Testing The Christian Apologists

You see it in the microcosm of right-wing politics. What you're missing is that more workers produce more, so there's more to go around.I've only ever had one job where seniority counted for anything and that was only an extra week of vacation. Employers should recognize that older workers bring experience, reliabilty, etc. to make up for slowing down, etc. but I don't see any reason to give preference to seniority for its own sake.

Which has nothing to with third worlds people getting better lives fucks up yours does it?
Third worlders and you can have better lives. It is the billionaires at fault not poor people.
You still have no concept of what socialism is or what socialist policies are.
You still haven't shown how poor people getting a better life make's yours worse. Your whole response was a jumble of words and no coherent idea or argument.
I don't give a rat's ass about what ringo said.

You are probably right. I have not entirely thought it through. I'm just wondering how socialism will fair with the global corporate oligarchy and with the wealthy in general? If they hypothetically own/control 90+% of the global wealth, how will that wealth ever get distributed to the free-willed masses who would choose socialism?

To prevent my topic from drifting off course, let's get back to it. (Myself included)So far, I have listened to or researched the following apologists:
1)Norman Geisler (deceased)
2) Frank Turek
3)Josh McDowell
4)Sean McDowell
5)Ravi Zacharias
6)Nebeel Quereshi (deceased)
7)Vince Vitale
8)John Lennox
9)(Secular Humanist) Bart Campolo, whose father is an evangelist Tony Campolo.I have seen no evidence that apologists lie. I have seen that they do take parts of scripture to support other parts of scripture. I now continue to study more of them. And yes, ringo and jar, I do read the bible byut I dont critically examine it as you do. I need to believe in a living and active God, rather than merely some character in a book.

quote:

---

I have seen no evidence that apologists lie

---

You certainly saw evidence of dishonesty. Why not admit that?

If by that you mean liberally interpreting scripture to support other scripture and dogma, I don't classify that as dishonest. I feel that a good many believers actually justify that methodology. You must remember that we believe that all scripture is inspired by God to begin with. If we don't call each other on it, (which we would do if it truly was dishonest) then we give no weight to the argument from the unbiased critical thinkers. You or others may charge me with giving scripture a special pass, and for that I plead guilty.Many of us got saved before we knew much scripture. The initial feeling of inner change from that experience gave us the belief to elevate scripture above other writing. If that is dishonest, may God judge us.

quote:

---

If by that you mean liberally interpreting scripture to support other scripture and dogma, I don't classify that as dishonest.

---

Do you mean outright inventing things ? Because I don’t think liberal interpretation goes that far. Message 13. And if it does it can’t be considered honest.But confusing the roles of origin of morality and enforcer of justice isn’t even that. Message 4. Nor is using weasel wording to try work around the Constitution (same message)And I’d add.

quote:

---

You must remember that we believe that all scripture is inspired by God to begin with. If we don't call each other on it, (which we would do if it truly was dishonest) then we give no weight to the argument from the unbiased critical thinkers.

---

You (in general) don’t. Even if it is truly dishonest

And that's dishonest. It's putting the conclusion before the argument.

Its not dishonest if you were a believer. The conclusion does haopen before the argument (of scripture) We dont "get saved" through brainwashing. The scripture then becomes alive. Living and active...sharper than a sword etc.

Classic utter nonsense strung together as though it had any meaning at all.If the Conclusion precedes the evidence then it is just nonsense.

Then how can you say you are a believer?

By acknowledging that my belief is unreasonable, illogical, irrational and unsupported. The difference is I do not twist what is actually written to try to support my beliefs.The Apologists on the other hand do twist what is actually written and even simply lie about what is actually written to try to support their beliefs.

If I had such a belief, I likely would recant under threat of death. Granted few Christians believe strongly enough to never renounce Christ no matter the penalty. That's because everyone knows the basic story. Granted you and ringo quote what is written, but your story and conclusion differs from the vast majority of believers. Either I am to believe that most Christians simply accept the story and do not care to hear alternate versions, which is true in my case, or that the majority of Christians are dishonest and believing a fantasy, which I do not think to be the case. I can agree that the story is illogical and in some ways fanciful. I don't accept a story that limits the characters to those in a book and products of the mythos. I will not accept that humans cannot count on God and yet are expected to believe in Him. If the vast majority thinks as I do, critics can charge us of being dishonest (to reality) and believing a fantasy sold by conmen. I do not believe this to be the case.I think that in your case, you would prefer a story involving no promises, personal responsibility only, and judgment similar to your prep school honor system. You don't like the idea of a God who wipes away our sin and our responsibility. Which is why you always argued for reparations and I dismissed them. We believe what we want to be true. You may argue that you just take yours from the book, but I cannot believe that the majority of Christians missed what you apparently learned. The bottom line is that you and ringo both take evidence over belief. I do not. I think that society is being lied to by the adversary.

Again, you are just misrepresenting what I have ever said.My conclusion (and I believe also ringo's conclusion) is that what is written is what is actually written. So as you point out, anyone who comes to a different conclusion is either not being honest or is willfully embracing fantasy over reality. Yes, yes you do. You create the God you worship and the Bible you follow to fit what you want to be true.Edited by jar, : hit submit not preview

Honesty does not depend on whether you're a believer or not. If you believe something contrary to the evidence, you're being dishonest with yourself. ANY time the conclusion comes before the argument, it is ALWAYS dishonest. You have no business drawing a conclusion before looking at the argument(s). You don't get "saved" at all until the judgement. And what you are saved from is God. How can you claim the scripture is "alive" to you when you reject what it says? Since when does something have to be mangled to be alive?