@Josheb
1.
Kat is a 60-something self-professed atheist, and somewhat recently (c. 2016), after spending 50 years of her life identifying as a Christian. (She was a pastor's kid.) She is not a rabid antitheist; although she has enmity and contempt for Christianity, harboring much resentment and anger, she does know how to maintain a civil discussion.
I wonder how familiar she is with "
Pastor's/Preacher's Kid Syndrome."
2. This conversation was on X (Twitter), which is not conducive to long-form dialogues on matters of faith and philosophy. Without a blue checkmark, you are limited to 280 characters. It forces the participants to laser-focus on the core issue and not pursue related tangents. I have a blue check mark (for now), but she does not. So, out of respect for her, I limit myself to 280 characters whenever possible.
Got it.
3. She is intellectually sharp. She will shift gears when she detects an impending defeat.
Those are two contradictory statements. An intellectually "
sharp" person doesn't hold defeatable views and/or develop the skill for detecting defeat with the practice fo changing the subject. It's not a sustainable methodology and all that need be said is, "Can we finish this subject before we move on to 'X'"? We see that kind of intellectual poverty in discussion boards. It is an antithesis of intellectual acuity.
In other words, she changes the subject on purpose.
Yep. I understood that reading the op. The alternative would be she's not very intelligent (not just cowardly).
No need to rub her nose in it,
??????
Who said anything about rubbing her nose in anything? Isn't the goal your/my/our ability to demonstrate love (
Rom. 13:8-10) and grace (
Col. 4:5-6)?
so I let her try a different gear. (But she rejects Christianity, so everything is a dead end, ultimately.) When she receives a decisive blow, she doesn't respond at all—for days. (She has a lot of followers, which she cares about, whose reactions and opinions she also cares about—another reason she assiduously avoids defeat.)
That does not sound intellectually sharp, either.
4. When she mentioned God sending a tragedy to crush her will and finally show himself, I interpreted that to mean...
I have mentioned the problem of attributional error before, yes? The best play is always to have a person explain themselves and not make assumptions, inferences, guesses, etc. because very few experiences are as powerful to the sinful human as feeling
heard. It runs the risk of the other person feeling interrogated, but that is still better than feeling judged or ignored. Let her be her own judge by
asking (not demanding) the two of you finish a topic before moving on to another (or at least getting a little farther along her own asserted line of reasoning than most allow. Remember she learns of your cowardice (real or perceived) when she's permitted to repeatedly change the subject. I am not saying you are cowardly, only that there is a very real possibility, a
likelihood, that the other person walks away from that sort of conversation silently thinking ("
s/he collaborated well with my avoidance," or "
s/he's so bereft of _______ that s/he let me change the topic again and again"). Conversations always take two (or more) and each party contributes something to its function/dysfunction
and while both parties may not
consciously be aware of the "dance," they both know it subconsciously. Weigh what's being accomplished by a collaborative change of topic/avoidance against what might be accomplished with a polite, respectful, patient, kind, hopeful, trusting, loving comment like, "
Tell me more about that crushing tragedy things," or "
How'd you arrive at that crushing tragedy thing?" to give just two possible options.
Luke 6:45.
Just a thought.
I find a presuppositional approach can be very effective as long as the motive is not to "win" an argument where a loving conversation can be had.
as long as she believes her will is functional and healthy she'll wield it in opposition to God.
Yep. And showing her will isn't what she imagines is very risky. It could be heart-hardening. She's heading to hell either way unless her life's already been claimed by God and she's simply temporarily ignorant of that fact
. Is it better to show up at the fiery lake thinking, "
Well, that guy John did talk to me about some of this stuff," or "
Damn, I wish someone had let me know"? Ultimately, creation has already testified to her so she knows but one of the beautiful things about apologetic/evangelism is the second witness it provides.
He would have to crush it first, she seemed to suggest.
Yep. That is certainly true in many ways but being crushed like Jesus is much different than being crushed like Paul, being crushed like Jacob is much different than being crushed like Peter. If's she's a pastor's kid then she probably knows the stories, but may not understanding the meaning of those accounts or their differences. Even if she takes them as religious allegory they're loaded with meaning and she's got sensibilities she's not using when she changes topic again and again and again.
So, I countered with the fact that love can motivate someone to give up their will for another. (I believe she smelled the regeneration angle and shifted gears.)
Amen.
5. I appreciate your laws-allow-freedom angle.
I appreciate the appreciation. However, technically it is obedience that begets freedom, not the laws themselves. Laws also make us aware of (our) sin and that is always an uncomfortable sensation when lacking salvation and the promises of God through His Son, Jesus. Laws don't help anyone by their mere existence and outside enforcement is painful and sometimes/often breeds contempt, not joy. I used to have to unpack this kind of content with teenagers. If provided with the traffic analogy they cross their arms, raise their voice and protest, "
Yeah, well I can get in a helicopter and fly over all the traffic!"
Not without flying a flight plan with the FAA.
Aaarrgh!
6. I am fairly certain that I'm exerting a measurable influence on her thinking—whether toward a divine calling or greater judgment I don't know.
I'd exploit it. Or not. Following God's lead is always victorious and it's challenging to field the content of an atheist, our own thoughts and knowledge, and the moment of inspiration when God reveals that one thing that will go right to the "
heart issue" of the pending proselyte (because she does not yet know there's already a claim on her life). Our own knowledge and skill sometime get in the way but I generally assume the exchange is a divine moment and there's a reason I've been brought into this individual's life and there's another reason they've been brought into mine. The problem (for me, at any rate) is the prospect that purpose might be to highlight and cement that person destruction
.
7. "Typically, atheists are not particularly opposed to the idea of God's existence," you said, "nor are they hostile to people who have religious belief." I am sorry but this is delightfully naïve.
It is not naive. It is the conclusion reached by 40 years of apologetic and evangelistic experience, having learned to effectively practice classical, evidential, and presuppositional apologetics, prayerful contemplation, along with experience in the mission field, experience teaching apologetics in both a lay capacity in local congregations and professionally at the university level, dialogues with some of the most renown apologists in contemporary Christianity, and
hundreds of personal conversion experiences with atheists.
"Internet atheists" is a pejorative term for a reason, referring to atheists who are "active in online communities or social media, often engaging in combative or dismissive discussions about religion, particularly Christianity" (Perplexity AI).
That is synonymous with antitheism.
I blame the Four Horsemen of New Atheism—Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris—for how obnoxious internet atheists became.
All four of whom were antitheists, not merely atheists. I met Hitchens. That was man who was intellectually sharp. He could follow a topic further along its logical necessities than Kat. Kat is more like Dawkins, who most atheists and antitheists nowadays consider an embarrassment. These four certainly are responsible for a lot of nonsense but they also sharpened the Christian apologetic practice experience. Kat may be their prodigy but, if so, she did not learn well. She can't even stay on topic
because she recognizes pending defeat within her own views.
