Are Psychological Abnormalities a part of Christian Apologetics?

[2PhiloVoid]

He says not to say Christians are sick. But let each one speak for oneself and find out what is really true about each one.

I have been one to use the let each one speak for oneself approach, but the person might not know. So, I see now that this approach could be questionable.

I would say each individual's character has a lot to do with what religion is for that person.

Religion can be used to control and use people, yes, I would say. But this can work only if I have the character which makes me able to be fooled! And if I can be fooled, and if there is no religion to fool me, I will find other ways to fool my own self.

No matter what authority you use, whether it is atheist logic and evidence or the Bible, if I can fool myself, I will, somehow.

So, I need how only God is able to change my character and guide me according to all which really is true.

So, do you think it was right of the reporter to question him like she did?

 

[com7fy8]

do you think it was right of the reporter to question him

The only questioning I heard was where someone asked a guy why he believes the way he does.

Well . . . I now do not find faith to first be about beliefs. We need "faith working through love" > in Galatians 5:6.

Also, faith includes knowing God is our Rewarder for diligently seeking Him > Hebrews 11:6.

So, faith has us experiencing God and how our faith works through His love which "has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (in Romans 5:5)

So, I think it was fair of the reporter to ask questions, instead of bashing and criticizing the guy. But the focus of "faith" was on belief; so this could be a misleading question > for both the guy and the person limiting the question to belief-faith.

And the guy later became an atheist. So, I would consider he was, all along, into faith which was mainly about belief. So, he could be easy prey, if he was so.

Faith working through love has us with God, with God proving Himself to us, in us, by how He shares His own love with us and changes our nature so we become more and more sharing with Him in how He has us loving. This is basic. This includes how God personally rules us in His own peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

And there are other scriptures which I think show how God is personal with us who have trusted in Jesus. He corrects our nature so we are submissive to how He rules us in His peace. And we keep growing in this, which is basic to our Christian calling > "in one body", Paul says in Colossians 3:15.

So, if questions change the attention to logic and outward evidence > this tricks people's attention elsewhere. And this would be wrong for the ones asking and the ones trying to answer. But a Christian can work with any question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The only questioning I heard was where someone asked a guy why he believes the way he does.

Well . . . I now do not find faith to first be about beliefs. We need "faith working through love" > in Galatians 5:6.

Also, faith includes knowing God is our Rewarder for diligently seeking Him > Hebrews 11:6.

So, faith has us experiencing God and how our faith works through His love which "has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (in Romans 5:5)

So, I think it was fair of the reporter to ask questions, instead of bashing and criticizing the guy. But the focus of "faith" was on belief; so this could be a misleading question > for both the guy and the person limiting the question to belief-faith.

And the guy later became an atheist. So, I would consider he was, all along, into faith which was mainly about belief. So, he could be easy prey, if he was so.

Faith working through love has us with God, with God proving Himself to us, in us, by how He shares His own love with us and changes our nature so we become more and more sharing with Him in how He has us loving. This is basic. This includes how God personally rules us in His own peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

And there are other scriptures which I think show how God is personal with us who have trusted in Jesus. He corrects our nature so we are submissive to how He rules us in His peace. And we keep growing in this, which is basic to our Christian calling > "in one body", Paul says in Colossians 3:15.

So, if questions change the attention to logic and outward evidence > this tricks people's attention elsewhere. And this would be wrong for the ones asking and the ones trying to answer. But a Christian can work with any question.

Great post, but I'll have to admit here that I got my confused as to which thread this was, so my previous question to you above related to another thread here on Christian Apologetics ...

... I hate it when I do that....

So, in reference to THIS thread with Genetically Modified Skeptic in the OP video, I should probably ask: Do you think he is correct to tell his atheist friends to avoid applying psychological pejoratives to Christians?

 

[com7fy8]

Do you think he is correct to tell his atheist friends to avoid applying psychological pejoratives to Christians?

yes

But why is he doing this? I don't know him personally. If his motive includes to promote atheism, this would not be good.

Also, it could, for all I know, be a "good cop, bad cop" strategy.

 

[Tone]

and changes our nature

This is the key.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

yes

But why is he doing this? I don't know him personally. If his motive includes to promote atheism, this would not be good.

Also, it could, for all I know, be a "good cop, bad cop" strategy.

That's an interesting thought, but maybe explain a little more about what you mean by your "good cop, bad cop" analogy. I'm not sure I'm quite understanding it at the moment, and if it's relevant, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Hieronymus]

It’s not helpful to calculate the odds of past events, because ultimately the odds of it having happened is now 1:1, because it indeed happened.

What do you mean by "it"?
If we want to know HOW "it" happened, we make theses and assess them, since we can't find out by experiment.

