What do I say?

The main thing that I want to stress is that when you are defending Christianity it is not your job to to knock yourself out trying to answer every off-the-wall statement. For example, if someone says to you that there are little green men on mars, it is not your duty to spend time and effort gathering evidence to prove that there are not little green men on mars.  The rules of logic dictate that the onus of proof is on the one making the assertion. Instead, do as Jesus did when someone tried to trap him and answer the statement or question with a question.  You see, I think that a lot of the time, people just say things that they have heard over and over again without really thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion.  What you want to do is put the ball back in their court and make them defend their statement(s). Some of my favorite questions are:

• How did you come to that conclusion?

• How does it follow that because of X, Y happens?

• In what way?

• Why do you say that?

• How so?

Here are some examples:

Statement:  "All religions are basically the same."

Reply:  "Oh? In what way?"

Note 1:  You see, all religions are not basically the same.  This person has obviously not studied religion and is just parroting something that he has heard from someone else.

Note 2:  You could follow this with something like this, "Either Jesus is the Messiah or He isn't, right?  If He isn't the Messiah, then the Christians are wrong.  If He is the Messiah, then the Jews are wrong.  So one way or another somebody's right and somebody's wrong. Right?  Everyone can't be right at the same time, can they?"

Statement:  "Well, no one can ever know the truth about religion."

Reply:  "Why would you believe a thing like that?"

Note:  This is a complex question that someone may try to throw out when the circumstance doesn't allow one to reply properly.  For example in a noisy group situation where conversation is difficult.  But even if this is not the case, you do not have to be a semantic and rhetorical genius and you don't have to stand mute.  You just have to put the ball back in their court where it belongs.

Statement:  "The Bible's been changed and retranslated so many times over the centuries."

Reply:  "Oh?  Have you actually studied Textual criticism? The art of evaluating differences in wording between manuscripts in order to recover the wording most likely approximating the 'original' text of a book?"

Note 1:  The fact is, secular scholars have shown that the text that we have today is just over 99% accurate.  This person does not know his facts and is making an assumption that what he has heard from someone else it true.

Note 2: You could follow this up with something like this, "I've read about Bible transmission and assure you that the academic results are in, the biblical manuscripts have not been corrupted over time."

Statement:  "The Bible is just a bunch of fables."

Reply:  "How did you come to your conclusion?"

Note:  I like the turnaround on this.  At this point the person is probably expecting you to go into some long unsupported ranting of things he's already heard before.  We know the Bible is not just a bunch of fables, but why does he think it is?  He will have no evidence to support his statement.  In fact, modern archeology, science, and linguistics, to name a few, are every day giving evidence to the Bible's historic accuracy.  All he can give as evidence are his beliefs about the Bible and his faith in its truths or lack there of.

Statement:  "There were many during that time who claimed to be a god."

Reply:  "How does it follow that because many claimed to be a god that Jesus is not God?"

Note:  This may also be seen in the form of, "There are so many religions that no one of them can be true."  This is not even an argument but just a plain error in logic.  They are asserting that when there are many X then all X are false.

Statement:  "God, if you exist, appear before me.  See, there is no God."

Reply:  "How does it follow that because you can not summon the creator of the universe to your location at your whim that God does not exist?"

Note:   This is a type of cause and effect error.  When I do X then Y should happen, and if Y does not happen then Z is false.  If I assert that Bill Gates should appear before me at my beckon call, otherwise I will conclude that he does not exist, is absurd.

Statement:  "There is no truth."

Reply:  "Is that the truth?"

Note:  The person can not reply to this question.  If he says, "Yes, my statement is true." then his statement is false because he claims it is true.  Therefore, there must be truth.  If he says, "No, my statement is not true." then his statement is true and there is still truth.  This is a self destructive statement.  Fun, huh?

Statement:  "No one can know the truth."

Reply:  "How do you know that to be true?"

Note:  This person claims he knows a truth but just said that no one can know a truth.  This is a self destructive statement.

Statement:  "Well, One could say…"

Reply:  "You're right, one could say anything he wants.  But giving good reasons why I should believe the story you just told is another thing altogether."

Note:  Have the person support his statement.  Ask questions to get to the source of their belief system.  Remember this "EVERYBODY HAS A BELIEF SYSTEM!"  (See below.)

Statement:  "I believe in the Big Bang theory."

Reply:  "Big Bang worked in my favor. It seems to me, any Big Bang needs a Big Banger."

Note:  You could as well ask the, "How did you come to that conclusion?" question here if you want.  Don't go on the defense.  He is making the assertion.  Call him on it.

Statement:  "I don't like organized religion."

Reply:  "Well you have something in common with Jesus.  He doesn't like organized religion either.  He gave the Pharisees a hard time about their acting religious but their hearts being hard."

Note:  This one may knock someone off balance because this is not what they are expecting to hear.  You could go on to ask them what they believe true religion is and why do they believe that way.  If they are atheist then they are probable just going to make up some religion that sounds nice to them (relativism).  If they consider themselves spiritual they will probable do the same.  Either way, let them explain their statements and keep asking questions searching for their source of information..

Keep this in mind; those who believe in evolution may be said to have a stronger faith than some Christians have in creationism.  Why do I say this?  

1. As Christians we can look around and see God's handiwork in His creation.

2. We have been given the Bible that tells us exactly what happened, what's going on, and what is going to happen.

3. Secular science continues to provide us with evidence of Biblical, historical fact.

Christians have a lot of evidence that God created the universe and us.  But what do the evolutionist have?

1. Science says that something can not come from nothing.  Christians agree with science.  But evolutionist don't agree with science.  Instead they have a strong faith in their religion which claims that in the beginning something came from nothing.  For example, the very small particle that exploded and started the universe,

2. Science says that life can not come from non-life.  Christians agree with science.  But evolutionist don't agree with science.   Instead they have a strong faith in their religion which claims that in the beginning life came from non-life.

3. Science says that the universe and everything in it is in a state of entropy (Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system.)   Christians agree with science.  But evolutionist don't agree with science.   Instead they have a strong faith in their religion which claims that there is an inevitable and steady tendency towards order of systems.

You've really got to hand it to those evolutionist, they're very religious people with a strong faith in their very unscientific belief system.