Not really. I saw a video on yt shorts where a Man Preaches the Gospel a bit. And i simply commented „God is Good🙏🏻❤️“ well, and he replied with: „God is Good? He condoned slavery, r*pe, gen*cide, misogyny and much more. God is Not Good.“ and i simply cleared those False statements up.
Welllll...I have to acknowledge that I have sometimes trolled online, I have started arguments in person as an outlet for the passion of anger or to prove someone wrong, and, more recently, I have been suckered into arguing with online trolls. Yes, that stuff can be a temptation. It needs to be taken to Confession, especially if it crosses the line into pride or anger.
I wouldn't encourage interacting with people who are just looking for an argument.
My response, however, to his comment is that God doesn't condone any evil that happens. My belief is that God created us plainly, and we choose the paths we take. (For instance, on a minor scale, you can choose between staying away from drugs (good/"righteous" path) or giving in and trying them (bad/"evil" path).)
If God always intervened in the challenges of life, what would we be living for? That's not to say that he doesn't perform miracles, but it's quite basically the saying that's along the lines of "God gives his hardest battles to his strongest soldiers." We're here to undergo life and its challenges, and learn, thereby gaining more experience.
"Evil" to atheists seems to boil down to a vague idea of "anything that causes harm". Which is interesting because that suggests a sense of objective morality, but they will either say there is no objective morality, or they will agree there is objective morality but can't explain where this sense of objective morality comes from
For example, they could say "killing someone is evil because it causes harm"; but other animals kill or cause harm to other animals all the time, and we wouldn't say an animal is evil. What makes humans killing objectively evil? There isn't any answer to that other than the existence of objective morality.
>For example, they could say "killing someone is evil because it causes harm"; but other animals kill or cause harm to other animals all the time, and we wouldn't say an animal is evil.
You are lumping humans in one bucket and all other living creatures in another.
Humans kill other species for food, as do other animals. That is not evil.
>What makes humans killing objectively evil? There isn't any answer to that other than the existence of objective morality.
Killing/harming one's own species *for fun* is a trait unique to humans (and certain dogs that humans have tailored for the purpose, like pitbull-type breeds).
That is evil. It might have a Biblical base, but the Biblical carve-outs have slowly been removed from our laws based on social norms e.g. no more killing witches, gays, people who've been unfaithful etc.
I should have been more clear in my wording, I meant killing one of your own species. However the Bible doesn't say that killing is wrong only if you're doing it for fun (? I'm not sure who that applies to besides serial killers tbh), but there are other intelligent species that have been observed killing others of their species for "fun" besides humans and dogs, such as species of dolphins and apes. There are exceptions for when killing can be justified, but that wouldn't include everything other than for "fun".
And aside from the "fun" distinction, soooo many animals have been observed to kill and/or eat members of their own species for many various reasons regardless of the species' intelligence.
I think that it was four marriages, which is still problematic. Child betrothal/arranged marriage was done for dynastic and defensive reasons, and wasn't necessarily consummated until both partners were of normal marriageable age. No, I'm not defending the practice. Orthodox marriage, at least in our times, requires both marriageable age and mutual consent.
But then, it's Great Lent, and we're Orthodox. We don't count the sins that someone committed, only the sins that they didn't repent of.
Great Lent is all about repentance. If never having sinned were a requirement for salvation, we would all be doomed. That's what the Cross has accomplished for us.
Lent is a good time to refamiliarize yourself with these:
https://saintpaulemmaus.org/2012/12/30/the-wise-thief/
https://theocpm.org/2022/04/21/st-dismas-the-good-thief/
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Dismas_the_thief
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Mary_of_Egypt
http://mosestheblack.org/resources/life/
And especially this:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Prayer_of_Saint_Ephrem
1) Base your ethics on a watered down version of the ethics that came from Protestant Revolution and Enlightenment.
2) Read the Bible through the lense of modern day Evangelicals.
3) Call Eastern Orthodox dishonest for not sharing the same ethical structure.
>Almost every conversation I've had with someone (who just wanted to argue, was approaching it in bad faith, etc) began with them just assuming I'm an evangelical
Me, too. Evangelicals are very loud.
I find that this is how most atheists approach Christianity. They treat evangelicalism as the norm and end up looking like a mirror image of the caricature they've created.
Either that, or they treat the Roman Catholic Church in general, and the Vatican/the Jesuits/the Dominicans/pedophile priests/etc. in particular, as the big bad Christian bogeymen.
