Arguments are seldom about the stated issue

Before I go into this new series of posts about common arguments against Christianity, I thought I'd point out a couple of things extremely important to remember.

First, when someone raises an intellectual argument against a belief system, that argument is usually tied to an emotion or experience or both. In all the conversations I've ever had with people about the merits (or lack thereof) of Christianity as a belief system, every single one, without exception, had an experience that fueled the argument. For instance, some people know that if they believe that Jesus is who the gospels present him to be, that will mean that Jesus commands total allegiance for a lifetime. Since they don't want to repent of their sins and follow Jesus, they question the reliability of the gospels or even the entire Scriptures. Another example is when a person knows someone who claims to be a Christian and that person does not act consistently with what they claim to believe and mistreat the person. That person then dismisses Christianity as a means to keep people under control (power play or control mechanism). The point then is to find out what the real issue is and deal with that in the context of an extended relationship instead of just a one time, all in, attempt at converting someone. See also John 4 where Jesus deals with a legitimate argument (where to worship) but gets at the heart of the issue (her insecurity and shame manifested by multiple unhealthy relationships).

Second, the goal of intellectual argumentation, even in the context of the academy of higher learning, is not to win the argument but rather to show the love of Jesus to people. Because of my fleshly desire to win every fight, I have been guilty on numerous occasions of losing sight of the real point of the conversation. The old adage rings true "You can win the argument and lose the person." What is said sometimes pales in comparison to how it's said. If the person walks away feeling beat up instead of loved and cared for, we've missed the forest for the trees. I'm not saying that we shouldn't give reasonable and well thought through answers to honest questions but we should be equally careful that our demeanor and attitude reflects God's heart for them instead of self righteousness and pride.

5 Arguments Against Christianity Part 1

A recent comment to this blog reminded me why I spent so much time and energy in graduate studies pursuing answers to common cultural questions. I summarized these questions and proposed answers in a paper written as a response to Nietzsche's Antichrist. While not posting the entire paper (email me if you want the whole thing) I will briefly summarize and give rebuttal to the 5 common arguments against Christianity. This is the first of a six part series.

There are four primary objections I find in Antichrist and one other that is common among postmoderns and finds roots in Nietzsche. First, Christianity, as a system of thought is intellectually inferior. Second, Christianity is unnatural in the sense that it values things (sympathy, pity, etc.) that promote destruction instead of life. Third, Christianity is delusional, in that it ignores the harsh reality of life and sees things through rose colored glasses. Fourth, Christianity is a power play (will to power) by the priests (apostles, pastors, clergy, etc.) for the weak masses. The other objection is that Christians themselves are culturally conditioned to be Christian as a result of the success of the power play.