There’s a lot of talk among the pious about pride. They all seem to agree that pride is bad, and that bad people have pride. But what about evangelism? Is it a fundamentally proud position?
For a change, this post isn’t about the origins of the universe or the possibility of God.
I’m going to submit that evangelism is a prideful activity, and that if one believes pride is a sin, that person cannot (in good conscience) evangelize.
Evangelism, as popularly practiced, involves spreading the “good news” of God’s word to those that are either not religious, or just the wrong type of religious.
Paired with evangelism is the desire to have certain tenets of faith enacted as laws. Laws which not only affect Evangelists, but also other citizens of a country that don’t necessarily agree with the Evangelist’s beliefs.
In order to subscribe to an Evangelistic worldview, a person would have to believe that he or she has a flawless understanding of God’s word. Uh oh, does anyone else see where this is headed?
The belief that you have an absolute, incontrovertible understanding of God’s word is a proud belief.
I’m going to anticipate a few Evangelistic objections:
1. “I don’t believe I have the correct understanding of God’s word, I have the Bible. The Bible is the living, perfect word of God.”
Obviously, there are some people that refuse to acknowledge the internal and external inconsistencies in the Bible, but they certainly exist. Whether we’re talking about what colour Christ’s robe was during the passion, or even something more important, such as how Judas died, to say the Bible is literally consistent ignores the actual words.
If we allow that the Bible has inconsistencies, thoughtful exegesis might reconcile them, but now we’re in a position of subjectivity. One man’s thoughtful exegesis is another man’s blasphemy.
If the bible has room for interpretation, then it’s no longer the perfect word of God… Making any belief that it is rather proud, wouldn’t you say?
2. “Pride is only bad when it’s hubris, that is, the belief that you are self-made, and therefore not subject to God.”
Also known as “the pride of atheism,” hubris additionally applies to anyone that believes they can transmit the word of God as articulately as God himself. Even if you believe that the Bible is the incontrovertible, living word of God, then the only way to evangelize without pride would be to repeat the words of the Bible — preferably in the original Aramaic.
Any attempt to paraphrase, summarize or even translate constitutes a belief that you are able to express God’s word in a better way than God himself. Certainly if your modern phrasing or logical arguments were better than simply reading the Bible, God would have included them in his book, yes?
3. “Fine. But is there any way to talk about God and not be proud? I mean, we’re just trying to spread the good news here!”
Certainly. I believe that many of the more liberal denominations of Christianity engage in discussions about God that are not proud. Many acknowledge that they are simply interpreting God’s will to the best of their abilities — not that they know his every desire.
And of course, the Talmud, a sacred text in Judaism, is full of rabbinical discussions focusing on how to best interpret the Torah.
This is why I never submitted that belief in God is inherently proud, simply that Evangelism as a worldview is.
32 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 27, 2008 at 6:09 pm
keepfishing
Some of what you said is good, and “The belief that you have an absolute, incontrovertible understanding of God’s word is a proud belief.” is true, although it’ll only be a minority who claim to have absolute understanding.
Overwhelmingly untrue, however, is the statement “Paired with evangelism is the desire to have certain tenets of faith enacted as laws. Laws which not only affect Evangelists, but also other citizens of a country that don’t necessarily agree with the Evangelist’s beliefs.”
I’ve heard of Christians lobbying for certain things (I presume you had in mind abortion and gay marriage and the like), but I’ve never known it to be paired or associated with evangelism. Spreading the good news is a pro-active endeavour, whilst standing up for what you believe in (which in many cases is a long way from enacting laws), is completely different. Only the broadest definition of evangelism could attempt to pair the two.
August 27, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Anonymous
I see a man standing on the train tracks. A train is coming. I tell him that he is in danger and that he needs to move. He tells me that he disagrees. Not wanting to be so proud as to convince him that he is wrong and that I am right, I shrug my shoulders and walk away. Seconds later, he is crushed by a train. Should I have made more effort to persuade him? Maybe, but since you insult me for trying, I will leave you on your tracks.
September 22, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Anonymous
The difference, sir, is that an imaginary train is unlikely to hit anyone. If anyone perishes on principle, it is very much so their own fault. That is the point of the existence of hell. You can preach only to a certain extent, then it is the responsibility of the individual to comly or not. Whether or not they are morally reprehensible is entirely on them.
August 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Derek
Keepfishing: Thanks for the comment.
I’m sorry for being unclear about it in the post, but when I said, “Paired with evangelism is the desire to have certain tenets of faith enacted as laws,” I was mostly referencing the collection of Evangelical Churches that openly — and officially — protest against legal same-sex marriage and reproductive rights.
August 27, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Derek
Anonymous: That seems mighty un-Christlike of you — love your enemies, turn the other cheek, et cetera. In any case, your train metaphor holds little weight. You could show me some pretty incontrovertible evidence that a train might hit me, but Evangelists I’ve spoken with have yet to offer convincing arguments for hellfire and damnation.
However, I’m going to insist that I did not insult anybody in this post. I set out an argument that, granted, paints a certain belief structure in a negative light, but it was never an insult.
August 27, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Michael Callaway
This is where I will be forced to agree with Derek, as a Christian you should only be worried about you following God’s law, not making it a law for everyone else. If you believe it is wrong to drink then do not drink, forcing everyone to have your view is arrogant and wrong. If as a church you do not agree with homosexuality fine, but if a secular state wants to accept it for its citizens, that is no threat to you.
Here in the States the defense of marriage act is a joke, if you want to defend marriage get rid of credit card debt and bad lending practices, more marriages end because of financial reasons then because of homosexuality. Jesus said that we are not to judge others unless we ourselves want to be judged and by the standard that we use it will be used against us. Finally, when Jesus was here his harshest words were not for the sinners or pagans of his day, they were for the religious people, that would probably be true today.
Good post Derek.
August 27, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Sara
@ Michael Callaway:
I completely agree with you–hence the whole drama at another site I unfortunately pulled Derek into. The discussion was on abortion and my position (that, regardless of our personal feelings about it, it should remain safe and legal for women to choose that course of action if they wish) was vilified for being “immoral.” Which was the exact opposite of the point. We too often get caught up in the laws and forget about our own behaviors; we try to enact “religious” laws as the modern-day version of straining out gnats. It’s sad.
August 28, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Neil
“In order to subscribe to an Evangelistic worldview, a person would have to believe that he or she has a flawless understanding of God’s word. Uh oh, does anyone else see where this is headed?”
Yes, it is headed to straw-man land. No, wait, it is already there.
Romans 14 and other passages address how we are to handle disputed matters. From this we can immediately infer two things:
1. God knew we’d have disputed matters.
2. He gave guidance on how to handle them.
Some beliefs are essential if one is to call himself a Christian – e.g., Jesus is the only way to salvation (mentioned directly or indirectly in 100 passages), Jesus is God, etc.
Other things have guidance but not absolutes. For example, with respect to alcohol the Bible teaches not to get drunk, to obey laws and not to tempt others with our drinking. But it doesn’t say never to drink. If people don’t want to drink that is fine, but that shouldn’t be presented as a Biblical requirement or an essential of the faith.
Contrary to many myths, we have a lot of freedom in Christ. Christianity contains many principles and some specific rules, but we can exercise our personal preferences in many ways, such as worship styles.
So we can evangelize without having a perfect knowledge of God and without being prideful. Your claim is just passive-aggressive. You think you have the truth, and you share it as such. I don’t accuse you of being prideful over that. I stick to the facts and reason.
August 28, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Sara
Re-reading your post, Derek, I very much like that you allow for God-followers who talk about Him without insisting upon themselves. I had missed that point at first and was constructing an argument to offer a window, but now I have stopped being dumb (:)) and noticed that last bit you wrote.
The “emergent” church–that is, Jesus-followers who disagree with the actions and biases of the mainstream right-wing “Christian” political body calling itself a church–holds as a major tenet the belief that we can never know everything about God, and what little we can know must come from personal reflection and discussion.
Discussion with fellow believers, with those who disagree, and with God Himself–that is the only really solid way I have found to learn more about this Being I am trying to get to know. The mainstream church used to believe this, too–it’s part of the basic idea of Protestantism. However, as time has progressed and Biblical inerrancy has become fashionable in the church community, its text and one or two church leaders’ interpretations and applications of that text has superseded the individual’s search for God.
“Evangelism” is, in its best iteration, a byproduct of meeting Someone with Whom a person falls in love. It should be a discourse, a way to talk ideas through and learn more about this mysterious Being; I am very sad that its implementation has produced this other definition of it, these bad results and unfortunate tendencies. Jesus asked His followers to spread the good news of Him, to talk about Him with everyone; He did not tell us to beat people about the heads with a book and insist upon our own superiority in the process.
August 28, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Sara
Um, that weird punctuation debacle in the first paragraph? Yeah, I don’t really know what that was…sorry.
August 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Neil
“holds as a major tenet the belief that we can never know everything about God, and what little we can know must come from personal reflection and discussion.”
I know a few orthodox Christians and can’t think of a single one who thinks he knows everything about God.
I do find the Emergent view to be rather puzzling. They think God couldn’t reveal himself clearly enough in the Bible, but that He does reveal himself clearly to each person and through discussion – even though those revelations contradict each other.
August 28, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Neil
P.S. Sorry for my first comment being snarky – please read it with 25% more niceness.
August 28, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Sara
The Biblical inerrancy theory holds (I may end up accidentally quoting a previous discussion here) that what we need to know about God is found in the Bible. Period. There is no truth about God to be found in, say, the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, or Buddha’s writings, or anything written by anyone who wasn’t a “Christian.” If you believe that the Bible is inerrant, you in fact believe that God has already revealed Himself as much as He can or will–through the text in that book. You do not accept any later Christian thought which “threatens to dislodge,” perhaps, the text of that book (a recent discussion springs to mind).
In short, the point is not so much that mainstream church thought believes they already know everything–it is that they believe that there is only one True source of that sort of information, and that True source should be valued above any and all others. When in doubt, read the Bible: mainstream thought. When in doubt, ask God and your close trusted discussion partners and yourself; when in doubt, think; when in doubt, doubt: emergent church.
As for contradiction…that’s not so much a problem with modern Jesus-followers in the “emergent” church. We see God as bigger than humans, and we notice the contradictory sides of His character. He is a judging vengeful warlord to some and a kind forgiving father to others. The only people who have a huge problem with a contradictory God are those who think God has to fit their ideas of Him. Thus, the pride of which Derek wrote: if God cannot be anything more or different or stranger than your view, is it really God you’re worshiping?
August 28, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Michael Callaway
To Sara’s first point, abortion is one of those issues that is extremely difficult to find common ground on because both sides hold such strong views. Here is where I believe the right to life has got it wrong, stop focusing so much on the laws and focus on the people. I have known people who had an abortion when it was legal and when it was illegal. Legality was not the issue, it was support, these two women felt alone and shame and that is why they had their abortion.
Of course that does not deal with all abortion, but if you focus on the person, both your response and dealing with a person in an emotional state then you have made real progress. Changing the laws of the land will do nothing for that.
August 28, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Michael Callaway
Now to the debate between Neil and Sara. Derek’s point about the pride of evangelism is a solid one, while some people do present their faith in a good way, many fail to do this and it does become a pride issue. We are called to be a witness, a witness tells their story and lets the viewer decide. Where Christians get into trouble is we want to make people make the “right” decision and will do some horrid things to insure that they see our enlighten point of view.
August 28, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Neil
“The Biblical inerrancy theory holds (I may end up accidentally quoting a previous discussion here) that what we need to know about God is found in the Bible. Period. There is no truth about God to be found in, say, the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, or Buddha’s writings, or anything written by anyone who wasn’t a “Christian.” ”
Perhaps some people advance that claim, but it certainly isn’t mainstream and even more certainly is false.
All truth is indeed God’s truth, but there is obviously truth outside the Bible. The Book of Mormon may hold some truths but it also holds many fictions.
“If you believe that the Bible is inerrant, you in fact believe that God has already revealed Himself as much as He can or will–through the text in that book.”
I don’t see how that follows from the first section being false. Just because the Bible doesn’t contain all truth doesn’t mean that what it does contain can’t all be true. (I’m speaking of the original writings here.)
If find it very odd that people think the original writings have errors but they think God reveals things clearly to them.
“When in doubt, read the Bible: mainstream thought. ”
Absolutely yes.
“Thus, the pride of which Derek wrote: if God cannot be anything more or different or stranger than your view, is it really God you’re worshiping?”
I don’t see how submitting to God’s revelation is prideful. Seems to me that claiming that He gave you special revelation is much more prideful.
That God is perfectly loving and a perfect judge aren’t contradictions. He punishes all sins. Very consistent. Either you can trust in what Jesus did on your behalf or you can take the punishment yourself.
Michael – good points. You can’t coerce faith. It isn’t a biblical motif. Jesus loved the rich young ruler, but He didn’t run after him and tackle him when he walked away.
