Does apologetics "work"?

[Caliban]

To your first question. If something exists as eternal, it cannot ever be proven nor disproven as such. The acknowledgment of this should inform the mind to the circumstance of why faith is going to be a prerequisite for sound reasoning.

To your second question: If anyone comes to understand why faith is a prerequisite for sound reasoning, then it's a good thing to inspire faith.

This setup doesn't work. Faith is opposed to sound reasoning. A person could simply take anything on faith. Faith leads some people to blow themselves up--is that reasonable? Faith leads some people to disown their children for theological reasons--is that reasonable? Faith leads some nations into war. None of these actions were decided upon reason. Faith cannot be the foundation of reason--reason is the foundation for critical thinking and rationality.

 

[redleghunter]

I apply the tools of skepticism when reading texts which make huge claims for themselves. If the claim was that an itinerant preacher named Yeshua challenged the Pharasaical expectations of his day, I would have no problem with that. However the claim is much larger. It involves supernatural events which, according to everything we know, impossible. But, "...with God all things are possible." Great--now demonstrate that!

The claim was actually from the same Gospel accounts you believe Jesus was an itinerant preacher challenging the religious authorities.

Luke 9: NASB

18And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, “Who do the people say that I am?”19They answered and said, “John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again.” 20And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.”21But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, 22saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day.”

 

[childeye 2]

This setup doesn't work. Faith is opposed to sound reasoning. A person could simply take anything on faith. Faith leads some people to blow themselves up--is that reasonable? Faith leads some people to disown their children for theological reasons--is that reasonable? Faith leads some nations into war. None of these actions were decided upon reason. Faith cannot be the foundation of reason--reason is the foundation for critical thinking and rationality.

I edited my initial post to include this line before I saw this response, so I'll say it again here: We need to understand what the term faith actually means when we use it. It is a unique term affecting our psycholinguistics on a fundamental level.

Respectfully, you are misusing the term. Faith can only carry a good connotation when used correctly.

 

[Caliban]

The claim was actually from the same Gospel accounts you believe Jesus was an itinerant preacher challenging the religious authorities.

Luke 9: NASB

18And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, “Who do the people say that I am?”19They answered and said, “John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again.” 20And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.”21But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, 22saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day.”

What is the point of you response? It doesn't seem to agree with or refute my position at all; what's the take away?

 

[redleghunter]

It involves supernatural events which, according to everything we know, impossible. But, "...with God all things are possible." Great--now demonstrate that!

How do we know it is impossible? Perhaps we test the reliability of the eyewitness accounts.

I presume you demand a sign.

I am aware of the arguments believers make surrounding the resurrection narrative--they didn't die for a lie, women at the tomb etc. C.S Lewis popular Trilemma is an attempt to show the resurrection is the most reasonable outcome; but what lewis failed to include or consider it the most reasonable solution is actually the development of legend.

Given the early church fathers had most of the NT books in the second century and an established human custody of the words of Jesus and the Apostles, legend had little time to develop. That was how St Irenaeus and other 2nd century apologists were able to refute the legends and oral traditions of heretics.

 

[Caliban]

I edited my initial post to include this line before I saw this response, so I'll say it again here: We need to understand what the term faith actually means when we use it. It is a unique term affecting our psycholinguistics on a fundamental level.

Respectfully, you are misusing the term.

Please explain the word faith to me in a way that agrees with your perspective.

 

[Caliban]

Perhaps we test the reliability of the eyewitness accounts.

What eyewitness accounts? There are none in the Bible I am aware of. (Think about this carefully).

 

[Carl Emerson]

I am sure you are familiar with Occam's Razor; which is the most likely reason humans have no compelling evidence for any god: 1) God is hidden, or 2) god is not real? You may choose to cite Bible passages, but according to Occam's Razor, the answer is 2.

A reasonable inference to your claim is that God is silent because we have ignored his laws. But, we are currently ignoring said laws because there is no evidence he exists. But...he is going to punish non-believers for using the powers of logical reasoning which he gave us. If God is real and has all the powers attributed to him in the scriptures: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, he could easily solve this equation by less confusing and complicated means. It stretches credulity.

I am sorry that you struggle with evidence... Have you read my testimony thread ?

I wandered away from faith for 11 years and the way back was not easy.

 

[redleghunter]

What is the point of you response? It doesn't seem to agree with or refute my position at all; what's the take away?

The take away is you believe Jesus was an itinerant preacher who opposed the religious authorities of His time. This comes from the same Scriptures which Jesus proclaims His death and resurrection.

 

[redleghunter]

What eyewitness accounts? There are none in the Bible I am aware of. (Think about this carefully).

I have. The apostles and disciples of Jesus lived through the events and wrote about it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This setup doesn't work. Faith is opposed to sound reasoning. A person could simply take anything on faith. Faith leads some people to blow themselves up--is that reasonable? Faith leads some people to disown their children for theological reasons--is that reasonable? Faith leads some nations into war. None of these actions were decided upon reason. Faith cannot be the foundation of reason--reason is the foundation for critical thinking and rationality.

Excuse me being blunt but what you describe is not what faith is...

 

[Caliban]

I am sorry that you struggle with evidence... Have you read my testimony thread ?

I wandered away from faith for 11 years and the way back was not easy.

I wouldn't say that I struggle with evidence; that would be a religious insiders way of describing my concerns with the lack of evidence for the claims of the Bible. I appreciate the text of the scriptures for their literary qualities, but I see no evidence it is more than that. I likewise see no evidence the Koran is anything other than a human work that a billion or so people have attributed divine authorship to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am sure you are familiar with Occam's Razor; which is the most likely reason humans have no compelling evidence for any god: 1) God is hidden, or 2) god is not real? You may choose to cite Bible passages, but according to Occam's Razor, the answer is 2.

A reasonable inference to your claim is that God is silent because we have ignored his laws. But, we are currently ignoring said laws because there is no evidence he exists. But...he is going to punish non-believers for using the powers of logical reasoning which he gave us. If God is real and has all the powers attributed to him in the scriptures: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, he could easily solve this equation by less confusing and complicated means. It stretches credulity.

Occam's Razor? That old canard again? Gee-whiz, folks! Give it up!

 

[Caliban]

The take away is you believe Jesus was an itinerant preacher who opposed the religious authorities of His time. This comes from the same Scriptures which Jesus proclaims His death and resurrection.

Yes, one is a very likely and common claim. There were lots of Itinerant preachers in that area and at that time. That is a non-controversial claim. Then there is that other claim--the one about a god coming down to earth, dying and then rising from the dead. I am sure you see the not-so-subtle difference in those two claims.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I wouldn't say that I struggle with evidence; that would be a religious insiders way of describing my concerns with the lack of evidence for the claims of the Bible. I appreciate the text of the scriptures for their literary qualities, but I see no evidence it is more than that. I likewise see no evidence the Koran is anything other than a human work that a billion or so people have attributed divine authorship to.

Mmmm... you avoided my question - have you read the thread ???

 

[Caliban]

Occam's Razor? That old canard again? Gee-whiz, folks! Give it up!

Instead of tossing out comment's like that, please, just tell me what you find disagreeable--it facilitates discussion and avoids rising tensions between people.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, one is a very likely and common claim. There were lots of Itinerant preachers in that area and at that time. That is a non-controversial claim.

Which if one who approaches from materialism.

Then there is that other claim--the one about a god coming down to earth, dying and then rising from the dead. I am sure you see the not-so-subtle difference in those two claims.

Of course. Which evokes the question of what was your Christian faith based on in the first place?

 

[Caliban]

Mmmm... you avoided my question - have you read the thread ???

I didn't intend to dismiss your question--I apologize; I will look it over in a bit. I really don't place any stock in personal experience or anecdotes; what feels very compelling to you, often may not to me. And I have no way of entering your experience in a way that it would supply me with objective evidence. I have no access to another's experience. How, for example, do I determine if another persons experience is a reflection of a true event or an emotional interpretation of an event--I can't

 

[childeye 2]

Please explain the word faith to me in a way that agrees with your perspective.

Thank you for listening.

The term "faith" in scripture ultimately either directly or indirectly means "trust in God". Not in any god/gods, but Thee God. The term "God", in this sense and in scripture, is an axiom referring to the source of energy that created all things. The term faith/trust is applied only to that which is Holy/Eternal/Pure, or in other words, before any imagery of "God/Creator" is formed, because the term "God" is an axiom. Hence any faith/trust in a false or manufactured image of god/gods/goddesses would actually be a false faith which actually isn't faith.

Which leaves us with one question. Do you trust that which created you and all that we see and can comprehend as existence? Do you have faith?

The faculty of reasoning is a mechanism weighing pros and cons which is only as good as the quality of information we reason upon. Therefore it's actually what we believe to be true that governs our reasoning. There can be no sound reasoning if you reason upon a distrust of that which made you.

 

[Caliban]

Which if one who approaches from materialism.

What brand of materialism do you mean? I'm gonna say the itinerant preacher part.

What do you mean, what was my faith based on. I am struggling to understand your questions. I am fully ready and willing to answer, but the questions are a bit vague for a person who doesn't travel in Christian circles and use that sort of terminology.