Discussions with Theists part 1
I've been talking to theists lately. Mostly on GodTube, but on other places as well. Here's a conversation I had with a particular GodTuber, mikepl82.
It started out with this comment on the Christian response to "The God Who Wasn't There". (My name on GodTube is nothingman)
You could have used this part to insert some more convincing arguments. This is nothing but a plea to emotion. That's a logical fallacy. If you're trying to convince people, fallacies are counterintuitive.
I got a few responses, but the one that yielded the most discussion was this one:
I think is is important to remember that only God can open a hard heart. God works through many ways and this may in fact be one of them. If you think YOUR intellectual arguments are what turn people to God, have you not given the glory to yourself and forgotten that God is the only one who can true make the sinner see.
My response:
Perhaps I am giving God the credit, as God allows us to think logically and figure things out? Is it not dishonest and immoral to convert people to a belief that makes no sense to them with emotional arguments rather than arguments that would make sense? I mean, if you happen to catch them when, say, they are grieving, and emotionally vulnerable, and you use an emotional argument like that to convert them, are you not manipulating them?
Whereas most ran away after one reply, this guy kept it up.
Simple question: Who converts people? Is it your intellectual arguments, or is it the grace of God? Only God has the power to raise a dead man. You can have all the arguments spoken in the most persuasive manner, but without God's grace, the discussion will result in nothing more than debates.
You can have all the grace in the world, bro. Without people being convinced it really happened, it won’t amount to anything. If I told you the most spectacular and, let’s face it, hard to believe thing, one which broke all the laws of the natural world, would you accept it at face value? If you did, you’d be an idiot. Now, if I told you a spectacular, hard to believe story that broke all the laws of the natural world, and then gave you concrete evidence, believing it makes sense.
Also…I’m not trying to compete with anyone. I don’t add notches to my belt whenever I convert someone. I’m trying to find truth, and help others find it. The uneducated zealot will damage the cause more than anything, so I don’t want to make any of them.
It should be noted that, when I make it evident I'm an atheist, people run away or treat me like an idiot. So I'm a really, really liberal christian there, now, except to the other non-believers. TECHNICALLY, what I'm saying here isn't a lie. I AM trying to find truth, and help others find it. I just don't think Jesus is truth.
Well I like the fact that you wish to spread the Gospel message to those who need that hard evidence. I think it is healthy to provide that when people question one's faith, however, God does not require us to simply know him, for even Satan knows God is real, but we must always be aware that faith is still what God requires of us. He wants us to have a relationship with Him. He wants us to trust Him. He wants us to give up our sin and follow Christ. When one comes to a saving faith in Christ, we must acknowledge that it was God who converted that person. It was not some human's clever use of earthly facts or discussion. Now, I'm not saying God doesnt work through those kinds of things, He does, but we as His followers must bear in mind that only Christ can truly make a blind man "see" (understand His Truth)
What? Dude…“earthly facts or discussion”? Isn’t God an “earthly fact,” assuming Jesus existed and was who he said he was? Didn’t Jesus win souls with “discussion”? When you don’t discuss, yet tell someone about something, you dictate to them. You expect people to simply convert without really understanding what they’re doing? You’re OK with simply doing as you’re told, without questioning? Because it seems as if this is what you’re telling me.
That's the last correspondence I had with mikepl82. I am fairly certain he will not reply any time soon, if at all. It just amazes me how he thinks that using manipulative emotional arguments is better than using intelligent ones. I'm wondering if that's a common thought amongst the religious. It certainly seems like it sometimes.
- BenfromCanada's blog
- Login to post comments
Quote: have you not given
So if a sinner doesn't see, then it's god's fualt that the sinner goes to hell.
Ophios wrote: Quote: have
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing