TWENTY QUESTIONS

TWENTY QUESTIONS

These questions were among the many that were never answered by them:

(1) "You claim that since the facts do not agree with your view of perfection either God and/or His book must be flawed. There is another possibility. Your idea of what a perfect being would and would not do could be flawed. How do you know what a perfect being would do? Have you ever met one?" An answer to this was attempted that said that since the Bible contained mistakes it could not be the work of God unless I believed God could make mistakes. I answered, "I never said a perfect being could make mistakes. I believe the reverse. God does not make mistakes. If I am playing chess with someone and notice that on my next move I can take his queen with my pawn I have to ask myself. Is it a mistake or is it a queen sacrifice designed to lure me into a losing position? What we perceive as mistakes can only be understood as mistakes if we also understand the intention of the person who took the action or said the words. In this particular case, (2 Sam. 8:4 versus 1 Chron. 18:4), you see it as a mistake because the information does not agree. I see it as God allowing two witnesses to testify to the truth in the normal everyday way." The underlying questions I stated at first were never addressed. Let me put it another way. If meeting with your approval is required for God to exist how could you ever come to know about Him if, in fact, He is different than you expect?

(2) An atheist claimed to have a full understanding of everything wrong with the Bible so I asked, "I wonder then, if your understanding is full, why you go to all the trouble to continue to attack it?"

(3) The Bible was compared to Mein Kampf as a dangerous book. However, of all the dangerous books in the world these atheists have focused exclusively on the Bible. I asked, "So, have you published your refutation of Mein Kampf? What other "dangerous" books have you refuted?"

(4) Another attempt to discover their motivations for attacking the Bible ended with this unanswered question: "Why does it need to be done so badly since for many years there have been lots of people out there attacking the Bible. How does one more help all that much?"

(5) I was accused of changing the subject and told that if I kept doing it we would "get no where fast." My answer: "Remember me. I'm the guy who is trying to cut down the number of subjects. Why would I introduce a new one? As far as getting 'no where fast,' it is a problem. I would be so much more able to help us get to where we are going more quickly if you would tell me where we are going. But your goals and motives must remain a mystery. Why?"

(6) If having people insist the Bible is the word of God is offensive to you, why do you post a website practically begging them to do just that? Why do you then engage them in a discussion? Just to make sure you are offended over and over again?

(7) Why are you discussing this with me at all? What do you hope to gain by it?

(8) An atheist claimed that his website proved the Bible to be wrong "beyond a shadow of a doubt." I answered, "'Beyond a shadow of a doubt.' Wow. That's pretty impressive. So pretty much everyone who reads it agrees with it then?"

(9) They often claimed to be concerned for people or the truth but almost never answered my frequently repeated question which was some form of, "On what do you base this concern?" One tried to bring up Natural Morality but apparently did not know enough about it to defend or explain it.

(10) In answer to their repugnance for the cross of Jesus Christ I asked, "What is morally wrong with blood atonement?"

(11) What I do not understand is why you care what I believe. What possible difference could it make to you?

(12) I still do not understand what motivates atheists to want to help people. As I mentioned earlier, I agree with your basic proposition about how damaging religion can be in some cases, but I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. I minister in a jail and a mental hospital. A decade or two ago I would not have been allowed in those places. The administrations let us come, not because they believe a word of what we preach, in fact, I think they do not. They let us come because, as a practical matter, it helps them better manage patients and inmates. How do explain that?

(13) One of them accused me of not really understanding Erhuman's book. I answered, "Perhaps I did miss his main points. My circumstances were not the best when I read the book. What are his main points and what valid arguments support them?"

(14) In response to an atheist claiming the New Testamant and other early Christian writings could not be taken as historical because the writers were all Christians I said, "Besides the fact that they believed what they wrote where is your evidence of bias? Is everyone who believes what they write to be ignored because they believe what they write or only people who disagree with your views? If you ignore everybody who believes what they write what remains of any history?"

(15) If you were standing up in front of a bunch of men who are incarcerated, waiting to stand trial for serious felonies, what could you tell them that would help them? I speak to them every week. Please, advise me. The answers I got were unhelpful platitudes, more accusations, and/or irrational.

(16) If you were standing up in front of a bunch of people who were being cared for in an institution because they had exhibited potentially harmful behaviors, such as attempted suicide or drug addiction, what could you tell them that would help them? I speak to them every week. Please, advise me. The answers I got were unhelpful platitudes, more accusations, and/or irrational.

(17) Follow up on 15 and 16 above: I can assure you that I do not need to tell them that the Bible is not true or that God does not exist. Your message has gotten out. Many of them already believe you instead of me. That is what led me to y'all to start with. I was looking for the source, so I could be better prepared for the questions I as getting. Most of them already have many doubts about the Bible and God. For me to confirm those doubts would do no good at all, unless I have something positive to replace it with. What should I tell them and how will it help? The answers I got were unhelpful platitudes, more accusations, and/or irrational.

(18) The hospital is opening a new section. They call it a hospice. People go there to die. Usually they are enduring long, lingering, painful, deaths. I may get the chance to speak with them as well. If I do, what should I say to them? Please advise me. The answers I got were unhelpful platitudes, more accusations, and/or irrational.

(19) Genesis is a book that demonstrates by its contents that the compiler or writer was familiar with the cultures, events, and places of the ancient near east. We know more about the context of the book all the time as archaeologists and historians put the pieces of the puzzle together. Genesis first appeared in a time when human beings had already developed a rich plethora of stories, legends, and events about both the real and the imagined. Most of the rest of the writings from the time were left in the sands to rot but this book was handed down by our ancestors for a hundred generations. Why did the author of the book write about these particular things when he had so much else to choose from? If it is not Jesus, what is the unifying theme or topic of the book? What value did a hundred generations see in this book to make them pass it down while so many others were neglected? Some of our forefathers believed it was so important that we have this book that they risked their lives to make sure we did. Some of these were called on to give that last full measure of devotion. Why were they willing to do that?

(20) An atheist asked a question something like, "If accepting Jesus as your Savior is required what about the billions of humans that die as fetuses, infants, and mentally deficient, etc.? They can not accept Jesus. Are they to go to hell for things over which they have no control? Where is God's justice promised in Deut. 32:4?"

I answered: I am very pleased that you admit that fetuses have souls. Too many of those with points of view similar to yours do not. It is not given to us to know the fate of any soul but our own. Two scriptures suggest the populations you mention are forgiven without knowing anything about Jesus. One is when David's 1 week old baby dies he says something like, "I can go to him, but he can not come to me." To me that suggests the innocent go to heaven. The other one is a prophecy, I think it is in Isaiah, that says something like before a boy is old enough to know right from wrong something or the other will happen. This demonstrates that God knows there is a period of time before children know the difference between right and wrong. Put that together with the fact that we are condemned for our own sin I take it to suggest real innocence is acceptable to God. I can find the references if you insist but, in as much I doubt you will find them convincing, there isn't much point in looking them up. Very much information about those who can not understand is not something God could include much about in the Bible because people like you who DO understand and are always looking for loopholes to escape their accountability before God would find too much comfort in them. Matthew 19:14 "But Jesus said, 'Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.'" God does not condemn the innocent. I trust in the mercy of God. You are not a fetus or infant and I hope you are not mentally deficient. Who or what are you trusting in?

Click here to see my final unanswered challenge.