Christian faith and prejudice

People have a variety of objections to the Christian faith and to God. Read if these objections and prejudices make sense

Content:

Isn't it stupid to believe in God? I'm an atheist myself and I'm sure there is no God.

Aren't Christianity and science contradictory?

Are the things mentioned in the Bible true? I personally don't believe them

Hasn't science proven that the Earth and life on it are at least hundreds of millions of years old?

How can you believe that the Bible is the word of God?

Why is the Christian faith the right one? What about other religions?

I cannot understand the injustices committed in the name of Christianity throughout history, or that some people today are blowing up abortion clinics.

I am progressive. I think Christianity represents outdated values ​​and an outdated worldview.

I can't understand why many Christians bless Israel. What about the situation of the Palestinians?

I want to be tolerant. I think Christianity represents an intolerant way of life.

I want to be tolerant. I think Christianity represents an intolerant lifestyle towards homosexuals.

I can't understand why some people have a negative attitude towards female priesthood.

I don't believe there is a judgment. God is unlikely to judge anyone.

Prayer of salvation

This article explores some of the most common prejudices and preconceived notions people have about the Christian faith. They come up again and again in the thoughts and attitudes of people who are skeptical of Christ and living faith. These questions also come up in interviews with journalists. They usually always ask the same questions about the Christian faith. That's why we study this topic in more detail. We begin with the existence of God.

Q: Isn't it foolish to believe in God? I myself am an atheist and I am sure that there is no God.

A: Both the idea that there is a God or that there is no God are both faith-based assumptions. How do you know that God does not belong to the sector that you have no knowledge of? He may be beyond our senses.

    It's a bit like if someone loses their keys on the street. He looks for them under the street lamp, "because there is better light and because you can't see in the dark". However, it is possible that the lost keys are exactly in that area in the dark, which the person is unable to see. So God can be in the area where we cannot see him.

Q: Aren't Christianity and science opposites?

A: When there are contradictions in this area, it is not a question of modern scientific studies, but of the interpretation of history - mainly about whether life arose by itself or from the hand of God, and whether or not real species changes have occurred. Both views, the one based on Bible’s announcement and the materialistic one, are based on belief. We cannot prove them afterwards, because we cannot go back in time. However, there are clear indications that the materialistic view is on weak ground on issues related to the early stages of life. That's because...

The origin of life has not been proven. When it comes to scientific research, there is a clear view in that area that life has a beginning. This is not disputed, because it is known that life depends on the sun (without the sun, the temperature on Earth would be almost -273 degrees, and that would make life impossible), and this source of heat cannot be eternal. At some point there must have been a moment when life emerged.

    And how did life begin? There are only two possibilities in that area: life has arisen by itself or God has created it. Both of these views are based on faith because we cannot go back in time and revise things.

    However, it is known that the birth of life by itself has not been proven. No proof has been found for that, even though some people want to believe so. The more information has accumulated, the more difficult it has been to defend this view. So, if we assume that God created everything, it is not at all a worse option than the birth of life by itself. On the contrary, it is more rational to assume that life emerged, because an almighty God created it, rather than believing it came about by itself. If the spontaneous birth of life is possible, why has it not been proven so far? It shouldn't be difficult if it has actually happened.

   Let's look at a quote related to Stanley Miller. He is a man who has become famous for his experiments related to the origin of life. He was interviewed towards the end of his life. J. Morgan tells the following about the interview:

He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (1)

No species changes have been observed in fossils or modern species. What about the validity of the theory of evolution? Many believe in it, but it is interesting that evolutionists themselves in their writings have brought out facts that refute the theory. They are enough to prove it false. Such material can also be found in the writings of Darwin. He himself admitted or had to admit three things that call his theory into question. If Darwin's statements are taken as such, he had no evidence in favor of evolution. The observations he made, which in themselves were fine and accurate descriptions of nature, refer only to variation in the framework of basic species.

