Should Christians Abandon Apologetics?

[FireDragon76]

Theistic in the revealed religion sense, sure, but not necessarily theism at large, because some would just say it's an ineffable transcendent reality that we can only get pieces of and often through what amounts to natural theology and not divine revelation (deism, etc)

And then there's Hinduism, Oomoto, Cao Dai, etc., which all have notions of God but don't fit in with western monotheism, which are very similar to what you are talking about. They generally don't claim to have an exclusive revelation.

 

[muichimotsu]

And then there's Hinduism, Oomoto, Cao Dai, etc., which all have notions of God but don't fit in with western monotheism, which are very similar to what you are talking about. They generally don't claim to have an exclusive revelation.

Even revelation as the basis becomes an epistemological stumbling block, because interpretation is going to be subjective and based on presumptions about how the supernatural works (demons supposedly tricking Muhammad, because Islam is different from Christianity in the important angles, even though they were fairly friendly early on)

 

[FireDragon76]

Even revelation as the basis becomes an epistemological stumbling block, because interpretation is going to be subjective and based on presumptions about how the supernatural works (demons supposedly tricking Muhammad, because Islam is different from Christianity in the important angles, even though they were fairly friendly early on)

But with a religion like Oomoto, which is not exclusivistic, they don't get that obsessed about interpretation of revelation. It's understood that religious sentiments and the transformation that religion offers is more important than what deity you worship.

Oomoto basically has a singular ethic - don't cause problems for others and help other people. According to Oomoto, that is God's commandment for humanity, and that makes alot more sense to me than saying God cares about what kind of clothes we wear or what church we go to or what we believe about God.

They also have some unique ideas about God that are distinct from Abrahamic monotheism. God and creation have interdependence, which is more like Whitehead's Process Thought.

 

[Silmarien]

I wouldn't call my axioms assumptions so much as something that's cogent in the same way of the logical principles of non contradiction, identity, etc. The idea that we can just feel something as true seems far more the line of thought with theistic worldviews, atheism and related nontheistic ideas are more skeptical and that's hardly a quandary unless you're setting out to undermine it because it actually brings deeply held beliefs into question.

I wouldn't say that the idea that supernatural beliefs come from pattern seeking is an axiom in any meaningful sense, but it's definitely a modern claim that comes up often enough. You'd need to defend it with arguments, primarily from psychology, and then people would argue against you, and we would go around and around in circles forever. Which I find kind of boring, though perhaps one of the resident Aristotelians will engage you if you're so inclined.

As for the idea that we feel something as true, I never mentioned that at all, though given the power of the argument from divine hiddenness, I would disagree that atheists do not argue that they feel that atheism is true.

Also, if your belief in a god is based in logic, isn't that sort of reducing that god in scope to something that's not nearly so transcendent and reliant primarily on faith in the first place?

Oh, yes. I wouldn't say that God is wholely transcendent or reliant primarily upon faith, though I suppose the former depends on how you're defining "transcendent." My thought is mostly the Platonic side of Thomism with a helping of Duns Scotus, and then a touch of Hegel and a ton of French existentialism just to keep people on their feet.

 

[FireDragon76]

I wouldn't say that the idea that supernatural beliefs come from pattern seeking is an axiom in any meaningful sense, but it's definitely a modern claim that comes up often enough.

That's not exactly what I believe, even if it's probably popular among most skeptics. I believe supernatural beliefs can represent something real, but filtered through human culture and limited understanding.

Oh, yes. I wouldn't say that God is wholely transcendent or reliant primarily upon faith, though I suppose the former depends on how you're defining "transcendent." My thought is mostly the Platonic side of Thomism with a helping of Duns Scotus, and then a touch of Hegel and a ton of French existentialism just to keep people on their feet.

As a Christian I became more and more convinced the idea of transcendence, as usually articulated, was flawed. The Quakers seemed to have a better understanding of what is meant by "God".

 

[muichimotsu]

I wouldn't say that the idea that supernatural beliefs come from pattern seeking is an axiom in any meaningful sense, but it's definitely a modern claim that comes up often enough. You'd need to defend it with arguments, primarily from psychology, and then people would argue against you, and we would go around and around in circles forever. Which I find kind of boring, though perhaps one of the resident Aristotelians will engage you if you're so inclined.

