Simple Counter-evangelism 101: Open-source methods

Ok I had a few requests on youtube to post a link to the text form of the "Simple Counter-evangelism 101" series of videos that I have made.

You see, it's a a document that contains all the tips and tricks that I have made concerning WOTM's tactics and against evangelism in general.

So I have compiled it as a PDF. Now there is a fun thing that occurs with this document. Here is where you can download it.

http://www.youshare.com/view.php?file=simpce101.pdf

It's Creative Commons. Meaning? You can feel free to redistribute it and moreover ADD TO IT.

You see, as time goes by, evangelists change their tactics, or some other atheists have their own methods that are efficient as well. Those should be added to the document. I can't think of everything and while I do have plenty of experience in dealing with fundementalists, I am not alone out there.

So why not add to their experience and methods to the mix, and therefore STRENGHTEN the counter-evangelism effort? So, I have layed out a basic framework in the document, and you can all build on it.

In other words, I removed the "blank page problem". You don't have to fear the blank page, there is no blank page. So bring in your tips and tricks, bring in your ideas on how to make it better and redistribute it.

Soon enough, this simple pdf can grow into a book that brings in all the tools, tactics, and information to activists on what to expect, and what to do about it.

The truth isn't pretty, now add to the ugly!!

Why did Christ die?

I recently had the opportunity to interact with the author of an evangelical Christian blog through comments on one of his blog posts. The title of the entry is entitled "Christ Died For Sinners" which immediately caught my attention.

After reading the short entry and the enclosed quote, I submitted a question in comment form. To my astonishment, I got a reply. Not only do these bloggers seem to be amped up for evangelism but interested in apologetics as well. I welcome their arguments.

Former Follier Says: September 24th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Christ died in order to save a fallen creation by taking the sins of an infinitely wicked world against an infinitely holy god upon himself, does that about sum it up?

One question: If our sins are so abhorrent to god as to allow his “son” to be the propitiation for our sin, then what is Jesus doing sitting at the right hand of god right now? If the sins of mankind are punishable by eternal damnation, shouldn’t the sacrifice bear the burden? Three days in the ground hardly seems “just”.

Good thing it’s only a fable.

Josh Says: September 24th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Former Follier,

you obviously have your doubts as to whether or not the biblical account of Jesus death and atonement really is a fable or you wouldn’t have bothered checking our site. Jesus suffered the full weight of God’s anger for all the sins of all His people before he died, while he hung on the cross, and when he cried out “it is finished”, he signified that he had fully drunk the last dregs of the punishment that all his people deserved. It is certainly a mystery that Jesus could sustain an infinitely intense dose of God’s anger, enough punishment to keep all His people in Hell for all eternity. Only Jesus could do this because only Jesus was and is both God and man. His human nature was enabled to do what no other human nature could i.e. soak up all the wrath of God and come out the other side. The gospel is foolishness to the natural man - it is a mathematical improbability too great to fathom and yet it is the truth. God has no physical form and yet all power to create and sustain all things. Because something is a mystery doesn’t mean it isn’t true. For a simple analogy imagine God’s wrath like a tap with an infinite variety of pressure and volume settings - God says in his word that some will suffer more in hell and some less - all will suffer according to the nature of their sin. God turns the tap of his wrath to the precise measurement of what that sinner deserves. Jesus takes the place of all his people beneath the deluge of Gods wrath and God turns the tap on full bore to blast the soul of Jesus with the full weight of hell that all his people deserve. The volume and the pressure of that tap are of such severity that they fully satisfy the requirements of God’s justice. So severe was this punishment that the contemplation of it caused Jesus to sweat blood.We read it. We believe it.

Former Follier Says: September 25th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Josh,

Your assumptions that I am still wrestling with my beliefs are false. Simply looking at my online nickname (a portmanteau of “Former Follower” and “folly”) is a testament to that fact.

However, I still fail to comprehend how a god could send himself in human form to die for the sins which he allowed to enter the world in order to appease himself. It not only seems self-serving, it seems to be superfluous. Especially taking into consideration the fact that there was no good reason for him to supposedly create us in the first place. According to Christian theology, we are here to serve and glorify him. He already had a “heavenly host” of created beings (with free will as is evidenced by the fall of Lucifer and his demons) with no other purpose but to glorify and praise god (as the story goes).

Regardless, for god to send his “son” (himself in human form) for the sole purpose of dying to absolve a contrite mankind from its sin, doesn’t that equate to suicide? Whether or not Jesus killed himself is irrelevent; the fact that he came to earth knowing full-well what would occur meant that he submitted to and pursued his own death. It’s akin to the “suicide by cop” phenomenon on a cosmic scale.

The problem lies in your the last sentence of your reply: “We read it, we believe it.” I certainly hope mankind will have moved beyond such mental lethargy two thousand years from now at which point the Harry Potter chronicles could be considered diviniely inspired holy text.

Former Follier Says: September 25th, 2007 at 3:43 am
To clarify things a bit, I did not actively seek out your site or even your content, necessarily. I did a generic Google search for “Way of the Master” (which my website is devoted to countering) and stumbled across your blog. Divine providence, perhaps?

