Tactics Flashcards
Before there can be any harvest, there always has to be a season of __
gardening
Colossians 4:5-6
Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
What are the three elements mentioned in Paul’s injunction in Colossians 4:5-6?
Be smart. Be nice. Be tactical.
Give a basic definition of apologetics.
Giving reasons or evidence to support Christianity. Defense of the faith. Defeating false ideas. Destroying speculations raised up against the knowledge of God.
When you find yourself as a sheep amid wolves, __
be innocent but shrewd.
How could you respond?
I know I could never have an abortion, but I think women should have a choice.
Do you mean women should have the choice to kill their own babies?
How could you respond?
We should allow abortion in the case of incest.
Let’s say I had a two-year-old child standing next to me who had been conceived as a result of incest. On your view, it seems, I should have the liberty to kill her. Is that right?
If anyone gets mad, __
I lose.
Representing Christ in any era requires three skills:
knowledge, wisdom, and character
Further describe knowledge
an accurately informed mind
Further describe wisdom
an artful method
Further describe character
an attractive manner
What are the two areas of apologetics?
Offensive and defensive
What is offensive apologetics?
making a positive case for Christianity by offering reasons that support our view
What is defensive apologetics?
answering specific challenges meant to undermine or disprove Christianity
How are strategy and tactics different?
Strategy involves the big picture, one’s positioning prior to engagement; tactics focus on the immediate situation at hand
Tactics are not __
manipulative tricks or slick ruses
If Christianity is the truth, then no matter how convincing the other side sounds at first, there will always be __
a mistake in thinking, a wayward “fact,” an unjustified conclusion
Keep your conversations cordial. If someone does get mad, make sure it’s your __ that offends and not __. Make sure your __ cause the disruption and not your __.
ideas, you, beliefs, behavior
Define the type of arguing that is a good thing.
contending in a principled way for something that really matters
The __ is the very first line of defense God has given us against error.
mind
Why is the mind necessary?
We cannot grasp the authoritative teaching of God’s Word unless we use our minds properly. It is first in the order of knowing.
What is the tool we use in our observations of the world that helps us separate fact from fiction?
reason
The ability to __ well is vital for clear thinking. It is a virtue because it helps us __
argue, hold to what is true and discard what is false
What are two things that come to mind when Christians push back on arguing?
fear of division, taking opposition as hostility
How could you respond?
Paul warns against quarreling about foolish speculations in 2 Timothy 2.
Paul also commands us to handle the word of truth accurately in 2 Timothy 2, and to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort” when necessary in chapter 4. This cannot be done without some confrontation, and so at some point, arguing can be Scriptural and not always foolish quarrels.
How could you respond?
You are mean-spirited and hostile for challenging this respected Christian teacher.
If we disqualify legitimate discussion, we compromise our ability to know the truth, and error can thrive without restraint. If you refuse to engage in principled dispute, you have a poor chance of growing in your understanding of truth. Paul told Titus in chapter 1 to “refute those who contradict.”
Arguing in a principled fashion means:
fairly, reasonable, and graciously
When arguments are few, __
error abounds.
How could you respond?
You can’t argue anyone into the kingdom. Only the Spirit can change your heart. John 6:44 says no one comes to the Father unless He draws him.
It doesn’t follow that if God’s Spirit plays a vital role, then reason and persuasion play none. Paul says in Acts 17 and 18 that he “reasoned with them… giving evidence.. and some were persuaded.” I know some personally who have been argued into the Kingdom: J. Warner Wallace.
Let me go further: you cannot love someone into the kingdom either and neither is the simple gospel adequate.
Regardless of arguments, love, or the gospel, what is necessary to bring someone into the kingdom?
the work of the Spirit drawing a lost soul into his arms
Without __, nothing else works; but with __, many things work.
God’s work
Why is 100% God, 100% man a burden lifted from our shoulders?
We focus on being faithful in responding to the “sheep that lift their heads” and leave the salvation of the sheep, the results up to God.
Why is it not wise to try and get right to the gospel message?
The simple gospel is no longer simple. Objections abound more than ever. Not everyone is a good closer. Finally, the fruit may not be ripe.
How could you respond?
Christians are stupid.
Well, some of them are. But many non-Christians are stupid too, so I know know how that helps you. Do you think that Christianity is stupid? In what way?
How could you respond?
It’s not rational to believe in God.
What do you mean by “God”? What specifically is irrational about believing in this God?
How could you respond?
Christianity is basically the same as all other religions. It’s all about love.
How much have you studied other religions to compare their details? For instance, did you know religions like animism don’t care about love? Why would the similarities be more important than the differences? Are aspirina nd arsenic basically the same because they both come in tablet form? Do you think Jesus’ attitude was that all religions were basically equal?
How could you respond?
You can’t take the Bible too seriously. It was only written by men and men make mistakes.
Do you have any books in your home? Do you find any truth in those books, also written by humans who are prone to error? Is there a reason why you think the Bible is less truthful than other books you own? Do people ALWAYS make mistakes in what they write? Do you think that if God did exist, he would be able to use humans to write down exactly what he wanted? If not, why not?
How could you respond?
It’s wrong to force your views on other people. You can’t legislate morality.
Do you vote? When you vote for someone, are you expecting your candidate to pass laws reflecting your point of view? Wouldn’t that essentially be forcing your views on others? Don’t all laws force a morality of some sort? Can you give me any examples?
How could you respond?
There is no proof.
What kind of “proof” would you find acceptable and have you considered any arguments for God?
How could you respond?
We shouldn’t tell others how to live or believe. We should just love.
In saying we should all just love, aren’t you telling us how to live or believe?
How could you respond?
Christians involved in politics violate separation of church and state.
Is it your view that only nonreligious people should be allowed to vote or be in politics? Where in the Constitution are religious people excluded from the political process?
The key to the Columbo tactic is to __
go on the offensive in an inoffensive way with carefully selected questions that advance the conversation.
Never make a statement, at least at first, when __
a question will do the job.
Qustions keep you __ while the other person __
in the driver’s seat, does all the work.
What are three basic ways to use the Columbo tactic?
To gather information, to reverse the burden of proof, to make a point
Your initial goal in a conversation is to __. You want him to __
gather as much information from the other person as you can; talk as much as possible about his own convictions first.
In order to maneuver around conversational hazards, we should __ and __
probe carefully; listen instead of preach
What are some questions you can ask if you’d like to transition more directly into spiritual things?
Where are you in your own spiritual journey?
What do you think happens to you when you die?
What is a model first question to help you get going?
What do you mean by that?
How could you begin?
Do you believe in evolution?
What do you mean by evolution? There is more than one kind. Which one do you have in mind?
How could you begin?
What about all the evil in the world?
What do you mean by evil? What makes bad things bad?
How could you begin?
Do you take the Bible literally?
That depends on what you mean by literally. What specifically were you thinking of?
How could you begin?
Science has proved there is no God.
Really? Precisely how did science do that?
How could you begin?
Abortion is okay because a fetus is a human not a person.
Really? What’s the difference between the two?
How could you respond?
Reincarnation was originally part of Christian teaching but was taken out of the Bible in the fourth century.
Can you explain how that works? How does someone remove select lines of text from tens of thousands of handwritten documents that had been circulating around the Mediterranean region for more than three hundred years? How is this different from secretly trying to remove a paragraph from all copies of yesterday’s New York Times?
How can your first question eliminate obstacles?
By forcing the person to be precise about what he means.
What are three reasons gathering information is important?
You don’t want to misunderstand the person
You don’t want to misrepresent him
You don’t want him to misunderstand himself
How could you respond?
Everything is relative.
What do you mean by relative? Is everything relative? Would that apply even to your statement?
How could you respond?
Evolution can explain morality. Our survival depends on shared ethics. God is not needed.
How exactly does that work? How did the rest of the animal kingdom endure so well without it? How is this not conflating two distinct notions: one a genetic accident (Darwinian evolution) with the other a thoughtful intention (intelligently designed social code)?
How can we be careful not to be guilty of a straw man?
By asking questions to be clear on their view.
How could you respond?
Believing in God is like believing in leprechauns or a flying spaghetti monster.
Have you ever considered that believing in God may instead by like believing in atoms? Have you ever seen a Christian give evidence for God, such as an effect needs a cause adequate to explain it? Aren’t they following evidence of what they can see to conclude the existence of something you cannot see?
Define religious pluralism.
There is no one, true religion, but rather all religions are equally valid routes to God.
Regarding the separation of church and state, the First Ammendment restricts __
the government no the people, making sure the government does not favor a particular religion
What is the difference between an opinion and an argument?
an opinion is just a point of view; an argument is a point of view supported by reasons
Who has the responsibility of the burden of proof?
The person who makes the claim
How could you respond?
Because of the Big Bang, we don’t need a creator?
Do you think all effects need adequate causes? Wouldn’t a Big Bang need a Big Banger?
How could you respond?
We started with nothing, and then in that nothingness, a point happened. A tiny imperfection in the perfect nothingness.
How is this different than, my checking account has a balance of $0. But yet I still check it every week to see if it has earned interest? Is that reasonable? Can you prove this?
Opinions by themselves are not __. Intelligent belief requires __.
proof; justification
How do you reverse the burden of proof when the other person is making the claim?
You ask a qustion: How did you come to that conclusion? Why do you say that? What are your reasons for holding that view?
What initial question could you ask a Mormon disciple?
Why should I trust that your organization speaks for God?
When you ask someone for reasons and they either give you a blank stare or admit they don’t know, what is a good follow-up question?
Why would you believe something you have no reason to think is true?
When they answer your request for reasons for an opinion with an alternate explanation or story, this is not a __ and are commonly referred to as __.
refutation; just-so story
How could you respond?
Dawkins describes how flight could have evolved in the Blind Watchmaker by writing how animals leaping with small changes could lead to better flight time and survival and eventually flight.
This is a just-so story. Just because you can come up with a fanciful story is not a reason I should believe it to be true.
What are three obstacles to the evolution of flight?
the massive infusion of new genetic information; the instinctual, sensory, and psychomotor alteration required; that all this happened multiple times throughout time
What are three questions you should always ask whenever someone offers an alternate explanation?
Is it possible? Is it plausible? Is it probable?
How could you respond?
Miracles recorded in the Gospels were an invention of the Catholic Church to help consolidate its power over the people.
Can you explain how that works? How does someone add select lines of text from tens of thousands of handwritten documents that had been circulating around the Mediterranean region for hundreds of years? How is this different from secretly trying to add a story to all copies of yesterday’s New York Times?
How could you respond?
The early Biblical manuscripts were doctored to make Jesus look divine
Can you explain how that works? How does someone doctor select lines of text from tens of thousands of handwritten documents that had been circulating around the Mediterranean region for hundreds of years? How is this different from secretly trying to doctor a paragraph from all copies of yesterday’s New York Times?
If stymied in a discussion, you may be looking for an argument that isn’t there, what should you do and what should you ask?
Ask yourself if he gave you an argument, or did he just give you an opinion? Ask him, “Well, that’s an interesting point of view, but what’s your argument? How did you come to that conclusion and why should I believe it?”
That the way things appear to be are probably the way they actually are, unless we have good reason to believe otherwise is called __
the principle of credulity
What is the skeptic’s error?
Just because it’s possible to be mistaken about something that seems obvious, doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to think we are.
The man with the microphone __
wins
How could you respond?
An authority figure (professor) quips that the Bible is a book of fables.
Can you give us a little more detail on what you mean? What kind of fable are you talking about? Do you think nothing in the biblical documents has any historical value? Is everything in the book a fanciful invention of some sort?
How did you come to that conclusion? What is your line of evidence?
How could you respond?
After asking some pointed questions, the professor says, “OK, you must be a Christian. Explain why you think the BIble is the inspired Word of God.”
Well, you don’t know my view, since I haven’t offered it. For all you know, I’m on your side. More to the point, my view is irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter what I believe. Your ideas are on the table here, not mine. I’m just a student trying to learn. All I’m doing is asking for clarification of your ideas and wondering whether you have good reasons for them.
When someone demands that you defend a view you have not expressed, sidestepping his own responsibility to give an account of his beliefs, this is known as __
the professor’s ploy.
When you feel overmatched and overwhelmed in a conversation, __
What could you say?
immediately shift from persuasion mode to fact-finding mode. Ask questions and become a student of their view.
“It sounds like you know more about this than I do. Would you take a moment to carefully and slowly explain your view and your reasons for it?”
After asking questions in an overmatched conversation, how can you close the conversation and free yourself from further obligation you are not prepared for?
Thanks. Now let me think about it. Maybe we can talk more later.
When a person avoids answering your questions and changes the subject or reasserts his point in other ways, what could you say?
I want you to notice the turn our talk just took. First, you made a controversial statement and I asked you a couple questions. So far, you haven’t answered them but you have taken off in another direction. Before moving on, would it be okay with you if we finish the old one? I’m interested in your response.
Define ad hominem.
To the person. a fallacious attempt to make points for one’s side by attacking the opposing person instead of addressing his opposing arguments.
How could you respond?
You’re a bigot for questioning my view that religious pluralism is true.
Did you notice what just happened? I raised a question about the legitimacy of your idea that all religions lead to God, and you responded by calling me a name. You changed the subject. We were talking about an issue, and then you attacked my character. Why did you do that?
When someone creates a straw man of your views, intentionally representing them in the most unattractive way possible, distorting them, how could you respond?
I want you (and others) to notice what you just did. You asked me a question, I gave you my answer. You then gave a distorted summary of my view. I pointed out is was a misrepresentation. Then you said that’s the way you interpret it. So even though you know you got my view wrong, you’re still going to cling to your own interpretation. Okay, I just want you (and everyone) to be clear on what you’re doing.
__ lead the other person in the direction we want them to go.
Leading questions
When you ask leading questions and receive a favorable response, what two things does your question accomplish that a statement can’t?
The person is telling you he understands the point
The person is telling you he agrees with it, and is taking a step forward with you in the thinking process.
What question can you ask to set the stage when someone asks for your personal views about a controversial issue?
This is a very personal question you’re asking. I don’t mind answering, but before I do, I want to know if it’s safe to offer my views. Do you consider yourself a tolerant person on issues like this? Is it safe to give my opinion or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse points of view or do you condemn others for having convictions that differ from your own?
