Arguing has gotten a bad rap. We tend to think of arguments as verbal fights, mean-spirited personal attacks where the louder we speak the less we hear. Arguing sounds ugly and rude; it’s not the kind of thing that respectful and decent people do in civilized society. Well I intend to demonstrate to you that we not only could stand to do a little more arguing. I want to convince you that the passionate and responsible exchange of ideas is utterly necessary to personal growth, community development, and it is the lifeblood of any free-society.

Bad Arguing
I grew up arguing. I’ve seen the good kinds of arguing and the bad kinds. I’m the youngest of three siblings, with an older brother and an older sister. And I honed my own arguing skills largely by disagreeing with them. I learned quick and efficient ways to get attention. For example: When you are losing the argument, just pull your sister’s hair. Something entertaining is bound to happen. If your sister is annoying you, just shout really loudly ‘Stop it [insert name].’ And make sure you yell loud enough till your parents wake up and promptly discipline the offending party. Again, entertaining things are bound to happen. And she’ll probably get time-out. I also learned how to get my brother and sister fighting with each other, as that was entertaining too.

All of those are examples of bad arguing. I’m no fan of bad arguing. We need less of that. I don’t want to encourage you to do any of those entertaining things that I did. No matter how entertaining they may be. No matter how much you want to belittle your opponent, embarrass them, make them feel bad. No matter how mad they may make you feel, and even if it’s your sister, that is not the kind of arguing that helps make you a better person or the world a better place. Good arguing makes both parties better. Good arguing is not between enemies, or it doesn’t have to be. Good arguing is between mutual truth-seekers, with mutual respect, and even love.

How do you know if your argument is a bad one?

It might be a bad argument if you are attacking the person. That’s called an ad hominem, literally ‘to the man.’ You are missing the claim they are making and the evidence they are offering because you are busy calling them names are attacking their character, intelligence, mother, sexual orientation, etc.

It might be a bad argument if you are just using the evidence that agrees with you and ignore the rest. This is called cherry picking or special pleading. If your position only works by ignoring the opposing evidence, then it’s not a good position. Well informed positions can account for the evidence for and against itself, and stands just fine. But a bad position only works with selective evidence and tenuous details strong together in isolation from the rest of the data.

It might be a bad argument if you have to misrepresent the opposition to make yours look better. This is called the “straw man” fallacy. Picture a prize-fight boxing match between you and . . . a scarecrow. It’s no fight at all because you don’t have a real opponent but a fabricated, easy-to-defeat, practice dummy. In the real world of ideas, there’s usually some evidence for even the weirdest most absurd ideas, and if you can’t imagine why anyone would hold to the views they do, then you probably don’t understand those views. You are likely operating on a straw-man understanding of their view. And your view is the weaker for it, since its over-inflated with confident ignorance.

It might be a bad argument if you have no evidence for your position but to restate that position. Evolution is true because evolution is true. Democrats are right because they’re never wrong. Or the Bible is true because it says its true. This is what’s called circular reasoning or petitio principi, literally, ‘begging the question.’ There are many different ways an argument can go wrong.

There are faulty appeals to authority, prestigious jargon, straw man. But I don’t want to focus on the negative here. I want to suggest that there is a responsible way to argue, without going there.
But first we have to address another alternative before we get to “good arguing.”

Non-Arguing
Somewhere, somehow, it seems that much of society has condemned all arguing as that bad-kind of arguing. One cause seems to be political correctness. There are many reasons for not being brash, foolhardy, or offensive when you don’t need to be. That is the “bad kind” of arguing. In that sense, I’m fine with being PC. But sometimes people are offended by important issues, by truth and goodness, or discussions of life-or-death ideas. Not everyone’s “Offended Meter” is tuned properly. In those cases, you might need to break custom, risk offense, and try to persuade the person to agree with you. The tendency to be PC has led a lot of people to feign agreement, when they do not. That is not resolution, it puts off problems without fixing them, and it trades truth and goodness for comfort and compromise.

