Conversation With An Atheist
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
Well they were pointed, which I fully confess, but I was ,making a point. The argument route, argument in the emotion driven sense rather than the chain of logic sense, does very much more harm than good. I calcifies peoples position and causes them to erect higher and higher walls.
I remember a lunchtime walk with a coworker who was very upset with a specific church and Christians in general because of the way they treated his lesbian niece. Continuing with discussion of the sinfulness of her lifestyle would only drive him farther away.
Instead, I asked him (knowing of course the answer) whether his niece was a Christian. When he said that no, she wasn't I replied that then there is a more important issue she needs to deal with, then she could address the other. A sinner that forgoes one particular sin, remains a sinner. A habitual sinner that accepts the Lord becomes a sinner saved by grace.
The point is that warring with the world plays into the enemy's strengths. While love and understanding addresses persons need.
Siloam, how would you handle verses like these?...
John 15:18 (NASB) "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
Luke 6:26 (KJV) Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
First, I would like to say that I admit that I have been intemperate in my questions, and that is not usually my way. You may take it as frustration and not be too far from the truth of the matter. But I do not see how The Kingdom gains from frontal attacks. I know that this falls way short of an apology, but I find I am unable to do so. I am mindful of the quote I have placed at the bottom of my posts. I regret my methods, but remain convinced that believers do not help the Lord by frontal attacks on the world. Maybe I need my thoughts to be brought into better control.
This issue is in my prayers.
Having said the above,
Nothing is gained if an argument is won (what ever that may mean), but a sinner is farther from acceptance.
Our response to the unsaved should always be with an eye to helping them understand the Gospel. Where they are not ready to hear such, commend them to the Holy Spirit that they may come to than understanding sometime later. Do not make the things of glory be a sore spot in their memory.
As far as how I would respond to your questions, I would say that we should not return evil with evil. It was not the Lord's way. It was not the way of the first century believers. It should not be ours. That is not to say either that we should expect the world to love us, or that we should be meek and unheard., but that we should return scorn with care where possible, moving on where it is not.
Siloam, thanks for your response, I asked because often I see too much ‘manipulating’ by the Church to ‘bring in converts’. Soften or water down the message for exampl. It’s as if by carnal means we try to bring in converts rather than let God’s Word do it’s own work…convicting, drawing, enlightening etc.
Many did not end up in ‘happy places’ telling it like it is.
No problem with me my brother. I just know that MM is a fully commited Christian and I know that he had already approached the lost person in question with what you suggested he do.
I actually do not not of any person who has the ability to lead people to Christ that would not use your questions. I was only saying that to point those out to such a person could be challenging to him personally......and from his responce, it did.
Bless you brother and stay safe.
Amen.
How many people to you know that were told......"Just walk down the isle and accept Christ and your worries are over".
Or how about......."Pray through and wait on God".
That kind of nonsense has done nothing but produce "christianetts" who cut and run when the problems of life come upon them.
I think I am reacting too emotionally to this, and will retire from this thread.
But before I go, I would like to leave with a couple of observations. These are not meant to be challenges, but things on which to meditate.
The first observation comes from my life's lessons. By my work location (Washington DC has a significant international population) and 'happenstance', if one wishes to deem it such, I have come into contact with a great variety of people from many walks of life. The ones that are most resistant to even hearing about Christ are those that have been preached at rather than talked with.
The second observation is that if one does not wish to end a discussion with an unbeliever, one need not always make a frontal attack. The reason I included the incident with the co-worker with a lesbian niece was that one does not need to address that primarily with a condemnation of the lifestyle. The deeper, more fundamental and more eternal issue was the relationship with Christ. Guiding the discussion in that manner changed what could be an unproductive rebuke into an invitation to approach Christ without implying that there is no lifestyle issue involved.
The third observation is that while I accept that MM may have approached in love and was met with scorn, how many times are we to forgive others? After having done that however many times, is one then free to respond as one wishes?
But always follow the leading of the Spirit!
But before I go, I would like to leave with a couple of observations. These are not meant to be challenges, but things on which to meditate.