As for the idea that we feel something as true, I never mentioned that at all, though given the power of the argument from divine hiddenness, I would disagree that atheists do not argue that they feel that atheism is true.



Oh, yes. I wouldn't say that God is wholely transcendent or reliant primarily upon faith, though I suppose the former depends on how you're defining "transcendent." My thought is mostly the Platonic side of Thomism with a helping of Duns Scotus, and then a touch of Hegel and a ton of French existentialism just to keep people on their feet.

Something being modern doesn't undermine its validity in the slightest

And people can argue against it, but they'd most likely be making fallacies like special pleading, goalpost shifting and arguments from ignorance rather than much substantive evidence

~~~~~

The problem is, atheism isn't a positive claim, it's a response to theist claims and doesn't necessitate making an assertion yourself, you're merely not convinced by theistic claims

~~~~

Seems like God might as well be the incoherent concept ignosticism and the like observe makes the discussion a rabbit hole

 

[Silmarien]

That's not exactly what I believe, even if it's probably popular among most skeptics. I believe supernatural beliefs can represent something real, but filtered through human culture and limited understanding.

Yeah, I know you're not a naturalist. I think you're probably right about this to a certain extent, though I'm more optimistic about our ability to know things.

Something being modern doesn't undermine its validity in the slightest

Never said it did. Just that there is a sort of modernist worldview, and one of its tenets is the rejection of the idea of intrinsic meaning and order. That has consequences, and Christians need to be aware of them.

And people can argue against it, but they'd most likely be making fallacies like special pleading, goalpost shifting and arguments from ignorance rather than much substantive evidence

If you say so. I think we have good reason to believe that causality is real and not the result of pattern seeking on our part, and that's all you really need for supernaturalism.

The problem is, atheism isn't a positive claim, it's a response to theist claims and doesn't necessitate making an assertion yourself, you're merely not convinced by theistic claims

I play by the rules of the field of philosophy of religion, where atheism is in fact a positive claim and atheists do feel the need to make assertions and arguments.

To what degree atheists on the ground are aware of those arguments is, of course, an open question, but I've seen a fair amount of interest in the problem of divine hiddenness before. It's obviously an issue for many people.

Seems like God might as well be the incoherent concept ignosticism and the like observe makes the discussion a rabbit hole

Nice assertion. Not really sure what it's referring to, though. There was no discussion of a concept going on at all.

 

[muichimotsu]

Never said it did. Just that there is a sort of modernist worldview, and one of its tenets is the rejection of the idea of intrinsic meaning and order. That has consequences, and Christians need to be aware of them.



If you say so. I think we have good reason to believe that causality is real and not the result of pattern seeking on our part, and that's all you really need for supernaturalism.



I play by the rules of the field of philosophy of religion, where atheism is in fact a positive claim and atheists do feel the need to make assertions and arguments.

To what degree atheists on the ground are aware of those arguments is, of course, an open question, but I've seen a fair amount of interest in the problem of divine hiddenness before. It's obviously an issue for many people.



Nice assertion. Not really sure what it's referring to, though. There was no discussion of a concept going on at all.

Intrinsic meaning is not the same as meaning from an external source; in fact I'd say the contrary: I have intrinsic meaning as a person because I seek to survive and make my mark, but that doesn't mean I'm egocentric either, because I recognize others also having meaning and value as ends rather than means

~~~~

No, merely seeing patterns is the first step, it's not the source of the conclusion that somehow there's agency behind things or the like, that's anthropocentric presumption based on anthropic principle and fallacies that ascribe such intent based on an inability to explain otherwise

Anyone can see patterns, it's properly discerning when those patterns have meaning that can be studied meaningfully that makes it scientific rather than paranoid schizophrenia and delusions

~~~~~

Methinks you're confusing nuances between atheism that have existed in thought for several decades, but so much of this is based on particular uses of the word that have gained traction amongst theists to characterize atheists as making assertions of fact rather than observing the epistemological flaws and logical fallacies in the supposed evidence and arguments for the existence of the god they believe in.

