Help Debating An Atheist

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Varg' date='06 January 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1262798366' post='2030904']
Yes, but man didn't cause cancer. Man didn't cause ebola or natural disasters or anything like that. Your argument works for war and manmade problems etc, but it fails at explaining why there's all the things mentioned above.
[/quote]
Human nature is flawed through original sin. This does not only affect spiritual realities. Original sin is the cause of disease.

As for natural disasters, there are two views: 1) natural disasters occur because of the damage of sin on all creation (though we can't really explain how this could happen, at least not scientifically) or 2) natural disasters would have occurred anyway, but they wouldn't have harmed mankind without original sin, but original sin leads us to the experience of pain.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Raphael' date='06 January 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1262797403' post='2030892']
All 4 are correct and valid, but you forgot to clarify the situation. Suffering is not always caused by the sins of the individual harmed, but by original sin. As such, man has inflicted suffering on man, and God has no obligation to deal with any particular instances of it, certainly not in the way man wants.
[/quote]

If Jack gives himself cancer, goodness does not obligate me to give Jack the cure even if I possesses it. If Jack gives himself a hereditary disease, then his children do not have a choice in the matter, and goodness would demand that the cure be given to Jack's children if I possess it, for they do not will to have it.

Merely because Adam incurred punishment due to his deliberate choice toward the disease of sin does not mean that punishment is due to Adam's children, who neither choose to be born nor choose to inherit the disease. Now God indeed provides a cure by means of baptism - whether by water, blood, or desire - to the disease of original sin. How then may it be said that God has no obligation to deal with the unjust suffering of a blameless child? I would argue that God's nature does obligate Him in such instances, which is why only some combination of theories 2)-4) may suffice. Theory 1) - at least within the context of God not having an obligation to deal with suffering - can only apply to people in mortal sin (or those who deliberately choose to remain in the state of original sin; at that point, they, like Adam, choose the disease).

If mortal sin is brought into the picture (or if time allows), then I would say that an explanation based on sin and separation from God is both warranted and good. My only contention is that normally speaking, it is easier to point to theories 2)-4) as solutions to the problem of evil. And of course, it is not as if there is a right or wrong answer when it comes to evangelism tactics. I'm simply trying to provide my perspective from many years of witnessing to atheists (and from my time as an atheist, myself). Pointing to God's authority, His independence from Man, and the concept of original sin are all stumbling blocks to the typical atheist.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[Hassan]

[quote name='Raphael' date='06 January 2010 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1262803106' post='2030955']
Human nature is flawed through original sin. This does not only affect spiritual realities. Original sin is the cause of disease.

[/quote]


So if disease existed prior to human beings then we would know that the doctrin of origionl sin is false?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Hassan' date='06 January 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1262805572' post='2031001']
So if disease existed prior to human beings then we would know that the doctrin of origionl sin is false?
[/quote]
Let me clarify...disease in humans is an effect of original sin. Like my statement on natural disasters above, they could have been around even in paradise, but they would not have harmed mankind.

[Varg]

So essentially people get cancer and cities are razed to the ground by eathquakes because... *drumroll* ...Some woman ate an apple.

Right, well that makes perfect sense.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Varg' date='06 January 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1262806131' post='2031007']
So essentially people get cancer and cities are razed to the ground by eathquakes because... *drumroll* ...Some woman ate an apple.

Right, well that makes perfect sense.
[/quote]

Adam and Eve never ate a apple. Their offense was they attempted to become like gods.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Varg' date='06 January 2010 - 06:35 AM' timestamp='1262777751' post='2030780']
Perhaps. But people generally don't "choose" to get cancer, for example.
[/quote]
As it appears others have pointed out, this objection gets into the theological realm (original sin, etc). If you don't believe in a god, you're right, it won't make any sense to you. The so-called "problem of evil" is not solved philosophically before accepting the fundamental bases for Christianity, in the same way that I wouldn't try to convince you of transubstantiation until you believed in the authority of Gospel texts, etc.

[Ziggamafu]

Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger commented on the situation of original sin and its impact on Man in his [i]In the Beginning...[/i]:

[quote]What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without- from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are present. Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives - themselves- only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, a disturbance of relationship, and therefore, it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event- sin- touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment when a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it.
But from this it is also clear that human beings alone cannot save themselves. Their innate error is precisely that they want to do this by themselves. We can only be saved- that is, free and true- when we stop wanting to be God and renounce the madness of autonomy and self-sufficiency. We can only be saved- that is, become ourselves- when we engage in the proper relationship. But our interpersonal relationships occur in the context of our utter creatureliness, and it is there that the damage lies. Since the relationship with Creation has been damaged, only the Creator himself can be our savior. We can be saved only when he from whom we have cut ourselves off takes the initiative with us and stretches out his hand to us. Only being loved is being saved, and only God's love can purify damaged human love and radically re-establish the network of relationships that have suffered from alienation.[/quote]