Ten Objections to Christianity and How to Respond

Recently someone approached me with the following problem: "Nobody can talk me out of being a Christian, but I can't talk anyone else into it. Can you help me?"

Perhaps she thought she was the only one struggling with this, but I've been asked this question hundreds of times. You see, I was once an atheist who set out to prove Christianity was untrue. But during my investigation, I discovered overwhelming evidence that demonstrates the validity of Christianity. And because of a dedicated Christian who was prepared to answer my questions, my heart was reached.

Are you prepared to answer the spiritual seekers in your world? Are you wondering if Christianity's really true? Here's a look at ten objections skeptics pose toward Christianity—and how to respond.

A hypocrite is an actor, a person who pretends to be something she isn't. Jesus' harshest words were reserved for hypocrites.

The reality is, there always have been and always will be some hypocrites in the Church. But Jesus doesn't ask us to follow others; he asks us to follow him.

Although Christians can represent Jesus either poorly or well, the real question isn't whether there are hypocrites in the Church, but whether Jesus is a hypocrite. If someone can prove that Jesus was a hypocrite, then the whole structure of Christianity falls into ruin. The Bible, God's Word, presents Jesus as nothing less than perfect. Jesus' disciples testified that Jesus was without sin (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Even Jesus himself challenged others to prove that he'd ever sinned (John 8:46).

Some blame Christianity for religious wars, the Crusades, burning witches, the Inquisition, slavery, even the Holocaust.

The issue of atrocities is simply an extension of the question of hypocrites. So-called believers who didn't practice true Christianity have perpetrated evil. In reality, these people were Christian in name only.

Focusing on their atrocities is a smoke screen to avoid the real issue. Christianity has far more positive achievements than negative influences. It's been instrumental in the formation of countless hospitals, schools, colleges, orphanages, relief agencies, and charity agencies. No other religion in history can compare.

Karl Marx, author of The Communist Manifesto, said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Critics such as Marx have charged that religion is an invention designed for people incapable of coping with life's pressures. Some critics respond that they don't need this type of emotional comfort, as though that fact falsifies Christianity. Such individuals often claim to be "stronger" because they're brave enough to face life without a "crutch." To imply non-religious people don't need a crutch is misleading. Dependence on drugs, alcohol, tobacco, sex, money, power, other people, and material possessions demonstrates some people's need for a crutch. Atheism—the belief that there is no God—can become a crutch for those addicted to a lifestyle contrary to God's standards of morality.

Rather than being weak, Christians are strong—not because they depend on themselves, but because they depend on Jesus.

Everyone needs assistance. The question is, what will you lean on? Christianity provides what atheism or other religions never can: spiritual fulfillment, peace, and forgiveness.

Jesus claimed he was the only way to God (John 14:6). Such a claim is either totally true or totally false. Some people claim to be Christians, yet ignore Jesus' claim to be the only Savior. Critics argue this view is exclusory.

But if Christianity is true, then we must accept Jesus' own teachings. If one believes Jesus' assertions to be true, then the issue is settled.

Some argue that even if a person's religion is false, what really matters is that she's sincere about being a good person. This notion is based on the mistaken belief that God is pleased by "religion."

Sincerity doesn't determine truth, however. One can be sincerely convinced of the truth—and be sincerely wrong. For example, many evil men such as Hitler were very sincere in their beliefs. God judges people based on truth, not opinions—and that truth is Jesus Christ.

Such a question implies that God lacks compassion because he's imposed his plan of salvation on us. Often such inquirers seem to imply that they're more compassionate than God!

An important biblical principle to understand is that no one has ever remained lost who wanted to be found. Just as God sent the apostle Philip to the seeking Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-39), Jesus promises all who seek will find (Matthew 7:7-8).

Because the Bible is God's Word and God cannot lie (Isaiah 55:10-11; John 17:17; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 4:12), it's totally trustworthy, free from any error. God's Word is described as "the word of truth" (2 Corinthians 6:7; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; James 1:18). Inerrancy isn't a theory about the Bible; it's the teaching of the Bible itself.

What most people claim as errors in the Bible aren't errors but difficulties. People think they've stumbled upon apparent inconsistencies when they haven't taken the time to find out all the facts, or made an in-depth study of the passage. Many Bible questions have been answered as new discoveries have been made in fields such as language, history, archeology, and other sciences.

Regardless of the kind of difficulty found, not a single irreconcilable error can be found in the Bible's pages.

The thrust of this charge is that evil's presence disproves God's power. But is the presence of evil consistent with the God of the Bible? Consider:

God didn't create evil. Sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience (Genesis 3).

Evil is necessary for a free world. Freedom, or free will, gives humans the opportunity to make wrong choices.

God hesitates to stop evil for an important reason. Just as parents often allow their children to make mistakes and suffer the consequences, God acts in a parental fashion with his creation.

God has the solution for evil. Jesus accomplished the ultimate defeat of evil on the cross. But just as we don't yet have eternal bodies, evil has yet to be removed from the world.

Many hold that pain is evidence against God's concern for humankind. However, pain can be used for good and bad purposes. Not all pain is bad. Pain is an essential mechanism for survival. Without pain, the body is stripped of vital protection. Pain is an important signal to warn of even greater danger.

Suffering is a signal. It also can be a spiritual signal that reminds us of the fragile balance of life and our mortality. In The Problem of Pain, Christian apologist C.S. Lewis writes, "God whispers to us in our pleasure, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts to us in our pain; it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world."

Some suffering actually helps to bring greater good. This is best seen in Jesus' own suffering. Jesus traveled down the road of pain, loneliness, and death—a road that led to the cross. Jesus isn't just a Savior, he's our suffering Savior. The cross is the ultimate example of innocent suffering.

At the heart of this issue is the underlying challenge that God isn't fair. The problem is, society holds pleasure as its chief goal in life. This philosophy is known as hedonism, and those who live by this philosophy find any form of suffering offensive. To say God isn't fair is an extremely dangerous charge.

If God gave us what we deserve, we'd be in trouble. It would be foolish to ask God for justice; what we need is mercy. God's mercy and grace are so taken for granted that suffering and pain shock us.

God hates evil, and one day, evil will cease. While evil and suffering and pain are very real, they are also very temporary.

The day God deals with evil, he will deal with all evil. In the meantime, God strives for as many people as possible to accept Jesus' death and resurrection as payment for their sins, so they can live eternally with him. The sad fact is, many will make the decision not to be a part of God's heaven. God won't send them to hell; they'll send themselves.

For God to force people to go to heaven against their wishes wouldn't be heaven—it would be hell. Atheist author Jean-Paul Sarte noted that the gates of hell are locked from the inside by the free choice of men and women.

I suspect there's some wiggle room . . . for the following reason(s).

1) I don't believe that God will allow even the AntiChrist to fulfill AS MANY PROPHECIES ABOUT THE MESSIAH AS CHRIST DID. Just my belief. Doesn't sound like something God would do.

2) The AC WILL HAVE TO FULFILL A CHUNK OF THE KEY ONES or I don't see how authentic Israelites could accept him as the messiah as they must to fulfill Bible prophecy.

3) I suspect the AC will have to be seen as having been born in Bethlehem; being of the line of David and some other important prophecies, probably.

4) We don't know how much of that fulfilled prophecy stuff will be trumped up hoax on the part of satan and his forces. In any case, Israel, most of the Jews world wide will fall for it hook, line and sinker. That much is clear in Bible prophecies.

5) Israelites already believers in Jesus Christ should know the score if they have studied the prophecies and escape such dellusion. And then we have the 144,000.

just imho.

Thanks for your kind words.

Even though there is no scriptural basis for it I think maybe God has a special meter that measures how true you are to your beliefs, whatever they are. If you were taught something, even if in error, but did your best to be true to it because you thought it was 'the way' then you will be treated differently from those who, because of greed, selfishness or whatever, acted contrary to what you were taught. I haven't decided what to do about those whose genetic makeup turns out to be responsible for their aberrant behavior. Way too complicated for a simple human mind like mine!

re: one's acceptance or rejection of HIS 'only begotten' SON

I wonder if the operative term here is 'rejection'. One is not rejecting something if they have no knowledge of it. If I have strep throat and the doctor does not offer me the option of penicillin to prevent the complications that so frequently develop with untreated strep it certainly can't be said that I rejected the treatment. Especially if I went to the doc, putting my full faith in him to do what would be best for me. Seems to me rejection requires an option and absent that you can't really term it rejection. Just a thought.

But God does say that He 'hardened' the Pharaoh's heart so that he would not accept what Moses was telling him. I put this in the category of those things that I simply don't know enough about to be certain of, so I just trust God that the way I am following is true, that I will do my very best to follow it and if I'm wrong judge my intentions, not my actions. If I can't depend on Him for that much consideration then I'm a goner under any circumstances. For the record, that's exactly what I believe and I thank Him daily for all he does for me and seek His forgiveness for those times that I do (can) not meet his expectations.

re: A copy of Mad Magazine is as relevant and accurate in prophecy as the Book of Revelations.

Isn't any book or writing that claims to tell the future accurate until something happens to disprove it?

