Apologetics You're Unlikely to Hear

Started by Jagella, May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

#30
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 30, 2020, 02:28:46 AM
Yes, Baruch. You've figured it out. We're secretly Communists.

I could tell, even the women here have big beards and speak with a Russian accent ;-))

So, what is your magic wishing tree?  Electing Joe Biden?  Modern Monetary Theory (aka Weimar Republic)?  You can't have hope without insane idealism of some kind!  2020 isn't over yet.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#31
Quote from: SGOS on May 30, 2020, 07:31:45 AM
Baruch guides himself through life by channeling Joe McCarthy and other dead icons of the far right, so he comes off a bit weird most of the time.

Not your grandfather's communists.  Not your father's communists.  The 21st century belongs to Karens From Hell ;-)

Atheism shmatheism.  People here by self choosing are Leftist.  I have been a Leftist my whole life.  Liberal domestically, conservative internationally.  Aka a Stalinist.  Most of you are Trotskyites or Maoists.  Leftists always oppose other Leftists, because they are puritans.  Not looking for heretics, but closet Capitalists ... like Bernie.

Machine Gun Joe isn't my inspiration.  Lavrenty Beria is.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Jagella

Quote from: SGOS on May 30, 2020, 07:20:08 AMOr their lack of it.

Again, if Christians don't exhibit a level of love and general morality that is noticeably better than that of the "heathen," then their claim to follow an omnibenevolent god becomes suspect. It seems reasonable to me that such a god would inspire people to attain great heights of goodness more regularly than Christianity does.

QuoteMost Christians I have known, are more judgemental than loving.

Well, we all should judge others, but I assume by "judgment" you are referring to a judgment based on prejudice and unyielding dogma. Whether Christians want to accept it or not, they do often judge people that way, and that kind of judgment follows directly from their religious beliefs. Christianity has a very dim view of people.

Quote...it seems to me that for such people, love comes from a place far deeper from within them.  It comes from a core of goodness that has little to do with their religion.  Their Christianity is just something they have added to their lives, but it's not a part of that inner core that makes them decent.

Yes. The kindness we treat others with results from our being social animals. We cannot survive as a species living in societies if we unnecessarily hurt each other or don't bother to help others in need. Christianity has effectively "hijacked" morality claiming falsely that it has invented morality.

QuoteChristianity?  I'm not that impressed.  Religion is the sheep's clothing that hides the wolf.  It is not the cause of love.

Actually, the "love" preached by Jesus (if we can trust what was written about him) really wasn't what we normally think of as love. The gospel version of love is not the love between friends and surely not the love that sex partners may share. In the New Testament love is more akin to the love between a master and his slaves or between fellow slaves. Such love is based on either cooperation to reach a common goal, getting others to follow orders, or to avoid punishment. Jesus commanded love for his "Father." Jesus never told anybody to love God if you find him to be lovable.

And wouldn't a perfect being be perfectly lovable having no need to demand love?

Jagella

Quote from: Jagella on May 26, 2020, 11:13:07 PM
The Argument From the Character of Christians:
If y[tou skeptics want to see why God is real, then just look at the character of us Christians. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can explain our superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior.

This "argument" is rarely used by apologists because they know that their god rarely changes people for the better. That said, we do sometimes hear of some person who allegedly quit using drugs, alcohol, or sleazy sex after converting to Christianity. Why is god so good in that regard yet cannot restore limbs (see below)?

QuoteThe Argument From Substantive Presentation (We will show you.):
If a jumble of words does not convince you, and you want to actually see God, then just lookee here--here he is!

Apologetics simply lacks substance, so apologists use a ton or words hoping we won't notice that it's all talk.

QuoteThe Argument from Knowledge:
I can tell you anything you want to know because I'm talking to God, and he will tell me.

I lower the bar here by merely expecting Christians to know something a god might tell them. They can't even do that.

QuoteThe Argument From Testing Prayer:
God's power is granted through prayer, so go ahead and test prayer to see if what I'm saying is true.

What do you call a Christian who tests prayer? Answer: An atheist!

QuoteThe Argument From Read the Bible and See
We are so confident that the Holy Bible is the word of God, that we ask you to read it and come to your own conclusions regarding its divine authorship. We will accept any conclusion you come to and will treat you with respect even if you disagree with us.

No apologist would use this argument because they want to denigrate all Bible readers who don't agree with Christian dogmas. Are any apologists honest enough to admit that if you take their challenge to read the Bible and remain a doubter, then they will ridicule you telling you that you are too stupid to understand it?

QuoteThe Argument from Miraculous Demonstration:
1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal miraculously, and I will prove it to be true. Get those TV cameras ready, and assemble the skeptics to be eyewitnesses. Now, see this amputee over here? Just watch me go restore his legs in the name of Jesus!

Much of apologetics involves explaining away the dearth of verifiable miracles or ignores the problem completely. Does anybody wonder why?

Baruch

@Jagella .. it is Greek to you ;-)

Agape, eros and philos.  Agape was preached, this is love of the larger community, even enemies.  Not master/slave.  Epistle to the Ephesians states, that Free (aka Master) and Slave are equal in the sight of G-d.  A completely radical POV for that time.  Most people still consider the rich and powerful to be better than the poor and powerless.  That the boss is better than the employee.  The politician is better than the voter.

Eros is physical love.  So you would like a Jesus who preaches lots of sexy times?  Philos primarily means brotherly love.  The women followers of Jesus were not included, just the disciples.  This is a kind of Buddhist monk fellowship.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

QuoteApologetics simply lacks substance, so apologists use a ton or words hoping we won't notice that it's all talk.
I love to watch this in debates.  They start out explaining they are going to prove God exists, followed by a bunch of things almost everyone agrees with, even myself, and I'm following the reasoning: "Yeah, yeah, that's correct.  That follows etc."  Then they start equivocating, extrapolating, and posing the non-sequitur.  I first have this empty feeling in my stomach, like I'm not smart enough to follow the reasoning, and then I realize they have gone from logic to pointless blather.  They usually finish up with, "And that's how we know that God exists."  And if the run time of the presentation is anything over four minutes, I am totally exhausted.

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on June 08, 2020, 07:33:53 AM
I love to watch this in debates.  They start out explaining they are going to prove God exists, followed by a bunch of things almost everyone agrees with, even myself, and I'm following the reasoning: "Yeah, yeah, that's correct.  That follows etc."  Then they start equivocating, extrapolating, and posing the non-sequitur.  I first have this empty feeling in my stomach, like I'm not smart enough to follow the reasoning, and then I realize they have gone from logic to pointless blather.  They usually finish up with, "And that's how we know that God exists."  And if the run time of the presentation is anything over four minutes, I am totally exhausted.

Circular reasoning is required for theological arguments ;-)  Note: circular reasoning = you can falsely prove whatever you want

On other subjects, most people go for feels, they don't have any worthwhile ideas.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Jagella

Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2020, 12:24:31 AM
Agape, eros and philos.  Agape was preached, this is love of the larger community, even enemies.  Not master/slave.  Epistle to the Ephesians states, that Free (aka Master) and Slave are equal in the sight of G-d.  A completely radical POV for that time. 

I'm not sure why you see "slave love" as somehow different from love for the community. No doubt virtually all Jewish slave masters expected their slaves to behave themselves obeying Jewish law and living in harmony with others in the community. These masters then loved their slaves in that the masters did not want their slaves to end up in prison or executed--except if their slaves had very good reason to get themselves in trouble. I think Jesus drew an analogy between such masters and slaves and God and his followers. Jesus' disciples were to behave themselves only getting into trouble for the sake of "God's kingdom."

QuoteMost people still consider the rich and powerful to be better than the poor and powerless.  That the boss is better than the employee.  The politician is better than the voter.

Christianity lives right alongside of these attitudes. The "love" Christians preach for others is that subordinates obey their authorities much like slaves are expected to obey their masters. In other words, love your masters or pay a price.

QuoteEros is physical love.  So you would like a Jesus who preaches lots of sexy times?

Absolutely Jesus should have preached eros. Our modern notion of sexual love is absent from the gospel story. Jesus is never said to have loved a woman in that way, and neither did he preach that it was good. Heck, he even said it was better to have yourself castrated! Such an attitude is misogynist and devoid of love for women and sexual passion.

