You Know... Maybe The 'Church' is on to Som'n Here?

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

A personal experience just cannot be objective evidence. The world is full of claims that people strongly insist are real experiences, but in fact are not. People claim to have experienced ghosts, aliens, and Scottish aquatic lake dwellers. Maybe you doubt these claims like I do.

I do doubt such claims, but if I had had such an experience, my doubts would be much less and they would be virtually non-existent if I'd had the experience with other people who also saw/felt the same thing. It could be possible that we are ALL wrong, but the chances of that become tiny especially if some of those who had the experiences attempted to find alternative explanations.

What about the miraculous claims of other religions or the pseudo spiritual claims of New Age adherents. Are their personal experiences less reliable than yours. By what criteria do you consider your experience more credible than another's?

I don't think they are less reliable. Personally, I think that the source of such experiences is wrong, but I don't doubt the experiences out of hand.

I'm using the example of the shared experience in church to counter the argument that church is all about emotionalism. It is not.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I'm not talking about when a preacher is preaching to the choir. Of course 'apologetics' is likely not necessary. It's necessary when they are to 'defend their faith.' And yet, none of their arguments are what lead THEM to Christianity. So why would they expect such arguments to convert others? Furthermore, even if the interlocutor was to defeat every single argument the believer presents, it certainly would not change the mind of the believer anyways. Hence, apologetics is likely virtually worthless.

I agree that apologetics does not generally lead people to Christianity, but it is not the purpose of apologetics, so why would it.

A good analogy for apologetics is to clear a pathway of obstacles. Whether a person traverses that pathway is up to them. So I don't think it worthless and I also think it works in what it is meant to do.

Additionally, as I've already pointed out, some atheists put forward false ideas, and straw men that cause other people to get confused. The apologist (on both sides) are needed to correct such silly ideas for those who are more easily led.

 

[Caliban]

I do doubt such claims, but if I had had such an experience, my doubts would be much less and they would be virtually non-existent if I'd had the experience with other people who also saw/felt the same thing. It could be possible that we are ALL wrong, but the chances of that become tiny especially if some of those who had the experiences attempted to find alternative explanations.



I don't think they are less reliable. Personally, I think that the source of such experiences is wrong, but I don't doubt the experiences out of hand.

I'm using the example of the shared experience in church to counter the argument that church is all about emotionalism. It is not.

I am not saying we should doubt the experience; I am doubting their claim of what that experience actually was. I have had experiences that I once thought were supernatural like speaking in tongues, but know I think those are better described by psychology. Personal experience is in fact scientifically and historically unreliable.

 

[Tone]

What happens when you have these folks testify to these experiences and to encountering God, and can differentiate between them?



What about former New Agers who have experienced both and testify to which spirit is which?




Maybe we can pull some of these testimonies up and hear their approach.

How do you propose we test any of this? How will listening to one person tell us about their experience with aliens and another person talking about their god experience give me any insight into what is actually true? It can not.

Well here's one person who experienced both and, if you are not interested in watching this beautiful sister's entire video, watch from 15:00 and you may begin to understand the real difference between those groups of people considered in the quoted posts.

*At 15:52 she really hits upon a very important point.

*And at 16:30 she differentiates new age from a relationship with God.

 

[Tone]

Here's another:

 

[cvanwey]

I agree that apologetics does not generally lead people to Christianity, but it is not the purpose of apologetics, so why would it.

A good analogy for apologetics is to clear a pathway of obstacles. Whether a person traverses that pathway is up to them. So I don't think it worthless and I also think it works in what it is meant to do.

Additionally, as I've already pointed out, some atheists put forward false ideas, and straw men that cause other people to get confused. The apologist (on both sides) are needed to correct such silly ideas for those who are more easily led.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment there... Even IF God exists, and further still, even IF YHWH was the proven God, apologetics would not help. When you say 'false ideas', even among the true-blue believers, we see opposing claims galore. Which ones are 'false ideas', and how do you know????

Seems as though it was demonstrated, from my prior thread, that we do not appear to have [a standard], exclusively apart from any 'false ideas'. ---> Purveyor of Confusion

No. This seems a terrible assumption... Many/most Christians think their 'interpretation' is likely the correct one....

- If you do not think your interpretation is currently the correct one, this would seem to make little sense. Why? You would not knowingly ascribe to 'false ideas'.

OR

- If you instead remain neutral, because you are not sure, then you likely cannot knowingly rebuke 'false ideas', can you?

********************

As I've stated several times now, Dr. Craig, along with many others, believe first and foremost based upon felt contact. At best, this limits 'apologetics' down to asserting personal anecdotal testimonies; and nothing more. All other arguments neither lead towards or away from.... Which essentially means all other arguments are merely window dressing.

And like I also stated prior, if such arguments did not lead the believers to their faith, why in the heck even try to use them towards the non-believers?

 

[the iconoclast]

No. This seems a terrible assumption... Many/most Christians think their 'interpretation' is likely the correct one....

