Someone pointed me to a new blog. I won't offer a link to the blog. The disrespect is unnecessary. However, the opening statement for the purpose of the blog includes this: "This blog is basically a chance for apologists to put forward their arguments to someone who has absoloutley NO respect for religion whatsoever."
Does that do it for you? In your mind, is this a red cape to a bull or a bucket of water to a fire? Is that a challenge or a turn off?
I read that and here's what I hear: "I think you're a complete idiot, so bring me your best defenses so I can laugh at you and call you an idiot. No, I have no reason to listen. No, I don't intend to actually consider anything you have to say. No, this won't be an actual dialog. If you thought otherwise, you weren't paying attention. 'I have absoloutley NO respect for religion whatsoever.' So, regardless of how well thought out, cogent, rational your views are, I'll snub you. (And, please, don't try to pull that 'If you're so smart, why can't you spell absolutely?' kind of thing. This is not a matter of 'smart'.)"
Well-meaning, sincere Christians seem to like to rise to these occasions. "They asked for my input. I'm going to give it to them." And true believers understand the need to share the Gospel. However, it is situations like these that clearly illustrate that "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). We do indeed need to have answers. We do indeed need to be ready to give reasons. But we also need to keep in mind that it is not our wise, well-considered, carefully reasoned arguments that will convince people. So have them, use them, but don't rely on them for results.
5 comments:
There is also the infamous, "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6) In essence, Jesus says giving the Gospel message to those who scorn and mock it is not only a waste of time, it is to your peril. Remember as well that Psalm 1:1 says, "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or seat in the seat of mockers." I would say that answering such 'flag-waving' challenges is akin to standing in the way of sinners and seating in the seat of mockers, wouldn't you agree?
That site sounds like Debunking Christianity which has gotten progressively more desperate as time goes on. The relentless repetition of "why I rejected Christianity", "former deacon leaves Christianity", "Joe's de-conversion story" all starts to sound like the same handful of puerile complaints rewound and played back again.
It's good for practice, but it's important to expect to move on.
Oh, sure, PhD ... go all biblical on us. Okay ... that works.
Yeah, Jim, there are a lot of them. This one wasn't that one. It was much nastier.
This is "Mr. X," right? He posted a link over on Keith Plummer's site--a complete non-sequitur response to a brief note Keith wrote about a new Van Til biography (which itself looks pretty interesting). So for kicks I looked at X's site. The RC's have a phrase for this: Invincible ignorance. It's like the book "Ken Smith's Guide to the Bible"--not a serious effort, just an occasion to mock and sneer.
No, not "Mr. X." It's someone who blogs on "Why I hate Jesus." But you illustrate perfectly how common this is. And, you rightly recognize it as Invincible Ignorance. I just can't figure out any reason for the appearance of "let's talk" when the intent is to ignore the talk.
Post a Comment