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!

Evidence For God (I'd love to hear feedback)

A friend recently sent me a link to this website. I know he had good intentions, but I find these types of apologist arguments to be so unconvincing.

http://www.gotquesti...-God-exist.html

Below is my rather long-winded response back to my friend...

I have heard all those arguments and "evidence" many times before and I don't really find them to be convincing.

"If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith." If that's the case, why did God appear to people so regularly in the Old Testament, and why did Jesus do so many miracles in his time? Was it not important to have faith in OT times? And did people need faith when they saw Jesus do miracles (assuming those stories are true)? Seems to me like it would be really easy to believe if you literally saw someone walk on water, heal people instantly, or raise the dead. Why did God appear on earth in physical form (ie, having dinner with Abraham, wrestling with Jacob, walking past Moses, etc.) and have actual conversations regularly with people in OT times, yet he is completely silent now?

"Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’â€" You could argue that this type of thing is built into all religions. For example, I've read about 25% of the Koran, and it is stuffed full of language just like that about how foolish and horrible are the "infidels" who deny Allah and his true prophet, Mohammed. I bet you don't lose any sleep wondering if you've pissed Allah off. I read a pretty fascinating book about how religions and ideas about God have evolved over the time since human history has been recorded. It basically said that for a religion to survive over time, it has to have defense mechanisms built into the belief system in order to keep it spreading. Among those are the idea of chastising non-believers, calling them "fools" or "infidels" or things like that, in order to discourage believers from questioning things.

"Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief." Like I said, I've read several books that do a pretty good job of explaining how and why people have such a strong tendency toward religious belief. Also, one question I have is if the existence of God is so obvious (more specifically, the Judeo-Christian God in particular), then why have there been so many different religions? Supposedly there have been thousands of gods that people have worshipped over the millenia, and those are just the ones that historians and anthropologists know about. So like I said, if the Judeo-Christian God is so obvious, why have the vast majority of humans who have ever lived been wrong about him?

I've heard the ontological argument numerous times, and I've always thought it is a giant pile of crap. It makes no sense whatsoever and is full of circular logic. It doesn't prove a thing.

"The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. " I will agree that the earth appears to be designed for life, and it seems improbable that conditions on earth would be so perfect for life. But think for a minute how vast the universe is, and think about probability. I've read that scientists estimate that the universe has around a billion billion planets (whatever that number would be called). Say the odds of having perfect conditions for life might be one in a billion. For all practical purposes we would consider that so improbable that it's practically impossible. However, if there really are a billion billion planets, and one in a billion is suitable for life, then there would still be a billion planets with conditions suitable for life. I'm just saying, it's possible...

"Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused†in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused†cause is God. " This argument uses inconsistent logic, in my opinion. It says everything must have a cause, except of course (conveniently enough) for God. If everything has to have a cause, then what caused God? If you say God can exist without a cause, then why couldn't it be true that the universe could exist without a cause? Who is to say it's impossible that the universe just "is"? There's so much we don't know about the universe and how it got here, but to say it's impossible for it to exist on its own is a pretty giant leap of logic.

"A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?" The big question I have here is, are things morally right because God dictates that they are right, or does God approve of things that are morally right because they are morally right on their own? I think it's called "Divine Command Theory" that says that something is moral if and only if God says it is. The problem with this is it can take otherwise objective moral standards and make them completely subjective, rather than the other way around, which is what most religious people argue. For example, under normal circumstances almost everyone would agree that it is objectively morally wrong to commit genocide, infanticide, beat slaves, stone people to death for gathering sticks on a Sunday, kill kids for making fun of someone's baldness (Russell might want to sometimes), and things like that. But all these things are explicitly commanded by God in the Old Testament. So in that case, you take things that would be universally condemned (by any sane, rational person) and suddenly flip them around so that it is now moral to do these things because God commanded it. I actually heard William Lane Craig, who seems to be the flag bearer for Christian apologists, say that when God told the Israelites to murder entire towns, including women and children (see Numbers 31 or Deuteronomy 2 for just a couple examples... there are many), in this case it becomes moral to kill little kids because God commanded it, and it would actually be immoral not to kill them. I have to admit, I was looking for a little better defense of the Old Testament than that, and I thought his rationalization of it was ridiculous and actually kind of disgusting.

