Should I shut down the online Atheist v. Christian debate?

Since July I have been holding an online debate with a friend of mine who is an atheist. Last week someone suggested I shut it down because the questions raised might be a deterrent to Christians who are new in their faith. I believe it a good teaching tool if for no other reason it teaches Christians there are good solid answers to the questions non-believers pose. It also provides a good link to some of the best Christian thinkers writing today.

What do you think? Keep it? Shut it down?

Comments

[Linda]

Pastor Brad,
I've been participating actively on the blog with Jeff. I'm in favor of your agreeing with Jeff on an end date for the blog - and then shutting the blog down on that date but not before. I think if you shut it down suddenly - that it will appear to be censorship.

I believe your own personal blog already provides links to most of not all of these Christian writers.

[Humble Pie]

Wow - that would be sad.

I'm afraid that shutting down the blog for the reason that 'it might be a deterrent to new Christians' is a signal that Jeff (the athiest) is right. He would argue that Christians are naive and afraid to ask the real and obvious questions and are therefore delusional.

What "questions" is this person referring to? What "questions" are we afraid to let new Christians hear?

The only reason I can see for ending the discussion would be if you, Pastor Brad, as the lead defender of God on the site determined you didn't have enough time to adequately answer questions.

[passionate]

I asked Brad a question months ago that never got answered. It was regarding how & when to apply Jesus' advice not to "cast our pearls before swine". I wondered if having an ongoing forum with someone who knows the Gospel message and says things like; "it would have been better for the world if Jesus never came to it", would qualify?

This dialogue could also be a stumbling block to some, since it allows for the continual allegation that Christians are idiots for believing the truth about Christ.

In my opinion, Jeff has never said anything valid enough to shake anyones faith (indeed nothing could be said), but I've wondered regarding the fruitfulnes of granting atheists this forum to vent their misunderstandings.

I like having the option to view & chime-in if I want or not though. We don't have to tune in. Kind of like violence on TV!

[Linda]

I actually don't mind having the blog with Jeff. However, I wish there was a safe place where Christians could talk and ask questions. With Jeff, its not possible to ask questions and express doubts. With him, one must be be constantly on guard.

[Humble Pie]

I like that pearls before swine line!

But for the fact that Jeff is a friend of Brad's I probably wouldn't spend my time reading or debating with him. He'd simply be an anonymous internet guy. But knowing that he is flesh and bone - with a Spirit and a Soul - and someone that Pastor Brad has a relationship with and truly cares for motivates me to spend time in discussion.

Hey Linda - isn't THIS blog a safe place?

[passionate]

I agree that Jeff is a valid person & a friend of Brad's.

Obviously Jesus meant what he said about "casting pearls before swine" for certain flesh & bone people under certain circumstances. I honestly have never received any instruction or have been given an example of what those circumstances would look like. I'm guessing that a forum like this with a staunch atheist could be one.

Brad???

[Brad Kindall]

Here's what my IVP commentary says on the verse:

This saying seems to make little sense in this context; hence varied interpretations of verse 6 abound. Some think that dogs here are the Gentiles (15:26) and the pearls the gospel of the kingdom (13:45). But Jewish teachers used dogs to represent different things (not just Gentiles) in their parables, and even in 15:26 “dogs” is not wholly negative as it is here (see comment there). Other attempts to narrow the saying’s object to prohibiting sinners from the Eucharist (as in Did. 9:5) also go beyond the evidence.
In its most general sense 7:6 was probably simply a wisdom saying like Proverbs 23:9: “Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words” (compare also Syr. Men. Sent. 328–32). Dogs may refer to the wicked or oppressors more generally (compare Ps 22:16, 20; 59:14–15; Prov 26:11). It was also commonly known that stray scavenger dogs—the main kind encountered in the towns of Jewish Palestine—growled at those feeding them as much as at passing strangers (Isoc. Demon. 29, Or. 1). Clearly these are people who do not value what we have to offer them; swine also proverbially lacked appreciation of value (Prov 11:22).
But why did Matthew include this saying here? Some connect the saying to the preceding context by suggesting that it means it is worthless to try to correct (7:1–5) one unwilling to listen. Others note that while we should not judge, some people should be avoided or we must exercise discernment. Yet taken by themselves, none of these suggestions explain the lack of disjunction in verse 6.
Most likely verse 6 provides a transition between the preceding and following contexts. Correcting those who will not receive correction is futile (vv. 1–5; Prov 9:8; 23:9); we should discerningly continue to offer wisdom (or the gift of the kingdom) only to those willing to receive what we offer, just as God does (Mt 7:7–11). In this case the text sounds a note of reciprocity to be repeated in verse 12 (Keener 1993:64). If verse 6 means something along these lines, it does not allow us to prejudge who may receive our message (13:3–23), but does forbid us to try to force it on those who show no inclination to accept it (10:13–16; compare Carson 1984:185; Blomberg 1992:128–29; Hagner 1993:172).

