TheGreatInfidel

I explained to my nephew what an apologist is. His reaction was pretty much the following:

Comments?

Big Spoon

It seems to me that apologists are only trying to convince themselves.

TheGreatInfidel

Perhaps an apologist can answer this question.

Koyaanisqatsi

Only an apologist could answer this question.

diana

Interesting question. I'm moving this to the Existence of Apologists forum. I mean, General Religious Discussions, of course.

d

TheGreatInfidel

Good one! I guess this is a real test of apologetics.

Apology is a transliteration from a greek word meaning defense.

Isn't the fact that there are defenders of the claim that there is an omni-being, counterproductive to that very claim?

Defending god?


Perhaps the allusion is mistaken, but that's why I want to hear from apologists.

wordfailure

Who says apologetics is to help God out? Is defending the theory of evolution helping evolution out? Apologetics is the good stuff. Apologetics is to evangelism as automobile consumer reports and spec sheets are to car commercials and salespeoples' talk, or perhaps as dealing with specific apologetics is to condescending ridicule.

Amos

Amos

An apologist defends religion as a means to the end. To him the end has become reality and therefore he alone can explain the mystery of faith. Notice that religion is like a vehicle to be abandonned when destiny is reached.

And apologist does not claim that there is an omni-being but he can show you how to become this omni-being. Since each one of us has the potential to become this omni-being it is called God by religionist and that is why we will be able to recognize it to either accept it or to deny it (or equivocate somewhere in between to give us good days or bad days since there are no bad days in heaven).

Mageth

An apologist defends religion as a means to the end. To him the end has become reality and therefore he alone can explain the mystery of faith. Notice that religion is like a vehicle to be abandonned when destiny is reached.

Err...I think I actually agree with Amos in essence. I would go one step farther. Religion should be abandoned if one truly wants to experience "destiny" (or, perhaps, "mystery"), for such can only be truly experienced through looking inward, not through looking outward.

To paraphrase Jung, Religion (as defined by apologetics) is a mechanism to prevent people from experiencing god (or the transcendent, or the mystery of the universe, or whatever you wish to call it).

And apologist does not claim that there is an omni-being but he can show you how to become this omni-being. Since each one of us has the potential to become this omni-being it is called God by religionist and that is why we will be able to recognize it to either accept it or to deny it (or equivocate somewhere in between to give us good days or bad days since there are no bad days in heaven).

Amos, this sounds very Eastern, except in Eastern thought it might be expressed not as showing you how to become the "omni-being" but as leading you to realize (or leading yourself to realize), that you, and everyone and everything else, is already "omni-being". But "omni-being", like "God", is perhaps not a good way to describe "it"; there is no way to describe it - it's ineffable. "Being and non-being" might be closer, expressing in its contradiction the paradox of "the mystery of mysteries, the door of all essence."