 

[Hieronymus]

Okay, then apparently, you 'spun' what I stated, to instead present a straw man. Kool...

But you started with straw men though..

 

[gaara4158]

What do you mean by "it"?
If we want to know HOW "it" happened, we make theses and assess them, since we can't find out by experiment.

Any given past event. We can’t recreate past events in a lab, but we can test forensic evidence in a lab.

 

[Hieronymus]

Any given past event. We can’t recreate past events in a lab, but we can test forensic evidence in a lab.

But can forensic evidence ever indicate creation, regarding the origins of living nature?

 

[Tone]

This is the key.

Acts 17
"29Therefore, being offspring of God, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by man’s skill and imagination. 30Although God overlooked the ignorance of earlier times, He now commands all men everywhere to repent. 31For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

(Emphasis Mine)

We, who partake of His Nature, have this Door opened to us.

 

[gaara4158]

But can forensic evidence ever indicate creation, regarding the origins of living nature?

What do you mean by “creation?” The origin of life hasn’t been solved by science, but if it ever is, it will be done with evidence. To say whether it can or cannot be solved is to presuppose the way in which it happened without evidence, and that’s putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Hieronymus]

What do you mean by “creation?”

Intelligent design and manufacturing.

The origin of life hasn’t been solved by science, but if it ever is, it will be done with evidence.

But we've been over that already.
When science is not suited for approaching supernatural events, it will never come to such conclusion.
But as you said previously, if science fails to explain the origins of living nature, their model is void. (or words to that effect).
At least it will just be a matter of opinion, which it kind of has been for ages now.

To say whether it can or cannot be solved is to presuppose the way in which it happened without evidence, and that’s putting the cart before the horse.

Not necessarily.
When you have 2 basic possibilities, but your method of determining which it is can only give 1 possibility, why even bother?
But they could say the 1 possibility is not possible or extremely unlikely though.
But i wonder if the institutions built upon the 1 possibility are likely to give up their reason for existing..

 

[gaara4158]

But we've been over that already.
When science is not suited for approaching supernatural events, it will never come to such conclusion.
But as you said previously, if science fails to explain the origins of living nature, their model is void. (or words to that effect).
At least it will just be a matter of opinion, which it kind of has been for ages now.

Facts are not a matter of opinion. The only way for science to “fail” to explain the origin of life is for some other, equally robust method of investigation reaching a definitive conclusion that science couldn’t have. Without that, we’re left having no conclusion, natural or otherwise.

Not necessarily.
When you have 2 basic possibilities, but your method of determining which it is can only give 1 possibility, why even bother?
But they could say the 1 possibility is not possible or extremely unlikely though.
But i wonder if the institutions built upon the 1 possibility are likely to give up their reason for existing..

We haven’t established that there is more than 1 possibility.

 

[Hieronymus]

We haven’t established that there is more than 1 possibility.

That's a strange thing to say when we all know it's either created or if it unintentionally emerged somehow.

 

[gaara4158]

That's a strange thing to say when we all know it's either created or if it unintentionally emerged somehow.

Creation isn’t strictly supernatural. We could, hypothetically, discover our creator(s) with science if they’re aliens or some kind of engineers of a simulation.

 

[com7fy8]

your "good cop, bad cop" analogy.

What I understand is that when two officers might be trying to get someone to cooperate, one can act tough so the nice acting officer can then win the person's cooperation.

And I can see how this can be a deliberate or not deliberate way to get people to accept a cause. One person is acting nasty and critical of ones who don't accept the cause, then someone else comes and talks reasonable and says the nasty one does not represent them. And this can get people to suppose a wrong cause is right because of how one person acts civil.

I am not saying any atheists do this on purpose or that none do. But it is a tactic.

But if the guy in the video makes an effort to bring evaluation to atheists who are mainly bad-mouthing religious people . . . this is better than how some number of Bible claiming people and groups are openly holding ourselves accountable.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Perhaps, but whether were talking about the Resurrection of Jesus or an alien abduction, there are always at least some subjective nuances of personal value wrapped up in our respective assessments of such reported phenomena, especially so if those phenomena are stuck in the past.

Either it happened or it didn't. Objectively. This is not one of Einstein's railroad train thought problems designed to illustrate the fact that simultaneity of events is poorly defined.

...Why is it that I get the feeling you've never read Pascal or Kierkegaard (among others)? If you had, you wouldn't be asking me these two questions.

Pascal's triangle is brilliant. His wager... not so much.

If that's the case, then might be say that you're contributions in assessing the matter might also be useless as a corollary?

... I'm glad you think so. I guess I'm ready for America's Got Talent, then?

