Paladin Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 My son uses Christian aplogetics that in his circle of friends etc makes sense, but to me it does not makes the sense he thinks it does... Is it just me or do Christians use apologetics to confuse the facts? As I see how they use it on people that are confused and maybe looking for anything, but to many of us, they can use all the apologetic jargon they want, but it still does not turn their beliefs into facts... But it still drives me crazy when he thinks it makes sooo much sense... Hope all is well Paladin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 7, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2009 I think some apologists do deliberately twist facts. As a whole, however, I think apologetics developed as a way to convince their architects that their religion which makes no sense is somehow indeed true. They fooled themselves and thought they could apply their brand of "logic" to anyone who questioned their faith. I know I was deeply into apologetics at one time, and its main value was to bolster my own faith in an unworkable system. I never set out to lie to myself or others, but that's what I was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 I think some apologists do deliberately twist facts. As a whole, however, I think apologetics developed as a way to convince their architects that their religion which makes no sense is somehow indeed true. They fooled themselves and thought they could apply their brand of "logic" to anyone who questioned their faith. I know I was deeply into apologetics at one time, and its main value was to bolster my own faith in an unworkable system. I never set out to lie to myself or others, but that's what I was doing. Ya, that is what I am thinking as you said it perfectly " their brand of "logic"... as it is not logic to anyone else!!! This one to is spot on "and its main value was to bolster my own faith in an unworkable system. I never set out to lie to myself or others, but that's what I was doing." Sad the lengths people go to feed a delusion! Take care Paladin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ Fuego ♦ Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I remember strongly defending the "holiness" of God when writing about "the terrible reality of Hell". To those on the inside, it makes perfect sense since they have already engaged in the cognitive dissonance of having God be absolute love and an insane tyrant that tortures people for eternity. Now that I am on the outside, I understand why Christians think the ways they do, but I have quit making excuses for God's excesses and see this character as the invention of Middle Eastern tribal priests. I think I will go back over all the things I wrote and try to understand why I believed them. Maybe that could be useful when talking with my friends that still believe. And like the video that was just posted in the main blog, I want to compile all the documents and audio clips that demonstrate that I really was a strong believer and am now an ex-Christian. I do remember reading an atheist website many years ago and feeling very sad afterwards, probably because the arguments were making sense and I didn't have any way to stand against them besides ignoring them and going on with my beliefs. And that is what I did until this last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 I remember strongly defending the "holiness" of God when writing about "the terrible reality of Hell". To those on the inside, it makes perfect sense since they have already engaged in the cognitive dissonance of having God be absolute love and an insane tyrant that tortures people for eternity. Now that I am on the outside, I understand why Christians think the ways they do, but I have quit making excuses for God's excesses and see this character as the invention of Middle Eastern tribal priests. I think I will go back over all the things I wrote and try to understand why I believed them. Maybe that could be useful when talking with my friends that still believe. And like the video that was just posted in the main blog, I want to compile all the documents and audio clips that demonstrate that I really was a strong believer and am now an ex-Christian. I do remember reading an atheist website many years ago and feeling very sad afterwards, probably because the arguments were making sense and I didn't have any way to stand against them besides ignoring them and going on with my beliefs. And that is what I did until this last year. I was talking to my son the other day and we were talking about the stories that their were mythic Gods prior to the Jesus Christ story, which resembled the Christ story. He was saying that those stories have been around for many years and are no longer used as arguments against Christianity because the argument is not valid and anybody worth their salt knows it... I don't agree with him because they hold some real truth that puts a real dagger into the Jesus story, but he just won't see it... So again, there again he tried to hid behind "Apologetics" oh well Paladin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I remember strongly defending the "holiness" of God when writing about "the terrible reality of Hell". To those on the inside, it makes perfect sense since they have already engaged in the cognitive dissonance of having God be absolute love and an insane tyrant that tortures people for eternity. Now that I am on the outside, I understand why Christians think the ways they do, but I have quit making excuses for God's excesses and see this character as the invention of Middle Eastern tribal priests. One of the principles of elementary logic: If you start from a false premise, everything goes (well this is said with my own words ). Within the prison of morontheist dogma, their apologetics make perfect sense. It's like starting from the wrong premise that the moon is made of cheese and from there on presenting arguments what kind of cheese it must be judging by its color. The reasoning built upon the false foundation may well be sound... only that it's worthless because the very beginning of it is crap already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ Fuego ♦ Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I was talking to my son the other day and we were talking about the stories that their were mythic Gods prior to the Jesus Christ story, which resembled the Christ story. He was saying that those stories have been around for many years and are no longer used as arguments against Christianity because the argument is not valid and anybody worth their salt knows it... I don't agree with him because they hold some real truth that puts a real dagger into the Jesus story, but he just won't see it... So again, there again he tried to hid behind "Apologetics" oh well Paladin! Exactly. All he did was dismiss your statements with what amounts to an ad hominem, he didn't refute them. He's using his "shield of faith", so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I remember strongly defending the "holiness" of God when writing about "the terrible reality of Hell". To those on the inside, it makes perfect sense since they have already engaged in the cognitive dissonance of having God be absolute love and an insane tyrant that tortures people for eternity. Now that I am on the outside, I understand why Christians think the ways they do, but I have quit making excuses for God's excesses and see this character as the invention of Middle Eastern tribal priests. I think I will go back over all the things I wrote and try to understand why I believed them. Maybe that could be useful when talking with my friends that still believe. And like the video that was just posted in the main blog, I want to compile all the documents and audio clips that demonstrate that I really was a strong believer and am now an ex-Christian. I do remember reading an atheist website many years ago and feeling very sad afterwards, probably because the arguments were making sense and I didn't have any way to stand against them besides ignoring them and going on with my beliefs. And that is what I did until this last year. I was talking to my son the other day and we were talking about the stories that their were mythic Gods prior to the Jesus Christ story, which resembled the Christ story. He was saying that those stories have been around for many years and are no longer used as arguments against Christianity because the argument is not valid and anybody worth their salt knows it... I don't agree with him because they hold some real truth that puts a real dagger into the Jesus story, but he just won't see it... So again, there again he tried to hid behind "Apologetics" oh well Paladin! William Lane Craig talks about this here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageSe...agename=q_and_a When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, “Do you really believe that?” Act as though you’ve just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator. You could say something like, “Man, those old theories have been dead for over a hundred years! Where are you getting this stuff?” Tell them this is just sensationalist junk, not serious scholarship. If they persist, then ask them to show you the actual passages narrating the supposed parallel. They’re the ones who are swimming against the scholarly consensus, so make them work hard to save their religion. I wonder why Dr. Craig doesn't use the argument used by the early church fathers when confronted with "pagan Christs"; i.e. that those stories were created by the Devil to decieve (thereby acknowledging that there were maked similiarities between orthodox Xianity and pagan god-men). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 My son uses Christian aplogetics that in his circle of friends etc makes sense, but to me it does not makes the sense he thinks it does...Is it just me or do Christians use apologetics to confuse the facts? As I see how they use it on people that are confused and maybe looking for anything, but to many of us, they can use all the apologetic jargon they want, but it still does not turn their beliefs into facts... But it still drives me crazy when he thinks it makes sooo much sense... Hope all is well Paladin! You got it, xtians use apologetics to make others think they are really clever enough to understand the doctrine of xtianity. It goes with the saying, 'if you can't baffle them brilliance, befuddle them with bullshit.' Apologetics are supposed to explain theology or doctrine. However, the biggest rub to apologetics is that those claiming to use apologetics are only spouting what their denomination believes is true concerning doctrine but they fail to study what exactly their doctrine is teaching or why it ignores other scripture in support of its doctrine. I don't see how any church can claim they use apologetics when all they want to do teach their own version of xtianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 Nightflight,,, You are spot on my friend!!!! My son is a HUGE William Lane Craig follower!!! as a matter of fact he just bought 3 more of Lane's books to add to his collection,,,(ugh) so he was talking all big as how smart Craig was, so I saw a utube download of him and when Craig said that he let experience be the guide on his faith in God