What should Christian apologists say?

muichimotsu said:

Harshness is not unwarranted when someone can reasonably comprehend it without perceiving it as an insult.

Click to expand...

That's compulsive relativism.
Or is that too harsh?

muichimotsu said:

Phrasing is where the nuance comes in, but there's also a natural limitation in conveying the purest feelings in an online post, no matter how articulate you may be.

Click to expand...

It's easy to talk about nuance when the flames have cooled, but harder to find in the furnace:

muichimotsu said:

...I was picking apart the crap you spew...

Click to expand...

muichimotsu said:

And your arguments are so great? They've been found wanting at every turn: twisting things to fit your preconceived notions is not new apologetics, it's the common strategy in general, because you can't countenance a world where your meaning might have to involve some actual work

Click to expand...

Chris B said:

I actually prefer printed text. I don't have to process it in real-time and it comes (for me) stripped of unnecessary and distracting side-band signals: tone, volume, accent... and even more on video or real face-to-face communication.

Click to expand...

Expediency in one way doesn't follow to overall efficiency in comprehension and communication of message, intent, etc.

Hieronymus said:

I think the Bible scares the hell out of most people.
Just look at how they try to dismiss it.

Click to expand...

Because fear is totally the best motivator for change, right? *sarcasm*

zippy2006 said:

It's easy to talk about nuance when the flames have cooled, but harder to find in the furnace:

Click to expand...

Did I claim perfect objectivity? No. Then don't make a strawman and then tear it down with quote mining. I'm harsh because that's how I get my point across when people are so stubborn they can't get outside of their comfort zone and consider that truth is more about reality than mere sentiment, harsh as the former may be on your psyche

muichimotsu said:

Because fear is totally the best motivator for change, right? *sarcasm*

Click to expand...

In the short term, fear can be a potent motivator. In the long haul, constant fear reeks psychological havoc on the individual.

Hieronymus said:

That's compulsive relativism.
Or is that too harsh?

Click to expand...

I'd say too blunt, to be frank

Methinks you're misusing relativism here, since it's one of the more nebulous terms in philosophy as a whole. I'd call this perspectivism. Sure, there are those that would immediately see it as bad, but that's because of particular upbringing, experiences, etc. Relativism in the sense people use often suggests that everything is purely equal and there is no objectivity, which isn't what I'm saying at all.

Hieronymus said:

No, that's an agnostic.

Click to expand...

Agnostic and atheist aren't polar opposites, they're usually characterized best as different parts of a perspective on belief in God, same as gnosticism and theism, even if Gnosticism with a capital g can be distinguished from gnosticism in the same way agnosticism in the Huxleyan sense can be distinguished from later developments and considerations.

In short, agnosticism/gnosticism is one's epistemological assessment of the knowability of "God", while atheism/theism is merely the belief in the metaphysical existence of such an entity, provisional as it may be in both cases.

Hieronymus said:

For which you need more apologetics, to make a case for its credibility which establishes the Christian faith.
This is not too hard.
The hard part is getting people to listen and keep them listening despite their cognitive dissonance...
Then they can weigh the evidence, verify etcetera..

Click to expand...

Ah, projection is so beautifully ironic to see in those who think they're purely objective and have the absolute truth.

Are you claiming there is no cognitive dissonance in monotheism? Atheists and the like aren't perfect but one could say they tend to have a bit more perspective in critical thought and seeing where they could possibly err.

muichimotsu said:

Expediency in one way doesn't follow to overall efficiency in comprehension and communication of message, intent, etc.

Click to expand...

It does for some of us.
That people vary in their preferred mix of modalities just add to the complexity.
Though the default assumption that "other people are pretty much like me" works most of the time if you happen to be within the local mainstream of thought and custom.

Me, I have a marked preference to single-channel processing. Not multi-mode, multi-media.
What makes message boards and text chat rooms feel bare and artificial for many is what makes them nicely clean and uncluttered for me.

Best place to have a voice conversation is in the dark, but it's rare that other people find that comfortable.

Let's be fair: I don't think people like to do much of anything in the dark besides sex

muichimotsu said:

Let's be fair: I don't think people like to do much of anything in the dark besides sex

Click to expand...

I isn't... people?

muichimotsu said:

Agnostic and atheist aren't polar opposites.

Click to expand...

I know.
But they're not the same either.

Hieronymus said:

I think the Bible scares the hell out of most people.

Click to expand...

Why would it be scary if you do not think it comports with reality?

Just look at how they try to dismiss it.

Click to expand...

I would make no effort to dismiss it if it were not for the religionists in our government and education systems, and those that have access to my children, promoting their beliefs as fact.

Hieronymus said:

I know.
But they're not the same either.

Click to expand...

And they are not mutually exclusive.

Hieronymus said:

Yes, but then how do you show the Bible is accurate?
You'll need extra-Biblical evidence to show the Bible is accurate and credible.
So you need apologetics, based on evidence and preferably facts.

Click to expand...

..........and you identify yourself as a Christian??? Whoa..........

Winken said:

..........and you identify yourself as a Christian??? Whoa..........

Click to expand...

What's that supposed to mean, 'brother'?
Is it not written that we should seek truth, test and investigate everything?
Should we not have reason to believe?
And to teach others?

Hieronymus said:

I think the Bible scares the hell out of most people.
Just look at how they try to dismiss it.

Click to expand...

It's what I don't dismiss that scares me.
Especially those verses and passages you don't tend to get sermons on.

Chris B said:

It's what I don't dismiss that scares me.
Especially those verses and passages you don't tend to get sermons on.

Click to expand...

I think most of us have problems with that..

I wonder what makes you decide what should be dismissed or not.

Hieronymus said:

I think most of us have problems with that..

I wonder what makes you decide what should be dismissed or not.

Click to expand...

Ah, one of the bigger questions.
I've had to chase that widdershins round the village pond a good few times, and through a few art galleries as well.

If one instantly and fully sits under the authority of any text declaring itself as of divine origin and thus superior to human logic and wisdom, then one is irrevocably caught by the first one encountered, whichever and whatever it is.
Not good, (but obviously "right" to anyone who has been. Faith, placed as the very first step, appears to be a disaster in terms of being able to discriminate)
If one takes the position that one is able to bring critical assessment and judgement to a text asserting super-human levels of truth, so as to correctly choose between rival claims, then an awful lot hangs on the criteria and methodology being employed at the level of the human mind.
"It is right because it is the one held to be true by my family/local society" remains popular world wide, and that often at a subconscious level,
"This matches most how I think and feel..." A little more sophisticated, perhaps, but laoded with assumptions about the validity and correctness of one's current thinking. If it's that good, what's the point of a holy text at all.
Revealing here might be how the individual handles parts of the text which are not so intuitively appealing.

It could follow from an act of judgement that a particular text is right in what it asserts, that it was time to accept the consequences of that claim and sit under it, even for the passages not liked. The "not liking" etc. would then be taken to be markers of where one's human mind was in error and needed realignment to match the text's perspective.
So coming under the text's authority as a act of surrender of the right to judge.
That first (human) judgement that this was correct behaviour had better have been right, though, because a lock-out for doubt and critical questioning has been arrived at.

It's not simple. Even usually reliable rules such as "internal inconsistency is proof of error" are not perfect in the context of a claim to higher than human knowledge, wisdom and logic.