Another possible cause is the educational system. There once was a time when students had to master logic, grammar and rhetoric before they could advance to ‘high-school’ subjects. Every student learned argumentation and debate. Every student had to know how to think well, write well, and speak well as these were the prerequisites for everything else. In this ‘classical model,’ classes are usually small, teachers are hands on, Q&A drives the discussion, and students swam deep in the waters of argumentation before they were even teenagers. This model is not common today. Multiple choice tests and quizzes, opinion writing, and completion grades are standard fare now. And the art of argumentation is no longer prioritized in most schools. Students have subtly replaced “argument” with “opinion,” and perhaps further, “feeling” for “thinking,” and “validity” for “truth.” A lot of people don’t argue well because they never had to learn how.

Another big cause seems to be isolation. You may come from a broken home, or have a mean or selfish person in your life. If so, there’s a good chance you saw a lot of arguments, a lot of fights, and you were never taught how to fight fair, how to argue respectfully, or how to diffuse conflict while resolving the problem, or else you were conditioned against those things through an abusive relative or mate, or just a selfish mean person in your life. Also, affiliation with organized religion is declining in the U.S., Community involvement is pretty weak. And the relationships we do have are digitally filtered. But the art of arguing is an interpersonal, complex, and sophisticated art. When you need to disagree with a person about a dangerous political theory he holds, or he is trying to join a cult, or he’s promoting some dangerous ethical position, you will find it goes over much better if he knows you love him, he trusts your judgment, and you’ve earned the right to speak into his life.

And for the love of God, don’t break up with a person via text message. All that’s good in the world dies all over again whenever that happens. Seriously though, social isolation makes those important arguments strained or impossible. Good argumentation is hard to do sometimes, and it involves risk that pays off much better if your “opponent” knows you love them and has come to trust your words.

The Art of Argumentation
We can’t fix everything but we can fix one thing. If we can find here a few tips on the art of arguing, then your life and our world can be a better place.

Pick your Battles
Not every fight is worth having. Choose your battles wisely. Some battles are important but the timing isn’t right. Other battles might be good practice, among trusted friends who likewise enjoy a fair and honest exchange–such as the classic dormroom debate over which superhero is the best. In the right settings you can practice argumentation, such as a classroom debate, or a persuasive speech. But often, the fight is not worth having, and nothing terribly important is at stake. Now don’t use this tip as an excuse to avoid conflict. Any loving couple, be it romance or friendship, will have conflicts and there needs to be a lot of practice and mutual respect in learning how to express needs and interests without escalating conflicts into fruitless fights. Sometimes we are not in the right frame of mind to express ourselves respectfully, or to listen respectfully. In that case we need some time or space to settle down. Other times, a “little thing” is the straw that broke the camels back and it is a real and important conflict that should not be swept under the rug, and needs to be addressed pronto before it gets worse. Be brave, not letting fear or cowardice push you away from conflicts that need to be resolved. But also be wise, not pressing for unnecessary conflict or poorly timed poorly handled conflict.s

Organize Your Case
State your claim. State your Argument. Offer your evidences. It is not enough to have an opinion. Everyone has opinions, so what? But when you can offer a reasonable argument and evidence for you opinion, you set yours above other opinions. You should have a reasonable, supportable, explanation for why you think what you do. Sometimes you don’t know yourself very well or you don’t know your reasoning very well. That’s normal. We all are like that. But pressing yourself for reasons, and a responsible argument to support your conclusion–that is a habit we could all stand to develop. Your thinking gets clearer, your thoughts more organized, and insights more penetrating when you’ve developed the habit of identifying (or demanding) the structures of thought. In making your case you can use all sorts of evidence in support of any number of arguments. There is no “one” structure demanded of a good thought, but make sure it’s clear, understandable, and well supported, preferably, with the kinds of evidence and argument that you opponent respects.

Address the Person
We are not talking about a feud you had with your laptop last night, but a disagreement with a person. Keep your argument and evidence relevant to the person you’re speaking with. Maintain civility just as if you were addressing this debate to the most important person in the world. Put another way, you can’t understand the question without understanding the questioner.

Be a learner
Approach arguments with the humility and courage to learn from the exchange. There is no learning till you admit you didn’t already know it, and you are courageous enough to face it. Argumentation is a great way to correct errors in your own perspective or frame of thought. And if you have that motive you don’t have to come off as a pushy know-it-all.