over proven fact, reason or historical fact, then I knew it was another case of a nut job trying to act intelligent ... Thanks Paladin! William Lane Craig talks about this here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageSe...agename=q_and_a When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, “Do you really believe that?” Act as though you’ve just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator. You could say something like, “Man, those old theories have been dead for over a hundred years! Where are you getting this stuff?” Tell them this is just sensationalist junk, not serious scholarship. If they persist, then ask them to show you the actual passages narrating the supposed parallel. They’re the ones who are swimming against the scholarly consensus, so make them work hard to save their religion. I wonder why Dr. Craig doesn't use the argument used by the early church fathers when confronted with "pagan Christs"; i.e. that those stories were created by the Devil to decieve (thereby acknowledging that there were maked similiarities between orthodox Xianity and pagan god-men). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Hutton Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I think some apologists do deliberately twist facts. They certainly do and one of the worst is J.P. Holding aka Robert Turkel - see Tektonics Exposed - http://the-anointed-one.com/exposed.html I have checked him out myself with one case. He was trying to run down Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ" but some of his quotes were not taken from the book but from another Christian critic. It then became clear that he hadn't read the book at all. Also take a look at this blog - http://groups.msn.com/christianbiblicalerr...D_Message=57875 You need to go down the page to message 16. The man has to be a nutter he talks to himself using his alias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Nightflight,,,You are spot on my friend!!!! My son is a HUGE William Lane Craig follower!!! as a matter of fact he just bought 3 more of Lane's books to add to his collection,,,(ugh) so he was talking all big as how smart Craig was, so I saw a utube download of him and when Craig said that he let experience be the guide on his faith in God over proven fact, reason or historical fact, then I knew it was another case of a nut job trying to act intelligent ... Thanks Paladin! He flat out says in his book, "Reasonable Faith" that reason is a servant of faith. He even seemed to say that if the facts don't support Xianity, Christians can still believe because of their inner conviction and experience of "faith". http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Hutton Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Have a look at this site - http://www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm and see just how vicious an apologetic can become. Acharya is the well known author and has just published her latest book about Christ and Horus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Have a look at this site - http://www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm and see just how vicious an apologetic can become. Acharya is the well known author and has just published her latest book about Christ and Horus. Holding is a nasty man. And the web is chock full o' Holding wannabees (Frank Walton?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 My son uses Christian aplogetics that in his circle of friends etc makes sense, but to me it does not makes the sense he thinks it does...Is it just me or do Christians use apologetics to confuse the facts? As I see how they use it on people that are confused and maybe looking for anything, but to many of us, they can use all the apologetic jargon they want, but it still does not turn their beliefs into facts... But it still drives me crazy when he thinks it makes sooo much sense... Hope all is well Paladin! You got it, xtians use apologetics to make others think they are really clever enough to understand the doctrine of xtianity. It goes with the saying, 'if you can't baffle them brilliance, befuddle them with bullshit.' Apologetics are supposed to explain theology or doctrine. However, the biggest rub to apologetics is that those claiming to use apologetics are only spouting what their denomination believes is true concerning doctrine but they fail to study what exactly their doctrine is teaching or why it ignores other scripture in support of its doctrine. I don't see how any church can claim they use apologetics when all they want to do teach their own version of xtianity. Excellent observations. I disagree with your assessment of the function of Apologetics, though. I believe it is to DEFEND doctrine and theology, not explain it. If they wanted to explain their doctrines, they would have to discuss Canonization, and translation errors, they would have to climb int o the minds of the authors and explain the compilation of Genesis, the separation of Kings, Chronicles and Samuel... INSTEAD, they can merely point to their Biblical Inerrancy doctrine and defend anything that has arisen out it as Biblical. I personally don't believe you argue or defend a belief, rationally, with another belief. God, I'm funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Either way once slices it, the apologist believes that they have the evidence and the use of reason on their side. If anybody can make an evidentiary case given a certain set of precepts (factual or not), then the less-than-learned observers are going to follow along. This may explain why the concept of "freedom of religion" was developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts