Tough Questions for Christians # 34: Re-Enforcing False Beliefs

Image via Wikipedia

This question was submitted by Ticobassie, it's a very good question.

Imagine a Muslim couple, they have been unable to get children for a couple of years now. They’ve been praying to Allah to get it sorted and they even sacrificed an extra sheep last year. Family members and people in the mosque have also prayed to Allah but to no avail. Then, one day the woman gets pregnant and a healthy baby is born 9 months later. No doubt there will be many thankful prayers to Allah (and perhaps a few more slaughtered sheep).

To the Muslim, from their perspective, Allah did listen to the prayers, and he answered them.

Given the characteristics attributed to God, that God is in control of everything, how should a Christian view this event? Since Allah doesn't exist ,it wasn’t Allah who had a hand in it. It wasn't him who actually granted the pregnancy.

So Gods decision to finally bless the couple with a baby is keeping the poor Muslims on the wrong track by fueling their delusions, making them think Allah actually answered the prayer and granted them their desires. In doing so he amplifies their belief in the wrong religion, making it more likely they will end up in hell.

So why is it that God will allow things to happen that will re-enforce peoples faith in the false God, and make them more likely to go to Hell?

TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIANS #34
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW EVENTS TO TAKE PLACE THAT RE-ENFORCE BELIEFS IN FALSE GODS?

Tough Questions for Muslims #1: Where the Sun Sets

Image via Wikipedia

As promised, here is the first in the Tough Questions for Muslims series. I've had some mixed reviews about this... Some Christians originally claimed that the fact I was only addressing Christianity proved it was true. Now that I'm addressing Islam as well... well... that argument kind of goes out the window. Unless you're willing to admit that Islam is equally as possible as Christianity.

The Muslims who heard I was going to start this series... I've gotten two different types of reactions. Some Muslims have been excited, because they wanted to have a chance to defend their faith and prove that their religion is in fact the true religion. Others have warned me against inciting Allah's wrath, and warned that he may attack my family or cause bad things to happen because I'm... disrespecting him I guess. (Who knew that asking questions could piss off God?)

So to start, most of the Islamic apologists focus on what they consider "scientific truths" in the Koran, where as most Christian apologists focus on "prophetic truths."

The first Tough Question for Muslims is regarding the most obvious scientific error in the Koran. Before I get to that particular verse, let me paraphrase it with a story. What I want you to do is pay attention to the imagery of the story and tell me what you visualize. What image do you get in your mind from hearing the story?

Let me tell you a story about Jack Smith. Jack Smith followed a road until he reached the sitting place of the giant goats. There he found a giant goat sitting in a rocking chair, and there were people gathered all around.

The end.

Easy enough, right? Short little story. Now what do you visualize?

My guess is you picture Jack following a road then he comes to a place where there are giant goats. In that particular location, he finds one giant goat sitting in a rocking chair with people gathered around that rocking chair. Would that be a fair assumption? My guess is, yes. For most people that probably exactly what they're going to hear, or what they're going to visualize.

So why did I tell that story?

Well, Muslims will probably recognize that as a paraphrase of 18:83-86. The story of (and I'm going to say the name really bad, so I apologize), the story of Dhu'l-Qarneyn (I believe that's how you say that).

They will ask thee of Dhu'l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him.
Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road. And he followed a road
Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout...
(18:83-86)

The verses are Allah talking about Dhu'l, and he says he followed a road until he reached the setting place of the sun. And there he found the sun setting in a muddy spring, and there were people gathered all about.

Again, the visual that I get from reading those verses is that the man follows a road until he reaches the place, on the earth, where the sun physically sets... and there were people gathered all about, and he watches the sun set in this muddy spring, right there, into the earth.

Obviously, that is completely and utterly scientifically false. We know that know. There is not a location on the planet where the sun sets. Not one. The planet is several million miles away from the sun, and the sun is always going to appear to be very far off on the horizon.

When I have brought this up to Muslims before they have an apologetic response, as would be expected. They say when it says he "reached the setting-place of the sun," he didn't really reach the "setting-place of the sun," he just reached a place where he could see the sun set... which is pretty much anywhere on the planet, so he didn't reach any location at all. (Makes you wonder where he was following the road to.)

And when he "found (the sun) setting in a muddy spring," it's just that's the way it appeared from way back where he was standing looking at the sun way out on the horizon. And they also claim that when it says he "found a people thereabout," it meant there were people thereabout THAT location (where Dhu'l watched the sun setting), not the actual setting-place where the sun was setting.

So in other words, the verse means absolutely NONE of what it says. When it says he followed a road to the setting place of the sun, it means he followed a road to anywhere on the planet, no particular location. And when he found the sun setting in a muddy spring, it means he didn't find the sun setting in a muddy spring at all, and when people where gathered thereabout, it means people were gathered about him, not about the sun.

I've read the verses over and over and over again, trying to find some sort of a way you can interpret it that way, but I don't see it. This is not taken from that particular person's viewpoint (Dhu'l-Qarneyn), it's Allah speaking from a third-person perspective.

So, my question for you, Muslims, is: In light of this particular verse (or several verses) that describe the physical location where the sun sets on the planet, can you please tell me where this location is?

TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR MUSLIMS #1
WHERE IS THE MUDDY SPRING WHERE THE SUN SETS?

If you can show me the muddy spring where the sun sets, I will convert to Islam immediately.

Poor Apologetics 2: "Just in Case"

Image via Wikipedia

Poor Apologetics: Why Risk It?

The Theist's Argument:

I can't tell you how often I receive emails from people saying: "You're risking Hell! Not just for you, but for your daughter, you're going to send her to Hell to! Why risk it? Why risk it? Why worry about that? Go to Heaven!"

Why they use this argument (What they believe)

I need to believe in Jesus, just in case. Just to make sure I avoid Hell, because if I don't I'm going to be damned, and I'm going to damn the rest of my family at the same time.

The Rebuttal:

Now, the way the American court system works, or the way the jury system works, is basically - you're convicted or released based on the beliefs of the jury. (Or what the jury SAYS they believe.) If the jury believes the prosecutor, you're probably going to go to jail. If the jury believes the defense attorney, then you're probably going to be let off.

So the idea of both attorneys is to tell the story in such a convincing manner that it causes the jury to believe their version over the opposing versions being offered.

Imagine for just a moment that the defense attorney comes up to the jury and tells them all that if they find his client innocent, he will reward them and pay them all $1,000,000 each.

Some people can be easily bought, and some people will claim immediately that "Yes, the defendant is innocent." Other people will hold out because they are not that shallow. They believe in the court system, and they want to be true and honest to themselves.

Now, the people who accept the money and claim that the defendant is innocent - Do they really believe he's innocent, or are they just saying that to get the reward?

Answer is: Most likely they are just saying it to get the reward.

What if the defense attorney again came up to the jury, when he realized the bribe didn't work for everyone, and said: "If you find my client guilty, I will hunt you down and I will kill you. I will burn you alive and I will slaughter your children."

Well now some more people are going to claim that the defendant is indeed innocent because they don't want to risk the harm to themselves and their family.

You see, I'm one of the jurors who is sitting there saying: "I can't honestly believe that the defendant is innocent just because his attorney is offering to pay me off. I also can't honestly believe that he's innocent because the attorney is threatening me."

The threats and the bribes won't actually change my mind. They may change my actions. In reality, I wouldn't want harm to come to my family, so if I honestly thought that was a serious threat I would probably LIE and say that the person was innocent because I wouldn't harm to come to me or come to my family because of my decision.

But, even if I do lie, I'm not necessarily going to believe that the man is actually innocent, I'm not going to necessarily believe the claims of his attorney just because I'm being threatened and bribed at the same time.

The same can be said about God. For all you people who email me and tell me that: "I need to convert! I need to convert! I need to accept Jesus and just do it - just in case." That's like trying to be that attorney who's bribing me and threatening me simultaneously.

Either way you're not going to make me change my mind.

You need to actually submit a case and make an argument PROVING your God - and PROVING YOUR POINT.