What is the passive-aggressive tolerance trick and what is the key to disarming it?
The Christian gets pigeonholed as the judgmental one, but everyone else is judging too, even people who consider themselves tolerant and open minded.
Knowing that everyone thinks his beliefs are true.
How could you respond?
You’re intolerant!
What do you mean by that? Why would you think I’m an intolerant person?
Why did you change the subject? Even if you’re right about my character, could you explain what that has to do with this issue?
How could you respond?
You’re intolerant because it’s clear you think you’re right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
You’re right, I do think my views are correct, although it’s possible I’m mistaken. But what about you? You seem to be disagreeing with me. Do you think your views are right?
How could you respond?
I think my views are right for me. You’re trying to force your views on others; I’m not.
Isn’t the whole reason you’re engaging me is to correct me? Don’t you think I should adopt your more tolerant view instead of my own intolerant view? Don’t you want me to change my mind to your correct view? If not, why are we having a discussion?
How could you respond?
Yes, I think I’m right too, but I’m not intolerant like you.
That confuses me. Why is it when I think I’m right, I’m intolerant, but when you think you’re right, you’re just right? What am I missing here?
How could you respond?
Homologous features provide good evidence for evolution.
How do we know whether features are homologous? [structurally similar]
Is the octopus eye and the human eye homologous even thought structurally similar? [no, must be inherited from a common ancestor]
Isn’t that circular reasoning?
Define materialsim [naturalism, physicalism].
Nothing exists but physical things in motion governed by natural law.
How could you respond?
The Bible is a bunch of fables because it has miracles in it and miracles don’t happen.
How do you know miracles don’t happen?
How could you respond?
Miracles don’t happen because science has shown that miracles don’t happen.
Could you explain exactly how the methods of science have disproved the possibility of supernatural events?
Why is science not capable of ruling out supernatural causes, even in principle?
Science only measures natural causes and effects
What error is it to say that science has disproven miracles?
Category error
The term a priori refers to __
that which is known before, or prior to, a process of discovery
The conclusions of science can properly be based only on __ evidence, not on __ assumptions
a posteriori, a priori
The __ is what makes the __ good.
bad news, good news
How could you respond?
Why do I as a Jewish man, need Jesus?
Do you think people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?
Have you ever committed any moral crimes?
This is where Jesus comes in. We both know we’re guilty. So God offers a solution: a pardon, free of charge. Jesus is God’s means of pardon. He personally paid the penalty in our place. Only Jesus. We either take the pardon or turn it down and pay for our crimes ourselves. Choice is ours.
Using questions, make the point that the existence of God is the only adequate explanation for the existence of objective morality in the world.
Do you believe there is real evil in the world?
Is the evil you described objective evil or just things that happen that don’t fit your fancy?
Do you think some kind of standard is necessary for you to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong?
That standard, then, can’t be inside us but must be outside us, right?
Where do you think that external objective moral standard comes from?
What is a non sequitur?
“It does not follow.” It describes a step in thinking that has no relevance to the step preceding it, a conclusion that does not follow from any earlier statements or evidence.
How could you respond?
The Gospels are unreliable because they were written by Christians.
How is this not a non sequitur? Does it really follow that simply because the gospel writers were disciples of Christ that they distorted their descriptions of him? Instead of being a non sequitur, might we say that those who were closest to Jesus were in the best position to give an accurate record of the details of his life?
We don’t always have to get a home run. It is a step in the right direction when we help others __
to think more carefully.
The danger of goin on the offensive, even with questions is __
that we become offensive
How can you word a statement and turn it into a question?
Have you ever considered…?
How could you respond?
The Bible was merely written by men.
Have you ever considered that if this was so, it would be hard to account for fulfilled prophecy? How would you explain that?
How could you respond?
Jesus’ divinity was added at a later date.
Have you ever considered that if this was true, the difficulty with adding something like this to every existing handwritten copy of the New Testament circulating in the Roman world by the fourth century? How is this physically possible?
How could you respond?
How do you reconcile a good God and evil?
Have you ever considered that the existence of evil is actually evidence for the existence of God, not against it?
How could you respond?
I’m pro-choice.
Have you ever considered that if abortion is okay, it’s going to be hard to condemn infanticitde, since the baby’s location, inside the womb or outside the womb is the only difference between the two? How can mere location be relevant to the baby’s value?
How could you respond?
Jesus couldn’t be the only way to be saved.
Have you ever considered that if Jesus was wrong about this, it would be difficult to call him a good man, a prophet, or a wise religious teacher? What do you think about that problem?
How can you soften your challenge?
Phrase your concern as a request for clarification. “Can you help me understand this?”
How could you respond?
Jesus’ divinity was an invention of the church in the early fourth century.
If that was so, how do you explain all the references to a divine Christ in Christian literature written before that time?
How could you respond?
Darwinian evolution is a fact.
Can you help me understand this? If there is no evidence that life came from nonlife-that life spontaneously arose from inanimate matter to kick off the sequence of evolution-and there is much evidence against it, how can we say it is a fact?
Define the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
The development of life through natural selection and mutation
Getting life from nonlife is called __
abiogenesis
How could you respond?
Burning in the bosom gives us adequate evidence that the Book of Mormon is from God.
Can you help me with something that confuses me? If that is so, how do you respond to people who have similar reasons- a strong internal conviction from God in response to prayer- for rejecting it?
How could you respond?
Homosexuality is truly natural.
Can you clear this up for me? If that is true, then why did nature give homosexual men bodies designed for reproductive sex with women and then give them desires for sex with men? Why would nature give desires for one type of sex but a body for another?
In some circumstances, you may not be able to think of a question or it may seem awkward to use a question rather than state your view. How could you genially introduce your point?
It’s my understanding that…
This is the way it seems to me…
Let me suggest an alternative and you tell me if that is an improvement. If not, you can tell me why you think your option is better.
I don’t think that’s going to work, and I’d like to suggest why so you can consider it. Is that okay with you?
I wouldn’t characterize it that way. Here’s what I think may be better or more accurate way to look at it. Tell me what you think.
When are the perfect times to focus on improving your technique?
before the conversation begins and after it’s over
What are three things you can do to ready yourself to respond in a conversation?
Anticipate beforehand what might come up
Reflect afterward on what took place
PRactice the responses you think of during these reflective moments so you’ll be prepared for the next opportunity
How could you respond?
Who created God?
You don’t believe God was created because you’re an atheist. I don’t believe God was created, because I believe God is eternal. Nobody in this conversation believes God was created. So why are you asking who created God?
If you want to improve your Columbo skill, remember this important truth:
even people who don’t usually like taking tests don’t mind them at all when they know the answers to the questions. Practice.
The most effective way to improve your abilities as an ambassador is to __
interact with others.
How could you respond?
I’m a Christian and a Buddhist and a pagan and I don’t see a problem.
Whad do you think Jesus would have said about your statement? Can you show me in the Gospels any specific thing Jesus said that would give you the impression he’d be okay with someone saying they were a Christian and a Buddhist and a pagan?
How could you respond?
I’m pro-choice. I don’t believe any unwanted children should be allowed to come into the world.
Do you think unwanted children ought to be allowed to stay in the world? [yes]
The issue with abortion, then, isn’t whether the child is wanted but whether a woman already has a child when she is pregnant, isn’t it?
