An example of excellent Christian Apologetics?

[cvanwey]

It actually does matter, because if he's not quoting the Bible correctly and is, instead, misapplying texts or taking verses out of contexts, then it does matter to our own evaluations of how and why he is 'successful' or in how some folks will take his words as worthy of some kind of Apologetic value.

The implication in our evaluation of him is that there is something to all the field of Hermeneutics, even if it can't provide a fool-proof fail-safe against all interpretive errors or mishandlings of the Bible, or of any text for that matter.

And I'm asking you to explain "why" you think he is wrong. Surely you can do this for us, right?

Post #39 "Do you not think he is a con man?"

If you do, then we would merely be quibbling over scant differences in reasoning. If you don't think he is a con man, then I'll address your questions.

...well, I think that's a good start, actually, but how do you propose to question his motives? What praxis will you follow in order to do so?

My 'praxis' tells me he is a con man. And if you agree, then discussion is mute/pointless.

 

[Tone]

Well, in the following video, is it? Whether you're Skeptic or Christian, how're you going to know?
... is the Bible enough to "tell you so"?

A real Texan...shooting from the hip...

*Zero Christian Apologetics...

**I know because I learned a bit on what apologetics is...

 

[FireDragon76]

I admit, he kept his composure mostly intact. But, is good composure enough for us to say that all of what flowed from his lips qualifies as excellent Christian Apologetics?

He talks like a carnival barker and a rube - he even has that glint in his eyes which is really creepy (which reminds me of a cobra trying to hypnotize its prey). There's a difference between being able to spout biblical cliches and demonstrating genuine understanding and, moreover, knowledge.

I don't think a pastor has to be poor and can't have money but really... there is no substance there to justify his lifestyle.

That's definitely an angle for us to think about, NV.

So, why do you think a large number of Christians in the U.S. may be persuaded that Copeland's speech in the OP video 'counts' as good Christian Apologetics? He is doing--according to form--what the Good Book says for Christians to do in 1 Peter 3:15, isn't he?

Blind leading the blind.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Post #39 "Do you not think he is a con man?"

If you do, then we would merely be quibbling over scant differences in reasoning. If you don't think he is a con man, then I'll address your questions.



My 'praxis' tells me he is a con man. And if you agree, then discussion is mute/pointless.

Not really. It may still be that we think he is a con-man for different reasons, and that is why I've asked of you what I've asked. IOW, it might be that we both agree that he is a con-man or at least a very bad representative of the Christian faith, but we may disagree as to why we think he should be seen as a con-man.

For me, it has to do with how he abuses the meaning of various Scriptures ... hence, for me, the problem is that he doesn't study hermeneutics and exegesis; that he doesn't really understand what he reads when he reads the Bible and also, then, he scandalizes it all my taking people's money for undue purposes.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not really. It may still be that we think he is a con-man for different reasons, and that is why I've asked of you what I've asked. IOW, it might be that we both agree that he is a con-man or at least a very bad representative of the Christian faith, but we may disagree as to why we think he should be seen as a con-man.

It's not an either/or thing. He's most definitely a "sincere con-man", in other words, self-deluded. When the voice of your ego and the voice of God become one in the same.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not an either/or thing. He's most definitely a "sincere con-man", in other words, self-deluded. When the voice of your ego and the voice of God become one in the same.

...Sure, he may be 'self-convinced,' but it's also not really as 'if' he can be cited as quoting Scripture "correctly" within the bounds of his delusion. Strangely enough for some reason, there are multitudes in the U.S. who do think he does ... and that's where my main problem with him lies, and not just in the fact that he misappropriates Church Funds so he can purchase $54 million dollar jet planes and claim that "God told him to do it."

 

[cvanwey]

Not really. It may still be that we think he is a con-man for different reasons, and that is why I've asked of you what I've asked. IOW, it might be that we both agree that he is a con-man or at least a very bad representative of the Christian faith, but we may disagree as to why we think he should be seen as a con-man.

You still haven't quite answered the question. Do you think he is a con man? Yes or no?

In the mean time, I think I know what you are wanting to get out of this discussion...

Let's start with the vanilla definition of 'con man':

'a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true.'

