

What did he really believe in? His social circle. Change the social circle, and his creed varies accordingly.

On the other hand, not every fundamentalist looses his faith as soon as he hits the campus. He may have an imperturbable faith. Or he may suffer a crisis of faith. Or backslide. But he doesn’t lose his faith. He is able to work through his doubts.

He may emerge with a more sophisticated form of fundamentalism. Or he may convert from fundamentalism to some other brand of evangelicalism.

These are real believers—believers who see the truth for themselves.

“Christianity is full of these. If you point out something that is clearly evil (e.g. god saying that he'll send an army to rape women if that country doesn't obey (Zechariah 14:2) or god commanding an army to kill every man, woman, child, infant, sheep, donkey, camel, etc. (1 Samuel 15:2)), Christians just say, ‘Well, god is 'good' in a way that you don't understand.’"

i) Exbeliever says that he can point us to something in Scripture that is “clearly evil.”

Yet, just a little while later, Exbeliever identifies himself as a “moral relativist.”

Now how can a moral relativist point out something that is clearly evil? If it’s clearly evil, then he’s not a moral relativist—but if he is a moral relativist, then nothing is clearly evil.

Once again we see the blind faith of an unbeliever—in his elastic ability to affirm self-contradictory propositions. The “mystery” of atheism.

ii) As to 1 Sam 15:2, “Brother” Danny already ran that objection by me. I answered him. But I didn’t answer him by retreating into the inscrutability of the divine will. Rather, I answered him directly. To the point. No evasions.

iii) As to Zech 14:2, God punishes sin with sin. That’s poetic justice.

Human beings are often unjust to one another. But no one is innocent. At most, we are innocent as charged, but guilty of all the other things we got away with.

I can be wronged by you, but I can never be wronged by God, for I am a sinner.

“Christianity has constructed itself as a circular room so that they can never be backed into a corner. It falls back on the "mystery of god" anytime it finds itself faced with a question in can't answer.”

If a Christian can’t answer an objection, then this is evidence that the Christian faith is unfalsifiable; but if a Christian can answer an objection, then this is a merely “convenient” answer, which also turns out to be evidence that the Christian faith is unfalsifiable.

Looks to me like Exbeliever is the one who has constructed a circular room so the he can never be backed into a corner. His atheism is unfalsifiable, for if you have no answer, then that only serves to confirm his atheism—but if you do have an answer, then he will dismiss your answer as merely “convenient,” which also serves to confirm his atheism.

“This is what the apostle Paul did in Romans 9. He explains that salvation is given by god to those he wants. He will have compassion on some and harden others so that they can never have faith. This brings up a good question, ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’

Paul's answer? Attack the questioner, ‘But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?’"

i) This interpretation disregards what went before, what follows, and the verse itself, which is an allusion to Isa 29:16 and other like passages.

ii) Paul’s hypothetical disputant is a Jew. Rom 9-11 is concerned with the fate of the Jews.

To invoke the authority of God and God’s word is a perfectly valid appeal when dealing with a disputant who presumably shares that assumption in common with the speaker.

iii) Paul is discussing God’s treatment of sinners. Sinners have no cause for complaint since their judgment is just.

iv) Paul’s answer doesn’t terminate with v19. Rather, Paul rounds out with a theodicean rationale in 22-23, which reprises v17.

Once again, it comes as no great surprise that the Debunkers departed the faith considering their theological grasp of the faith was so utterly shallow and inaccurate to begin with. Kinda bears out John’s contention in 1 Jn 2:19, doncha think?

“When a tough question comes up, don't ask because god has the right to do whatever he wants. Complain about god commanding an army to kill infants, and you are attacked.”

This is not an attack, but a counter-attack. Guess, what, Exbeliever—debate is a two-way street. If you make a full-frontal assault on our faith, we reserve the right to mount a counteroffensive.

Exbeliever is a playground bully. And when you scratch a bully, you find a sissy underneath.

“It is interesting how Christianity has posed itself so that it doesn't have to answer any tough questions.”

Since Exbeliever is, by his own admission, a moral relativist, one doesn’t expect him to be honest, and—true to form—he lives up to our low expectations.

Christianity has been in the business of apologetics since day one. You can find it in the NT, and from the 2C onward.

But not every Christian has ready-made answers to every conceivable objection. We live in the age of specialization. We don’t ask a rocket scientist for medical advice, and we don’t ask a medic for aerospace schematics.