A poster by the name of Robert left comments on my Why Won’t God Heal Amputees? post. Unfortunately, I haven’t had free time to respond…until NOW! First off, I believe that this is a different Robert from the Robert who often posts on Triablogue. That Robert is an Arminian, but this Robert seems to be an atheist, based on the nature of his comments.

In any case, Robert said:

So these “professed Christians” are not actually Christians? Is there a standard, a metric, or a test one can pass for achieving the status of “true Christian”?

Yes, you can be a professed Christian without being a genuine Christian. And the standard for discerning this is found in the text of Scripture. Jesus Himself stated that we would know a tree by the fruit it produces. If someone claims to be a Christian but produces non-Christian fruit, then we have reason to doubt that person’s claims.

Robert said:

Nonetheless, the comparison seems a bit…odd. It’s like bragging that Christians commit less adultery than non-Christians.

A) There is a difference between pointing a truth out and “bragging.”

B) Why is it odd to think that Christians should commit less adultery than non-Christians?

This actually goes back to your previous comment too. In what way can a Christian be a Christian if he does not even obey what the founder of his religion commands? If a Christian is committing adultery, he is sinning. If he shows no signs of repentance for that sin, there is no reason for us to treat his spiritual claim seriously. In other words, we are warrented in rejecting his claim to be a Christian in as much as he is disobeying Christianity.

Robert said:

Shouldn’t the divorce rate among Christians (however defined) be near zero?

Your question is ambiguous. In a perfect world, the divorce rate shouldn’t be “near” zero; it should be zero. Nonetheless, we do not live in a perfect world and Christians can sin. Therefore, there will be some Christians who divorce (and I’m talking about marriages between Christians too, not between “unequally yolked” partners).

The difference between the genuine Christian who lapses into a sin and the false convert who is not a genuine Christian in the first place is what happens to that person after the sin occurs. A true Christian will seek forgiveness and repentance. The non-Christian will persist in sinful behavior.

As a result, the genuine Christian should, on the whole, live more consistently with the Bible than the non-Christian who may even profess to be a Christian. Thus, those who live more consistently with the Bible will do those things taught in the Bible–such as refraining from adultery, etc.

This seems to be a no-brainer. Those who seek to pattern their life after a religious structure that commands them not to divorce except in extreme circumstances ought to have a lower divorce rate than those who do not seek to pattern their life after that religious structure. If it is not the case, that’s pretty good evidence that those who claim to be seeking to pattern their life after that religious structure are lying.

Robert said:

In other words, divorce isn’t a specifically prohibited act among the non-religious, unlike in Christianity.

Indeed, which is why we should expect genuine Christians to have a lower divorce rate.

This correlation is true even if Christianity is false, since those who believe Christianity ought to act in a manner that is consistent with Christianity, whereas those who do not believe Christianity would have no problem not living consistent with Christianity.

Robert said:

Beliefs on the efficacy of prayer come directly from the Bible, and the author of whydoesgodhateamputees.com cites several scriptures in support.

I’ve addressed his misuse of those passages too. Again, I don’t blame him for misunderstanding them. He’s not interested in the context in the first place.

Christians who misunderstand these texts have no excuse, however. And the fact that they provide fodder for folks like that author is a travesty.

Robert said:

True, but then, God never specifically excluded amputees from those whom He would heal. Thus the question, why does God hate amputees? Why has no amputee ever been deserving, while many others, apparently, have?

Again, God never heals anyone because they are deserving. Furthermore, that God does not heal someone is not an indication that God hates that person. Paul asked for a “thorn from the flesh” to be removed, but God did not do so in order to keep Paul humble. Paul understood this, and recognized that it was to his benefit that God not answer the prayer in the manner requested.

Robert said:

Slow torture, then death, is more merciful than instant death?

Illness that leads to death is more merciful than God’s instant exacting of judgment, yes. God allows sinners to live so that they have time to come to Him. Those that refuse to do so have no excuse.