Trusting apologists

drich0150 · Mar 30, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
1.)a.) Let's assume that Christianity is actually the one true religion.

religion is not the right word as that word usally has to do with a specific rule set. Christianity is the path.

1.)b.) Therefore, Judaism was the one true religion before Christianity was formed.

judaism was a narrow rule set religion.

1.)c.) Christianity formed after Jesus was crucified.

"the way started with Christ/John the baptist."

2.) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted most Jewish religious leaders.

he showed their hyprocrisy and corruption.

3.) If Jesus distrusted most religious leaders, then they were untrustworthy.

Jesus did not mistrust them because they were religious leaders. in fact there were a few who came to jesus and he taught them. Nicodemus and Joseph of arimathea was also to be said to be a religious leader.
Jesus mistrusted individuals for their specific actions.

4.) ???

5.) We can trust most or all modern Christian apologists.

you look at their words and deeds. by their fruit will you know them.

I'm guessing that the popular plug for this hole is something along the lines of, "The Holy Spirit was given to the church in the Book of Acts and this was sufficient to fundamentally change human behavior at the church leadership level."

An obvious problem is that precisely 100% of the Catholic hierarchy either is a pedophile, or prefers to protect pedophiles instead of children, or is willing to remain with an institution which does this.

the RC church is not the church of the bible. The supposed father of the RC church is peter. Pete's church was one directed at the jews forcing gentiles to be circumcised become a full jew first then christian. His church was the church at jerusalem which was destroyed by rome. Peter contribution to the bible is his time in the gospel and 3 books. Paul is the one who wrote the book of Romans who long to go to rome and he is the one who set up a church there. it is his books and practices we follow not peters. If the legacy of the RC church is peter then this is not the church described in the bible. Peter's church was again jewish based and vastly different.

Catholics will point out that the percentage of pedophile priests is roughly equivalent the percentage of pedophiles among the world population, as though that somehow absolves them from engaging in a worldwide coverup conspiracy. They'll also point out that Protestants rape children with roughly the same regularity, but their disorganization makes it difficult to track how much rape occurs. There is merit to this, as the Boy Scouts/Cub Scouts/Girl Scouts are essentially a Protestant organization (atheists are explicitly prohibited from becoming scout leaders) and they are going bankrupt because they have raped so many children.

again not all churches have this problem.

Now, it might be said that I am engaging in an ad hominem attack here. No amount of child rape would render apologetics invalid. However, it does render the proposed Christian response above invalid, where I suggested that they might say, "The Holy Spirit was given to the church in the Book of Acts and this was sufficient to fundamentally change human behavior at the church leadership level."

Even if we ignore all the coverups, we're still left with the same percentage of child rape as we would expect among the world population. This indicates that the Holy Spirit has no effect on church leadership, at least with regards to this issue. But I suspect I'm not the only one who would find it disturbing for the Holy Spirit to influence church leadership on various issues while totally ignoring child rape.

I hope we can now reject the assertion that the Holy Spirit is influencing church leadership. We're now back at square one. How do we bridge the gap in my syllogism above? If Jesus distrusted religious leaders in his day, and if the Holy Spirit is insufficient to make them trustworthy today, then for what reason should unbelievers listen to apologists?

again you can reject the holy Spirit's influence if and only if you are familiar with the holy Spirit. Instead of trying to find where the holy Spirit is not why not try and find where it is...

Nihilist Virus · Mar 30, 2020

Amittai said:
NV, I was so glad you have started this and that some are collaborating. To my mind, you are right in your interpretation of our best stance. Leaders or authorities shouldn't be pulling a fast one over on us or pushing us around. We have to engage with the issues and analyse in all possible ways and then some. Most people in society don't use intuition enough, which is actually logic based (see Gary Klein). Most religion is neurotic relationship which is beyond tragic. I've only just reached some of these insights at age 65. Your OP was a classic help.

