Conversation With An Atheist

crossnote said:
Interpretation...or better compromise of God's Word in order for our faith to have respectability amongst the 'intelligensia' of this world. That would be no different than the techniques the Church growth crowd uses to make the Church palatable amongst the unsaved.
I did say 'the plain meaning of God's Word' e.g. evening and morning, one day. (As a Christian, I must reject the 'millions/billions of years' scenario.)
Or,
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
(Rom 5:12)
How could there be an evolutionary cycle of graduated forms without sin, and thus the introduction of death by the first man Adam?

I do somewhat agree with you concerning witnessing to atheists, that evolution is not the way to go, but sometimes it helps to do a bit of preparatory work in removing the atheist's false foundations, (I prefer to show them the illogicalness of their position.) before confronting them with their moral dilemma.
Click to expand...

Something I've learned about the atheistic worldview is that evolutionary origins is one of the main supporting pillars of their entire belief system. I don't set out to convert them over to creationism. Instead, my tactic is to shatter that one leg in order to begin destabilizing their belief system built up in their minds by forces they don't understand. Far too many youth in Australia have gone ahead and offed themselves because nobody destabilized their pillars of aimless, hopeless fatalism. Having shattered one of such pillars in the beliefs of a young student exchange girl from Australia some years ago, that renewed her interest in doing further exploration after she had given up and was contemplating offing herself like so many of her friends had done. Her name is Natalie. Once she realized that the hopelessness of evolutionary origins and us being mere products of chemicals and genetics, a ray of light broke through into her heart that she did not see before.

So, yes, there are those out there who have formulas that they follow for what "what to do's" and "what not to do's," but I prefer to seek the Lord for His wisdom in how to win some of the most difficult people to the Lord. If nothing else, I've torn down the stability they thought that they had in their world view so that maybe, just maybe, they too will begin their investigation once again rather than to settle only upon what they think they know that the enemy of our souls and an will use to push them to the decision point of suicide.

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
Something I've learned about the atheistic worldview is that evolutionary origins is one of the main supporting pillars of their entire belief system.
Click to expand...
That is so true. My step father who raised me during my formative years was a hard core atheist who crammed evolution down my throat. When I came to faith in Jesus, he wanted me committed, even though beforehand when I was doing drugs and in illicit relationships, that was perfectly fine. No amount of 'witnessing' could remove that 'supporting pillar' and sadly he went to his grave as an atheist at 95.
Do you live in Australia?
 
I guess I have a fundamental difference in how evangelistic discussions are best conducted.

'Correcting' their errors (removing the mote from their eye) just causes them to become defensive rather than receptive.

I take a lot of guidance from observing (through Dr Luke's account in Acts 17) Paul's evangelistic sermon on Mars Hill (the Areopagus).
Paul was preaching to all who would listen, and came across the ongoing debate between the Epicurean (pleasure seeking) and Stoic (pleasure avoiding) philosophers. Rather than take them to task and decry the errors of both their views, Paul engaged them on their own terms, calling them "religious in all respects", then using the alter to "AN UNKNOWN GOD" as a starting point, proceeded to teach about the actual God, and how He is not an idol of silver of gold, made by man, but the judge of all men through Christ.

When I talk to others about Christ, I often start by getting them to talk about their beliefs. Even an atheist will have something to say about the "absence evidence"of a personal deity.

Giving them reign to guide their discussion, I provide contrasts with the Christian viewpoint, and eventually get to such things as how He loves us and how we fail to love Him back.

Much depends on what the respective hearer has told me about his beliefs, and thus I get an idea of what He needs to hear.
This kind of evangelism is much less of me than it is of the needs of the hearer. While the contrasting Christian view speaks against the unredeamed views, this is often seen by the hearer as much less of a personal attack and argument, and much more of a discussion of contrasting views.

Where the hearer does have a non christian religion, I try to get them to express the central point, the foundational truth of their religion. I can then present the Christian views of sin and redemption centered on the person of Christ. While I am sure they know I am contradicting their view, it is not so flagrantly an attack on them.
While the scriptures do speak of O.T. prophets needing to resort to blunt accusations of God's people when they forgot their maker, I don't see much in the new testament (or even the gospels, which being all but the last few chapters pre crucifixion/resurrection are under the old covenant) that express such an adversarial relationship to a potential brother.
 
I agree that one should not "try to destroy the houses of people where the live in order to make them move to a better house". Someone phrased it approximately like that, I do not remember who.
If I understand it correctly, this is what you mean Siloam?

Witnessing, telling the truth in love, praying, this is probably the only possibillity.

And, we do not fight against people (Eph. 6) but against spiritual powers. And our weapons are not the weapons of this world. Actually witnessing, telling the truth in love, praying are our weapons (and several more of course, Eph. 6).

alxb
 
Siloam said:
I guess I have a fundamental difference in how evangelistic discussions are best conducted.

'Correcting' their errors (removing the mote from their eye) just causes them to become defensive rather than receptive.

I take a lot of guidance from observing (through Dr Luke's account in Acts 17) Paul's evangelistic sermon on Mars Hill (the Areopagus).
Paul was preaching to all who would listen, and came across the ongoing debate between the Epicurean (pleasure seeking) and Stoic (pleasure avoiding) philosophers. Rather than take them to task and decry the errors of both their views, Paul engaged them on their own terms, calling them "religious in all respects", then using the alter to "AN UNKNOWN GOD" as a starting point, proceeded to teach about the actual God, and how He is not an idol of silver of gold, made by man, but the judge of all men through Christ.

When I talk to others about Christ, I often start by getting them to talk about their beliefs. Even an atheist will have something to say about the "absence evidence"of a personal deity.

Giving them reign to guide their discussion, I provide contrasts with the Christian viewpoint, and eventually get to such things as how He loves us and how we fail to love Him back.

Much depends on what the respective hearer has told me about his beliefs, and thus I get an idea of what He needs to hear.
This kind of evangelism is much less of me than it is of the needs of the hearer. While the contrasting Christian view speaks against the unredeamed views, this is often seen by the hearer as much less of a personal attack and argument, and much more of a discussion of contrasting views.

Where the hearer does have a non christian religion, I try to get them to express the central point, the foundational truth of their religion. I can then present the Christian views of sin and redemption centered on the person of Christ. While I am sure they know I am contradicting their view, it is not so flagrantly an attack on them.
While the scriptures do speak of O.T. prophets needing to resort to blunt accusations of God's people when they forgot their maker, I don't see much in the new testament (or even the gospels, which being all but the last few chapters pre crucifixion/resurrection are under the old covenant) that express such an adversarial relationship to a potential brother.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from. There was considerable discussion between them and myself long before the items I began posting. I did explore where they had been, what their experiences were, and where they are now. I did all that, like Paul, and also like Paul, began to define some things for them from what I know, as Paul did about that unknown deity. They did not know that their experiences as "christians" were the result of the usual fare of failed churchianity...with the severe lack of true discipling. Sunday school and sermons are not adequate, and they let far too many people slip through the cracks, so to speak, who need more personal attention and living examples in their lives that they can relate to what they've learned. That's a large part of the reasoning behind cell groups; to serve as a band-aid to the failings of the status quo of typical, institutionalized religion. The so-called "elders" in so many of them are just figure heads who are no more mature in the faith than the average pagan out there in the culture. I've had to kick a few elders in the seat of their pants at times for their lack of genuine concern and care for the people over whom they were supposed to serve as elders. They clearly were not elders of biblical stature, which is true of many if not most.

MM
 
Lanolin said:
I don't have much to say to atheists as they are terrible conversationalists who can only talk about one BORING topic.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but the Lord has helped me to see them differently. From His perspective, they are His creations...not as they are, but seeing them as He intended for them to be is the vision He has given to me. Because of that, I love them no matter what.

