Does apologetics "work"?

[HitchSlap]

IMO, apologetics exists to make Christians feel less embarrassed by their beliefs.

 

[Caliban]

It isn't a Christian's job to convince or convert a nonbeliever; again, the Most High has already set aside an election to be His sons. These are the ones who will come/ have come to Him by Providence. Especially for adults, one must decide what one wants spiritually.

This is why religion is a red herring: it has the world believing humans are supposed to be able to alter one's spiritual trajectory when it has already been decided.

First, you are applying the term Red Herring incorrectly. I am not making a logical fallacy, I am simply disagreeing with your concept of religion. You are assuming a god actually exists and I do not. More than that, you have a personal concept of the characteristics of that God that not even all Christians share. I fully understand the theological concept of election; I simply don't think it exists. I used to be Reformed and believe in unconditional election and God's sovereignty in all things. I was wrong. It's all smoke.

 

[Hawkins]

IMO, apologetics exists to make Christians feel less embarrassed by their beliefs.

It actually makes atheists like a fool when they fallaciously believe that "you shall believe only when they can prove" which turns out to be a lie the atheists however all fall for.

 

[Hawkins]

First, you are applying the term Red Herring incorrectly. I am not making a logical fallacy, I am simply disagreeing with your concept of religion. You are assuming a god actually exists and I do not. More than that, you have a personal concept of the characteristics of that God that not even all Christians share. I fully understand the theological concept of election; I simply don't think it exists. I used to be Reformed and believe in unconditional election and God's sovereignty in all things. I was wrong. It's all smoke.

Your concept on the other hand is more of a joke. Let's take it this way. For the sake of argument, let's assume that God is true. Then how can this truth be conveyed to you?

He shows up to tell you? This way won't work as there is a covenant (which shall be abide by both side) specifies that humans in majority (obviously the scope includes you) need to be saved by faith. Now what else, other than God showing up directly to you.

The simple fact is, 99.99% humans rely on testimonies to get to a truth. God uses the same way as how a single truth is reaching the 99.99% humans. Whatever else approach you can suggest, well is a joke (consider this a prophecy of mine)!

 

[Kaon]

First, you are applying the term Red Herring incorrectly. I am not making a logical fallacy, I am simply disagreeing with your concept of religion. You are assuming a god actually exists and I do not. More than that, you have a personal concept of the characteristics of that God that not even all Christians share. I fully understand the theological concept of election; I simply don't think it exists. I used to be Reformed and believe in unconditional election and God's sovereignty in all things. I was wrong. It's all smoke.

Religion is [often purposely] deceptive and misinforming: that is a red herring. It has misinformed you about the election, for example: even when you were a Christian and you [should have] read where the Father and the Redeemer both said that there is an election from the foundation of the world that will be saved, you still don't believe there is an election.

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. John 15:16

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48

And all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. Revelation 13:8

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44

For many are called, but few are chosen. Matthew 22:14

He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will Ephesians 1:5

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 2 Peter 1:10

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 1 Peter 2:9

And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Matthew 22:24

​

And, this is just in the canonical text. This is why a religion that is supposed to be unity is divided into 100s of denominations - religion is Babylonian (misleading, incomplete sometimes on purpose, dogmatic, confused and institutional): a red herring for a question that seeks to determine the validity of a religious apology.


You are including, in your query about the validity of apologetics, your acceptance of religion as the arbiter for a Christian when it is actually Christ, the Father and relationship one has with Them that determines who is a Christian. In other words, separate your idea of religion from Christianity if you wish to understand why apologetics for the Father do/not work. Or, you will continuously receive unsatisfactory answers based on institutional dogma or academia-based theology. This is why I said you cannot teach someone how to have a relationship with the Father.

There is also the possibility that the god you worshipped is actually a facsimile of the Most High: most all religions are deceived into thinking their rituals, spells/prayers/incantations and feasts/celebrations are of the Most High.

 

[Caliban]

For the sake of argument, let's assume that God is true. Then how can this truth be conveyed to you?

Let's not assume your god is true. You will actually need to demonstrate that. It isn't my fault if you are unable to.

The simple fact is, 99.99% humans rely on testimonies to get to a truth. God uses the same way as how a single truth is reaching the 99.99% humans. Whatever else approach you can suggest, well is a joke (consider this a prophecy of mine)!

I think it is obvious to everyone reading this thread that you have no idea how statistics work; you don't just make them up.

 

[HitchSlap]

Religion is [often purposely] deceptive and misinforming: that is a red herring. It has misinformed you about the election, for example: even when you were a Christian and you [should have] read where the Father and the Redeemer both said that there is an election from the foundation of the world that will be saved, you still don't believe there is an election.

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. John 15:16

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48

And all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. Revelation 13:8

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44

For many are called, but few are chosen. Matthew 22:14

He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will Ephesians 1:5

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 2 Peter 1:10

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 1 Peter 2:9

And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Matthew 22:24

​

And, this is just in the canonical text. This is why a religion that is supposed to be unity is divided into 100s of denominations - religion is Babylonian (misleading, incomplete sometimes on purpose, dogmatic, confused and institutional): a red herring for a question that seeks to determine the validity of a religious apology.


You are including, in your query about the validity of apologetics, your acceptance of religion as the arbiter for a Christian when it is actually Christ, the Father and relationship one has with Them that determines who is a Christian. In other words, separate your idea of religion from Christianity if you wish to understand why apologetics for the Father do/not work. Or, you will continuously receive unsatisfactory answers based on institutional dogma or academia-based theology. This is why I said you cannot teach someone how to have a relationship with the Father.

There is also the possibility that the god you worshipped is actually a facsimile of the Most High: most all religions are deceived into thinking their rituals, spells/prayers/incantations and feasts/celebrations are of the Most High.

And what of J3:16?

 

[Caliban]

Religion is [often purposely] deceptive and misinforming: that is a red herring.

I'm going to help you out. Your sentence is misleading. Your subject (religion) is the agent--the one performing the action. Take a close look and see if you want the subject doing the action. My guess is that you intended to have another subject instead of religion. It does not make sense this way. Religion itself is not deceptive, people are deceptive when invoking religion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

View attachment 281837
But why can we never get to specifics?

We can't get to specifics because no one here ever FIRST accepts the proposition that the epistemic entry points I've listed above are ............... oh, what was that 'magical' word ?............................................

.....oh, yeah! I can't get to specifics because whatever "framework" I bring to the table, other people make sure to let me know that none of what I have to offer is RELEVANT.

See? See how that works? All that has to happen to PREVENT me from EVER, EVER, SMEVER gettin to specifics is to just void out my whole PRAXIS. And Voilà! No need for 2PhiloVoid to even bring up, let alone ever get to, specifics ...

... SO, I FREAK'N DON'T!!!!

Instead, I prefer to spend my time deconstructing what I KNOW are interminably lousy epistemological requirements for evidence, requirements that skeptics today seem to think are built solid like military tanks. Well, I have news for them......

 

[HitchSlap]

We can't get to specifics because no one here ever FIRST accepts the proposition that my entry points that I've listed above are ............... oh, what was that 'magical' word ?............................................

.....oh, yeah! I can't get to specifics because whatever "framework" I bring to the table, other people make sure to let me know that none of what I have to offer is RELEVANT.

See? See how that works? All that has to happen to PREVENT me from EVER, EVER, SMEVER gettin to specifics is to just void out my whole PRAXIS. And Voilà! No need for 2PhiloVoid to even bring up, let alone ever get to, specifics ...

... SO, I FREAK'N DON'T!!!!

Instead, I prefer to spend my time deconstructing what I KNOW are interminably lousy epistemological requirements for evidence, requirements that skeptics today seem to think are built solid like military tanks. Well, I have news for them......

You ok bro?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You ok bro?

Everyone keeps asking me that ...

 

[Kaon]

And what of J3:16?

Of course "whoever believes... will not perish, but have everlasting life". But, the only ones who will believe are those who are called and chosen because they are elected:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him - John 6:44
​

This is another thing that has promoted religious confusion.

 

[Kaon]

I'm going to help you out. Your sentence is misleading. Your subject (religion) is the agent--the one performing the action. Take a close look and see if you want the subject doing the action. My guess is that you intended to have another subject instead of religion. It does not make sense this way. Religion itself is not deceptive, people are deceptive when invoking religion.

What I said is only misleading if you are interpolating something I did not say or mean, and then compare it to something you expected. Religion is a fervent pursuit of something (or, an institutional organization devoted to worship and/or praise of someone - especially a god). If you cannot see the deception in the institutions of religion, then that may be your first problem regarding the validity of apologetics.

People certainly use deception when invoking religion, but that is because religion allows for this deception. Religion is the organization created by man to describe a god - usually involving a selected canonical text and a council that maintains the "validity" of knowledge associated with the religion. But, religion does not need active/living stewards to spread the misinformation. Throughout history religion has been categorically deceptive. The Redeemer spent a good amount of time chastise the religious institutions of the time - both in practice (i.e. the stand-alone religion), and with respect to the leaders (e.g. pharisees).