What is the “only one question” approach to abortion?
What is the unborn? If the unborn is a human being, no justification for elective abortion is adequate, because we do not take the lives of valuable human beings for the reasons people give to justify their abortions. If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary.
How could you respond?
People twist the Bible all the time to make it say what ever they want.
You’re right, but what does it have to do with the point I just made? [Your’re doing that.]
I understand, but I’m still confused. It seems to me you can’t know that I’m twisting the Bible just by pointing out that other people have twisted it can you? You’re going to have to show that I’m actually twisting the verses I’ve offered you. Have you studied the passages I mentioned? [no]
Then how do you know I’m twisting them?
As a general rule, go out of your way to establish __. Whenever possible, affirm __.
common ground, points of agreement.
What phrases can you use to soften your challenge in introducing your questions?
I’m just curious
Something about this thing bothers me
Maybe I’m missing something
Maybe you can clear this up for me
When should you take the more genial approach of Lt. Columbo and when should you take the confrontational and aggressive refutational approach of a lawyer.
The first when trying to persuade the person you are talking to.
The second when trying to persuade the people listening in, and not the person you are talking to.
There should be no risk when someone asks us either of the first two Columbo questions. The danger we need to guard against is __
the misuse of the third application of Columbo-leading questions meant to make a point against us.
The key to protecting yourself from what may be a Columbo ambush is to remind yourself that __
you have no obligation to cooperate with anyone trying to set you up with leading questions. Simply refuse to answer them, but do so in a cordial way.
How could you respond?
The person you are speaking with begins to use leading questions on you.
Before we go further, let me say something. My sense is that you want to explain your point by using questions. That confuses me a bit because I’m not sure how I should respond. I think I’d rather you simply state your view directly. Then let me chew on it for a moment and see what I think. Would that be alright with you?
How could you respond?
You’re saying that people who don’t believe just like you are going to hell? You think hell is proper punishment people deserve for disagreeing with you?
No, that’s not the point I’m making here. I’m making a different point.
What is one of the biggest differences between Boghossian’s Street Epistemology approach and Kouk’s Columbo teaching?
Causing people to doubt, not clarifying ideas
How could you respond?
If the universe always existed, then it wasn’t created and so does not need a cause, which would mean there’s no God.
I’m not clear on what you’re getting at. How does that follow?
This is called denying the antecedent in a conditional syllogism. But even so, almost no one believes the universe always existed. And even so, if the universe always existed, it could still be contingent and depend on a self-existent God for its eternal existence.
That the universe, being contingent and not self-existent depends on a self-existent God for its continual existence is known as __
Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument
How could you respond?
If there were no hell, would you still be a Christian?
I’m confused by your question. Are you asking, would I still trust Christ to die and save me from hell if there were no hell? That makes no sense. Or are you asking, would I still want to be with Christ forever if there were no hell to avoid? What exactly is the point with the question?
How could you respond?
What gives you the right to say someone else’s religion is wrong?
Who are you to say…
I get the impression you think I’ve made a mistake. Where did I go wrong?
Where’s the flaw in statements such as “who’s to say” or “what gives you the right”?
Ultimately, the person who has the best reasons is in the best position to say what’s true and what’s false. This is the way sound thinking has always worked. Anyone disagreeing with this truism will quickly offer his reasons why it’s wrong, immediately defeating his point.
How could you respond?
You’re oppressive that you think some religious beliefs are wrong or foolish. Why don’t you just let people believe what they want to believe?
Do you think I’m wrong then?
If you do, then why are you oppressing me?
If you don’t, then why are you correcting me?
How could you respond?
All religions are basically the same, after all.
Really? In what way?
Or, consider this. Either Jesus is the Messiah or he isn’t, right?
If he isn’t the Messiah, then Christians are wrong and the Jews are right. If he is the Messiah, then the Jews are wrong and the Christians are right. Under no circumstances can both religions be basically the same, can they?
How could you respond?
No one can ever know the truth about religion.
Why would you believe that?
How could you respond?
The Bible has been changed and translated so many times over the centuries, you just can’t trust it.
How do you know the Bible’s been changed? Have you studied the transmission of the ancient documents of the text of the Bible?
If you’ve never studied this, how do you know the Bible has been changed as you say?
I have. The manuscripts are accurate to nearly 99% precision. The Bible hasn’t been changed.
The suicide tactic is when ideas are __. “All English sentences are false.”
self-refuting
Every statement is __ something. When it is __ itself and can’t meet its own __, they are self-refuting.
about, about, criteria of validity
How could you respond?
There are no absolutes.
Is this an absolute?
How could you respond?
No one can know any truth about religion.
And how did you come to know that truth about religion?
How could you respond?
You can’t know anything for sure.
Are you sure about that?
How could you respond?
Talking about God is meaningless.
What does this statement about God mean?
How could you respond?
You can know truth only through experience.
What experience taught you that rational truth about knowledge?
How could you respond?
Never take anyone’s advice on that issue.
Should I take your advice on that?
What is the law of noncontradiction? In plain terms and in logical.
Contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time
A cannot be non-A at the same time, in the same way
To determine whether a view has suicidal tendencies, first pay attention to __ and ask if the __ applies to itself
basic idea or claim, claim
How could you respond?
There is no truth.
Is that statement true?
If you notice that a person’s viewpoint self-destructs point it out with a __ rather than a __.
question, statement
Why is the notion that God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift not a problem with his omnipotence?
Not even God can give life to a contradictory notion. God’s omnipotence ensures that he can do anything power is capable of doing. No amount of power can do contradictory things.
Philosophers call contradictory notions __
necessarily false
People are taken in by contradictory notions because they are __ or __.
implicit, hidden
What is truth according to postmodern thinking?
Truth does not exist in the sense we use it. There are no claims about the way the world really is that we can know to be accurate. Instead there are many socially constructed accounts of reality, and each one is “true” for those who believe it.
How could you respond?
Objective truth does not exist.
Why do you believe that? [Here are my reasons]
Didn’t you just give me facts, truth, and knowledge to try to persuade me that facts, truth and knowledge are fictions?
How is the question “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it” nonsense?
It treats God as if he were two instead of one. It’s asking if God is stronger than himself. Such comparative phrases can only be used when two subjects are in view. The question only has one subject.
How could you respond?
You think God is on your side, but you’re wrong. God doesn’t take sides (in politics).
Let me ask you a question. In this disagreement we’re having on whether God takes sides, what do you think God’s opinion is? [He doesn’t take sides.]
Right, so in our dispute, God would agree with you, not me. [Right]
So then he takes your side on this issue. I guess he does take sides?
How could you respond? (using the Suicide Tactic)
Men wrote the Bible and people are not perfect so the Bible must be flawed and not inspired.
I’m curious - why do you think you’re an exception to your rule? You don’t seem to think you’ve made a mistake in your judgment about the Bible, but you’re a flawed human too.
So humans must not always mistakes, which means you can’t rule out the Bible as you did, can you?
How could you respond?
Everyone’s view is a product of his own prejudices.
All your so-called facts are only beliefs dictated by your cultural biases.
Are your views and facts themselves merely a product of prejudice or cultural bias? If so, why take them seriously?
