Apologetics: A Meaningless exercise

from JoeUser Forums

I am definitely what is known as an evangelical Christian. Rather fundamentalist, too. But I long ago rejected the proselytization that too often typifies other evangelical, fundamentalist Christians as basically futile.

While I have no problem educating someone about the truth, I'm very careful with what I do and do not contest. If you stated, for instance, that the bible said that God was a pink blob of goo that would descend on the earth in 2006 and devour the population, I'd have to contest that, not on the basis of your faith, but on the basis that this particular theology was endorsed by the Bible. Disputing opinions presented as fact is one thing, disputing personal theology is quite another entirely.

The truth is, even within the context of those who accept the Bible as the infallible, inspired word of God, there still are a LOT of different interpretations. My belief is that none of these interpretations is wholly right (but I must note that few are  wholly wrong in my opinion as well), but that the confusion comes about because we interject our own prejudices into our reading of scripture.

Let's use a novel for comparison. Unless the writer explicitly describes a character's physical characteristics, you make a mental picture based on those prejudices. If you were asked to draw a picture of a particular character, your picture would be based on those preferences. Similarly, motivations for characters are often based on what would motivate YOU in those particular circumstances, to act as they did (or, in the case of a villain, what you perceive would motivate others). There are many factors that shape this opinion, life experience being one of the countless variables.

The contemporary image of Jesus, for instance, is usually one of a kindly hippy because we WANT Jesus to be a kindly hippy. Yet would such a kindly hippy act so violently in the face of the money changers and frighten the local government so much that they sent a large number of soldiers to arrest Jesus? A more likely image of Jesus would be a fairly homely man with an intimidating physical presence. And yet, many doctrines are based on the more usual presentation of Jesus' physical appearance.

But while that's what I hold true, and what I would submit as food for thought, it's not important enough to build a doctrine around. Frankly, I believe that if God WANTED us to know exactly what Jesus looked like, He would be more than capable of doing so. The fact that He did not tells me that it's not as important as we make it.

The heated debates about whether gifts are for today or not, or about the literal or figurative interpretation of this or that verse, drive people AWAY from Christianity, because of the obvious: if WE can't form any sort of agreement, what business do we have teaching THEM?

And so I submit that, while it is important to educate people as to the basis for our faiths, it is useless, and even damaging to our witnesses as Christians to argue them vehemently with other Christians. What matters more to anyone who is even REMOTELY evangelical: the manner in which someone was saved, or the fact that they were?

3,156 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would submit a large part of our existence is filled with meaningless exercises.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

I would submit a large part of our existence is filled with meaningless exercises.

Ya THINK? ()

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Those meaningless exercises are from Satan, to get us away from meaningful ones!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Completely off topic:

I am definitely what is known as an evangelical Christian. Rather fundamentalist, too.


You know what's cool? That I can read that and know that about you and still like you!! Thank you for not being the stereotype some can think of when you say: evangelical Christian.

We do more for our positions by being rational and open-minded than we do with personal attacks or debating the small picture points.

Your writing has definately influenced the way I thought about Theists, and those practicing any sort of religion. As well as other topics and thoughts on CPS and constitutional rights.

Thank you!!

(Sorry about the length)
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gid,
I appreciate your non-wittnessing approach to evangelical Christianity, as well as admire your personal faith.
I began an earlier comment, but as it started to scroll with volume, I posted it as a separate article ( see; I wonder...)
Just thinking how I wished more shared your view....
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very well said, Gid.

I think that's something that all Christians need to consider now and again.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

(but I must note that few are wholly wrong in my opinion as well),

2 points.  Since you state the above, you must know what you believe is wrong, at least mostly.  SO you can then feel confident in finding the right one, based upon the negative you know.

Second, my vision of Christ was formed by JC Superstar!  Sorry, that is how I envision him.  Pop Culture invades the perceptive self!

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I tend to think of Jesus differently depending on the issue. I think Max von Sydow in "The Greatest Story Ever Told" was amazingly good. Heck, he got to play Jesus, Satan, AND Ming the merciless. Heretic that I am, I think William Defoe did a great job in The Last Temptation of Christ, a movie which no one seemed to understand.

It says something about me that I always fall back on movies. I remember seeing pictures of Jesus in my grandmother's house, and on church paraphrenalia. It never seemed alive, though.


(lol. Whew... I got through that without mentioning that "Apologetics: A Meaningless exercise" sounds amazingly similar to "Why Biblical Inerrancy Isn't Important."

Doh! More perspectives are always good.)
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

lol. Whew... I got through that without mentioning that "Apologetics: A Meaningless exercise" sounds amazingly similar to "Why Biblical Inerrancy Isn't Important."

I actually didn't read your article, Baker...but it would not be unusual for us to be thinking on similar lines. I'll go check your article out now that you mention it, though.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think we should all convert to Islam. Its much simpler and not as divided.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good article.

I think Christians argue with each other because they see their side as the right side...or better side or whatever. I used to be a Catholic and Lutheran and now Im Pentacostal and I see myself in a much better spot spiritually than I was previously. So, in my arguments, I point out the faults that I see.

