Apologetics...

kelly1

Hello all, how's it going, long time no post!

Just wondering how many of you Christians are interested in apologetics?

If so, I'd be interested to know what your favourite authors are and the arguments that appeal most to you.

1 Pet 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

I'm currently reading Finding Truth by Nancy Pearcey and it's a fantastic read.

The thesis is that man-made philosophies are effectively idols which we substitute for God and because they don't include God, they try to stuff the wholeness of human experience into a box into which it doesn't fit. Because the various 'isms' we encounter deny that we are created in the image and likeness of God, they end up diminishing the fullness of human dignity. And these incomplete worldviews filter down to the classroom, universities and the media. The book takes its direction from Romans 1:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.



God bless.

uck51js9zml2yt

I can never figure out why we need to apologise and for what

hinault

Never heard of the author prior to reading the OP.

Having read this http://www.nancypearcey.com/about.html, I won't be reading the author either.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

Never heard of the author prior to reading the OP.

Having read this http://www.nancypearcey.com/about.html, I won't be reading the author either.

You should open your mind a little. You might actually learn something.

kelly1

I thought my OP made it clear this thread is aimed at Christians, no?

Manach

keano_afc wrote: »

You should open your mind a little. You might actually learn something.

To paraphrase Chesterton, one of the finest apologists of the age, the problem with an open mind is just about anything can fly in.

kelly1

How can a closed mind change when faced with new evidence/arguments? A closed mind is a bit like this:

keano_afc

kelly1 wrote: »

How can a closed mind change when faced with new evidence/arguments? A closed mind is a bit like this:

I take it you're not familiar with hinault.

And welcome back, Noel.

hinault

kelly1 wrote: »

How can a closed mind change when faced with new evidence/arguments? A closed mind is a bit like this:

Having read the book, what "new evidence/arguments" does the author provide?
(as I won't be reading the book).

uck51js9zml2yt

kelly1 wrote: »

I thought my OP made it clear this thread is aimed at Christians, no?

We can't do that just like hinault can't have RCC only threads .

I feel like the book hinault will never read

1123heavy

The only Christians I've ever found interested in apologetics are born agains, and they seem to look like the devil has hit them whenever I tell them I'm Muslim!

uck51js9zml2yt

1123heavy wrote: »

The only Christians I've ever found interested in apologetics are born agains, and they seem to look like the devil has hit them whenever I tell them I'm Muslim!

The only type of Christian are the born again ones.
As for being Muslim....you're entitled to be wrong:D

1123heavy

Braydon Faint Bedroom wrote: »

The only type of Christian are the born again ones.
As for being Muslim....you're entitled to be wrong:D

Oh dear ... I come to this forum once in a blue moon ... off I go again :eek:

hinault

1123heavy wrote: »

The only Christians I've ever found interested in apologetics are born agains, and they seem to look like the devil has hit them whenever I tell them I'm Muslim!

They don't give apologetics a good reputation for sure, mostly because their "arguments" are very easily contradicted and disproved.:o

hinault

1123heavy wrote: »

Oh dear ... I come to this forum once in a blue moon ... off I go again :eek:

Ignore him.

1123heavy

hinault wrote: »

They don't give apologetics a good reputation for sure, mostly because their "arguments" are very easily contradicted and disproved.:o

That is correct. I watched one or two videos of Sam Shamoun on youtube, the guy is billed as one of the biggest things evangelicals have going. To me, the guy can't spew enough hatred fast enough. Other than that I was roared at more than once on O'Connell street after refusing to engage in a discussion (I hoped "no thanks I'm Muslim would do it, I was sorrily mistaken) ... let's just say enough to put me off whatever they believe for a very long time!

homer911

Personally I use this website from time to time: https://carm.org/
Given that they have a section on Roman Catholicism, you probably wont approve Noel. Nice to see you back though!

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Ignore him.

Hinaults an expert at that if you need any tips

As it happens, I've good friends in Portugal who are Muslim converts to Christianity.
There father is a leader in the local mosque which I've been to.
I've had many a meal with the family over the years.

kelly1

hinault wrote: »

Having read the book, what "new evidence/arguments" does the author provide?
(as I won't be reading the book).

I'm not claiming the book offers new arguments but I like the approach it takes. I.e. that anything we substitute for God is an idol and that includes the long list of isms. I'm only a third through the book but so far so good.

So for instance she discusses atheism/naturalism and argues how it's self-defeating and incoherent. Let's be honest about it, atheists have a tendency to brag about how rational they are and accuse believers of stupidity or of being delusional. But if as a naturalist/materialist you believe that the body/brain behave deterministically, then what is the basis for claiming a rational mind? Does any atheist claim the brain operates independently of the laws of physics?

On the other hand, in the Christian worldview, human beings are made in the image of God in the sense that they have the ability to reason, have intelligence and free will. The materialist view denies these things as being illusory.

The author claims the atheist worldview causes a cognitive dissonance. E.g. in his/her academic work, they claim free will is an illusion but their everyday experience tells them this is nonsense. These things that we understand intuitively are referred to the by the author as "General revelation". She claims atheists suppress these intuitions and thereby deny God and create for themselves an idol as a substitute for God.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

They don't give apologetics a good reputation for sure, mostly because their "arguments" are very easily contradicted and disproved...

With a swift, hinault-esque "Da Roman Church sayz it, Ah boleev it, dat settlez it"

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

But if as a naturalist/materialist you believe that the body/brain behave deterministically, then what is the basis for claiming a rational mind? Does any atheist claim the brain operates independently of the laws of physics?

I used to discuss with an atheist who was a nihilist. I found him the most honest of all, understanding, but still not accepting of the Christian position.

He had followed the logic of atheism to it's natural conclusion. It depressed him, but then, it ought to. That's what honesty brings.

antiskeptic

Braydon Faint Bedroom wrote: »

The only type of Christian are the born again ones.
As for being Muslim....you're entitled to be wrong:D

Abraham (and a whole host of other Old Testament characters) wasn't a Christian. He might have been born again. But he wasn't a Christian.

Can't a Muslim be born again?

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not claiming the book offers new arguments but I like the approach it takes. I.e. that anything we substitute for God is an idol and that includes the long list of isms.

Not exactly the way to get hinault on your side, that.

antiskeptic

homer911 wrote: »

Personally I use this website from time to time: https://carm.org/

Cor Blimey, I remember that place. The Calvinist vs. Arminian forum was a cess pit of the vilest vitriol. The A+A forum is a walk in the park in comparison.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

1 Pet 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect

I've often wondered about apologetics. This verse is the one frequently trotted out to justify the activity, but we know that a verse doesn't necessarily make for sound theology - especially when you get something like the RC church rolling out of "on this rock" or the multi-million industry which is apologetics.

We know that the lost are blind and simply cannot see. Yet reams are written aimed at arguing them into the kingdom with rational presentations.

Taking the word "reason" and stretching it to mean very intricately constructed logical, rational arguments, arguments that take books to accommodate them, strikes me as perhaps over reaching.

It might more simply involve a description of your before and your after encounter with Christ. Pointing to him and telling folk to go seek him, if they find a similar itch in themselves that nothing else they've tried will scratch.

I know we all do it, but I do wonder about the effectiveness of it.

hinault

hinault wrote:

Having read the book, what "new evidence/arguments" does the author provide?
(as I won't be reading the book).

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm only a third through the book but so far so good.

So for instance she discusses atheism/naturalism and argues how it's self-defeating and incoherent. Let's be honest about it, atheists have a tendency to brag about how rational they are and accuse believers of stupidity or of being delusional. But if as a naturalist/materialist you believe that the body/brain behave deterministically, then what is the basis for claiming a rational mind? Does any atheist claim the brain operates independently of the laws of physics?

On the other hand, in the Christian worldview, human beings are made in the image of God in the sense that they have the ability to reason, have intelligence and free will. The materialist view denies these things as being illusory.

The author claims the atheist worldview causes a cognitive dissonance. E.g. in his/her academic work, they claim free will is an illusion but their everyday experience tells them this is nonsense. These things that we understand intuitively are referred to the by the author as "General revelation". She claims atheists suppress these intuitions and thereby deny God and create for themselves an idol as a substitute for God.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure that I agree that there is "new evidence/argument" in what you say, contained in the book you cited.

