Thursday, August 25, 2011

Defend The Faith

Ephesians 6: 10-18, in the Bible, describes the Armor of God.  It involves a sword, a shield, a girdle (likely a belt), a breastplate and shoes of some sort.  One has to ask, though, why God needs you to be armed to the teeth?

Modern theologians explain that this is because Satan and the wicked ways of mankind are out to get us.  We must protect ourselves from evil things like temptation, false belief and Teletubbies.  However, just considering this brings up another question:  Why do Christians get so defensive when you question their faith?

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." 
-- Chapman Cohen

This quote really sums it up.  Christians have to become apologists with even more vigor than skeptics or Atheists, because their beliefs are harder to defend.  I say they are impossible to defend.

The typical tactic for a Christian who has had his or her religion challenged is to try to calmly explain that the questioner just doesn't understand.  When the questioner invalidates that statement, the apologist has a series of arguments in their arsenal, all of which are equally worthless, but together form a confusing brier patch that not every Atheist is willing to trudge through.  For instance, when the power of prayer was offered as a subject of debate, one reader responded:

"The problem is your just taking snipits out of the Bible without understanding the whole context."

Really?  I thought that is what Christians do all day long?  They preach that the Bible is a whole and complete book.  They claim that the Bible is factual, including historical events (which will be discussed in a later blog post).  They also claim that each individual part is as truthful as the whole... until you show them three verses, which all say the same thing, but question their faith.

Here's another quote from the apologist:

"As far as moving mountains go. Is it likely to happen-no. Is it possible yes."

The Bible says that if you have the faith the size of a tiny, little mustard seed, you can move a mountain.  You will tell the mountain to move from here to there and it will - period.  There are no caveats listed at all.  The apologist admits that the Bible is true, by saying it could happen, but also admits that it's not likely to ever happen.

That's exactly the point.  Christians say they believe it, but admit that it is false - yet they keep believing it it!  They defend a faith which I'm sure at least most of them, deep down inside, know to be completely wrong.


  1. Ahh, now we are taking snipits out of my comment to make an argument. My comment still stands that your not looking at the whole context. Yes the bible as a whole is as truthful as it's parts. You need to look at why it was written and what it's use is. And sometimes you also need to look at how it was translated, words can either lose or gain meaning through translation.
    I also did not admit that the scripture was false. You once again only quoted a snippet to serve your purpose. I said it was not likely to happen because it wouldn't serve a purpose. Can someone with the faith of a mustard seed move a mountain-yes but not because they felt like it. It's not about the moving of the mountain, it's about the strenghth and depth of faith.

  2. What purpose would it serve, indeed. It would clinch the argument for God existing. From there, serious study could be conducted as to the nature of God and whether the Bible is as screwed up as you suggest it just might be. You did say that the scriptures may have been mis-translated.

  3. It wouldn't clinch it at all because your doubt is so deep. If that mountain crumbled and moved do you really think you'd say "That was God" or would you look for an explanation?

    I didn't say the Bible is screwed up. It's translated to the best of the translators ability to get the point across. Again, this is why context is so important.

  4. Again you assume that I'm like you. Here's a big difference: I am willing to accept new evidence and change my mind. Some call it flip-flopping, but I consider it intellectual honesty. You, on the other hand, appear to be a fundamentalist - so that no matter what new evidence presents itself, no matter how damning it is, no matter how strong it is, you refuse to change your mind. If strong evidence for God's existence presented itself, I would believe. But, strong evidence has already presented itself that God does not exist.

    So, which one of us is really being honest here?

  5. Well I have yet to be shown any concrete evidence let alone any evidence at all that proves the nonexistence of God.
    I have not made any assumptions, most of your blog is full of assumptions, however. All preachers preaching fire and brimstone, out to get your money. Not accepting scientific facts. All of us will get upset when asked to defend their faith. We only give for fear of hell. All I've seen on this blog is you putting all Christians in a box and assuming their all the same. I have not made any assumptions. I have made a statement based on what you have shown to be your beliefs and very simply asked a question.

  6. Yes I've seen it but I'm not asking you to prove the nonexistence of God I'm asking you to back up your statement that there is evidence as to such. You stated there was evidence as to the nonexistence of God all I'm asking is that you explain what this evidence is.

  7. You're reading the evidence in this blog. It will take a while to get it all out, but stay tuned for more posts which will provide evidence that Christians have been duped.

  8. I've yet to see evidence. Theories and opinions, yes, but no evidence.