One of the things that I notice is that I get into arguments with people over the Bible from time to time. They go on and on and tell me that although they are Christian, the Bible can't be taken for what it is because humans have had it in their hands for years and years. I personally believe that God, being as totally kick ass powerful as he is; if he wanted us to read something, he would make sure we read it the way he intended it to. If we are told God is true, yet his written word is not, then how can God be perfect?

Another example. I found Christ while working at a Christian Rock radio station. Well, I didn't really find him, but it was around that time that I had switched from being a Catholic / Lutheran to a Pentacostal. As I worked at the station, the music worked in me. I played Christian Rock, punk, ska, and yes...even hosted a Christian Metal show (there is some serious heavy Christian music out there folks). Without that station, who knows where I would be. Now, despite this fact of what happened in my life and in countless others who have been affected by this genre of music....some Christian denominations (ie...Southern Baptists?) despise such rock music because in their belief...that music and style is not Godly.

Unfortunately, it depends on the points of view.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I personally believe that God, being as totally kick ass powerful as he is; if he wanted us to read something, he would make sure we read it the way he intended it to. If we are told God is true, yet his written word is not, then how can God be perfect? "


That's assuming it is "His" word, since He never bothered to vouch for it, and no one involved in putting it together really ever claimed it was totally inerrant. It also seems odd that He would have waited 1500 years for it to get put together, and hundreds more to trickle down to all the less-fortunate people outside Europe.

Then again, if it is man-made, and records man's interaction with God over the centuries, you could both accept that it is imperfect, and still find wisdom and guidance in it.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
It also seems odd that He would have waited 1500 years for it to get put together, and hundreds more to trickle down to all the less-fortunate people outside Europe.


I didn't know that God was on a time schedule.


you could both accept that it is imperfect, and still find wisdom and guidance in it.

See, this is what I was talking about. God is perfect. Saying his word is imperfect is a lack of faith in God. People try and point fingers towards the men who wrote it...but the Bible was inspired by God, he moved the hands of men who wrote it. By saying God is perfect but his word is not; you are saying that God is imperfect because he is unable to control his own creation, one of the most powerful things ever made that has and will change the eternities of countless people from the time it showed up until the end of the world.

You cant sit in your house and say it is a great house when you doubt the people who built it. Nor can you call your Harley fully American made because you know parts of it were made in other countries. Heck, do you sit down and eat dinner with your family and say "wow, the way I interpret this turkey and stuffing is that I believe it tastes delicous?"

Sure, one might say it is faith...then faith it is. Many people doubt and don't put faith in God, but they unknowingly put faith in everything else in their lives.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Excellent article, especially with its unintentional companion piece, by Baker.
I think that it's important for me as a Christian to remember respect and love for my fellow man. Instead of figuratviely "burning down the Danish embassy" any time someone gives me crap about being a Mormon, or believing in the Creation, or believing that Jesus Christ was the Son of God... yeah, well all I can do is chalk it up to my faith and my testimony.

So apologetics... being able to explain to others why you believe the way you do? It's a skill and a talent. Hopefully as others hear my way of thinking they will remember respect and love, too.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I didn't know that God was on a time schedule. "


Oh, He isn't. People are, though, given that we are mortal. You would have to wonder how many people died not knowing this perfect message from God while his tools on Earth were arguing about what should go into it and before they got around to sharing it with the non-caucasian part of the world.

"God is perfect. Saying his word is imperfect is a lack of faith in God. "


Don't be dim and ignore what I am saying. No one is saying that God isn't perfect. People are questioning whether it is "God's word" or man's account of God. It would only reflect on God if God wrote it. If mankind authored it then it can be imperfect and God can still be perfect. I'm sure IF God wrote a book, it would be perfect. I don't believe God wrote this one, though, for obvious reasons.

"By saying God is perfect but his word is not; you are saying that God is imperfect because he is unable to control his own creation, one of the most powerful things ever made that has and will change the eternities of countless people from the time it showed up until the end of the world. "


Then he just didn't care enough to control His creation in terms of Hinduism, Islam, etc. He took a guiding hand in creating the "perfect word" for one group of people, and allowed people in other parts of the world to sit around for hundreds of years being misled by books that were also claiming to be God's word. You don't have any more proof that your account is any more "perfect" than theirs.

God wasn't unable to prevent mistakes in the Bible, He just didn't. Just as he didn't prevent Muslims from calling the Koran His word, and the Book of Mormon, and every other book written in His name that isn't perfect.

If you believe that the KJV is the perfect word of God, then you have to accept that God allowed other people and races to be misled while taking an authoritative role in making sure that Europeans in the Middle Ages had the right material. That would be worse than imperfect, that would be racist and malicious.

So stop saying that I am saying God isn't powerful enough to make the Bible perfect. It's facetious and meanspirited. I'm saying the the Bible ISN'T authored by God, so you can't hang the mistakes on Him. That doesn't mean you can't get wisdom and guidance from it, it just means it isn't some golden calf to ask questions and get magical answers from.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
P.S. Before anyone jumps on me for being snippy, consider what Ziggystyles is saying. He's saying that since I don't believe that paper and ink is perfect, I "lack faith in God". He's saying that I am accusing God of being imperfect.

