So, the last few weeks, I’ve been thinking. Thinking a lot.

Here’s the general drift of it.

For apologists, we sure don’t go out and practice our trade very often – myself included. Why is that?

Now, I’m not intending to be critical, or anything. I’m just curious. Why is it that we don’t? Are we more interested in the intellectual pursuit of a defense, and less interested in the actual, real-time defense to others? I find myself cruising an atheistic, or agnostic blog – I read something I so want to respond to – and I don’t. I think about it, and might even start on it – but, eventually, I give up on it. Why?

I gave myself a pretty exhaustive list of atheistic blogs to look through – and I could cull 50 posts a day that need to be responded to out of it. Why is it I don’t? I don’t think it’s fear of ridicule. I expect ridicule. Ridicule is, in all honesty, something I think is funny. If they resort to ridicule of the stance, instead of honestly responding to it – they aren’t going to honestly respond in the first place, and they aren’t being honest with themselves. If they can’t get past ridicule, and on to intellectual examination, it’s going to be a shallow conversation anyway.

I respect someone who is consciously attempting to formulate a counter-response. I have no respect in the slightest for a shallow, satiric, or dismissive response. Appealing to some sort of so-called “ridiculous” is the last bastion of someone unwilling to think. A conscious, or unconscious attempt to escape or evade serious thought has always, and will always, annoy me.

Now, I’m not saying everyone on the atheistic/agnostic blogs resorts to ridicule, and only to ridicule, to make some sort of spurious case. I find, however, that the vast majority have a large, large element of it somewhere. Aye, that’s the rub, as Shakespeare says. I’ve rarely, rarely seen someone who begins with ridicule turn the corner to serious discourse. It’s not common, or expected. So… what are we to do? When the vast majority of our potential audience is populated by “scoffers,” and we are warned about such as these: Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts. (2 Peter 3:3)

Now, one of Job’s “friends” asks if scoffers (he is speaking to Job…) should not be silenced… (Shall your boasts silence men? And shall you scoff and none rebuke?)

But, is it he who we should listen to? *sigh*

I mean, we are to “destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ”

In my Strong’s, it says “reasoning, hostile for the Christian faith”, for “speculations”. I read that to mean logical concepts antithetical to Christianity.

“Lofty thing” is a bulwark, or rampart – barrier. I read that as “barriers erected against Christian principles”.

“raised up” is pride, or “to exalt oneself”. Obvious. Humanism is the religion of human pride. It’s also what atheism is really about.

“knowledge of” is gnosis – or, ” moral wisdom, such as is seen in right living”/” the deeper more perfect and enlarged knowledge of this religion, such as belongs to the more advanced”

So, yes – we are supposed to go on the offensive – this is the second part of apologetics. However… how do we reconcile this with “do not throw your pearls before swine”, and the command to keep from sitting in the “seat of scoffers”? Choose your battles, I suppose. But… where to? How to?

I don’t know. I’ve done some of this. It always seems to be wading in oatmeal, though. The urge for them to create a straw man Christianity, and somehow “debunk it” just seems to be too strong in most. Or, not even bother – and just ridicule things they know little to nothing about. How do we get around that?