The first observation comes from my life's lessons. By my work location (Washington DC has a significant international population) and 'happenstance', if one wishes to deem it such, I have come into contact with a great variety of people from many walks of life. The ones that are most resistant to even hearing about Christ are those that have been preached at rather than talked with.
The second observation is that if one does not wish to end a discussion with an unbeliever, one need not always make a frontal attack. The reason I included the incident with the co-worker with a lesbian niece was that one does not need to address that primarily with a condemnation of the lifestyle. The deeper, more fundamental and more eternal issue was the relationship with Christ. Guiding the discussion in that manner changed what could be an unproductive rebuke into an invitation to approach Christ without implying that there is no lifestyle issue involved.
The third observation is that while I accept that MM may have approached in love and was met with scorn, how many times are we to forgive others? After having done that however many times, is one then free to respond as one wishes?
But always follow the leading of the Spirit!
Major, you did indeed hit it right on. What's missing so badly is discipleship. Jesus sifted through the chaff by declaring that, except they eat His flesh and drink His blood, they could not be followers of Him. About 70 potential disciples went running. So many who go through the motions of the "formulas" for the usual fare of the institutional brand of "salvation," and never grow into true salvation by way of being discipled by a truly mature follower of Christ Jesus. The two I was dealing with have every appearance of having been among that crowd, never having been truly born again. Their "church" failed them miserably.
That doesn't remove from them their culpability for their choices they've made to this point, but far too many "churches" are filled with people who are themselves simply those who have chosen to "stick with the program" on account of them having some prominence among the leadership structure, or at least on the "inside crowd" that gives to them the warm fuzees of recognition as "gospel workers" for mowing the lawn for free, or "scrubbing the toilets for Jesus..."
Explaining to those who were among that kind of crowd, who fell through the cracks into atheism as a result of their disenchantment with the whole program, that an experiential life in Christ renders them liars were they to have actually been there in such a relationship, and then saying there is no God, it sometimes falls on deaf ears, and sometimes not.
The two in question are currently hard-hearted, and not ready to accept their condition for what it is. Tough love is sometimes what's necessary to break through. Yes...that can sometimes harden them even more, which God Himself has done before, case in point Pharaoh, and it has sometimes broken through. However, when tenderness and understanding don't get through, then tougher measures become necessary to force them into admitting their polarized stance, which gives to them the stark contrast of their choices at the present time. Rational argumentation becomes the catalyst that hardens the mix into distinguishable differences toward realities over which they have no control.
Like I said, I have yet to find one of them who can side-step Pascal's Wager with any credible reasoning. Oh, but they do hate it. They kick against that boulder with bare feet, only to do harm to themselves...so to speak.
MM
Well, for reassurance, I said to you before that it was indeed the Lord giving to me some things to say to these two, and that they were forced into planting their feet firmly on the soil of reality of where they are at this point in their lives rather than to live an illusion. At the same time, the assaults may very well have introduced cracks in their armor...enough for someone else to get through to ultimately bring them to genuine, saving faith.
I think you would be a good candidate for assaulting the weaknesses encouraged by much of institutionalism. Denominational institutions are some of the worst about this milk-toast-n-wet-noodle approach. Programmatic approaches let slip through their cracks many, many potential followers of Christ.
Just a thought.
MM
I agree with you that we should talk with atheists, and with anybody, in love.
My posts here are not in the sense of 'stump the atheist'. My motivation is only to point out that atheism is not just another religion where people are caught into. But that this world view is extremely dangerous and very very "successful" and that it is our social responsibility to consider that. We should not blame atheists or mock them and also not to fight with the wrong means, but to pray that God destroys this world view.
I personally think (or rather: I know) that in the past a lot of damage has been caused by Christians, who thought that they can easily disproof atheism and Darwinism. In fact they have strengthened atheism by their efforts! Like pooring gasoline on the fire.
Thank you. I agree. It is good to be reminded and constantly reminded. Very easily one forgets biblical facts and promises.
I completely agree. Only recently I fully realized the Why; "why" people do not turn to Christ. It is because they do not want that their sins become exposed (John 3:20). Is this not sad and horrifying?
It can be worse like, "Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life".
What they don't tell them is that crucifixion is part of that plan.
Agreed.
The real truth is that when we come to Christ.....then Satan comes after us.
Sad......but true.
You see.....the lost man loves his "pet" sin not matter what it is.
Pornography, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex. What ever it is he loves it to death and just can not accept the fact that when he finally, and truly comes to Christ....Christ will take those things from him.
Thank you MM. I have to tell you that I am older than you can count on both ands and all 3 feet and I have been at this a long time.
I have at times had more people than I can remember in the congregation that just knew they were Christians. Some sang in the choir, some were deacons, many held offices such as secretary and treasurers. At times I would make common sense, every day Christian Doctrine only to have black looks.
I began to realize that those people were religious but lost. They were just like Nickodemus. Smart, educated and religious but as lost as a goose in a snow storm.
It was then that I realized I did not need to go to revivals I was asked to go to......I had a mission field in front of me every Sunday!
It was when I began to "pound" it in that to say you are saved is not good enough.
You must be able and you must have to know "why" you are saved and what that means.
Many today are not even aware of the depth that this question has, because they simply have been taught that “to be saved” means to be “saved from hell” by “accepting” Jesus into your heart by repenting, by saying the sinner’s prayer, and then by confessing, or following up on all of this to-do list by being baptized to make absolutely sure you are really serious enough about your decision. That is religious garbage.
I know you realize this....and I am aware that I am speaking to the choir, but someone may need to understand that salvation maens that you were made alive. Before you were saved, you were dead.
Saved by God is an act of making the person into a whole person, creating a “new creation” person with a new heart, causing the person to come alive in the spirit realm, bringing awareness and healing to the person’s soul, and delivering the person from the power of sin’s reign over them.
“As in Adam ALL died, so in like manner in Christ, shall ALL be made alive.”
And finally there will come a time when we are completely healed, made immortal, when it will be totally perfected - and saved for eternity through being "glorified"!
Amen to all that, brother.
(The best choir I could muster)- you may be speaking to them, but I don't think this 'smiley choir' is listening. LOL
I'm reading everyone's teaching and experience of atheism and would like to add a twist of this topic in my early witness to the disbelievers of God.
One time in the late 80s I was witnessing to a man and he didn't believe in Jesus Christ but said Jesus was a good man. I took offense at that and rebuked him and raised my voice contentiously. Supposedly, I was defending my Lord and Savior.
Another time in the mid 90s a man I was sharing Christ with told me I was getting too emotional and quoting Scriptures. He finally exploded and told me to F OFF!
Back in the 80s and mid 90s as I was doing street and community witnessing, (wherever the Lord led me,) those of you who were at one time an atheist, in my heart you were losers in my eyes. I was an arrogant hypocrite because as a Christian I had my own sins.
Like MM I too was too much of a fighter. Problem is, I didn't exercise the Armor of God, but relied on my anger and arrogance because I felt like I was talking over these people, especially the ones who were atheists.
There were lessons that I didn't pay attention to. In my late 30s I finally shut up and listened to a former pastor who witnessed my attitude and helped me understand why so many people didn't believe in God for so, so many variety of reasons.
MM made a point regarding aimlessness and hopelessness. Most atheists whose backs are up against the wall (challenges of life) would cry out loud in secret to whom they don't know and out of desperation rely on themselves.
As alxb0521 shared, atheists can give an array of bad vibes so we should not underestimate the damage atheism can bring to the world and our self. We're not messing around here, the battle is serious stuff!
Siloam shared something that hit home for all of us. We all have our enslavement to sin, but "the deeper, more fundamental and more eternal issue is the relationship with Christ."
What I am saying is before we cross paths with atheists, other false religions, etc..we will go through growing pains and at some point we will be equipped for Christ's glory.
God bless you all.
Losers? That's ok Bob, if you had encountered me in your street witnessing, in the '60's I would have thought, "Now there's one of those societal brainwashed individuals conforming to the establishment and is probably a spy for the Pigs. LOL, and then if you had tried witnessing to me, I would have asked, "How could that book you are carrying be God's Word when it was written by man?