|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Testing The Christian Apologists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
It is a story of a people who actually had a god (God) reveal Himself to them. You almost had it right to begin with then went and ruined it with the above.
the Bible is Now it's correct. Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Jar writes: how do you explain john 3:16 in light of that?
Think Phat. If GOD created all that is, seen and unseen then why would that GOD treated humans as something special? Once again you come back to the idea that "a God should be of value to Phat?"
The bible supports the idea that God cares about humanity. Nevermind phat. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Double Post
Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: how do you explain john 3:16 in light of that? By actually reading what is written and not just quote mining and taking stuff out of context. I look at that section and note the changes in voice and also the rest of the material the Apologists tend to leave out.
quote: The condemnation being discussed is based on behavior. It is saying that if you believe in Jesus then behave like Jesus and stop doing evil. Quoting John 3:16 out of context is a classic example of the misdirection and misrepresentation of the Bible that is the Hallmark of the Apologists.
Phat writes: The bible supports the idea that God cares about humanity. Nevermind phat. No Phat, the Bible does not support that. Parts of the Bible support that and other parts of the Bible refute that. Look at Genesis 1. There God looks at all creation and finds it good. It goes back to the fact that despite what the Apologists try to market, what is actually written does not have a single purpose or always point towards Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
John Pavlovitz
This may be what Franklin Graham says Christianity is.
It may be what Paula White wants you to believe Christianity is. It may be what Bible Belt pastors screaming from behind pulpits claim that Christianity is. It may be what Donald Trump wants to pretend that Christianity is. It may be what it has been too many times in the past two thousand years, when opportunistic hucksters like these have commandeered it. It’s just not what Jesus says it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
OK, I've got one for you! And what's really surprising me is that I'm finally finding myself agreeing with you guys. (In some things, anyway. )
Podcast by Secular Humanist Apologist You will like it. Listen and tell me what you think.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Well I listened to a few random minutes and I didn't like it.
Am I supposed to be surprised that humanists/atheists can be good people with decent values? If he's saying that American Christians think that they aren't and don't then they're bigoted arseholes not worth listening to.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Yes it is. If you want to argue otherwise, you need an actual argument, not just an assertion.
...the Bible is not simply some storybook of a compilation of goatherder stories describing the various ideas about a god whom they believed in. Phat writes:
So is the Qur'an. So is the Book of Mormon.
It is a story of a people who actually had a god (God) reveal Himself to them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's a bizarre assumption. We're talking about an example in which God clearly did lie (or was mistaken or changed His mind, etc.) 1) Assuming we are discussing a book of origins and a growing understanding of who God is, the consensus seems to be that God cannot lie. Why do you believe the part where it says that He cannot lie and reject the part where it says that He did? How does that square with taking the Bible as a whole?
Phat writes:
Why do you go immediately to worship? I expect people first to acknowledge what the story actually says. I also expect them to question whether the connection between the snake and "Satan" has any value.
If as you claim God did in fact lie, what do you expect people to do? Worship the snake? Phat writes:
Yes, I hope people would do that.
Throw all apologetics, gods, and Gods out the window and go watch the ducks? Phat writes:
Yes you are. I am not challenging what the book says. You are constantly scoffing at the idea that the snake told the truth. He plainly did. And you are rejecting the idea that God lied because you have cherry-picked somewhere else where it says He cannot lie.
Phat writes:
Well, the book does say it. Why would I complicate that?
I am challenging what you get out of it and why you defend it simply because "the book says it". Phat writes:
Of course I do. How else would I know that they're making it all up? You know all too well what a lot of apologetics teaches. I'm not asking you to explain what the Bible really, really, really means (as opposed to what it says). I'm asking you to think about what the apologists have been telling you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
No it isn't. All I have to do is quote what it says. If you think it "means" something else, the responsibility is entirely on you to make your case.
Upon further reflection, I am not defending what the book says. That is your job. Phat writes:
Again, you're not defending; you're asserting.
I am defending the idea that the ones with the Spirit are the fiery preachers, anointed teachers, and wise prophets of the modern age. Phat writes:
Again, you don't defend it; you just assert it.
... I will defend absolute truth. Phat writes:
But I don't "describe" it. I quote it.
For that reason, I reject the snake story described the way you describe it. Phat writes:
The opinion and practice among scholars is that the Bible is not to be taken as a "whole". It's your fundamentalist view that is contrarian.
You are and have always been a contrarian. ( adjective contrarianopposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Tangle writes: No. But you are too damn impatient. You think you have it all figured out. I am 60, and I learn slowly yet thoroughly. Well, I listened to a few random minutes, and I didn't like it.Am I supposed to be surprised that humanists/atheists can be good people with decent values? If he's saying that American Christians think that they aren't and don't, then they're bigoted arseholes not worth listening to. And I believe that Secular Humanists and Christians both can learn from each other and that this is God's plan from the get-go. You, of course, would argue that its just reality and that my "God Character" has absolutely nothing to do with it, but my point is that you need to trust me enough to listen to a few of these sources, which I put online here at EvC. Listening to a podcast this morning, I was intrigued by the content of the communication. Which (correct me if I'm wrong) you are unamazed about since you always trusted secular humanist wisdom. Fair enough. Let me recap how this all came about. Our boy ringo, my internet thorn in the flesh, challenged me to find an "honest Christian Apologist." (I started this thread to chronicle my findings) I went through several. Honestly, I found the same basic schpiel from each one and was coming to a slow realization that you guys were right...but remained determined to find my honest apologist since I am a believer who remains true to my world view. I am, however, more open-minded than most evangelical and conservative Christians (remember that I consider myself more moderate than traditional), and I do pray to God (I prefer to call it "commune with God") on a near-daily basis. Thus, I will attribute my finding this "honest apologist" to God. The irony is strong. I was searching for an honest Christian Apologist. I had listened to Dr.Ravi Zacharias (whom Theodoric exposed as a man with flaws) yet whom I still have some respect for his intelligence. I took into consideration his previous dishonest actions, yet evaluated his ministry as a whole and the message contained through it. I moved on to Dr.Frank Turek. His podcasts were all right, but I was more impressed with the counter-arguments from skilled atheists such as Matt Dillahunty. While not ready to dismiss the Christian Apologetic as "making stuff up" as you guys seem to do, I felt I needed to search deeper. Ringo, of course, claims that were I honest with myself, I would agree with EvC's line of reasoning. Still, you forget that I have experienced what I truly believed and believe to be supernatural (or at least unexplained) events that grounded and solidified my faith. To continue. Turek was unconvincing because he was a bit too smug. He learned from the late Dr.Norman Geisler, considered by the mainstream to be one of the best, as was Josh McDowell, but I knew that either of those two would not impress the arguments presented by EvC and by Matt Dillahunty. I found Dr.Sean McDowell, Josh McDowells, son. (Why are they all Doctors, anyway? ) and upon listening to his podcasts, found a more modern type of apologist who, through confronting today's college youth culture, is more open-minded as to what the cultural zeitgeist has become. Through the Christian Apologist, I found an interview with the secular humanist apologist whose Dad is an Evangelical. Bart Campolo is an honest apologist. (as is Sean McDowell, in my opinion)
LOSING FAITH AND KEEPING FAITH: SEAN MCDOWELL AND BART CAMPOLO For those of you who wish to skip the Christian Apologetics and move directly to a secular humanist world view, might I suggest this episode? It reminds me of how we grew up in high school....nerdy white guys with an overactive imagination discussing how to improve the world. It is, after all, optimistic.
The Social Impact Of The Internet with Hank Green quote: Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I claim that if you were honest with yourself you would agree that the apologists are making stuff up. If it isn't what the Bible says, it's made up. It really is that simple.
While not ready to dismiss the Christian Apologetic as "making stuff up" as you guys seem to do, I felt I needed to search deeper. Ringo, of course, claims that were I honest with myself, I would agree with EvC's line of reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
"It" is anything but simple. Take Karl Barth for example. You can somewhat smugly stand on your assertion that the book says what it says, but you cannot argue that what it says is plainly and simply what it means. The reason being is that you don't even believe that the characters exist outside of the book. Thus, what leg have you to stand on?
The book? Try again. If you understood Karl Barth, you would understand the road that led to my argument. After all, he was not simply a character in a book. Nor is Jesus. At this point, I need to stop. I'm not even sure what the argument is between you and I. All I know is that I disagree. And don't accuse me of ignoring the message. I will testify in court that I do not. (apart from not giving away every material possession I have, which is patently ridiculous. ) If Jesus cares to prosecute me, He has every right. You, on the other hand, need to stop using the book against Christians. You have a warped view of what you are even apologizing for. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Add By Edit: The reason we don't believe that what we say is made up is that we are defending a belief. Throw Your Evidence Away. It does not help the argument.
In addition, the jury has not yet concluded that it is valid. The Jury has both Christians and Secular Humanists on it. And mind you, the book is not the one on trial. It is also not the prosecutor. it is the defense Attorney. Cherry-picking is allowed by the judge. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Naturally, if you try to reconcile the Bible with your made-up theology you're going to end up with a tangled mess. That doesn't mean that the Bible itself is a tangled mess. What it is is a collection of discrete writings. Any attempt to reconcile them is bound to require adding complications on complications on complications. You can somewhat smugly stand on your assertion that the book says what it says, but you cannot argue that what it says it plainly and simply what it means. The complications are in the false linkings, not in the Bible itself.
Phat writes:
The first thing you need to understand is that my beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with it. You're just using my lack of belief as an excuse for dismissing what I say without thinking about it.
The reason being is that you don't even believe that the characters exist outside of the book. Phat writes:
So explain Karl Barth.
If you understood Karl Barth, you would understand the road that led to my argument. Phat writes:
Read the topic title. I've been asking you for an example of an honest apologist - e.g. one who doesn't try to explain Genesis 2-3 away. So far, all you've produced is a long list of names and no arguments.
I'm not even sure what the argument is between you and I.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024