"That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God." Actually, I think those people cling strongly to evolution because there is an enormous amount of hard evidence that all points to evolution being a fact (read "The Greatest Show on Earth" or "Why Evolution Is True" for a full presentation of all the evidence. It's pretty fascinating). Over 90% of scientists accept it as fact, and I've heard one of them say to deny it is equivalent to denying that the earth orbits around the sun.

"We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God." The first part of this statement lacks credibility because people of all faiths make the same type of claim with equal sincerity. Talk to a Muslim about how much he feels Allah's presence in his life, and it will sound exactly the same as what a Christian would say (I know this firsthand because my talks with Muslims have been very similar in many respects to my talks with my Christian friends.) The second part of that statement makes me ask myself, has anything happened in my life that would have NO POSSIBLE explanation other than God? Sure, there have been many things over the past 20 years that I credited God for having a hand in, but when I started thinking about it, I can't say any of those things would be impossible without God. I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't think of a true, 100% supernatural miracle where the laws of nature were suspended and something truly impossible happened. I started looking at prayer in a different way when I realized how most peoples' attitudes are toward prayer. For example, if someone is severely sick and you pray for them and they get well, then you say "wow, that's great, God answered my prayer!" On the other hand, if the person get's worse and dies, you still say "well, it was just God's plan to take that person now." So either way, you think your prayer worked, even if the person getting better had a 50/50 statistical chance of recovering. I guess I'd ask you, have you seen any true miracles in your life that can truly not be explained in any other way besides God?

"Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing." Really? The vast majority of people? Where do they get that? Of the roughly 6 billion people alive today, most sources say that about 2 billion claim to be Christian. Already, that is far less than a "vast majority". Add to that all the people who call themselves Christians but aren't really "true" Christians (at least according to a fundamentalist definition), and the number of true Christians gets even smaller. Then, subtract all the people of non-Christian faiths (or complete non-faith) that have lived in previous generations, and I would say of all the people that have ever lived up until now, probably an overwhelming majority are currently residing, or on their way to residing, in hell (if there is such a thing).

Anyway, I don't mean to sound negative and cynical. I just don't buy all the apologetic arguments like I used to (especially the hypocritical, dishonest stuff that people like William Lane Craig put out).
 
One thing I have learned from my long LONG search on this topic, evidence won't be found. It could be that a person must be able to "tap into the metaphysical" in order to find something that could qualify as "evidence", but that seems unlikely. "Faith" is plenty for some people. For people like me, it was never enough, and it always had me feeling empty.

As for "seeing someone perform a miracle", such as "walking on water", there would be a logical need to figure out how it was done and if there was deception involved. It would take much more than that.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Someone did turn water into wine, feed thousands with nothing more than a few loaves of bread and a handful of fish, heal the sick, condemn plants to death so they shriveled before their very eyes, make the blind see, raise the dead back to life, but still they did not believe Him and instead arrested, humiliated, mocked, teased, ridiculed, beat, spit upon, whipped, scourged, tortured, and hung him on a cross until dead. Even after he reappeared alive after his death only a handful truly believed. His own disciples struggled to believe. One denied he even knew him. One stopped believing and began to sink in the sea. One refused to believe he had risen from the dead until he saw him with his own eyes.

It wouldn't matter if he reappeared on a daily basis. People would not believe. Imagine meeting someone claiming to be Jesus Christ returned. Would you believe or would you think he was someone a few coins short of a dollar? Even if he performed what appeared to be miracles people would still suspect foul play and slight of hand, just as they did 2000 years ago.

Faith may not sound like much to hang on to but to me it is everything.
 
Even if he performed what appeared to be miracles people would still suspect foul play and slight of hand, just as they did 2000 years ago.

Faith may not sound like much to hang on to but to me it is everything.

It would be weird if he couldn't come up with convincing miracles. If he could only do things that could be reasonably questioned.

I think if he came back every day and restored limbs to combat amputees every day and repeatedly, I think people would not have too much trouble believing. It would be a surprise if a god who wanted people to know he was a god had trouble coming up with something really convincing.

But if one looks at the faith healers who have tent revivals, some believe they have actually healed, some don't. But they don't stick around for observation much. So there are some charlatans out there. But I'd expect a god would have no trouble looking different from those guys.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that "even if he performed miracles, there would still be unbelievers today" because there is a lot more sophisticated audience today. We have a better ability to separate the charlatans from the real miracle workers. So someone who could actually restore limbs, and do it every day, that would be pretty convincing to most people, you know?
 
The whole first response doesn't lend any discomfort to Christians. Most are well aware that:

  1. Belief in God was not the road to him prior to Jesus. It was adherence to the law that they followed. It wasn't until God revealed Himself in the flesh, that a new covenant was made.
  2. After Jesus arrived, rose from the dead, and was risen, that faith in Jesus came to be of utmost importance.
So, why don't we see all the large scale miracles that they did in biblical times? Many believe once Christ made the ultimate sacrifice, His story was written for all who have ears to hear. God came to us in the flesh. This was the boldest of miracles. He demonstrated his victory over death... AMAZING!! So we have this knowledge now. And it is on us to take what we've been given and respond.

Some will, some won't.
 
It would be weird if he couldn't come up with convincing miracles. If he could only do things that could be reasonably questioned.

I think if he came back every day and restored limbs to combat amputees every day and repeatedly, I think people would not have too much trouble believing. It would be a surprise if a god who wanted people to know he was a god had trouble coming up with something really convincing.

But if one looks at the faith healers who have tent revivals, some believe they have actually healed, some don't. But they don't stick around for observation much. So there are some charlatans out there. But I'd expect a god would have no trouble looking different from those guys.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that "even if he performed miracles, there would still be unbelievers today" because there is a lot more sophisticated audience today. We have a better ability to separate the charlatans from the real miracle workers. So someone who could actually restore limbs, and do it every day, that would be pretty convincing to most people, you know?

I would tend to agree with this. If he came and suddenly people were having limbs restored, food and clean water magically popped up in 3rd world country, and religions unable to say "your faith is no better than mine", thus terrorism and fighting between faiths becoming extinct, . . . then it would be plenty to draw people to that. :yes
 
Evidence is unnecessary -

And I wouldn't personally bother trying to convince anybody intellectually - about something that I can't convince 'em of.

Simple as that.

God simply states that the knowledge of HIM is on display by virtue of what He's made. YOU already know that there's a God - and that He wants something of you. SO Proof for YOU isn't required - you already know it.

It's ONLY the Holy Spirit who can Convict of SIN, and present the necessity of repentance, and making Jesus Lord.
 
JustWondering

The idea that the existence or non-existence of God can be proven by the use of logic. This is one reason I say that Logic is for Logicians. Not only can logic NOT prove either, or it would have done so already; but the term logic is being misused to refer to what is personally reasonable. One can’t trust one’s own mind to prove anything, and one can trust one’s own mind to prove anything. All depends on what one wishes to prove.

Psalms 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
Psalms 53:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.
(NIV)

These two verses are consistently used out of context to prove that one who doesn’t believe in the existence of God is a fool. But is that what is being said?

Who are the Psalms written for? The Israelites. Who are the Psalms written by? Israelites. There’s your primary context. Today, true believers are the Israel of God and the Psalms are written for them. Little realized by the believers themselves today.

Then it says these people being referred to are corrupt and there ways vile. There’s your secondary context. A specific group of people are being referred to. He’s not referring to all Atheists. That would be against common sense because they aren’t all fools.

Even the militant Atheist Richard Dawkins isn’t a fool. He believes according to what he knows. Misguided perhaps, but not a fool. He believes that religion is against the science that he holds dear. He uses the natural to prove the non-existence of a supernatural God. In that he’s more definitely misguided. But then, he’s only a professional Biologist, not a professional philosopher. Nevertheless, the most he can prove by the natural is what he claims to believe, that the existence of God is possible, but improbable.

The professional Christian Philosopher, William Lane Craig, comes at it from the other direction. He uses the natural to prove what he claims to believe. That the existence of God is not only possible, but very probable.

Who’s the most misguided? The one who says there is no supernatural God and tries to prove it through the natural or the one who says there is a supernatural God and tries to prove it through the natural? They aren’t fools for believing what they do. They are equally misguided for trying to prove the supernatural through the natural. Because to the open minded observer, the arguments are exactly the same.

Richard Dawkins should have listened to fellow Atheist Neil deGrasse Tyson. And followed him in his way of dealing with religion. Let it be and center on educating the masses about science, in Tyson’s case, through Astronomy. Instead of trying to prove his Atheism, Richard Dawkins should be educating the masses about science through what he knows best, Biology. Dawkins obviously has the necessary charisma to do what Tyson is doing. And he would have accomplished more for science if he had chosen that path. Now he’s only preaching to the choir. As is William Lane Craig. Just to different choirs.


Proverbs 3:5 Trust in Jehovah with all thy heart, And lean not upon thine own understanding
(ASV)

This shows one thing only. Something that should be common sense. Humans are limited beings with limited abilities. One can trust in themselves if they wish, if that’s all they have. But it would be foolish for the one who believes that God exists.


Luke 17:
20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation,
21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you."
(NIV)

This very simple truth about the supernatural is lost even on the Christians who should understand what Jesus was saying. The proof for God isn’t in the natural. It’s within oneself. This is a common idea in most religions. One contacts the supernatural through prayer to the personal God who knows about both the natural and supernatural realms. Or at least by meditation on the invisible supernatural realm and it’s relationship to the visible natural realm. Not just through the thinking of our mind, but also in the silence of our mind. So we can hear the still small voice (1 Kings 19:9-12). Buddhists are aware of this kind of meditation.

The Christian rarely understands today that the reference to that which is within is a reference to the human spirit. Not the heart. The human spirit is the connection to the supernatural Spirit of God. The supernatural is invisible to our physical being. We must turn within to our non-physical being to experience God.

“That’s mysticism. You’ll be deceived by Satan.†Anyone who says that neither knows nor trusts God. They’re believing that Satan can overcome the Spirit of God and that God doesn’t really care about his creation. The deception is in themselves.

FC
 
Re: Evidence is unnecessary -

And I wouldn't personally bother trying to convince anybody intellectually - about something that I can't convince 'em of.

Simple as that.

God simply states that the knowledge of HIM is on display by virtue of what He's made. YOU already know that there's a God - and that He wants something of you. SO Proof for YOU isn't required - you already know it.

It's ONLY the Holy Spirit who can Convict of SIN, and present the necessity of repentance, and making Jesus Lord.

Incorrect [what I bolded]. That information is NOT "already known". That's why this topic is brought up! If it were, yet someone [such as myself] states that they "don't know there's a god", then that person would have to be openly a liar. I cannot speak for every person, only for myself. I do NOT know that "there is a god". I make this statement without any deceit, but is made with my utmost sincerety.

Nature does not automatically give evidence for a god's existence, regardless of what Romans 1:20 states, . . . . and definitely does not give you "no excuse" as to the necessary steps christianity requires for "salvation".
 
At least three close friends of mine struggle with alcoholism. Something I've learned from them is that not until an alcoholic realizes and acknowledges to themselves that they have a problem can they begin to heal. Denying it they may succeed in convincing themselves they don't have a problem but it still exists. In fact, the more they deny it the more control it has over them and the harder it is to overcome.

I believe that we are born with the knowledge of God but due to sin and wordly corruption (i.e., Satan's influence) we live in denial. Once I finally realized who God is I discovered that the knowledge of Him wasn't new but I knew it all along. I just refused to acknowledge Him and how much I need Him. It was then that I finally began to heal and today I am a Work In Progress.
 
It would be weird if he couldn’t come up with convincing miracles. If he could only do things that could be reasonably questioned.
I think if he came back every day and restored limbs to combat amputees every day and repeatedly, I think people would not have too much trouble believing.
Ah yes, the age-old circular paradox. I won’t acknowledge that argument any further than I already have.

I don’t believe God created us to be mindless puppets but gave us the freedom to make choices. God wants us to choose Him of our own free will. As I already shared, I believe God has done precisely what you suggest but we (mankind) still refused to believe and continue in our lives of denial.

He did replace limbs (Matt. 12, Mark 3, Luke 6). He also healed every sickness and healed every disease among the people (Matt 10:35) making the lame walk, the blind see, the sick healed, and I would think bringing someone back to life, especially someone who had been dead long enough to begin to smell from decay, should be convincing enough. (Matt. 9:18-25, Mark 5:22-43, Luke 8:41-55, Luke 7:11-25, John 11:11-46)

I’m a hunter and I can tell you from personal experience that a dead body begins to decay and smell very rapidly. Two years ago my nephew shot a deer about a half-hour before dark. We were unable to locate the body so I took up the search the next morning. The overnight temperature dropped to about 35 degrees so it was not overly warm. I found the deer the next morning by about 8:30. I was surprised that I could smell the stench from that carcass from 20 feet away. Incidentally, I was able to salvage all of the meat with the exception of the inside tenderloins.

One of our horses died a few years back and we called the rendering truck to pick it up. This was in early winter so it was relatively cool to freezing at night. The truck didn’t arrive for nearly a week, which was rather upsetting since we had the family pet lying in the yard. Despite the cold temperatures, that body made its presence quite obvious through your olfactory lobes for sure.

Now, I don’t know about you but if my brother died and I placed his body in a tomb without embalming and four days later someone came along, called to him, and he came walking out of the tomb, I would have no trouble believing and yet only a few came to believe in Jesus.

By God’s hand, Moses predicted 10 plagues, parted a sea and closed it again all on command, brought forth water from solid stone, predicted doves (meat) and manna would arrive for food and yet the people continued to deny God complaining constantly to Moses.

Is it any wonder that Jesus referred to the people as a perverse and stiff-necked generation?
 
I think it's called "Divine Command Theory" that says that something is moral if and only if God says it is. The problem with this is it can take otherwise objective moral standards and make them completely subjective...
What are these "objective moral standards" that have their basis apart from God's saying so?

And as far as I know, God says it is immoral for man to will to take another's life - I don't see how that negates God's right to will to take anybody's life. Am I oversimplifying the issue here?
 
Regarding the OP,

I felt it amounted to - "show me signs and show me wisdom". 1Cor 1:17-31 seems to address this.
 
My interpretation of the Scriptures is that those who are called will believe and be saved. I think--just like your typical Calvinist--that we are all so blinded by sin and our ever-increasing wickedness that we can't see the truth about God or pursue Him. When (and if) God calls us to Him, it becomes a whole lot easier to not only to believe in God, but to see Him at work in the world around us.
 
What are these "objective moral standards" that have their basis apart from God's saying so?

And as far as I know, God says it is immoral for man to will to take another's life - I don't see how that negates God's right to will to take anybody's life. Am I oversimplifying the issue here?

In my original post I listed a few of these "objective moral standards." My original post said, "under normal circumstances almost everyone would agree that it is objectively morally wrong to commit genocide, infanticide, beat slaves, stone people to death for gathering sticks on a Sunday, kill kids for making fun of someone's baldness, and things like that."

The reason I said these things are objective morals with or without God is because there is no circumstance I can think of when it would be morally justified to do these things, and I don't know of any sane, rational person in any society who would disagree. However, these actions which would normally be universally condemned suddenly become moral when God commands it. That is why I argued that objective morals actually become subjective once you put a religious spin on it.

Actually, under the Divine Command Theory, the 9/11 terrorists were completely justified in doing what they did. There is absolutely no difference between their actions and the mass murder committed by the ancient Israelites, except for the fact that they committed theirs in the name of Allah instead of Jehovah.

Just curious, would you think it was morally okay to do the things I mentioned (genocide, killing babies, etc.) if there was no God, hypothetically speaking?
 
JustWondering said:
In my original post I listed a few of these "objective moral standards."
I'd like to discuss this only in the context of "objective moral standards apart from God" - so please don't misinterpret my following argument to be intended any other way.

I'm just picking up a random standard - say killing children. Why do you say that it is morally wrong to kill children? And just to give you a heads-up, I'm going to take whatever your response to this might be and if possible, question why that must be so too. So you could try tracing the root of the WHYs and give a response accordingly. Thanks.

There is absolutely no difference between their actions and the mass murder committed by the ancient Israelites, except for the fact that they committed theirs in the name of Allah instead of Jehovah.
Jehovah commanding and not commanding makes all the difference - so that's THE difference.

That is why I argued that objective morals actually become subjective once you put a religious spin on it.
As I said, it still is an objective command that man is not to will to take another's life. When God wills to take lives, He is perfectly justified and it may very well seem unpredictable. Where's the subjectivity w.r.t. man here? Again, I feel I am oversimplifying the issue here.... but this is the substance of what I believe.

Just curious, would you think it was morally okay to do the things I mentioned (genocide, killing babies, etc.) if there was no God, hypothetically speaking?
If there was no God, there wouldn't be any absolute morality to discuss.
 
I often wonder about the motivations of the atheist in a thread like this. I don't mind the challenges, because I can ignore them or respond. Most often when someone seems firmly opposed to hearing what we have to say, I don't spend the time pounding the wall. And I don't wish to eliminate this voice from the board.

Why post this or affirm it? If you don't believe what we feel led to believe, if you don't feel like your minds would be changed, why come to a Christian site and put this out? It's an honest question. I'm not trying to confront or level charges. If someone held out the possibility that s/he could be wrong, I could understand. But if someone is firmly convinced otherwise, I have to ask: What's your end goal? What are you trying to achieve?

Just thinkin'
 
There is ample evidence of God however not ample faith. A man could walk a line that goes on forever, forever trying to prove or disprove it goes on forever. You cannot prove a negative. That means God must exist. Lies exist for the sake of Truth and not the other way around. Truth came before ignorance or knowledge. Proof of God. Life preceded death, proof of God.

Faith however, is more about trust than it is about being convinced of existence. So it is that God is establishing those who trust Him in character through the age we presently experience. I've seen many miracles but who am I that someone would believe me? All lies ever invented exist with one prime directive. To undermine the #1 commandment of love God with all your heart mind and soul. Certainly to not believe a God exists does this. But to see such Truth that can be reasoned one must first believe in God or not actually believe in Truth.

But God does not want men to believe in Him because of miracles for it is as I said, about trusting His Character. So it is that righteousness is by faith as in trust. But those who do trust will see miracles.

I don't usually do this but I will share one of mine, as long as you all don't treat me differently and think I am Moses or something and start patronizing me. For this is why God does not want people to believe in Him because of miracles. He does not want to be patronized. My wife and I were driving down the highway and we saw a van with many people pulled over to the side of the road. As we passed I said to my wife, "I wonder what is up with those people?" A voice immediately answered, albeit I heard it in my head and not audibly. The voice said, "they have a flat tire and do have a spare but no Jack, and they are all presently praying that someone will bring them a jack. I turned to my wife and said what I had heard and she also had heard the same thing. This happens often with us. I immediately said,"that's us", since I was carrying a jack meant just for trucks such as theirs. So I got off the next exit and came back and exited again and got back on again so I could come up behind them. They were all standing next to the truck when I pulled up. I got out of my truck and walked towards them and they all were watching me with glum faces. As I got close enough I said, "God told me you all were praying for someone to bring you a jack". They all began jumping up and down, leaping in the air and shouting with joy unto God. Miracles do happen and God is real.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I often wonder about the motivations of the atheist in a thread like this. I don't mind the challenges, because I can ignore them or respond. Most often when someone seems firmly opposed to hearing what we have to say, I don't spend the time pounding the wall. And I don't wish to eliminate this voice from the board.

Why post this or affirm it? If you don't believe what we feel led to believe, if you don't feel like your minds would be changed, why come to a Christian site and put this out? It's an honest question. I'm not trying to confront or level charges. If someone held out the possibility that s/he could be wrong, I could understand. But if someone is firmly convinced otherwise, I have to ask: What's your end goal? What are you trying to achieve?

Just thinkin'


Mike, I do not mean to be offensive. I don't even really have an end goal or ulterior motive for posting something like this. I just honestly enjoy the discussion, and I truly enjoy and appreciate hearing all the different perspectives, whether I agree with them or not. Again, I apologize if my tone has come across as derisive or offensive. That was not my intent at all. :)
 
Back
Top