Does apologetics "work"?

[FireDragon76]

Being able to find commonality between Western and Eastern traditions can betray a sense that you want to eliminate the differences as important except on a surface level rather than being fundamentally at odds in some cases

I'm not at all trying to obscure the differences. I'm actually trying to point out they aren't monolithic, and are themselves diverse.

If not that, then what would you suggest? I've done a thread somewhere on the labels being too reductive or even too broad (Freethought is not exclusively nonreligious in nature, even if it's more common, for one example), but it basically was rejected almost outright because any nuance was seen as "unnecessary", because bureaucratic nonsense is more important than critical thought about being inclusive and still having principles alongside that which don't contradict inclusivity, but encourage it

"Freethinker" would be an apt label.

 

[FireDragon76]

The problem is merely seeking truth is not the same as being honest about whether you've found it or not, and also whether it can be said to be truly absolute or technically provisional.

Christians, though not all, tend to have an all or nothing mentality, that they have the exclusive truth, in no small part because the God they propose to exist is effectively both within and without the universe and can thus be excluded from rules that otherwise apply.

I agree that this is a problem, though it's one that is not universal for all Christians. Some Christians believe their religious truth claims are not exclusive, that people seek God in different religions. Usually, you will find this attitude among some mainline Protestants or Quakers, and to a lesser extent, among Catholics (with Papal encyclicals such as Lumens Gentium suggesting this, at least).

 

[AV1611VET]

Besides the fact I don't necessarily believe in that (Shakti is a Hindu concept), I really don't accept that as plausible (how exactly would it open a person to "demonic spirits"?).

It's noteworthy to point out how pagans, other religions, and even witchcraft adherents deny any involvement in what Christianity considers to be dangerous practices.

They always come across as squeaky-clean, but don't realize that these other practices start out looking fine, but, under the hood, are as dark as dark can be.

Even martial arts has a dark side that those who are into it aren't familiar with (chi), and they practice it only for self-defense or physical well-being.

But under the hood, it's demonic.

And although David was a martial artist ...

Psalm 144:1 A Psalm of David.>> Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

... his strength [and training] came from God ... not some collective energy source that pervades the universe.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's noteworthy to point out how pagans, other religions, and even witchcraft adherents deny any involvement in what Christianity considers to be dangerous practices.

Of course, because they don't see the world in Christian terms. Christians have a long history, unfortunately, of seeing the spirituality and traditions of other cultures as demonic or barbaric, sometimes going to violent ends to stamp them out.

They always come across as squeaky-clean, but don't realize that these other practices start out looking fine, but, under the hood, are as dark as dark can be.

"Squeaky clean"? Do you project much? I know of nobody that treats their religion and spiritual practices so flippantly, so casually, except perhaps Evangelical churches (nevermind all the hymns about the ritual power of blood, heavens no, it's the other people who are barbaric witches!)

Even martial arts has a dark side that those who are into it aren't familiar with (chi), and they practice it only for self-defense or physical well-being.

But under the hood, it's demonic.

And although David was a martial artist ...

Psalm 144:1 A Psalm of David.>> Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

... his strength [and training] came from God ... not some collective energy source that pervades the universe.

That sounds more like Star Wars than a sincere appreciation of any of the spiritual traditions in Asia.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm not at all trying to obscure the differences. I'm actually trying to point out they aren't monolithic, and are themselves diverse.

The diversity should be acknowledged within the scope of the groupings, rather than what feels more like syncretic/eclectic motions for the sake of ecumenism (an idea that is nice in theory, but in execution expects too much of people that would prefer certainty over reason)

"Freethinker" would be an apt label.

The fact that it's an option tells me there must've been enough reception for it, though I don't know the process for determining of those labels (which have a problem to me still in the idea that Freethought is a faith, among the other ones in the non religious category, which wouldn't count as faiths remotely unless you stretch the word to nebulous ends)

 

[muichimotsu]

I agree that this is a problem, though it's one that is not universal for all Christians. Some Christians believe their religious truth claims are not exclusive, that people seek God in different religions. Usually, you will find this attitude among some mainline Protestants or Quakers, and to a lesser extent, among Catholics (with Papal encyclicals such as Lumens Gentium suggesting this, at least).

True: I think the underlying issues is the individualistic tendency in America, which extends even to religious perspectives, insisting that they should be afforded that respect. But I've held to a free market of ideas principle, ideas are not above reproach or criticism, people are deserving of basic respect rather than their beliefs.

 

[FireDragon76]

The diversity should be acknowledged within the scope of the groupings, rather than what feels more like syncretic/eclectic motions for the sake of ecumenism (an idea that is nice in theory, but in execution expects too much of people that would prefer certainty over reason)






The fact that it's an option tells me there must've been enough reception for it, though I don't know the process for determining of those labels (which have a problem to me still in the idea that Freethought is a faith, among the other ones in the non religious category, which wouldn't count as faiths remotely unless you stretch the word to nebulous ends)

It's an American bad habit, where we speak of "faith" as a shorthand for religious affiliation or personal belief. I agree that calling non-Christian religions (or lack thereof) "faiths" is improper, since the importance of faith, or how it is constructed, is very different in non-Christian religions and non-Christian worldviews or practices.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's an American bad habit, where we speak of "faith" as a shorthand for religious affiliation or personal belief. I agree that calling non-Christian religions (or lack thereof) "faiths" is improper, since the importance of faith, or how it is constructed, is very different in non-Christian religions and non-Christian worldviews or practices.

