How NOT to Share the Gospel

[@youngspecial64]

You are truly guided by The Word of God, my friend! You have the Holy Spirit helping you throughout your days. Thank you for reminding us of what JESUS has told us! Telling us what to truly do and what not to do. Blessed is our father in heaven... thank you, and God bless you. Always.

[@timothyjavor]

Great video and message. It's like people keep missing the point that offending someone isn't going to help them make others listen to or agree with them.

[@pounce8]

Great point. I always think "what was your goal here? Did you think making someone feel bad will convert them? Have you met a human before?"

[@elias8141]

C.s lewis is a legend.

[@starchivedclips422]

love your videos man, keep up the good work!

[@davidnasibyan5170]

well said. loving this channel it's very unique but very good. keep at it man!

[@bruhvideoproduction]

thanks bruh ❤️

[@christianvoicu5525]

Amen great message, may the Lord Jesus bless your soul brother

[@xExNxCxOxRxE]

God bless you bro, I needed this

[@no1ofconsequence936]

I need to remember this.

[@gamermix7507]

This is something people need to hear more about tbh. I absolutely hate people using hate to spread a loving message. It’s contradictory and horrible. Love thy gays, love thy trans, and LOVE THY DAMN NEIGHBOR. Christ said besides thou shalt love thy god as thy self, that there is no more important commandment than love thy damn neighbor.

[@DudeSoWin]

"Moist People" deflection like water off a duck's back.

[@ShinAkuma204]

Andrew is not spreading the gospel or engaging in apologetics. The debate is secular humanism vs Christian ethics. Andrew granted the position of God is not real. The point is which worldview is superior not the truth of God. Any criticism based on apologetics is invalid.

[@kevinyalantis-scottproduct7035]

I was going to make a comment along the same lines but you already said the main point. Also this video creator talks as if he watched a different debate

[@terrordude11]

I would disagree that the clip of the debate given was how to deliver the gospel. Matt (athiest) usually debates in bad faith. It was good to see someone hold his feet to the fire in the full debate.

[@timothyjavor]

Doesn't that harm the Christian reputation tho?

[@terrordude11]

@timothyjavor No, the one actions of a single person don't reflect the actions of a faith, it reflects on that person.

[@derpidius6306]

​@@terrordude11Not to outside skeptics looking in, and especially if its more than one bad actor

[@CrizzyEyes]

I used to watch a lot of Matt's show when I was a teenager before I got tired of the same old schtick. Usually some ignorant caller who believed that because they had a stroke of extremely good luck, they should call in and claim that as irrefutable evidence that God is undeniably real. Every once in a blue moon, a more educated caller with a more interesting and nuanced position would try, but it wasn't worth the time spent listening to the 99% of mindless assertions followed shortly by dismissal because the caller didn't think even one step ahead before calling. However, I would say that although not particularly kind to ignorants, they were fair and did not argue in bad faith and refrained from the Richard Dawkins style of smugness that defines the insufferable "internet atheism" of today. Fair and logical debating does require training and education; it does not come intuitively. Real debating is for the benefit of the audience, not the debaters. You should not go into a debate honestly believing you will convince your opponent that they are wrong and you are right, even if your argument is bulletproof. On the other hand, entering in to a debate believing your opponent is a simpleton and mocking him at every turn just makes you look like, as Matt put it, a jackass -- unless the viewer was already convinced of your own position, and has equal disdain for your opponent. But debates are not roasting competitions. They are demonstrations of two or more different points of view. You must have respect your audience enough to choose the correct argument and you must respect your own debating abilities. The apologist in this clip did nothing for his cause, he just showed that he is a mean-spirited prick who will likely never debate a non-Christian in good faith. Another way to look at it is that he was too afraid to debate properly, so he decided to become a nuisance until his opponent left, which made him seem like the "victor" by default.

[@terrordude11]

@CrizzyEyes and I agree with you this is not how you have a good debate, but when one party comes in without doing their homework on who they are debating with and don't actually stick to the debate as both sides didn't there is breakdown.

[@lovegod8582]

What song is this at the start?

[@Car5651]

It's called sneaky snitch by Kevin MacLeod

[@dibaterman]

Yep I've got no opinion on this, beyond that it was bizarre behavior. Just generally it was bizarre without any religious connotations.

[@kentleighenglish1388]

Eesh, this is exactly the sort of apologetics that has led to the wet Christendom we live in today. For the manner you should conduct yourself, do not think that mockery, sarcasm, or other forms of jabbing at your opponents are excluded. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, saying their god might be on the toilet (1 Kings 18:27). Throughout Matthew 23, Jesus rallied mockery, criticism, and condemnation on the pharisees; did Jesus not love the pharisees when he did this? Of course he did. In terms of how we present ourselves, yes, there should be a limit to how we present ourselves; our enemies should have nothing to say about the conduct of our own lives. (Titus 2:8) Like many who make this argument, you refer to "love" in a vague way. Love as defined in 1 Cor 13 is not just general niceties, it protects and perseveres amongst the other well-known characteristics. Yes, don't aim to "destroy" your opponent, but realise the difference between the fool and the scoffer. There is a time for everything, and that includes being loving, mocking others, and even making a whip out of cords.

[@CrizzyEyes]

I'm an atheist who prefers to, every once in a while, actually interact with people who have different worldviews to ensure I don't become a self-absorbed twat. From my perspective -- and I would venture to say any outsider's perspective -- this type of clownery does nothing to serve your cause, if your audience takes the matter seriously. A serious and skeptical viewer, or a staunch atheist, will see the apologist in this debate as a lowbrow jerk who had no real argument to begin with. A viewer who is already convinced of their faith in Christ was not going to be moved by this, uh, "display," regardless. I suppose he may have prevented any Christians from listening to what Matt had to say in this debate? But that would be a form of censorship, and therefore blatantly un-American. So what is the purpose of this behavior, exactly? Where is the benefit? Too many Christians do not think pragmatically when trying to convert. They cannot understand that non-believers have not yet subscribed to their belief system. Although I agree there are mean-spirited atheists -- I consider Dawkins to be among them -- Matt hasn't done anything that I know of deserving of this kind of nonsense.

[@tobiaslundqvist3209]

This guy removes comments that argue against his points.