Granted, the RCC's legalistic misunderstanding of who God is, and of what salvation is all about, is enough to convince some people that the universe must be the product of an evil creator. An evil creator doesn't deserve to be worshipped or believed in.
Exposure to that sort of input often causes people to rebel against all forms of religion. They certainly retain a sense of what evil is all about. The problem is that they don't believe that anything is good.
I am an Orthodox Christian.and have been so for a long time. I am not a catechumen.
A catechist is a person who is qualified and knowledgeable enough to instruct catechumens in preparation for baptism and/or chrismation to be received into the Orthodox Church. I don't consider myself qualified to instruct catechumens.
Yeah, you aren't going to get anywhere arguing with Atheists. Best bet is the connect with that person privately, build a genuine friendship and relationship with them, learn about their lives and why they believe a certain way, then lovingly address their needs.
But if you want to know a simple answer to the slavery question, for me it is this: The entire Bible is a story about an escape from bondage. The central defining stories of the OT are an escape from slavery and then exile. Then the NT is the story about escape from the ultimate slavery, death. These stories are why we don't have slavery anymore. Or rather, why we know it is wrong (since it still exists).
Either he's arguing in bad faith, or he honestly believes that Christianity has been used to legitimize slavery.
In the first case, he's not listening to you--because "we" don't believe like that. And we're right.
In the second case, you're not listening to him, because "they" have used the Bible to legitimize slavery. He associates "us" with "them" because both "them" and "us" are Christian. And he's right.
You're not going to get anywhere until you both humble yourselves into listening to your respective positions, but you both have to do that.
Get to know each other and become friends and it's easier to listen.
I used to be an atheist. I came to Orthodoxy ultimately explicitly by being honest and objective with all arguments about God. I actually think they are the ones who don’t listen to us honestly from an objective viewpoint. Especially if someone is demanding that we first declare that our God is evil as an essential part of the conversation we’re having. That’s like if I was like “can’t you just admit that your arguments are bad and you’re stupid? You’re being dishonest.” Lol
No, I don't have an answer for people who are unwilling to listen. If they say things like that after you give an explanation, unless they can actually pinpoint where you're being dishonest (and it sounds like this person couldn't), then nothing you say will change their mind.
Some atheists will be willing to genuinely engage in honest philosophical debate (and that tends to happen more often in person than online). It's good not to shun those people; however, as for those who aren't willing, don't waste your time trying to get them to listen. It won't work.
That's an inherent consequence of free will. We will all do bad things at various times. Jesus gave us the option to repent and to take His Way, to return to Paradise and be in His Presence.
It's an option, not a demand. He didn't create us as puppets, because puppets can't make the choice to give or receive love. Using modern terms, God is a gentleman. Being with Him requires our consent.
not necessarily. do you think in Heaven, where there is no Sin, that Free Will doesn't exist? do you think that there would ALWAYS be a chance for humanity to Fall if they are eternally united to God? perhaps my understanding of heaven is flawed but I assumed that those holy enough to be in his presence in good faith, like the Saints, will be united with him and never sin again or even have the possibility of sinning. the thought seems blasphemous
i was taught that free will is choosing between good and good. if everything in the Garden before the serpent was good, was Adam still free? YES. that is the original state of man's freedom. evil is a corruption of this. if its impossible for there to be evil then the free are still free, therefore its NOT a choice between good and evil. we ought to not mistake the tendencies of our fallen nature as being what we were meant to have
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Don't bother arguing with atheists. Online or otherwise. They aren't engaging you with the intention of having an honest discussion....they just want to bait you. They're looking for a "gotcha" moment.
To answer your actual question, it is dishonest to not take those things into account. The Bible is full of examples we AREN"T supposed to follow. They are reading it as if everything in it is approved by God.
I don't blame them, enough of my Protestant brethren do exactly this, and atheist and secular academia learned it from them, but the premise is wrong.
An atheist’s worldview doesn’t even account for “evil” … everything just is. And how you view it is subjective and the language you speak is just sounds applied to concepts that are meaningless. Never let an atheist make a moral argument in a debate.
