Posted: Oct 30, 2013 1:57 am
by willhud9
This is my last rebuttal post in this debate so I hope it is sufficient to tackle the points Byron raised.

On God

My opponent raises objection to the method in which I set about arguing for God's rationality. In fact when I challenged Byron in the fact that "nowhere in the Bible is God inconsistent" I was deflected with a burden of proof. Except I was not the one making the claim, Byron was. But this small nuance aside, my opponent makes some very simple mistakes which I shall address.

The biggest is the claim that I am selectively switching between orthodox and liberal theologies. And while on an external effect that may be true, on the larger internal level, it is not quite accurate. I am basing most of my theology off of sola scriptura for most general theologies, but in regards to scripture I view it with a rational liberal approach. This blend is not unorthodox nor is it completely liberal, but what it does is allow us to view Christianity in a very logical and rational manner.

Now Byron insists that it is flip floppy and I disagree as my stances are not flip floppy, just the theological method of acquiring my position. But nowhere does Byron actually address my points, only my method. Perhaps in his rebuttal he could be so gracious as to do that!

On Miracles and Resurrection

Byron makes a very interesting observation in relation to the claim of why in regards to Christianity. Does Christianity like the question, "why?" No not really. But not because why is not important, because it is, but rather Christianity focuses on the "how" of a question. How does this help me? How does this improve my life? How does following this religious practice increase my relationship with others? Etc. The why question is answered. Because God. It sounds to simple, but simple answers are generally the most accurate.

Furthermore my opponent expressed frustration in my refusal to answer a set of questions namely why did God create a reality different from the one he desires. The answer is not irrational, nor was that why I refused to answer, but it was a tricky answer. The ultimate answer is most likely because God wants his Creation to know Him to a fuller extent through our life in this reality so that the relationship with Him in the next is much more significant. But the final answer is really: who knows? It is not a question which is really devastating to the rationality of Christianity.

On the Bible

My opponent again expresses discontent in regards to a failed answer of mine. Namely I failed to explain how the Bible influences its reader. Well luckily for me this answer is rather easy.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. ~John 14:26

The power of the Holy Spirit, something not really mentioned in this debate much is enough to influence a person's understanding of the Bible so that it will effectively teach. A person who lives daily by the fruit of the Spirit yields a greater reward and understanding from the Bible than a person who does not, and that includes many Christians as well.

So by all means the Holy Spirit allows the reader of the Bible to take away much knowledge and appropriate understanding of verses well outside their historical context.

On Salvation

Byron insists that I have cherry picked certain aspects of various faiths I liked and to a degree I concede with that. But not because I was cherry picking, but because where a faith denomination got something right oftentimes it got another thing wrong. The same is true with my run through of salvation. Saying catholicism or protestantism is wrong does not discredit the rationality of Christianity, merely the rationality of those two specific denominations.

Next I did not avoid the question of God's responsibility. My opponent makes an assertion which I find strange. God made humans with the capacity of free will. Is that a flaw? Not at all. Human erred in the sight of God and therefore sin entered the world. God did not create sin, as sin is simply the disobedience of God.

In the story of Adam and Eve there is an even a strange hypothetical: what if Adam and Eve had confessed their sin instead of hiding and then pointing fingers? It is a theological puzzle we won't know.

But God had a plan to restore his creation. God probably could recreate everything right now and start over, but that is not how God operates. God has a plan and a purpose behind what he does. What that plan or purpose is might be is not entirely known, but again the faith and trust that comes with knowing God is essential for the Christian religion.


My next and final post will be my concluding posts in which I will sum up my argument and present my rationale for why I successfully defended the rationality of Christianity.