There is something very strange about a Christian insulting the atheist while presenting an argument for God to him. Shouldn't such argumentation be an act of love?
It seems that all too often people present these arguments for personal entertainment, or even worse, as an act of pride delighting in one's own intellect. Almost as if the Christian is treating God merely like a math problem that he can brag about having solved while simultaneously mocking those who failed.
You're onto something. When Paul wrote his letters, what did he say? Christianity is emptied of its power when argued according to the wisdom of the world, which he counted as foolish. Christianity never needed theologians because that was never its point. It is written in the Gospels that Jesus blesses God for revealing the good news to children, aka simpletons, rather than wise men.
So if the Christian who argues with you calls you a fool, not only does Jesus say he is guilty of a sin worthy of death, but likewise that he himself is a fool since his faith is based on the wisdom of this world. Knowledge of the Christ must be gnostic and not acquired by natural means.
>Knowledge of the Christ must be gnostic
t. Satan
You are... something else.
>For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
>Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.
It's apt to use ridicule as a rhetorical tool when appropriate to disarm irrational opposition to God.
What do you mean by "disarm irrational opposition to God"? Do you mean that you think ridiculing the atheist will actually convince him God exists, or do you rather mean that ridiculing the atheist makes you feel like you intellectually disarmed him which makes you feel good?
>What do you mean by "disarm irrational opposition to God"?
I mean the typical unbeliever is a deeply emotional, irrational person and will reason on the sole basis of the axe they have to grind with God, and effectively used ridicule can really take the wind out of their sails.
>Do you mean that you think ridiculing the atheist will actually convince him God exists
I think nothing will convince him because he's dead in sin. His heart is set against God. I don't have the power to convince him and that isn't my role, I don't pretend to be the Holy Spirit.
Incorrect.
What do you mean by "taking wind out of their sails"?
If you cannot convince the atheist, why are you presenting arguments for God to him?
>What do you mean by "taking wind out of their sails"?
Cutting down their irrational opposition.
>If you cannot convince the atheist, why are you presenting arguments for God to him?
Clearly I'm doing it because I'm deeply insecure in my beliefs and desperately need the approval of others to feel comfortable in them. At least, whenever someone says something like this to me, I get the impression that's the only reason they can conceive of to engage in disputation.
What do you propose I do when someone objects to the gospel message, silently smile like an idiot? The apostles and prophets responded to objections to the truth with sound argument and commanded us to do the same. 2 Timothy 2:23-26 "But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s slave must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may give them repentance leading to the full knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." The Holy Spirit does not act in a vacuum, but He works together with the word preached by His servants. If He does not work in the one to whom I am speaking, I speak to the wind, but if I give sound reasoning and show the unbeliever his error the Spirit may use that to open his eyes to the truth. And if He does not, then He will use it to the judgement of the one who hardens his heart.
>But you're also going to call atheists/agnostics excessively rational and logical if you feel like it
No, that's grotesquely false I would never say that.
>You are not here to debate, you just want to state your position and insult the honour and intelligence of whoever expresses a different opinion, like a bishop hunting for heretics
Is that what your feelings told you?
So you just use religion as a justification to be an butthole?
No.
Yes.
Ok
>What does it mean for their opposition to be "cut down"?
What do you think it means?
>I don't know, but what is the actual purpose of mocking suck a person?
I don't just mock them, that would be completely inappropriate. Mockery is only to be used when appropriate. A prime example is in the debate between Greg Bahnsen and Edward Tabash. Tabash's entire "argument" consisted of mocking God and complaining about how much he doesn't like hell and doesn't like God, and Bahnsen extremely effectively disarmed that emotional line of ridicule with some of his own, pointing out his opponent had said nothing of substance and mocking him by comparing him to an angry child.
>I don't see how you can read that passage as condoning mocking people
You may have an easier time if you had more familiarity with the author.
>while giving philosophical arguments
I try to avoid philosophical arguments, and make exclusively theological arguments.
>What do you think it means?
I honestly don't know.
>Bahnsen extremely effectively disarmed that emotional line of ridicule with some of his own, pointing out his opponent had said nothing of substance and mocking him by comparing him to an angry child.
What do you mean by saying that he disarmed it? What is the purpose of "disarming it"?
>You may have an easier time if you had more familiarity with the author.
I'm just taking the quote at face value. Perhaps you should've chosen a different quote.
>I honestly don't know.