MM
 
alxb0521 said:
I agree that one should not "try to destroy the houses of people where the live in order to make them move to a better house". Someone phrased it approximately like that, I do not remember who.
If I understand it correctly, this is what you mean Siloam?

Witnessing, telling the truth in love, praying, this is probably the only possibillity.

And, we do not fight against people (Eph. 6) but against spiritual powers. And our weapons are not the weapons of this world. Actually witnessing, telling the truth in love, praying are our weapons (and several more of course, Eph. 6).

alxb
Click to expand...

That is idealistic, but not always practical nor functional. The Lord has given to me a great deal of discernment with these people, and as I tear down their strongholds, perhaps one pillar at a time, it's for good reason. With Nan, it struck a deep chord in her, and that's what I was after. She's vindictive, but it only takes one chink in the armor to get the sword of truth to pierce the armor dawned to shield them form the Truth.

Folks, we don't live in the ideal world here where one size fits all. For my part, I seek the Lord to give to me what He knows will work, if at all. He also has given to me the wherewithall to just walk away when that is the proper response that is consistent with His desire and His perfect knowledge. I do appreciate the feedback, and want it still. My chief aim in sharing all this with you is to convey to you the reasoning behind my actions that may very well help you to become more effective in your evangelistic outreaches. If this gives to you a greater degree of boldness to first seek the Lord for His wisdom in witnessing, but also in speaking boldly, with love, to those who are sometimes hostile and respond only with ridicule. Being cool in the face of ridicule is one of the most powerful of all tactics that gets them to take a second look at you with greater sobriety, and sometimes with respect that they didn't have before.

MM
 
alxb0521 said:
I agree that one should not "try to destroy the houses of people where the live in order to make them move to a better house". Someone phrased it approximately like that, I do not remember who.
If I understand it correctly, this is what you mean Siloam?

Witnessing, telling the truth in love, praying, this is probably the only possibillity.

And, we do not fight against people (Eph. 6) but against spiritual powers. And our weapons are not the weapons of this world. Actually witnessing, telling the truth in love, praying are our weapons (and several more of course, Eph. 6).

alxb
Click to expand...

Some try to tear down before they build. I almost always try to understand at least a little of whomever I witness to. (understanding does not mean abandoning what I _Know_ to be true.

Sometimes it is difficult.

I do know that speaking to the issues of someone who is disparaging of Christianity in general can be very trying but serving God can mean not being too sensitive.

I remember about 35 years ago, a Muslim coworker wanted to talk about the resurrection. Basically, his Imam, or other fellow Muslim had been ‘instructing’ him about the 'illogic' of Christianity.

His discussion hinged on the Biblical reports concerning seeing Jesus after the crucifixion as proof that the crucifixion was faked.

I was really taken aback but listened to his whole discourse. Attacking each sighting on its own merits clearly (to me) would not change his views.

I calmly (more calmly than I felt) pointed out how the Romans were experts at this torture and style of execution, how the Jewish leaders who had the Romans do this thing certainly had men watching the proceedings, how our Lord was had his legs broken (partially so he could not lift his body to allow breathing while He hung by his hands), and He was pierced with a spear to ensure Hi death. Given all these things, it would be exceedingly difficult to fake His death under all this scrutiny, even if the Roman execution squad was ‘paid off’.

I am not sure how this affected my friend, but I am sure that it did much better than getting all hot and bothered and argueing about His being seen around Galilee after the resurrection.
 
I don't have much to say to atheists as they are terrible conversationalists who can only talk about one BORING topic.
Siloam said:
Romans 10:14

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Click to expand...
They did hear but refused to listen, that's why they call themselves atheists.
 
Musicmaster said:
That is idealistic, but not always practical nor functional. The Lord has given to me a great deal of discernment with these people, and as I tear down their strongholds, perhaps one pillar at a time, it's for good reason. With Nan, it struck a deep chord in her, and that's what I was after. She's vindictive, but it only takes one chink in the armor to get the sword of truth to pierce the armor dawned to shield them form the Truth.