As I brought up in a different post: I don't claim God is innocent as opposed to guilty, but that God is not guilty of existing. It's not an assertion, and even if it is in some nominal sense, it's hardly in the vein of necessitating a burden of proof, because it's not a claim making any remotely absolute statement in the first place, versus the existence of an unfalsifiable entity called "God

~~~~~

If the concept of God is what Christians believe in with particular aspects to it, it's part of the discussion and thus is pertinent in bringing up the coherence of said concept or lack thereof.

 

[Silmarien]

Intrinsic meaning is not the same as meaning from an external source; in fact I'd say the contrary: I have intrinsic meaning as a person because I seek to survive and make my mark, but that doesn't mean I'm egocentric either, because I recognize others also having meaning and value as ends rather than means

Not really what I was talking about.

No, merely seeing patterns is the first step, it's not the source of the conclusion that somehow there's agency behind things or the like, that's anthropocentric presumption based on anthropic principle and fallacies that ascribe such intent based on an inability to explain otherwise

Anyone can see patterns, it's properly discerning when those patterns have meaning that can be studied meaningfully that makes it scientific rather than paranoid schizophrenia and delusions

Also not really what I had in mind. If you think that supernatural ideas like the existence of child stealing fairies are based on pattern seeking, you might be right. Metaphysical rather than mythological forms of supernaturalism are much trickier since they're based on first principles, so if you're going to toss them under the category of pattern seeking, you're cutting off your own feet.

Maybe you don't do this, but it's something I've seen before.

Methinks you're confusing nuances between atheism that have existed in thought for several decades, but so much of this is based on particular uses of the word that have gained traction amongst theists to characterize atheists as making assertions of fact rather than observing the epistemological flaws and logical fallacies in the supposed evidence and arguments for the existence of the god they believe in.

No, I'm not confused. I have a background in philosophy, and thus use the word the way that philosophers use it, theistic and atheistic alike. A different definition seems to be used outside of academia, which is fine. You're welcome to use whatever definition you wish, but the fact that you're going off on a long tangent about the word "atheism" because I mentioned the argument from divine hiddenness is bizarre.

As I brought up in a different post: I don't claim God is innocent as opposed to guilty, but that God is not guilty of existing. It's not an assertion, and even if it is in some nominal sense, it's hardly in the vein of necessitating a burden of proof, because it's not a claim making any remotely absolute statement in the first place, versus the existence of an unfalsifiable entity called "God

I don't care. I never said you were making any claims at all, and I never said you had a burden of proof. I did say that I have spoken to atheists who do consider the argument from divine hiddenness, which is true.

If you do not want to make a claim, you do not have to. I would rather not get entrenched in an argument that is literally about nothing, though.

If the concept of God is what Christians believe in with particular aspects to it, it's part of the discussion and thus is pertinent in bringing up the coherence of said concept or lack thereof.

Part of what discussion? The discussion was whether Christians ought to engage in apologetics or not, not whether or not God is a coherent concept. I don't care if you think theism is coherent or not, but the fact that you're making assertions about it without any prompting, despite not being in a discussion about God concepts at all, is very strange.

I am going to bow out of this conversation, because 1) it's late, 2) I'm busy tomorrow, and 3) I have no idea what we're suddenly arguing over or why.

 

[muichimotsu]

Not really what I was talking about.



Also not really what I had in mind. If you think that supernatural ideas like the existence of child stealing fairies are based on pattern seeking, you might be right. Metaphysical rather than mythological forms of supernaturalism are much trickier since they're based on first principles, so if you're going to toss them under the category of pattern seeking, you're cutting off your own feet.

Maybe you don't do this, but it's something I've seen before.



No, I'm not confused. I have a background in philosophy, and thus use the word the way that philosophers use it, theistic and atheistic alike. A different definition seems to be used outside of academia, which is fine. You're welcome to use whatever definition you wish, but the fact that you're going off on a long tangent about the word "atheism" because I mentioned the argument from divine hiddenness is bizarre.



I don't care. I never said you were making any claims at all, and I never said you had a burden of proof. I did say that I have spoken to atheists who do consider the argument from divine hiddenness, which is true.

If you do not want to make a claim, you do not have to. I would rather not get entrenched in an argument that is literally about nothing, though.



Part of what discussion? The discussion was whether Christians ought to engage in apologetics or not, not whether or not God is a coherent concept. I don't care if you think theism is coherent or not, but the fact that you're making assertions about it without any prompting, despite not being in a discussion about God concepts at all, is very strange.

I am going to bow out of this conversation, because 1) it's late, 2) I'm busy tomorrow, and 3) I have no idea what we're suddenly arguing over or why.

Meaning and purpose can be distinct, fine, but I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that because there's some trend in intellectual philosophy that says this, that it must be applicable to a general group

~~~~~

Metaphysical claims based on supposed first principles gets into question begging among other fallacies, because one has preconceptions that they wish to justify as rational instead of acknowledging that their own bias may be pushing them into trying to claim an absolute, universal, or other abstract and unfalsifiable claim that tends to be referred to as God, among other terms. The pattern seeking is just one thing that can lead to the fallacious thinking, it can also be appeals to personal credulity, etc.

~~~~~

A prescriptivist idea of semantics doesn't help the discussion, insisting on one usage in a dialogue from 2 sides only reinforces that you're not willing to acknowledge a descriptivist framework where words are not defined so inflexibly. I wasn't responding to the divine hiddenness, but a mischaracterization of atheism based on supposed accepted nomenclature in an esoteric grouping of philosophers of notoriety. It's not just agreeing to disagree, you're insisting on one meaning and claiming the other meaning is wrong without justification beyond appealing to authority

~~~~~

Is the argument about nothing when you're claiming a priority on one definition of atheism and seemingly dismissing alternatives out of turn because they don't fit a particular method of discussion you're used to?

~~~~

If God is an incoherent concept, then it follows logically you have no basis to make a defense of the indefensible, so it's a core foundational issue I'd say is being avoided because otherwise you'd have to consider that you might be wrong and that'd damage deeply held beliefs and worldviews

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've gleaned enough to get some idea, but I certainly am not making any broad brush statements. I'm not assuming malice from your engagement, I'd rather not violate Hanlon's razor

Perhaps my tone is iffy on that and I haven't conveyed properly that I'm not intending to dismiss you, but point out that there's a necessary gulf here in terms of what could be phrased as presuppositions, but probably better understood as worldview axioms

That's a good question, but I've actually come to see that apologetics in the New Testament, in contradistinction to how it is defined today in a handful of way by various evangelicals, wasn't so much about persuading other people about some specific proposition (or multiples thereof) than it was predominantly about defending one's faith in the face of social and legal prosecution (as a form of persecution).

Being that for the longest time, Christians in the U.S. have enjoyed legal hegemony, I'm kind of thinking (via my education in Social Science) that the certain kinds of evangelical notions have been mixed into various forms of apologetic praxis, with the result being that overall Christian witness suffers from having been formulated without the 'heat' of being a minority view.

Interestingly enough, it has come to my attention that I may have misread and slightly misapplied a small bit of Scripture, and this has come about because of a couple of fuller realizations, part of which got sucked into the vortex of the Hermeneutical Circle that I have constantly whirling around in my own praxis: 1) the same piece of Scripture was misused by Julie Rays in the OP podcast in this thread; she specifically referred to it at the beginning and at the end of her podcast to sandwich contents of the discussion, and 2) I felt I had to do some further hermeneutical study via not only Penner but a few additional evangelical scholars and refigured the way in which I, too, have been associating the context of the same bit of Scripture and the way in which I had been understanding its meaning.

The question becomes one I would ask in regards to apologetic attempts in general, "Why should I take your conclusion seriously even if it happens to be true even in part, such as God existing?" The impact in terms of meaning, purpose, etc, is almost as important as the evidential and logical arguments you can make for something being real.

Y'know, when I first came onto CF years ago, my main goal was to be helpful to others and attempt to help them explore the Christian faith, with a sense of compassion for their pain and struggles. But I see I've kind of fallen off the horse over the past year or so as I've tangled with various pushy skeptics and allowed the political Marxist style vitriol to infect my own more moderate disposition.

And thanks for the tip on Hanlon. Interesting.

 

[muichimotsu]

That's a good question, but I've actually come to see that apologetics in the New Testament, in contradistinction to how it is defined today in a handful of way by various evangelicals, wasn't so much about persuading other people about some specific proposition (or multiples thereof) than it was predominantly about defending one's faith in the face of social and legal prosecution (as a form of persecution).




Being that for the longest time, Christians in the U.S. have enjoyed legal hegemony, I'm kind of thinking (via my education in Social Science) that the certain kinds of evangelical notions have been mixed into various forms of apologetic praxis, with the result being that overall Christian witness suffers from having been formulated without the 'heat' of being a minority view.

Interestingly enough, it has come to my attention that I may have misread and slightly misapplied a small bit of Scripture, and this has come about because of a couple of fuller realizations, part of which got sucked into the vortex of the Hermeneutical Circle that I have constantly whirling around in my own praxis: 1) Julie Rays's use of that same piece of Scripture was misused by her in the OP podcast, and she used it at the beginning and the end to sandwich the podcast contents, and 2) I felt I had to do some further hermeneutical study via not only Penner but a few additional evangelical scholars and refigured the way in which I, too, have been associating the context of the same bit of Scripture and the way in which I had been understanding its meaning.

Y'know, when I first came onto CF years ago, my main goal was to be helpful to others and attempt to help them explore the Christian faith, with a sense of compassion for their pain and struggles. But I see I've kind of fallen off the horse over the past year or so as I've tangled with various pushy skeptics and allowed the political Marxist style vitriol to infect my own more moderate disposition.

And thanks for the tip on Hanlon. Interesting.

Which would make NT apologetics far more in line with the etymology and at least something less evangelistic in nature (even with JEsus' commission to the disciples and such)

Oh, Christians still manufacture the narrative that they're persecuted because they're not good enough Christians with being exclusivist, triumphalist, etc. Like predicting end times, same groups, different epochs

Rhetoric is something of a trap in general, I've found, because it's, from what I understand, being convincing, not focused on the logic necessarily. And that leads you to make fallacies under the pretense of putting forward reasonable arguments, but not rational arguments necessarily, more about victory and wit than substantive logic and rigor


There's so many razors I forget most of them: same with the laws, like Clarke's laws, such as sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which would make NT apologetics far more in line with the etymology and at least something less evangelistic in nature (even with JEsus' commission to the disciples and such)

Oh, Christians still manufacture the narrative that they're persecuted because they're not good enough Christians with being exclusivist, triumphalist, etc. Like predicting end times, same groups, different epochs

Sure. I agree, which is why I don't define myself or associate myself with any one particular strain of Christianity; I associate myself Existentially with all of them, with the caveat that in my own praxis, I do so by always attempting to evaluate and identify both what is 'good' within each tradition and what is bad or mistaken. It's also why I don't identify myself politically as either Republican or Democrat, or even Independent. I'm Purple, plain but not simple.

Rhetoric is something of a trap in general, I've found, because it's, from what I understand, being convincing, not focused on the logic necessarily. And that leads you to make fallacies under the pretense of putting forward reasonable arguments, but not rational arguments necessarily, more about victory and wit than substantive logic and rigor

I guess it's a good thing that I always remain open to investigating additional details of an issue, usually by studying the thoughts of an assortment of more educated, even Christian, minds. It's probably also a good thing that when I read the 'warfare' passages in the New Testament, I don't interpret them as applying to some form of political winning ............................ but rather to the Christian endeavor of keeping one's self unspotted by the sin of the world.

There's so many razors I forget most of them: same with the laws, like Clarke's laws, such as sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic

Oh, yeah. I've heard about that one, and, believe it or not, it kind of plays into how I've come to interpret those nasty numerical bits in the book of Revelation.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What kinds of things 'count' as evidence for you? For me, the main evidence is both the Sacred Library and the fact that I see the patterns of sin and evil widely spread out in the world just as it seems Jesus and His prophets and apostles said it would be. For me, that's where the evidence is.

ok, thanks. I don't know what evidence would convince me. Like I don't know specifically what would convince me to believe in Bigfoot. When I started to study evolution I had no idea what the evidence was that would convince me. When I studied I found evidence that did convince me.

Your evidence above does not convince me either. What about the Sacred Library convinces you. Jesus saying that there is evil in the world and will continue to be is unconvincing as well.

 

[muichimotsu]

Sure. I agree, which is why I don't define myself or associate myself with any one particular strain of Christianity; I associate myself Existentially with all of them, with the caveat that in my own praxis, I do so by always attempting to evaluate and identify both what is 'good' within each tradition and what is bad or mistaken. It's also why I don't identify myself politically as either Republican or Democrat, or even Independent. I'm Purple, plain but not simple.

I guess it's a good thing that I always remain open to investigating additional details of an issue, usually by studying the thoughts of an assortment of more educated, even Christian, minds. It's probably also a good thing that when I read the 'warfare' passages in the New Testament, I don't interpret them as applying to some form of political winning ............................ but rather to the Christian endeavor of keeping one's self unspotted by the sin of the world.