Faith requires an object.

That object can be God, a man, an animal, a plant, oneself, or whatever.

That object is also an object of worship.

And despite the fact that atheists don't want to admit they don't worship anything, the Bible says otherwise.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

So if they say they don't worship anything, they're wrong; since the Bible says it, that settles it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Faith requires an object.

That object can be God, a man, an animal, a plant, oneself, or whatever.

That object is also an object of worship.

And despite the fact that atheists don't want to admit they don't worship anything, the Bible says otherwise.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

So if they say they don't worship anything, they're wrong; since the Bible says it, that settles it.

Romans 1 is speaking from a typical Jewish diatribe of pagans, people that worshiped many gods. Atheists lack a belief in God or gods, so the text cannot directly be applied to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Romans 1 is speaking from a typical Jewish diatribe of pagans, people that worshiped many gods. Atheists lack a belief in God or gods, so the text cannot directly be applied to them.

Then why does Paul say that worshiping God's creation, rather than God, can lead to evolutionism, which leads to atheism?

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Evolutionism teaches its adherents to profess themselves to be wise.

Namely, they profess themselves to be Homo sapiens, which means "wise men".

And this can and does lead to atheism.

Have you ever met someone who said, "I used to be a Christian, until I learned things about about us that didn't square with Creationism; and I asked my pastor some questions, and he told me to just accept it and don't ask questions"?

 

[Caliban]

Faith requires an object.

That object can be God, a man, an animal, a plant, oneself, or whatever.

That object is also an object of worship.

And despite the fact that atheists don't want to admit they don't worship anything, the Bible says otherwise.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

So if they say they don't worship anything, they're wrong; since the Bible says it, that settles it.

Simply saying an atheist has faith or worships does not make your statement true. Atheism is by definition non-theistic. If I say I am an atheist and do not believe an actual supernatural god exists or that I worship anything like a god--and you say that I actually do--well, you just are not listening. To do that is to close off your sense of injury and curiosity and to reject forethought. It is to place dogmatism over the human capacity for rationality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Simply saying an atheist has faith or worships does not make your statement true.

I didn't make the statement. God did -- in writing.

Atheism is by definition non-theistic.

I don't care what the definition is.

If I say I am an atheist and do not believe an actual supernatural god exists or that I worship anything like a god--and you say that I actually do--well, you just are not listening.

But what if I say a third party said it -- in writing?

To do that is to close off your sense of injury and curiosity and to reject forethought.

You're making it a two party conversation between two humans, and filtering God out of the picture.

And you know what? I'll bet you didn't even realize you did that.

After all, you work at a college, don't you?

It is to place dogmatism over the human capacity for rationality.

Is everything that speaks English a human to you?

 

[Caliban]

I didn't make the statement. God did -- in writing.

I don't believe in a god, so I don't read religious text the way you do.

I don't care what the definition is.

Then this isn't a conversation--just you taking shots.

You're making it a two party conversation between two humans, and filtering God out of the picture.

And you know what? I'll bet you didn't even realize you did that.

After all, you work at a college, don't you?

I very much realize that I don't think a third party is listening.

Is everything that speaks English a human to you?

What else would it be--a parrot?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then this isn't a conversation--just you taking shots.

Well, for the record, I agree with you that simply saying an atheist has faith or worship does not make my statement true.

Anyone can say that.

 

[muichimotsu]

Then why does Paul say that worshiping God's creation, rather than God, can lead to evolutionism, which leads to atheism?

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Evolutionism teaches its adherents to profess themselves to be wise.

Namely, they profess themselves to be Homo sapiens, which means "wise men".

And this can and does lead to atheism.

Have you ever met someone who said, "I used to be a Christian, until I learned things about about us that didn't square with Creationism; and I asked my pastor some questions, and he told me to just accept it and don't ask questions"?

No, I don't profess myself to be wise, because that's different than pointing out facts. Acknowledging that the facts can adjust with new evidence and investigation is wisdom, because wisdom is admitting you know nothing

There is no evolutionism, you made that up from your creationist ideology, but that's not shocking

That's a terrible conflation of the species name with actual meanings versus the metaphorical aspect in naming of species, but again, not surprising with a thoroughly literalist and fundamentalist idea about interpreting anything, including science that doesn't square with your presuppositions

 

[muichimotsu]

Well, for the record, I agree with you that simply saying an atheist has faith or worship does not make my statement true.

Anyone can say that.

But you haven't actually substantiated it without circular logic that not only assumes the Bible is true, but assumes literal interpretations of things not meant to be interpreted literally from a subject I don't think you have much more than cursory grasp of: science.