Favorite Sermon Add to Playlist
Logo of GYC Southeast

Do You Have a Game Plan? Part 2

Steven Grabiner Jeremy Grabiner

Sponsor

Conference

Recorded

  • October 15, 2011
    3:00 PM
Logo of Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)

Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US) license.

The ideas in this recording are those of its contributors and may not necessarily reflect the views of AudioVerse.

SPONSORED

Audio Downloads

This transcript may be automatically generated

remember this very clearly and with the microphone or the person with the microphone always wins and the person in the position of authority wins because they have one may have the last word after the microphone down and four to challenge somebody above us like our professor and perhaps a professor at Southern realized that a we should never have a direct frontal assault on a superior force every battle were not have a direct assault on the superior full force the professor always has a strategic advantage because they are the professor never get in a power-play when you're outgunned let's think about this you're making a point for example your in class subclass someplace I'm sure to have an southern year in art class the professor makes a statement about all the myths in the Bible and the Bible not having any real value will listen a person to do is ask a question but what's her first graphic I'm terrified clarifying question we mean by that well I mean that the Bible is all full of mysterious miracle stories here and they are excellent myths that are follow-up question is he's just made an assertion right the Bible 's full of nets what is his responsibility to to prove it so our next question would be to come to that conclusion and ask for his reasons at that point the professor might figure out what's going on and say something like this when you seem to be a Christian why don't you tell us your reasons for believing the Bible don't take based you made the statement the professor has the person you're talking to the other person up front you don't take the bait you could simply respond like this one included in the same she couldn't she slammed the microphones of the respondent when you don't know if I'm a Christian at all year making all the assertions professor Doctor pipes will find out what happens if your and so it's important for us to realize that if somebody else is making a case they are the ones that are responsible for defending that case don't let them do a little on linguistic jujitsu and get you in that position now another thing that we should know how to do is getting out of the hot seat because sometimes we just don't have enough information to give a correct response and this is one of the best places that you can use your gameplay so when you know they don't have enough information switch from persuasion mode to fact-finding mode use the question is what you mean by that way conclusions and then asked him what your topic on them what you're telling me something new and I'm interested in what you're saying missing the magic words and I go home and think about it and do some more do some more studies and when you do that note you take off the pressure off yourself you think while I don't know this to let me go to learn more seagull that a new study get more resources now maybe don't have enough time to do that receipt of the person is losing interest in talking to don't try to force the conversation don't beat a dead horse because you need to let the conversation just died a natural death and maybe it didn't you know what guys you expected but it was still fruitful and because it was a learning spirit as for your nine year perspective then you need to go research more than half as important on some people are very aggressive and Savior here's some statements that people make in it which overwhelm other people and German descent when we're in the hot seat you'll some of our questions we mean by that that how did you come to that conclusion simply saying you really don't have enough information let me think about that what that does is it really takes the pressure off you've said I really don't know how we were to do something that shirts can work with us and put some of you in the hot seat that we can have a event if we got a hockey volunteer and hotseat aggressor the kind of testing the sound fly here and anyone that might be in the hot seat no volunteers human irritate off how cool okay so this can be really open welcome to my character when she received when she comes it here had I impose on you that you okay so you guys are just matched and and let's pick a topic which topics should we choose here the first of this smoke up your bristling don't push your morality on me okay so you're the Christian year the Christian year and not see this guy is aggressive and if you could switch places and slogan mean if anything had he is the Wayne you are talking about the subject of abortion and he's feeling that you know you're really cramming morality count on him please can respond to you in characters uncharacteristically aggressive way don't push morality on the how you can respond to Jim he don't push them rally on me and I mean you think you better than all of us know what makes better and better but a policing to be acting that way I is okay but it is not the principle to be not use it was a good one I'm sorry I don't do that often times asking questions is a good way to deflect from being in the hot seat circuit to give Bibles with you with me excuse me and turn with me to the gospel of Luke Luke chapter twenty in Luke twenty ow again is as our volunteer just did sometimes people can be really aggressive like that not the volunteers what Luke twenty and notice in Chapter twenty verse is through two eight year in verse one and unlimited days while Jesus was teaching the people in the temple preaching the gospel the chief priests and the scribes and the elders confronting him here they are this is Jesus is in the hot seat here I spoke with him saying tell us by what authority are you doing the things for who is the one you gave you this authority further there coming to Jesus there being aggressive with him they are putting it in the hot seat demanding for him to tell them who he is with his response interest three Jesus answered and said to them I'll ask you a question and you tell me what the baptism of John from heaven or from men he did what he turned the tables he asked a question he got himself at a hotseat not by having to defend himself by engaging of the person and asking the question what Jesus in verse three Jesus answered and said to them I'll ask you all will also ask you a question and you tell me was the baptism of John from heaven or from their and then in verse five they reasoned among themselves we say that he can say that if they say that I'm missing this and so they don't answer him at all and lingered a little differently here is chapter twenty as well verse twenty two again Jesus is in the hot seat and let's start in verse twenty one they questioned him saying teacher we know that you speak and teach correctly and you're partial to any but teach the way of God insurance is at law for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not but he detected their trickery and said to them shall be according to denarius whose likeness and inscription does it have on the asked them a question to again get out the hot seat not too often Christians aren't hanged as intolerant if you ever know a something contrary to so many of the failure just your intolerant and what they were talking about us since it as you may be the truth of Christianity or same-sex marriage and what he do when someone asks you who are some access you are so intolerant so for some time what you mean by that we are what you mean by that you think that you're right and everybody else is wrong well I do think I'm right I I might be mistaken but were disagreeing don't you think that your rights yes but are not intolerant you are well watered my intolerant but you aren't I think I'm right you think you're right why not intolerant and you're not now usually the person means you trying to persuade someone else but in reality so are they holding and using advocating for them is different than trying to force someone to believe those years when someone calls you intolerant that's just simply like saying you're ugly where your character 's fault he has no point in the argument important question here is what does my character or how I love have to do with the issue that were discussing that's important remember hearing that a person talk about conversation that they were in man intolerant and they talk back and forth about their reasons for it okay I'm intolerant that has nothing to do with the point were discussing let's get back to it so it all that we can think about these different foods on you shouldn't push your morality on the net the statement right summary says that you what would you say to you when you meet but why why should I push my morality on you I would answer that while it can be hard for them to contradict themselves in it again SAE shouldn't push your morality on them or you think because if they say you can't than their pushing their morality on you you K worth at the Bible says the myths bunch of tales and myths you can ask the question with their second question how do you come to that conclusion the professor has probably assumed because of his naturalistic philosophy that miracles are impossible but so he may say something well the Bible 's full of men because he already believes that life miracles are impossible areas argument is really working in a circle now when people saying defined as often Jesus was a good man in a profit but I think he was mistaken and calling himself the son of God if Jesus was wrong and he always talked about him being the only way of salvation that wouldn't make him a good manner profit he was either right or he was a lunatic he couldn't be a good man in a profit and be mistaken about his own identity or let's go back to the illustration we had earlier about the status somebody may make a comment that a fetus maybe human but they're not a person which asked the question what's the difference between a fetus and a human being now usually when somebody saying is that there is a moral difference morally relevant difference to the fetus embryo the child in utero and the child outsourced outside of it usually they think that there is a moral difference between killing an unborn child and killing a born child a child authority living and so on there's an illustration called trotting out the toddler for talking with something that's on four of the Washington is simply a question well you feel like it's okay or morally okay to Q put to death the CSV child in the womb at what point does it become okay partial-birth birth what's the difference in the person between outside of the womb and in the room talking to get them to think the logic through on the air positions more about this when people trust the Bible all the time how could you respond what first we need a look at what the question is so it asked him what you mean by now it is true that people do twist the Bible or the person here is implying is that I'm twisting the Bible so you can ask him what what brought you to that conclusion they can just throw out a comment about my character it doesn't make that an argument that using questions to guide conversations as we've been talking about it takes a lot of skill it it takes some practice it takes on this idea this evidence of knowing where we want the conversation to go do we want to simply get information in the conversation clarifying questions when he mean by that will you know how I understand you are we trying to move the conversation in a direction will we can get their conclusions their ideas what's their evidence for that do we want to expose a weakness in their argument different questions can be used in very important ways to bring the conversation to a right spot now let's just put it together what about those times when people just say things and they do seem to stop us called well sometimes people say things in which they ridicule us agreement your ridicule is not an argument think back to the clip we had on Dawkins what was he doing today's young woman he was mocking her right he was ridiculing there all year leaving spaghetti monster in your belief in the great juju ridicule is not argument and it's very important for us as where reversing the burden of proof to remember we're looking for they are arguments and as you read things or as you cheer things it's important to those separate so in using questions to guide a conversation certain questions are helpful like how you ever considered this needy were talking about the Bible or abortion something else have you ever considered this or have you ever considered idea reincarnations he talked about earlier some people even make this argument the reincarnations been pulled out of the original text of the Scriptures have you ever considered how difficult that would be mean remember how were the first copies of the Bible made anyway by hand rights of each imagine what it would be like to expunge all references to the research to reincarnation in every handwritten copy of the Bible needs justice and absurd point so have you ever considered the fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible asking a question to again put a stone in some windshield out another way to challenge someone without being offensive is asking a question can you clarify this for me and it's an porn again to realize that we were asking these questions to keep the right spirit so I be genuinely interesting think what they clarify this for me for example can you help me understand if evolution is a fact of how life got started while hiding things just come out of nothing how is there something or that something come from can you explain that to me or can you clarify for me if home sexuality is natural why can't they reproduce and using these questions your guiding the conversation but importantly you're still remaining friendly another point for point of the game plan is looking at other alternatives like saying Massey just another way at looking this elegant this will may be no gone was the thing that brought something into existence I've never considered this alternative to what you're saying and also asking them would you give me feedback on this when I'm presenting good point asking for feedback on what we share to remember that you give our game plan so far is is not to confuse somebody not to the Midianites of a but to clarify to gain information what is their foundation for their their conclusions but I also want to bring out a bunch of your picture earlier of Colombo and when he recognized it already mentioned Perry Mason with that ring a bell with anybody in a couple of generation people again and one young person you have to get new illustrations I can tell paradise was a lawyer trial lawyer back in the day on television Colombo he asked questions and a bumbling friendly kind away Mason asked questions on when the person was on the witness stand really aggressive you will use your questions differently in different situations there was a man airplane you're talking to somebody needs to friendly help me to understand what you're talking about with somebody that's been a bit more aggressive you might use more of the Perry Mason style more about hard-hitting questions you like to talk now about the thing else called intellectual suicide what separates intellectual suicide out what is that it is the idea that certain arguments have seeds of destruction within themselves a major meeting to help the well I would like to show how no questions help reveal acting arguments when he commits suicide and what it means is that an argument commits suicide when he contradicts itself on a fundamental manner like the teacher that says the statement on the other side is true and on the other side is that the statement on the other side is false or there is no absolute truth what do they mean what is that statement not absolute as well or don't take anyone's advice there always a giving advice right there for nothing is certain if nothing is certain in that statement as well is not certain or as Yogi Berra said no one goes there anymore it's too crowded while this too crowded people are obviously still going to illustrations and sentences that have season self-destruction but arguments at times do that as well they commit suicide for example there's about the keynote last year called the grand design in the netbook review note here the book here the print design written by Stephen Hawking the well-known astrophysicist and he spends the first chapter it for several pages in the book describing that philosophy is dead and that science has all the answers to philosophies that science has all the answers then he spends the next seventy five pages long supplies seriously read the book is he if he engages in philosophy well he's just that that was its dad now he moves into the life of the second pick up a little early but down in the learning is an example in defense of his his viewpoint but will be what is he saying with primary thought you have no free will everything you think is predetermined by some neurological interior cause that's his argument he believes it completely the argument commits suicide he is presenting that as a truth that every thought you think is determined by some other cause how did you come to that conclusion well he would say because you see here's neurological causes but our new thoughts excluded or would they also be determined that have to be determined and alright and everybody stop the determined than what he believes is true or whatever it has and what I believe in what you believe they're all simply determined and it completely destroys truth to his argument in and of itself commit suicide he spends a lot of time trying to convince people that religion is wrong he's convinced that religion is wrong but he also believes that everything is determined as a how could you know truth or falsity of anything intentional in the Christian worldview we do believe that there is truth Alice go back to the issue of the biologists being written by man and dust not the kind of so someone says using the Bible we think of anything the Bible is flawed because it's written by Matt and Nick and you are an exception to this rule I understand meaning what you apparently think that your judgment about the Bible is right for you to suffice you well I don't mean that humans always make mistakes while then you the simply rule out the Bible because perhaps those men were making any mistakes and has pushing arguments severe conclusions seeing if arguments self-destruct at the point here let's take up very common one the idea that all religions are true well if that statement is true what is it about Christianity love all religions which show that statement is true is it me about Christianity Christianity is true all religions are true Christianity is true but Christianity is a very exclusive religion in other words Christian he says that Jesus is the way the truth and the life right and therefore implies that other religions are false the Christianity the state that all religions are true and Christianity through can't both be the same or what about you know everybody loses anything about death was that you were all religions teach the same thing what about reincarnation what about what with and have us believe that people sleep in the grave about the idea they go to hell they're not all true are they so the argument itself has seeds of self-destruction only Gordie talked about the idea of condemning sometimes times people will if you talk about sexuality or are different area and people certainly don't get me you could say to them but don't condemn me and while I notified they could be instead on getting you well I feel like a condemning anyone else to do not to condemn somebody well you're condemning me by telling me not to condemn somebody but gives you the right contain me certainly we shouldn't go around and tear people down that's not our point that we need to carefully examine the slogans and the ideas that people just rollout and make them stand for chair let's consider the blind men and elephant story on a honey if you have heard it but the story goes that they were five blind men and there was an elephant and they were trying to see what not see but feel what the elephant look like not one of the blind man had a tail and so you know he grabbed a challenge that will be else's like a snake the other one felt decidedly cool people think like a wall note the one grabbed the trunk and said the office just like a small tree the other one grab no that the leg is as well it's specific base don't know people use this story an analogy that no we don't have all the truth but if you think about the story the person who's telling the story knows what the whole elephant looks like an there is someone who knows the whole truth so anything what you don't know the whole truth will somebody does know the whole truth so it's a possibility that I can see the elephant and him not just feeling one side audit so this suicide tactic looking for logical flaws in people 's arguments trades on some laws of logic you know something cannot be a end not a same time recall that the law of non- contradiction another very obvious like I never never never repeat a word in obvious fault right now there are absolutely no absolutes absolutely my brother is an only child get certain things and we like you there and so always go to other people 's funerals or they won't go to yours again beyond idea there they have to think about that one for the it's gotten contradiction in it so let's look at some of these statements and then we could do this as a group here get some feedback from you is some statements dogmatic statements do they argue they not contain seeds of self destruction within them I do think that for the first one year to the visionaries to try to change other people 's religious beliefs is there a logical flaw in that statement that is a belief and it's a belief about what it's about it's a boy that the missionaries religion that would get what they're doing they shouldn't do in other words I'm trying to change the belief missionaries believe Commissioner does believe they should do that at that point out this next one get that one fifth of the theater here you can only know I like this what is been proven by science Yossi now that's a great question how do you know that how could you know that all people make that argument that science is the be-all and end-all you can only know what's been proven by science with Craig 's interactions with Peter Atkins McGivern those five things that you can't know by science driven out you don't there is a debate with Christian philosopher scientist and an Atkins made the statement Iraqis teaches at Oxford University digital and it was proven by science and the philosopher he was debating Sidwell you can't know what beauty is by science you can't prove science by science you can't prove the fact that you exist you know that your mind exists by science you can't to him thanks by science those are all things that are not approved by sizes ranging exchange Iraqis to stop their dumbfounded as he exploded this and also that light is always causing any place or time you can't test a single place at times did something stupid so please has seeds of self-destruction within them they commit suicide tactic the last one there is no truth obviously what is that saying that he is a truth there is no truth yes that you can prove love with science yeah I guess you could prove that there are certain reactions that take place in a body and if you wanted if you would be reductionistic like Harris and Hawkins and Dawkins and are really everything we are just chemicals and and so on is only chemical reactions in their viewpoint but I think you could demonstrate that love exists sure the point in Lebanon emotion strictly on love is a temporary state of insanity timber statement said he healed all but guarantee that I be sure that you're in your mind when you're insane is an end of Mary one person and Mary Jeff Kerry I felt out and go to taking the roof off mixing here but I another part of the game plan is we call taking the roof off I miss is in relation to identifying intellectual suicide dissociation comes from Francis Schaeffer and his boy needs to be understood as litigating exact example we live in a world that gravity exists now if I simply decide to live like gravity doesn't exist certain things will happen to me a probably break my leg or died or breaking iPad because even though it exists and I choose not to doesn't mean that it ceases to exist and so people thought that no people live with having a roof on that shields them enough from logic and the lack of logic in their thinking for example in Sam Harris 's book says that no we know that things are some things are good and bad but why should they be good or bad if there's simply no a byproduct of evolution no why does that render something no good or bad to what she wants to do by taking the roof off against a process that people build a roof to protect them from the fact they live in God 's world everybody lives in this world and we have to we have to live with that tension he tells a story on sacred as being in a room in South Africa to college there and meeting she's emitting a South African at Cambridge University and they were in this room and they were talking and do their and the Hindu gentleman was saying that there's really no difference between cruelty and non- cruelty no difference between cruelty and non- cruelty having missed the philosophical conversation this duty newsroom it was in England so that cleaning thinking on a teensy tempest boiling pot of water and he picked up he came over to hinder any extent over the induce act with pot of water needs to raising it about to tip it over the induce act and named a look at what you doing and that young man said well there's no difference between cruelty and the cruelty at which point the Hindu got up and left the room now the point here is that oftentimes people live in God 's word world but try to protect themselves from the end result of really thinking about God 's world and so taking the roof off is trying to force people to see kindly gently without wings and attitude the conflict didn't make sure they are thinking now Schaefer says every man has built a roof over his head to shield himself at the point of tension the Christian lovingly must remove the shelter for the roof and allow the truth of the external world and of what man is to be upon him when the roof is on each man must stand naked and wounded before the truth of what is he must come to know that his Ruth Ruth is a false protection from the storm of what is or how to do this week we bring people to this conclusion on this there's three points threatened the first is we need to find the key part of their argument can there's no difference between cruelty and non- cruelty secondly we want to testdrive the argument and see where it leads is it harmonious is it free from contradictions if we see a contradiction in which I pointed out how the person really doesn't we in harmony with that for example Sam Harris sewage a sound clip a while ago and live as if everything is deterministic if you did he would write the books that he does trying to convince people he lives as though he can make a difference in people 's thinking even know he thinks everything is determined so you know as an illustration of this mountain there was a personality sentenced to death in California and Mother Teresa many years ago interceded and her argument was that this man should be put to death because Jesus for Dave people let's start that argument for a moment where does it take us what we does it take you she's appealing to this man but this may not be put to death because Jesus gave people know emotionally that really gets you but what about the people jailed all right just forget the case that we shouldn't place judgment or own hands but what about the idea will then why should we put them in jail that seems to be putting a judgment as well and whether the death penalty is right or not if it is a conversation but her argument doesn't really follow through logically RGI marketing microphone and hear if you wanted that was argument that Jesus for Dave we should forgive therefore don't kill don't put person to death that your statement will should emulate forgiveness what about the idea will then why are we putting them in jail and the first place okay let's follow the conversation here I could see were sitting up and get good illustrations I doubt United my heart share our answers but you need to think through some of these issues let me shift the illustration of that year many individuals will argue that the same-sex attraction is natural and therefore individuals should be totally free to engage in homosexual activities because same-sex attraction is natural now later on we talk about why Christians are homophobic and that just year that argument it's natural what is that mean let's imagine that how can we pulled out and same-sex attraction is natural there sure I should do it what else is natural or oftentimes people think is natural what a heterosexual parents alcoholism thank you alcoholism can be affected by our genes we could say will great does that mean alcoholic should continue an organic document usually am trying to expose the logic behind it and how certain arguments really need they really don't match among we need to do lovingly carefully is exposed people to the truth of the world they live in okay so here's a few points here that seem to be intellectually that they really don't match and what we are taught by this when capital punishment is wrong because Jesus would forgive or not the second one year I'm personally against abortion I don't believe in forcing my views on others where's the tension in that statement in a very different against murder I force my view on other people release we forced into lost force views on people all the time don't they know and do it within this is because we can't legislate morality what question to ask who we mean by that we should legislate reality are there laws all over the place that legislate morality nor not stealing Internet robbing him all sorts of things in that nature so again this is a very important aspect in looking at people 's arguments and trying to see their tension in their experiences the next a no group of people are viewpoint is my call the steamroller this one is really hardest one to break out of if you're one of them I am commonly a steamroller I added a similar to someone who's really aggressive and when no you do something very strong about it you don't give the other person the time to say it is because going full steam and just tearing them apart not not doing anything now if you're not the one who's steamrolling but you're encountering a steamroller how how do we deal with cable steamroller is consistently interrupted their conversation like that retirement point summaries just interrupting this day constantly interrupt not necessarily with answers the frequently just question after question after question so how do we do with this well first thing in three step drop this process first of all stop the steamroller how to do this just pretend up gently ask for time to finish it say is it okay if I finish and note it's not easy topic were discussing you have a good question may I finish so the first thing is simply stop usually a master very aggressive about stopping them will make the point the second point is to shame and after you use stop in and out you're like oh shame shame nuts not not right but you doesn't have to ask you quick question or favorite not I see that you're you're very passionate about what he talked about looking in the young mentor to uninterrupted your to finish my point and then you can no reply to my point the shame them and if that doesn't work leave them high come to find enough if it really it appears that they're not interested in the conversation they're not giving you the opportunity to say something like law conversations really not going anywhere I would have to go but all that you have the last word and then let them have the last word in gracious thank them and turned away remember it's not about you it's about Jesus Christ and so you what we've been talking years trying to just put a stone in the shoe and again in order for talking to people or we gathering information we trying to persuade people are we trying to refute people are never sometimes appear in intense conversation it's not necessarily the person you're engaging with but it might be the people that are listening better have the benefit of it so these first two sessions we've talked about ambassadors having a good knowledge being ready to answer people on we talked about certain principles asking questions to move conversations I'd like to suggest something to you is that you begin to go beyond your comfort zone in engaging with people and don't be swayed by outward appearances to be swayed by the way some election over many years ago I delivering food to somebody and we started talking about the Bible and he gave me an offhanded negative answer I left pixel my sign he said he wanted Bible studies I thought the whole conversation was a failure it was a seed it was a stoning issue to get them thinking at first to take a break Oregon and back end where it applies where we said to some key issues where was God on 9/11 why are Christians so homophobic can we really trust a book written by some Jewish males will come back at three o'clock this media was brought by audio a website dedicated to spreading God 's word reading sermon audio and much more you would like to know more about our universe more assertive in www. audio course taught or

Share

Embed Code

Short URL

http://audiover.se/1CxX9TI