While browsing the internet, I came across this demotivational poster, and decided I would respond to it. It can originally be found here.
I want to respond, not as a method for Christians in apologetics, but simply as some thoughts to put on your noggins. I should note that I can’t reverse the numbering, so just imagine this is really just a count down from 10 to 1.
- We deny other gods because our scripture says there is only one God, that is the Judeo-Christian God. Other religions, with the exception of Buddhism, are just as exclusive.
- Micro-Evolution (small changes over time as a form of adaptation) is a fact, and I don’t think any Christian with any sort of scientific education could reasonably deny that. The problem is Macro-Evolution (many small changes resulting in a new species) is simply a theory, because there is not enough evidence to let it be a fact. As another note, some Christians are Theistic-Evolutionists, meaning they believe that God created the natural mechanisms for macro-evolution. Personally, I don’t put a lot of belief into this because it simply doesn’t affect how people come to salvation. If you are a Christian and find this essential to your beliefs, you can go ahead and debate this until the end of the world, or some new scientific theory pops up, but my opinion is that you are wasting your breath.
- Trinitatian beliefs are way too complicated, but in short, we believe in one God, not to mention I think it’s extremely rude for Christians to laugh at other belief systems. You should read my post on Trinitarianism.
- Well, I think this is an unfortunate thing that we automatically associate Allah with terrorism. Some would argue for Allah being the same as YHWH (I disagree, but you are entitled to your own opinion). Do I agree with terrorism? No. Can I justify God’s actions? No. Did God provide a chance for those people He allowed to die to repent? Sure thing. Open up a bible and read away.
- The Holy Spirit didn’t impregnate anyone, as far as I read. It’s easy to summarize that and add a touch of satire, and I’ll admit, a little smirk went across my face while I read that. There are lots of theories about this, but I would have people look at it more from a perspective of a doctor artificially inseminating a woman. We don’t see the doctor as a pervert having sex with the client, so why see it here in this context?
- Christians who find it worth-while to debate how old the earth is, or try and disprove science are wasting their time. As Christians, we can date Abraham to about 1400 BCE (that’s history, not opinion – look it up yourself!), and from there, add a few estimates and say the earth is a certain age, that’s where we find young-earth scientists. Does it really matter how old the earth is, in terms of Christianity? Not really. Should Christians try and disprove science? No. Science’s aim is to prove everything that is imperical. Because imperical measurements are based within our five senses, they cannot include the super natural. I am okay with that. Science never said it could answer all things.
- Aside from a few, it’s safe to say most religions are exclusive. If you don’t go to heaven (or whatever version of paradise), you either come back to earth to correct mistakes, or you suffer, whether that’s ceasing to exist or some version of hell. People get upset about hell. My short message to that is, if you don’t believe in Christianity, why are you concerned about hell? Hell isn’t even close to the main message of Christianity. Christianity is about Christ, who will freely give salvation to those who choose to accept it.
- People who are sensationalists, or get hyped up about manifestations of God instead of the provider of those manifestations are usually the people who are not well rooted in their faith. I would also maybe explore the genuineness of these manifestations. I believe God does manifest Himself in tongues, among many other things, but that shouldn’t ever be the focus. Focus on the giver, not the gift.
- I cannot deny the success rate of prayer to be low, but I can explain it, although it is certainly up for debate and is mostly my opinion. As Christians, we have authority in prayer, the kind of authority that we could equate to going to a really good restaurant, ordering something, and receiving exactly what you asked for in a timely manner (although I would say prayer can be instantaneous). The problem with Christians is we pray as if we don’t have this authority, or we pray things that are directly against the will of God. For instance, if someone is sick, most Christians will pray something like this: “God, if it’s Your will, could you please heal <name> of <sickness>?” I would suggest this type of action: You pray for God to manifest healing, then you witness God healing. That’s how Jesus did every single healing (aside from He didn’t have to ask for the manifestation, as He was already God), so why do Christians apply this formula of ritualistic prayer? I don’t know.
- The sad thing about the institutionalized church is that it often doesn’t provide much teaching on church history, or more-than-the-standard-sermon’s-worth of biblical knowledge. I would also say that many Christians don’t seem to be that interested, which is a shame, in my opinion. It’s easier to study something when you have motivation. For instance, atheists that want to challenge Christians/Christianity have the motivation to study church history and the text (or proof texts, as both seem to be used). To be honest, this is a problem with the people and not really the church. There are various resources for any person to get free education on both the history of the church and studies on the bible. Unfortunately, the loudest Christians are the ones that don’t always know what they’re talking about.