In the case for the definition above, he tells the reporter he needs such a plane to prosthelytize. You don't need such an air craft to prosthelytize. If his true purpose was to 'save souls by spreading a message', then the received money would be directed and pointed towards this specific cause. He would fly to one arbitrary country, stay there until he converted, or at least tried his 'darndest' to convert as many people as possible in that entire country, which would be for the rest of his natural life. Because again, an Ethiopian soul is no more or less worthy than a Brazilian soul

It's safe to say, he wanted to own a private plane. He likes money. There is no real problem with that, in and of itself I guess, but don't presumably lie about your intent Hence, he is most probably telling the reporter something that is not true.

My intuition, is that he uses religion as a tool to achieve his personal goals. He knows religion remains one of the last bastions in uncontested, unquestioned, and unchallenged assertions. At least where I come from, it is considered disrespectful to question someone's faith. I get the feeling he surrounds himself with like-minded people, 'woos' them with Bible passages, earns their trust, and then extracts as much money as he can. Can I prove this? Of course not. But again, you are asking for opinions. When he gets challenged, he most likely hopes the person on the receiving end is not as 'well versed' in the subject matter, and he then bombards them with quotes, and/or changes the subject, etc., until he can high-tale it out of there. Not much different than when I went on a two year quest, interviewing pastors of large churches. But that's a story for another time

For me, it has to do with how he abuses the meaning of various Scriptures ... hence, for me, the problem is that he doesn't study hermeneutics and exegesis; that he doesn't really understand what he reads when he reads the Bible and also, then, he scandalizes it all my taking people's money for undue purposes.

Well, this might be where we differ. Case/point... Two genuine and earnest believers of a given book could be at polar opposite ends of the spectrum, when it comes to 'interpretation' of a given text within that book. We've already established long ago, in another thread, at least I assumed, that hermeneutics itself is also no 'true standard'. Another case/point, on my way to work, I pass many churches, of many denominations and religions. At best, only one of them has 'interpreted' the correct message, and at worst, all of them are wasting their time, by worshiping and assuming an incorrect conclusion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You still haven't quite answered the question. Do you think he is a con man? Yes or no?

In the mean time, I think I know what you are wanting to get out of this discussion...

Let's start with the vanilla definition of 'con man':

'a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true.'

In the case for the definition above, he tells the reporter he needs such a plane to prosthelytize. You don't need such an air craft to prosthelytize. If his true purpose was to 'save souls by spreading a message', then the received money would be directed and pointed towards this specific cause. He would fly to one arbitrary country, stay there until he converted, or at least tried his 'darndest' to convert as many people as possible in that entire country, which would be for the rest of his natural life. Because again, an Ethiopian soul is no more or less worthy than a Brazilian soul

It's safe to say, he wanted to own a private plane. He likes money. There is no real problem with that, in and of itself I guess, but don't presumably lie about your intent Hence, he is most probably telling the reporter something that is not true.

My intuition, is that he uses religion as a tool to achieve his personal goals. He knows religion remains one of the last bastions in uncontested, unquestioned, and unchallenged assertions. At least where I come from, it is considered disrespectful to question someone's faith. I get the feeling he surrounds himself with like-minded people, 'woos' them with Bible passages, earns their trust, and then extracts as much money as he can. Can I prove this? Of course not. But again, you are asking for opinions. When he gets challenged, he most likely hopes the person on the receiving end is not as 'well versed' in the subject matter, and he then bombards them with quotes, and/or changes the subject, etc., until he can high-tale it out of there. Not much different than when I went on a two year quest, interviewing pastors of large churches. But that's a story for another time

He could be a con-man; he could also be a self-deluded false teacher, one who truly "believes" his own take [excuse the pun] on the Christian faith. However, for me, whether I think he is a con-man is secondary to whether or not I think he is abusing and misapplying Scripture. It may be that he also uses this misapplication as a further pretense for other activities which he may be involved in, which of course, would make matters only so much the worse for any of us who might feel tempted to listen to him.

Well, this might be where we differ. Case/point... Two genuine and earnest believers of a given book could be at polar opposite ends of the spectrum, when it comes to 'interpretation' of a given text within that book. We've already established long ago, in another thread, at least I assumed, that hermeneutics itself is also no 'true standard'. Another case/point, on my way to work, I pass many churches, of many denominations and religions. At best, only one of them has 'interpreted' the correct message, and at worst, all of them are wasting their time, by worshiping and assuming an incorrect conclusion.

Oh, we definitely differ, and the fact that you seem to separate the term 'interpret' away from that of 'hermeneutics' is very telling for me ...

EVERYONE who applies their eye-balls to a written page or their ears to an audible message is interpreting what it is they're encountering and, thereby, is also directly involved in doing hermeneutics. The question is: how good are they at doing it? An example of this would be to ask folks here what they think your or my avatar means or even implies about who we are, how we each think, and in what way we each may evaluate the Christian faith. How do they "read" you and me? Do they just assume that I'm a Star Wars fan when I might not be? Do they just assume that you're actually African-American when you might not be?

 

[cvanwey]

He could be a con-man; he could also be a self-deluded false teacher, one who truly "believes" his own take [excuse the pun] on the Christian faith. However, for me, whether I think he is a con-man is secondary to whether or not I think he is abusing and misapplying Scripture.

I disagree. Start with Genesis, and then ask 100 Christians how literal or figurative this chapter is? It's fair to state that at least a small handful will completely ignore many parts of 'fundamental science', simply to instead favor their 'interpretation' of this specific Book. In such a case, which ones are 'abusing and misapplying Scripture'? The follow-up question might then be, why does this not matter in this case as much? My point is the Bible is ambiguous. And God seems fine with that. If you don't believe me, start counting denominations. Furthermore, go listen to the messages given from each differing denomination. God is okay with mass misapplication of His Word; even from genuine folk. But the real question remains... Which one is correct? If any? How would hermeneutics get us there? Heck, the reason I was ever first made away of the term hermeneutics, was from a fundamentalist evangelical, who cited using this tool for correction. Go figure

Oh, we definitely differ, and the fact that you seem to separate the term 'interpret' away from that of 'hermeneutics' is very telling for me ...

Great, then I will be interested in seeing your response to the above

EVERYONE who applies their eye-balls to a written page or their ears to an audible message is interpreting what it is they're encountering and, thereby, is also directly involved in doing hermeneutics.

I would agree. But as I already stated, is not THE standard for 'correctness'.

The question is: how good are they at doing it?

In the case for the Bible, that is an ENDLESS UNANSWERABLE QUESTION. That is the entire point.

An example of this would be to ask folks here what they think your or my avatar means or even implies about who we are, how we each think, and in what way we each may evaluate the Christian faith. How do they "read" you and me? Do they just assume that I'm a Star Wars fan when I might not be? Do they just assume that you're actually African-American when you might not be?

My ethnicity, your like/dislike for sci-fi, has little relevancy in theistic beliefs. I would imagine most would not really care. Your love/disdain for Spiderman appears disconnected to your fundamental beliefs. Many atheists love super hero movies. So? They are not relevant, for the most part. I have absolutely no clue of your ethnicity. Nor, have I wondered, or care. It's your beliefs, and why you believe them, which interests me. Hence, I'm on a Christian apologetics forum.

So I again ask you. Do (you) think Kenneth Copeland is a con man? Simple question.

 

[Tom 1]

Well, in the following video, is it? Whether you're Skeptic or Christian, how're you going to know?
... is the Bible enough to "tell you so"?

The promise of Abraham was great wealth? A bit dubious.

 

[Tone]

Actually, one thing he did do was allude to spiritual warfare...I just don't know what spectrum he represents.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I disagree. Start with Genesis, and then ask 100 Christians how literal or figurative this chapter is? It's fair to state that at least a small handful will completely ignore many parts of 'fundamental science', simply to instead favor their 'interpretation' of this specific Book. In such a case, which ones are 'abusing and misapplying Scripture'? The follow-up question might then be, why does this not matter in this case as much? My point is the Bible is ambiguous. And God seems fine with that. If you don't believe me, start counting denominations. Furthermore, go listen to the messages given from each differing denomination. God is okay with mass misapplication of His Word; even from genuine folk. But the real question remains... Which one is correct? If any? How would hermeneutics get us there? Heck, the reason I was ever first made away of the term hermeneutics, was from a fundamentalist evangelical, who cited using this tool for correction. Go figure

In the case of this thread, all one need do is find out what Kenneth Copeland's interpretations of the Bible are, his reasoning behind them, and then proceed to evaluate. You're suggested activity is simply an aside.

Great, then I will be interested in seeing your response to the above

I don't know that he's specifically a 'con-man'; he could be. He could also instead just be a deluded simpleton who thinks he's doing God's work but undertaking the endeavor by way of some very, very bad hermeneutical assumptions which in turn leads to some terrible apologetics on his part.

In the case for the Bible, that is an ENDLESS UNANSWERABLE QUESTION. That is the entire point.

Oh.................so if that's the case, I suppose you think that studying sources/books on the art and science of interpretation is a waste of time?

My ethnicity, your like/dislike for sci-fi, has little relevancy in theistic beliefs. I would imagine most would not really care. Your love/disdain for Spiderman appears disconnected to your fundamental beliefs. Many atheists love super hero movies. So? They are not relevant, for the most part. I have absolutely no clue of your ethnicity. Nor, have I wondered, or care. It's your beliefs, and why you believe them, which interests me. Hence, I'm on a Christian apologetics forum.

As I've said elsewhere, if you aren't African-American, then I would find your mis-appropriated avatar a bit on the offensive side. But, if other people here don't have a social conscience and don't care, I'd say that need a dose of activist education and some therapy to deal with their apathy.

So I again ask you. Do (you) think Kenneth Copeland is a con man? Simple question.

I don't know; I still think he's wrong in how he interprets and applies the bible, even if he's merely deluded. I'm not sure why you're placing so much weight on this question after I've already indicated that I think it is of secondary importance. He could be a con-man. He cold also be a false teacher. But he could also be a confused individual. All three are terrible frameworks in which to claim a Christian faith, don't you think?

 

[cvanwey]

In the case of this thread, all one need do is find out what Kenneth Copeland's interpretations of the Bible are, his reasoning behind them, and then proceed to evaluate. You're suggested activity is simply an aside.

You did not address my point. Even two people can read the same verse, and come to polar opposite conclusions; in earnest. Even if the Bible was valid in it's source, at best, one of them is wrong for sure. When you state 'misuse of Scripture', how would you know? Again, if the seemingly most axiomatic verses are in conflict by the entire 'translating' population, what makes you think your extensive study merits the 'correct use'? Does an actual standard exist? And if so, then what is it, and why are many still confused? And how do you know your method is the correct one?

I don't know that he's specifically a 'con-man'; he could be. He could also instead just be a deluded simpleton who thinks he's doing God's work but undertaking the endeavor by way of some very, very bad hermeneutical assumptions which in turn leads to some terrible apologetics on his part.

I stated why I think he is a con man. But you still need to address above, to account for anything you stated above...

Oh.................so if that's the case, I suppose you think that studying sources/books on the art and science of interpretation is a waste of time?

Depends..In regards to the Bible, here we are, 1,000's of years later, and practically no verse of any real seeming importance has been ironed out with a concrete and solidified conclusion. The Bible is claimed to a complete book of 'truth.' You tell me?

As I've said elsewhere, if you aren't African-American, then I would find your mis-appropriated avatar a bit on the offensive side. But, if other people here don't have a social conscience and don't care, I'd say that need a dose of activist education and some therapy to deal with their apathy.

As I've stated in PM, I liked the text/message. It would not matter if the photo was of a Chinese, Spanish, Irish, German, or other... Some males have avatars of females. So? Does it matter what ethnicity I am?

I don't know; I still think he's wrong in how he interprets and applies the bible, even if he's merely deluded. I'm not sure why you're placing so much weight on this question after I've already indicated that I think it is of secondary importance. He could be a con-man. He cold also be a false teacher. But he could also be a confused individual. All three are terrible frameworks in which to claim a Christian faith, don't you think?

Okay, you do not want to commit to an answer publicly. Maybe because it's not 'provable'? Well, you are asking for opinion. So I gave mine.