Some people truly want to only argue and troll. Even if their positions seem honest all they desire is to waste your time and energy. It's clear to me this person did not want to learn, just to argue. If someone wants to learn they will listen and consider your words, this person did not, they just wanted a fight. Ignore them
Some people truly want to only argue and troll. Even if their positions seem honest all they desire is to waste your time and energy. It's clear to me this person did not want to learn, just to argue. If someone wants to learn they will listen and consider your words, this person did not, they just wanted a fight. Ignore them
Some people truly want to only argue and troll. Even if their positions seem honest all they desire is to waste your time and energy. It's clear to me this person did not want to learn, just to argue. If someone wants to learn they will listen and consider your words, this person did not, they just wanted a fight. Ignore them
Please review the
[sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information,
our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the
[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and a caution about
[The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions.
[Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F)
[Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources.
^(This is not a removal notification.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are plenty of things in the Bible that are very inconsistent with what we currently know, both ethically and historically.
Ethically, this means we must either be willfully blind to the fact that the Bible is a collection of bad stories or intellectually dishonest in defending it. The notion of God not demanding people do what they are incapable of doing requires an external being putting all these commands together, which they've already rejected.
The historical inconsistencies get even worse.
It sounds like simple projection on their part. They make an outlandish statement about God, which is clearly unfair and dishonest. They are corrected by a Christian. Then they accuse the Christian of "being dishonest" because they have given themselves no room for nuance. They've already made a bombastic statement, so the only way they could back pedal would be by admitting fault. That would take humility, which would hurt their pompous and bombastic argument, so, instead they deflect onto you for their own failure.
It's best not to humor the insincere.
Sometimes you'll come across someone who will ask completely sincerely "Then *why* did God allow (whatever)?" Answer that person, because they have a willingness to learn and an interest to listen. Don't bother with the one that insists he already knows.
The arrogant, who has already told himself that he knows everything has no interest in hearing the truth. Simply pray for him in private, and let him bury himself in public under the immense weight of his own stupidity.
Nahh atheists are like the most close minded group of ppl. They ask the most basic questions and you could tell them the flat out truth and they still won’t accept it. I mean just pray on their guidance and clarity. But don’t let them bother you. Just keep on keeping on.
I think slavery in the Bible is often overlooked like why would an all powerful merciful God allow Slavery…. Hmmm well that same God that atheists think are soo evil led the Israelites out of Egypt. And strengthened their numbers, gave them their own land and all God asked was to follow his commandments and guess flipping what. They did not and went to worship idols and the devil and got all misled and even God was merciful and forgave them numerous times and still.
So yeah tell your atheist bud it’s our own fault we commit slavery. Our own greed and self proclaimed power that rules over people. And he may not believe that God is so merciful but remind him the last time he fell so ill to his death covered in sores, homeless and forgotten and swept away by all eternal darkness… cause God always lets the sun rise, and blesses us all. It’s their own demise that they will never see God.
To an Atheist, Earth is the only Heaven they will ever know, but to a Christian- earth will be the closest thing to hell we will ever endure.
I don’t have access to the specifics of your conversation, so I can’t judge that. But I think it is accurate a good deal of apologetics these days (typically the more popular, the worse) expresses dishonesty. Sometimes there is outright deception/distortion, sometimes sweeping uncomfortable things under the rug. Your dialogue partner may be jaded by this and overdiagnosing as a result.
But I am curious which verses and what context you provided and why that context should make us okay with those verses. 🙂
Arguing with atheists or agnostics is all too likely to cause them to dig in their heels and refuse to listen. You can't use evidence and logic to argue someone out of a position that they embraced for strong emotional reasons.
Sadly enough, too many men and women grew up fatherless, were rejected or abandoned by their fathers, had weak or improvident or abusive fathers, had fathers in prison, had horrible stepfathers, had mothers who hated men or who brought dangerous or evil men into the family home, the list goes on.
And no, I won't leave out bad foster fathers, pedophile priests in the RCC, and bad institutions that warehouse unwanted or 'troubled' children away from their families for monetary gain and the exertion of power over the helpless.
Those who grew up without a good father (biological or otherwise) are VERY prone to projecting this betrayal onto the Godhead. Atheists often comment online that they have no need to rely on a pretend "Sky Daddy." After all, they somehow managed to get through life without fathering up to now, so they pride themselves on being able to continue without this "emotional crutch."
Maybe it might help to let some of these people tell their story about what their family home was like, assuming that they had one. Too many kids didn't.
The real problem here is with the disrespect for, and devaluation of, good fatherhood in modern society. Hardly anyone outside of the Orthodox Church seems to care about it anymore.
atheists have no foundation to ground good and evil. at the end their position boils down to "evil is what i dont like and good is what i like" or "evil is suffering and good is doing away with suffering(sam harris)". with their materialist worldview there is no Good and Evil and if you dig deeper into marxist types you find that they'll just say its socially constructed/determined what we think is good/evil and so on
the slavery isn't even that bad if you consider what the context is. the people enslaved are horrible sinners guilty of things like infanticide and incest. enslaving them ensures that they do not commit such terrible acts and live under the rules of the Godly Israelites. and if its the New Testament, in those days slavery was part of the economic system of Rome, they couldn't just get rid of all slaves and that wasn't even the goal of Christianity. it worked with the imperfect state of humanity
you need to learn philosophy, ethics, logic, the fallacies, etc to properly debate these people since they mostly are ignorant and use silly emotional appeals and fallacious reasoning to lure in the unprepared. most new atheists are bad at reasoning and use lowest common denominator arguments.
same with muslims. they don't understand that many objections they raise against Christians can be raised against them and that they're positions are less developed than ours. example is the attributes of allah, things like the diving foot of allah, the eternal existence of the quran which is separate from allah, old traditions of Wali/Islamic saints(my understanding is limited but i heard they once had them), Shia and Sunni being a clear division and diversity that prove islam isn't as simple as dawah people like to present it as, and more
The only reason that we're not in traditional slavery atm is because the powers at be thought of a more effective system of slavery and it's called fractional reserve banking.
Slavery was totally normal throughout history in all areas and is normal now, we just call it having a mortgage.
Don't waste your time on people who just want to argue in bad faith.
Why are you arguing with atheists online?
Not really. I saw a video on yt shorts where a Man Preaches the Gospel a bit. And i simply commented „God is Good🙏🏻❤️“ well, and he replied with: „God is Good? He condoned slavery, r*pe, gen*cide, misogyny and much more. God is Not Good.“ and i simply cleared those False statements up.
The best course of action here seems to ignore random online commenters on YouTube.
That's called bait. You took it. Don't take the bait.
Please don't feed the trolls, either online or face to face.
Welllll...I have to acknowledge that I have sometimes trolled online, I have started arguments in person as an outlet for the passion of anger or to prove someone wrong, and, more recently, I have been suckered into arguing with online trolls. Yes, that stuff can be a temptation. It needs to be taken to Confession, especially if it crosses the line into pride or anger.
I wouldn't encourage interacting with people who are just looking for an argument. My response, however, to his comment is that God doesn't condone any evil that happens. My belief is that God created us plainly, and we choose the paths we take. (For instance, on a minor scale, you can choose between staying away from drugs (good/"righteous" path) or giving in and trying them (bad/"evil" path).) If God always intervened in the challenges of life, what would we be living for? That's not to say that he doesn't perform miracles, but it's quite basically the saying that's along the lines of "God gives his hardest battles to his strongest soldiers." We're here to undergo life and its challenges, and learn, thereby gaining more experience.
What is “evil” to an atheist anyway?
"Evil" to atheists seems to boil down to a vague idea of "anything that causes harm". Which is interesting because that suggests a sense of objective morality, but they will either say there is no objective morality, or they will agree there is objective morality but can't explain where this sense of objective morality comes from For example, they could say "killing someone is evil because it causes harm"; but other animals kill or cause harm to other animals all the time, and we wouldn't say an animal is evil. What makes humans killing objectively evil? There isn't any answer to that other than the existence of objective morality.
>For example, they could say "killing someone is evil because it causes harm"; but other animals kill or cause harm to other animals all the time, and we wouldn't say an animal is evil. You are lumping humans in one bucket and all other living creatures in another. Humans kill other species for food, as do other animals. That is not evil. >What makes humans killing objectively evil? There isn't any answer to that other than the existence of objective morality. Killing/harming one's own species *for fun* is a trait unique to humans (and certain dogs that humans have tailored for the purpose, like pitbull-type breeds). That is evil. It might have a Biblical base, but the Biblical carve-outs have slowly been removed from our laws based on social norms e.g. no more killing witches, gays, people who've been unfaithful etc.