Hey hey

You believe your interpretation is likely the correct one.

 

[the iconoclast]

heck even try to use them towards the non-believers?

Hey hey

Why is it so important to you?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

No. This seems a terrible assumption... Many/most Christians think their 'interpretation' is likely the correct one....

- If you do not think your interpretation is currently the correct one, this would seem to make little sense. Why? You would not knowingly ascribe to 'false ideas'.

OR

- If you instead remain neutral, because you are not sure, then you likely cannot knowingly rebuke 'false ideas', can you?

Remaining neutral can be a complete waste of time and not actually get you any closer to the truth.

E.g. a friend says that curry's are horrible, another says they are fantastic. But you don't know which is true.... so YOU remain neutral and don't know whether curries are nice or horrible... and you will never know because you want to maintain your neutrality. Normal people at least try a curry and can then determine which of the the friends holds a truer viewpoint for you.

Now that relates to aesthetics, but the same principle holds to everything: If you come across opposing viewpoints that can't both be right, holding the middle position of not wanting to commit to either is not going to get you any closer to the truth. All it does is cause you to miss out on experiences that might decide you one way or another.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

And like I also stated prior, if such arguments did not lead the believers to their faith, why in the heck even try to use them towards the non-believers?

I'm not sure you even read my response that you are replying to, where I point out the purpose of Christian Apologetics: To clear out false ideas and make the way open to the truth. As such apologetics most definitely has a purpose and a use.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I am not saying we should doubt the experience; I am doubting their claim of what that experience actually was. I have had experiences that I once thought were supernatural like speaking in tongues, but know I think those are better described by psychology. Personal experience is in fact scientifically and historically unreliable.

Perhaps, but the ONLY way we can experience anything is personally. So even things that are objective we can only approach them subjectively and agree on what it is we have experienced.

And making such things scientifically and historically unreliable becomes an excuse for not engaging with what people are saying and whether that matches up with your own experiences or not.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not sure you even read my response that you are replying to, where I point out the purpose of Christian Apologetics: To clear out false ideas and make the way open to the truth. As such apologetics most definitely has a purpose and a use.

Yes I did read your response. I replied to this directly, in post #106. Which ideas are the 'false ideas'? What is the standard? All believers are using the exact same Book. All believers use the same Book to argue their opposing positions. Believers have opposing and conflicting ideas - which renders guaranteed 'false ideas.' I then directed you to Purveyor of Confusion But apologists do not then augment their current ideas....

And in regards to a Christian apologist (vs) an atheist, this also demonstrates likely futile. Revelation looks to be the chief reason both current believers, and would-be believers would attest to the existence of a God. Not apologetics arguments.

 

[cvanwey]

Remaining neutral can be a complete waste of time and not actually get you any closer to the truth.

So if I don't know if God exists or not, I should just assert a positive claim?

So if I don't know if aliens exists or not, I should just assert a positive claim?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

So if I don't know if God exists or not, I should just assert a positive claim?

So if I don't know if aliens exists or not, I should just assert a positive claim?

I'm not sure that you understand English grammar. I said that it CAN be a complete waste of time.

It is a waste of time if you don't actually use the time to investigate the claims made, but simply continue in ignorance in preference to actually committing.

So you don't know if mxcalburnic exist or not, but why would you? And why would you spend time investigating something that I just made up on the spot. Both God and aliens have their proponents and if either is true, then you are wasting time by not investigating... even if that investigation yields the conclusion that they are wrong.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Yes I did read your response. I replied to this directly, in post #106. Which ideas are the 'false ideas'? What is the standard? All believers are using the exact same Book. All believers use the same Book to argue their opposing positions. Believers have opposing and conflicting ideas - which renders guaranteed 'false ideas.' I then directed you to Purveyor of Confusion But apologists do not then augment their current ideas....

And in regards to a Christian apologist (vs) an atheist, this also demonstrates likely futile. Revelation looks to be the chief reason both current believers, and would-be believers would attest to the existence of a God. Not apologetics arguments.

Purveyor of Confusion was a waste of time because you chose to see differences in people's responses where there was little or none. You also decided that confusion was what you wanted to purvey and therefore continued with it even when answers had been provided (even ones that differed in some way).

False ideas are an idea that is clearly not true. 'Jesus didn't exist'; 'All religions brainwash their children'; 'All religions lead to God'; 'Faith is belief where there is contradictory or no evidence' and so on.

And actually it is not difficult to find a standard - start with something simple, do all Christians believe it? If so then it is clear that it is a universal belief. If not, then why? Which groups don't agree and what are their reasons. You find a few obvious things such as groups that are not considered Christian by the rest and doctrines that have different viewpoints but which don't actually make that much difference to the average believer and a very small number of contradictory beliefs which only the fanatics actually fight over.

 

[the iconoclast]

Purveyor of Confusion was a waste of time because you chose to see differences in people's responses where there was little or none. You also decided that confusion was what you wanted to purvey and therefore continued with it even when answers had been provided (even ones that differed in some way).

