I understand that your belief that there is not only an objective truth, but that He became incarnate for the salvation of all (or some, I don’t actually know where you stand on predestination) makes it very important for you whether or not someone accepts that reality is as you believe it is.

Not believing in eternal consequences, I am less concerned with whether a take on reality is correct, than with it being harmful to the self or to others- within this lifetime.

So for you, the issue is “what is truth”, am I right? So, all your ideas about counsel point to what you believe truth to be, and relativism clouds this issue.

Since I have been asked what can be done to support someone, the issue for me is “how to help someone fulfill their potential as a human being without harming or sacrificing the potential of others”. Thus, all my rhetorical questions point to reciprocal ethics, which you might be more familiar with phrased as, “love your neighbour as you love yourself”. In this, relativism is less an issue, and more something to take into consideration.

For example, you might argue that you consider being saved from eternal torment by the blunt revelation of unvarnished truth to be the most loving act you could receive. But would you not want this truth to be presented to you in a way that you could receive it? This is where relativism- or, more accurately, empathy- comes in. Look at your target audience. In what way do they receive things as truth? Present it in that fashion.

That’s all I’m saying in #29: if you want to support a doubter or unbeliever, think of what “receiving support” would mean to you if you were struggling with honest doubt or no longer had faith, and then give that as best you can. For you, it may mean sharing truth in different fashions. For another, it may mean standing up for the personhood of the athiest in the face of those who would caricaturize them, deny they deserve the same rights or respect as any other human, or otherwize label them as somehow subhuman. A third might decide the most loving thing to do is actually listen to the person struggling with doubts or not having belief, and try to understand who the person is and how the person actually sees the world. I know that you have argued with many of that third type of person who has come to this blog.

I don’t know what Grace considers most loving. This is another reason I used rhetorical questions and generalizations- to make her think of what she would consider most loving if she were in our boots. To make it even easier, I gave her an example she may have more experience empathizing with. The more I think about it, the more I like my example:

If you were a first century Christian, and the Pharisees were telling you that you were not one of God’s chosen because you did not follow the right rules, the Sadducees were telling you that you were not one of God’s chosen because you were not worshipping at the right temple, the Herodians were telling you that you were not one of God’s chosen because you did not have the right politics, the Romans were telling you that you were not a proper citizen because you did not appropriately revere the Emperor, and that you were an athiest because there was no physical representation of your god in your worship space, how would you want one of these Jews or Romans to support (love) you?

So, yes, I agree that relativism should not cloud the issue. I just disagree with what the issue is, and what relation relativism or objective truth has to “the issue”.

Who better to ask? Know thy audience…

There is so much relativism in today’s society, and I’m sure even decons would agree it does no good to cloud the issue with it.

What does this even mean?

The purpose of this site is not to argue that God does not exist and convince people to convert (or deconvert) to atheism.

The purpose of this site is to support skeptical, deconverting, or former theists.

This is why you rarely find convincing arguments here; we’re not trying to convince anyone. I don’t care what you believe, Yurka. I don’t have to. It doesn’t affect me, and I no longer believe there are eternal consequences for you.

You say I’ve presented a bunch of strawmen in #29. “Strawman” is a type of argument. But in #29, I’m not presenting any arguments. I’m telling Grace how to support someone she has chosen to care about. You’re right that I’m not supplying details. I don’t know the specific person she’s wanting to support. I’m providing generalities she can adapt as needed.

We’re here to support people, and be supported. We’re not here to argue with them. There are other blogs dedicated to that purpose.

Do you go onto pastoral care blogs and complain that their case studies and responses lack rigor as evangelical apologetics?

And I’m not sure what resonates with you re Quester’s comments. He raises a bunch of strawmen that I’ve never come across. Ask yourself – are the objections of atheists usually based on rational arguments? I’ve hardly ever seen them here. Mostly they are arguments by outrage that people could ever be held accountable for the evil they think or do.
The devil’s in the details, and Quester doesn’t really give any, does he? They never do. When they try they are easily refuted (Jesus murdered a fig tree to make a point! How evil!, etc.)

I want them to be cured. Do you? But the only way is to preach the word to them in the hope that it will be the means by which they will be convicted.