It is this similar reason why the Redeemer chastised five of the seven churches: the people are disillusioned and misled by religion, and they continue that Babylonian institution (out of ignorance or choice). No "teacher" is needed for religion to distract from the Truth. Paul was another example of a human who exploited religion to murder because the religion allowed for it. Religion is the distraction in trying to find the truth, and relate to the Father.

 

[Caliban]

We can't get to specifics because no one here ever FIRST accepts the proposition that the epistemic entry points I've listed above are ............... oh, what was that 'magical' word ?............................................

.....oh, yeah! I can't get to specifics because whatever "framework" I bring to the table, other people make sure to let me know that none of what I have to offer is RELEVANT.

See? See how that works? All that has to happen to PREVENT me from EVER, EVER, SMEVER gettin to specifics is to just void out my whole PRAXIS. And Voilà! No need for 2PhiloVoid to even bring up, let alone ever get to, specifics ...

... SO, I FREAK'N DON'T!!!!

Instead, I prefer to spend my time deconstructing what I KNOW are interminably lousy epistemological requirements for evidence, requirements that skeptics today seem to think are built solid like military tanks. Well, I have news for them......

Do you apply this same approach to other, non religious contexts?

 

[Caliban]

What I said is only misleading if you are interpolating something I did not say or mean, and then compare it to something you expected. Religion is a fervent pursuit of something (or, an institutional organization devoted to worship and/or praise of someone - especially a god). If you cannot see the deception in the institutions of religion, then that may be your first problem regarding the validity of apologetics.

People certainly use deception when invoking religion, but that is because religion allows for this deception. Religion is the organization created by man to describe a god - usually involving a selected canonical text and a council that maintains the "validity" of knowledge associated with the religion. But, religion does not need active/living stewards to spread the misinformation. Throughout history religion has been categorically deceptive. The Redeemer spent a good amount of time chastise the religious institutions of the time - both in practice (i.e. the stand-alone religion), and with respect to the leaders (e.g. pharisees).

It is this similar reason why the Redeemer chastised five of the seven churches: the people are disillusioned and misled by religion, and they continue that Babylonian institution (out of ignorance or choice). No "teacher" is needed for religion to distract from the Truth. Paul was another example of a human who exploited religion to murder because the religion allowed for it. Religion is the distraction in trying to find the truth, and relate to the Father.

No, your sentence had a subject incapable of performing the function of the verb. I was commenting on the syntax.

 

[Kaon]

No, your sentence had a subject incapable of performing the function of the verb. I was commenting on the syntax.

You have repeatedly answered your own question(s) about the validity of apologetics to you.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is another thing that has promoted religious confusion.

Too bad he hasn't called to clear things up.

 

[Kaon]

Too bad he hasn't called to clear things up.

Well, we never listen to Him anyway. We would rather let other humans lead us in our relationship with Him. If I continuously called someone to invite them to a party, and they never return my calls, I will move on to the next person in the address book. The person can't be upset with me that s/he ignored my phone calls and missed out on the party: many are called, few are chosen. And only a few are chosen because only a few will answer the phone.

But, He has definitely cleared things up over the many centuries: we just have a fetish for being subjugated and subscribing to human refuse wrapped in acceptable packages. That is a personal problem, not a problem of election by the Most High.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, we never listen to Him anyway.

I used to "listen to Him."

We would rather let other humans lead us in our relationship with Him. If I continuously called someone to invite them to a party, and they never return my calls, I will move on to the next person in the address book. The person can't be upset with me that s/he ignored my phone calls and missed out on the party: many are called, few are chosen. And only a few are chosen because only a few will answer the phone.

Sounds like a system error. Maybe he could send a patch? I have pretty good WiFi.

But, He has definitely cleared things up over the many centuries:

"As clear as an unmuddied lake, sir."

we just have a fetish for being subjugated and subscribing to human refuse wrapped in acceptable packages.

You mean religion?

That is a personal problem, not a problem of election by the Most High.

Right, I decided to not let it be a problem a long time ago.

 

[Kaon]

I used to "listen to Him."


Sounds like a system error. Maybe he could send a patch? I have pretty good WiFi.


"As clear as an unmuddied lake, sir."


You mean religion?


Right, I decided to not let it be a problem a long time ago.

Every humans is responsible for the trajectory of their unique soul. No one can convince another adult of something except for the unique adult. We all have to make the decision.