Folks, we don't live in the ideal world here where one size fits all. For my part, I seek the Lord to give to me what He knows will work, if at all. He also has given to me the wherewithall to just walk away when that is the proper response that is consistent with His desire and His perfect knowledge. I do appreciate the feedback, and want it still. My chief aim in sharing all this with you is to convey to you the reasoning behind my actions that may very well help you to become more effective in your evangelistic outreaches. If this gives to you a greater degree of boldness to first seek the Lord for His wisdom in witnessing, but also in speaking boldly, with love, to those who are sometimes hostile and respond only with ridicule. Being cool in the face of ridicule is one of the most powerful of all tactics that gets them to take a second look at you with greater sobriety, and sometimes with respect that they didn't have before.

MM
Click to expand...
Interesting. I will think about it.

alxb
 
Lanolin said:
I don't have much to say to atheists as they are terrible conversationalists who can only talk about one BORING topic.

They did hear but refused to listen, that's why they call themselves atheists.
Click to expand...
The problem is that atheism or more precisely Darwinism is not a stupid little funny freak world view. It is the(!) current world view in power and still growing. The problem is that it has absorbed, for a long time already, all important centers of society.

alxb
 
alxb0521 said:
The problem is that atheism or more precisely Darwinism is not a stupid little funny freak world view. It is the(!) current world view in power and still growing. The problem is that it has absorbed, for a long time already, all important centers of society.

alxb
Click to expand...

Thankfully God is more than able to work within the world to bring those he is calling to him. God has allowed the current situation as part of his overall plan and so we know that it will work together for good, even if we don't see or understand the good.
 
CPerkins said:
Thankfully God is more than able to work within the world to bring those he is calling to him. God has allowed the current situation as part of his overall plan and so we know that it will work together for good, even if we don't see or understand the good.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the question remains to which extent should we "fight" against evil things in this world? With "fight" I mean of course a spiritual fight through praying, love, speaking the truth, rejecting lies and sometimes even be prepared to go to prison.
I think it is a hard decision.
 
alxb0521 said:
I agree, but the question remains to which extent should we "fight" against evil things in this world? With "fight" I mean of course a spiritual fight through praying, love, speaking the truth, rejecting lies and sometimes even be prepared to go to prison.
I think it is a hard decision.
Click to expand...

These are evil times, but greater evil is yet to come.

Using the armor that God has given us now, I believe will better prepare us for the times ahead. The battle though is not really ours, but God's who works in us.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (KJV)

We are told to watch and pray. Watch for what exactly, is a good study. Part of watching is to be prepared and ready for trials and the opportunities that God sends our way. Each of have been, are and/or will be, called to use that armor in some way. Being prepared through God's word, prayer and acting on these things will greatly aid us in our fight. Most of all we must trust God, fear him and act on what God gives as we are given opportunity and as we discern that God is in it.

Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (KJV)
 
alxb0521 said:
I agree, but the question remains to which extent should we "fight" against evil things in this world? With "fight" I mean of course a spiritual fight through praying, love, speaking the truth, rejecting lies and sometimes even be prepared to go to prison.
I think it is a hard decision.
Click to expand...

Here's a principle the living word of God conveys to us:

1 Samuel 17:47 "Then all this assembly shall know that the LORD does not save with sword and spear; for the battle [is] the LORD's, and He will give you into our hands."

A principle that repeats:

2 Chronicles 20:15 And he said, "Listen, all you of Judah and you inhabitants of Jerusalem, and you, King Jehoshaphat! Thus says the LORD to you: 'Do not be afraid nor dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle [is] not yours, but God's.

How comforting indeed.

2 Chronicles 20:17 'You will not [need] to fight in this [battle]. Position yourselves, stand still and see the salvation of the LORD, who is with you, O Judah and Jerusalem!' Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out against them, for the LORD [is] with you."

Psalms 24:8 Who [is] this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, The LORD mighty in battle.
Psalms 140:7 O GOD the Lord, the strength of my salvation, You have covered my head in the day of battle.
Psalms 144:1 [A Psalm] of David. Blessed [be] the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, [And] my fingers for battle--
Proverbs 21:31 The horse [is] prepared for the day of battle, But deliverance [is] of the LORD.
Isaiah 13:4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, Like that of many people! A tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together! The LORD of hosts musters The army for battle.
Zechariah 10:5 They shall be like mighty men, Who tread down [their enemies] In the mire of the streets in the battle. They shall fight because the LORD is with them, And the riders on horses shall be put to shame.

It don't get no better than that...

MM
 
I think the best way to engage with an atheist is to satisfy their natural curiosity about the things of God by letting their own desire to find out be the catalyst to explore what faith means. Often an atheist just wants PROOF.

For example. They might even go to Israel and talk to people and all the places Jesus walked to convince themselves it was real.

Anybody who's read or seen Lee Strobel's Case for Christ can see the journey he took from athiest to believer. His believing wife could do nothing to convince Him about God but quietly stand by and pray and have patience while he maddeningly tried to prove there was no God. In the movie, she prayed a scripture about God giving people a new heart of flesh to replace their heart of stone. She prayed this over and over.

Eventually he 'got' it. Took a looong time though! Now he is a pastor/minister of a thriving congregation and author of many apologetic works.
 
regarding Darwinism. I see in most books of natural history they have his erroneous worldview embedded in the useless 'facts' thrown around willy nilly where they state with no evidence whatsover that this or that species was billions of years old (and the billions of years varies from book to book) that I usually just chuck them as out of date when I see that in my non-fiction collection. Or books that imply when we lived in trees and started walking on two legs...um.. what is is a Rudyard Kipling fairy tale? LOL

If it s confusing to me it's confusing to children and adults. It only makes sense to the scientists who tries to convince themselves its true.
 
Lanolin said:
I think the best way to engage with an atheist is to satisfy their natural curiosity about the things of God by letting their own desire to find out be the catalyst to explore what faith means. Often an atheist just wants PROOF.

For example. They might even go to Israel and talk to people and all the places Jesus walked to convince themselves it was real.

Anybody who's read or seen Lee Strobel's Case for Christ can see the journey he took from athiest to believer. His believing wife could do nothing to convince Him about God but quietly stand by and pray and have patience while he maddeningly tried to prove there was no God. In the movie, she prayed a scripture about God giving people a new heart of flesh to replace their heart of stone. She prayed this over and over.

Eventually he 'got' it. Took a looong time though! Now he is a pastor/minister of a thriving congregation and author of many apologetic works.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, with the two who inspired this thread, they both claimed to have been "christians" by praying the so-called "sinner's prayer," and going through all the usual churchianity motions. Neither of them had any genuine discipleship oversight in their lives other than Sunday school and such, going to "bible camps," etc., earlier in their lives.

They are now fixated upon "scientific" proof of God's existence. Science is utterly incapable of proving anything that is not material, and so I told them I could not use science to prove the existence of a strictly material God, for there is no such being. On its own, science can't prove anything even about the material universe or anything in it. Science doesn't say a word about anything. It's scientists who say things, and govern the subjective application of the rules and methods for science.

So, what they both did was to establish an impossible means for conviction. That's why I then led them down the path to the hopelessness of their beliefs. In their world view, there is only the cessation of their existence, rendering all of life a meaningless exercise in the expanse of the universe...be it ever so limited. They especially hated the rationality of Pascal's wager. Neither of them were able to explain, scientifically, why that wager is not valid and irrefutable.

So, the world continues to spin, the pit and Sheol beneath out feet continue to glow in the heat that's down there, tormenting those in its flames as that population continues to grow every day while awaiting the last Judgement before they are cast into Hell, with the pit awaiting to be opened and swallow Satan for that thousand years.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top