One form of the attack on Christian moral values is an attack of negation. The general attack is along the lines of:
● The Christian belief has [alleged flaw]
● Therefore the Christian belief should not be held.
The irony is that, if followed to the end, it actually negates the attacking position.
For example, the argument claiming that opposition to abortion or homosexuality is imposing their views on others will, if taken to the end requires us to recognize that the promotion of abortion or homosexuality is also an imposition of views on others. If the imposition of one's views is grounds for rejection, then we must also reject the promotion of these behaviors.
Another example comes from the atheist claiming that the belief in God has no scientific basis. Because (they argue) that it is irrational to believe in something with no scientific basis, it is irrational to believe in God. However, the statement that God does not exist has no scientific basis either. Therefore, it is irrational to believe there is no God.
In both cases we see an attempt to silence the Christian belief on the basis of a perceived flaw... a flaw which the attacker's argument has. A boomerang which strikes the attacker.
There is another thing to be aware of. The alleged flaw in the Christian belief is not the reason for the Christian belief. These attacks actually attempt to avoid looking into the reasons for the Christian moral teaching.
Because the onus of proof is on the person making the claim, we certainly have the right to question the claim. We can meet the accusation of "Christianity is flawed and therefore can be rejected," with "Show me where and how it is flawed."
If the accuser is a person of good will and willing to learn (as opposed to one shouting slogans), we have an opportunity to bear witness to the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment