Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April 28th, 2015

Boxer down

Background: In my post on Sunday “Twitter attack on #SoulVultures and the Nepalese Earthquake,” I noted that there are Hindus and others on Twitter harassing those Christians who expressed evangelistic prayers for Nepal in light of the recent earthquake and Christian evangelistic relief efforts.  In Sunday’s post I gave a compact summary of the Gospel since people kept on misrepresenting it and I also dealt with the objection to Christian evangelistic relief effort and evangelistic prayers.  Specifically I dealt with the objection by noting how the objection faces a self-defeater that is provided from within these guys’ own respective worldview.  As of this moment that I am writing this, those who have commented on the post against us have yet to interact with the arguments that was presented.  But overall at least the comments were civil.  But this is not true on Twitter.  We’ve been called many things and have many nasty things said about Christianity the last 48 hours.  I want to share one of the better exchange that was not filled with profanity.  I want to share this dialogue as a window for others to see the folly of opposing Christians sharing the Gospel when one’s own faulty worldview and religious outlook undermine the rational basis for making that objection.  I want to note that since EvangelZ and I (SlimJim) both used the blog’s Twitter account, it is hard to distinguished my tweet and those by EvangelZ.  Here I limiting the record of this dialogue to the tweets that were my own words.  I also left out other Hindus ganging up against us during the dialogue as these tweets were largely distracting, harassing and not fruitful.  I also focused only on the tweets of our dialogue partner directed towards my own words; and the tweets from our Hindu friend that I am responding to.

Apologetics Illustration:

I want to explain what I see the direction of the dialgue with the following illustration.  Wouldn’t it be strange if a boxer ended up knocking himself out?  Kind of like this guy did to himself:

I think this describes what our Hindu friend did to himself here.  I think it was not so much I was “beating down” on him as it was more that his own beliefs were delivering his own knockout punches.  The point of my dialogue was merely to point out that his own beliefs were refuting his objection against Christians engaging in evangelism to Hindus.

The Dialogue:

Our Hindu friend’s main thesis was, to put it in his words, “The ppl u seek to cnvrt have their own religion,y not accept that his religion is as precious/true for him as urs for u.”

We pick up where he started to describe his beliefs that religious claims are no more than mere preferences:

Hindu: u have the right to say my dad is the best dad in the world,as long as u add two words; “for me”.Sadly ppl dont realize this

The Domain for Truth: so religious claims are just subjective?

Hindu: certainly.  Not all people think alike,hence there are different ways to approach the divine.Depending on ur culture/country.

The Domain for Truth: Ok so if you believe this why are you railing against another cultural way of giving aid? #contradiction

Hindu: u may like baked potatoes,i may like french fries.The potate does not change,how we consume it does.

The Domain for Truth: You say we should not condemn as wrong yet you do so? #Contradiction

The Domain for Truth: If you believe everything is mere preference; then you can’t condemn someone else’s preference including those of Christians

Hindu: because u are demeaning someone else’s religion/faith in the process.Also the whole idea that my god is superior to ur god.

The Domain for Truth: But your belief in religious relativism is an undercutting defeater to your complaint of Christianity; you can’t say its wrong

Hindu: Think of god as an all loving parent.IsHe GoingToSend 1 to hell and another toHeaven JustCos 1 called him DadAndAnother pop?

The Domain for Truth: But that’s just your relative view remember? You assert all religious propositions are mere preferences; r u evangelizing?

Hindu: i am just saying u dont have the right to say that baked potatoes are the only way,other ways of consuming it is wrong.

The Domain for Truth: Who made you one who gives right when its all up to individual preference? Do you see the irony?

Hindu: We dont because we respect all faiths.We accept that any effort made to reach god in any form is acceptable to god.

The Domain for Truth: Will you accept the Christian faith? Hm…

Hindu: How is it evangelizing,didnt ask anyone to leave their faith.

The Domain for Truth: Evangelism is sharing one’s faith

Hindu: no.

The Domain for Truth: Let me explain: If you say religious claims are preferences its just their choice. But then you say “u dont have the right”

Hindu: nope.Accept that the religion in which u are born is the best for u.Its called swadharma(ones own dharma) in hinduism.

Hindu: ur mom might be best for u,not for me.for me my mother is the best.Always remember that and there will be no quarrels.

The Domain for Truth: Thank you for that term Swadharma

The Domain for Truth: But then you quarrel with someone’s else view? Do you see the irony of your claims and what you are doing?

Hindu: did not ask u to leave ur faith.U asked me a question and I responded.

The Domain for Truth: But you attacked our faith and our God

Hindu: Saying Whites are better than blacks is blatant racism.Same holds true for religions,shoudlnt it.religious racism.

The Domain for Truth: But is this objectively true? Remember you assert claims that are religious in nature is just subjective preferences

Hindu: nope.Discussing is different from abusing/calling names.didnt ask u the convert or speak ill abt Christianity,now did I??

The Domain for Truth: You didn’t ask us to convert; true; but you did argue against it how is that accepting?

Hindu: haha when did i attack,using the victim card now are we??

The Domain for Truth: Look at the thread and see what you have to say about Christianity

Hindu: Saying my version is the only version certainly is silly.

The Domain for Truth: No it’s a logical observation that two contarry claims can’t be right

The Domain for Truth: But is the Christian version silly in light of your mockery against it in this thread? #Contradiction

Hindu: my atman was already created divine.Only I have not realized it yet.no concept of sin with atman.

The Domain for Truth: “my atman was already created divine.Only I have not realized it”<–You know this but you didn’t realize it? #Contradiction

Hindu: no saying my way/religion is the “only” religion certainly is.

The Domain for Truth: If you really are tolerant can you tolerate a religion that says it’s the only way?

 

Be sure to check out .

Advertisements

Read Full Post »