You can't just threaten and bribe your way to victory... and too many people can't see that.

Before the rewards of Heaven or the punishments of Hell can be honestly considered, you must prove that the God responsible actually exists.

Other related videos:

Tough Questions for Christians #32: Foreskin

This one is just kinda fun.

You ever see the movie Beatlejuice? In the afterlife everyone still looks like whatever event caused them to die. There is one guy I remember who is actually hanging by his coat jacket and he has a big tire print going across him, and he's pretty much pancaked - wafer thin. They drag him on a clothes line through a little thin hole in the wall.

In that movie, everyone that died continued to look like whatever it was that killed them... for eternity, supposedly.

Most Christians don't think that's a very accurate representation of the afterlife or of eternity. Because most Christians say that when you die, you become perfected... at least when you're resurrected you become perfected.

Your body is made whole, even if you're born in this life with a hunchback or with a handicap of some sort, when you're resurrected you'll have a full and perfect and glorious body.

Now, if you believe the Bible is true, the only person who has ever been resurrected still had the holes in his hands and in his side afterward, 'cause Thomas was able to feel those. But we'll ignore that for just a moment, and we're going to assume that the Christians are right, that when you die and you're resurrected you get this full, wonderful, perfect, glorious body.

Do you get your foreskin back?

All the people who died in the Old Testament who God had required that they remove their foreskin in order to show how much they love him - do they have their penis sheath back again in their resurrected body, or is it still gone?

God obviously doesn't like them (foreskins), he talks quite a bit in the Bible about making sure those are removed. He does not want the foreskin there. If you have foreskin, you don't love God... or at least that's the way it used to be. He's kind of relaxed on that and lets you keep you penile hood if you decide to nowadays.

Tough question for you, well, kinda just a silly question for you this time: When you're resurrected, if you're a man and you're circumsized, are you going to have your foreskin?

TOUGH SILLY QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #32:
WHEN YOU'RE RESURRECTED, WILL YOU GET YOUR FORESKIN BACK?




Other related videos:

Tough Questions for Christians #31: Made up by Satan

I got another "Tough Question" suggestion, this one again from lazyperfectionist1. It's very well written, so I'll just read it directly from the email.

Arizona Superman has a reputation for coming up with really good metaphors and here I shall endeavor to compete.

A man on a long road trip has covered about 200 miles and notices that his fuel is beginning to run low. Finding the next opportunity, he exits and pulls into a filling station. Groaning at the price, he goes about refilling his tank.

Only seconds later, another car pulls in, parks, and the driver gets out and accosts the man, saying, “I have been driving behind you for the last 150 miles. You did all the same things I did, only sooner. You changed lanes right before I did. You merged from one highway to another right before I did. Clearly, you are following me from in front and I want to know why.”

We will come back to this in a moment. But first, please consider the following characteristics:

1. Mothered by a virgin
   
2. Born in a humble setting
   
3. Birth announced by stars
   
4. Birth attended by wise men
   
5. Birth coinciding with announcements from on high that a blessing has come to the poor world
   
6. Hunted as a child by tyrants
   
7. Grew up to perform miracles
   
8. Met with a violent death
   
9. Lay dead for three days
   
10. Rose from the grave
    

Who am I describing?

Most Christians will be very quick to blurt out a very obvious answer. Some will hold their tongues in trepidation, reasoning quite correctly that this question is too obvious and therefore must be a trap.

But let’s not kid each other here. Eleven characteristics I have listed and on each one, the very same obvious figure occurred to you. You know it, we know it, we all know it, so no one’s fooling anyone here. The real question here is what other more obscure figures might be so described [with those eleven characteristics]?

In fact, there are quite a few: Osiris, Baccus, Hermes, Mithra, Lao-tse, Fo-hi, Rameses, Apollo, Samson, Baldur, Hercules and Quetzalcoatl, every last one of them born three days after the winter solstice; a date indicated on our calendar as December 25.

Now when Christianity first began, the Pagans noticed this similarity and asked the Christians about it, and the response they received was that the Devil had foreseen the birth of Christ and forged these various imitations in advance, in order to mislead humanity sow seeds of doubt. I will now remind you of my previous metaphor. Who is more likely following whom?

So the "Tough Question" for you this time: Since stories of people with the same characteristics of Jesus' life pre-date Jesus' life by hundreds of years, do you really believe those were invented by the devil to fool Christians, or is it possible - just possible - that the story of Christ has been created, or embellished, with the characteristics of stories that have existed for a lot longer than his story has?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS # 31:
DID SATAN INVENT GOD-MEN STORIES HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE JESUS, OR IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE LIFE OF CHRIST WAS CREATED OR EMBELLISHED USING PRE-EXISTING STORIES?




Other similar videos:

Tough Questions for Christians # 29: The Fallen World

Image via Wikipedia

Whenever I talk about the not-so-pleasant parts of life, diseases, bacteria, viruses, animals who eat other animals - and would eat people if they got the opportunity - I'm reminded by Christians that we live in a "fallen" world.

The world God created originally was nowhere near this violent or this abusive. In fact, all the animals lived peacefully with each other.

Apparently everything ate plants and grass. Flesh eating bacteria simply lived off of... your lawn clippings I guess.

I'm told that because man sinned, the world fell. Animals grew fangs, they became carnivorous, snakes developed venom, bees grew stingers, insects started biting people, everything kinda went to shit pretty fast. And, they say it's man's fault, because man created the "fallen" world.

You see, the trouble is - man doesn't have the ability to create anything.

God created the world, he made the planets, he made the animals, he made everything, right? We don't have the ability to do that. The ability to genetically engineer creatures is something we are just barely tapping into now.

Man had the ability to eat a fruit, yes. He had the ability to sin and do something God told him not to, sure. He DIDN'T have the ability to make lions grow fangs and become carnivorous, or to make rattle snakes suddenly venomous, or to make flesh-eating bacteria start eating flesh.

That's beyond the capabilities of ANY human being.

If you believe in creation, then you must believe that SOMETHING created the fallen world. Something actually designed it, because the lions and tigers and bears - oh my - are no less designed than they were when they were all friendly.

If God didn't create malaria, or flesh eating bacteria, or the bubonic plague, or make animals venomous, make animals carnivorous, and make the entire world live in such a way that life ALWAYS feeds on death... If God didn't design it that way, if it was a result of Adam's fall, then who was the designer of the fallen world?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #29
WHO DESIGNED THE "FALLEN" WORLD?





Other interesting videos:

Tough Questions for Christians # 28: Earth vs. Heaven

Image by TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³ via Flickr

When the Earth was created it was perfect. Flawless and sinless, created by a perfect being, for his perfect creations. And that's the way it existed for a while. Um, up until Adam and Eve actually took a bite from that forbidden fruit. And then suddenly everything went to Hell... literally.

Now God is perfect, he doesn't make mistakes. So you figure Earth was literally the best he could do. He wouldn't build something substandard, right? The "perfect" planet, the "perfect" creation, and his "perfect" humans were as "perfect" as they could possibly get.

He wouldn't ever build something less-than-perfect, 'cause that would therefore make him less-than-perfect.

Now, the idea is: Once you die, you go to Heaven. Which is, again, a" perfect" place, built by a "perfect" God, for his "perfect" creations. He's got some other "perfect" creations there already, his angels and so on.

But if Earth was a perfect place, and it went to shit, and God is all-powerful... Why should we believe he can do any better with Heaven?

What makes us think that Heaven is not going to suffer the same fate that Earth did?

If God is all-powerful and perfect, we have absolutely no reason to believe he can do anything better than what he did the first time around. Because the first time would've been "perfect" and as good as he can get!

So what reason do we have to believe that Heaven is going to be any better than Earth?

TOUGH QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS #28
WHAT REASON DO WE HAVE TO BELIEVE HEAVEN WILL BE ANY BETTER THAN EARTH?

DID GOD SOMEHOW MAKE HEAVEN "MORE PERFECT" THAN HE MADE EARTH?

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com