Nearly a century ago, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical titled Mortalium Animos explaining why Atheism and Naturalism are false and dangerous.

Encyclical Haurietis Aquas by Pope Pius XII states

Christian morality today, as everyone knows, is easily contaminated by the sophistries of those who are indifferent to any form of religion, and who, discarding all distinctions between truth and falsehood, whether in thought or in practice, accept even the most ignoble corruptions of materialistic atheism, or as they call it, secularism.

Granted you've only read one third of the book.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've often wondered about apologetics....

The way I see it, some people don't want anything to do with God because they don't want some being/person/god meddling in their personal lives, putting restrictions on what they can and cannot do.

Then there are people who want to believe in God/Heaven/Life after death, but they can't believe for rational reasons. I suspect that in the majority of these cases, they have only heard one side of the argument. This is where I think apologetics is most useful.

kelly1

hinault wrote: »

I'm not sure that I agree that there is "new evidence/argument" in what you say, contained in the book you cited.

As I wrote earlier "I'm not claiming the book offers new arguments" ...

hinault

kelly1 wrote: »

How can a closed mind change when faced with new evidence/arguments? A closed mind is a bit like this:

kelly1 wrote: »

As I wrote earlier "I'm not claiming the book offers new arguments" ...

:rolleyes:

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abraham (and a whole host of other Old Testament characters) wasn't a Christian. He might have been born again. But he wasn't a Christian.

Can't a Muslim be born again?

Yes....But they don't remain Muslim.

The OT characters weren't born again but spoke of the day when men would get a new heart and a new spirit.

kelly1

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It was a general comment in response to Manach's post "the problem with an open mind is just about anything can fly in.", nothing to do with the book.

hinault

kelly1 wrote: »

It was a general comment in response to Manach's post "the problem with an open mind is just about anything can fly in.", nothing to do with the book.

In response to Manach? That's a good try.

You didn't bother to quote Manach when you posted your statement

kelly1

hinault wrote: »

In response to Manach? That's a good try.

You didn't bother to quote Manach when you posted your statement

A good try?? It's the truth! I think it reasonable to assume that if there's no quote, it's either a stand-alone comment or it's related to the post above it.

Btw, why won't you be reading Nancy Pearcey? What have you got against her?

antiskeptic

Braydon Faint Bedroom wrote: »

Yes....But they don't remain Muslim.

It might not be that clear cut. I'm absolutely sure about my destination. I know born again Christians who aren't. I don't hear that much from the Lord, my wife plenty.

I can suppose a person in a certain environment not having much by way of stimulation / info remaining in the faith of their childhood. Heck, aren't plenty of Roman Catholics born again yet adhere to a religion which isn't really all that far away from Islam in many ways (priesthood / works / religiousity)

The OT characters weren't born again but spoke of the day when men would get a new heart and a new spirit.

? Not born again? They displayed all the signs of being born again: eyes opened, alive to God, communing with God. Sure, they didn't have what we have by way of information about what has happened us (neither might a born again muslim), but not having the information about what's happened to you, doesn't mean it hasn't happened to you.

Are you supposing some other way of salvation?

hinault

kelly1 wrote: »

Btw, why won't you be reading Nancy Pearcey? What have you got against her?

The Church has a long and distinguished history in identifying and warning, far more quickly than society does, about movements such as Atheism and Secularism, instead.

I very much doubt that Ms.Pearcey, or any other author for that matter, will bring new or additional insights to these topics which the Church has already considered and pondered, and addressed, decades if not centuries ago.

You should take the time instead to read the papal encyclicals.

If you do take the time to read these documents, you will see that the Church has the insight and wisdom to identify and diagnose the cause of the errors which are the root of ideologies such as atheism, long before society does - and the same encyclicals provide the only solution as to how to challenge and defeat such ideologies.

All of this documentation is free of charge, and available on line so that the world can access and learn from the wisdom of the Church of Ages.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

You should take the time instead to read the papal encyclicals.