1) Darwin did not possess any direct evidence proving that a species had changed into another:

I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (2)

2) Species are different from each other:

According to this theory, there must have been innumerable intermediate forms between species. Why is it then that we can-not find them buried inside the crust of the Earth? Why is it that the entire wildlife is not at a state of confusion instead of be-ing composed, as we can see, of clearly determined species? Geological research has not exposed the countless slight differ-ences between past and modern species that this theory requires. And this is the most apparent of the many arguments presented against it. However, the answer lies in the great inadequacy of geological findings. (3)

3) The fossil data put his theory to a major test:

But I could never have even imagined how weak is the evidence given by even the best preserved geological layers. The lack of innumerable intermediate forms between species that should have been living during the early and later stages of each formation has put my theory to a major test. (4)

Those who believe that the geological narrative is more or less perfect will certainly reject my theory. (5)

Darwin's contemporary, Richard Owen (1804-1892), a professor of comparative anatomy, criticized Darwin at the time for not taking the evidence as such. Darwin cited the inadequacy of the findings, but Owen stated that the only justification is to make use of the material that has hitherto been found and excavated. Based on it, one can predict the future. If it does not support the existence of intermediate forms, then the theory should be rejected. Owen's statement also shows that it is a question of what one wants to believe, not of true knowledge. Darwin's theory, which many consider important, has no reliable basis. It is a faith-based conception like the faith in creation, but the evidence in favor of it is weak. Those who follow Darwin do not want to admit this.

So far, durable and useful conclusions have really only been built on sure information. Now we are asked to accept the assumption by appealing to a lack of information. Geological records are said to be so imperfect! But what human record would not be imperfect? (...) But when Mr Darwin, when referring to the lack of the fossil intermediate forms that are a requirement for his hypothesis – the lack of the countless intermediate forms that should have existed at some point during the history of the world according to the "theory of natural selection" – loudly proclaims what can or cannot be left to be found in the layers that have not been touched yet, we would reply that we can only predict the future based on what we have already found. (...) Are there any cases in which a fossil has been proven to be such an intermediate form based on the facts observed? We have been searching in vain for such examples. (6)

Q: Are the things mentioned in the Bible real? I myself don’t believe in them.

A: We need to approach this subject through evidence. As far as we know, it is true that God’s existence cannot directly be proven, but that is not the case with events mentioned in the Bible. If they are in concordance with historic research and archeology, then we are dealing with science.

In this respect, the Bible is in a good place. Historic research and archeology have confirmed the accuracy of biblical events. Those researchers, who have doubted the Bible, have constantly been forced to let go of their assumptions. The following quotations relate to the historicalness of the Acts and other biblical Books. They show how events and details mentioned in the Bible become reinforced by other sources. If these are historical events, then they are scientific as well.

The historical accuracy of the Acts has proven to be amazing. (…) Any attempt to reject the fundamental quality of the history of the Acts, even in the small details, seems absurd. Researchers of the history of Rome have for a long time regarded it as self-evident. (7)

In a sense, this is exactly what archaeology does. If ancient historical details have been proven to be correct time and time again, we should also trust the stories of the historian in question that cannot be confirmed in the same way.

   I asked for a professional opinion from McRay. – What do you think: does archaeology prove or disprove the reliability of the New Testament when archaeologists study the details included in the stories?

   McRay immediately replied. – The reliability of the New Testament increases with research, there is no doubt about that. Just as the reliability of any ancient document is enhanced by the fact that, as the excavations progress, it is established that the author has provided correct information about some place or event (...)

   – The consensus among both liberal and conservative scientists is that Luke was very precise as a historian,, McRay replied. – He was a learned man, he was eloquent, his command of Greek was almost classical, he wrote like a well-educated man and archaeological findings have proven time and time again that Luke was very precise in his writings.

   McRay added that in many cases related to the harbour stories, scientists at first thought that some of Luke's references were false, but later findings have confirmed that he wrote the information correctly. (...)  One prominent archaeologist carefully studied Luke's references of 32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands without finding a single error. (8)

How about the miracles the Bible talks about? Many so-called scientific people think that the miracles reflect a worldview from the past, but that is a bad explanation. If the writers of the Bible accurately described secular events and details, why would they have not done the same in terms of the miracles? It is only the researchers’ religious prejudice that prevents them from accept-ing the fact that biblical descriptions could be true. These people and researchers are also affected by our time and it shows in their beliefs.

   Besides, there are mentions about the biblical miracles in other sources as well. For example, Jewish sources, the historian Josephus and Talmud have also referred to them. Other sources talk about miracles as well, such as the Apostolic Fathers’ writ-ings. Some of the people, who knew Jesus or the disciples, were still alive when these texts were written.

Q: Hasn't science proven the Earth and life on it to be at least hundreds of millions of years old?

A: It is a common belief, but it is possible to show clear incoherencies in the geological time chart and in radiocarbon measurements. They are the most important tools for age determination. We start with man because Jesus said that man already appeared in the early stages of creation:

- (Matt 19:4) And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

- (Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

The Carboniferous period and humans. According to the general viewpoint, the Carboniferous period took place ca. 300 million years ago, and the general opinion has also been that modern humans have lived on Earth for only a few tens of thousands of years. However, these assumptions contradict observations, as human fossils and items that belonged to humans have been found from the Carboniferous stratum (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, p. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). These discoveries indicate that people have lived on the planet for 300 million years, or we should measure coal layers of the Carboniferous period only in thousands of years.

Trilobites and humans. The general perception has been that trilobites went extinct 250 million years ago. However, some dis-coveries clearly indicate that trilobites and humans lived simultaneously. There cannot be 250 million years between their ap-pearances on the planet.

William Meister made an amazing discovery on June 1, 1968 in Utah. He found several trilobite fossils in a fossilized human sandal print! But according to evolutionary periods, arranged on the basis of geological strata, trilobites became extinct about 230 million years before man appeared!

    … Geologist Dr. Clifford Burdick found further evidence to support the hypothesis of human and trilobite coexistence. He found the footprints of a barefoot child, one of which contained a flattened trilobite. (9)

Dinosaurs and humans. The general view has been that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. However, there are numerous heritage stories that describe large dragons and lizards, which seem to have a resemblance to dinosaurs. These descriptions, which may be based on old recollections, are found among many different peoples, so that English, Irish, Danish, Norwegian, German, Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Babylonian literature mention them. The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) explains these stories:

The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology.

Human evolution. The naturalistic philosophy assumes that humans have evolved even though it is well known that remains which are clearly from the modern man have been found in older layers than those of their assumed forefathers. We face this problem also if we use only the dating and classification used by the evolutionists themselves:

The next facts are about fossil data of man. First of all, fossils that cannot be distinguished from the modern man based on their external characteristics have been timed at up to 4. 5 million years in the past. Based on this it seems that there were genuine people well before the Australopithecus appeared in the fossil data.

   (...) Based on the fossil data, we can state that when humans first appeared they were already fully humans. The fact that our forefathers suddenly appeared, morphologically fully humans, means that the fossil data complies with the ideology of Creation. This fact is undisputable even if fossils are arranged in order based on the evolutionistic dating system (although we believe this dating system is inherently flawed). In other words, even if we were to approve the evolutionists’ fossil dating system, the final result would not support the idea of human evolution. In fact, the results are so contrary to human evolution that they practically prove the theory wrong. Such is the true nature of human fossil history. (10) 

Radiocarbon in fossils. Radiocarbon, which has a half-life of only 5730 years, has been repeatedly found in coal, peat, petroleum, natural gas deposits, and even fossils from the Cambrian period (supposed to begin 600 million years ago). Such discoveries show that the deposits and fossils cannot be even 100,000 years old.

In the early years of the invention, it was believed that all the preconditions needed to make accurate age measurements were now present. Researchers gathered all kinds of things to measure: items from the tombs of pharaohs and Neanderthals, teeth of sabre-tooth tigers and mammoths, fossils, crude oil, etc. Radiocarbon was found in all of them. These observations regarding age were published in Radiocarbon magazine. Many of the samples had previously been dated as being millions of years old. (11)

Radioactivity. The radiocarbon method is only suitable for measuring organic substances. Instead, other radioactivity methods are used to measure stones.

    These radioactivity methods have given interesting results in those cases where the time of crystallization of the stones is known. For in reality, stones that are less than 200 years old may have been, according to measurements, even two to three billion years old. This shows how big the differences can be between reality and measurement results. If the methods are unreliable in those cases where the time of crystallization is known, how can they be reliable when this time is not known? It is worth noting that these methods measure concentrations, but the stones themselves do not have any markings or tags about their age.

The lava rock created in the volcanic eruption on Hualalai Island about 170 years ago was studied and its age was determined using new methods. With these "reliable" radiation meters, the age of the 170-year-old rock was estimated to be millions of years, from 160 million to 3 billion years. The same has happened in other similar measurements. Attempts were also made to measure the age of the layers of the Grand Canyon using these mentioned new methods. The results again surprised the researchers. The "young" basalt rock of the uppermost layers was 270 million years older than the "thousands of millions of years old rock layer" at the bottom of the canyon. After these measurements, the time estimates previously given by evolutionists for the rocks and deposits in the canyon have been partially transferred to the "old beliefs”. (12)

Q: How can one believe that the Bible is the word of God?

A: This issue cannot be directly proven. On the other hand, a person who turns to Jesus Christ usually very soon gets the understanding that it is really so. No one needs to talk to him about it.

    A person who has not turned to God should approach this matter through whether the Bible is historically reliable. If the history of the Bible is true, e.g. the general ideas about the beginning of the universe are then wrong. It's that simple. And it is worth noting that numerous events in the Bible are confirmed by other sources. They include mentions of many people and places in the New Testament, but also descriptions of the Fall, the confusion of languages, the Tower of Babel and hundreds of flood stories. There are also signs of the Flood in all the high mountains. Many nature programs have brought out the same point.

    Another way is to familiarize yourself with the contents of the Bible. The core message in everything is how to get in touch with God. If a person is honest and sincere, and really wants to get clarity on things, he will also find it. At the same time, the question of the meaning of the Bible is solved.

- (Matt 7:8) For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.

- (John 7:17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Q: Why would Christian faith be the right kind of faith? What about the other religions?

A: Usually the fundamental of all religions is to get closer to God and to receive salvation and God’s acceptance by doing good actions. But the problem is that people cannot find assurance of salvation like that. It’s impossible, because people are faulty and far away from being perfect. This is true, no matter the religion. Paul Little tells about his observations:

The Muslims do not have an assurance of salvation either. I have often asked the Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists whether they are going to nirvana or heaven after they die. None of them has been able to give me a definitive answer. They have rather referred to the incompleteness of their life, which is an impediment in reaching this goal. (13)

What the Bible teaches is different from the previous one. It tells how God Himself has approached us through His Own Son and done everything for us so that we can receive forgiveness of sins and communion with Him. It is no longer about our own goodness or efforts, but about the gift of God, which can be received through Jesus Christ. Jesus was and is the Son of God, who came here from heaven and removed the gap between God and man. Therefore, it is possible to experience salvation and reassurance through Him. Indeed, many can testify that as they have received Jesus Christ in their lives, they have experienced these things.

- (2 Cor 5:19,20) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be you reconciled to God.

- (John 8:23,24) And he said to them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.

- (John 14:1-6) Let not your heart be troubled: you believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.

5 Thomas said to him, Lord, we know not where you go; and how can we know the way?

6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

Q: I cannot understand all the wrongdoings committed in the name of Christianity throughout history, or that some people these days blow up abortion clinics.

A: You are absolutely right, in that many wrong and peculiar things have been done in the name of God and Christianity. However, the clear message of Jesus is that ”all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt 26:52). Moreover, Jesus and the disciples taught that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Similarly, Paul warned that after his departure savage wolves would come. Therefore, we should understand that many acts done in the name of God, are done by such people, who don’t know God.

- (Matt 7:21-23) Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

- (1 Cor 6:9) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived…

- (Acts 20:29-31) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Q: I am progressive. I think Christianity represents outdated values and an outdated world view.

A: What is progress? There are always currents that are considered modern in their own time. In the 1930s, Hitler was very popular and considered progressive, but he brought suffering to humanity.

    Similarly, Darwin was considered progressive, but there is still a lack of evidence in favor of the theories he presented. He was a keen observer of nature, but it has been impossible to prove his theory of macroevolution correct.

    What if happiness is the yardstick? There has been hardly any progress in that area in recent decades. On the contrary, the increase in single-parent families and the greatly increased depression and foster care among children and young people indicate a trend for the worse. Technology has gotten better, but this important area, happiness, has shown a decline. The biggest reason is probably the selfishness brought by the new freedom and morality.

    What about the notion that Christianity represents an outdated worldview? This is an absolutely absurd notion, because eternal things are always current and modern. Because if a person is a being of eternity, and God calls him to eternal life through Jesus Christ, so what the so-called modern worldviews and currents can offer instead? Nothing at all. They are all poor and insignificant things next to these great truths. They cannot give eternal life and forgiveness of sins to people.

Q: I cannot understand why many Christians bless Israel. What about the Palestinians?

A: The situation in the Middle East is very difficult and there are no easy solutions.

The fact that Israel is being blessed and that people pray for the country is good, because that way we can receive God’s bless-ing for our own country (Gen 27:29, Gen 12:3). It doesn’t mean that we should be accepting of wrongdoings, but we can still pray for Israel, as we can pray for any other nation, including the Palestinians.

Building settlements is related to the issue. Many outsider nations don’t approve of this and think Israel has no rights to build. They don’t take into consideration that, for example, the Old Jerusalem, being one of the flashpoints, was the center of ancient Israel and that the same city majorly consisted of Jewish people already in the 19th century (in 1896 this city had 45420 inhabit-ants; 61,9 % Jewish, 19,3 % Christians and 18,8 % Muslims.). Outsider nations with their leaders also don’t want to admit that Israel is an independent country, which has the rights to build inside its boarders like any other country (This does not mean that we couldn’t try to find some kind of a negotiation solution to solve the current problems between the Palestinians and the Jews). Many thus get involved in the country's internal affairs. This kind of intervention does not usually happen to other countries, although they might be having similar issues.

Q: I want to be tolerant. I think Christianity represents an intolerant way of life.

A: When people talk about tolerance, they often mean two things: abortion and the practice of homosexuality. If a person thinks these things are wrong, it shows intolerance in their opinion.

    However, what some consider tolerance is often sympathy for the wrong things. People "have pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess 2:12) and they regard as heroes those persons who promote these things. People do not know how to be ashamed of defending the wrong things, but they even boast about it. (Jer 6:14,15: They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? no, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, said the LORD.). Besides, favoring the wrong things is quite different from caring about people. Every person should be respected and valued (1 Peter 2:17), but that is quite different than defending things that are obviously wrong. This difference is not understood or does not want to be understood.

    When opinions are divided on these issues, it is noteworthy that the most enthusiastic supporters of the previous issues can be found in big cities, supporters of left-wing parties and greens, and young people. The question is, are these groups or parties more tolerant than others? Can tolerance be associated only with a few parties, place of residence or age group, or is it a matter of differences of opinion regarding right and wrong?

    Certainly the latter option is correct, i.e. it is a matter of differences of opinion regarding right and wrong. Because if the representatives of a few parties or a certain age group were more loving than others, they should also show it in other matters. Are they also ahead of others in hospitality, good manners and in polite behavior towards others? Or is it just a matter of imagination that these people have adopted in their delusion? Isn't it a fact that people in rural areas are significantly ahead in these matters, even though there is less support for abortion and practicing homosexuality? This matter is not as simple as it is often presented in the media.

    If only abortion is considered, it is worth asking what is tolerance and what is not. Because it is known that a unique human being is destroyed in every abortion, supporting this issue is the greatest intolerance (This is not to belittle the people who have become pregnant through, for example, rape. Fortunately, these cases are only a few percent of the total number of abortions). Many are horrified if children or babies are killed, but abortion is no different from this. Ultrasound imaging has shown how early on the fetus has the same body parts as we do – eyes, hands, feet, mouth, nose, ears and other body parts. The sex of the child can also be checked with the same ultrasound scan. In India and China, this has led to the killing of female children. In India, there are only 914 women per thousand men.

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life

Grap to eternal life!

More on this topic:

Six major lies. Six arguments that appear in the literature of God-rejecting people. Read why they are not worth believing in and why they are based on a lie

An open letter to Skepsis ry. The scientific or unscientific nature of the Skepsis Association? Learn how representatives of Skepsis are not scientific, though they may think so

Dawkins and The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins is known for his anti-Godliness, as evidenced by the book The God Delusion. Read whether Dawkins' arguments make sense or not

The book and society. Read how the Bible and the Christian faith have affected literacy, health care, and other positive ways. Many are blind to this fact

Is God good or bad? Is God good and just or not? Many do not realize that Jesus was and is the perfect image of a heavenly God

Christian faith and prejudice. People have a variety of objections to the Christian faith and to God. Read if these objections and prejudices make sense

Why grace is rejected? The most common reasons and objections that cause people to turn their backs on God and salvation. Read why they are bad excuses

People who reject God. Today, people in the West reject God because they do not believe in creation or disagree on moral issues