August 28, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Neil
“There is no truth about God to be found in, say, the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, or Buddha’s writings, or anything written by anyone who wasn’t a “Christian.” ”
One also needs to be logical when considering those writings as a whole. If Buddha’s view of the world is correct, then Jesus’ is not. Allah is not Jehovah. Either we are disappear for eternity at death (atheism), are reincarnated (Hinduism) or we die once and after that we face judgment (Christianity). More than one can’t be right. That doesn’t prove Christianity, but it does prove the falsehood that all are equivalent paths.
The “question everything” mantra of Emergents isn’t a bad place to start. I became a Christian after asking lots of questions. But questions presuppose answers, so I wouldn’t get too prideful about being a serial doubter.
August 28, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Sara
I did not say that Biblical literalists think truth exists only in the Bible.
I said that y’all think God is only revealed in the Bible.
Two different things.
I did not say that the original text of the Bible was flawless.
I have in the past offered that out for Biblical literalists, as it’s impossible to know for sure, but I myself do not believe it.
Two different things.
I did not say that God gave me special revelation.
I said that I feel free to talk things over with God and reach decisions as to my beliefs without bothering what others think about them.
Two different things.
I did not say that I take Buddha’s writing as a whole to be 100% true, nor the writings of any other spiritual person.
I offer the idea that since we humans cannot comprehend God, most if not all spiritual writings describe varied attempts by humans to reach, meet with, or learn more about God–all of which are flawed in their own ways.
Two different things.
I did not say I question everything, nor did I say that was a “mantra” of the “emergent” church.
I do believe that a healthy sense of doubt is at worst neutral and at best beneficial for someone seeking God.
Two different things.
You tend to misunderstand my statements, so I happily clarify them for you here.
August 28, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Justin
Sara:”‘evangelism’ is, in its best iteration, a byproduct of meeting Someone with Whom a person falls in love. It should be a discourse, a way to talk ideas through and learn more about this mysterious Being”
I like the book of Acts’s way better.
August 28, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Neil
You are right, I misread some of those, but you misread me misreading you as well (hope that made sense).
For example, I didn’t think you thought Buddha was 100% true. But taken as a whole He is most certainly false from a Christian worldview.
If you think the Bible has errors, can you let me know which verses are correct and which are not as well as how you make that discernment? I’m been using the whole thing. Should I really love my enemies, or was that one of the errors?
August 28, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Sara
Neil, if you said that sort of thing on Justin’s blog and he didn’t ban you for a week for excessive sarcasm, I would call hypocrisy on the whole deal. There is no need to be catty when discussing differences of faith. Have you ever wondered why, when talking about God, you go to that tone instead of one of mutual respect or recognition that, frankly, it’s the Internet?
That being said, I think it’s funny that you say you use the whole Bible to inform your morality. No one does that–unless you know someone calling themselves a Christian who stones their disobedient son and doesn’t eat shellfish and all those other “rules” modern day Christians ignore. I am not in any way saying that the Bible has no moral weight–yet again, you’re (I think) misunderstanding me. Either that or you’re putting words in my mouth. You know as well as I do that no one actually uses the whole Bible as a guide for their morality. All churches, all Christians, pick and choose which tenets they are going to believe and which they are going to ignore. That’s why we have numerous denominations disagreeing on everything from baptism to instrument use in church.
I will rephrase my answer to your Buddha example accordingly:
“I did not say that I take Buddha’s writing as a whole, nor the writings of any other spiritual person.
I offer the idea that since we humans cannot comprehend God, most if not all spiritual writings describe varied attempts by humans to reach, meet with, or learn more about God–all of which are flawed in their own ways.
August 28, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Sara
Let it be known: I am also guilty of sarcasm and a rude tone. It is one of my weaknesses and I am working on it.
Just heading you kids off at the pass on that one.
August 28, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Sara
Justin: That’s nice.
August 29, 2008 at 5:21 am
Neil
Sara, thanks for the speech. But while I was being tongue-in-cheek with my questions I’d be happy for you to answer them. How do you discern which verses are inspired and which are not? I have reasons to believe they are all inspired, yet that results in calls of “pride” and false claims of literalism. But it seems to me that it is a far more bold claim to know which verses are inspired and which are not.
If you are going to play the “shellfish” card, then please read this – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/favorite-dish-of-liberal-theologians-skeptics-shellfish/ . Maybe you are the exception, but I’ve yet to find someone who uses that argument that actually understands the context of the passage. I realize that it makes a handy sound bite but the point is simply not true. The ceremonial laws do not apply to Christians (see Peter’s vision in Acts 10, for example).
“I offer the idea that since we humans cannot comprehend God”
For the record, that is not a Biblical view. Just because we can’t know everything about God doesn’t mean we can’t know anything, and more importantly, it doesn’t mean we can’t know what we need to know and what He wants us to know. I’ve got a whole list of verses about the importance of sound doctrine if anyone is interested. That seems to suggest that there is such a thing as sound doctrine, and that it is important to God (unless, of course, those are the verses the Emergents want to eliminate).
“You know as well as I do that no one actually uses the whole Bible as a guide for their morality. All churches, all Christians, pick and choose which tenets they are going to believe and which they are going to ignore.”
No, I don’t know that as well as you do. I see denominations with different interpretations on non-essentials, but those aren’t necessarily moral claims. Some churches deliberately ignore some of the moral teachings but not all. If you see a moral claim in the Bible that you think I disagree with, feel free to point it out. When in doubt, I want to be on the same side of the issue as Jesus is.
August 29, 2008 at 8:11 am
Sara
Well then, let’s talk about keeping kosher.
Jesus never did away with the kosher laws. The reason modern Christians don’t keep kosher is because Peter had a dream where God told him it was okay to eat whatever he wanted. Now, if Peter had done that today, would the church froth and rave over his immorality? Yes–kosher was a moral law, a huge deal for the church at the time. Huge. It would be like, oh, a body of believers saying that women have the right to a safe, legal abortion in this country. The church would flip–and they did at the time. Eventually, however, they got it: God changed His mind. He is allowed to do that. It’s not a problem.
Keeping kosher seems “non-essential” to us today, but not doing so is described in Leviticus as an “abomination.” Where else have we heard that phrase? Oh, right, homosexuality. So you see, disregarding the kosher laws is disregarding a rule the Old Testament God saw as equivalently horrific with homosexuality. In the modern church, you assume that Peter’s dream supersedes the need to keep kosher, but you hold on to the idea that homosexuality is an abomination, despite the numerous teachers and churches who say that the rules have changed. The church ignores the fact that Jesus never did away with kosher laws in favor of one apostle’s symbolic dream, and yet you claim that it is impossible that God could change His mind about anything.
The long and short of it is, not only do modern churchgoers pick and choose which laws of the Bible they obey, they also pick and choose which church members are allowed to decide when those laws no longer apply.
August 29, 2008 at 8:13 am
Sara
(Let it be known: I do not believe that homosexuality is an abomination. I am merely pointing out that the language used to describe both cases is the same, yet the modern church treats them differently.)
August 29, 2008 at 9:20 am
Neil
Hi Sara,
I really wish you would read the link about shellfish. I think you are misunderstanding the shellfish and homosexual behavior passages and ceremonial and moral laws in general.
Here’s the short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination in each passage that you mentioned. Different Hebrew words. That alone shows that we are talking about distinct issues.
They were used differently in the individual verses – one was an abomination to the person because it made them ceremonially unclean for a day or so, and the other was an abomination to God.
They were used very differently in broader contexts. One was clearly in a list of ceremonial laws just for the Israelites, to set them apart. The other was in a list of moral commands sandwiched between strong warnings not to be like the pagan Canaanites.
The associated sins had radically different consequences. One was that you couldn’t participate ceremonially for a day or so. The other one was a capital punishment.
They had 100% different treatments in the New Testament. One was fulfilled by Jesus once and for all, hence multiple Peter’s dreams from God and his clear confirmation by the Roman Centurion. One was reiterated quite clearly (Romans 1 and elsewhere, including Jesus’ repeated teaching that marriage is for one man and one woman).
So please don’t claim that God changed his mind on a moral law. There is no evidence of that. The ceremonial laws were for the Israelites only, not New Testament Christians.
“The long and short of it is, not only do modern churchgoers pick and choose which laws of the Bible they obey, they also pick and choose which church members are allowed to decide when those laws no longer apply.”
That accurately describes you and those who hold your views, but not orthodox Christians. Peter’s dreams showed up in the Bible for a reason. I believe the book of Acts was inspired by God so I hold it to be authoritative. I do not hold as authoritative the opinions of people who think God changed his mind on homosexual behavior.
In fact, I think it is rather coincidental that the people who insist that God changed his mind on abortion and homosexual behavior realized this just as the culture was shifting that direction. Also, that God revealed this to liberal theologians only.
August 30, 2008 at 9:31 am
Michael Callaway
Neil, I do not want to sound critical, however you are making the same mistake that I think Jolly and Derek have made at times. You feel like your point will be believed more if you make it longer. When Jolly put a post on Culturefeats I quoted Ronald Reagan in saying “Oh there you go again!”
Long list and boring links will not change anyone’s mind. Now I love an intense and thoughtful discussion and many times that will require giving more evidence then a simple post. However, sometimes the best speeches are the ones with the fewest words. Finally, we will have our different views on God, different views on the Bible, different views on salvation, but to get ugly about it will not help. If I was Derek or Jolly I might be an atheist too.
Again, because tone can be hard read in a posting, know that I enjoy the discussion even if it includes long list and boring links.
August 30, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Neil
“You feel like your point will be believed more if you make it longer.”
Thanks for reading my feelings, but you are mistaken.
“Long list and boring links will not change anyone’s mind.”
Perhaps you are right, but I was giving Sara more credit than you do.
She brought up incorrect conclusions about the shellfish passage multiple times. That passage is often misinterpreted and used to dismiss whole sections of the Bible, so I consider it to be very important.
I assume that if someone describes themself as a Christian and she has an interpretation backwards then she would like to know it. Some people don’t care if they have the correct interpretation, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until proved otherwise.
Or perhaps one of my assertions is incorrect and someone can point that out to me. I’ve been wrong on many Bible passages and am always glad to be corrected. That’s why I keep studying.
For example, perhaps you find it boring that I pointed out the the word in question (“abomination”) was different in the original Hebrew when describing the shellfish situation and the homosexual behavior situation, but it seems rather relevant to me.
Or do you think it is more productive if we just interpret the Bible any way we like and then write it off by saying we’ll have different views on the Bible? Of course they may be different on some things, but there are countless passages where people make errors. Here’s another boring piece on why sound doctrine is important.
If you don’t find my comments entertaining enough you may just want to skip them.
And perhaps you can explain what was ugly about my shellfish explanation and what was pretty about your insults on how boring my comments are? (just kidding)
August 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Sara
Michael, I am sorry for inadvertently opening you up to this amount of Neil’s derision. It is my fault, as we [Neil and I] were having a discussion on another site and I chose to remove myself from it. I apologize that you are now being derided and demeaned.
August 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Neil
Ha! Yeah, I sure derided and demeaned that guy writing a fact-free comment about how my comments are long and boring.
Let’s recap: Michael thinks Sara doesn’t care if she says foolish things about the Bible. He doesn’t think someone who describes herself as a Christian would want to know that she is repeatedly writing demonstrably false things about the God she claims to worship.
Neil gives Sara the benefit of the doubt.
Sara proves Michael was right.
Lesson learned: Keep giving people the benefit of the doubt, even if people like Michael and Sara make it seem like a waste of time.
If you show up at Justin’s site, be sure to bring some sound arguments next time. I realize that you guys define “nice” as someone who ignores logical fallacies, including ad hominem attacks, but that isn’t my definition. I don’t call names and I don’t mischaracterize arguments, but if you are going to debate then don’t be so thin-skinned.
Good news for you all: I’m outta here. It has not been fun. You can have the last word and continue to demonize me all you like. Maybe one day you’ll actually be interested in what the Bible has to say instead of making up your own version of it, and Derek et all will make an attempt to properly characterize their ideological opponents’ views.
August 30, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Michael Callaway
Well you do not have to worry about hurting my feelings, I view this as debate that is judged not just on points that are made but the style in which they are present. I did read Sara’s posting and there are some things that I do disagree with her on, however, being that this is an atheist website it did not seem the place to have that kind of discussion.
Second, if I am debating Sara, Derek, Jolly or you, I am not out to prove that you are wrong (even though if you disagree with me you clearly are =) I would not believe in something if it was wrong). Ideally I try to find the points where we can agree, explain my side using logical points as well as adding some humor, sometimes that can hurt peoples feelings and for that I apologize.
The point of Derek’s posting was about the pride of evangelism and while it pained me, yes physically pained me to agree with him, in this case he is right. Now, if you want to defend evangelism and the proper way to do it that is fine. If the church spread the good news only using the methods that Jesus did or the way the early church did, then I would be with you saying that Derek is wrong.
However, in the past and sadly even now sometimes, the methods we use are beneath the faith that we process to believe.