Intellectuelle

I'm trying to imagine atheists hearing the Christian story's take on original sin, and wondering how Christian accounts will make much difference to them. Others who are far smarter and better educated may know hosts of arguments that will compel atheists, but it seems to me that at the end of the day we ask them to give an account for the crap we see on the daily news and we give our account. Our story's take on original sin is inextricably linked to Redemption. So their account is hopeless, which atheists that I know cheerfully acknowledge, and our account IS hope. We have a better story, but I find it hard to imagine that atheists will think so.

Well, GL, why not write a post saying exactly that? I think it would be good. Atheists aren't really any different from other group of people. Some may be very intellectual, while others may not. Some may be hostile and angry; others may not. They're just people whom God may call using different means--even a blog carnival. I think you can just say what you have to say about original sin and leave it at that.

Just to make it clear, this carnival is open to all kinds of theists. including Christians. The atheists aren't too picky about whom they debate with about original sin. LOL!

Hey, that is good idea, Hannah. Glenn, you should do just that. It's definitely provocative enough. :)

Hannah, I really appreciate your plugging this carnival!

Reading GL's comment, I must say I'm surprised at how many Christians seem to espouse a defeatist attitude about this. I think our job as followers of Christ is just to put the Truth out there and give the Holy Spirit an opportunity to move.

If nothing else we can dispel some negative stereotypes about how Christians do not think through their faith or do not have a strong intellectual basis for believing. It seems to me to be a better option than to just keep talking amongst ourselves...

Wow...I've been straying from Apologetics for awhile now, due mostly to the fact that I really wasn't debating anyone at all. But I think I'll work on something for this (it will help me with my debate skills).

Thanks for tellingus about it!

Chad,
I'm not sure what sense of defeatist you have in mind; depending on how you're using the word I might be guilty as charged. In the sense that I understand the word my comment was not defeatist but rather a recognition of situations that are conducive for communication.

My experience is certainly no trump card on this issue, but my experience does inform my views. When I was in undergrad at Dartmouth and then in campus ministry at Harvard, and then in countless fora during RTS and UVa, I have discussed aspects of the Christian faith with non-believers, some of whom were atheists. One thing (among others) that I have learned from these encounters is that debate scenarios are usually (not always) ineffective. Most often they have been spectator sports which serve to reinforce (to the point of reify) the views that Christians and non-believers brought with them. These fora are about deploying one's erudition and scoring points. The leading benefit I've seen is that Christian observers say, "Wow, that guy/woman is really smart so I guess I can be confident of my faith after all." Mostly what I have personally seen apologetics doing is shoring up the faith of the already convinced.

The implication of these many experiences is what I have written in Common Grounds. In Common Grounds the 'Socrates character' of Professor MacGregor engages believers and non-believers but he does so in the context of ongoing personal relationships. Lauren, the corporate attorney and militant skeptic, is acutely aware that she is loved and cared for by Professor MacGregor, and that he is not trying to score points, and that if she never buys into the Christian story he still will love her and be her friend. MacGregor has an agenda, and that is to love her. Within that agenda of love he hopes that Lauren will be enchanted by Christ, and he knows that 'enchantment' is the Spirit's work.

What I'm getting at is the spectacles of debates can be fun and they do have some benefits. But after the sound and fury of a debate subsides, I've personally never seen atheists who have come to faith.

What I have seen is that when a Professor MacGregor type person-- full of grace and truth-- walks alongside non-believers, incarnating the gospel AND reasoning with them, more fruit is borne. This happens in the context of real, daily life, sustained interaction, and the kind of communication is that not about scoring points. Real listening is something that happens in the context of trust, care, love. When people are 'hearing' but only while mentally preparing their comebacks, communication is not really happening.

Glenn, I appreciate your elaboration. It makes more sense now. (Initially, I interpreted what you were saying as more of a knee-jerk pessimistic attitude that so many people seem to have.)

I still think though that in the context of this type of forum you would have the option to take an approach which is more like what you've described. Instead of a strictly intellectual/apologetic approach, you could tell a personal narrative of how Christ has changed your life. That may be a more effective way of connecting and disarming them as opposed to a "scoring points" type of attempt as you've described. Anyway, it's just a thought.

KNOWING CHRIST IS THE ABSOLUTE PREREQUISITE FOR "GROWING IN GRACE AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST."

YOU CANNOT "GROW" IN A REALM UNLESS YOU ARE ALREADY POSITIONED WITHIN IT. THIS REALM, WHILE IN "THE WORLD... IS NOT{PART} OF THE WORLD"-- CONSEQUENTLY, ITS SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLES CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY THOSE OUTSIDE THE REALM; "INDEED, THEY ARE FOOLISNESS TO{THOSE OUTSIDE OF THIS REALM}.

FOR THIS REASON, APOLOGETICS IS A HELPFUL TOOL FOR THOSE ALREADY SAVED-- I.E., PROVIDING INTELLECTUAL (THOUGH NOT ULTIMATELY NECESSARY) ANSWERS TO LINGERING HUMANISTIC QUESTIONS. THERE IS NO ULTIMATE, ANSWER FOR ALL BIBLICAL QUESTIONS-- TO SAY NOTHING OF EXTRA-BIBLICAL QUESTIONS.

SIMPLE FAITH IN CHRIST IS THE, SPIRITUAL. SOCIAL, PHILSOPHICAL, AND INTELLECTUAL LEVELER OF EVERY CLASS OF MANKIND-- THE SINE QUA NON OF CLASPING GOD'S HAND-- RATHER OF GOD CLASPING OUR HAND. THIS PRINCIPLE OF FAITH PUTS A MERE CHILD AT THE TABLE WITH HUMAN I.Q.s THAT ARE OFF THE CHART.

THE THRUST OF THESE REMARKS ASK:

WHAT HAVE WE REALLY GAINED IN A DEBATE WITH OPPONENTS WHOSE HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF OUR SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED, VERBALLY ADROIT, PARRIES AND THRUSTS?

IF WE WIN THE DEBATE WE MAY LOSE THE ESSENTIAL, EVANGELICAL PROXIMNITY TO THE LOSER'S SOUL. PEOPLE (SAVED OR LOST) DO NOT HANDLE INTELLECTUAL EMBARRESSMENT WELL.

SALVATION IS NOT A PRIMARILY INTELLECTUAL CONVERSION-- THIS CAN, OR MAY NOT COME, WITH TIME. NOTHING WE CAN DO IS EFFECTIVE, IF WE FORGET:

"IT IS NOT BY POWER, NOR BY MIGHT, BUT BY MY SPIRIT-- SAYETH THE LORD.

Hey, Rey, today is Korea's biggest holiday and we are off to go party hard by. . . going to church! I want to respond to your comments but I may not be able to until tomorrow since we will be meeting friends for dinner tonight. Blessings to you! I'll be back.

FYI, the topic has been expanded to Sin in general.

YES, I KNOW, (YOU ARE); ORIGINAL SIN ESTABLISHES A LAUGUAGE BARRIER BETWEEN THE TEMPORAL UNDERSTANDING AND THE ETERNAL.

THE GOSPEL IS SIMPLE-- PAUL'S ADMONITION -- TO "FLEE ARGUMENTATION AND DOUBTFUL DISPUTATIONS", AD INFINITUM, SUGGESTS AN APPROACH TO EVANGELISM THAT IS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHT-FORWARD: "... LEST THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST BE MADE TO NON-EFFECT".

I KNOW OF A WORLD-RENOWN, CHRISTIAN MATHEMATICIAN WHO USES INORDINATELY ESOTERIC MATH TO CONVINCE OTHER PHYSICISTS AND MATHEMATICIANS THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS A PRE- PLANNED, PURPOSEFUL EVENT (INTELLIGENT DESIGN).

BECAUSE OF THIS PHYSICISTS/MATHEMATICIAN'S UNIQUE AND INTELLECTUALLY STELLAR POSITION, HE HAS CONVERTED MANY ATHEISTIC COLLEAGUES TO AGNOSTIC AND, IN SOME CASE, DEISTIC BELIEVERS.

THIS NEW STATUS DOES NOT, HOWEVER, MAKE THEM CHRISTIANS; MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE IN GOD-- IN FACT, "DEVILS BELIEVE AND TREMBLE."

JESUS DID NOT ARGUE WITH NICODEMUS. INSTEAD, HE BRUSHED ASIDE THE PHARISEE'S SINCERE COMPLEMENT AND PROCLAIMED , "EXCEPT A MAN IS BORN AGAIN..."

ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER JESUS WAS A REAL HISTORICAL PERSON SEEMS TO BE A PROPER SUBJECT FOR APOLOGETICS. THERE ARE OTHERS BUT THE FIELD IS NARROW.

A POSITIVE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER JESUS IS THE INCARNATE SON GOD-- IS A GIFT OF GOD.

NOTE, THESE ARE PERSONAL OPINIONS-- THEY DO NOT MAKE ME ANY LESS LOVING TO THOSE OF MY SISTERS AN BROTHER WHO FEEL OTHERWISE.