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.