You see how this works? This is the kind of thing that perpetuates hatefulness. It doesn't matter that the Native Americans and Chinese and Japanese and South Americans and the rest lived without this "perfect rulebook" for 1500 years. They can live without what CHristians thrive on for a bit, so long as the WASPs have it. After all, "God isn't on a time schedule..."

We can quietly skip over the fact that we are implying that God is racist or really, really negligent in terms of distributing his product. Question our idol, though, and you are slamming God and you just don't have enough faith to understand.

So before anyone jumps me for being insulting to ziggy, please notice that in order for me to believe that the Bible contains flaws I have to accept that I don't have as much faith as ziggy, and that I am in fact undermining God's perfection. Question the great and powerful Oz, and be damned.

My God is big enough to question. Truth is something you can't harm by poking and prodding and questioning. People who have to protect their faith by imposing sins of faithlessness and blasphemy on people who question it aren't very secure in it, imho.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I personally believe that God, being as totally kick ass powerful as he is; if he wanted us to read something, he would make sure we read it the way he intended it to. If we are told God is true, yet his written word is not, then how can God be perfect?

God is perfect for me. When I read passages in the bible, the words are paraphrased. My God gave me the ability to critically think, weaknesses, and if desired, morals, values and ideals, which also means, I am flawed founded on choice.

What I find delightfully curious are those folks that float from one religious perspective to another until they encounter a view that meets their lifestyle needs. Not unlike those that are agnostic, atheist or a liberal, to each their own flaws founded on choice.

I'm saying the the Bible ISN'T authored by God, so you can't hang the mistakes on Him. That doesn't mean you can't get wisdom and guidance from it, it just means it isn't some golden calf to ask questions and get magical answers from.

I agree. Being born and baptised into the catholic world and with critical thought, (not normal for a catholic) my God is distinct from of my analysis making him perfect. I am not, and since humans with flaws wrote the book(s), no doubt it's going to vary, and more importantly, evolve with each interpretation through out time.

Truth is something you can't harm by poking and prodding and questioning.

No one can impose truth, because truth is owned or rejected by critical thinking and the ability to believe.



Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sure, one might say it is faith...then faith it is. Many people doubt and don't put faith in God, but they unknowingly put faith in everything else in their lives.


Here's a question to ask an ice fisherman. "Would you rather put a lot of faith in two inches of ice or a little faith in two feet of ice?"

See I don't think it matters how much faith you have at all. It's more in the object of your faith that matters.

A little faith in the right thing is going to hold you up. But a whole lot of faith in the wrong thing will do nothing for you.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am happy that many people don't put faith in God. It is possible they will have a happier life and a more conservational lifestyle by not putting their energy into someting that is only a concept, a thought, an idea. Also happy that they spend their money on things that are more practicle than sending it to Church. Unless of course they get a value of entertainment or therapy from the event. As a social event, it is in many cases more healthy than staying at home.

Fox:

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." Buddha

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He"s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can"t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!
G. Calin

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
If anyone wants the lowdown on foxjazz, go check out HIS articles in the religion section, and the way he defends them.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

If anyone wants the lowdown on foxjazz, go check out HIS articles in the religion section, and the way he defends them.

I saw.  Very self centered.  But that is his right.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
What matters more to anyone who is even REMOTELY evangelical: the manner in which someone was saved, or the fact that they were?

Isn't this like asking what matters more anyone who is even remotely scientific: the manner in which men first walked on the moon, or the fact that men walked on the moon?

The answer, of course, is that they're two sides of the same coin, and you can't really appreciate the the one without understanding the other.

The fact of the Apollo Project is important because of the manner in which it was accomplished. And understanding the manner in which it was accomplished is vital to belief in--and appreciation of--the fact of the accomplishment.

So it is with salvation. It matters very much to me, as an Evangelical Christian, the manner in which a Buddhist was "saved"--without understanding that, how can I agree on the "fact" of it?

Apologetics also has the advantage of establishing a more rigorous and responsible approach to the theology. It's the means by which we believe not blindly and unquestioningly, but thoughtfully and critically, by reasoning through the evidence available to us, and arriving and sensible conclusions about what might fit in the gaps of that evidence.

Apologetics is how we arrive at a reasonable faith, and not just an emotional one.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apologetics also has the advantage of establishing a more rigorous and responsible approach to the theology. It's the means by which we believe not blindly and unquestioningly, but thoughtfully and critically, by reasoning through the evidence available to us, and arriving and sensible conclusions about what might fit in the gaps of that evidence.

Apologetics is how we arrive at a reasonable faith, and not just an emotional one.


sounds right to me.....

who was it that said...It's not about what we feel but all about what Jesus said?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apologetics, though, don't often attack the Bible, rather they work to prop it up whenever possible. If literalists worked day and night to knock holes in it and couldn't, it might make more sense, but the premise they seek to prove is unprovable, i.e. that God worked for thousands of years through people to bring about a book that never made the claim of infallibility.

Until you can prove that, you can't prove the infallibility of the Bible. Good luck with that, given so far no one has even proven the existence of God.