Christian discernment has got to be based on honest prayer and thinking around the meaning of ALL Scriptures at once in their intended context. Mutual influence among informed Holy Spirit filled christians is vital. Evidence of God is mainly in individual human lives. I'm not an evangeliser so I can't say what comes first for you and at the moment this thread is for examining how apologetics works.

Huge ills arose:

- dumbing down and despising of learning
- sentimentality and mania

Most christians have been told lies about some complementary issues:

- prior and subsequent works
- saved, entering into the Kingdom of God

There were certain details Jesus deliberately didn't pin down.

When the time comes for you to make a move all the aspects of the thing will speak to all your faculties at once. You are so right in staying safe !!!

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by all of this.

Nihilist Virus · Mar 30, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
@Nihilist Virus , sorry if somebody already mentioned this, but ideally an apologetics argument ought to fail or succeed independent of the trustworthiness of the person presenting the argument.

Ideally, yes. But if you're in a discussion with someone who is dishonest, how can you trust what they have to say when they discuss a topic that is beyond your expertise?

Nihilist Virus · Mar 30, 2020

com7fy8 said:
I doubt God would personally guide me to trust a predator with my child.

Why? What have you actually seen in reality to cause you to lean in this direction?

Also... do you not feel the slightest bit dirty saying that parents are to blame when the church rapes children? I get it... I've proposed "hard truths" and there is no amount of bitterness to a statement that actually makes it false. But still, some things should be bitter. Does it not taste bitter in your mouth to say these things?

Nihilist Virus · Mar 30, 2020

drich0150 said:
religion is not the right word as that word usally has to do with a specific rule set. Christianity is the path.
judaism was a narrow rule set religion.
"the way started with Christ/John the baptist."
he showed their hyprocrisy and corruption.
Jesus did not mistrust them because they were religious leaders. in fact there were a few who came to jesus and he taught them. Nicodemus and Joseph of arimathea was also to be said to be a religious leader.
Jesus mistrusted individuals for their specific actions.

4.) ???
you look at their words and deeds. by their fruit will you know them.

the RC church is not the church of the bible. The supposed father of the RC church is peter. Pete's church was one directed at the jews forcing gentiles to be circumcised become a full jew first then christian. His church was the church at jerusalem which was destroyed by rome. Peter contribution to the bible is his time in the gospel and 3 books. Paul is the one who wrote the book of Romans who long to go to rome and he is the one who set up a church there. it is his books and practices we follow not peters. If the legacy of the RC church is peter then this is not the church described in the bible. Peter's church was again jewish based and vastly different.
again not all churches have this problem.

again you can reject the holy Spirit's influence if and only if you are familiar with the holy Spirit. Instead of trying to find where the holy Spirit is not why not try and find where it is...

I would do Christianity a great disservice if I were to talk to you about it and accept you as one of its emissaries.

cloudyday2 · Mar 30, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
Ideally, yes. But if you're in a discussion with someone who is dishonest, how can you trust what they have to say when they discuss a topic that is beyond your expertise?

There are other reasons to doubt an expert besides dishonesty. The expert might not know as much as he/she claims. Even if the expert is truly an expert, there is a possibility that he/she hasn't bothered to think or research the particular topic under discussion. There is so much to know in every field of knowledge that even experts cannot know everything.

Also a person can be dishonest about some things while being honest about other things. A priest who molests children might understandably keep that fact secret, but the same priest might be fully sincere in defending the faith through apologetics.

Rather than hoping for a sincere Christian apologist, the better approach might be to find a skeptic with comparable expertise to the apologist.

zippy2006 · Mar 30, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
1.)a.) Let's assume that Christianity is actually the one true religion.

1.)b.) Therefore, Judaism was the one true religion before Christianity was formed.

1.)c.) Christianity formed after Jesus was crucified.

2.) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted most Jewish religious leaders.

3.) If Jesus distrusted most religious leaders, then they were untrustworthy.

4.) ???

5.) We can trust most or all modern Christian apologists.

