Would you use this method over here with your wife,
with your kids, with your pets, with your job?
Would you do that?
And if you can see that, help them see that; «my method really...
is kind of dumb.»
All of this goes back to; we shouldn't allow people to criticize the Bible
for not being what it was never intended to be.
Corollary; we shouldn't criticize the biblical writer for not writing
what he never intended to write. Okay, that is a useful thing.
This is about apologetics. This is the orientation of second year.
People who are criticizing Scripture need to be awakened to the fact
that many of their criticisms are crossing both of those lines.
They're criticizing a thing for not being what they want it to be,
or what they think it is, and neither of those things align with what
the writer actually intended to produce or do.
So if you can get a person to realize that;
«you know, my criticism is a little misguided here,
because I wouldn't criticize my dog for not being a cat.
I wouldn't criticize my son for not being my daughter.
I wouldn't criticize my McDonald's hamburger for not being a steak.»
You know, again, we don't do this kind of thinking in real life,
you know, because it's an absurdity. It's foolish.
And what I would want people to be able to do from this class is to get people
who are being critical of Scripture, you know, it's like a straw man.
They're erecting something that's easy for them to criticize and knock down.
If you awaken people to the fact that they're doing that, and then asking them,
how would you feel if I did this to something you wrote?
How would you feel if I did this to your position, you know, or you as a person?
I mean, how would you feel if I approach
something that you're really committed to in the same way?
It's really foolish. It's unwise. It's foolish. It's misguided.
And if you can get people to sort of realize that that's what they're doing,
in many cases, then you can have a conversation with them.
You know, let's talk about why there are similarities.
Let's talk about why there are differences.
These things are there, but they're not there for the reason you think they're there,
and they didn't get there in the way that you think they got there.
So what I'm trying to do in the class is trying to give you sort of a platform
for having better discussions than just shouting matches,
or trying to one-up someone with sources. They don't care about your sources.
They're going to go find a source that trumps your source.
«You know, I've got two and you've got one now.»
You know, it really doesn't accomplish a whole lot.
You have to awaken people to how they're processing a question,
and then explain to them: here's how you're processing the question,
and here's why I don't process it that way.
And here's why I do process it another way.
And I'm always in favor of, when you're showing about how we process questions,
try to throw something in that's just normal life.
Would you use this method over here with your wife,
with your kids, with your pets, with your job? Would you do that?
And if you can help them see that, you know, «my method really...
is kind of dumb.»
You know, then they might awaken to the fact that, okay, that's not a good argument.
«I still don't like Jesus, I still don't like your faith, but okay,
that's not a good argument, but I'm going to come back with a better one.»
Okay. You know, it's just part of a discussion.
It's really how to have conversations, how to have discussions.
And I think, you know, when you can align that with who you are as a person,
you're their friend, you're gracious to them,
you know, or whatever it is, if you can give them a positive relationship,
even if it's, you know, just some interaction online,
it's something that the Spirit of God can use down the road.
You're trying to have better conversations with them.