Fight Fair
This is a sophisticated point, but the gist is not hard to grasp. I like the way the Bible describes it: “Always let your conversations be full of grace, seasoned with salt.” Be ethical, well-meaning, gracious and so on. Don’t pick at emotional scabs. Don’t escalate the tone. Wait till you both have cooled down. Drench your words with encouragement. Focus on points of agreement first. If they need to take a break, let them. If you are not in a healthy or collected mood, then save the debate for later. But always plan a time to get back to these important disagreements that need to happen.

Why We Must Fight
Coming to the end of all this, what does it really matter? So what? If we never learn how to argue well, what have we really lost? I think we’ve lost a whole lot, a lot of ourselves, a lot of our future, and a lot of good in the world.

Argumentation Can Discern Truth
Take the simple innocuous phrase, “Open mind” for example. We are encouraged all around to be “open minded.” There’s good to this. We should not be preemptively judgmental or closed off to truth, goodness or beauty that may come from new or unexpected sources. But why should we be open-minded? Are our minds supposed to be so indiscriminately inviting that they are open sewers? Collecting whatever waste-water, excrement, or refuse dribbles down into it? Surely that’s not what open minds are fore? An open mind is mere liability if it cannot also clamp down on truth or otherwise filter out lies. Argumentation is one of the chief filters for truth where we can test our ideas against those of other people’s. We can learn from their perspective and they can learn from ours. We can pit ideas against each other to see which have better evidence and support and which better reflect reality. Sometimes we are wrong, sometimes we are right. But we need that passionate exchange of ideas precisely because opinions aren’t always true, or good, or beautiful. Some ideas are downright deadly and we’d never know it except for they brave soul who risks telling us what they can see in our blind spot. Where we are in error, we lack a major means of correction. Truth is sometimes hard to come by.

Argumentation Can Correct Errors
Sometimes we are firmly entrenched in a bad or wrong idea. If we only engage in bad argumentation we are liable to drive people off and calcify our misguided commitment to that bad idea. But good argumention is an invitation to correction. Good argument invites a clear and well-supported counterpoint. sometimes we will never let go our bad ideas until we clearly see a better idea. If we are humble enough to admit when we’re wrong–a life-skill if I’ve ever seen one–then a healthy argument can help us see the truth in a better light and persuade us away from our bad ideas.

Argumentation Can Polish Good Ideas
Sometimes we do not so much have a “bad” idea as we have a bad grasp of a good idea. With some argumentation skill, we can refine and filter good ideas, distilling or polishing them till we have a good understanding of their depth, implications and applications.

Argumentation Fosters The Vital Courage of Conviction
To conclude, and what might be the most ferociously important cause for argumentation is that is a vital instrument for regaining the courage of our convictions. It has been say that there is one thing that the reigning teachers of tolerance cannot stand, they cannot stand conviction. I tend to agree, since the only way to get everyone to “agree” seems to be by either rigging the system (so no one has access to contrary evidence) or by watering down our convictions till no one believes much of anything strongly, all ideas seem equally valid, objective truth is replaced by relative usefulness, and the former realm of convictions is hedged in by shouting school mams pleading for careful agreeable dispassion. I don’t want this rant to sound like a Pink Floyd video but you get my point. There is a vital role for courageous convictions within a free-society. Robust democracy requires that people have convictions about truth–lest they not contribute their part of it to the world. We would not need a democracy if all the good ideas were properly found and suitably managed among aristocrats or kings. But our democratic republic turns heavily on the belief that individuals have something to share, something that would be lost if they were all pressed into agreement with the powers that be. For these reasons it is absolutely vital that we learn the art of arguing, that we have safe-havens for the free-exchange of ideas, and that we as concerned citizens and family members are finding ways to engage in and submit to healthy argumentation. We have ideas that need to be shared, and we need other ideas we haven’t heard yet.

Conclusion
In conclusion, I have argued that the passionate and responsible exchange of ideas in the form of an argument is utterly necessary to personal growth, community development, and it is the lifeblood of a free-society. If you disagree with me, then lets hear it. The comment sections are below. If you agree with me, then go out and start arguing!