Keener, C. S. (1997). Vol. 1: Matthew. The IVP New Testament commentary series (Mt 7:6). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

[passionate]

Thanks Brad!

After reading the thoughts & possible interpretations from the above commentary, I would conclude that the Christian vs. Atheist forum could very well fall under the spirit of the proverbs cautioning us not to engage those who "lacked appreciation of value (Prov 11:22)".

I would guess this is not only for our sake & for the integrity of the Gospel's, but maybe also to send a message to the atheist, that this isn't fun & games but that they need to humble themselves & respect what we have to offer?

I'm not suggesting to cease the dialogue. I'm just stating what my thought regarding it has been all along.

[Linda]

I don't think interacting with Jeff is anything like casting pearls before swine. Jeff WANTS to dialogue - and he evidently has something that he NEEDS to say. We just have to keep walking with him until he tells us what it is. [Matt 5:41] I think casting pearls before swine must mean trying to interact with people who DON'T want to interact.

[passing-by]

There comes a time when interest in a debate erodes because it becomes redundant or because none of the parties show any movement toward understanding one another. That would seem a valid reason to discontinue or take a hiatus. It seems absurd to me to stop the debate on the grounds that new believers might lose faith... that is tantamount to saying that the atheist viewpoint is more powerful than the Christian stance. It also seems bizarre to maintain that God wants Christians to turn away from people who do not accept Christianity quickly or easily. In my experience Christianity is most powerful when Christians are Christ-like and demonstrate grace: undeserved love and forgiveness. Christians should not be motivated by fear that atheists are more convincing. IMHO

[passionate]

Hi passing by, always nice of you to pass by!

Are you implying that my position is "bizarre" & unloving?

Are you implying that Jesus is bizarre & unloving?

Jesus was always motivated by love, even when speaking hard things like associating certain people with the proverbial swine. Can you think of a scenario where Christ's words could be applied? I don't think it would apply only to those who don't want to hear the gospel, but also to mockers. Do you?

You stated that it "seems bizarre to maintain that God wants Christians to turn away from people who do not accept Christianity quickly or easily". You may have just tuned-in to this forum, but Jeff (the atheist) grew-up in the church & his mother is a minister. He's been dug into his arguments for some time. He's continues to call Christians "delusional" & "in denial".

My comments were regarding this debate that's been going on, not about denying a sincere seeker the Gospel.

I have been specific regarding my argument (please refer to Brad's previous commentary answer regarding casting pearls...).

Could you (or Linda) tell me specifically where you think I'm wrong, bizarre or unloving? I'm always in a quest to be more loving to people & faithful to the truth.

[cjb1982]

My perception from reading the blog is that is more like a contest than a dialogue. I say contest, because the tone of the exchanges seems competitive and because most of the comments on the blog are from people “cheering” for the blogger who represents their pre-conceived notions.

Also, I think “apologetics” is ineffective in general. It attempts to use modern science and philosophy to convince modern (or postmodern) people to accept a pre-modern worldview based on faith in the teaching of “sages”, revelations from God, and tradition.

What would be more interesting to me than watching two people trying to use intellectual gymnastics to outmaneuver each other would be two people telling their stories. Here’s what I mean: both atheism (or atheisms; there are different kinds) and Christianity (or Christianities) are religious positions that require “belief” or “faith” in a priori assumptions about humanity and God (or “not-God”), among other things.

What be interesting to me would be to understand WHY Brad chose “God” over “not-God” and how this choice led him to the type of Christianity he espouses. Likewise, I would like to know why Jeff chose “not-God” over “God” and how he came to be especially adverse toward Christianity.

I’m also curious to know what TYPE of atheism/Christianity Jeff and Brad subscribe to. How do these views answer some of the deep questions that humans have been asking for ages (Who are we? Where are we from? Why are we here? How should we live? What is death?, etc.)?

So, Brad, should you shut down the blog? I would like to see more than a debate. Obviously, it’s up to you in the end. If you don’t mind Jeff making you look dumb, then keep going. Otherwise, I would avoid apologetics and debate and move on to something that, in my opinion, might be more valuable.

[passing-by]

Gosh, passionate, I haven't posted here in months and months and the first thing I do is annoy you! Sorry. I was too harsh with my words, but I did not mean to attack you personally.

We often seem to come toward the same middle-ground from opposite corners of reality. I prefaced my post with the notion that if a debate fails to move either party then it is fruitless to continue. I think that sort of parallels the "pearls before swine" proposition but I cannot believe that we are supposed to dismiss non-believers as swine or dogs or whatever. I'm just not capable of accepting that God intends us to speak about others or regard others in that way.

Mostly, I don't believe debates about faith are worth engaging in except as ways to clarify one's belief system. Christians may regard atheists as delusional but the opposite is always true and it all comes down to mere name-calling. I can't believe anyone ever adopted Christianity purely as the result of being persuaded by debate rhetoric or logic thought. That medieval baloney about deciding between Christ and atheism as a gamble (if I gamble on atheism and lose I go to Hell, but if I gamble on Christianity then I either win Heaven or have lost nothing anyway) is so preposterous both logically and in terms of faith that I just about have a seizure every time I hear or read it!