I think what's more terrible than the three listed above, is wasting your life believing something which turns out false. But again, this appears an opinion thread

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You did not address my point. Even two people can read the same verse, and come to polar opposite conclusions; in earnest. Even if the Bible was valid in it's source, at best, one of them is wrong for sure. When you state 'misuse of Scripture', how would you know? Again, if the seemingly most axiomatic verses are in conflict by the entire 'translating' population, what makes you think your extensive study merits the 'correct use'? Does an actual standard exist? And if so, then what is it, and why are many still confused? And how do you know your method is the correct one?

I stated why I think he is a con man. But you still need to address above, to account for anything you stated above...

Depends..In regards to the Bible, here we are, 1,000's of years later, and practically no verse of any real seeming importance has been ironed out with a concrete and solidified conclusion. The Bible is claimed to a complete book of 'truth.' You tell me?

As I've stated in PM, I liked the text/message. It would not matter if the photo was of a Chinese, Spanish, Irish, German, or other... Some males have avatars of females. So? Does it matter what ethnicity I am?

Okay, you do not want to commit to an answer publicly. Maybe because it's not 'provable'? Well, you are asking for opinion. So I gave mine.

I think what's more terrible than the three listed above, is wasting your life believing something which turns out false. But again, this appears an opinion thread

Alright. Thank you for offering your mere opinion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, in the following video, is it? Whether you're Skeptic or Christian, how're you going to know?
... is the Bible enough to "tell you so"?

1st time I have ever listened to him.
Nothing like a preacher getting caught off guard concerning the price and use of his planes and demons being on commercial airlines.......

Private jets, 13 mansions and a $100,000 mobile home just for the dogs: Televangelists 'defrauded tens of million of dollars from Christian network' | Daily Mail Online

Reminds me of B H:

Kenneth Copeland - Wikipedia

2006 Angel Flight 44 Controversy
According to The Christian Post, Kenneth Copeland Ministries was criticized in 2010 for failing to fly disaster relief missions to Haiti after allegedly promising an aviation relief assistance program called Angel Flight 44.[23]
In late November 2007, Mike Huckabee, a 2008 Republican presidential primary candidate, made six appearances on Copeland's daily television program Believer's Voice of Victory, discussing "Integrity of Character".[citation needed] Huckabee,
As a result of the Huckabee appearances, Kenneth Copeland Ministries was one of six approached by the United States Senate inquiry into the tax-exempt status of religious organizations.
Private jets
In 2009, Copeland's $3.6 million jet was denied tax-exempt status, opening up a possible investigation into the church's expenses; Copeland failed to disclose the salaries of his directors. In 2008 the ministry stated it owned five airplanes, one of which is valued at $17.5 million.[35]
====================
His expressions in the video................

A real Texan...shooting from the hip...

*Zero Christian Apologetics...

**I know because I learned a bit on what apologetics is...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1st time I have ever listened to him.
Nothing like a preacher getting caught off guard concerning the price and use of his planes and demons being on commercial airlines.......

Private jets, 13 mansions and a $100,000 mobile home just for the dogs: Televangelists 'defrauded tens of million of dollars from Christian network' | Daily Mail Online

Reminds me of B H:

Kenneth Copeland - Wikipedia

2006 Angel Flight 44 Controversy
According to The Christian Post, Kenneth Copeland Ministries was criticized in 2010 for failing to fly disaster relief missions to Haiti after allegedly promising an aviation relief assistance program called Angel Flight 44.[23]
In late November 2007, Mike Huckabee, a 2008 Republican presidential primary candidate, made six appearances on Copeland's daily television program Believer's Voice of Victory, discussing "Integrity of Character".[citation needed] Huckabee,
As a result of the Huckabee appearances, Kenneth Copeland Ministries was one of six approached by the United States Senate inquiry into the tax-exempt status of religious organizations.
Private jets
In 2009, Copeland's $3.6 million jet was denied tax-exempt status, opening up a possible investigation into the church's expenses; Copeland failed to disclose the salaries of his directors. In 2008 the ministry stated it owned five airplanes, one of which is valued at $17.5 million.[35]
====================
His expressions in the video................

...all of this kind of thing does make one wonder about some folks, doesn't it?