Kermit Gosnell, 72, who operated as the chief surgeon at the “Women’s Medical Society” Clinic in Philadelphia PA is currently standing trial for 8 counts of first-degree murder and various health code violations and patient endangerment. I wince at reporting the allegations of what went on in his clinic. Suffice it to say he conducated a cash-for-abortion clinic which exposed many women to nonsterile equipment, spread venereal diseases, induced live birth on late term pregnancies and conducted the “abortions” outside of the womb, all despite the PA law prohibiting late-term (after 24 weeks) abortions. You can read more here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

This trial is not strictly a pro-choice or pro-life trial. It has the potential to be politically charged but I think we need to approach it with humane diplomacy. No pro-choicer in their right mind would stand beside this doctor right now in broad affirmation of his methods. Obviously, if the allegations are true, then he broke the law, needlessly endangered many women, running an unlicensed and health-code-failing clinic, and brought the practice of abortive therapy back about 45 years. Moreover, many pro-choicers sympathize with the pro-life cause but just don’t think a general ban on abortion would be wise or safe for at least some 1st or 2nd trimester cases or some medically risky late-term cases. No one, generally speaking, is supporting willful conscientious murder. Pro-lifers oppose abortion seeing it as murder; Pro-choicers generally oppose abortion, but think it should still be legal, relatively safe, and relatively infrequent such that it isn’t really murder. I won’t quibble about that point now. If you’ve read my blog you know my views on that.

How then can we learn from the case of Kermit Gosnell? Let me suggest a few challenge points to be gleaned from this horrific case study.

1) Gosnell is a human being–monstrous maybe, but he’s not a demon, or some mere nutcase. We want to distance ourselves from the barbarism done by man, by treating wicked men as if they weren’t even human, or whatever they are, they just aren’t like us. But that distancing effort fails to forewarn of the evil in all of us. Gosnell is a person, a human being, a criminal maybe, but we are not terribly unlike him if we imbibe the same ideas, the same worldview, the same habits, or the same beliefs. In particular, he’s oddly consistent with the pro-choice ideals of empowering women of all economic classes and racial or ethnic groups to do what they want with their body. He went about it in illegal ways, but if human life is not sacred till it’s 9 months gestated, then he was merely messy, not a murderer.

2) Late term Abortions are Infanticide–I do not say that lightly. One must remember that the photos of the Gosnell killings represent a quick and relatively painless method of killing the baby. The normal methods of conducting late-term abortions, where they are/were legal, cause much more pain to the fetus. These methods vary from dilation and extraction (that is, D&E, which tears the squirming baby apart limb from limb), to partial-birth abortion (delivering the baby but leaving the head in the womb, then inserting scissors into the base of the head, opening them to puncture the skull, and suctioning out the brain). Various states have restricted late term abortions or prohibited them, except in cases of medical threats to the mother. Even many pro-choicers sense this truth since late-term abortions constitute viable children where the mother’s is merely the means of food and shelter for growing child. The child would survive outside the women with blankets and a bottle.

3) Inside-the-womb and Outside-the-womb is not a big difference–much of Gosnell’s reported barbarism is identical or milder than what is currently legal in different states in our country, but because he induced birth first, abortion became infanticide, and “Women’s Rights” becomes “Murder.”

None of these conclusions bode well for the pro-choice camp. So it is not surprising how poor the major media coverage has been, where liberal and left-leaning opinions have tended to congregate over the years. I’m not accusing anyone of any major conspiracy, but rather a blind spot in major media today. One cannot know what one is missing if all the peers and professionals around agree. Facing the same way they all have the same blind spot. Kermit Gosnell has, allegedly, been exploiting that blind spot for decades and this trial brings to light what never should have been allowed in the shadows in the first place.

1) the baby is a girl?

2) the baby will be gay?

3) the baby will be black or hispanic?

4) the baby will be mentally handicapped?

5) the baby will be physically handicapped?

6) the baby will be ugly?

Current abortion legislation permits all of these reasons since “abortion on demand” is about the mother’s privacy, autonomy, and body and not about the status of the yet unborn.

Now factor in the evidence of the Kermit Gosnell story. This malpracticing abortion “doctor” has been, allegedly, facilitating live births of barely viable fetuses and then snipping the back of their necks instantly killing them. Among the horrors described of his clinic there are babies swimming around in toilets, snatched up, and killed; botched abortions where maimed babies are on the shelf crying, surrounded by other dead babies, and many other atrocities. We hear the defense lawyer describing LEGAL abortions where 2nd trimester children dodge and avoid the forceps but can still be extracted limb by limb in the abortion.

Now putting these two scenes beside each other we have the following: The preborn child is really just a tumor, lets say up through the 2nd trimester where abortion is still legal in most states. But in the Gosnell trial we are reminded how barely viable and late term abortions deal with very mobile, squirming, swimming, crying babies that fight against forceps too?

Now what then separates abortion from infanticide? 12 Inches or so. We are scandalized at the prospect of infanticide but we as a nation treat its twin, abortion, as a sacred and noble right. 12 inches do NOT separate a tumor from a baby, they separate legal atrocities from illegal ones.

As Chesterton noted, “nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes.” We continuously fall for age old fallacies in the guise of new age truths – “truths” which die and resurrect in different forms throughout history; always lacking the proper Foundation, thus never providing a firm solution for the troubles of the world (without which, peace is unattainable). All the while, buried beneath the ashes and rubble of intellectually misguided prophets such as Marx, Nietzsche and Freud lies the Logos – the Eternal Word of God. “Come to me,” He whispers,” and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

I wrote the quote above yesterday, and after further reflecting on it today, I thought it might be fun to make up little debates in which I cite opposing quotes. First up, in the left corner: Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx. In the right: The Holy Trinity.

What Sigmund Freud said: “We are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love.”

What God says: God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13).

For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline. (2 Timothy 1:7 NLT).

Freud: “Children are completely egoistic; they feel their needs intensely and strive ruthlessly to satisfy them.”

God: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3).

What Freud got right:

“I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father’s protection.”

What Friedrich Nietzsche said: “Faith: not wanting to know what is true.”

God: Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. (Hebrews 11:1). But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? (Luke 18:8).

Nietzsche: “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”

God: For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you. (Matthew 17:19).

The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them. (Matthew 11:15).

Niezsche: “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

God: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such. (Matthew 19:14). 

Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind one towards another, according to Jesus Christ: That with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5,6).

All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (Acts 1:14).

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine: And all my things are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. (John 17:9,10)… I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil. They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. (15-23).

What Nietzsche got right:

“We love life, not because we are used to living but because we are used to loving.”

What Karl Marx said: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

What God says: Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world. (James 1:27).

Marx: “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

God: You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free… the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself. (Galations 5:13,14).

They offer superficial treatments for my people’s mortal wound. They give assurances of peace when there is no peace. (Jeremiah 6:14 NLT).

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid. (John 14:27).

Marx: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

God: For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

(((Note: I am in no way saying that people should not help out the less fortunate. Far from it. Charity reigns at the very heart of the Gospel. But should the State force its citizens to do so? That’s a whole different story. Please feel free to check out the following posts to see my views on this topic: Obama the Apostate and Planned Parenthood, Nazi Germany and Those Who Call Good ‘Evil’ and Evil ‘Good”)))

What Marx got right (add the word “Christian” at the beginning of the following phrase):

“Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”

This is a huge question and a stumbling block for an awful lot of Christians.  They say they want to share their faith and yet they are afraid of doubts, questions and objections.  How can these be dealt with?

Simply, that is how.

Just ask questions.

Let me give you an example of an atheistic approach to rejecting Christianity and then point out a few good questions to ask about it.

So when somebody comes up with something like this, what should the Christian say?

The answer is simple.  Just start asking questions.  Here are a few you could ask the atheist:

• Are you saying God is absent from His Creation?  If so, then prove this assertion.  Of course the atheist is going to have to try to prove the absence of God.  There  are two important things to note about this question and the likely answer you will receive:
  1. First they will almost certainly demand that you provide some kind of proof for God’s existence and presence.  Refuse to do so.  They have made an assertion – God is absent – and they should have to prove it.  This is called the burden of proof and it always rests with the prosecution and not the defense.
  2. The most common answer will probably be to refer to the presence of evil/suffering/pain/injustice as a proof for the absence of God.  Then you will be challenged to prove how God could allow such things.  Do not be tricked!  Instead, demand that they prove how the existence of any of these things requires the absence of God.
• Are you saying God has the right to judge people for their actions?  This is a much more personal strategy to take.  The reason for this is so that you could follow up with the question “And how will God judge you?”  Of course, they may disagree and say that God does not have the right to judge.  Again, ask them why this should be the case.  If God is the teacher then He has the right to judge the class.  The answer to this line of questioning is likely to be that the atheist feels God has not left sufficient directions for them to follow.  While this sounds noble or right, it is utterly wrongheaded.   Again, do not be tricked into making an explanation.  Rather, you could ask how they know none of the textbooks are correct.  What standards would they suggest for judging religions?
• What does the classroom tell us about the teacher?  This whole picture provided by the atheist sounds really great as a way of caricaturing religions.  Yet it starts with a huge assumption which the atheist will not be very comfortable with.  The assumption is that the universe (the classroom) has a purpose (instruction) and a destiny (final exam) and a judge (the teacher).  In light of this assumption you could simply ask them what the classroom says about the teacher.  In the Christian religion, the Bible makes it plain that some things about God can be known by Creation.  So ask the atheist – who might now be horrified at the assumptions they built into this scenario – what the very existence of the universe tells us about the Creator of that universe.