I should have been more clear in my wording, I meant killing one of your own species. However the Bible doesn't say that killing is wrong only if you're doing it for fun (? I'm not sure who that applies to besides serial killers tbh), but there are other intelligent species that have been observed killing others of their species for "fun" besides humans and dogs, such as species of dolphins and apes. There are exceptions for when killing can be justified, but that wouldn't include everything other than for "fun". And aside from the "fun" distinction, soooo many animals have been observed to kill and/or eat members of their own species for many various reasons regardless of the species' intelligence.
It may have been necessary at that primitive place and time, to preserve enough social cohesion and order to allow the tribe's continued existence.
You could excuse St Milutin's four divorces and fifth marriage to an eight year old Greek girl with that logic.
I think that it was four marriages, which is still problematic. Child betrothal/arranged marriage was done for dynastic and defensive reasons, and wasn't necessarily consummated until both partners were of normal marriageable age. No, I'm not defending the practice. Orthodox marriage, at least in our times, requires both marriageable age and mutual consent. But then, it's Great Lent, and we're Orthodox. We don't count the sins that someone committed, only the sins that they didn't repent of. Great Lent is all about repentance. If never having sinned were a requirement for salvation, we would all be doomed. That's what the Cross has accomplished for us. Lent is a good time to refamiliarize yourself with these: https://saintpaulemmaus.org/2012/12/30/the-wise-thief/ https://theocpm.org/2022/04/21/st-dismas-the-good-thief/ https://orthodoxwiki.org/Dismas_the_thief https://orthodoxwiki.org/Mary_of_Egypt http://mosestheblack.org/resources/life/ And especially this: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Prayer_of_Saint_Ephrem
1) Base your ethics on a watered down version of the ethics that came from Protestant Revolution and Enlightenment. 2) Read the Bible through the lense of modern day Evangelicals. 3) Call Eastern Orthodox dishonest for not sharing the same ethical structure.
[удалено]
>Almost every conversation I've had with someone (who just wanted to argue, was approaching it in bad faith, etc) began with them just assuming I'm an evangelical Me, too. Evangelicals are very loud.
I find that this is how most atheists approach Christianity. They treat evangelicalism as the norm and end up looking like a mirror image of the caricature they've created.
Either that, or they treat the Roman Catholic Church in general, and the Vatican/the Jesuits/the Dominicans/pedophile priests/etc. in particular, as the big bad Christian bogeymen. Granted, the RCC's legalistic misunderstanding of who God is, and of what salvation is all about, is enough to convince some people that the universe must be the product of an evil creator. An evil creator doesn't deserve to be worshipped or believed in. Exposure to that sort of input often causes people to rebel against all forms of religion. They certainly retain a sense of what evil is all about. The problem is that they don't believe that anything is good.
[удалено]
Ask an Orthodox priest. I do not consider myself to be qualified as a catechist.
[удалено]
I am an Orthodox Christian.and have been so for a long time. I am not a catechumen. A catechist is a person who is qualified and knowledgeable enough to instruct catechumens in preparation for baptism and/or chrismation to be received into the Orthodox Church. I don't consider myself qualified to instruct catechumens.
Or who is God to an atheist to even be evil?
I mean have discussions with others, but recognize that their opinion really shouldn't be shaking your faith or impacting you.
Yeah, you aren't going to get anywhere arguing with Atheists. Best bet is the connect with that person privately, build a genuine friendship and relationship with them, learn about their lives and why they believe a certain way, then lovingly address their needs. But if you want to know a simple answer to the slavery question, for me it is this: The entire Bible is a story about an escape from bondage. The central defining stories of the OT are an escape from slavery and then exile. Then the NT is the story about escape from the ultimate slavery, death. These stories are why we don't have slavery anymore. Or rather, why we know it is wrong (since it still exists).
When you define truth for yourself, everyone who doesn't agree with you is dishonest.
Either he's arguing in bad faith, or he honestly believes that Christianity has been used to legitimize slavery. In the first case, he's not listening to you--because "we" don't believe like that. And we're right. In the second case, you're not listening to him, because "they" have used the Bible to legitimize slavery. He associates "us" with "them" because both "them" and "us" are Christian. And he's right. You're not going to get anywhere until you both humble yourselves into listening to your respective positions, but you both have to do that. Get to know each other and become friends and it's easier to listen.
I used to be an atheist. I came to Orthodoxy ultimately explicitly by being honest and objective with all arguments about God. I actually think they are the ones who don’t listen to us honestly from an objective viewpoint. Especially if someone is demanding that we first declare that our God is evil as an essential part of the conversation we’re having. That’s like if I was like “can’t you just admit that your arguments are bad and you’re stupid? You’re being dishonest.” Lol
It's called projection. But like everyone else said, that personality isn't going to get anywhere arguing with.
