Actually, some of us find that the most satisfying encounters is with an honest atheist who will not immediately shift to the default "danger" subprogram when the person they are talking to asks a question that is not in the preprogrammed and approved list, that is a question that might actually make the believer think rather than parrot back a preprogrammed response based on a preapproved interpretation of what scripture means. The Holy Spirit moves like the wind, going where it wants to, because it wants to and not limited to human expectations. When you restrict the Holy Spirit to just certain responses you are denying God his proper position in your life.
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I appreciate Luther and Calvin helping to free people from Roman Catholicism,
and I appreciate Billy Graham working for a salary rather than seeking to be rich,
but I do not know much about Spurgeon.
I also appreciated R.B. Thieme for teaching people at a seminary level, which I wish more did, but they are rare.
Who do you like?
Could there be anything more juicy, than the thought of arguing with atheists? Its everything a non-spiritual Christian could ever desire - research the Bible, come up with a purely intellectual/ non-spiritual argument, and bask in self glory and arrogance at the wonderful verbal argument that you used to defeat the Almighty atheist, lol
And at the end of it, the “Christian“ and the atheist depart even more committed to their arguments than ever. What an impact and a huge victory.
I began by wanting to learn answers to the questions/claims of atheists, but I soon learned that they are as closed-minded as some who claim to be Christians, so I changed my desire to wanting to inoculate Christians against atheism.
On this thread, I amended the OP to include warning folks about the heresy of wolves disguised as Christians, especially tulipism.
I seek to avoid arguing by ending looping discussions with a bet about whose view is closer to correct.
I am willing to witness without citing Scripture with atheists, but I begin by citing Scripture to provide context for the proof-text verses heretics cite. If I had an impressive testimony I might begin with it for both groups.
How do you witness to non-Christians?
Well, neither are you, so you should not post.
(Actually, all in Eph. 4:11-16 were NOT Apostles.)
Where are you debating these people at? I guess the good thing for you is no atheist will ask about the Holy Spirit.
I seem to claim what Eph. 4:11-16 says, which you seem to deny.
All truth is on the same level in One Way, but post-NT insights are not canonical,
so what we all share on CC should be tested and incorporated into our beliefs if deemed good/true (1Thes. 5:21).
Yes and the Apostles the Lord used to write His NT Canon are above all others who would serve as apostles after them
Only the biblical writers were used by the Lord to write scripture.
These other yahoos taught things that were false and that disqualifies them from ministry because they departed from God's Word.
Not per Eph. 4:11-16, which makes YOU the yahoo for departing from/ignoring that part of God's Word.
Only the biblical writers were used by the Lord to write the canon of Scripture, but Truth is also revealed via creation and conscience/moral logic, so both pre- and post-canonical insights should be tested and incorporated into our beliefs if deemed good/true (1Thes. 5:21, John 16:12-13).
Did you ever post on Ex-Christians dot com or Unexplained Mysteries, they were brutal. ExC would attack a yellow cross to your screen name section like the Star of David was pinned on the Jews in Germany. If one was thinned skinned, they were certainly a place to post but those Ex_C closed its site. Unexplained Mysteries closed their forum but their site is still up.
No, my posting experience before CC was on an AKO forum circa 2006.
The most congenial atheist was also a homosexual, so we discussed that topic a lot too.
The person I offended the most was an exC who did not appreciate my tactic of echoing or showing him a mirror (re projection).
That's a good way to silence them.
That is a good example of what is referred in 1 Tim 4:2
I would simply point out that they were convinced at once time that the Bible was true and then came to believe that it was lie, then how sure they were they weren't being lied too again? But their response was always the same, they knew what the Bible said.
Like the bow that the LORD placed in the cloud, they would argue that it was written that it was rainbow . Of course in the KJV it reads that "a bow in the cloud" while there are other translations which do in fact use "rainbow" in lieu of bow in the cloud. So that proved them right in the opinion regarding what the scriptures said and naturally their position was that the rainbow was due to light refraction not some supernatural being.
Without going into the entirety of points, while it is true that the multicolored band of visible white light is the result of light refraction, if not for the bow in the cloud that the LORD covered the earth with like a garment then the the multicolored band of refracted light would not curve to since refracted light only travels straight, just at a different line of travel, or angle if you will.
It is the bow in the cloud, or rather the curvature of the earth's atmosphere which gives the refracted light the appearance of being a multi-colored bow in the sky. Not to mention that the dry land appeared after the firmament was made from the waters that covered the earth.
Then of course there is the verse which reads that the LORD said, And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. Gen 9:16
But like they say, if you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffled them with BS.
Those of us in the drought-stricken US can well understand that the rainbow represents God's blessing!
(Matt. 5:45)
He Shall Come Down
(Refrain
Weep, mourn, Christians, weep and pray;We’re so dry, dry and thirsty, pray for that wonderful day.
(Chorus
“He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass,”The “latter rain”, my friend, that never shall cease;
Come down like rain upon the mown grass,
Showers of righteousness, showers of peace.
1. Get ready for the rain! This dry and thirsty land shall bloom like a field.
Get ready for the rain! God shall pour out His
Spirit on earth as the prophets revealed. (Repeat chorus)
2. Get ready for the rain! Tell all the people, let your witness be bold.
Get ready for the rain! God shall pour out His Spirit on earth
As the prophets foretold. (Repeat chorus, then refrain)
An insight I would like to share is what I call the “Propensity Principle” (PP). The PP points out that until proof is provided in the future at the eschaton, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life and ultimate justice (the duo of desirables or DOD) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will.
IOW, it seems logical–given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice–that an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there is no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of gambling.
The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:
1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.
2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.
3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek ways to become immortal in a heavenly existence (where there is love and justice for all forever, the DOD).
4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.
5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.
6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.