It is difficult for anyone with a sincere belief to be humble and gentle in their defence. We are all inclined to become overzealous. Scripture dictates that you must put the truth of God to the unbeliever that you might help bring him/ her into a relationship with the Father. Scripture also determines that a person must call on God to be saved but how can you call on God if you do not know who he is.

I would like to be humble and gentle in my responses knowing I become anxious when my God and my Saviour are misrepresented. I am anxious that people know the truth and not the lie. Jesus is our example of how we should make a defence. He was truthful and forthright. I do hope I do not overstep his example. As imperfect humans it is difficult to know when we are right in our coverage and when or if we overstep the mark.

Caleb, we have to make a distinction between what the author(s) of the Bible is(are) are saying and what the readers think it(they) are telling us. Let’s distinguish between the real message and the interpretation. Interpretations, let’s admit, are contradictory. The message of the Bible is yet to be proven as being contradictory. For that we will need to interview the author(s).

“And indeed, there is nothing confusing about the basic facts. Every Christian believes the same basic concept of God, Jesus, the resurrection, etc. Its the other details that get mangled and misinterpreted. Which like I said in the previous post, is the reason for so many denominations. No one can agree on what the Bible is really saying. Is this fact important? Absolutely! It proves that alot of the Bibles scriptures are open-ended and cause alot of confusion. (Again, not confusion about the basic fundamentals of Christianity, but the fine print that has everything to do with where you will end up when you die.)”

I agree with you. It gives the impression that the Bible is open-ended and cause a lot of confusion. It gives rise to the questions of : How should be believe and what should we believe? How do we make sense of the Bible?

But maybe (and this is just a speculative effort), revelation was never meant to be a one-shot deal after which everything becomes 100% clear and fully understood and there is no more room for speculation, research, reflection, study, doubt and disagreement. I can respect your feelings about it if you say that it is totally unsatisfactory and unbecoming of the God who reveals and saves. If there is God, really, he must reveal and save perfectly because God is perfect and must do everything perfectly well. All these difficulties entailed in Christian beliefs betray the lack of a perfect God who is able to reveal and save in a perfect manner. In this kind of thinking, perfection implies the total absence of everything that is negative. I respect the feeling but I disagree with the thinking.
I will address this in another post.

“Like homosexuality. Being destined for hell doesn’t sit so well with the gays of the world, especially when all of them agree that they have been gay all of their lives and that its not a personal choice or a “demon” as some like to say… And according to statistics, the worlds gay population could be as high as 10%! So you are faced with a question. Either all gays are going to hell, or the Bible is wrong. And since the Bible is supposed to be 100% truth and the word of God, its a bit of a problem.”

Christianity teaches that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong and that the homosexual tendency, although disordered, is not sinful. Sin is rooted in choosing what is wrong, disordered, bad or evil, knowing that it is so. Our lifestyle is a product of choice. Our tendencies, not always.

I have always had a tendency to be unfaithful to my wife, in varying degrees. That doesn’t make me a sinner. When I am able to faithfully say ‘no’ to the tendency for the sake of God, that is a virtue. I sin when I surrender to the tendency to do evil, knowing that it is evil.

Are all homosexuals going to hell? Only God can tell. Is homosexuality a real obstacle to loving God? Yes. Is that a real obstacle to being with God forever in eternal bliss. Yes. If one is a homosexual is he definitely going to hell. I can’t answer that. Particular judgement is the exclusive domain of God.

“I’d also like to say that even though everyone agrees that Jesus was real, it doesn’t mean he was right.”

You’re correct because Jesus is right not because everyone agrees with him but because HE IS.

“Finally, I don’t think you can bridge the gap between Science and Religion.”

There are many Christians, like the Catholics, who are not trying to do this. They say, though, that there is no contradiction between the two. Religion is concerned with an entirely different set of questions than the one with which the physical sciences are concerned. If there is a seeming contradiction between the two, you can be sure that one is encroaching into the other’s domain.

The question of God is not a question addressed by physics, chemistry etc. These sciences are concerned with the empirical. The question of God is metaphysical. When the physical seems to support (ie is consistent or coherent with)the metaphysical that should be no cause for surprise.

“Mainly because the world can exist perfectly and logically under an atheists beliefs.”

I disagree. It is only possible to live in the world under atheistic beliefs because atheistic beliefs are inconsistent.
I will try to demonstrate this in another post.

My unsolicited opinion on your concerns below:

“how much you should strive to express your beliefs, when that person is going to be set in their’s. jesus says that we in the faith, should share the good news of the gospel with others.”

It is in our human nature, when we have something good or valuable, to want to talk about it with and to others. We want to extol its beauty, merits, features, benefits, etc., unless we fear losing it in the process. It’s also in our human nature to want to hold on to something good and valuable for as long as we consider it valuable. We also want to share it with others i.e. we want others to have it too and enjoy it for as long we will not lose it. We want others to affirm that yes indeed we have something good.

Our Lord commanded us to “go out into the whole world and make disciples of all men….”

It is founded on two things, faith that he and what he has brought us is the “pearl of great price.” And our human nature, the natural consequence of it is all those acts which flow naturally from having something good and valuable.

So the command to evangelize is another form of the command to believe or have faith because if we really believe we would want to evangelize as a matter of course. If you have no desire to evangelize, you will have to reflect, do you really believe?

“so then the question of conviction arises, ”

There is nothing wrong with wanting to influence others and with wanting to change their belief for as long as we do it respectfully.

“and how much you should act on it. could you please share your opinion?”

In accordance with your situation in life and how much opportunity is afforded you and while observing the norms of propriety which make it more effective. The “opportunities afforded you” may be expanded through deliberate efforts to search and create more opportunities for the Gospel in accordance with your gifts and talents and connections. You have the example of Perry as an illustration of this.

Seems like it. But it can also mean that he is quoting somebody else who knows.

“Current science and top physics is pointing to the universe as being a mechanism that explores all possibilities.”

I am not a scientist but I don’t agree with this. This is very evolutionistic. Evolution theory is an over-extrapolation of the real and observed phenomenon of evolution within species. We can also grant that there is evolution in the non organic part of the universe and this is something that doesn’t need more proving.
However, to say that the universe is capable of exploring all possibilities is a hypothesis of many scientists that still need to be proven. It still requires a lot of faith to accept this hypothesis as true.

“When we look out the window, using a telescope, it also looks like the universe could be of infinite”

I thought Einstein has said that the universe is finite but expanding.

Chris, with all due respect, the idea that all the opinions of scientists about the physical world can always be taken seriously is just the same as the idea that all the opinions of theologians about God should be taken seriously.

The cross-evolution from non organic to organic is a hypothesis that is attractive but is still just a hypothesis.

The hypothesis about multiple universes is still an attempt to explain the genesis of the universe without having recourse to a creator. No more. It’s clever but it cannot stand yet on its own. It’s still a matter of faith. Just like the existence of God. From the positivistic point of view, the existence of God, evolution of the universe and multiverse are all matters of faith.

You sound like you’ve been reading Stephen Hawking’s papers. Well, he’s wrong. The amount of matter in this universe is finite. And even if there exist an infinite number of universes, there is still no proof of this and no proof of infinite variation of physics, types of particles, etc. All matter in every universe (if more than one exists)is bound by a finite number and finite laws of physics. Therefore infinity has nothing to do with creation of physical life. And there is no such thing as raw chance, when it comes to the creation of life.

Leading geneticists have concluded that Darwinistic evolution is an impossibility. I.e. it is also impossible for life to happen by chance. Instead, the most brilliant geneticist minds have come to agreement that all life was “designed”. It has also been determined mathematically, statistically, etc, that life cannot have happened by chance. You won’t find their papers printed in journals because the ones who have tried to do so have lost their funding, been persecuted out of ignorance, fear, etc.

How do I know this? Because I personally know people in the field of genetics research. And in this field, there are many who are coming to acknowledge the reality of a Creator, God.

Regardless, it matters not how you state the physics of things for God created the universe and all physics therein; And physics, in and of itself, cannot create life. Life only comes from God, the Creator of all. If atoms combine to form DNA molecules through a process, then it is a process designed and executed by the Creator, whom we call God.

That’s why I say you are more dogmatic than believers. If you can’t prove that God does not exist then you can’t be sure. Then you must be open to the possibility. But you are not. You are dogmatic. That’s not scientific.

“If I were, it’d be saying: God may exist, but he’s def not around to prove it.”

Non sequitur. It doesn’t follow.

Better: If I were, it’d be saying: God may exist, but I just can’t prove nor disprove it.

“I don’t believe God exists at all! ”

Fine. Just be open to the possibility that you are wrong. But since you said that you are only 23, I can understand why you are hard-headed.

“Because if he did, everything that you’ve read about him must be true 100%.”

Non sequitur. It doesn’t follow. Where did you get that logic?

“And I just can’t accept that…”

And you’re perfectly right.

“I would like to say though… I really doubt God exists simply because of the way Christians act.”

If you had said, ” I have a hard time becoming a Christian because of the way Christians act,” that would have been perfectly alright. But I simply can’t see how the un-Christian life of some Christians demonstrate that God does not exist.

“If God actually talked to me, and I had something so firm to believe in, you can guarantee that I’d be a completely different different person. Look at every religion that claims to talk to a God… Does their lifestyles change minimally or drastically? ”

The existence of God is supposed to be an objective fact. While life choices are subjective. Individual responses are subjective. There is always a disconnect between the objective and the subjective. Although, effort must be made to align the subjective to the objective.

We have a mother (objective).

I was always a dutiful son. Always tried to do things well. Never grumbled. Never rebelled (subjective, individual response).

My younger brother spent more time with friends. Never helped in the house chores. Grumbled about my mom. Usually home late. Spent very little studying (subjective, individual response).

My youngest brother spent most of his dancing in the street with friends. Did not do any homework. Took up drinking and smoking very early (subjective individual response).

How does the behavior of my two brothers prove that my mother doesn’t exist? It can be admitted, though, that if one looked at my two brothers’s lifestyles as teeners, one might be led to believe that they had no mother, that they were not raised properly by a mother. But I know it’s not true.

You’re confused. It’s so hard to comment on a confused statement.

“No one TRULY acts as if their god is real. ”

Wow. It’s like you have met everyone. Congratulations!

“And why would people continue to sin in the bible if they KNEW god was real… It makes no sense…”

Because people have a real option to choose something other than God himself. Choosing God is not automatic.

But still why? Because people can forget the true value of God. Their appetites can be attracted by forces which at times is stronger than the force of attraction to the value of God.

Why? Because people are not always in the contemplative mode. Their activities require them to turn their gaze away from God many times during the day for long periods of time. We have powers that draw us to fellow creatures. Powers that need the guidance of the intellect aided by faith.

Even now it’s easy to sin when living conditions are much better than in biblical times. I can imagine how life must have been a lot harsher and more challenging in biblical times. A virtuous life must have been a real rarity then.

As a believer, I believe in the wrongness of lying. In my prayer this morning, I asked the Lord to enlighten me on this matter. Is the prohibition on lying an absolute i.e. without exceptions? Or are there specific instances when it is justified?

I cited that personal situation to illustrate that believers have to struggle with many things in their relationship with God(=religion). When an outsider is looking at a believer and is judging his every move, it is very easy for him to find a cause of discouragement: discrepancy between the believer’s choices, actions, lifestyle, speech, etc and the declared beliefs of that person.

On a lighter note, Simon Cowell (of American Idol fame)has revealed that he regretted firing a person whom he said was not given enough chance. Before he fired her, he felt so sure that she deserved to be fired. Not anymore. I don’t know if Simon Cowell is Christian but the point is that people are constantly struggling to make the right decision. We are constantly under pressure to make decisions even when we are not ready to make them. As result, lots of opportunities for stumbling.

I can almost anticipate your question: Then why is salvation so difficult if God is real? But I’ll just wait for you to actually ask. You might not ask at all.

This means that an “unrestricted negative” as a claim may be wrong after all and it requires faith to maintain or adhere to it.