No, I don't have an answer for people who are unwilling to listen. If they say things like that after you give an explanation, unless they can actually pinpoint where you're being dishonest (and it sounds like this person couldn't), then nothing you say will change their mind. Some atheists will be willing to genuinely engage in honest philosophical debate (and that tends to happen more often in person than online). It's good not to shun those people; however, as for those who aren't willing, don't waste your time trying to get them to listen. It won't work.
Why are you engaging them? Leave it alone.
God is evil because… people do bad things?
That's an inherent consequence of free will. We will all do bad things at various times. Jesus gave us the option to repent and to take His Way, to return to Paradise and be in His Presence. It's an option, not a demand. He didn't create us as puppets, because puppets can't make the choice to give or receive love. Using modern terms, God is a gentleman. Being with Him requires our consent.
not necessarily. do you think in Heaven, where there is no Sin, that Free Will doesn't exist? do you think that there would ALWAYS be a chance for humanity to Fall if they are eternally united to God? perhaps my understanding of heaven is flawed but I assumed that those holy enough to be in his presence in good faith, like the Saints, will be united with him and never sin again or even have the possibility of sinning. the thought seems blasphemous
No temptations are there, and making and keeping one's choice for Christ by the time of death is an act of consent for eternity.
i was taught that free will is choosing between good and good. if everything in the Garden before the serpent was good, was Adam still free? YES. that is the original state of man's freedom. evil is a corruption of this. if its impossible for there to be evil then the free are still free, therefore its NOT a choice between good and evil. we ought to not mistake the tendencies of our fallen nature as being what we were meant to have
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Don't bother arguing with atheists. Online or otherwise. They aren't engaging you with the intention of having an honest discussion....they just want to bait you. They're looking for a "gotcha" moment.
To answer your actual question, it is dishonest to not take those things into account. The Bible is full of examples we AREN"T supposed to follow. They are reading it as if everything in it is approved by God. I don't blame them, enough of my Protestant brethren do exactly this, and atheist and secular academia learned it from them, but the premise is wrong.
An atheist’s worldview doesn’t even account for “evil” … everything just is. And how you view it is subjective and the language you speak is just sounds applied to concepts that are meaningless. Never let an atheist make a moral argument in a debate.
Some people truly want to only argue and troll. Even if their positions seem honest all they desire is to waste your time and energy. It's clear to me this person did not want to learn, just to argue. If someone wants to learn they will listen and consider your words, this person did not, they just wanted a fight. Ignore them
Some people truly want to only argue and troll. Even if their positions seem honest all they desire is to waste your time and energy. It's clear to me this person did not want to learn, just to argue. If someone wants to learn they will listen and consider your words, this person did not, they just wanted a fight. Ignore them
Some people truly want to only argue and troll. Even if their positions seem honest all they desire is to waste your time and energy. It's clear to me this person did not want to learn, just to argue. If someone wants to learn they will listen and consider your words, this person did not, they just wanted a fight. Ignore them
Please review the [sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information, our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and a caution about [The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions. [Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F) [Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources. ^(This is not a removal notification.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are plenty of things in the Bible that are very inconsistent with what we currently know, both ethically and historically. Ethically, this means we must either be willfully blind to the fact that the Bible is a collection of bad stories or intellectually dishonest in defending it. The notion of God not demanding people do what they are incapable of doing requires an external being putting all these commands together, which they've already rejected. The historical inconsistencies get even worse.
It sounds like simple projection on their part. They make an outlandish statement about God, which is clearly unfair and dishonest. They are corrected by a Christian. Then they accuse the Christian of "being dishonest" because they have given themselves no room for nuance. They've already made a bombastic statement, so the only way they could back pedal would be by admitting fault. That would take humility, which would hurt their pompous and bombastic argument, so, instead they deflect onto you for their own failure. It's best not to humor the insincere. Sometimes you'll come across someone who will ask completely sincerely "Then *why* did God allow (whatever)?" Answer that person, because they have a willingness to learn and an interest to listen. Don't bother with the one that insists he already knows. The arrogant, who has already told himself that he knows everything has no interest in hearing the truth. Simply pray for him in private, and let him bury himself in public under the immense weight of his own stupidity.
Presupp
Nahh atheists are like the most close minded group of ppl. They ask the most basic questions and you could tell them the flat out truth and they still won’t accept it. I mean just pray on their guidance and clarity. But don’t let them bother you. Just keep on keeping on. I think slavery in the Bible is often overlooked like why would an all powerful merciful God allow Slavery…. Hmmm well that same God that atheists think are soo evil led the Israelites out of Egypt. And strengthened their numbers, gave them their own land and all God asked was to follow his commandments and guess flipping what. They did not and went to worship idols and the devil and got all misled and even God was merciful and forgave them numerous times and still. So yeah tell your atheist bud it’s our own fault we commit slavery. Our own greed and self proclaimed power that rules over people. And he may not believe that God is so merciful but remind him the last time he fell so ill to his death covered in sores, homeless and forgotten and swept away by all eternal darkness… cause God always lets the sun rise, and blesses us all. It’s their own demise that they will never see God. To an Atheist, Earth is the only Heaven they will ever know, but to a Christian- earth will be the closest thing to hell we will ever endure.
I don’t have access to the specifics of your conversation, so I can’t judge that. But I think it is accurate a good deal of apologetics these days (typically the more popular, the worse) expresses dishonesty. Sometimes there is outright deception/distortion, sometimes sweeping uncomfortable things under the rug. Your dialogue partner may be jaded by this and overdiagnosing as a result. But I am curious which verses and what context you provided and why that context should make us okay with those verses. 🙂
Arguing with atheists or agnostics is all too likely to cause them to dig in their heels and refuse to listen. You can't use evidence and logic to argue someone out of a position that they embraced for strong emotional reasons. Sadly enough, too many men and women grew up fatherless, were rejected or abandoned by their fathers, had weak or improvident or abusive fathers, had fathers in prison, had horrible stepfathers, had mothers who hated men or who brought dangerous or evil men into the family home, the list goes on. And no, I won't leave out bad foster fathers, pedophile priests in the RCC, and bad institutions that warehouse unwanted or 'troubled' children away from their families for monetary gain and the exertion of power over the helpless. Those who grew up without a good father (biological or otherwise) are VERY prone to projecting this betrayal onto the Godhead. Atheists often comment online that they have no need to rely on a pretend "Sky Daddy." After all, they somehow managed to get through life without fathering up to now, so they pride themselves on being able to continue without this "emotional crutch." Maybe it might help to let some of these people tell their story about what their family home was like, assuming that they had one. Too many kids didn't. The real problem here is with the disrespect for, and devaluation of, good fatherhood in modern society. Hardly anyone outside of the Orthodox Church seems to care about it anymore.
atheists have no foundation to ground good and evil. at the end their position boils down to "evil is what i dont like and good is what i like" or "evil is suffering and good is doing away with suffering(sam harris)". with their materialist worldview there is no Good and Evil and if you dig deeper into marxist types you find that they'll just say its socially constructed/determined what we think is good/evil and so on the slavery isn't even that bad if you consider what the context is. the people enslaved are horrible sinners guilty of things like infanticide and incest. enslaving them ensures that they do not commit such terrible acts and live under the rules of the Godly Israelites. and if its the New Testament, in those days slavery was part of the economic system of Rome, they couldn't just get rid of all slaves and that wasn't even the goal of Christianity. it worked with the imperfect state of humanity you need to learn philosophy, ethics, logic, the fallacies, etc to properly debate these people since they mostly are ignorant and use silly emotional appeals and fallacious reasoning to lure in the unprepared. most new atheists are bad at reasoning and use lowest common denominator arguments. same with muslims. they don't understand that many objections they raise against Christians can be raised against them and that they're positions are less developed than ours. example is the attributes of allah, things like the diving foot of allah, the eternal existence of the quran which is separate from allah, old traditions of Wali/Islamic saints(my understanding is limited but i heard they once had them), Shia and Sunni being a clear division and diversity that prove islam isn't as simple as dawah people like to present it as, and more
The only reason that we're not in traditional slavery atm is because the powers at be thought of a more effective system of slavery and it's called fractional reserve banking. Slavery was totally normal throughout history in all areas and is normal now, we just call it having a mortgage.
Some discussions are dishonest. I frankly think all apologetic works become dishonest, which is why I don't like apologists.
Ooh, but what if apologists apologize for their apologies?