Defense or Offense?

[theopoesis]

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:15

I came here to learn, and initially just interjected where I felt that a gross mistake was being made, or where an alternate perspective would be helpful. After some time, though, I began to see a common trend of the same basic non-theist arguments being made here again and again and again. I also have noticed that the most frequent approaches by Christians are to sit back and wait for these same arguments to be made, and then to attempt to reply to them. Apologetics seems to be almost exclusively a defensive act. Some offensive apologetics are made, but mostly in the science forum, and it seems that science is the most fortified stronghold of the secularist. It is not necessarily impregnable, but it is their strong point. Why do we limit our offense to the strongest point? Is there no other grounds on which we can challenge the secularist?

I see the status quo as a problem for many reasons. I'll offer three for now:

(1) Defense alone makes an unfair fight

If Christians and other theists spend most of the time defending propositions that often depend largely on faith, the non-theist rarely has to assert anything about his or her own position, and therefore rarely has to defend anything. Christians have nothing to poke a hole in, but the non-theist has hundreds and thousands of opportunities. Eventually, we won't be capable of defending one thing or the other, and so we will lose. The non-theist, needing to defend nothing, cannot lose. It's a battle of attrition.

What's worse, this battle often begins when a new Christian says "hi" in the general chat. Welcomes tend toward the beginning of a refutation, and there is no quarter for the theist of any variety. The secularist or non-theist, however, can spend months here without ever having to defend his own position except for defending the big bang or evolution. This hardly seems a balanced fight.

I'm not saying we start jumping non-theists in the general chat, nor am I saying that there aren't plenty of Christians who come here ill equipped to defend their faith. What I am saying is that if all we do is defend, there are only two outcomes: apostasy or endurance. There is little hope for gaining any ground on the secularist.

(2) Defense alone limits our own learning

It is obvious to any observer that the non-theists here are intelligent and well educated. They know Christianity very well. I believe that a major reason for this is that many of them have spent years here (not considering elsewhere) spending time on threads that are mostly attacks on Christianity and defensive apologetics by Christians. After a few months, they know Christianity much more, and after a few years they are nearing being an expert. They learn. Often, Christians that come here but don't know anything about their own faith don't last long, because they only see Christian perspectives being throttled. Veteran christians can either withstand the onslaught or defend their perspectives, but in doing so they only have a limited benefit. They already know their faith well, so in defending it they learn less that is new about it. Thus, Christians don't learn.

How many Christians here have learned much about what non-theists believe? I've learned about why non-theists don't believe in God, but I haven't learned anything at all about secular models of anthropology, sociology, ethics, or psychology. In short, my education here has been limited because I (and other Christians) rarely attack non-theist positions on these matters in order to be able to hear what they believe and why. Instead, we hear our own perspectives in an echo chamber. I think we could get more out of the forum.

(3) Defense alone limits discussion

There are difficult things in Christianity to believe. I admit that, and willingly. But as long as Christians on the defense admit similar things repeatedly, but non-theists never admit their weaknesses and are never shown them, the assumption here will be that the theist is in weaker grounds. Therefore, the discussion takes the shape of squashing theism instead of dialoguing between two perspectives that can both learn from one another. Until we knock the non-theist down a notch, I doubt we'll be granted the legitimacy we need to enter discussion while viewed as an equal. There are certainly honorable and considerate non-theists here who treat Christians as equals, but there are far fewer who seem to grant that a Christian can intellectually grant anything of equal worth to many discussions if what is offered is distinctively Christian. I came here to dialogue, but I haven't had much of an opportunity.

So that's what I've been thinking. What do other Christians think? Why are we mostly on the defensive? How might we go on the offensive? Would the forum and individuals on it be better off if we did? Or, am I crazy?

[Slopeshoulder]

1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

The Bible doesn't leave room for "we think we are right". We have a blessed assurance that these things are true and that is what is meant by HOPE.

I'm aware of the words on the page.
You'vee been misled and are making five errors:
- taking the Bible literally
- ignoring 2500 years of epistemology, which all credible theologians take seriously
- arguing in a circular fashion (a well known logical fallacy)
- repeating unsubstantiated claims
- misunderstanding that in this case the word know means "experience directly." To know God, or Jesus, or heaven or whatever, is NOT to overcome the epistemic limits of humankind, nor to undermine epistemological rules so eggregiously. Rather it means to have intimate direct experience. It actually moves beyond the ephemeral un-name-able "I am" YHWH and says that this is a god we can experience directly. That's a profound Biblical message that you miss.

Rather than memorize and quote the bible on a literal basis, it might make sense
to study what it says, as I did, in a good non-fundamentalist seminary. Do you have one locally? Are there any in SoCal, being fundy ground zero as it is? Can you get to the Claremont school of religion? Fuller might do in a pinch.

[fewwillfindit]

We don't "know" there is a God. We have faith without knowing. And that faith shapes our reality, our lives, and ourselves. But that isn't knowledge, it's merely a truth for us (that could be true for all, but we don't know).

Correction. You don't know there is a God. We, on the other hand, have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, and we do, in fact, know there is a God. You cannot know there is a God because you reduce vast portions of God's Holy Word to mere myth. This reductionism eliminates the possibility of knowing anything pertaining to God.

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

Also, I'm all for offense if it evens out the playing field vs. an assertive secularism, but not to convince the world that I/we have all the answers. I think God laments and laughs at that hubris and exclusivism.

Christianity is exclusivist by its very nature. It is the only path to salvation. I've shown this to you from the Bible before and you didn't believe it, so doing so again would be redundant.

God is in every person and religion, including in a whole mess o' atheists.

Unsubstantiated opinion noted. Your god may be a universalist; ours is not. I'd quote a ton of Scripture to support this but what's the point if you don't believe it in the first place?

It actually moves beyond the ephemeral un-name-able "I am" YHWH and says that this is a god we can experience directly. That's a profound Biblical message that you miss.

If you had experienced God directly, as you say, then you would be testifying with us that we know that God exists. No one who encounters the Ancient of Days walks away from that experience unsure if God exists.

[Slopeshoulder]

We don't "know" there is a God. We have faith without knowing. And that faith shapes our reality, our lives, and ourselves. But that isn't knowledge, it's merely a truth for us (that could be true for all, but we don't know).

Correction. You don't know there is a God. We, on the other hand, have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, and we do, in fact, know there is a God. You cannot know there is a God because you reduce vast portions of God's Holy Word to mere myth. This reductionism eliminates the possibility of knowing anything pertaining to God

Correction. I do know God in the sense that I take the scripture to mean "know," yes by the inner witness of the holy spirit. How dare you claim otherwise. More fundy violence and overreaching. you and us, us and them. geez.
Your alleged knowledge makes no sense epistemologically or evidentially. We are arguing semantics.

Also, I'm all for offense if it evens out the playing field vs. an assertive secularism, but not to convince the world that I/we have all the answers. I think God laments and laughs at that hubris and exclusivism.

Christianity is exclusivist by its very nature. It is the only path to salvation.

More extrmism, inherently violent (insofar as it undermines, seeks to destroy and demonizes all other worldviews in a longed for and worked for spiritual genocide).

I've shown this to you from the Bible before and you didn't believe it, so doing so again would be redundant.

You've only shown me what decontextualized bible proof texting looks like. I'm neither impressed nor persuaded. You've proven and established nothing other than how biblical literalists roll.

God is in every person and religion, including in a whole mess o' atheists.

Unsubstantiated opinion noted.

It's actually substantiated by the extensive work and writing of the many thinkers who share this belief. But that's for another thread and a waste of time with you.

Your god may be a universalist; ours is not. I'd quote a ton of Scripture to support this but what's the point if you don't believe it in the first place?

I'm not a universalist, and we both have the same God. Two incorrect assumptions on your part, and again more implied violence and separateness.
I suggest that all religions have truth and that God is in all religions and all peoiple. That is not univeralism, it's omnipresence. Nor BTW is it an equation between faith traditions.
I'd also quote a ton of exegesis and theology, but why bother, I have a life to live and a meeting that starts in half an hour.

It actually moves beyond the ephemeral un-name-able "I am" YHWH and says that this is a god we can experience directly. That's a profound Biblical message that you miss.

If you had experienced God directly, as you say, then you would be testifying with us that we know that God exists. No one who encounters the Ancient of Days walks away from that experience unsure if God exists.

Ah, now you're combining decontextualized slopeshoulder quotes from different threads. Well if it works for the bible...

Regarding your charge, I do and I have: encounter/believe/proclaim. Who are you to judge? Again you rush to misread and misjudge me because I don't share your belligerent and spurious certainty. I just do it with a bit more humility, grace and respect for the other than I percieve you to do.
But it is reasonable to 1. question the authenticity of a believer one percieves as a fanatic (you) because this is an age old practice in the church, 2. incorporate doubt into faith as countless great saints, contemplatives and theologians have done, and 3. respect the witness of philosophical epistemology and not confuse terms like knowledge with terms like faith. Most respected non-fundamntalist believers and thinkers feel the same.

That was fun. What else you got?