Category: What do you think?

Is a Christian’s death from terminal illness proof that prayer has no meaning?  Is it proof that there is no God? The questions are fair, and to answer them we should consider why we pray, and how we are told to pray.

Prayer is about communion with God. He wants us to bring our concerns, worries, and feelings to Him. We share these things with our family, for example, because that’s what you do with people you care about. Sharing our cares with loved ones bonds us together, and bringing our cares to God brings us closer to Him.  So, why do people sometimes die even when they ask God to spare them?

Romans tells us, “…sin entered the world through one man….and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” And Hebrews tells us man is appointed once to die.  If a Christian prayed that he or she would never die, they would be asking God to go against Bible. Consider that Luke tells us when Jesus prayed before his execution, he said, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me.” Yet Jesus was executed anyway.  He brought his cares to God the Father for communion, not to place an order.  He didn’t ask for his desire without concern of God’s will; he asked for only what is in the will of the Father.

Christians pray to have communion with God.  All people, even Christians, die because we live in a world made imperfect by sin, and their deaths are certainly not proof there is no God.

What are your thoughts?

Why do so many in what’s been called the ‘new atheist movement’ promote the myth that science and faith are in conflict? How can the two contradict when one deals with man’s relationship with God and the other deals with understanding God’s creation?

Proponents of the alleged conflict idea quite often point to data that contradicts inferences made from scripture. This comes up so often, I think it’s something we as Christians need to consider when we share our faith.

I need to be very clear about two things.  An inference about science based on scripture is not the same as scripture.  Presenting it as such serves only to push people away from God when they think they have to choose between the inference and science.  Secondly, I am not suggesting we should change our faith in God based on scientific data. I have yet to see any lab experiment that has proven anything about God, only about His creation.

Every Christian should ask his or herself this important question:  When you begin a sentence with “The Bible says…,” do you finish the sentence with scripture every time, or are you guilty of ending it with something based on God’s word, but not actually God’s word?

What are your thoughts?

Why would a pastor encourage his congregation to avoid engaging atheists?  Doesn’t 1 Peter 3:15 tell us we should, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”? This question, or a variation of it, is often used by crafty people trying to goad Christians into a fight. It’s also been used as “proof” that Christians are people who don’t think.  Is this a fair complaint?

We are told in 1 Peter to be ready to give answer.  But it doesn’t tell us to throw our pearls before swine.  And there is a very big difference between engaging someone in respectful discussion and entertaining someone whose goal is conflict. Jesus made it clear how we are to act when someone refuses to hear the word.  He said in Matthew 10:14, “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.” Scripture after scripture records Jesus giving answers to those truly seeking answers, but not so much attention to the trolls of his day.

Jeremiah 29:13 tells us anyone who seeks God with all their heart will find Him. God gives us the choice.  We can also choose to reject Him and, as Second Corinthians says, have our eyes blinded to the truth.  Those who claim to have no position, yet spend hours condescending Christians and misrepresenting scripture to “win” an argument are not seeking truth, but picking a fight.

God’s gift of redemption is never forced on anyone.  Will you accept His offer?

I’ve had numerous conversations with those opposed to Christianity who claim that the infamous German dictator of the 1940’s was Catholic, or at least that he was a Christian. Is this the case; and if not, why do so many make this claim?

When one considers there are no photos of the German leader taking communion, or standing in church with his hands raised, or praying, or recordings (written or audio) of him professing any kind of religion in his adult life, it is absurd to claim that he was a Christian. Even if one rejects books that document conversations in which he mocks Christianity, the burden of proof lies on the individual who claims that the dictator was a Christian.

What I find interesting is the flimsy evidence on which the claim is often based. The dictator had soldiers swear by God. Is this use of religious language the smoking gun? The German military uniform used the phrase “God with Us.” Would a non-Christian use such language?

Consider the phrase “God with Us” had been on Prussian uniforms since the 1700’s. It was not an invention of the German dictator. If one claims that use of religious language is proof of Christianity, then he or she uses a standard rejected by anti-theists when it is convenient. I have yet to meet an anti-theist who doesn’t say it is of no consequence that the U.S. Constitution is signed, “In the Year of Our Lord.” They say use of this phrase, and religious language on other documents, is an example of the religious phrases customary to that time period. They say it is not an indication that the men who signed the constitution were Christians.

Any anti-theist who changes his or her standard in this way demonstrates Special Pleading, a logical fallacy. In special pleading, an individual deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view. They apply standards, principles, or rules to other people or circumstances, while making his or her own circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria. One cannot argue that use of religious language proves Christian intent only when it benefits a specific argument.

The attempt to connect the man responsible for killing six million Jewish people with Christians appears to be motivated by something akin to an ad-hominem attack on all who have faith; they are saying don’t trust them, they are just like the 1940’s dictator.

Why do you think some are so motivated in their effort to get you, and others, to avoid considering God’s word, even if it means misrepresenting His message? What are your thoughts?