Hey saint.

You make some really good points. @cvanwey seems to use misrepresentation frequently.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not sure that you understand English grammar.

Je ne te comprends pas?

I said that it CAN be a complete waste of time.

I read this already... But I contest apologetics is likely a complete waste of time. See below

It is a waste of time if you don't actually use the time to investigate the claims made, but simply continue in ignorance in preference to actually committing.

This kinda goes [without saying], about virtually anything... See below...

So you don't know if mxcalburnic exist or not, but why would you? And why would you spend time investigating something that I just made up on the spot.

Okay, another unnecessary statement. The burden lies with the person making the claim to demonstrate the claim. See below... Please pay attention here...

Both God and aliens have their proponents and if either is true, then you are wasting time by not investigating... even if that investigation yields the conclusion that they are wrong.

I've investigated both, on many of occasions, and still cannot make a positive claim as to whether God(s) and aliens do or do not exist

Should I just assert that both God(s) and alien(s) either [do or don't] exist anyways? Or, is it maybe wise to remain neutral, because I do not have enough information to evaluate accordingly?

 

[cvanwey]

Purveyor of Confusion was a waste of time because you chose to see differences in people's responses where there was little or none.

The topic is not a waste of time. You might want to brush up on the topic of soteriology. Some ascribe to grace alone, some assert grace/faith, others state it is necessary to have grace/faith/works, some state works alone, other other other...

Heck, some even see the 'resurrection' as a metaphorical event.

One of the points of the thread was to demonstrate that one cannot read the whole of the Bible, without likely picking and choosing what is more or less important. Couple this with the fact we have virtually countless denominations, and you have a bonafide recipe for confusion.

You also decided that confusion was what you wanted to purvey and therefore continued with it even when answers had been provided (even ones that differed in some way).

If you go through the thread, without bias, you will see differing people claim differing ideas. Some of these ideas are mutually exclusive to one another. Maybe you were/are not open to really do this?

False ideas are an idea that is clearly not true. 'Jesus didn't exist'; 'All religions brainwash their children'; 'All religions lead to God'; 'Faith is belief where there is contradictory or no evidence' and so on.

I'm speaking about salvation, as it is asserted by Christian doctrine. -- "Everyone is ultimately saved by grace". Is this a 'false idea'? This was [a] claim from this thread.

And actually it is not difficult to find a standard - start with something simple, do all Christians believe it? If so then it is clear that it is a universal belief. If not, then why? Which groups don't agree and what are their reasons. You find a few obvious things such as groups that are not considered Christian by the rest and doctrines that have different viewpoints but which don't actually make that much difference to the average believer and a very small number of contradictory beliefs which only the fanatics actually fight over.

It's not this simple. Virtually every non-denominational church I ever attended would ultimately provide at least one anecdotal story, about how they saved a Catholic from going to hell, by not being Catholic anymore, and accepting the correct 'faith.' I found this odd, as I was brought up Catholic before meeting my wife...

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The topic is not a waste of time. You might want to brush up on the topic of soteriology. Some ascribe to grace alone, some assert grace/faith, others state it is necessary to have grace/faith/works, some state works alone, other other other...

I seem to recall you were the only one who insisted on works as being the only thing necessary for salvation, while everyone else pointed out the that works was the result of salvation not the cause. Also Grace of God is a given. Again I didn't see any contradiction there apart from yours.

One of the points of the thread was to demonstrate that one cannot read the whole of the Bible, without likely picking and choosing what is more or less important. Couple this with the fact we have virtually countless denominations, and you have a bonafide recipe for confusion.

I doubt many Christians would disagree with you, but some things are clearly more important, because we are CHRISTians and there is little point to Christianity if it is devoid of the central message.

If you go through the thread, without bias, you will see differing people claim differing ideas. Some of these ideas are mutually exclusive to one another. Maybe you were/are not open to really do this?

I read about half of it and realised that a) most Christians were saying the same thing with different emphases and you were taking the emphases as implying there was something different about everything they were saying. Despite everyone saying to interpret a particular parable in light of the rest of scripture, you were insisting we had to interpret it in such a way as it didn't make sense... because you wanted it to not make sense.

It's not this simple. Virtually every non-denominational church I ever attended would ultimately provide at least one anecdotal story, about how they saved a Catholic from going to hell, by not being Catholic anymore, and accepting the correct 'faith.' I found this odd, as I was brought up Catholic before meeting my wife...

And you were saved from Catholicism then?

It sounds like the kind of circles you were mixing in was fundamentalist in nature. I've come across such ideas but rarely. Mostly people talk about being saved from Catholicism, none doubt that they are probably going to Heaven as well.

 

[cvanwey]

Hey hey

Why is it so important to you?

In regards to you, the only thing that is 'important', is responding to the requested thread I asked of you many months ago...

I'm growing tired of your shenanigans. I have pressed you for a response to a very serious inquiry, waaay back in January.

Post #403:

Resurrection Evidence