Questions for Christians

1.)The fact that it may be very clear in our religion who does and does not spend eternity with our savior does not give us as humans the right to judge that. I may know it is illegal in the U.S. to murder someone, but if I hear that there is a murderer in my apartment building, does that give me the right to go and kill him? I mean, he will get the death penalty anyways, right? No. It is not our place to judge that, regardless of if we know the law. (Matthew 7:1-5) Then, you also make several statements that imply you knew the answer to the question before you asked it. It is illogical and frankly just arbitrary to ask such a question. 2.) Davids son was an infant. He had no capacity, mentally or spiritually, to accept Christ or understand what he was doing if his parents baptized him at birth like so many Catholics nowadays like to. If you took a two week old infant that came from the womb of a Christian woman, and one from the womb of a Muslim, Until those children reach an age where they can decide for themselves, they are in that "safe place" regardless of what home they were raised in. b.) Heaven is a transcendent, infinite place. It is not a part of this universe, same as Hell. Therefore, it does not abide by the laws of time and age. Also, Heaven is described as "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him." (1 Corinthians 2:9). The souls of the people who accept Christ and enter Heaven bask in eternal joy beyond what our minds can fathom. This means no sadness. This means they will be happy if other family members are in hell, but not BECAUSE other family members are in hell. This draws back to how it was their job to evangelize. 3.) When Adam and Eve were created, they chose to eat the forbidden fruit by their own free will. As a result, we all have an inborn sinful nature. To put it in a picture, we are all hanging off a cliff. Christ holds out his hand to help us up; THAT is the gift. He did not throw us over the edge like Hitler would have if you did not "burn a synagogue", you were already doomed to Hell. Christs hand is a gift because it holds no conditions, just love him and accept him. 4.) Question A was addressed above. As for B, No father here is denying his Children, his children are denying him. Gods children on this Earth are denying and hating him, not the other way around. He is always there for those who choose to turn around. 5.) In dealing with this emotionally loaded topic, it is important we make a few distinctions to keep our thinking clear. there are two parts to the "Problem of Suffering". The Intellectual problem concerns whether its plausible to think that God and suffering can coexist. The emotional problem concerns peoples dislike of a God who would permit suffering. If we are discussing the Intellectual problem, it is important we keep in mind who has the burden of proof here. "Give me some good explanation for why God permits suffering," the atheist will demand, then will sit back and play skeptic about all the attempted explanations. This may be clever strategy, but its philosophically illegitimate and intellectually dishonest. The atheist is the one who claims that the coexistence of God and suffering is impossible, it is up to him/her to give us an argument and support the premises. It is the Christians turn to play skeptic and question whether the atheist has shown that God cannot or does not have a good reason for permitting suffering in the world, which is the point I made. Just because you may be able to think of ways that seem better to you, does not refute the fact that we CAN NOT understand an infinite mind. It is just impossible for us. We can not know those details. After centuries of discussion, the books on this argument have been closed. It is widely admitted by both atheist and Christian philosophers alike that the logical version of the problem of suffering has failed, mainly due to this burden of proof. If it is the emotional problem of suffering, then this changes to a counseling session, which I would be more than happy to provide for my opponent, but not in this format. 6.) Here, my opponent misquotes me and twists my words a bit to fit his/her own needs, saying "You admit that prayer doesn't work and doesn't effect anything. 'Prayer isn't so we can change Gods plan'" Not only is this a misquotation, it is half of a quotation used to twist my words. I said "God created us out of love and a desire to have a relationship with us and wants to hear from us." and then "It may not change Gods plan, but it will change the person, which may have been part of Gods plan." My opponent did not address these claims. Also, he/she then says "So I guess God picks and chooses some people for conversation, because he didn't talk to me AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE (including Christians)." I never indicated God would talk back. If God did talk back, maybe he would seem like a normal person, like your Dad or something " not what he should be, God. He should be praised. He will communicate with you in very different ways, perhaps through the heart. This quote also indicates my opponent has some very serious emotional ties with this question, which, again, I would be happy to provide counseling for at a different time. 7.) Regardless of whether you "see it as a paradox", it does not make it more or less a paradox. And besides, the aspect of being a paradox is not what pertains to the question. As I said, in order for that question to be valid, it has to be a possibility for God to actually ask you to kill someone, which he has never done. Again, my opponent misquotes an entire bible story, uneducated in how the stories really go. This time, it is the story of Abraham. In order for God to determine Abraham"s ability to trust, Genesis 22 tells us that God instructs Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac. Recall that this ancient story (literally thousands of years old) comes from a time when human sacrifice (and polytheism " belief in many gods) was common. What strikes us as so utterly cruel was not at all unheard of in Abraham"s time. The story, however, reveals to us a developing relationship between God and Abraham " a relationship that is tested at times. Abraham has come to trust in God. Thus, even though this request seems so strange and cruel, Abraham finds no reason to distrust that God has his best interests at heart. Abraham is willing to present Isaac as an offering to God. This is precisely the kind of trust and faith that God wanted to see (a God who will eventually not withhold his own Son from being sacrificed). As a result, God tells Abraham to untie his son and Abraham sacrifices an animal instead. 9.) Your rebuttal to this question makes no sense to me, please rephrase. The question was "If someone would have hurt you, would you hurt him or his newborn child? Because God, according to the bible, punished David's newborn son, because David slept with his mother while married to another man. (some claim he even raped her)." Again, the bible story in the question is misquoted, therefore the entire question is really rendered null and void. If it helps for some reason, no, I would not hurt someones newborn child to get to their father or mother. Neither did God. 10.) a) My opponent here substantiates that the big bang theory is the reason we are here, yet conveniently fails to explain what caused the Big Bang. I only said it would be impossible for there to BE a beginning other than God. While yes, the Big Bang Theory is scientifically tested, it also lines up with the biblical account of creation in Genesis. I could go much farther into this topic, but that is not the object of this debate, I would not have space. Also, my opponent does what many atheists do, and try and say "well then what was Gods cause?" He does not need one. He exists by the necessity of his own nature. In other words, God is eternal. He always has been and always will be. It is the difference between "Everything that exists has a cause" and "Everything that BEGAN to exist has a cause." b.) The Moral Law. "This is, of course, untrue" my opponent says. I could, again, go into a deeper argument concerning this, but there is no space and this is a separate issue. Allow me to point out, though, that all my opponents examples are examples of society law, which would have no effect on disproving a transcendent, absolute law. c.) I am talking about the universes trait of being life permitting, not a particular solar system. I will rephrase my statement. Sometimes people will appeal to the example of a lottery in order to justify the chance alternative. Surely someone has to win, right? Contrary to popular impression, the argument is not trying to explain why THIS particular universe exists, rather why a life-permitting universe exists. The correct analogy would be a lottery in which billions and billions and billions of white ping pong balls were mixed together, with just one black ball, and you were told that one ball will be randomly selected. If its black, you live. If it is white, you get shot. Now notice that any particular ball that is selected is equally improbable: no matter which ball rolls down the chute, the odds against that particular ball are fantastically improbable. But some ball must roll down the chute. This point is what my opponent illustrated. This, however, is irrelevant, because we're not trying to explain why that particular ball was picked. The crucial point is that whichever ball rolls down the chute, it is overwhelmingly more probable that it will be white rather than black. Getting the black ball is no more improbable than getting any particular white ball. But it is incomprehensibly more probable for you to get white rather than black. So if the black ball rolls down the chute, you certainly should suspect that the lottery was rigged to let you live. Thank you.