WinAce

Plebe: thanks for the very informative and thought-provoking links. I'll make sure to use some of that material eventually and add your name to the contributor list

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: WinAce ]</p>

WinAce

*Changes name of questionnaire to "Thought-Provoking Questions on Christianity and Theism in General", replaces static ( ) answer boxes with radio button forms to alleviate boredom while filling it out, adds many questions*

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: WinAce ]</p>

WinAce

*Bumps for the benefit of all and cheap self-advertising*

GeoTheo

Win Ace,
Good stuff! Especially the mind/body dualism afterlife stuff. I ask a lot of these questions myself.
Some are pretty leading though. I don't see why you would make so many of them so obviously leading.
You make a lot of assumptions that many theists might not share.
such as :
Adam and Eve were historical people
Christians adopt Christianity merely because of Christian parents and don't study comparative religions.
You assume all Christians believe all unreached "heathen" go to Hell.
Some other things I can't think of off hand, but my point is I find myself disagreeing with some of your assumptions and through the leading questions being forced into making an unsatisfying choice and one from a very limited set.
I am busy right now with exams but when I have time I will go through it and critique it.
One thing though:
I look at some of these as good questions Christians should ask, but I wonder if you are under the impression that asking them can only lead to atheism. If so I find that slightly amusing.
I ask myself questions all the time and find my faith being strengthened. Ironic, eh?

Keith Russell

Geo:

What questions strengthen your faith?

And, what answers...?

Keith.

GeoTheo

I read J.P. Holdings critique and while I found his tone abrasive and hostile I think He made some valid points. I think your sources were pretty weak. I think a pleasant tone is always good to try to maintain but I wonder what kind of a tone would be best to get a point across to you.
Your intention is obviously to discredit Christianity using leading questions to force the reader into your foregone conclusion. People find that insulting. It is insulting. You also are a bit disingenuous in the introduction to the paper.
To put it nicely you "beat around the bush" and don't state your honest intention which is to discredit Christianity and illustrate that Christians are stupid people who hold irrational beliefs that can only be maintained by burrying ones head in the sand.
So, J.P. Holding wrote you a sarcastic aggressive response and you act like you have been injured by it in some way and that he was unfair.
I think Christians who see value in maintaining a pleasant positive tone have seen best to not respond. I think the angry responses are the only ones you'll get. It is because you are not being nice. You are presenting Christianity in the worse light possible and trying to "trap" people into agreeing with you through pointed leading questions.
I could do the same thing:
Atheists are usually former Christians in rebellion of their Christian upbringing which they found overly strict. In light of this do you really think it is more honest to admit the truth that you are merely angry at God or to continue to put on the facade of not believing in God?

That I feel is representative of your line of questioning.
On the other hand you (accidentally perhaps) touch on some questions that are important questions to ask that have actual bearing on the Christian faith. These are the types of questions I have asked myself and I feel God provided me and answer that gave me greater insight into the nature of God. Worshipping God is dependant on true knowledge of God, Therfore seeming contradictions are important things for Christians to examine. Being fallible humans it is quite likely we have gotten some things wrong and that they may be getting in the way of our understanding.
So in my case asking these questions works to remove doubt. Your pointed leading questions are designed to cause doubt and create further confusion. The confusion is caused by the fact that you don't have any new answers to present.
But I find when I ask questions and find out the answer I learn more about God.

GeoTheo

1. You would likely worship the Hellenistic Pantheon had you been born in ancient Greece. On a similar vein, you would likely worship Allah or Vishnu had you been
born in Iran or India today. Cultural influences are the single greatest factor deciding which religion you'll pick, with few individuals choosing one that's unpopular in
their country. Given this data, in your view, can belief in Christianity be a legitimate, fair criterion for deciding who goes to hell?
Yes No
This is a question I can only answer if I assume your assumptions are correct. In light of that the question is totally subjective and serves no purpose in seeking an answer other than to prove your assumption. It's like saying "If you were a horse and I were a carrot would you eat me?" and then calling me a canibal if i answer yes and calling me an idiot If I answer no because it is obvious horses eat carrots. The goal is not to ask a question you actually want an answer to but to merely manipulate the reader to reach your foregone conclusion.


2. Could an omnipotent God resolve thorny spiritual issues and pave the way to salvation without requiring faith in a single belief?
Yes No

Another meaningless question. What God "could do" is not at issue with Christians, but what he does do.

