Question:
Why do Christians use such poor arguments?
anonymous
2015-08-05 20:39:32 UTC
I don't mean to generalize; this is just something I've noticed in the Christians I've spoken to. I'm a Christian myself. They always say that we 'came from monkeys', which isn't true. I've also noticed many using the 'God of the gaps' fallacy.

A post on Instagram was saying that evolution couldn't possibly be true because our feet look different from an ape's. When I tried to correct them, they called me 'a deceiver' and said that they could spot a false Christian from a mile away. I tried to correct them once again to say that, no, I didn't believe in evolution (I was a YEC at the time. I now am open to the possibility of evolution and have decided that the earth is old) but they ignored me.

Why do Christians use such poor arguments? It's driving me crazy! Well-educated Christians, please show yourselves! I know you're out there.

*If you are a Christian who uses good arguments and sound logic during debates, this question doesn't apply to you. I don't mean to generalize. :)
Eighteen answers:
anonymous
2015-08-05 20:44:57 UTC
It's one of the things that made me reject Christianity. I graduated from Cedarville College (now University), and I saw that evolution was being misrepresented by TENURED PROFESSORS, as were religions like Buddhism and Islam. And I saw that even atheism was misrepresented.



Why? I couldn't tell you, except for the fact that there are no really good scientific arguments against evolution at this point. So if there are no good ones, then they have to resort to bad ones, because the theology of many millions of Christians rests upon the historicity of the Eden and Flood myths. Without those, the theological necessity for Jesus's death and resurrection falls apart. And if you can't trust the Bible's history regarding Adam and Eve and Noah, how can you trust it when it comes to Jesus?
Nous
2015-08-06 03:00:24 UTC
What are you so afraid of that you ignore the truth?!!



Primates are mammals that include lemurs, monkeys, apes and humans.



The Strepsirrhini, or “wet-nosed” primates, which include lemurs and lorises, branched off around 63 million years ago.



Old World monkeys and apes divided from New World monkeys about 40 million years ago.



Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, which probably resembles the common ancestor of New World monkeys and apes, lived about 29 million years ago.



The apes split from Old World monkeys about 25 million years ago.



Humans and chimpanzees diverged 5-7 million years ago.



Of the macaque's nearly 3 billion DNA base pairs, 93.5 per cent are identical to those in the human genome. This is not unexpected for a species whose lineage diverged from our own about 25 million years ago. The human and chimp genomes, which diverged just 6 million years ago, are about 98 per cent identical.



One puzzling discovery is that several mutations that cause genetic diseases in humans - such as phenylketonuria and Sanfilippo syndrome, which lead to mental retardation - are the normal form in macaques and, presumably, our own ancestors.



So on each split the original got left behind to stay as it was!



The first true hominid has been shown to almost certainly arrived in the Great Rift Valley but as a product of evolving from it's monkey and ape ancestry!!



In many ways trying to deny these facts is worse than the creationinsts fantasies!!



Both show a desire to ignore the truth!!



So what extremist sect or cult has indoctrinated you to believe that God was not clever enough to use the big bang, evolution and science as his tools?!



The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!!



Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at your expense!!
?
2015-08-05 20:57:27 UTC
To be perfectly candid with you, the level of discourse and intellectual quality of arguments from both positions (theism and atheism) has been in decline for several decades, and probably longer. I am not sure it has as much to do with atheism or theism as it does with the decline in the quality of education and the change in the focus of education. My observations have been that in an attempt to objectify outcomes using standardized testing the public school system has shifted the paradigm from teaching students HOW to think to teaching students WHAT to think. Lost in the process are the teaching of critical thinking skills. For example the scientific method is given lip service in the first week of science classes and , the rest of the class is spent having students memorize scientific claims to regurgitate for the standardized test. This of course is done at the expense of learning how to apply the scientific method to answer questions. Logic and rhetoric are virtually non-existent prior to college and 6 credit hours of philosophy of science that used to be required for science majors when I was in college is now an elective. With so little time spent working to teach students how to think and how to find their own answers, is it any wonder that the level of debate has declined as result?
anonymous
2015-08-05 21:12:35 UTC
There are Christians with better arguments. Look up C.S. Lewis, Timothy Keller, and Francis Collins.
?
2015-08-05 20:47:40 UTC
I asked the same question myself when I was a Christian. I was one of those well-educated Christians you mention.



Fundamentalists (not so much with educated Christians) have a fundamental problem with their brains: they are practicing the idolatry of their own opinions. They say "My understanding of the bible and the universe is that evolution is false and I refuse to change it." A more intelligent believer might say "Evolution contradicts my view of the bible. Perhaps God didn't intend the bible to be a science book and wanted me to read it as a religious book." A non-fundamentalist Christian does not idolize their own biblical interpretation, but understands that facts are facts and the bible should not be in opposition to them.



Fundamentalists treat the bible like something it was NEVER written to be--a science book. Every single author of the bible intended them to be religious texts, not science books. Maybe you should get to a church where open mindedness and education are welcome.
fred
2015-08-05 20:42:49 UTC
Because many Christians don't understand what Christianity or the Bible teaches, and so they cannot logically explain why they believe it.



As for evolution, which the Bible neither explicitly teaches nor denies, many people in the modern church have come to believe that accepting evolution requires denying God, and so they argue against logically sound science.
anonymous
2015-08-05 20:50:48 UTC
Honestly, it's because the religion wouldn't stand up if it was hosted by people who only accepted logical debate.



There would be the select few, as you say, but that wouldn't be enough for it to spread.
?
2015-08-05 20:45:35 UTC
Christians argue to the full intellectual extent of which they're capable. It's unfair to blame them for being unable to do better.
anonymous
2015-08-05 20:41:20 UTC
Beats poor agreements.
PaulCyp
2015-08-05 20:42:56 UTC
It's really sad when a Protestant denomination insists we have to reject objective reality in order to accept their unauthoritative misinterpretations of the Bible.
Matthew
2015-08-05 20:58:19 UTC
Being Christian and having the ability to have rational arguments are mutually exclusive states of being. Period.
anonymous
2015-08-05 20:41:36 UTC
those Christians need to study the Bible more, and that "evolution" nonsense less !! when we were young, we were taught that humans came from a tadpole that had "evolved" human features
Jeremy
2015-08-05 20:40:23 UTC
That's good advice. I respect that.
?
2015-08-06 12:25:12 UTC
Its all they have and they are incapable of thinking so they cannot come up with anything better.
?
2015-08-05 20:42:48 UTC
There is no God of the gaps fallacy except in atheism.
RoseThistleArtworks
2015-08-05 20:53:53 UTC
God's Word teaches that there was an age before this second age. The first age lasted millions/billions of years. This second age is only thousands of years where we all live in temporary flesh bodies and God fulfills, at a very great price through Jesus Christ, His plan of offering salvation to eternal life in the third age, to every individual 'whosoever believeth in Him'. (John 3:14-21 KJV) regardless of race, nationality, or governmental system they live within.



We were all with God in spirit bodies in the first age before satan's downfall, where a third of God's children followed him. Instead of destroy those third right then, God destroyed the first age - the katabole - and made this second age where we all live in temporary flesh bodies and are born with memories erased in order to see how satan rules and how God rules and choose. God will not interfere if an individual chooses to fight the battles of satan and this world without His help, unless that individual sincerely repents of their own sins that have separated them from Him and asks Him to help. There are some souls that already chose Him in the first age and fought on His side against satan and there are some that have chosen Him in this age and ask Him to work His will through their flesh lives. These are called the 'elect' or 'remnant' in God's Word - some examples of these are Job, Joseph, the prophets.



You can find all three ages written of in 2 Peter 3 KJV. The katabole is described in Jeremiah 4:18-27 KJV, unlike the later flood of Noah's time, there was 'no man' left and 'the cities thereof were broken down'.



Archaeologists find paintings, tools, footprints, cities and evidence of people being here, but no human bone fossils older than 14,000 years because we were in spirit bodies until the katabole.



The word translated into the English word, "God" in that verse is 'elohiym' which means God and His children. We were with Him in spirit bodies when He made this second earth age. So, God made His flesh body look like He looks there.



John 14:9 KJV Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?







...And God made our flesh bodies look like we look there. *male and female created He them*.







There is a difference in the Hebrew that does not come through in the translation to English between adam=man and eth ha adam=The Man Named Adam. But, you can see the difference here in The Green's interlinear http://s35.photobucket.com/user/hafdcnt/media/Genesispagescan1.jpg.html



a magnified version of the relevant portion http://s35.photobucket.com/user/hafdcnt/media/scan0001.gif.html





Genesis 1:1 KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.



Isaiah 45:18 KJV For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.



Genesis 1:2 KJV And the earth (became)/was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.





Three ages Bible studies:



http://www.kjvbible.org/katabole.html



http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/threeworldages.htm



http://levendwater.org/companion/append146.html



"was" or "became"?

(Genesis 1:2)

Gen 1:2 And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"Some scholars also argue against translating hayah "became" instead of "was" in Genesis 1:2 because they assume this interpretation came about only recently, after geology revealed the strata of the earth to be very old. Thus they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with modern geology. The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.



Yet the interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years:

• The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic versions of the Old Testament, translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste." The original language led them to understand that something had occurred that had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

• The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917,

p. 342).

• In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2: "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?'" (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, Part I, Chapter VI). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

• According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Epíscopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology discovered evidence for the ancient origin of earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin-that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology-is groundless.



Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2. Dr. Custance states, "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (1970, p. 7)."
Ernest S
2015-08-05 20:48:02 UTC
So how old was the Earth when it was created?
anonymous
2015-08-05 20:46:09 UTC
Homeschooling has its limits.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...