To me, Christianity is powerful when it is personal - when a loving friend models Christian behavior to a non-believer. And it is more powerful when there is no apparent reason for the friend to keep being a friend or even lots of reasons for the friend to abandon the effort. We aren't capable of meeting such a standard very often, but Christians don't believe Jesus would turn his back to anyone, ever. Do we? Love makes believers. Debates do not.

[passionate]

Hi passing-by -

Thank you once again for your sincerity!

I wasn't so much offended, but I really think I laid-out a valid position based on the wisdom of David (don't sit in the seat of mockers), Solomon & Jesus. I don't think God wants to discourage or give up on anyone. I do think though, that people can begin to cheapen the extremely critical gospel message through mockery. Jesus gave us instructions on how to deal with everything. I think that we have to value those instructions & trust that He knows more than we do. For instance, Paul instructs us regarding the excommunication of "so called" brothers who blatantly disregard morality in the church family. This seems harsh & unloving, but the end result will be a more clear witness, health in the church & hopefully a repentant brother. Disengaging dialogue with a mocker may have the same result, & in God's wisdom could be more agape-loving then our trying to be 'nice'.

However as I said, I trust Brad to make that decision. I'm just adding my two cents.

That's where I'm coming from, my dear brother passing-by. Always nice to hear from you!

PS- cjb1982, This my have been the first thing that you've said that completely resonates with me!

[passionate]

PS Passing-by,

after revisiting this, i noticed that i failed to give you your much deserved kudos, by saying that you are correct. we do come to the same conclusions & agree on the main issues.

i again got caught-up in defending my opinion, which i believe to be a good one (as opinions go) & not an unloving one.

just want to make sure that you feel appreciated & welcomed to continue commenting here!

[VICIT]

This "debate" has been really instructive to me, please don't shut it down simply because things get emotional or heated, PLEASE DON'T SUPPRESS THE PASSIONATE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, ITS LIKE A ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT BUFFET FOR THE HUNGRY MIND!

I strongly disagree to the statement that "if a debate fails to move either party then it is fruitless to continue". It has been wonderful to read what Jeff and evryone has to say!! I have learned so much and its cool to just take little visits into other peoples worlds, I love it, even if I disagree with an opinion, a scriptural interpretation, or think the ideas are absurd. Here are a few of the priceless things we can get with this "debate".

1. We get clarity as to where others are at.
2. We learn about other human beings, God loves these creatures!
3. It forces me to really think about what faith means to me, and why I have it, and heck if I learn that I have been deluded, then I can only end up more enlightened!

[rileystone]

Wow! I came across this site when searching for something else. I'm an atheist, and I think it's hilarious (and very sad) that you people are here debating with one another about whether or not Jesus wanted you to view some people as pigs or as dogs. Too funny!

Like I've always said, though....worshipping an ugly makes an ugly man. The posts on this forum only emphasize how ugly the evangelical Christian.

Keep up the good work!

[rileystone]

And then you have "Humble Pie," obviously a SWELL Christian, saying things like:

"I like that pearls before swine line!"

Of COURSE you like it! It's a "God-ordained excuse" for you to insult non-Christians.

Yep, if someone doesn't see how serious your beliefs are, if someone doesn't notice how wise you are when it comes to all things god-related.....then you can just walk away because the person is nothing but an animal.

Sick, sick, sick! But then the belief that a loving God is going to eternally punish those who fail to believe as they do in this life is pretty sick.

Sick beliefs make sick people. This blog demonstrates that perfectly! I love it!

[rileystone]

Someone wrote: Last week someone suggested I shut it down because the questions raised might be a deterrent to Christians who are new in their faith.

OF COURSE the questions are going to serve as a deterrent to Christians who are new in their faith as well as to ANYONE who actually is able to THINK coherently!

But even more than that, comments from hypocritical Christians, like the comments listed in this blog, are even MORE persuasive.

I love the Internet. It is through the Internet that hypocritical, hateful attitudes on the part of Christians toward non-believers are rampantly displayed. And it will be because of this blogs like this---where Christians think they are stating their hatred "privately" that will, eventually, be the end of the Christian religion.

It can't happen soon enough. THANK YOU for posting here! I copied ALL of your posts to post in another forum where atheists, skeptics, and questioning Christians can read--and learn--from your hypocrisy and your ignorance.

[William E. Stem]

Hello!

I am a logical Christian.
I believe the debate should continue, mainly because Christians (new and older) need to learn to defend their faith.

Most of us know that the athiests are never going to be persuaded by any argument regardless how valid.

Do they not realize that a contradiction can be used to prove anything? This means that even if their premises are false they can prove anything they want to.

God bless you in your continued struggle against the powers of ignorance.