>What do you mean by saying that he disarmed it?
I don't know how it isn't self-explanatory. I thought my original expression was self-explanatory. What exactly are you having trouble with?
>What is the purpose of "disarming it"?
I don't know how to respond to this other than repeating my previous question: when objections to the gospel are presented, do you think I should just smile like an idiot and pretend nothing was said?
>I'm just taking the quote at face value. Perhaps you should've chosen a different quote.
No, that was the right one.
>I don't know how it isn't self-explanatory. I thought my original expression was self-explanatory. What exactly are you having trouble with?
I literally don't know what you mean by it. When it comes to disarming arguments, what I think of is a counterargument. A counterargument does not require mockery to effectively disarm an argument.
>when objections to the gospel are presented, do you think I should just smile like an idiot and pretend nothing was said?
I don't know what you should do, I'm just asking why you would employ mockery.
>No, that was the right one.
Read at face value, it seems to claim that the Christian should do the very opposite of mocking the unbeliever. I guess you can call me stupid for not getting it.
>Cutting down their irrational opposition.
I still don't know what you mean by that. What does it mean for their opposition to be "cut down"?
>What do you propose I do when someone objects to the gospel message, silently smile like an idiot?
I don't know, but what is the actual purpose of mocking suck a person?
>And the Lord’s slave must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition
I don't see how you can read that passage as condoning mocking people while giving philosophical arguments for the existence of God.
>If He does not work in the one to whom I am speaking, I speak to the wind, but if I give sound reasoning and show the unbeliever his error the Spirit may use that to open his eyes to the truth.
What role would mockery play in that?
>the typical unbeliever is a deeply emotional, irrational person
But you're also going to call atheists/agnostics excessively rational and logical if you feel like it, I am sure of it.
You are not here to debate, you just want to state your position and insult the honour and intelligence of whoever expresses a different opinion, like a bishop hunting for heretics
>rhetorical tool
A nice euphemism for "I am not going to be honest and straightforward in this discussion"
It does nothing without a blatantly good argument attached
Without a good argument it just accurately looks like you have nothing and are throwing a tantrum.
>Anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
I mean if you're okay with risking it to win an argument, it's up to you.
The only unforgivable sin is not believing everything you're told with zero evidence. He's fine.
>Almost as if the Christian is treating God merely like a math problem that he can brag about having solved while simultaneously mocking those who failed.
Yes, great way to put it.
They basically anticipate your question "If you understand this, how come you cannot explain it to me?" by calling you stupid.
It's not even their fault, it's just that the god they preach went out of fashion a long time ago (as proven by the fact that he's still MIA after 2k years)
For me it's the fake humility of
>oh I know I deserve to go to hell too (even though God has elected me to be saved)
I guess if you honestly believe that humans who aren't of your religion deserve to burn in hell forever, you'll have a pretty low and hateful view of others.
I don't believe that humans who aren't of my religion deserve to burn in hell forever, I believe that humans deserve to burn in hell forever.
...you just proved the point I made at the beginning of my post
The only point I saw was your hurt feelings.
>When it comes to disarming arguments, what I think of is a counterargument.
How do you make a counterargument to something that isn't an argument?
>I'm just asking why you would employ mockery.
Answered
>at face value
Read: "out of context"
>The only point I saw was your hurt feelings.
I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of telling people who aren't of your religion they are so evil they deserve to be tortured forever, but then acting like saying "oh I deserve to burn in hell, too, but im saved by God's grace!" somehow makes it less of an awful thing to say
Judges are so rude to murderers by putting them in jail.
You're not the judge of anything homosexual.
I mean it's more like a judge says everyone else deserves infinite punishment by default for existing.
>How do you make a counterargument to something that isn't an argument?
You prove that it doesn't work as an argument. That does not require mockery.
>Answered
Where? You claimed that you use mockery to "disarm" the atheist, and when asked what the purpose of disarming the atheist, you asked me if you should smile like an idiot and pretend nothing was said when someone is mocking the gospel. I still don't see what the purpose of "disarming the atheist" is.
>Read: "out of context"
Why did you post the quote without the required context then?
>You prove that it doesn't work as an argument. That does not require mockery.
It is effective rhetoric, sir. Would you rebuke the prophets and apostles, and the Lord Jesus Christ, because they violated the precepts of the cult of niceness?
>Where?
In every single post.
