Typical arguments Christians use when confronted with non-believers

[Grimmlok]

I'm a heathen, I admit it. I bow to no deity or belief system, I rely on fact, reason and logic and what I can experience on my own. I've seen supernatural things, I've seen unexplainable things and I do not deny they happened but I don't attribute them to a God or Gods. However, I cannot prove such beings do not exist, so if one happens to come down on a cloud and prove him or herself then fine.

Anyhoo, I found this on the net, and it's kind of amusing, mostly cynical and pretty true from my experience and it could be applied to any religion if you think about it.

Enjoy!

1. It just doesn't seem right.

This argument is one of the first things you will encounter when debating a "christian", and it is related to the "That's not what I heard" argument listed below. They try to define their beliefs by what they perceive, and when something doesn't "seem right" to them, you can be assured that it means they are convinced that it's wrong, whether it can be proven or not.

Furthermore, if something doesn't "seem right" to a "christian" you can be fairly well assured that, no matter how clearly you are able to explain it, no matter how obvious the proof of your argument, the "christian" is not likely to change their mind about the matter.


2. Is it a religion, or is it a relationship?

To the "christian" a religion is anything, including what might appear to be "christianity" that requires nothing more than participation to provide some sort of "spiritual benefit". These things can range from saying words, such as "The Lord's Prayer" to elaborate and arcane rituals practiced by highly trained priests in secret and richly appointed temples to appease some obscure demonic beast whose only purpose is to suck mens' souls. Anything, particularly if it is not related to their perception of "christianity" can be a religion, even if it is another sect of "christiait is another sect of "christianity". This is frequently seen in Protestants who believe that Catholics aren't "christians".

Generally, a "christian" will describe any spiritual practice that is unlike their own, or with which they disagree, as a "religion", while they will characterize their spiritual life as a "relationship" with God (usually through Jesus), regardless of the similarities between their lifestyles and those of the people who are being characterized as "religious", in spite of the fact that, semantically, the words "religion" and "relationship" mean almost exactly the same thing. This is explained in more details here: http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salam...ationship.html


3. The bible is the answer for everything.

This is the beginning of some of the most difficult arguments you will face when debating a "christian". The fact is, from a logical point of view, their argument is plainly false and needs no disproving, however this is one of the beliefs in which "christians" receive the most powerful, persistant and threatening indoctrination, and it is extremely difficult to get past it.


4. Jesus is "god".

This belief is another defining characteristic of most "christians", and one in which they are very strongly indoctrinated right from the beginning. To support their argument, they often support this with the "John 14.6" argument, and/or refer to John 14.6, in which Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to see the father but by me." Of course, the "christian" belief that Jesus is God is a misinterpretation of this passage, which itself is mistranslated, and when taken in context, understanding the inaccuracies of the common English translations, it is easy to disprove their support of this argument using this scripture, but even with solid proof, most "christians" are unwilling to accept the fact that Jesus never said, and never even implied that he was God any more than anyone else is God.


5. That's not what I heard

"Christianity" has an ancient tradition of learning from its previous generations. If a "christian" thinks they have learned something, it is most frequently because they heard it from another "christian", often their pastor, priest, minister or elder. This kind of indoctrination is a defining characteristic of "christianity", and it is very similar to the brainwashing that is seen in many groups which are called cults. It doesn't matter whether the person they learned it from actually knows anything about they subject or not; if the person from whom they learned something is someone who holds a position of authority, even if it is undeserved, their word is gospel, and is not questioned under any circumstances


6. Christianity is not as bad as all those "other religions"

"Christians" are very heavily indoctrinated to believe that their particular beliefs are perfect, and beyond question, and that the beliefs of others are frequently tainted and often outright evil. In that way, this argument is related to the "Non-christian beliefs are unquestionably perverted..." argument. Inevitably, when debating "christians" they will bring up the shortcomings of every non-christian religion they can think of, and they will focus on these shortcomings to the exclusion of everything else. If someone mentions shortcomings exhibited by "christianity" however, this will be their main argument. This argument will frequently be extended with the "Evil done in the name of "christianity"..." argument


7. Non-christian beliefs are unquestionably perverted, demented, or evil.

"Christians" are indoctrinated to believe this by their pastors, priests, ministers or elders, who, presumably, know enough about what they're talking about to be able to make critical judgements like this without error. It doesn't matter whether the pastor or whoever actually knows what they're talking about or not; if they are in a position of authority, "christians" are trained to believe that such pronouncements are beyond question.

This argument is very similar to the "That's not what I heard" argument, but it is a little easier for "christians" to support this argument using bible scriptures, because there are several places in the bible which, on the surface, appear to condemn the beliefs of other religions.


8. All you need is Jesus. Don't think about anything else, just accept Jesus.

This is a very common argument when "christians" are confronted with questions to which they do not know the answer. Their argument is "Jesus is the answer to every question. You don't need to try to figure out the answer, just accept Jesus, because he is the answer to your question." This argument is also one of the most frequently used tools used by "christian" leaders for the indoctrination of the unsuspecting, naïve, or gullible.

Of course, this argument is preposterous, and is impossible to support logically, but it is one of the most common brick walls "christians" build around their belief structures to protect them from the evil influence of those who like to think.


9. If it's not in the bible, I don't need to know it

This is the "The bible is the answer for everything" argument from a subjective point of view. If you're not willing to accept that the bible contains the answers to all of your questions, you must surely realize that the bible contains all of the answers to the "christians'" questions. "Christians" are brainwashed to believe that anything not mentioned in the bible is worthless or meaningless, and that it would damage their spiritual purity to consent to learn such things.

Normally "christians" will adopt this argument when you start trying to point out the positive aspects of a non-christian religion, or to bring out any positive details in anything with which the "christian" disagrees.


10. Important figures from other religions are dead.
Jesus rose from the dead, and is currently alive.

Discounting the spiritual traditions whose "saviours" rose from the dead (specifically Hinduism), we have no logical proof that Jesus rose from the dead. There is no living person, whose name is "Jesus" or anything like it, who also has all of the characteristics and attributes listed in the bible, much less those attributed to him by "christians".

It is very common for "christians" to deny the possibility that important figures from other religions could have risen from the dead (in which case it would most likely be accompanied by the "Deny something exists..." behaviour), even when presented with written scriptural records from these other religions that indicate such a thing. Their indoctrination is so powerful that they will accuse you of lying, or of making it up if you show them scriptures from another religion that suggests that the "saviour" of that religion rose from the dead.(cool, the zombie Jesus.)


11. Christianity is the truth. Everything else is a lie.

Of course there is no logical support from this argument, but when arguments such as "The bible is the answer for everything" and "If it's not in the bible, I don't need to know it" don't convince you, this will be the next one they drag out. It is another argument that is very heavily indoctrinated in most "christians", and, even if it's possible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that some non-christian thing is not "a lie", the properly brainwashed "christian" will refuse to believe it.


12. It is impossible for me to be wrong

This argument is a rather more forceful, and thus, more preposterous extension of arguments 1, 3, 5, 7, and 11. It is most frequently employed by "christian" teenagers who have never lived outside of their parents home, and it is the result of very heavy "christian" indoctrination from a very early age. Occasionally this argument will also be employed by "christian" adults who perceive themselves to be in positions of authority, such as pastors, priests, ministers or elders. The fallacy of this argument is plainly obvious, and it is frequently very amusing when the "christian" uses it.


13. Other religions are bad. No details, just bad.

This argument is used universally by "christians" when discussing other religions, particularly if the "christian" in the discussion knows absolutely nothing about the religion being discussed. It is often followed by the "That's not what I heard" argument, and is most frequently supported by that argument, and by the "Christianity is the truth..." argument. Again, this is the result of heavy "christian" brainwashing by people who are perceived to be in positions of authority


14. Evil done in the name of "christianity" isn't really "christianity"
and thus doesn't reflect negatively on "christianity".

This argument is used to justify everything from the crucifixion to the crusades to Jim Bakker, Peter Popoff and Oral Roberts. We are to ignore the negative impact these things may have on "christianity" because the "christians" give us their personal assurance that such things are not characteristic of "christianity" in spite of the fact that it may be impossible to ignore such things.


15. I don't have to be tolerant, I've got Jesus

Jesus didn't tolerate heresy, so why should I? If you follow their arguments, however, it doesn't matter that they're not like Jesus, and don't expect to ever be like Jesus, this argument will be the "christian" mainstay of any debate surrounding toleration of non-christian belief.

This way of thinking is frequently an offshoot of the "All you need is Jesus..." argument, and is usually accompanied by protestations that "Jesus lives in my heart" as justification for their intolerant behaviour.


16. If your mind is made up, then why are you talking to me?

This argument is frequently an indication that you're starting to get under the skin of the "christian" with whom you are debating. You will frequently experience this argument when you have gotten "christians" to the point where they don't want to talk to you any more, but are too polite to say so. If you hear this argument, it's time to start twisting the knife.


17. Prayer is always in everybody's best interest, especially for those
who disagree with me, and especially if the person for whom I am praying
has asked me not to pray for them.

This is usually a smug response given to questions concerning what a "christian" actually does to change tense situations between themselves and non-christians. It is the way the "christian" uses to exhert their control over a situation in which they would otherwise not have any control.


18. People of other religions don't really know God, and it is my job to inform them.

This argument is taken from bible scripture in which the "christian" is instructed to "go out and make converts of all the nations". It doesn't matter to the "christian" that the people being converted might already know God, and it doesn't matter to the "christian" if the people being converted might not want to be converted. It doesn't even matter to the "christian" that God might be able to do a better job of "reaching out" to the non-christians than anyone else could possibly hope to do.


19. "Christianity" is the only religion with which God associates Himself.

Another argument which cannot be proven, simply because it is not possible to objectively prove the existence of God. Since other religions claim the same exclusivity, it is logically sound to assume that they are either all correct, all incorrect, or that what they perceive as God is substantially different from the way He is described in the bible. Contradicting this argument in any way is very likely to cause the "christian" with whom you are debating to start accusing you of blasphemy.


20. There is more than one god, and I know "the real god".

The bible refers many times to other "gods" (lowercase "g"), however, as far as anyone has ever been able to tell, the bible refers to only one "God" (uppercase "G"). We assume that this God (uppercase "G") is the infinite, changeless, eternal Creator of All That Is, and that there can be only one. At the same time, the bible makes it fairly clear, and rightly so, that the other "gods" (lowercase "g") aren't "real&quo"g") aren't "real" Gods at all, and have no "real" power outside of that which is given to them by their adherents.

This being the case, it is difficult to imagine why a "christian" would believe that anything other than God (uppercase "G") could have any "real" power in this world, but they do, and it is a lot more common than one might think. As with other arguments, there is no way to logically prove this, and when it is pointed out to the "christian" that there is only one God (uppercase "G"), things can get fairly amusing.


21. I don't want to argue, we'll just see what happens on Judgement Day[

This argument, like the "If your mind is made up..." argument, is usually an indication that the "christian" is done talking to you, whether you realize it or not. They also use it as a subtle way to imply "when you find out how wrong you were, I'll be sure to laugh in your face", a decidedly un-Jesus-like thing for them to do.


22. The bible is history's most reliable book.

This is an extreme extension of the "The bible is the answer for everything" argument combined with the "Jesus is God" and "Christianity is the truth..." arguments. There are many arguments that the "christian" will offer to support this claim, but ultimately it is not one that can be proven, or even supported with any degree of reason.

If the word "reliable" is taken to mean "dependable", the Bible doesn't meet the requirements, because, in this day in age, a person who depends solely on the advice they find in the Bible will not be able to live as a functional part of society: The dietary laws alone will prevent that. If the word "reliable" is taken to mean "conforming to fact", the bible doesn't meet the requirements because it is full of internal contradictions and historical inaccuracies that can be very easily demonstrated. If the word "reliable" is taken to mean "trustworthy", it is interesting to recall the dichotomy between Catholicism and Protestantism: The Bible certainly doesn't inspire trustworthy behaviour between two groups which hold to Biblically-based, but opposing points of view.


23. John 14.6 - you can't argue with it...
and if you do, you're branded a heretic and a blasphemer.

This is one of the most common, and most difficult "christian" arguments to deal with. It is related to the "Jesus is God" argument, is frequently accompanied by the "Threaten blasphemy..." behaviour, and draws its strength from the stereotypical "christian" misinterpretation of Jesus' statement "I am the way and the truth and the life;am the way and the truth and the life; no man comes to my Father except by me." Of course, many leaders of many different spiritual traditions have made the same claim, and have been able to support that claim with varying degrees of success, but the success of questioning this argument is not guaranteed when debating "christians".

If there is one piece of propaganda that is pounded the most firmly into the heads of all "christians", and which characterises "christianity" the most clearly, it is this argument.