I think you're the first person I've come across who is a member of the Mad Magazine Church! Does the creed of that church start out: "What, me worry?" </humor>

I would simply respond to your beliefs by saying I will pray for you, that if you're wrong you will find the right way at some point. In return, all I would ask of you is that you offer the same supplication to your deity on my behalf.

You make an apt, fitting point, imho.

However, there's some Scriptural evidence that THOSE WHO SEEK GOD WILL FIND HIM.

No clear evidence that God will be wishy washy about those who didn't bother to seek Him.

There's some Scirptural evidence that those who fail to SEEK/FIND God, will be sorry.

Thankfully, the Hound of Heaven is fairly relentless in wooing us.

Still, particularly willful avoidance, aversion etc. is highly likely to bear an uncomfortable penalty.

The validity of the documents written by some of those witnesses is the best of any documents from ancient history.

We have many generations of the Illiad later than the original documents--much later--which are accepted as valid, authentic etc.

The New Testament documents are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH closer to the originals and much MORE VALID AND AUTHENTIC.

There were many of those 500 witnesses running around loose at the time the documents were distributed to the various congregations.

It's still true that, murderers are convicted and sentenced to death on much flimsier evidence than the documentes that attest to NT events.

Check out Josh McDowell. He was a fierce Christian and Bible hater. His alcoholic father beat him and his mother and made Josh a fierce, fiercely hostile hater of any and everything having to do with Christianity--especially the Bible.

He decided to devote a big chunk of his life to proving the documents false.

He had enough integrity to realize he was wrong and became a devout Christian after very, very, very extensive study, including learning the original languages as well as a lot about that era and other languages of that era.

"God didn't create evil."

You are wrong, there, brother. God created everything, even evil. In fact, He is the only one who can truly create in the sense of causing something to come out of nothing. Which is the highest form of creation. If God did not create everything - including evil - He would not be God, right? Someone else would be God.

I believe the common belief is that Christians use the "escape clause" of grace to continue being more than fallable humans. They don't appear to be striving for a Christ like walk, but rather say I've accepted Christ as my savior and by the way if I change I lose the fancy home and car so I can continue to live as I always have. That's the hypocrite issue with most folks.

We have many generations of the Illiad later than the original documents--much later--which are accepted as valid, authentic etc.

So you believe that Achilles mother dipped him in the river Styx when he was an infant, granting him near invulnerability? I'm glad you brought this up, because it stands as testament to the power of myth over truth.

The New Testament documents are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH closer to the originals and much MORE VALID AND AUTHENTIC.

Entirely possible. However, just like the aforementioned work by Homer, the authenticity of the document in no way validates the contents.

The contents of the documents is important--The Illiad never pretended to be more than a story.

The New Testament documents assert that they are accurate and true narratives of the events.

The citizens alive at the time made no convincing refutation of those facts. Partly, because there were toooo many witnesses alive who knew the widely distributed narratives to be true.

Check out the facts of the documents.

I have NEVER heard of any remotely fair-minded atheist doing a broad, deep, serious, prolonged study of the documents ever come away with their atheism in tact.

"One is not rejecting something if they have no knowledge of it."

It is written on the hearts of all men, in all the nations. The Father and the Son do not permit themselves to be hidden from anyone. This is affirmed in the Old Testament and the New.

Those who harden their hearts and live in rebellion against their own conscience, will not know Him. Those who open their hearts and listen to their conscience, thereby invite the Holy Spirit into their lives and will know the Father and the Son -- even if they have never heard the name Jesus Christ and know nothing of the Bible. If they take God's hand, he will lead them where they need to go.

"No, you have a claim that 500 witnesses saw him. Legally, it's called hearsay. You have no actual witnesses you can produce."

Melas, I cannot produce a single living eye-witness to the historical existence of Julius Caesar. Did he therefore not exist? The same is true for Abraham Lincoln. Is he also just a fictional character who never existed?

Just as credible historians attest to the historical existence of Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln, credible historians attest to the historical existence of Jesus Christ -- such contemporary and near-contemporary historians as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius. Even Jesus' enemies admitted to his existence, his teaching and his crucifixion. Lucian would be one of them. The writers of the Babylonian Talmud and the Toledoth Yeshu would be others.

You have applied the legal standards for courtroom testimony to the question of the historical Jesus, but what you overlook is that a Supreme Court Justice who incorporates Chief Justice Marshall's Marbury v. Madison conclusions in a contemporary decision has no living eye-witness to the historical existence of John Marshall, only the testimony of written history. Are all judicial opinions based on written precedents older than 100 years invalid based on the hearsay rule?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.