The pantheistic monism at the heart of some versions of Hinduism teaches that reality as we know it is __ of which each of us is a part.
illusion
Using questions, explore the problem with the idea of reality as an illusion in Hinduism.
If I am an illusion, how could I know it? How could I possess true knowledge that I do not exist? I think therefore I am not? Do people in a dream or cartoon know they are imaginary?
What is the problem with the claim that ideas such as the law of noncontradiction is a Western notion that doesn’t apply in Eastern thought like Hinduism?
It doesn’t matter if you are comfortable with contradictions. It has to do with how reality is structured. Computers work on a binary system of zeros and ones. Because of the law of noncontradiction, we can keep these two distinct. It doesn’t matter which hemisphere we are in or the religion of the person at the keyboard. It works because reality is the way it is.
What two impulses motivate the belief in theistic evolution?
a desire to affirm the Bible
a conviction that the standard Darwinian model has merit
Where is the contradiction at the base of theistic evolution?
Either God designs the details of the biological world or nature shuffles the deck and natural selection chooses the winning hand. You can’t say something is designed by chance.
Creation has a __. Evolution is __.
purpose, a goal; accidental
Design is __ and __ whereas mutation and natural selection is __ and __
conscious and intentional
unconscious and unintentional
Scientism is the view that says __
knowledge begins and ends with the scientific method and anything not confirmed by science is mere opinion and unsubstantiated belief
How could you respond?
I don’t believe in __ because there is no scientific evidence for it.
Then why do you believe in science? Is there any scientific evidence proving that science is the only way to know truth?
Define empiricism.
The claim that knowledge is restricted to that which can be perceived by the senses.
How does empiricism self-destruct?
The truth of empiricism itself cannot be perceived with the senses.
In what ways is religious pluralism self-refuting?
If all religion is true then Christianity is true. Yet it is central to Christianity that other religions are false when taken as a whole. So all religions are true and false.
Some religions teach that God is impersonal and some that God is personal. Some that God is irrelevant. They are at odds.
According to various religions, when someone dies, they might go to heaven or hell, or they might be reincarnated, or they might simply turn to dust, but they can’t do them all at the same time.
Every religion could be wrong on __, in principle, but they cannot all __
every single point, be right
When a point of view fails the pragmatic test, it does not work in real-life, it commits __
practical suicide
How could you respond?
It’s wrong to condemn (or judge) anybody for anything.
Then why are you condemning (judging) me?
How could you respond?
You shouldn’t force your morality on other people.
Why not? [It’s wrong?]
Then why are you forcing your morality on me?
How could you respond?
Proselytizing should be reserved for people with no spiritual convictions. Jews already have a religion. It’s the height of arrogance to suggest that they need a new one.
Are you telling me I should abandon my religious convictions about evangelism and adopt your view to evangelize only those who have no religion? Why don’t you keep your religious views to yourself?
Describe the tactic of Sibling Rivalry.
A conflict that arises when a person raises two objections that are at odds with each other.
What is the most effective response to a Sibling Rivalry conflict?
Identify the conflicting objections and ask which is the real concern. Sometimes this silences both objections.
How could you respond?
Is Gandhi in heaven? Heaven would be a very poor place without Gandhi in it.
“What kind of people go to heaven?” (Good people) “What is good?” (Good and bad are relative) “If goodness is relative and can’t be objectively defined and is a meaningless term, how is it you assume Gandhi is good and should be in heaven?”
Name the conflict and solution:
A good God wouldn’t let that happen. A loving God would never deliver judgment.
Sibling Rivalry. If God appears indifferent to wickedness, his goodness is challenged. Yet if he acts to punish sin, his love is in question. One or more objection needs to be surrendered.
According to relativism, when someone uses the word evil, he is expressing a ____.
Personal preference.
When a relativist says something is wrong, meaning wrong for me, they are not talking about that something at all but instead talking about ____.
Himself.
How could you respond?
How could God exist when there is so much evil in the world?
“Hmm, good point. I suppose brussel sprouts also questions his existence.” (What? Why?) “Well, I can’t believe in a God who would create something that tastes so awful to me. Does that make sense? In other words, like you, if God were good, he wouldn’t allow things that I don’t like. But does that disprove his existence?”
To say that something is evil is to say it is ____.
Not the way it is supposed to be.
Name the conflict:
Moral relativism is true but evil disproves God.
Sibling rivalry.
If homosexuals argue that their homosexuality is morally neutral (or even good) because it is natural, what could we ask about homosexual adoption, or artificial insemination?
“So you would say that nature dictates morality?” (Yes) “Isn’t the natural consequence of a homosexual relationship to be childless?” (Yes…) “So wouldn’t it be unnatural and therefore immoral for homosexuals to raise children?”
Describe the tactic of Infanticide.
When someone’s view is built on a prior concept that turns out to disqualify the view itself.
What is wrong with closing a letter with this: “Son, if you didn’t get this letter, please let me know, and I’ll send another.”
The son would have had to receive the letter to get the instructions on what to do if he didn’t receive it.
Explain how saying “Vocal cords do not exist” commits Infanticide.
The child claim (that vocal cords do not exist) cannot be said unless the parent concept (of vocal cords) is true. Yet the parent concept is denied and so destroys the child claim.
How could you respond?
Evil actually does exist: it is not relative, and it disproves God’s existence.
“What do you mean by ‘evil’?” (Examples given: murder, rape…) “Why call those things evil to begin with?” “Where is the transcendent standard of objective good that makes the whole notion of evil intelligible?” (Evolution: chance…) “If moral laws are the product of chance, why obey them? It sounds like we need a moral rule giver?”
Using evil as evidence against God commits which tactical error and why?
Infanticide. The notion of morality (and evil) rests on the prior foundation of God’s existence, and so can never be used to refute God.
A moral rule entails a __ along with a __. Both require __.
command, duty to obey it, minds
A duty is something that is __, but that is only to some person. There is no such thing as a duty in __.
owed, isolation
A __ is the only adequate standard for the system of scoring that makes sense of the existence of evil to begin with.
morally perfect God
When an atheist says she can be moral without God, what point is missing?
The point is not whether we can be good without believing in God. Instead, the question is whether she can make sense of goodness in a universe without God.
When we ask what worldview makes the most sense out of the existence of evil or good, philosophers call this the ___.
Grounding problem
Like atheism, which other religions fail to take good and evil seriously and so cannot explain a seemingly obvious moral universe?
Eastern religions
Because atheists like Michael Shermer ___, he is genuinely capable of noble conduct.
Lives in God’s world
Define scientism.
The view that science is the only reliable method of knowing truth about the world. Everyone outside of science is opinion and of which veridic assessment is meaningless.
Besides committing Formal Suicide, scientism also commits ___.
Infanticide
How could you respond?
Unless it’s proven by science, we can’t know if it’s true.
“Is it true that in science we should report all data honestly? How do we prove that scientifically? Or, can you show me how they prove the truths of logic and mathematics scientifically? What about the idea that our senses used in science are reliable? Have we proven that by science? How would you reconcile that it seems to that these, and really the entire scientific method, must be assumed true before science can begin?”
The concept that claims freedom is an illusion and that each of our choices is fixed, completely dependent on the circumstances that proceed them, is known as ___.
Determinism
How does determinism commit Infanticide?
If determinism were true, the person arguing for it would have been determined to believe it and others would have been determined to disagree. As such, he would have to admit that reasons for determinism do not matter and arguing for it is a waste of time.
Genuine knowledge is based on __, not deterministic reactions.
sound reasons
When using the Suicide tactic, Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide, what should our goal be?
Show the person that there is a fatal inconsistency in her beliefs - a problem she would correct if she really understood it.
How could you respond?
There is no truth!
Is that true?
How could you respond?
It’s wrong for you to push your morality on others!
“Is that your morality? Aren’t you pushing it on me right now?”
The Taking the Roof Off tactic is __
pointing out when a point of view, if taken seriously, works against itself by leading to unusual and absurd conclusions
Given someone’s worldview, if using their ideas they come to an absurd conclusion, then either __
part of the worldview is inaccurate or the worldview itself is the wrong one entirely.
Describe the Taking the Roof Off tactic.
First, adopt the other person’s veiwpoint for the sake of discussion. Next, give his idea a test drive. If you arrive at an odd destination, point it out and invite them to reconsider their worldview.
The Taking the Roof Off tactic forces people to ask __
if they can really live with the kind of world they are affirming
Taking the Roof Off is also known in logic as __
reductio ad absurdum
What does reductio ad absurdum mean?
to reduce a point to its absurd conclusion or consequences
According to Francis Schaeffer, Christians have a powerful ally in the war of ideas which is __
reality
Regardless of a man’s system, he has to __
live in God’s world.
Every person who rejects the truth of the God who is there, is caught between __ and __
the way he says the world is; the way the world actually is.
What is the key to dealing with moral relativism?
realizing that for all the adamant affirmations, no one really believes it, for if you start with relativism, reality does not make sense
It is significant that those who want to practice relativism never __
want relativism practiced toward them
When you start with materialism, in the beginning, the particles…, that route takes you __
over a cliff of absurdity and despair
What are the three steps to Taking the Roof Off?
Reduce the person’s point of view to its basic argument or principle. Mentally give the idea a test drive to see where it leads. If you find a problem, point it out.
In test driving an idea, what questions can you ask yourself?
If I follow this principle consistently, what are the consequences? What implications might it have for other issues? Does it take me somewhere that seems wrong, counterintuitive, or absurd?
How could you respond?
Jesus would forgive, so the government should forgive murderers.
This view becomes a reason to forgo any punishment for any crime. Do you think Jesus would advise emptying every prison, as great evil would then result?Did you know that the Bible says the purpose of government is to punish evildoers, not forgive them?
How could you respond?
We were wrong about interracial marriage, so we are wrong now on same-sex marriage being bad.
So you think the government should approve same-sex marriage because we were wrong about another marriage in the past?
What about slavery? The government was wrong in endorsing slavery in the past, so they are wrong for endorsing same-sex marriage now. But that’s absurd.
Just because people were wrong in the past about a decision, doesn’t mean we are wrong in the present about a different decision. Can you show a similarity between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage that is relevant to the issue of government endorsement?
How could you respond?
Same-sex orientation is moral because it is natural. I was born this way.
If scientists isolated a gay bashing gene, would violence toward homosexuals be acceptable?
The difference between just doing what comes naturally and principled self-restraint is called __
civilization.
Claiming that since same sex attraction is natural, it is moral commits which fallacy?
the is/ought fallacy
How could you respond?
If God existed, he could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and breaking. Such a simple task.
I can prove I don’t exist. If I exist, I would be able to accomplish the simple task of catching the chalk. [But I let it fall to the ground]. I guess this proves I do not exist. All this proves is God is not a circus animal.
How could you respond?
Women have the right to choose.
Should the woman have the right to choose to kill her one-year-old child for the same reason?
How could you respond?
A fetus is not a human being in the same sense that a one-year-old is.
I suppose you could also say that a one-year-old is not a human being in the same sense that a fourteen-year-old is, as in growth and maturity, but she would be a full human being, even so.
How could you respond?
We should abort some children to save them from future child abuse.
Should we also kill two-year-olds to save them from future child abuse?
How could you respond?
Christians promote a climate of hate towards homosexuals by demoting them to a “less than” status.
Wouldn’t this kind of thinking make AA responsible every time a drunk gets beat up in an alley?
The opposite of faith is not fact but __
unbelief
The opposite of knowledge is not faith but __
ignorance
How could you respond?
For us Christians, faith is believing things we cannot know. Faith and knowledge are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
If this is your view of faith, then apologetics would be a vice for you and affirming something you knew to be false would be the greatest virtue.
Starting with a naturalistic worldview, why should anyone care about Earth Day?
The most natural condition in the universe is death. Mother Nature spews noxious fumes and poisonous gases into the atmosphere for millions of years. Species have passed into extinction at a steady rate from the beginning. It only makes sense in a Christian worldview where God entrusted humans with stewardship.
How could we use Taking the Roof off to point out a flaw in evolution?
If we evolved by chance, there is no fundamental difference between animals and humans. However, we let a farmer divide the weak from the strong cows, but are appalled with Hitler did the same with people. Why is the first right but the second wrong?
How could you respond?
I’m personally against abortion, but I don’t believe in forcing my pro-life view on others.
Why are you personally against abortion? [I believe abortion kills but just personal]
Let me see if I understand you. You are genuinely convinced that abortion kills an innocent child, yet you think the law should allow women to do that to their own babies. Did I get that right?
The logic of the modified pro-choice position reduces to:
I think it’s wrong to kill my own children, but I don’t think we should stop other people from killing theirs.
How could you respond?
That’s just your interpretation concerning that biblical point.
What do you mean by that? Are all interpretations equally valid?
I’m sorry to hear that you believe all disabled infants should be executed. That’s my interpretation of what you said. Do you have a problem with that?
What are three possible reasons your thoughtful response fails to have an impact or not even be noticed?
Emotional reasons against Christianity
Prejudice against your views
Rebellion against God
Only __ can fix a person’s deep-seated rebellion against God.
a supernatural solution
The __ tactic helps keep you in the driver’s seat with people who are verbally abusive, have controlling personalities, interrupt, or bad manners.
steamroller
What three steps are used to stop a steamroller?
Stop him
Shame him
Leave him
Describe the first move in dealing with a steamroller
Request courtesy. Momentarily put the discussion on pause, ask permission to continue your point without interruption.
At the first sign of tension, what can you do to take the edge off?
Ask their name if you don’t know it already, and/or use it in a friendly manner as you continue.
Describe the second move in dealing with a steamroller
Ask if you can have a few moments without you breaking in and cutting me off. Unless you just want an audience, and then I’ll just listen. But I need to know if you are willing to consider my responses?
When facing an especially aggressive challenger, __
give him the last word and let it rest
Be generous with the truth, except __
with someone who shows utter contempt for the precious gift being offered.
Sometimes a word spoken to a hardened heart __. This is called __
bounces off and hits a soft one.
ricochet evangelism
Make the best of the __, then trust the Holy Spirit to __
opportunities you have
be the witnessing partner who makes the difference
The Rhodes Scholar tactic provides a way of __
assessing whether an appeal to an authority is legitimate or not
When an article tells you what a scholar believes, you have been __. When it tells you why he holds a view, you have been __.
informed, educated
Popular level articles __ not __, which usually commits which fallacy?
inform, educate
illegitimate appeal to authority
How do you find out if an authority has been compromised?