24. We aren't qualified to determine what is Truth.

A lot of the time, when a "christian" uses this argument, it is as if they are saying "there's no way to know the answers to these questions, so there's no point even thinking about them". "Christians" believe very strongly that mere human beings are in no way qualified to determine what Truth is for themselves. This is part of the reason why the "Christianity is the truth...", "The bible is the alass="norm">"The bible is the answer for everything", and "That's not what I heard" arguments are considered so effective by the "christian" community (although it rather flies in the face of the "It just doesn't seem right" argument, an interestingly blatant contradiction). If a "christian" approaches an unsuspecting, naïve or gullible person, their arguments that human beings aren't even capable of determining what is right and wrong for themselves can be very convincing. However that does not make their arguments any more valid.


25. Philippians 4.7 - The peace which passeth all understanding.

If a "christian" is having difficulty making an effect with their other arguments, they will occasionally beg out of further discussion by claiming that it doesn't matter what their opponent thinks because it doesn't change the "peace" they claim is firmly rooted within them. The fact that they frequently demonstrate this peace in strangely non-peaceful ways, from verbal to physical attacks, doesn't appear to have any effect on their claims to an internal "peace".


26. Listen to what I mean, not to what I say.

Very often "christians" will insist on one particular thing, only to completely reverse themselves when it is pointed out that the original thing on which they insisted has another, secondary but sometimes more pertinent meaning that contradicts their original assertion. This is frequently seen with the "There is more than one God..." argument.


27. God's grace is a free gift.

"Christians" assume that "those other gods" ("There is more than one God...") require some kind of work or sacrifice in order to be appeased. Conversely, they believe that their "God" gives salvation to anyone, on the condition that they dedicate themselves to him. The end result is that, unless a person is willing to devote their life to the "christian God" (work), and forget about doing anything they want to do (sacrifice) in order to do that "Gorifice) in order to do that "God's" will, that person will not receive God's grace.

At the same time, it is very common for the "christian" not only to deny that they are working or sacrificing to their God (the "Deny something exists..." behaviour), but they also frequently deny that it could be possible for "those other gods" to be dispensers of free grace (the "Be ignorant of other cultures..." behaviour).

You can plan on the "christian" supporting this argument with "The bible is the answer for everything", "Christianity is the truth, everything else is a lie", and "Non-christian beliefs are perverted...".


28. You're taking things out of context.

The Bible is an ancient book which, in its current, English-language form, has been translated multiple times, refined, versified, twisted, squeezed, stomped, molded and shaped to the point where it bears very little resemblence to its original manuscripts, in whatever language they may have been in. Reputable scholars from across the globe and from a variety of different cultural backgrounds have all agreed that Jesus may or may not have spoken any one of a number of languages which were popular in that part of the world at that time, which include Hebrew, Greek, Coptic and Aramaic. What is known for sure is that none of the original manuscripts currently exist. The earliest of those ancient manuscripts which archaeologists have been able to find date to approximately 60 to 120 years after Jesus' crucifixion, and are written in a mishmash of languages including Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Aramaic. And that's not to mention the cultural context.

It is painfully obvious that modern, "civilized" culture bears no resemblence whatsoever to ancient Hebrew culture. Our governments, societies, laws, social customs, languages, modes of dress, modes of transportation and everything else are different now than they were during Jesus' lifetime. In terms of cultural application, the Bible is one of the most taken-out-of-context works in the history of humanity.

It is fairly easy to scan through the Bible and find a verse, or a sentence, and especially part of a sentence, that will support practically any insane notion a person might like to think up, and, of course, keeping the meaning of Bible scriptures in context with their surroundings is important. But it is inevitable that a "christian" will accuse someone who is saying things they don't like, and using the Bible to support their arguments, of taking things out of context. In this case, it is not so much an iuch an issue of taking things out of context as it is an issue of saying things the "christian" doesn't like. In this case, the words "out of context" mean "what you're saying is something with which I disagree, and therefor it is wrong". Unless you want to spend the rest of your discussion talking about minutiæ that don't relate to the subject at hand, it would be a good idea to ignore this argument completely.

This argument appears to stem from an instinctive need for self-validation on the part of the "christian". It is almost as though they know that their beliefs are unbelievable, and thus they try to convert as many people as possible in the hopes that if a large enough group of people agree with them, nobody will notice the fact that what they believe is totally unbelievable.

[Lobelia]

I read some of it, but too lazy to read it all. From what I read, though, it reminds me of a couple of family members. These are also the same ones who sell Amway, so what does that tell ya.