Testing The Christian Apologists

But we do have evidence. "By their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:16-20)
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)Where's your meekness?

Meekness is the spirit of submission to God.
\
I don't claim to have any of those fruits of the Spirit to any great degree but I do know by your challenge that what you think meekness is isn't meekness. Moses was the meekest man ever on earth scripture says and yet he led the whole people of Israel. So what made him meek? His spirit of submission to God. He followed God's will, not his own. I don't do that nearly enough but I do ask God about all kinds of things in my life all the time. I wish I did it more because He'd save me from some messes I get myself into when I don't do it enough.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I read the article from Wiki on Motivated Reasoning

quote:

---

Social science research suggests that reasoning away contradictions is psychologically easier than revising feelings. As previously discussed, emotions are shown to color how "facts" are perceived. Feelings come first, and evidence is used in the service of those feelings. Evidence that supports what is already believed, is accepted. Evidence which contradicts those beliefs is not.[19]

---

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I know that when any evidence is presented which refute my beliefs, I will and do often ignore it, justifying that the demons have somne powerful weapons to sway the minds on this planet. My belief, in fact, is valued (in conjunction with my feelings) as stronger than any possible evidence.I'll never win any arguments here at EvC to begin with. You people are frustratingly unbiased towards God. I honestly don't think this will turn out well for any of us.Even if God did not exist, I would have to create Him in my mind in order to survive another day. I don't think I need to worry about doing so, believing that He indeed does exist. I will honestly admit that I prefer the explanations of the Apologists and believers. Thus I concede the argument over the Christian Apologists, knowing that I will never win. If God Himself was undeniably proven NOT to exist, and if Jesus was simply another Spanish surname, I would be a very disappointed and disillusioned man. At times, I think I would rather throw myself on a grenade to protect other soldiers, but I worry that my side does not have many soldiers left. It is admittedly depressing to contemplate. Belief is very important to me.Merry Christmas EvC.

For us that have no belief, everything will turn out fine. It is you believers that spend all your time worrying about things your beliefs tell you that you have no control over. Sounds like you are the one with the issue.

No information, arguments or evidence was presented in defense of the Christian Apologists.Mene mene tekel upharsin

Dust is physical. Ribs are physical. Trees are physical. Food is physical. Feuding with snakes is physical. Pain in childbirth is physical. Sweating to grow food is physical. If there was anything in Genesis 2-3 pointing to "spiritual" death, it should have been easy to point it out. Nobody did.

Sticking to the subject of apologetics seems to have been too hard so as often happens the thread is more about the usual Christian-nonChristian arguments, whether there could have been a talking snake for instance.Apologetics within the traditional Christian context is nothing other than the attempt to spell out the theological implications of the biblical truths, and this accusation that the apologists are a bunch of liars is just so far outside the traditional context there's no point in taking it seriously. I don't even know how we'd argue it. The apologist is trying to address the traditional understanding of the Bible. The objectors tend to deny the traditional understandings of the Bible so that's what the discussion is really about in the end.Just one other thing: different views of the Bible or any other source of religious teaching can have their own apologetics, such as Catholic apologetics for instance, in which they use the Bible to defend the Catholic system of interpretation against traditional Protestantism. The different apologetic contexts could also be discussed but that didn't happen on this thread which was about the traditional Protestant viewpoint.But I was in the middle of a discussion with Tangle when this Summary came up, and I'd like to finish that here too: Not if God really is the author of the Bible. You can arrive at that assessment objectively from studying the claims of religions in general, as I did, or by considering the internal consistency of the Bible that transcends the individual minds of those who put it into writing as I also did. That's an objective assessment that leads many to conclude that the Bible is God's own Word or revelation to us. Yes it's arrived at objectively. Of course it is. And that leads to faith in its revelation and once you have that you continue thinking objectively about it. Critically too in terms of assessing different views of it and different theologies derived from it. There is no cessation of critical objective thinking.Then faith really does lead one to knowledge that can't be had any other way because you accept the revelations of the Bible and followe them out. Denying them will of course just cut off that kind of knowledge. Studying the Bible IN FAITH reveals things about reality we would otherwise not know and once we know the Bible is actual revelation of such truths then it leads us to further truths. If you deny all this of course, or any of it, you'll never learn any of these things, these revelations of spiritual matters beyond our senses. Science is all about the physical world and has absolutely nothing to say about spiritual reality. You can think objectively and critically within either context. Not so if you have a reliable source of information about it to start with, which I claim the Bible gives us (and no other source), as I say above. Once you have such a reliable source of knowledge of things spiritual and divine then you can think objectively and critically about it and about the various apologetics based on it. We'd have to get into some detail about what you mean here for me to have an opinion about the truth of it.

Apologetics is simply arguing in favour of a predetermined position. When that position is clearly false, honesty has to take a back seat.It is notable that the apologists examined frequently failed the test, even though in-depth discussion was avoided.Cases where I caught an apologist being less than honest may be seen in Message 4, Message 13, Message 256 (although the last is deceptive bluster rather than outright fabrication)Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

No information was uncovered that showed any indication that the apologist--any of them---were lying or dishonest either. And I see no evidence that your supposed plain reading of the Bible is in any way emulated by very many people. The ones whom do stick to it have no belief or bias anyway. I am unconvinced that the meaning of the text is as you suggest.We likely will never see eye to eye on that either.You cant have it both ways. You can't claim that the Bible is simply a human invention and then turn around and say that those of us who ascribe to it are interpreting it wrong. An unbeliever and/or critical thinker can never tell a believer what they *should* believe. And if you call us dishonest for having a different interpretation, you need to explain why this book that you yourself say was written, edited, and redacted by humans is supposed to be what we need to follow. We follow the Spirit of God and the inerrant meaning...not what any guy off the street can read and claim meaning without having a belief to begin with.

What does the text actually say Phat.If you believe the text means something other than what it actually says then you are creating the Bible in YOUR image.But that is what Apologists do; create God and the Bible in their image.Again Phat, what is actually written in the story?"

And when it is true, as the Bible is, then apologists have their work cut out for them as their job is to show its consistency and draw out all the implications of a divine work.

And in the case of the Bible to make shit up to explain away the errors, falsehoods and contradictions as well as to try to make it seem like there was some common theme.

Well there is a common theme, it all works together in amazing ways to build one complete continuous revelation. Most of the errors are easily enough reconciled but a few human errors doesn't interfere with the overall divine nature of the work anyway.

quote:

---

And when it is true, as the Bible is, then apologists have their work cut out for them as their job is to show its consistency and draw out all the implications of a divine work.

---

Well, there can be additional lying to make the Bible fit their ideas of what it should be - but that is beyond apologetics.And really, insisting that the Bible is true when you can’t or won’t address the obvious inconsistencies is hardly honest.

quote:

---

No information was uncovered that showed any indication that the apologist--any of them---were lying or dishonest either

---

That’s just not true, Phat. And I’ve already corrected you on this earlier in the thread. I’ve pointed out more than one example myself.As I posted recently: