The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Plato said:
You are assuming “true Christians” would never go to war. That is an error. The Church teaches that just wars are possible and right under certain conditions.

Are you saying a “true Christian” is one who would never oppose evil under any circumstances, but would merely permit evil to have ascendency under all circumstances?

I think a proper assessment of Christ’s teachings would disabuse you of that idea.

Think about it…

If someone were raping your child would you use force to stop them? What if they continued despite all your attempts to stop them? Would you use lethal force?

I wouldn’t suppose that Christ’s admonition to turn the other cheek means permitting evil to flourish under all circumstances. That has never been the Church’s position through history.
Click to expand...
But why nations should go to war if they are all true Christian?
 
Peter_Plato said:
Okay, this is a different question. The problem is with defining “true Christian” and whether the motives of both warring nations are purely Christian or something else entirely.

You need to provide an example of what you consider two “true Christian” countries going to war with each other.

Given just war theory, I would argue two Christian nations going to war with each other for truly Christian motives would be impossible. Some other element - misunderstanding, greed, cultural disagreements, etc., - would have to be present. Such a war could not be justified under truly Christian principles, even though two nominally Christian countries might war with each other.
Click to expand...
If they went to war they wouldn’t be able to justify their motives, they have the Word of God in the Scriptures. How could they justify it over the authority of God’s Word, that would be like going above the law to commit a crime and hoping to get a way with it.
So it would be impossible to justify it according to the authority of God’s Word.
 
STT said:
But why nations should go to war if they are all true Christian?
Click to expand...
You have to demonstrate that both sides are “true Christian” and fighting against each other on “true Christian” principles.

Give an example.

It isn’t enough to say “it’s possible.” Show that it is.
 
neonblue said:
If they went to war they wouldn’t be able to justify their motives, they have the Word of God in the Scriptures. How could they justify it over the authority of God’s Word, that would be like going above the law to commit a crime and hoping to get a way with it.
So it would be impossible to justify it according to the authority of God’s Word.
Click to expand...
That is basically correct. A Christian country could not unilaterally declare or start a war as the belligerent party. Just war theory pretty much rules that out in principle.

Just war theory is pretty much a self-defense or defense of the innocent justification. It cannot justify starting the aggression, merely warrants retaliation in response to unjust aggression.
 
Peter_Plato said:
You have to demonstrate that both sides are “true Christian” and fighting against each other on “true Christian” principles.

Give an example.

It isn’t enough to say “it’s possible.” Show that it is.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that it is possible. I meant it is impossible that a war between nations occurs if they are true Christian.
 
Peter_Plato said:
You have to demonstrate that both sides are “true Christian” and fighting against each other on “true Christian” principles.

Give an example.

It isn’t enough to say “it’s possible.” Show that it is.
Click to expand...
It all comes down to conscience and the authority of God’s word, a true Christian would know the authority of God’s Word and then of course God becomes his conscience or I should the Holy Spirit of God becomes his conscience.
I won’t give an example, I been a Christian for 30yrs. and most of those yrs. were spent in reading the Scriptures ,well perhaps I will give one example if I put myself in the shoes of those “true Christians” you talked about I rather obey the authority of God’s Word and let His peace reign in my conscience.
 
neonblue said:
It all comes down to conscience and the authority of God’s word, a true Christian would know the authority of God’s Word and then of course God becomes his conscience or I should the Holy Spirit of God becomes his conscience.
I won’t give an example, I been a Christian for 30yrs. and most of those yrs. were spent in reading the Scriptures ,well perhaps I will give one example if I put myself in the shoes of those “true Christians” you talked about I rather obey the authority of God’s Word and let His peace reign in my conscience.
Click to expand...
I was asking STT to give the example. It was STT’s post I was responding to.
 
Tomdstone said:
True Scotsman fallacy.
Click to expand...
So, tell me, is this a “true” whale or a “true” shark?

It is known as a whale shark.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

How would you know?

So, if I were to claim it wasn’t a true whale but it was a “true” shark, what would you say? Am I invoking a True Scotsman fallacy by doing so? Why wouldn’t I be, according to your standards?
 
Bradski said:
Well, that’s what I told my kids when they were growing up. And I’m pretty certain that that’s what they’ll be telling theirs as well. That sometimes, whether you believe in God or not, or whether He exists or not, whether you are good or not, whether you deserve it or not, sometimes bad things happen.
Click to expand...
And I’m certain it wasn’t a satisfactory answer for your children.

“Danny suffered and died at age 12, and that’s just the way it is, Son.”

That doesn’t answer the question, at all.
 
STT said:
I didn’t say that it is possible. I meant it is impossible that a war between nations occurs if they are true Christian.
Click to expand...
Do you mean “true Christians who never sin”?

For one can certainly be a “true Christian” but fall short of the mark, repeatedly.
 
Peter_Plato said:
So, tell me, is this a “true” whale or a “true” shark?

It is known as a whale shark.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LlZ7beUu_tk/Tv51hTIx84I/AAAAAAAAEk8/AoOwMQYMWWQ/s1600/whale_shark_2.jpg

How would you know?

So, if I were to claim it wasn’t a true whale but it was a “true” shark, what would you say? Am I invoking a True Scotsman fallacy by doing so? Why wouldn’t I be, according to your standards?
Click to expand...
I suppose that just as Christians have fought against each other, so too have various fish and aquatic animals fought against each other. The battles are fought regardless of which one is the true specimen. Living creatures smell by God. The label “true” smells by man.
 
Tomdstone said:
I suppose that just as Christians have fought against each other, so too have various fish and aquatic animals fought against each other. The battles are fought regardless of which one is the true specimen. Living creatures smell by God. The label “true” smells by man.
Click to expand...
I suppose changing the subject counts as answering the question. :rolleyes:

So you are not really interested in defending your point, then?
 
PRmerger said:
And I’m certain it wasn’t a satisfactory answer for your children.

“Danny suffered and died at age 12, and that’s just the way it is, Son.”

That doesn’t answer the question, at all.
Click to expand...
Precisely. It is a form of fatalism which implies we have no power to change anything, even the way we think - which is obviously self-contradictory. Our conclusions are more likely to be false than true if we cannot choose what to believe. There are far more ways of being wrong than right…
 
PRmerger said:
And I’m certain it wasn’t a satisfactory answer for your children.

“Danny suffered and died at age 12, and that’s just the way it is, Son.”

That doesn’t answer the question, at all.
Click to expand...
Precisely. It is a form of fatalism which implies we have no power to change anything, even the way we think - which is obviously self-contradictory. Our conclusions are more likely to be false than true if we cannot choose what to believe. There are far more ways of being wrong than right… and the burden of proof is still on non-believers to prove God doesn’t exist… Why else have so many atheists tried to prove “that’s just the way it is”? Determinism is only a human theory (which doesn’t correspond to the way any sane person lives).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top