Don’t settle for opinions; ask for reasons
When should we believe an expert’s opinion?
When they are in a special position to know the facts
When they are in a unique position to render a judgment
Even when scholars peak within their field of expertise, they still owe us __
an accounting based on sound reasons
A scholar’s judgment may be distorted by __
underlying philosophical considerations
Define a pluralist
a person who holds that all religions are equally legitimate paths to God
According to current standards, what are the two requirements for an investigation of the natural world to qualify as scientific?
One must use the scientific method
One must come up with a naturalistic answer
When saying that ID is not scientific, it is a critique against the methodology. Why is this a distortion?
- There is a mountain of factual data that has emerged in the last 20 years that casts serious doubt on the entire Darwinian project.
- ID researchers follow the exact same broad methodology as Darwinists.
Modern science does not __ from the evidence that design is not tenable. It __ this prior to the evidence. This is an __ view.
conclude, assume
a priori
Richard Lewontin admits that the apparatus of science is geared not to find __ but rather to produce __
the truth
philosophically acceptable answers
How could you respond?
ID is not science; it’s religion disguised as science.
What specifically disqualifies ID as science?
Why dismiss the idea of design before you look at the evidence?
Whenever someone uses the word scientific to describe the way they look at history, they are signaling that __
materialistic philosophy governs the process
When an academic assumes such facts as the resurrection being an invention, miracles are a myth, there is no such thing as prophecy, what are they doing?
They have started with one’s conclusions, assumed naturalism, and so cheats, not proves the conclusions.
What can you do to help flush out both the facts and the philosophy that may be corrupting the interpretation of the facts?
Ask for the scholar’s reasons, not just his credentials.
It doesn’t matter if multitudes of scholars share the same opinion if the __
reasoning is bad, if the facts are false, if the judgments are tainted by philosophical bias
The current bias of science is a bias that __ because it __
distorts
illicitly eliminates certain answers before the game gets started
Why does the bias of a theist not run into the same problems of a naturalistic scientist?
A theist believes in the laws of nature but also is open to the possibility of supernatural intervention. She can judge the evidence on its own merits, unhindered by a philosophy that automatically eliminates divine intervention before giving the evidence an evenhanded hearing.
Can bias make a person open-minded?
Yes. When bias leads one to being open to more possibilities instead of more closed off to where the evidence may point.
Many challenges to Christianity are based on __. They can be overcome by a simple appeal to the __.
bad information; facts
Even if it were true that religion is the greatest source of violence in history, what could we say?
What can we conclude from this? We couldn’t conclude that God does not exist or that Jesus is not the Savior or that the Bible is not reliable.
Violent conduct might tell you something about __, but it tells you nothing about __.
people; God or the gospel
When challenged with the idea that religion has caused more violence in history than anything else, what fact can you suggest?
According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, less than 7% were motivated by religion. Look up mass killings in the Guinness Book of World Records and you’ll find institutionalized atheism at the top of them all.
The greatest evil has not come from people zealous for __. It has come from people who are __.
God; convinced there is no God they must answer to.
How could you respond?
The Founding Fathers were not Christians but deists.
The phrase ‘Founding Fathers’ is a proper noun referring to a specific group: the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The convention took place at a time when church membership usually entailed a sworn adherence to strict doctrinal creeds. We know from the records that 51 of the 55 were Christians, not deists.
What is the 2-step plan for Just the Facts, Ma’am?
Ask “What is the claim?”
Ask “Is the claim factually accurate?”
How could you respond?
Pro-lifers have no right to oppose abortion unless they are willing to care for the children born to mothers in crisis pregnancies.
You have no right to stop me from beating my wife unless you’re willing to marry her.
Also, there are considerably more pro-life crisis pregnancy centers than there are abortion clinics.
How could you respond?
The Catholic Church burned 5 million witches around the fifteenth century.
At that time the population of Europe was about 50 million. This would amount to burning about 40% of the adult female population. Does that seem reasonable?
How could you respond?
The deity of Christ was an idea invented by Constantine and foreign to Christ’s followers.
Then what explains the so-called “close vote” at Nicaea?
How could you respond?
The early records of Jesus’ life are so corrupted and compromised with countless translations and additions that history has never had a definitive version.
Then from where did you get your reliable, authentic biographical information about Jesus to know the others are unreliable?
How could you respond?
Thousands of Jesus’ followers wrote accounts of his life, but most of these were destroyed.
If all the accounts and evidence was destroyed, how do you know it was there in the first place?
How could you respond?
You can’t use the word murder to describe abortion since it is legal.
In nearly 2/3 of the states, the killing of the unborn human, except when consent is given by the mother, is considered murder. Doesn’t it seem odd that a mother can decide the innate value of a human being?
How could you respond?
The New Testament has gone through a series of translations and retranslations before settling on the version today.
Actually, all current English translations of the Bible start with the earliest manuscripts we have, found in the original language, and then translated into English. There is only one step in language to our original version.
How could you respond?
In Matthew 7:1 we are commanded not to judge!
Jesus immediately qualifies the command: First take the log out of your own eye then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Jesus was only condemning hypocritical judgments. He actually encourages some kinds of judgments.
What kinds of judgments are commanded in the Bible?
Non-hypocritical
Judicial (judges and church discipline)
Assessments of right and wrong, wise or foolish, rational or irrational (Paul says to be of sound judgment)
How could you respond?
The God of the Old Testament is a vindictive, bloodthirsty, homophobic… bully.
According to your naturalistic worldview, what is morality? (a relativistic trick of evolution to get our selfish genes into the next generation)
Do your protests against God make any sense in your worldview?
According to the inside out tactic, there are things all people __ that are embedded deep within their __, even though we deny them.
know
hearts
The profound __ we all know in the inside always eventually _____. All you need to do is __.
truths
reveal themselves on the outside
listen
Using the deaths of Mother Teresa and Princess Diana, explain the inside out tactic.
We mourn over Princess Diana’s untimely death. But in a godless universe, no one dies before their time. But to say it means people know better. It means they know that life has ultimate purpose and deep significance, which only makes sense in God’s universe.
What questions, using the inside out tactics, can you ask about:
death
evil
suicide
meaning
nature
Why is Princess Diana’s death a tragedy?
If there is no universal morality, how can there be really evil?
If evolution is just blind pitiless indifference, why talk anyone out of suicide?
If there is no meaning to life, what’s the point?
If there is no design in nature, why praise the wonders and magnificence of the world?
Why are Earth Day celebrations a contradiction?
Naturalists celebrate nature as ultimate and claim man has a unique moral responsibility to protect it. But nature is just physical things in motion strictly governed by deterministic laws of physics and chemistry. Morality is based on free choices, yet in naturalism we are all determined.
How does Earth Day point to God?
It displays the fact that we all know man is different, humans are responsible because they are not the same as anything else in nature. Only because we are created by God as free creatures do we have any obligation to take care of nature.
Use guilt to point to Jesus.
Every day of our lives, we each encounter and ultimately violate genuine, deep morality. We each experience personal feelings of guilt. Why do we all feel guilty? Maybe because we are guilty? The answer to guilt is not denial, relativism, but forgiveness. And that’s where Jesus comes in.
What two facts of the human condition lie at the heart of our inescapable sense of longing?
We are broken
It hasn’t always been this way
Atheism denies __ for without good, there is no bad.
guilt
Atheism denies __ for without design it is only biological accidents without purpose.
beauty
Our job is to listen for when a person’s __ or __ tells the truth even though his __ tells the lie. And then graciously ask him about it.
language, reactions
worldview
When outgunned, pit the challenger against __ whenever you can, not you.
Jesus
What is the best tactic when dealing with the exclusivity of Christianity, that Jesus is the only way?
Let Jesus carry the load here, since his message was crystal clear.
When someone presses you on the narrowness of Christianity, what could you say?
Well, I understand how you feel, but this was Jesus’ view, not mine, and he repeated it often. So did everyone else he personally trained to carry his message after him. Do you think Jesus was mistaken?
Tactically, how could you respond to someone asking about same-sex marriage? (what a friend…)
Since I am a follower of Christ, my view on marriage is the same as Jesus’ view, one he made clear in Matthew 19. I’ll sum it up this way. Jesus view was one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. So on the definition of marriage, I stand with Jesus.
How could you respond?
Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.
First, there is a difference between the record being silent and Jesus being silent. John mentions much he left out.
Second, Jesus view of slavery, capital punishment, racism, spousal abuse, child abuse, and sex trafficking is also silent. Do we infer he approve of these too?
Third, Jesus did have strong opinions about what a sexual relationship ought to look like: Matthew 19. The only proper sex is between a man and a woman, in a lifelong marital relationship.
The psychological feeling that one’s gender is different from one’s biological sex is known as
gender dysphoria
When you are trying to keep the burden of proof off you and onto Jesus, how might you have to prep the conversation?
You might have to ask first what is their opinion of Jesus. Even if they don’t think he’s God, likely they will still say some sort of great teacher.
When someone labels you a nasty name (bigot, homophobe, racist…) what should you first do?
And then?
And finally?
Ask for a definition of that label.
Ask why does that apply to me?
Ask why is it helpful to impugn my character instead of showing where my ideas went wrong?
When you ask for a definition of a nasty name someone called you, what are the two advantages?
- It stops the momentum of the attack and puts you in the driver’s seat.
- It forces the other person to think about what he just did.
Ridicule is not an __
argument
How could you respond?
How can a perfect God design creation with design flaws?
You’re right, I need to deal with that. But one apparent anomaly doesn’t nullify the overwhelming evidence for design. That would be like denying a wristwatch was designed because it runs three minutes slow.
How could you respond?
Why don’t you follow the old testament rules and not just the New Testament? You pick and choose.
Yes, I do have to do the hard work of sorting the rules out. But that’s true of every ethical system, including evolutionary morality.
How could you respond?
We atheists just believe in one less god than you.
Yes, but that doesn’t get you anywhere. Believing in one less God than a monotheist is what distinguishes atheists from Christians after all. That’s what makes you an atheist and me a Christian. We already know that. So what’s your point?
How could you respond?
The church is filled with hypocrites.
Actually, the church is filled with worse people than hypocrites. That’s why they need Jesus.
How could you respond?
There are more than 400,000 variant readings of the New Testament.
Of course there are. That’s what you’d expect when you have thousands of ancient manuscript copies. But the existence of thousands of copies is the very thing that makes it possible for us to accurately reconstruct the original.
How could you respond?
There is so much evil and suffering in the world. How can there be a God?
Of course there’s much evil in the world. That’s what you’d expect if the Christian account is true. The Bible doesn’t just explain it; it predicts it. We live in a world humans broke and a broken world produces broken people and broken situations.
How could you respond?
Jesus is a crutch.
You’re right. Handicapped people need crutches, though. We need God to help us, to hold us up, and to forgive us.
How could you respond?
Your God committed genocide when he destroyed the Canaanites.
Of course he destroyed them. If you had witnessed the things they did-including burning thousands of children and babies alive in sacrifice to Molech, you would have asked how God would allow such people to do evil. It wasn’t genocide, it was judgment.
How could you respond?
I’m not religious, I’m spiritual.
Of course you are spiritual. God made you that way so you could know him.
How could you respond?
Every culture has a flood story like you have in the Bible. It’s just a myth.
Of course every culture would have a flood story of some sort. That’s what you’d expect if there really was a great flood. Do you think every culture independently invented a fiction like that?
How could you respond?
That’s just your interpretation.
You’re right. It is my interpretation. How about this? Let me read the whole passage to you and then you let me know from the context what you think I got wrong and why.
What word substitute can you use for the Bible says?
Jesus of Nazareth says or the people Jesus personally trained to follow after him or the ancient Hebrew prophets say.
It’s much easier to dismiss a religious book than __
the words of respected religious figures
What word substitute can you use for the Gospels?
The ancient biographical evidence or the primary source historical documents.
What word substitute can you use for Jesus Christ or Christ?
Jesus of Nazareth
What word substitute can you use for faith?
trust or convictions
What word substitute can you use for beliefs?
This is what I think is true, or These are my spiritual convictions.
What word substitute can you use for non-Christians or unbelievers?
Those who don’t share our views or who differ with us.
What word substitute can you use for sin?
Moral crimes against God or acts of rebellion.
Why should you not use the terms “blown it” or “messed up” as synonyms for sin?
They simply do not capture the gravity of our offenses and end up trivializing our wickedness before God.
What word substitute can you use for forgiveness?
Pardon, mercy, or clemency
What word substitute can you use for sharing your faith?
Communicating your convictions
In substituting religious words, the goal isn’t to soften the original meaning but rather to __
replace stale religious language with words that are more vivid, powerful and precise.
How could you respond?
Christians are stupid.
You’re right. Some of them are. So?
How could you respond?
Christians are hypocrites.
Yep, some are. I admit it. So?
How could you respond?
You’re a Christian because you were raised in America.
Probably. So?
The fallacy of faulting an idea simply based on its origin when the origin is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the claim is called the __
genetic fallacy
The more you sweat in __, the less you __.
training
bleed in battle
Tips for effective discussions:
Be r__
ready
Tips for effective discussions:
Keep it __
simple
Tips for effective discussions:
Avoid r_ l_
religious language
What word substitute can you use for Christian?
follower of Jesus
Tips for effective discussions:
focus on __, not __
the truth of Christianity
its personal benefits
Tips for effective discussions:
Give r__
reasons
Tips for effective discussions:
Stay __
calm
Tips for effective discussions:
If they want to go, __
let them leave
When the conversation becomes a monologue, __
it’s time to let it go
Tips for effective discussions:
Don’t let them __
leave empty-handed
When a Jehovah’s Witness approaches, what could you say?
I am a Christian, and I realize we have some differences, including the vital issue of the identity of Jesus. I believe what John teaches in John 1:3, that Jesus is the uncreated Creator. This would make him God. Clearly, we both can’t be right.
A commitment to truth means an openness to __
refining one’s own views
“It is not for us to calculate our victory or fear our defeat, __
but to do our duty and leave the rest in God’s hands.”
The most important gauge of our success will be not our numbers or even our impact, but __
fidelity to our Savior.