These are just a few questions you could ask in response to something like this.  The real key is to answer objections with questions.  As a strategy this has a number of advantages.  One of the most obvious is that it is not offensive to ask questions.  Provided that you act genuinely interested, most people are quite content to let someone else listen to their opinions for a while.  Play up to this tendency!  Ask questions so that you, as the saying goes, “Give them enough rope to hang themselves.”

The second advantage of this strategy is that you will learn about the person while you are asking questions.  Most importantly, you will learn where their real objections to belief in God come from.  This is the area you will want to concentrate on.  Consider a simple example:

I met a woman on the street the other day.  She was very angry with God and spent a long time talking about how God was unjust and not fair.  “How could God allow so much suffering?” she demanded.  When I questioned her about her own suffering she revealed she had cancer.  This changed the whole conversation.

This is the beauty of questions.  Imagine learning this kind of thing about someone!  You would immediately change your way of speaking and the focus of your conversation.  Probably your efforts would become much more effective.

What strategies and tactics can Christians use to be more effective in their evangelism?

Question the Doubters.

Photo of Madalyn Murray O’Hair. 1983 at Robert Ingersoll statue, Peoria, Illinois. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve just finished reading “My life without God,” the autobiography of the son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who founded ‘American Atheists’ and was a force behind the removal of prayer in American schools. The author, William J Murray, heard the Bible and the Lord’s prayer in school, which incited Madalyn to start the campaign. He became a Christian as an adult.
It doesn’t paint a very pretty picture of the woman. In fact it says she was a violent, abusive, selfish, greedy, anti-Semitic communist; while publicly painting atheism and humanism as a more positive and progressive option. A hypocrite.I’d be interested to hear from any atheists who have read it as to their views. I’d imagine most would disassociate themselves from her behaviour. But it did prompt a few thoughts and I’d be interested in getting the views of people in the blogosphere.

1. Christianity is often criticised for the behaviour of some of its claimed adherents, e.g. Crusaders, paedophile priests etc, as if it reflects on the religion. Yet Madalyn seems to be an example of the same for atheism. But at least with Christianity, we have a set of rules by which we can judge the behaviour of the Inquisition for example, and judge that it contradicts the teaching of our founder, Jesus. Atheism doesn’t seem to have that – Madalyn’s behaviour contradicts no teaching of atheism, because there isn’t any. Also, she was an early pioneer of secularism; her language and arguments sounded very familiar and are still being used today. How can atheists criticise the wrongs done in the name of religion, when fellow atheists are behaving in the same way?
2. William was clearly indoctrinated with atheism as a child, without being able to give it much thought. One would think that if Madalyn ran a school, she would also indoctrinate her children with atheistic views. Yet the teaching of religion to children is criticised by many atheists; but in a ‘secular’ system how would they also ensure that atheistic views are not forced on children and all views are presented equally? And even if you did this; you are presenting religious belief in a way that it is merely a choice of belief, rather than reflecting any particular reality.

Is it right to criticise a group that thinks differently to you, for faults that are prevalent in your own group too? Hypocrisy, unkindness and dogmatism are present in all culture groups. But in Christianity, we have teaching that tells us that these are wrong, and gives a solution. Of course some people ignore this, but is it fair to characterise a group on the worst behaviour of its members?

Many professing Christians come up with every excuse in the book not to go to church on Sunday. They claim that they can worship at home by lighting a candle, praying and reading the Bible, or something of the sort (but rarely, if ever, do they do so). Being in church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than being in a garage makes you a car, they say. I agree. But might I add, a car parked in a garage during a storm receives much less damage than a car parked on the curb with its windows down.

Some may use the “argument” that Jesus opposed organized religion while failing to recognize the fact that he was a devout practicing Jew. They will ignore the Scripture where we see that he took part in the annual pilgrimage of His people – a voyage all the way to Jerusalem – where he stayed behind and was found “in His Father’s House” (Luke 2:49) by Mary and Joseph after they searched for him for three days. Now His people who have been grafted into the tree are too lazy to drive down the road to one of the many churches within walking distance of each other.

Side story: I was parked in a Jewish neighborhood awaiting work one Saturday and was touched after witnessing several families walking together to the synagogue. I thought to myself, now that’s faith. These people made a life-affecting decision such as home buying based on whether or not the house was near their place of worship, while any potential move for many of us is dependent on the proximity of a Starbucks or Chick-fil-A.

My point is this: The “Jesus hated religion” card is way overplayed, and the spirituality vs. religion debate is about as relevant as the science vs. religion bunk. Such erroneous reasoning is like the game Monkeys in a Barrel – it merely serves as a time-killer for people who don’t read enough to play Scrabble or Words With Friends.

Related Posts:

Angels Fill Empty Pews

Uneventfully, last week marked the sixth anniversary of when I started this blog. Since then,  a lot has happened.

• The Boston Bombers killed 4 and maimed scores in another “faith based initiative”, were discovered, one was killed and the other captured, and (finally) read his Miranda rights.
• Congress failed to pass a weakened version of a bill designed to require people to get background checks when they buy a gun, despite overwhelming popular support.
• A fertilizer plant in Texas, that had not been inspected in decades, blew up, killing scores (we think – it’s so bad, it’s hard to count the bodies).
• Related to the last one, Texas legislators that voted against federal support for Hurricane Sandy relief came begging for federal support for West, Texas.
• Anonymous hacked The Facebook page of the Westboro Baptist Church, and have been running it quite successfully, and humorously, since then.
• Ricin-laced letters were apparently sent to President Obama and another US Senator.
• Multiple countries are legalizing same-sex marriage. New Zealand and, it looks like, France are the latest.
• A Pennsylvania couple, previously convicted of allowing their child to die by refusing medical care in favor of the power of prayer, apparently did it again.
• The poor are still getting poorer; the rich, richer.

All in one week!

In the past six years, I’ve written over 500 posts, welcomed over 10,000 comments, and have racked up almost 500,000 visits to the site (I’m less than 1000 visits shy). On my best day, I had over 7,000 visits.

I feel like I’ve slowed down a bit. I spend more time commenting on other sites, and on Facebook and other social media, than I do writing posts here. In looking at the stats, I’m getting only about 1 post a month in, when I used to write  about 15.  Part of that slow down I attribute to actually feeling like I shot my wad, I’ve said everything I wanted to say. Fortunately, there always is something to write about.  Just referring to last weeks news, for instance:

• When will the world wake up to the fact that,  in the words of  Steven Weinberg “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” The surviving Boston Bomber has already indicated that his religious fervor drove him to kill.
• On the really modest proposal concerning background checks for those purchasing guns, is it so hard to comprehend that when someone sets off a bomb that kills 3 people and injures many more, it’s not considered that big a deal to completely shut down a major city to find him, yet it IS considered a big deal that someone has to fill out a form before they buy a gun?
• Republicans keep touting “small government”. Part of their philosophy is that the least regulated is best for the country, that deregulation of business i.e. no governmental oversight, will bring the most benefits to the people of this country, at the least cost. Try telling that to the people of West, Texas.
• On the same topic, can you spell HYPOCRISY? Apparently, Republicans can’t. The gall it must have taken to plead, hat in hand, for federal assistance in Texas when they turned their backs on NJ and NY, is simply…hypocritical.
• and on…and on.

But it’s still fun writing these posts, so as long as that continues, I’ll continue. There’s always Ted Nugent to fire up the crowd.

Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis offers a rebuttal to Bill Nye.

Here are some creation scientists pointing out some glaring flaws with Bill Nye’s position.

I hope you can think critically about the presuppositions behind the science you hold. Does it really correspond with reality? I hope these videos made you think.

-Adam

Something I’ve noticed about the current practice of apologetics is that we apologists, if we aren’t careful, sometimes fall into the rut of answering the same few questions that are of interest to us (or that we think we have really good answers to!). We often–or perhaps most of the time–address challenges posed by people in academia, questions that aren’t on the front burner for most people.

With that in mind, I’m tossing out the question in the title to everyone. I want to know what questions most people are asking about Christianity.

I am no great authority on all things Christian, but I do have a significant enough background that I think I can help some people understand what we believe and do. I grew up in a Christian family who attended and participated in church faithfully (a conservative Presbyterian church). I turned away from things of God as a young teenager but came back  at age 24 (I’m now 57). My education includes an undergrad degree from a Bible college which included (if I remember correctly) thirty-six hours of Bible and theology (with sixteen hours of Greek thrown into my communications major). After that I earned an MA in theology and philosophy of religion. Later I completed a master of humanities program which didn’t include Bible or theology but which helped me think about Christianity in a broader context. Since 1997 I’ve worked with an apologetics/worldview training organization where I’ve had the opportunity to think about a variety of issues related to Christianity and challenges to it.

Here are a few guidelines.

1. This isn’t an opportunity for critics of Christianity to rant. Frankly, I don’t find those “discussions” helpful to anyone. Contemporary atheists sometimes see my attitude here as cowardice (they often use more vulgar words for it), but I see such people as simply being argumentative. There are plenty of places online for people who want to engage in an intellectual slugfest. This isn’t one of them. This is for people who are truly curious and would like some clarification or explanation.
2. This doesn’t mean there can’t be any questioning or doubting after I give my answer! If it doesn’t ring true, come back and say so and I’ll try again. I won’t, however, let these differences drag out.
3. This also isn’t for digging into the minutiae of Christianity theology (and certainly not for defending one school of theology against another). I’m interested in knowing what genuine questions people have about the basic beliefs and practices of this religion called Christianity that has been so formative in the West but which is unknown to or misunderstood by many people in these early years of the 21st century.
4. I have no clue whether many or even any questions will come in; this is an experiment. My time is relatively limited, so I’ll respond as I can.
5. If I don’t know the answer to a question, I’ll say so. I’ll do what I can to find it, but I can’t promise to satisfy everyone. I might even point people to other web sites where better (or fuller) answers can be given than I can give here.

And now, one more very important thing. Since some people really know next to nothing about Christianity, I’ll use something called the Apostles Creed as a summary of essential Christian beliefs. This isn’t to direct questions in a particular direction. It’s just so the reader can know what my basic beliefs are.

“I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

“I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, and he is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”

            Chapter 3 begins with data regarding the amount of cohesive hand-copied manuscripts of the Bible, particularly The New Testament, that have been found. According to a chart on page 38, earliest (partial or whole) New Testament manuscripts found date between 114 and 325 A.D. McDowell refers to Sir Frederic Kenyon who states that when it comes to ancient manuscripts, “In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.”[1]

In addition to the relatively short time span of existing documents to its original date, McDowell points out that there are some 25,000 copies of the New Testament in existence today—the greatest number by far of any other ancient text. The Iliad comes in second with a mere 643 manuscripts. All New Testament copies are nearly identical to each other, which cannot be said of other ancient writings. This accuracy is also seen in various translations.

But while evidence supports accuracy in the copies we have today, there are still skeptics who are quick to point out supposed contradictions among the varied books. McDowell states that, “The allegations of error in the Bible are usually based on a failure to recognize basic principles of interpreting ancient literature.”[2] McDowell goes on to explain 15 such principles in concise detail.

But looking at the sheer amount of accurate reproductions and arguing that seeming contradictions are just misinterpretations still does not satisfy certain skeptics. One must look at other historical data. To this, there are writings of early Christian historians who attest to the accuracy of what is written in the Bible, as well as writings from non-Christian historians who, “…come largely from Greek, Roman, Jewish and Samaritan sources of the first century.”[3] 

Iranaeus, disciple of the apostle John wrote, “So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness them…”[4]

In addition to writings, archeological evidence supports the people, places and events described in the Bible. McDowell quotes a number of eminent archaeologists in his book, including W.F. Albright, who said, “Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”[5]

Evidence is continuing to mount as archaeological research continues. History is but one of many ways in which God has ingeniously left his mark on society—in ways that have caused us to discover him in time-tested methods of research, while in many cases, not even trying.