I read a quote by Duane Long in Emily Oliver’s Sept. 9 article, “Evangelist generates heated debate,” which read, “I’m an atheist, and have yet to hear a logical argument for anything he is saying.”

Even though I am a Christian, I sympathize with Duane. I would not believe in something for which there is no reason or support to think is true. So, I have a comment for Duane and those like him. Firstly, Tom Short is not trained in the rational defense of Christianity, so we shouldn’t necessarily expect him to be able to articulate good arguments for Christianity. He is an evangelist, a person trained in the explanation of the claims of Jesus, especially as they relate to his ideas about sin, the human race’s relationship to God and the afterlife. All these subjects presuppose that Christianity is true. I suggest that when Tom Short and those like him come to campus, we not drill them with objections to which they have not studied the answers. Rather, we should ask them about what they know, and try to gain a better understanding of a religion from someone who knows a lot about it.

What should be expected of Tom Short is the explanation of the claims of Jesus, and not the rational support thereof. I would agree these things need rational support, but Tom Short is not the man to give it.

Peter Swanson

Junior

Mechanical Engineering