The first argument given is this one:
Ask yourselves, what is wrong with spending eternity in Hell. Well I am told that it is hot there for one. Dr Craig is not offering an alliterative view on morality. Okay, the whole point of Christianity; or so it is imagined, is to safe guard the eternal well being of the souls.Now! There is the first main argument given against the Christian Faith and why this man does not find it appealing. And right off the bat, He has made one the most egregious error in all history. In saying that 'the whole point of Christianity; or so it is imagined, is to safe guard the eternal well being of the souls.' We see the most glaring mistake. And that is the fact that He has to make it all resound on man. This, of course, has nothing to do with biblical Christianity at all. The sole thing that Christianity teaches and preaches is that everything 'has it's being and purpose to the praise of the glory of God.' So whether one is saved in Christ or is damed in hell for his sin, it all is to bring God the ultimate glory.
You see when we start where the bible starts we find that there is a completely unique picture of this matter. While it may be that he was responding to what Bill Craig has stated which in the most case is sub-biblical as it is philosophical in nature. And is dependent on too may false ideas. That, however, does not mean that this above response is being made against biblical Christianity in any manner as we can detect.
But we must note one glaring thing which is somewhat neglected: Man is a sinner and does not deserve grace but only deserves Hell. Therefore, if one is saved; it is an act of grace. And if one is lost; it is an act of mercy. And even, on Bill Craig's usual argumentation. a real biblical focus on Sin and Salvation is often neglected. And it may have something to do with the theistic proofs scheme He puts forth as they only led to a deistic God (a non-personal being). But the main point here is to point out that this is not argument against Christianity but an argument against general theism. Of which Christianity does not share any common ground with. There fore, the end of this matter is the man-centredness that is evident from the get-go.
The second argument given is this one:
Now, happily, there is no evidence that the Christian Hell exists. I think we should look at the consequences of believing in this frame work. This Theistic frame work in this world; and what these moral underpinning actually would be. Right. 9 million children die every year before they reach the age of 5. Picture the asian Tsunami that happened in 2004 that killed a quarter a million people; one of those every ten days killing children under 5 .....
Think about these people who believe in God and were praying for their children to be spared. Think about that. Through no fault of their own, they are going to hell for worshipping the wrong God.Well, it it seems as though Sam has raised a real challenge against the Christian faith. And we can call it the 'argument from evil' and the 'argument from innocence' positions. How can we possibly deal with such argumentation now? Well, in a simple but effective manner. What we have is a well structured argument; but nonetheless, there are several problem that he himself is not dealing with and must.
First, the claim of 'there being no evidence for hell' while this is an insignificant thing. Still it raises an interesting question. And that is. How does this man count for anything knowing what he relies on as 'modern man' and a scientist has not just popped out of nowhere (so to speak); it's origins and foundation have a particular background and one which his fellow horse man conceded on: That all science rather than being anti God was found because of the Christian faith. So there is nothing like eating your own words.
And then the second issue that needs to be tackled is this one: Christianity does not and never has dealt with morals on a raw basic level (as they are); in fact, it says nothing on the 'humanistic morality' except that it leads to a dead end. Rather, what Christianity deals with the underline reality of man being a sinful wretch who needs to be redeemed. Now as long as these foolish arguments on 'can you have morality without God' continue; we will miss the real important issue and that is: 'How can Man be restored back to the right relationship with God?' Now that is the fundamental issue, that talking of and being moral can not lead one too.
Now the final issue that needs to addressed is this one: In this whole argument Sam has put forth the burden that evil things happen and Christians with their beliefs are to blame (Or so that is what I ascertain). But that once again, misses the mark. He has not grounded his objection at all. In fact, for example, how does believing in the God of the bible lead to evil acts happening? It is not explained but just asserted as a fact. But what's more important to note, is that he has not dealt with this on an equal scale: If we are just random accidents of a evolutionary process and that the strongest ones are those that survive. Then, his whole argument is baseless as he should not care nothing of the weak and vulnerable as their cause was just to die out anyway. See the problem. And what is the solution from his end; there is none.
Now let us make an important point at this juncture. As it is the case that the one true triune God exists and needs no evidence offered for his existence. For he is the judge over all who have there existence because of his grace and mercy. Then the question of 'people dying' is not one of why but when as we are all born into this world as wretched and vile sinners. Then it is just a simple matter of 'why does one single human even deserve his grace in living for a millisecond as we all rebel against his good and whole Law and His being?' And we now we the humanistic view for what it is imbalanced and egotistical as it is coming from a rebels heart.
The Third argument given is this one:
On the other hand, according to Dr Craig's account, you run of the mill serial killer in America; who spent his life raping and torturing children. Need only to come to God, come to Jesus on death row and after a final meal of chicken his going to spend eternity in heaven after death.
One thing should be crystal clear to you. This vision of life has absolutely nothing to do with moral accountability. And please notice the double standard that people like Dr Craig use to exonerate God from all this evil. Okay we are told that God is loving, kind and just and intrinsically good. But when people like myself, point out the obvious that God is cruel and unjust because he visits punishment on innocent people on a scope that would embarrass a pschopath.
We're told God is mysterious.Here then comes the crux of the whole rebuttal I think. And once again, we are just amazed at the very imbalanced undertaking of what the Christian actually believes and teaches. Let us just make a quick observation of what is the central issue. Note the faulty dilemma being made 'murderers are let off; while the innocent are punished.' However, this is not what the bible teaches as there are no innocent people on earth. We are all wicked and depraved by the very nature. And particular actions (or not actions) are not the determinative issues.
God does not punish man based on what they have done solely; but based on what and who they are in Adam. It is known federal head ship. A concept that is still known even today. When one man costs a company a really important and lucrative deal; it is not he alone that suffers but all people in the company. And the same works in the opposite vain too. Now this is just an illustration but it exactly how God works.
Now of course, how one lives in life has a pretty effect in terms of how God will judge them too. There is both aspect involve corporate and individual maintenance. So let us just make it clear: none are innocent; all are guilty in the sight of God and deserving wrath. But God out of his grace mercy, for reason only known to him has chosen to redeemed a people in His Son Jesus Christ unto his glory being made known. But let us pose a simple question: when Sam states that some are 'innocent' is this his own prejudgement or is there some kind of test being undertaken to justify such a claim. As it seems to be the most unverified statement.
Let make an observation in regards to Sam: this man is nothing more a slave to his own sinful nature and is under the control of his own ego-centric and demonic passions. And science is just another tool too further confound his ignorance of truth.
The fourth argument given is this one:
If God is so good and wanted to guide us with a book. Why give us a book that supports slavery? Why give us a book that admonishes to kill people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft? There is a way of not taking these questions to heart. Okay, according to Dr Craig's 'divine command theory' God is not bound to moral duties, God doesn't have to be good. Whatever he commands is good. So when he commands the Israelites to slaughter the Amalikites that behaviour becomes intrinsically good because he commands it.
And Christianity, on the Dr Craig's part, is the true wealth of morality. Well, i hate to break it to you here at ----. But Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. Christianity is not a religion that repudiates human sacrifice; it celebrates one human sacrifice as though it were effective.
It become all to slippery at this point. Indeed this whole rebuttal has been the same position as this particular objection. Foolish and redundant. As it reveals that He has no idea about what the bible actually teaches and is just going on the same old nonsense that all atheists have to go with. For starters. 'If it is such a good book and is a guide; then why does it support this thing or that thing. Surely this tells us that it is wring.' This kind nonsense needs to be seen for what it is baseless rhetoric that is nothing more than childish.
Not only does the bible provide us with a clear teaching against slavery in the New Testament. It, likewise, was this grounds that led to it being abolished. And again, it was Christians who done this thing. In the book of Philemon, Paul tells a runaway slave to return to his masters (being Christians) and that there should be a difference in the attitudes between them. Read the whole chapter, it is not very long. And concentrate on verses 15-16. As it is clearly the intention of Paul to bring about a more Christianised environment. Where the idea of slaves and master would be replaced with the brothers understanding that we see through the Scriptures. And this principle is what led to the abolishment of slavery.
Now we come to the most interesting thing in this whole point. We are told that Christianity teaches that if God has people killed that it is 'good'; no, that does not even come close to the matter. Man as to his fundamental being as we have noted is a rebellious sinner whom acts out of that very position, doing everything that is evil in God's sight. And God as the creator and judge has every right to deal with such a thing in a way that will appease his wrath. And punishing sinners is not 'good' but it is just and deserving. And God holy nature demands and implores him to do this. regardless of whether he wants to or not. Like in analogy: a father must be severe with a child who steps out of line. A good parent would not be a good parent otherwise.
And lastly, this is how one goes about trying to prove (or disprove something) by misrepresenting the position in such a way that it is undeniably fallacious in nature. To even begin to define the self giving of the God man as 'a human sacrifice' is just as misdirected and misguided as someone stating of his pet theory 'evolution' that those who believe it only believe that there is no difference between different living creatures and therefore, one can claim anything. But because he is a big shot Doctor it is okay to to grossly misrepresent things.