... in the case of the latter, it could be true "to" me while seemingly untrue "to" you

"Seemingly" being the operative word. Making your point irrelevant to the issue at hand.

since it, unlike math, is embedded in the past and remains a problem for the Philosophy of History and the cognitive complications of Lessing's Ditch rather than a concurrent problem of "simple" arithmetic logic.

Right... so... two observers can report a different order of events due to Relativity. But that's not what you're talking about, so this is just a bunch of hot air.

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't, one or the other, and it is not subjective.

We've had this discussion already. Remember? I told you in the past that when it comes to assessing the qualities of the Christian faith, I'm neither a Foundationalist nor a Plantingian Reliabilist.

Unfortunately, Christian Faith always comes by way of more than > just finding what we think is the "right" information. So even if we get out of the 'tar pit' of incredulity by finding what we might think is the so-called "best explanation," this doesn't mean we'll end up finding faith by way of some kind of automatic default.

It's called building up a theory. If the Bible is consistently the best explanation available, a Christian framework will work itself out from there.

Airtight? Lol! It can't be; it won't be; and it never can be as long as we're merely contemplating any of this while stuck in our limited, mortal human bodies using human brains. It's just not going to work like that, and this is partly the reason I've offered my Aesthetic Argument thread, despite the fact that I'm sure it can be improved.

Aesthetic Arguments of Beauty and the Appeal of Christianity

So... my claim that Elvis Presley rose from the dead doesn't have to be airtight? Just... elegant and pretty? I can do that. Will you believe if I do?

Not exactly, they don't, and in saying this, I'm going with Catherine Z. Elgin on the matter. I think you're being a bit too mechanistic in your assumption about 'how' the Christian faith is supposed to work.

How about... it's supposed to work at all, even a little bit, just one iota. Can I get that much?

And I'm more than willing to help you find some, withe emphasis on that last word, "some," because that's all any other human being can help you find.

I don't know if you're able to. I'm not saying this to be cruel, since you're one of the people here who doesn't hate me, but honestly I get very little value from our discussions. Your approach emphasizes perspective to the point that reason, logic, and evidence are eschewed. "To the Greek, be a Greek"... you will never reach rational skeptics with your approach.

You may have to explain this more so I can grasp what you're getting at. Do you mean to say this in a vain that infers what I'm getting at in my recent thread:

What's really missing? The evidence or ... something else?

Logic and evidence will always be missing from your side. I'm merely saying that love is your most powerful weapon available to you, and so few of you use it. Overall, the average Christian is much more hateful than loving.

Actually, I think it is you who is doing the cherry-picking, but then again, I do understand that dealing with the biblical figure of Solomon can be tricky ... even for Christians.

That's your own personal evaluation based on what you assume is the "proper" interpretive praxis. My interpretive praxis is obviously different than yours, but that's to be expected to some extent, really, since we're different persons.

Enjoy!

That's the problem. Stop interpreting the Bible and just listen. Lean not on your own understanding, but trust in the Lord your God. Professing yourself to be wise, you become a fool.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Either it happened or it didn't. Objectively. This is not one of Einstein's railroad train thought problems designed to illustrate the fact that simultaneity of events is poorly defined.




Pascal's triangle is brilliant. His wager... not so much.











"Seemingly" being the operative word. Making your point irrelevant to the issue at hand.



Right... so... two observers can report a different order of events due to Relativity. But that's not what you're talking about, so this is just a bunch of hot air.

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't, one or the other, and it is not subjective.







It's called building up a theory. If the Bible is consistently the best explanation available, a Christian framework will work itself out from there.



So... my claim that Elvis Presley rose from the dead doesn't have to be airtight? Just... elegant and pretty? I can do that. Will you believe if I do?



How about... it's supposed to work at all, even a little bit, just one iota. Can I get that much?



I don't know if you're able to. I'm not saying this to be cruel, since you're one of the people here who doesn't hate me, but honestly I get very little value from our discussions. Your approach emphasizes perspective to the point that reason, logic, and evidence are eschewed. "To the Greek, be a Greek"... you will never reach rational skeptics with your approach.



Logic and evidence will always be missing from your side. I'm merely saying that love is your most powerful weapon available to you, and so few of you use it. Overall, the average Christian is much more hateful than loving.







That's the problem. Stop interpreting the Bible and just listen. Lean not on your own understanding, but trust in the Lord your God. Professing yourself to be wise, you become a fool.

That's a lot of overt disengagement, obfuscation and hand-waiving you're doing there. Is this how you really see all my efforts here on CF, or is it your attempt to dislodge whatever little influence I may have here, NV? For the life of me, I have a difficult time seeing your side as one constituting pure rationality, despite your many (~qualified) overtures to math, logic and whatnot.