So again, the gospel's version of love is very different from what most of us think of as love today. Jesus never preached that we should encounter God so we get a chance to love him for his wonderful nature--rather, we are to love God or face his wrath.

Baruch

#38
Interesting.  You seem to have a fixation on sex ;-)  Pretty common you know ;-))

Also English is your first language?  You seem to be unaware that Greek words have meanings different than the King James English.

Criticize because of what you think it says or what you wished it said ... as opposed to reconstructing what it meant to the people who first heard it.  Pretty much what the Church does too ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Jagella

Quote from: SGOS on June 08, 2020, 07:33:53 AM
I love to watch this in debates.  They start out explaining they are going to prove God exists, followed by a bunch of things almost everyone agrees with, even myself, and I'm following the reasoning: "Yeah, yeah, that's correct.  That follows etc."  Then they start equivocating, extrapolating, and posing the non-sequitur.  I first have this empty feeling in my stomach, like I'm not smart enough to follow the reasoning, and then I realize they have gone from logic to pointless blather.  They usually finish up with, "And that's how we know that God exists."  And if the run time of the presentation is anything over four minutes, I am totally exhausted.

I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only person who feels this way. When I watch debates, I often get lost listening to the apologist wondering how they come to some of their conclusions. It's common for William Lane Craig, for example, to assert his points with little or no logic or evidence to back those assertions. That said, I do catch some fallacies as they wiz by, but, of course, I'm not there to correct the apologist.

To be fair, though, skeptics are not perfect debaters either. Like apologists, all they usually present is a lot of words. However, a lack of substance is not a problem for skeptics like it is for apologists. That's why skeptics are skeptical after all--there is no substance to the issues surrounding the truth of Christian claims.

Jagella

Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2020, 05:56:11 PM
Interesting.  You seem to have a fixation on sex ;-)  Pretty common you know ;-))

I'm not the topic.

QuoteAlso English is your first language?  You seem to be unaware that Greek words have meanings different than the King James English.

I've studied some New Testament Greek...

Ï,,á½° πολλά μοÏ... γράμμαÏ,,α  (!)

And yes, I'm well aware that there are different Greek words for "love" and that those words are defined differently. I think you need to build a case that the "love" Jesus preached cannot be the kind of love that might be shared between master and slave like I have argued.

By the way, I got my idea of the gospel version of love from Bible scholar Hector Avalos in his book, Fighting Words: The Origins Of Religious Violence. I'd recommend you read the book.

QuoteCriticize because of what you think it says or what you wished it said ... as opposed to reconstructing what it meant to the people who first heard it.  Pretty much what the Church does too ;-)

If you're going to debate the meaning of archaic languages, then it would be a good idea to use complete sentences in English.

Baruch

#41
I won't debate, just pointing out an obvious bias.  Proof texting is a Christian practice ;-)

Yes, people who post here are the issue, even if they don't believe it ;-)  People who lived 2000 years ago aren't the issue, they are long dead.

Could master/slave have love?  Of course, I wasn't denying it.  I misinterpreted you as saying that was a key value.

Typical master/slave sexual behavior in Roman times happened in the home.  Mistress could F who she wanted, and Master did the same.  Both sexes.  But in modern terms, sex between unequals is considered exploitation, regardless of the feelings involved.  Philos love of a master would lead to manumission.  Roman slaves were frequently manumitted.  But under manumission, you became the employee, not free.  Patron/Client system.  With Gentile slaves of Jewish masters, these frequently were manumitted to the synagogue (community) that the master was a part of.  This is where many "god fearers" came from, associated but not kosher.  This is why circumcision was such an issue with Apostle Paul ... in his community only, a Gentile god-fearer, however he came to faith, didn't have to be kosher (or circumcise).  Very popular, because only Jews, Arabs and Egyptians circumcised (ancient African practice).  Non-semitic/non-hamitic people considered uncircumcision with pride, considered circumcision a horrible disfigurement.  With Gentile slaves of Gentile masters, you became part of his "corporation".  Clients had to appear each morning at the foyer of their Patron, to sing his praised and to ask for work or a handout.  They didn't have an HR department ;-)

Have you seen the mini-series Rome?  Very accurate in detail about Romans.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/554985.In_Search_of_Paul

John Dominic Crossan knows his material.  Not just text studies, but archeology and anthropology.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.