3. Assuming the above wasn't done, and anyone who isn't a Christian or otherwise exempt from judgment will be condemned: would you consider a being who is
content with at least 60% of humanity spending eternity in hell [2], with no chance of ever being forgiven for everyone, child rapists, medieval inquisitors, Hitler and
your friendly neighborhood agnostic included, worthy of human worship?
Yes No
"Assuming the above meaningless question is somehow valid, here is another set of unwarranted assertions to try on for size..." would have been a better( more accurate) way to introduce this question. I am not saying these topics are not things Christians should consider i.e. the salvation of mankind in light of the prevalence of unbelief and cultural factors that get in the way of sharing the gospel; I just object to how you phrase the questions. I also think there are many options left out in favor of the one you are so obviously driving at. Namely that God does not exist and that Christianity is ridiculous.
On the other hand Christians who present these topics in a much similar way should be questioned.
One thing to keep in mind though is that the Bible nowhere says that true belief is arrived at through adopting the culture around you. This does not provide salvation to "cultural Christians" either. It is a personal choice everyone has to make. Some people in other cultures may wrongly reject the truth in order to cave in to social pressure around them. I would say this would be greater in a radical muslem country but has no bearing on the truth of Christianity. You also leave out the option of people in non-Christian cultures that are genuinely seeking God and how theologians deal with this issue. Your whole line of questioning is built on the premise that all people in other cultures go straight to Hell for not having heard the gospel. Since each question builds on the earlier ones there is nothing for me to respond to from the get go.

4. Given both the sobering statistic given above and the full extent of God's supposed omnipotence and mercy, would you consider Christ's mission on Earth a
resounding success had you been an impartial, outside observer?
Yes No
Key word "given". It is not a given, therfore once again we have a totally meaningless question.

5. If Adam and Eve did not possess the knowledge of good and evil before eating the apple, did they nevertheless know that God was good, and Satan was evil,
which might have been necessary to fully understand why obeying God's order above Satan's suggestion was the right decision?
Yes No
No room here for anyone with anything other than a totally literal interpretation of Genesis. So here you leave out huge segments of Christianity.

6. If you answered 'yes', and they already had knowledge of good and evil, was there any real purpose to the Tree of Knowledge?
Yes No
see above

7. Would you consider throwing your kids out on the street for taking a chocolate chip cookie before dinner, when you clearly told them not to?
Yes No
???????

8. If you somehow answered 'yes' to the preceding question, would you eventually, someday consider letting them back in without conditions such as exclusive
worship of yourself required before forgiveness?
Yes No
The further you build on the original flawed assumption the more ridiculous these questions get. So I will skip down to one that has somthing for me.
O.K I read ahead and there is nothing for me in section 1. I will be back later to illustrate how I adress some of these issues and reach conclusions you leave out which strengthens my faith.

WinAce

Thanks

I try not to assume anything about the reader, which is why most questions with widely-differing interpretations have "If you subscribe to this view", "If you believe this", "a literal interpretation of Genesis", etc. I did notice the previous versions were somewhat too leading, but I thought I had changed all of them.

I don't insinuate that's the case, but you'd be surprised at the amount of people I meet who say "I don't need to study other religions, I already know I'm right" or similar. Many people, interestingly, have never studied any other religions or mythology outside of what they hear in church. :\

No, but I do pose some questions that make a belief in that, which many Christians hold to, difficult to reconcile with any kind of justice.

I try to make a minimum number of assumptions in the quiz, and when they occur they're clearly marked. Also, some of the more ambiguous questions have "Maybe" or "I don't know" answers. The rest can probably be answered with a Yes/No option.

A well-known Internet apologist at Tekton apologetics ministries already did.

That's just the confirmation bias talking

In all seriousness, I find the multiplicity of religions alone an overwhelmingly powerful argument against any of them being the one true path.

Since people believe in all religions for pretty much equal reasons, ranging from upbringing to cultural influence to wishful thinking to "it just seems right to me" to an experience that convinces them, holding such preference against anyone would be an absurdly arbitrary and unjust criterion for deciding something like your eternal fate.

Once you come to the realization that people believe in mutually exclusive religions for equally good reasons as you do, you're stuck. I can't see how anyone can remain a Christian or Muslim once that realization comes while thinking they're intellectually honest, although they have an excuse before that epiphany occurs.

babelfish

GeoTheo you said:

I realize you were just making a point by posing this question. However, I'm curious, do you actually think that this is true? I'm only asking because, in my experience, many Christians do feel that atheists are just angry at God and feeling a tad rebellious.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Most of my close friends are atheists. I know none whom are 'angry' at God.

Most of my atheist friends were raised by atheist parents. We are all in our 30s now, married, many of us (not me) have children, are well-adjusted, and not the least bit 'angry' at religion, our parents, 'God', ghosts, spirits, angels, demons, etc.

I have never been a Christian. I have never believed in 'God', though during my childhood I tried to, but could not find sufficient reason to do so.

It is silly to think that atheists feel anger at something they view as unreal.

If atheists were angry at 'God', that would mean that they believed in God.

We don't; we're atheists.

Keith.