The subject of the following refutation is an Atheist apologist and anti-Christian Polemicist on Youtube. In the opening statement, he likens Christianity to an organism. He says: "...its the survival of the fittest, and the religion with the best defense mechanisms is best suited to increase its numbers and flourish..." Well the author has some news for the polemicist: this "defense" is an inherent attribute of truth! Truth is self-evident (if not immediately, then after a period of study and meditation), and therefore has the "best defense mechanism:" itself. It therefore can be defended and believed in. I must warn you, this one is a little dry compared to some. Far too often, Youtube posters take long breaths and pauses that extend the length of their videos. But, the author shall thoughtfully consider the points brought up none-the-less in a spirit of patience and in love for fellow human beings.
======================================================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB6sYnIDLdw
======================================================
This Youtube video is being refuted point by point. The polemicist in question lists 7 points in his presentation. He attacks Christianity in general.Therefore, this attack is more specifically on Orthodox Christianity, despite the fact that yet again, a Protestant straw-christ is attacked. The Orthodox Christians know that their Church is the Church of the 1st Century A.D., and represents objectively true Christian doctrine, due to our direct maintenance of Holy Tradition for 2 millenia.
1.) Faith:
Whether we realize it or not, faith is not a concept exclusive to spiritual people and spiritual matters. As a matter of fact, faith can be found within science. Yes you read correctly, there is faith involved in scientific thought. When an individual reads a physics textbook, they are putting their faith in the scientists and authors who provided the information within. When one scientist utilizes the data published by another, they put their faith in the correctness of that data. Who is to say, perhaps the information provided on the chemical/geologic composition of the moon isn't the product of some elaborate cabal, aimed at misguiding the general public's understanding of lunar science?
We know that stars are spheres of reacting gasses, yet no astronaut has ever been inside our own sun, let alone any other star. An unmanned space module has never collected data inside of the sun either. Yet we trust from what we do know that indeed certain specific reactions are occurring which emit visible light and radiation from stars.
Probably the majority of those who read this article have never seen a platypus up close. They have never pet one, or witnessed one living in its natural environs. Why do we who have never seen a platypus in person trust biologists and zoologists when they write scholarly documents regarding this peculiar species? This furry, billed,venomous, web-footed little creature could be a fairy tale constructed by scientists complete with doctored photos, doctored videos, contrived taxidermic specimens, and animatronic models. Yet we seem to have faith that this creature exists despite never having personally examined one.
So why is it such a stretch to put faith in a man who willingly died on a cross, in a death he could have avoided due to His insightful teachings which the corrupt could not bare; a man Whose life was documented by people who later suffered torture and death for their faith in Him, Whom they could/would have denied had their religion been connivery for the sake of material affluence (which is the reason for the synthesis of false religions)? What about the historical account's of Jesus of Nazareth from those who were not His followers (Flavius Josephus, et al.)? What is wrong with placing faith in the Christian God after hearing of those who say they have had their lives improved by this God, whether by embracing his teachings or through a Divine miracle? Is it really that unreasonable?
Regarding what the polemicist says about those who question the Christian faith, he ought to investigate the "Doubting Thomas Incident" (John 20:24-29).
2.) Sent by Satan:
If indeed there is an unholy being, a father of evil, a great deceiver, then certainly all untruth would originate with him. But of course if one does not believe in Satan, then they aren't going to believe that deceptions and spiritual delusions are a product of his rebellion against God, and thus, against all truth.
3.) We cannot know the mind of God:
A question to the polemicist: If divinity actually exists, if there is indeed true spirituality, do you honestly think that you would be able to comprehend it? As for the "mind" of God, you can't even read your neighbor's mind, sir, let alone understand and visualize the essence of God! You can't even comprehend the atoms that compose the Enter Key on your computer!
Also: the Orthodox Church does not believe in "Total Depravity," another Protestant teaching.
4.) Different Denominations:
Why are their different "denominations?" The answer is simple; so simple that some may overlook it. Each group which calls itself a church whether they be Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Evangelical, or whatever "denomination," possesses different doctrines. They believe different things, and are therefore in disagreement. They are not 1 united group. In some cases, like in many Protestant circles, there is a lack of preserved, guarded doctrine. Sometimes, the concept of "doctrine" is even looked down upon.
One of the common logical fallacies that Atheist apologists propagate, is heaping everyone who calls themselves Christians into one contiguous, or in some cases homogeneous group. In fact, this is not the case at all. If you are going to attack Calvinists over the teaching of predestination, you cannot implicate Roman Catholics since they do not believe in this. Likewise, when attacking Protestantism in general, often (perhaps the majority of the time) the Orthodox Faith itself is not being attacked, but rather, Protestant concepts such as the "blood atonement" come under fire. But still, the Atheist apologist claims to attack "Christianity" by showing the inherent falsity of a Protestant doctrine, and therefore, sets fire to a straw-man wearing a name tag saying: "Orthodox Christianity." If one really desires to critique Christianity, they ought to talk about Orthodox Christianity, not about Protestantism.
5.) That's Allegory:
The Bible stories are considered to be true events and not mere allegory. Some particularly liberal Protestant ministers have claimed that the stories therein regarding "physical impossibilities" are allegory. However, as stated before, their view of Biblical events is false. Their view of ecclesiology and theology is not that of the 1st century Church, but rather of later invention. Thank you for attacking a straw-christ once again.
The polemicist claims that the story of The 3 Little Pigs is more plausible than certain Biblical stories. No supporting evidence or discussion is given for this fallacious claim. It would be interesting to see him try to defend his reasoning on this one.
If an event is "physically impossible" given medical science or anything else, the logical conclusion is that there was some operation going on that was not of this world. If indeed God exists, what is so hard about believing that He has power over physics and chemistry?
6.) Heaven and Hell:
As in the preceding article, the Orthodox understanding of Heaven and Hell is quite different from that of Protestantism, and a clarification is therefore required. The angry "God" of Protestant thought is the one attacked by this polemicist. He ought to educate himself about the Christian God: the God of the Orthodox Church.
7.) That's the Old Testament:
The polemicist needs to gain a better understanding of Old Testament violence. God's "just retribution" or "punishment" is always corrective. On a different note, in order to protect and preserve the Hebrew people, their unjust enemies had to be stopped from annihilating them.
"I have no desire in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live..." (Ezek 33:11).
What is most interesting when it comes to atheist attacks on the Old Testament, is that they attempt to use Christian morals and ethics to attack specific, prescriptive acts in it!
Conclusion:
Ultimately, what was described in the polemic video is not the Christian faith, but rather a nicely packaged set of misunderstandings; a category composed by the polemicist and labeled: "Christianity." The Orthodox Church knows and upholds the doctrines of the Apostles, and unfortunately many people who believe in Jesus Christ do not have these truths. May God have mercy on them and on the polemicist and guide them to truth. Also: may the polemicist in question educate himself on the faith of the 1st Century Christian Church, which is present in its fullness in the Orthodox Church today.
No comments:
Post a Comment