Todd Friel is a moral relativist and he doesn't even know it.

The WOTM crew is fond of speaking in terms of moral absolutes.  The whole "Good Person Test" is, of course, rife with them.  Occasionally, Mr. Friel will find himself witnessing to someone who disputes this claim.  He has some very clever ways of tripping them up, and he usually succeeds in making the mark look foolish.  But that's not the point of this post.

The point of this post is that the critics are right.  There are no moral absolutes.  There is no action a human being can commit that is intrinsically wrong in all possible contexts.  The moral value of an action is determined by its context.  For example, nearly all of us, regardless of faith or lack thereof, would agree that killing people is morally wrong...  Most of the time.  However, we would likely also agree that killing a person might be morally justified (or even morally imperative) in some rare cases.  We may quibble over exactly where the line is, but we agree that the line exists:  Killing people is usually morally wrong, but sometimes it's not.  The morality of the act is determined by the context in which it is committed.  This is true for all possible human actions.

Recently, while broadcasting from the Minnesota State Fair...

We interupt this blog entry for a trip down memory lane.  My first encounter with Mr. Friel was at the Minnesota State Fair in 2005.  Ah, those were the days.  Todd, if you're reading this -- and I know you are -- I was the guy who wanted to pretend Darth Vader was real on the grounds that he's a much cooler fictional character than God.  You also commented on my t-shirt, which read "Talk nerdy to me."  We now return you to your previously scheduled post.

...Mr. Friel witnessed to a young man who argued a similar case.  Todd, however, successfully tripped him by citing rape as an action that is intrinsically wrong in all contexts.  The young man, unfortunately, was unable to respond adequately.  Mr. Friel ended up looking right, and his victim ended up looking foolish.

But as we know, appearances can be deceiving.  Our young, anonymous friend was right, he just didn't know how to enunciate it.  Here's the response he was unsuccessfully floundering for:

Yes, rape is morally wrong in all possible cases.  However, it is still a matter of contextual morality rather than absolute morality because the concept of rape has contextual elements built right into it.  Strip the contextual factors from the concept of rape, and you're left with sex.  Now, it's a near-certainty that secularists and theists would quibble a whole lot about where the line between moral and immoral sex lies, but again, we can agree that there is a line.  Sex performed in a forced or nonconsensual context falls on the "morally wrong" side of that line.  But just like with killing people, it's the context that makes it wrong.

Now, I know some theist is going to come along and smugly ask about where atheists get their morality from in the first place.  And yes, there is an answer to that.  But it's a topic for another day.

Going Global!

As WOTM Watchdog welcomes a new addition to the team, we also take the opportunity to announce that we now have an international base of support!

The newest member to our group is Henwli, a native Finn whose intrigue in WOTM is on par with the current contributors. Henwli is an amazing writer and is showcased in the comment sections of some of the previous entries on the site. We are ecstatic to have him join the team and can't wait to read what he has to say.

If you haven't bookmarked/subscribed yet, now is definitely the time to do so.

Spread the word; WOTM Watchdog has gone global!

Todd Friel: Still A Liar

I am nothing if not fair and in fairness, I must retract a statment that I made in an earlier post; due to recent communication with Todd, a copy of the Evidence Bible is now on its way to my door via the United States Postal Service. I couldn't be more thrilled!

However, Todd is still a liar. He willfully misrepresents atheists as "God-haters" and, following Todd's logic, telling one lie makes you an untrustworthy liar. If Todd will lie about his supposed opponents, the atheists, what is keeping him from lying to his listening audience about salvation, redemption... even the very existence of God? Nothing, that's what.

Willful Misrepresentation

This entry might also have been titled "Lying."

Todd uses the ten commandments to show the "lost" that they have sinned against a holy and righteous god, will stand in judgment before him after they die and must repent and receive the forgiveness offered through Jesus Christ's shed blood on the cross of Calvary (let me know if I've misrepresented this; I think I've expressed it fairly accurately).

If Todd uses the commandments to show the unsaved their transgressions, why does he knowingly and repeatedly continue to break the ninth commandment by lying to his listening audience?

When Todd is asked of all the historical atrocities committed in the name of god by the pious, he indefinitely shifts the focus away from the reformation or the crusades and towards the Holocaust and other such contemporary examples of cruelty. He claims that the reformation and crusades weren't fought by True Christians™, but by heretics and hypocrites. Of course, if a freethinker were to use that sort of caveat against Friel, he would of course decry it as a foul.

Much to the chagrin of the WOTM staff, atheists do not feel it necessary to defend Adolph Hitler as an atheist because, in fact, he was not; Hitler was a Catholic mystic. Just take a quick glance at the photo embedded in this entry and you will notice that it is Nazi Germany-era military regalia. Now, for those of my non German-speaking readers, the script emblazoned across the top of this belt buckle reads "God With Us."

Todd Friel knows this historical fact and continues to disregard it for the spiritual benefit of his listeners. Shouldn't someone call him up and remind him what his god says about lying?