Oh, yeah. I've heard about that one, and, believe it or not, it kind of plays into how I've come to interpret those nasty numerical bits in the book of Revelation.

I mean, Revelation's one of the more contentious in the eschatology department, not sure how anyone keeps them straight

 

[2PhiloVoid]

ok, thanks. I don't know what evidence would convince me. Like I don't know specifically what would convince me to believe in Bigfoot. When I started to study evolution I had no idea what the evidence was that would convince me. When I studied I found evidence that did convince me.

Your evidence above does not convince me either. What about the Sacred Library convinces you. Jesus saying that there is evil in the world and will continue to be is unconvincing as well.

Ok. That's a fair. Part of the complication with engaging the Christian Faith is that the epistemology involved in its social and spiritual makeup wasn't meant to comport with either Ancient Grecian or Enlightenment principles of autonomy and/or of certainty, both politically and logically speaking.

Being that each of us can only evaluate some Christian idea or proposition through the totality of our own emotions, needs and whatever present perceptions we have about the nature and applicability of various academic fields of thought, we're each bound to have our feeling of motivation colored over when we attempt to conceptually engage with Christianity.

For those like yourself who may be more mathematically inclined and structure seeking, and who have strong formal regimentation in your personal praxis, it's probably should come as no surprise that your academic strength of mind can become an Achilles Heel when looking at and evaluating Jesus. It's not your fault that you want solid results in the here and now, it's just how your present thought patterns are arranged due to your intensive education and life experiences. I suppose this can be especially the case when a person, such as yourself, has ardently trained and worked within the field of military technology.

Ultimately, however, the core question comes down to: What do you feel is your present motivation for engaging Christianity? To learn about it, or to subdue it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean, Revelation's one of the more contentious in the eschatology department, not sure how anyone keeps them straight

Despite the overconfidence that some evangelical Christians express as they attempt to explicate the book of Revelation, I'm not sure it was given to us to 'figure out' in some kind of comprehensive and systematic way, as if it were a complete and factory sealed puzzle one might buy off the shelf at the store. Unfortunately, it gets handled, interpreted and even 'sold' that way.

And what this means is that I don't make any claims to know what the whole book means; the only thing I can say is that some of the central bits seem, to me, to be at least partially discernible. But, I could always be dead wrong. I've been wrong before, which is why I like to always keep researching and studying, and I do so with a little honest-to-God prayer mixed into my inquiries since, like many, I need to feel like I've got some kind of answer, even if it's a negative one, for why life is often so d@#* complicated.

 

[muichimotsu]

I mean, Revelations reads to me not unlike Ezekiel, at least from what I've heard on Ezekiel's bizarre imagery and such (so much of the OT can supposedly be interpreted without correlation to any Christian interpretations, so it becomes a whole other rabbit hole of whether Christians are reasonable in their heuristic that concludes Jewish prophecies apply to their Christian eschatology, etc)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean, Revelations reads to me not unlike Ezekiel, at least from what I've heard on Ezekiel's bizarre imagery and such (so much of the OT can supposedly be interpreted without correlation to any Christian interpretations, so it becomes a whole other rabbit hole of whether Christians are reasonable in their heuristic that concludes Jewish prophecies apply to their Christian eschatology, etc)

I think everyone is often all over the place where interpretation is concerned, which is part of why I like the field of Philosophical Hermeneutics as an 'additive' to my ongoing philosophical engagement with the Christian faith. It plays a part in how I engage any field, not just that of the Bible, and it curtails how I perceive the boundaries and contours of Christian Apologetics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean, Revelations reads to me not unlike Ezekiel, at least from what I've heard on Ezekiel's bizarre imagery and such (so much of the OT can supposedly be interpreted without correlation to any Christian interpretations, so it becomes a whole other rabbit hole of whether Christians are reasonable in their heuristic that concludes Jewish prophecies apply to their Christian eschatology, etc)

As an addendum to what I've shared above, I want to make sure that in talking about Christian Apologetics, I don't come across as merely saying that Christian apocalyptic literature is the all-in-all for my own Weltanschauung. No, it's just one aspect of it. On a more general, encompassing level, particularly where defining my own epistemological and axiological approach to the Christian Faith is concerned, my favorite conceptual place to be is represented in another couple of apologetics threads that are floating about in this forum.