On the one hand, I'm almost tempted to call it a day since you seem to be invested in your own unwillingness to engage my side of things and would rather take anything I say as an opportunity to oversimplify and caricature my approach to belief.

On the other hand, it could just be that Pascal was right and that what I call his Argument Against Sociopathic Skepticism (or A.A.S.S., for short) ... has some real teeth when we take a deeper look at the emotional and dispositional constructs that are bandied about within the heads of many an atheist. Then again, I'm not sure how Pascal would explain those Skeptics and Atheists who have made it their life's work to destroy the Christian Faith wherever they may find it. This latter 'thing' almost seems to be something altogether beyond mere apathy, doesn't it? It sounds more like 'rage,' to me.

Moreover, think about this: you're the one who suggested a few years ago that I even bother with coming over here to the Christian Apologetics section. So, here I am, trying to belt these things out without getting too uptight with uncooperative folks, such as you, who are here (folks who, by the way, all seem to yelp, "We want an answer, we want an answer, we want an answer!") But when I offer you something, most of the time you barely touch the icing on the cake, turning your nose up from what's being put in front of you.

Well, if you want an answer, then there is one thing you may want to consider more seriously and it's this: that evidence you're so badly wanting will be found when you recognize the infection you've contracted, a spiritual and cognitive infection that I call Solomon Syndrome (and no, it's not to be confused with the medical condition of the same name.)

The Good News is, there is a Physician who can help you with resisting the symptoms of Solomon Syndrome; the consolation in this, too, is that you'll know that you're not alone in this endeavor since we all have to deal with this problematic infection to varying degrees.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's a lot of overt disengagement, obfuscation and hand-waiving you're doing there.

Where? How so?

Is this how you really see all my efforts here on CF, or is it your attempt to dislodge whatever little influence I may have here, NV?

The former. How am I going to dislodge your influence, assuming I even wanted to? What, do people around here actually listen to me? I was unaware. Also, you're nowhere near what would be considered a harmful Christian, so why would I want to intercept your ideas?

For the life of me, I have a difficult time seeing your side as one constituting pure rationality, despite your many (~qualified) overtures to math, logic and whatnot.

Where am I being irrational?

On the one hand, I'm almost tempted to call it a day since you seem to be invested in your own unwillingness to engage my side of things and would rather take anything I say as an opportunity to oversimplify and caricature my approach to belief.

Well, if a patron of a restaurant orders a cheeseburger and gets a salad, there's a problem. It doesn't matter how much effort the chef put into the salad.

I've asked questions here that are important and straightforward, such as, "Why is it reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead?" You've NOT given me a straightforward answer; instead I get the reading curriculum for a PhD student in theology.

On the other hand, it could just be that Pascal was right and that what I call his Argument Against Sociopathic Skepticism (or A.A.S.S., for short) ... has some real teeth when we take a deeper look at the emotional and dispositional constructs that are bandied about within the heads of many an atheist. Then again, I'm not sure how Pascal would explain those Skeptics and Atheists who have made it their life's work to destroy the Christian Faith wherever they may find it. This latter 'thing' almost seems to be something altogether beyond mere apathy, doesn't it? It sounds more like 'rage,' to me.

I'm only familiar with Pascal's wager. I don't know what you're referring to. As for the destruction of the Christian faith, I am against that if it involves force. The exception, of course, is Catholicism, since, as a monolith, it encourages (or demands) treason in every nation on earth: grave crimes committed against a citizen of, say, Germany, are not reported to German officials but instead to a foreign king. This means that citizens of Germany are ultimately loyal to a foreign power, i.e. are traitors. This is accomplished by psychological manipulation, and should not be allowed, anywhere or ever, for any reason.

Moreover, think about this: you're the one who suggested a few years ago that I even bother with coming over here to the Christian Apologetics section. So, here I am, trying to belt these things out without getting too uptight with uncooperative folks, such as you, who are here (folks who, by the way, all seem to yelp, "We want an answer, we want an answer, we want an answer!") But when I offer you something, most of the time you barely touch the icing on the cake, turning your nose up from what's being put in front of you.

Right, because I didn't order a cake. I ordered a cheeseburger.

Well, if you want an answer, then there is one thing you may want to consider more seriously and it's this: that evidence you're so badly wanting will be found when you recognize the infection you've contracted, a spiritual and cognitive infection that I call Solomon Syndrome (and no, it's not to be confused with the medical condition of the same name.)

Evidence is objective and does not rely upon my state of mind.

The Good News is, there is a Physician who can help you with resisting the symptoms of Solomon Syndrome; the consolation in this, too, is that you'll know that you're not alone in this endeavor since we all have to deal with this problematic infection to varying degrees.

So to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, I must first... already believe that he rose from the dead. Ok.