>I still don't see what the purpose of "disarming the atheist" is.
You're being intellectually dishonest.
>Why did you post the quote without the required context then?
And now you're being disrespectful to the word of God. Sir, if you have nothing more to say, I think this conversation is over.
I'm also not the one sending you to hell.
>else
I never said this.
>by default for existing
Not for existing, for your sins. There is forgiveness in Jesus, if you repent and believe in Him I promise you the wrath of God will not abide on you.
The levels of narcissism, this moron thinks he's God. You are powerless you homosexual.
>repent and believe in Him
I can't decide to be convinced something happened without seeing any evidence or having any reason to think it did. Paul says it has nothing to do with human effort or desire to repent, but on God choosing who he wants to have mercy on.
>I can't decide to be convinced something happened without seeing any evidence or having any reason to think it did.
Why do you think there's no reason to think it did?
Do you think the gospels are evidence?
Yes.
>It is effective rhetoric
What is its effect?
>In every single post.
You said that it's used to disarm the atheist, but I still don't know why you can't disarm the atheist without it or even what the purpose of disarming the atheist is.
>You're being intellectually dishonest.
How? I swear I still have no idea what the purpose of disarming the atheist is.
>And now you're being disrespectful to the word of God.
How? Is my lack of knowledge disrespectful? Are you trying to disarm me right now?
Everyone in this thread is just arguing against a strawman they created in their head.
Forget their lack of politeness, they don’t follow virtually any rules in the Bible.
You have to wonder what possess someone to not follow a religion but obsess about converting people to it.
It's like Covid, people who just wear masks to virtue signal without care for hygiene but want you to get vaxxed.
>You have to wonder what possess someone to not follow a religion but obsess about converting people to it.
Americans all come from the sect that told them everyone was going to burn in hell besides them because they are saved so they can do whatever they want and also Pride and enjoying Sadism is actually a good thing
>Shouldn't such argumentation be an act of love?
>Almost as if the Christian is treating God merely like a math problem
Honestly anon? I fully agree with you, we've ended up in a fallen state in this point, which is why America is now rightfully imploding.
Every contradiction and flaw of American Christianity, and to an extent Western Christianity, is hitting it's logical conclusion, it is fitting it ends with the US dying on the alter of Khazaric Israel as they try to genocide the direct descendants of Jesus' people.
Jesus didn't preach christianity, he preached love and peace. Organizing around it is Black personish collectivism. Just be nice, you won't go to hell if you won't but you'll feel better.
>There is something very strange about a Christian insulting the atheist while presenting an argument for God to him. Shouldn't such argumentation be an act of love?
No. Behind literally every post trying to prove the Christian god exists hides a sweaty, tomato-red, Mariana-trench-blood-pressure, frothing-at-the-mouth dude screaming "SEE HOW INTELLIGENT I AM? NOW SHUT THE FRICK UP, NOD AT WHAT I SAY, BELIEVE IN THE TALKING SNAKE, OBEY THE MAGIC NARCISSIST, GIVE 10%OF YOUR INCOME TO THE LOCAL CHILD RAPIST AND ACKNOWLEDGE MY INFINITE WISDOM AND HUMILITY" at his computer screen. It should be self evident that there never was such a thing as a Christian who loves people he threatens with eternal torture.
mad
Blaming the victim of spiritual abuse.
Effeminate shaming tactics are meant to convince the gullible, not intellectuals
the type of people who say shit like this guy are the type of people who get kicked out of the church for making evangelion references and screeching about the church not letting intellectuals in
You just did exactly what he said you people do.
ok i'll bite
what evidence is there for early christians actually doing as he says? we know of many christians who were rich and poor in those days, the idea that they didnt let the "learned, wise, or prudent" in is unfounded, and could entirely just be an idea born out of his own bias against christians
and then look at his other quote, does this seem like the type of lifestyle led by idiots?
"evangelion", especially not even capitalized like a proper noun and when you might have said "NGE" is just deliciously ironic.
>Shouldn't such argumentation be an act of love?
that just comes off as condescending
most arguments between christians and athiests aren't really about one trying to convert the other to their beliefs, its about arguing about theology itself, in which both athiests and christians are guilty of acting prideful, because i've seen athiests pull that sort of thing just as much
no point in trying to convert someone if they're not freely coming to you, so arguing out of love would just be misplaced and arrogant, but arguing out of passion for the faith, not the individual, would be the correct way