- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
In the book of Acts, chapter 17, the apostle Paul, while in Athens, was invited to speak about Christianity to Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. After his presentation Scripture records the response, “some mocked, while others said ‘We will hear you again on this matter…However, some…believed (Acts 17:32, 33).” Today, just like in ancient Athens there are people who want to know what Christianity is all about. But many people come with objections to the faith as well. It is important to answer those objections honestly. And like the philosophers in Athens, some will mock, some will desire a little more information, and some will believe.
In answering someone’s objection to Christianity it is important to know why they are asking the questions they have. Ask what issues are stirring in the person’s mind; what is motivating them to look for answers. And “and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear (1 Peter 3:15).” The following are some common objections.
I don’t believe that God exists. How can anyone be sure? Objections like this come from the atheist and the agnostic. But think about this: atheism demands complete knowledge of all things in order to say that God doesn’t exist. And no human being has that! So how can the atheist know that there is no God? There is evidence for God’s existence. Both science and the Bible acknowledge that our universe had a beginning. Nature itself reveals that there is a Creator (Romans1:20). The complex designs of life from planets to flowers to DNA show intelligent design. Could all of nature really be the result of mindless, purposeless happenstance?
The agnostic says that she can’t know anything for sure about God. But people are naturally hungry to learn. Why are we that way? Perhaps God created us with a natural sense of inquiry so that we might actually search for Him and find Him. Paul told the Athenian Philosophers that God “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us (Acts 17:26, 27).” There is nothing wrong with having questions and not being sure. But our response to that should be “Come and see.”
But what about evolution: doesn’t evolution prove there is no God? Evolution does take place within a species. There are big dogs and little dogs. There are red roses and white ones. But the theory of evolution claims that over time one species can change into another and that life itself randomly occurred from non-living material. But the famous scientists Francis Crick, L.M. Murkhin and Carl Sagan have estimated that the difficulty of a human evolving by chance processes alone is one in 10 to the negative 2,000,000,000th – which Borel’s law says is no chance at all! Science has recently revealed what Charles Darwin never knew. Proteins and nucleic acids are too complex to have arisen spontaneously. And the fossil record does not show gradual evolution. If it can be relied on to show much of anything at all, it shows fully developed life-forms with only limited variation within each group – just as the Bible’s wording “according to its kind” (Gen. 1) would indicate.
How can we be sure that the Bible is reliable? The copies of the Old Testament manuscripts are of a far superior quality than any other equivalent document. The oldest books of the Old Testament date from around the same time as some of the oldest Egyptian works. And where scholars find significant differences between Egyptian documents relating to the same events, they find almost no differences in Old Testament documents that cover the same material. And where there are differences they are minor ones like spelling and make no changes in the actual material covered. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950’s confirms the historical reliability of these ancient documents. And archeology has never disproved an Old Testament historical event. It has only confirmed the Scriptural account.
What about the New Testament? From an historical point of view the New Testament is unquestionably the most reliable ancient document in the world. Two factors are crucial in determining the reliability of an historical document. These are the number of copies in existence and the time between when the document was first written and the oldest copies. Take for example the writings of Julius Caesar. His works were written between 100-44 B.C. The oldest copies of his works come from one thousand years after the fact and there are ten copies. With the writings of Plato there is a span of twelve hundred years between when he first wrote and the date of the oldest copies of which there are seven. And with Aristotle there are five copies of his works and the oldest manuscripts date from fourteen hundred years after he wrote.
Now let’s compare the New Testament to these other works. Whereas we have ten copies of Caesar’s works and seven copies of Plato’s, and five copies of Aristotle’s, there are over twenty four thousand ancient copies of the New Testament! And the oldest copies date not from one thousand years after the fact, nor even five hundred years, but from twenty-five years after the originals were written. No other ancient document even comes close to meeting the test for historical authenticity and reliability as does the New Testament.
GraceMinistryUSA
Originally posted by checkbaiterits beautiful!
In the book of Acts, chapter 17, the apostle Paul, while in Athens, was invited to speak about Christianity to Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. After his presentation Scripture records the response, “some mocked, while others said ‘We will hear you again on this matter…However, some…believed (Acts 17:32, 33).” Today, just like in ancient Athens there ar ...[text shortened]... he test for historical authenticity and reliability as does the New Testament.
GraceMinistryUSA
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe idea is not that he can not say something, it is the fact that he can not say it with accuracy, without knowing. God could exist in that portion of knowledge that the atheist is ignorant of and there is much ignorance for the atheist to choose from.
That's crazy talk. It's cribbed from some website - so I'll ask - do you agree with the quoted statement?
The Instructor
Originally posted by checkbaiterI'll address the paragraph about evolution.
In the book of Acts, chapter 17, the apostle Paul, while in Athens, was invited to speak about Christianity to Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. After his presentation Scripture records the response, “some mocked, while others said ‘We will hear you again on this matter…However, some…believed (Acts 17:32, 33).” Today, just like in ancient Athens there ar ...[text shortened]... he test for historical authenticity and reliability as does the New Testament.
GraceMinistryUSA
First of all, evolution "proves" nothing about god. Evolution could be the means by which god carries out his plan in the universe. The "moving hand" behind evolution, if you will. There are no shortage of Christians who take that position. Secondly, evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life. It takes life as a given and deals with its subsequent evolution. Hence the name.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by rwingettMy oh my, how Evolution has "evolved" within itself. It used to mean there is no Intelligent Design, life just happened by accident.
I'll address the paragraph about evolution.
First of all, evolution "proves" nothing about god. Evolution could be the means by which god carries out his plan in the universe. The "moving hand" behind evolution, if you will. There are no shortage of Christians who take that position. Secondly, evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life. It takes life as a given and deals with its subsequent evolution. Hence the name.
This is new to me. I know of no Christians that believe this.
Originally posted by checkbaiterThen you don't know very much outside of your hermetically sealed world.
My oh my, how Evolution has "evolved" within itself. It used to mean there is no Intelligent Design, life just happened by accident.
This is new to me. I know of no Christians that believe this.
Here are some poll numbers that show the level of belief for 'god guided' evolution:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html
Even among people who attend church weekly, 25% believe that god guided evolution over millions of years.
Originally posted by checkbaiterI love how changes in knowledge are a point of mockery with fundamentalists.
My oh my, how Evolution has "evolved" within itself. It used to mean there is no Intelligent Design, life just happened by accident.
This is new to me. I know of no Christians that believe this.
Originally posted by checkbaiterTake the advice of your pastor:
My oh my, how Evolution has "evolved" within itself. It used to mean there is no Intelligent Design, life just happened by accident.
This is new to me. I know of no Christians that believe this.
In answering someone’s objection to Christianity it is important to know why they are asking the questions they have.
That you remain so totally ignorant of evolution and what fellow Christians believe suggests you have never once tried to consider the views of others.
Originally posted by rwingettI believe that is Suzianne and here crowd. But they all define the word in different ways than the Atheist evil-lutionists.
Then you don't know very much outside of your hermetically sealed world.
Here are some poll numbers that show the level of belief for 'god guided' evolution:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html
Even among people who attend church weekly, 25% believe that god guided evolution over millions of years.
The Instuctor
Originally posted by checkbaiterPull your head out please. This was accepted doctrine in the Catholic church since the 1960's. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
My oh my, how Evolution has "evolved" within itself. It used to mean there is no Intelligent Design, life just happened by accident.
This is new to me. I know of no Christians that believe this.
Originally posted by caissad4If this is accepted doctine in the catholic church give me the name of this doctrine and the council that approved and a reference from the Catholic church that explains and states this doctrine. I need to know this so I can provide a couse of Instruction on it. Or perhaps you are just blowing smoke out your arse.
Pull your head out please. This was accepted doctrine in the Catholic church since the 1960's. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
The Church has always taught that an authoritative Magisterial teaching must take precedence over a less authoritative teaching on the same topic, especially when the latter teaching is ambiguous or contradicts the prior teaching.
Defenders of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation do not challenge the legitimacy of Vatican II or of the 1994 Catechism. Nor do we deny that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have made non-authoritative statements favorable to theistic evolutionism. We simply maintain that an ambiguous, tentative or non-authoritative teaching of a Pope, Bishop, or Council cannot supersede a clear, unambiguous teaching that has been handed down from the Apostles. Any such tentative or ambiguous teachings on matters of faith and morals must be understood in light of previous clear and authoritative magisterial teachings on those matters, if any have been handed down. In regard to creation and evolution, we have demonstrated that a great number of highly authoritative magisterial teachings have upheld special creation and the literal historical truth of Genesis 1-11.
Pope John Paul II’s endorsement of the evolutionary hypothesis was always tentative and never obliged our assent. For example, in one Wednesday audience he stated:
It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man, in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. It must, however, be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty.
Furthermore, in his famous speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996, the Holy Father admitted:
A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
All statements by Church leaders favorable to evolution have been non-authoritative or ambiguous.
Therefore, Catholics are obliged to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles and to pray that the Magisterium will re-affirm the traditional doctrine of creation as soon as possible, for the good of souls and for the benefit of all the sciences.
http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Catholic_teaching_and_evolution
If this is accepted doctine in the catholic church give me the name of this doctrine and the council that approved and a reference fromthe Catholic church that explains and states this doctrine. I need to know this so I can provide a couse of Instruction on it. Or perhaps you are just blowing smoke out your arse.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindsare you seriously going to try and argue that the catholic church doesnt support evolution??? do you know it also supports old earth and the big bang?
If this is accepted doctine in the catholic church give me the name of this doctrine and the council that approved and a reference fromthe Catholic church that explains and states this doctrine. I need to know this so I can provide a couse of Instruction on it. Or perhaps you are just blowing smoke out your arse.
The Instructor