Your implicit inference is that most religious leaders are untrustworthy or most religious leaders of the "one true religion" are untrustworthy. An implicit premise is that apologists are religious leaders. I'd say your inference is invalid and your premise is false. Further, I don't see the relevance of 5. Apologists are not inherently trustworthy, and the focus should be rather on their arguments. Perhaps 5 would make more sense if we are talking about religious leaders.

It seems to me that 3 & 4 represent the human condition generally more than the specific condition of religious leaders, and this is exacerbated in the presence of the Righteous One:

"Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected" (Wisdom 2).

An obvious problem is that precisely 100% of the Catholic hierarchy either is a pedophile, or prefers to protect pedophiles instead of children, or is willing to remain with an institution which does this.

The rest of your post is an argument that the Catholic hierarchy is untrustworthy. That strikes me as sound, or at least valid, but it isn't generalizable to all ages.

Nihilist Virus said:
Now, it might be said that I am engaging in an ad hominem attack here. No amount of child rape would render apologetics invalid.

Jesus himself makes a similar distinction, "So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matthew 23:3).

Nihilist Virus · Mar 30, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
There are other reasons to doubt an expert besides dishonesty. The expert might not know as much as he/she claims. Even if the expert is truly an expert, there is a possibility that he/she hasn't bothered to think or research the particular topic under discussion. There is so much to know in every field of knowledge that even experts cannot know everything.

Also a person can be dishonest about some things while being honest about other things. A priest who molests children might understandably keep that fact secret, but the same priest might be fully sincere in defending the faith through apologetics.

Rather than hoping for a sincere Christian apologist, the better approach might be to find a skeptic with comparable expertise to the apologist.

Another thing that irked me was what I recall the late Dr. Chuck Missler doing. He would basically introduce himself with his PhD, which he did indeed have from a legitimate institution, and then he would go on to talk about biology or quantum mechanics or something else unrelated to his PhD in engineering. Except he wouldn't say his PhD was in engineering. So when you hear him basically say, "Hi, I'm Dr. Chuck Missler and I'm going to talk about quantum physics" then he's definitely being deceptive, even if he is not explicitly lying.

Jok · Mar 30, 2020

Jesus scolded the flawed religious leaders for honoring their traditions more than the scriptures. It’s not like the truth was lost, or was in the hands of the flawed Jewish leadership. But rather through the intertestamental period the rabbis interpreted the scriptures, then later rabbis had interpretations of those interpretations. Before you knew it these interpretations of interpretations of interpretations were more important to the Jewish leaders than the actual scriptures. That’s why Jesus scolded them for caring more about their traditions than the actual scriptures.

No different than today. I can show you 100 untrustworthy Christian hypocrites. But it doesn’t mean that the truth vanished from existence. The scriptures are still there.

Amittai · Mar 31, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
Why? What have you actually seen in reality to cause you to lean in this direction?

Also... do you not feel the slightest bit dirty saying that parents are to blame when the church rapes children? I get it... I've proposed "hard truths" and there is no amount of bitterness to a statement that actually makes it false. But still, some things should be bitter. Does it not taste bitter in your mouth to say these things?

That's a bum note from Comfy because of the shallow idea of "guidance". Comfy has no taste. You are right that bitterness makes false.

This is why I keep telling you to stay safe.

Amittai · Mar 31, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
I would do Christianity a great disservice if I were to talk to you about it and accept you as one of its emissaries.

Rich, your last para is a bum para because 1) NV is critiquing the apologetics that has come from churchy people who don't know how God works in human lives and this kind of propaganda isn't shedding any light on the issue, but confirming you as a sample of christian as more blind unsuited to lead "considerably less" blind 2) Holy Spirit has to be illustrated in person

It's up to NV whether he wants to be evangelised, we need to do without facile evasions.

Most of God's work is in human individuals and I don't see much individuality in christians.

Amittai · Mar 31, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by all of this.

It's been remarked most christians weren't given a normal birth (born again) due to deficient doctrine hence the result is the deficient reasoning and behaviour you have with huge honesty encountered and highlighted.

Throw in dumbing down and sentimentality. It's beyond sickening.

com7fy8 · Mar 31, 2020

com7fy8 said:
I doubt God would personally guide me to trust a predator with my child.

Nihilist Virus said:
Why? What have you actually seen in reality to cause you to lean in this direction?

God has us relating as family. So, for one thing, He does not have us isolating our children with people we don't even know. But we do things as family. But we love our children; so we feed them our example, of how we share and communicate. So, we keep our children where they can have good example, in how we care for them >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

We have our best people with our children, in church, so our children get the best possible example. We do not blindly depend on people who are educated but unproven, who might show up as even total strangers. God makes us able to know how to care for our children; so He is not guiding us to leave our children with ones we don't even really know.

So, from this I see it is reasonable that God our Heavenly Father is not going to have us leave a child in isolation with someone we don't even know and who has no sort of accountability and understanding with us.

Therefore, from this I can see it is confirmed that while God is guiding us without us knowing things, He will guide us according to what He does know. And the question could go likewise to you > what reality has you believing you would not guide one of your children to trust a predator with your child's child???? I hope you would not guide your own child to trust a child to a predator; so if you wouldn't, how come you can have question that God wouldn't???? God is certainly better than you are!

Also > would you stand aside and allow one or your children to do trial and error to find out your child's child was being trusted to a predator who you full well knew was a predator? If you suppose "God" would leave "His" child to such trial and error, I offer you have God and Satan mixed up.

2PhiloVoid · Mar 31, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
Another thing that irked me was what I recall the late Dr. Chuck Missler doing. He would basically introduce himself with his PhD, which he did indeed have from a legitimate institution, and then he would go on to talk about biology or quantum mechanics or something else unrelated to his PhD in engineering. Except he wouldn't say his PhD was in engineering. So when you hear him basically say, "Hi, I'm Dr. Chuck Missler and I'm going to talk about quantum physics" then he's definitely being deceptive, even if he is not explicitly lying.

Hi, I'm 2PV, and I'm going to talk about .... the Bible, and that's no lie!

2PhiloVoid · Mar 31, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
There are other reasons to doubt an expert besides dishonesty. The expert might not know as much as he/she claims. Even if the expert is truly an expert, there is a possibility that he/she hasn't bothered to think or research the particular topic under discussion. There is so much to know in every field of knowledge that even experts cannot know everything.

Also a person can be dishonest about some things while being honest about other things. A priest who molests children might understandably keep that fact secret, but the same priest might be fully sincere in defending the faith through apologetics.

Rather than hoping for a sincere Christian apologist, the better approach might be to find a skeptic with comparable expertise to the apologist.

Well, maybe you guys need to do yourselves a favor and stop assuming (and implying) that every apologetic Tom, Rick, and Jerry is a pedophile. This trope, this 'tag line' is getting a little old now. Quite old, in fact.

I mean, how do we Christians know that some of you skeptics don't have some kind of shady backgrounds yourselves, and that you show up here with some kind of jaded attitudes because you're sitting in some cell block somewhere, or under house arrest, or in some other sad situation, and thereby spouting your 'God failed me' slurry all over the forums?

But see here, I don't assume this about any of you guys. And I'd appreciate at least a little consideration in return. Honestly, I've been up front about my own sins and failures as a human being here on CF and I have no way of knowing if any of my own interlocutors here on CF are being as forthcoming as I attempt to be.

As for people who are in the Christian ministry [or maybe secularists as well] and have done dastardly things, well, I think Jesus told us it would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and they be tossed into the sea......or something like that, right? I'll just second that motion.

Nihilist Virus · Mar 31, 2020

Jok said:
Jesus scolded the flawed religious leaders for honoring their traditions more than the scriptures. It’s not like the truth was lost, or was in the hands of the flawed Jewish leadership. But rather through the intertestamental period the rabbis interpreted the scriptures, then later rabbis had interpretations of those interpretations. Before you knew it these interpretations of interpretations of interpretations were more important to the Jewish leaders than the actual scriptures. That’s why Jesus scolded them for caring more about their traditions than the actual scriptures.

No different than today. I can show you 100 untrustworthy Christian hypocrites. But it doesn’t mean that the truth vanished from existence. The scriptures are still there.

The truth of the Christian religion was given as an initial assumption, and yet it seems like your entire post was driving towards that conclusion.

Jok · Mar 31, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
The truth of the Christian religion was given as an initial assumption, and yet it seems like your entire post was driving towards that conclusion.

I could have made the exact same post if I thought Christianity was false. The OP is claiming that if a belief system is infiltrated and dominated by untrustworthy leaders then the original belief system is lost, or voided, or at least that’s how I understood the OP. That can be true for some things, but it’s not true for the scriptures.

drich0150 · Apr 1, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
I would do Christianity a great disservice if I were to talk to you about it and accept you as one of its emissaries.

is this just an empty ad hom zinger or do you have legit reasons?

Nihilist Virus · Apr 1, 2020

zippy2006 said:
Your implicit inference is that most religious leaders are untrustworthy or most religious leaders of the "one true religion" are untrustworthy. An implicit premise is that apologists are religious leaders. I'd say your inference is invalid and your premise is false.

Because...?

Further, I don't see the relevance of 5. Apologists are not inherently trustworthy, and the focus should be rather on their arguments. Perhaps 5 would make more sense if we are talking about religious leaders.

But if an apologist takes the discussion to a topic that I'm not familiar with, what do I do? Do I trust that his information is accurate? Or does the conversation simply end because I can't verify his claims?

It seems to me that 3 & 4 represent the human condition generally more than the specific condition of religious leaders, and this is exacerbated in the presence of the Righteous One:

"Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected" (Wisdom 2).

The rest of your post is an argument that the Catholic hierarchy is untrustworthy. That strikes me as sound, or at least valid, but it isn't generalizable to all ages.

Jesus himself makes a similar distinction, "So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matthew 23:3).

So basically we're more or less in agreement, then?

Nihilist Virus · Apr 1, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Well, maybe you guys need to do yourselves a favor and stop assuming (and implying) that every apologetic Tom, Rick, and Jerry is a pedophile. This trope, this 'tag line' is getting a little old now. Quite old, in fact.

This is not addressed to me but since you say this trope is getting old, allow me to clarify that I stated "precisely 100% of the Catholic hierarchy either is a pedophile, or prefers to protect pedophiles instead of children, or is willing to remain with an institution which does this."

I mean, how do we Christians know that some of you skeptics don't have some kind of shady backgrounds yourselves, and that you show up here with some kind of jaded attitudes because you're sitting in some cell block somewhere, or under house arrest, or in some other sad situation, and thereby spouting your 'God failed me' slurry all over the forums?

In the olden days it was taken as a given that priests were "better" than the rest of us laymen. Now, it seems, the reverse is true.

Atheists are of course not perfect, but I reckon you'd trust your kids being safe at an atheist hangout over a Catholic-run youth ministry.

But see here, I don't assume this about any of you guys. And I'd appreciate at least a little consideration in return. Honestly, I've been up front about my own sins and failures as a human being here on CF and I have no way of knowing if any of my own interlocutors here on CF are being as forthcoming as I attempt to be.

I've never assumed you to be anything other than a law-abiding citizen. I'm simply saying that it is a matter of established fact that everyone in the Catholic hierarchy is involved in the rape scandal or is willing to accept paychecks from the institution.

As for people who are in the Christian ministry [or maybe secularists as well] and have done dastardly things, well, I think Jesus told us it would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and they be tossed into the sea......or something like that, right? I'll just second that motion.

Yes, Jesus did say that. Unfortunately, I don't see any truth in that.

Trusting apologists

Regular Member

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Generic Theist

Dragonsworn

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

baggage apostate

baggage apostate

baggage apostate

Well-Known Member

Critically Copernican

Critically Copernican

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency