Continuing the theme of intellectual attack and the anti-Christian approach from my last post, one of the major tricks used in arguments rests on the westernized tradition to believe that truth, as it is presented in argument, is all or nothing. You have to accept it or you are wrong. The particular approach goes back to the Greeks. We hear it in the two words either and or. Either a is true or b is true. The premise that follows it, both cannot be true, often goes unspoken. This is a major trick used in traditional argumentation.

For instance, when challenged about God's nature, Christians are often faced with the attrocities that have been done in his Name. After listing the lengthly assaults on God's loving nature, the antagonist then asks, or subtly asserts, "So how can God be a loving God an allow all these things to happen?" There are so many answers to this question that it would take books to even tru and summarize them. But, what's more important here is not how to respond to the question, but the question aims to pidgeonhole the Christian into a pre-calculated response.

By denying the horrible truth of these events the antagonist is given, through the answer, permission to attack the apologist's honesty with regards to history. They claim that denial of these facts indicates a willingness to deny other truths that portray God in a negative light and dismiss the apologist on those grounds. On the flip side of the coin defending God makes the Christian come across as a merciless, uncaring sympathizer. Either way, the result is discredidation.

Now, again, more important than trying to come up with the right answer, at least in the context here, is to point out that the expected responses take the form of an either/or scenario. Either you agree with me (that God has done horrible things and is therefore unloving) OR you disagree with me (that God has not done horrible things and dismiss yourself as being out of touch with reality). By going either route, you allow yourself to be led to the slaughter. It's only by not agreeing to the premise, that there are only two possible interpretations or answers to the question, that you can reply in a meaningfully Christian manner. This is turning the tables. You are playing the mind-game, but not on their terms. You are playing with the rules, but not within the rules. In most cases, only then can the Christian stand a chance against the intellectual.

Remember, proof is simply evdience of what is believed and accepted as true. The most powerful beliefs don't have to be accepted. You can hear an intellectuals beliefs in arguments, but you don't have accept (allow them to possess your approval) them as your own. Simply remember that argument dervives its source of power in the proof used to demonstrate it. By denying a proof (argument) demonstrates a certain premise, the proof stands meaningless in your life.