Backward, atheist soldiers!

WORLD Magazine ^ | June 30, 2007 | Marvin Olasky

[Zhangliqun]

Jeez, is everything a "red herring" or "straw man" when you ask legitimate questions about faith?

An irrelevant point is an irrelevant point whether you think the question is legitimate or not. Maybe you confuse Christian eschatology with hatred? Thinking someone is in danger and telling them so isn't hating them as you seem to be implying. Do rescue workers hate the people they are trying to rescue? (If they did, would they bother with the rescue?) Do the people who run AA meetings hate alcoholics?

You seem to be trying to ascribe to us a hate that just isn't there. That's why it's a red herring.

Hitchens was pointing to the fact that the same Christians that were marching with Jews and Buddhists also believe those Jews and Buddhists are going to Hell if they don't accept Jesus.

I understood exactly what Hitchens meant, I've heard this complaint over and over and over again. And my answer to that is SO WHAT?

If I as a Christian treat you well and am frequently -- as in said case of the Buddhists/Jews/Christians marching together -- willing to work with you on common ground, or maybe babysit your kids while you're gone, call the cops if I see someone burglarizing your home, take you in and clothe you and feed you when your house is destroyed by storm or earthquake, look after you when you're sick, etc., etc., why does it matter so much to you what I think will happen to you -- assuming all us theists are wrong -- after you cease to exist?

What kind of vanity is this that you require everyone to think that everything about you is wonderful and perfect -- even in your non-existent afterlife -- or you're permanently offended? If you're right, what we think about your future past the grave will have zero effect on you, so if we treat you well and show you love while you're here, what more can you ask? Why can't you and Mr. Hitchens just be secure in your own non-faith and just write us off as well-meaning eccentrics and love us anyway instead of freaking out over something you believe won't affect you anyway?

[Zhangliqun]

I'm not an atheist, but you never win someone over to your point of view by insulting them and being hostile.

Some folks have been a little snippy but I don't think it's any better to hide our faith and never defend it.

It's better to be kind and lead by example, especially in instances like this.

I don't quite understand -- all we can do in here is put down words to the best of our ability. No-one in this forum can see me leading by example, they can see only my words. While on the other hand, if I remain always and entirely silent in the face of criticism, folks who are watching and may be sitting on the fence may conclude that since I said nothing, maybe the atheists are right after all. Also, Jesus was not always gentle with critics either -- read Matthew 23.

You can't argue someone into believing the way you believe.

As a general proposition, that's not true. If you make a cogent case and your opponent is willing to hear you, you can often persuade someone to your point of view. If that was not so, all forums and blogs and discussions about any disagreement about anything would be futile and people would have long ceased talking to each other except to say hello and pass the salt.

And besides, such discussions are not always just for the folks involved in the discussion -- there is almost always someone watching and listening.

BUT...in the case of Christianity, it is true. The only thing that turns a non-believer into a believer is a direct encounter with the risen Lord, not sheer force of argument. At best, believers can only pave the way in someone's mind for that encounter to take place. But one of the ways to do that is to gently but directly answer critics and not be afraid they'll think we're mean.