Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

*Challenge*: Attempt to countermand your own arguements...

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00

cyberjosh

Member
I remember a couple years ago my Youth Pastor did the most peculiar thing one night when he first walked into the youth sanctuary. He got up on the microphone and started attacking Christian claims as best he could with scepticisms and questions and arguement. We caught on quickly as he went from person to person singling them out for answers that he was testing us. After many stammerings and dumb-foundedness and a few meager defenses (apparently mine wasn't even good enough because he kept asking "Well why do you think that?") he reverted to normal and quoted 1 Peter 3:15 which says to always be ready to give a defense (apologia - Apologetics) for the hope that you have in you. It was very effective sermon he preached after that on "Why we beieve what we believe."

So for those brave enough, try to exploit the weakest or hardest points to answer in your own doctrines and ideas by using an Opposing Statment (we'll call it) and then attempt to answer with your own Affirmative Statement, giving an adequate defense.

I'll attempt to start out and see what we end up with:

--------------------------------------------------------
Opposing Statement: Jehovah cannot possibly be a loving God if he orders the slaughter of innocent women and children like he did in the Old Testament. They weren't even given a chance to convert or surrender, they were slaughtered mercilessly for nothing. Jehovah is just a primitive war God of the Hebrews used to justify the Hebrew's violent nature and they deified him. The fabrications about love couldn't possibly be true. How could this so-called "loving" diety order that a woman be stoned if she was raped just because she didn't scream! I can't belive that, that's completely horrible and disgusting. And why does God let people suffer if he is so loving? Why does the American get food, shelter, and comfort while those over in Africa starve to death? Where is this loving God?

Affirmative Statement: God is infact a very loving God though his righteousness and justice are firm and undefilable. The slaughter of these so-called innocents are not so innocent. When God ordered the killing of every man, woman, and child in the Promised land it was because they refused to turn from their godless, wicked ways regardless of the time he gave them. God was very patient with them and gave them more than enough time to repent. He had mercy on them. When God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham's ancestors he told Abraham, "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. (Genesis 15:16)" The Amorites ruled the land of Canaan and God was telling Abraham that he was giving them time (the entire span of the Israelite's servitute in Egypt - 430 years) to repent, because their iniquity was not yet full, meaning they still had a chance to turn from their ways. And they did have a chance to convert and change their hearts. The inhabitants of the land when they confronted Joshua admitted that they knew that the land had been promised to them and that the terror and fame of the LORD had gone before them and that they had heard of all the wonders that he did for them in Egypt, so that their hearts melted in fear (Joshua 2:9, 9:9, and 9:24), yet they did not repent. They brought it upon themselves. As for the children if they had reached the age of accountability then they were guilty for God said that he had made plainly seen the things of Himself unto man (Romans 1:19-21).

As for the law about the woman who was raped: the decree that she should be stoned was on the condition that she did not "cry out" in protest, which means that she would have been passive to a great evil or was actually enjoying it and using rape as an excuse for sexual promiscuity. The camp of God must remain pure and there can be no defilement in it.

As for suffering, though it may seem hard God can use suffering for his purposes. Through our suffering God's power is made manifest and God heals. Sometimes sin of a people or nation bring misfortune to others, but God says that he takes care of those that are his. At other times the suffering can be Satan's doing by God's passive judgement (like he did with Job), but those who call on God through trial, God will answer them like he did Job. God doesn't wish us to suffer but sometimes it is necessary and at other times an unfortunate by-product of the sinful world we live in. We can only hope and trust in God to deliver us.
 
Is the goal to find holes in people's affermative statement or just do a question/answer for your own tough question?
 
Quath said:
Is the goal to find holes in people's affermative statement or just do a question/answer for your own tough question?

The last one. You're not really supposed to work off my own statements, though you can certainly comment on them (I welcome it). What I really want though is to see each person argue "pros" and "cons" of their own individual topics/arguements that involve doctrine and such, so that it's different for each person. It challenges us to think. :)

God Bless,

~Josh
 
Has OP ever heard me mimic all 4 Beatles argue with each other? :o

Or seen me in karaoke, doing We Are The Champions as Sly S, Arnie S, J-C Van Damme & J Wayne - whose voices suit different lines so well.. 8-)

as long as they don't argue over which ones! :robot:

Switching to my Wogan BBC-posh voice now..

OP title challenge is to use a standard preaching-school technique called subversion (to show sceptics & cynics that we do care about & think/pray thru common obstacles that keep folk from saving faith

Must subvert off to lunch.. :wink:

Ian :-D
 
OP title challenge is to use a standard preaching-school technique called subversion

Interesting, I've never heard of it. Could you supply me some links on how this technique is used? I'd like to look into it more.

P.S. I'd love to hear an Opposing and Affirmative statment of your own.

to show sceptics & cynics that we do care about & think/pray thru common obstacles that keep folk from saving faith

That is very true and exactly what I try to do with apologetics.

Quath said:
Ok, just checking. Debating your point-counterpoint would probably merit its own thread.

PM me concerning it. I'd love to discuss it with you if you like.
 
Quick sample

Must yahoo..

Nah..

only got 2 mins B4 autologout sends me to lunch!


Ian :-D
 
So it seems that no one is really up to take this challenge. Why not? Can we not reason against difficult questions? I'm not trying to force anyone, I'm just wondering for what particular reason that no one has stepped up to bat.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top