5. During Our Pontificate We too have frequently and with urgent insistence denounced the current trend to atheism which is alarmingly on the increase. In 1924 when Our relief-mission returned from the Soviet Union We condemned Communism in a special Allocution[3] which We addressed to the whole world. In our Encyclicals Miserentissimus Redemptor,[4] Quadragesimo Anno,[5] Caritate Christi,[6] Acerba Animi,[7] Dilectissima Nobis,[8] We raised a solemn protest against the persecutions unleashed in Russia, in Mexico and now in Spain. Our two Allocutions of last year, the first on the occasion of the opening of the International Catholic Press Exposition, and the second during Our audience to the Spanish refugees, along with Our message of last Christmas, have evoked a world-wide echo which is not yet spent. In fact, the most persistent enemies of the Church, who from Moscow are directing the struggle against Christian civilization, themselves bear witness, by their unceasing attacks in word and act, that even to this hour the Papacy has continued faithfully to protect the sanctuary of the Christian religion, and that it has called public attention to the perils of Communism more frequently and more effectively than any other public authority on earth.

I'm not being facetious here hinault, I mean, I fall asleep trying to wade through Numbers- but this is fairly turgid stuff.

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

It might not be that clear cut. I'm absolutely sure about my destination. I know born again Christians who aren't. I don't hear that much from the Lord, my wife plenty.

I can suppose a person in a certain environment not having much by way of stimulation / info remaining in the faith of their childhood. Heck, aren't plenty of Roman Catholics born again yet adhere to a religion which isn't really all that far away from Islam in many ways (priesthood / works / religiousity)



? Not born again? They displayed all the signs of being born again: eyes opened, alive to God, communing with God. Sure, they didn't have what we have by way of information about what has happened us (neither might a born again muslim), but not having the information about what's happened to you, doesn't mean it hasn't happened to you.

Are you supposing some other way of salvation?

If they had been born again, Jesus needn't have died!
As for Muslims remaining Muslim. Do you honestly think a person having had a revelation of God can continue worshipping demons?

1123heavy

Braydon Faint Bedroom wrote: »

Do you honestly think a person having had a revelation of God can continue worshipping demons?

Excuse me I take great offense to that. I won't be clogging the thread up here but if you believe Islam is a demon worshiping religion then head over to the Islamic forum, start a thread and I'll be more than happy to prove you very wrong.

Peregrinus

Tat, you can't write this sort of stuff:

Braydon Faint Bedroom wrote: »

I'm always open to debate but being antagonistic for the sake of it serves no purpose.
That said, it has become predominantly an RC forum with said RC's belittling those of us who aren't at every turn.
I've just given up on the forum, even my local PP treats me with more respect at school board meetings than the RC's who are on this forum with an agenda.

. . . and then write this sort of stuff:

Braydon Faint Bedroom wrote: »

As for Muslims remaining Muslim. Do you honestly think a person having had a revelation of God can continue worshipping demons?

. . . and expect not to be accused of hypocrisy. And hypocrisy in a Christian is not a good look.

I'm not a mod, but even I'm aware that the forum charter forbids bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism with respect to all creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own. You know perfectly well that your characterisation of Islam wouldn't be accepted by Muslims or Jews, or indeed by the great majority of Christians. Muslims worship the same God that Christians and Jews do; you know this. And you shouldn't write about Islam in terms that you yourself wouldn't accept as respectful if used about Christianity.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Peregrinus is right, insulting/ antagonistic comments to other peoples beliefs isn't on. This includes comments directed at non-Christians.

Also, it would be appreciated if people could stop refering to other Christians as heretics.

The same applies to a number of posts where people are getting personal with other posters.

Please try to show a modicum of respect and tolerance to your fellow posters.

Thanks for your attention.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

The Catholic Church has a long and distinguished history in identifying and warning, far more quickly than society does, about movements such as Atheism and Secularism, instead.

I very much doubt that Ms.Pearcey, or any other author for that matter, will bring new or additional insights to these topics which the Catholic Church has already considered and pondered, and addressed, decades if not centuries ago.

You should take the time instead to read the papal encyclicals.

If you do take the time to read these documents, you will see that the Catholic Church has the insight and wisdom to identify and diagnose the cause of the errors which are the root of ideologies such as atheism, long before society does - and the same encyclicals provide the only solution as to how to challenge and defeat such ideologies.

All of this documentation is free of charge, and available on line so that the world can access and learn from the wisdom of the Church of Ages.

Thought I'd add the relevant words for you. Doesnt make you right but at least gives those who dont know you and insight into where you are coming from.

keano_afc

kelly1 wrote: »

A good try?? It's the truth! I think it reasonable to assume that if there's no quote, it's either a stand-alone comment or it's related to the post above it.

Btw, why won't you be reading Nancy Pearcey? What have you got against her?

She's not RC, so in hinault's closed mind she cant possibly be right.

kelly1

keano_afc wrote: »

She's not RC, so in hinault's closed mind she cant possibly be right.

I'm Catholic too, but I like to get different perspectives on things.

hinault

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm Catholic too, but I like to get different perspectives on things.

You don't require a different perspective in that case.

kelly1

hinault wrote: »

You don't require a different perspective in that case.

Seriously, that is so closed-minded. When it comes to matters of doctrine, maybe. But you really think non-catholics can offer no insights into theology/faith?

keano_afc

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously, that is so closed-minded. When it comes to matters of doctrine, maybe. But you really think non-catholics can offer no insights into theology/faith?

Got it in one.

uck51js9zml2yt

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously, that is so closed-minded. When it comes to matters of doctrine, maybe. But you really think non-catholics can offer no insights into theology/faith?

Jumps up and down in excitement at answering that question!:D


In short "NO". Hinault thinks everyone else is a heretic and that Vatican 2 is wrong and the current pope..well..... isnt really a Pope:eek:

In fact, I dont really understand why he is even wasting his time on boards with all us heretics having made our presence felt

hinault

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously, that is so closed-minded. When it comes to matters of doctrine, maybe. But you really think non-catholics can offer no insights into theology/faith?

The full truth subsists only within the Catholic Church. If you are Catholic, you'd acknowledge this statement as true.

I'm not saying that other systems of belief do not contain some traces of truth.

Some other belief systems do contain certain elements of truth for sure. But those same belief systems contain elements which are definitely not truthful too, to varying degrees.

As I said to you earlier, before the rest of humanity has identified concepts such as Atheism and Secularism, the Church had already identified these concepts and had identified and communicated to the world the only way to address and vanquish these concepts.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

The full truth subsists only within the Catholic Church. If you are Catholic, you'd acknowledge this statement as true.

I'm not saying that other systems of belief do not contain some traces of truth.

Some other belief systems do contain certain elements of truth for sure. But those same belief systems contain elements which are definitely not truthful too, to varying degrees.

As I said to you earlier, before the rest of humanity has identified concepts such as Atheism and Secularism, the Church had already identified these concepts and had identified and communicated to the world the only way to address and vanquish these concepts.

John 14:6.

Jesus Christ is the truth, and he existed long before the church of Rome.

kelly1

hinault wrote: »

The full truth subsists only within the Catholic Church. If you are Catholic, you'd acknowledge this statement as true.

I accept that. But please don't tell me I should only read Church approved documents/books.

hinault

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm Catholic too, but I like to get different perspectives on things.

hinault wrote: »

You don't require a different perspective in that case.

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously, that is so closed-minded. When it comes to matters of doctrine, maybe. But you really think non-catholics can offer no insights into theology/faith?

hinault wrote:

The full truth subsists only within the Catholic Church. If you are Catholic, you'd acknowledge this statement as true.

I'm not saying that other systems of belief do not contain some traces of truth.

Some other belief systems do contain certain elements of truth for sure. But those same belief systems contain elements which are definitely not truthful too, to varying degrees.

As I said to you earlier, before the rest of humanity has identified concepts such as Atheism and Secularism, the Church had already identified these concepts and had identified and communicated to the world the only way to address and vanquish these concepts.

kelly1 wrote: »

I accept that. But please don't tell me I should only read Church approved documents/books.

You're entirely free to read whatever literature you wish.

However if it is the truth that you seek, there is only one source for truth and that one source subsists in the Catholic Church.