manwithdream

Many people say that they hate reading what Christian apologists say, but they love to discuss what scholars say about the New Testament, and they love to discuss ancient Christian writings. If the New Testament and early Christian writings were written by ancient Christian apologists, why do they want to read these writings? If they hate to read the work of modern apologists, why don't they hate the works of ancient apologists? In 2000 years, today's apologists will probably be studied by "real" scholars who will also hate reading apologetics from their time, but they won't mind reading 2000 year old apologetics. How does this all make sense?

Kenneth Greifer

ApostateAbe

There is sort of an "us versus them" thing that prevails among many of the atheists who like to argue against the Christian religion. The modern apologists are the most threatening parties against the anti-religious activists who fight for the sake of reason. And, reading the writings of your rhetorical enemy is abrasive. The ancient Christian apologetic writings and scriptures are not fighting the modern rhetorical battles, and their writings are actually more likely to serve the purpose of the modern anti-religious activists, since such writings tend to reveal flaws and doctrines different from modernity. Modern Christians have very little exposure to ancient apologetics. I am an anti-religious activist, but I wouldn't view the writings of modern Christian apologists to be evil all of the time. When they say that the fires of hell are metaphorical, as the books by Lee Strobel may claim, I take that to be a good thing.

show_no_mercy

I read Irenaeus and Tertullian and other "apologists" (I think a better term would be heresiologists) for what they say about how Christianity was during their lifetimes, not for any "counter-apologetic" reasons. Modern apologists don't have that sort of value; I can just go down to the local corner church to find out about contemporary Christianity.

Toto

Modern apologists use very unpersuasive arguments combined with well crafted emotional appeals. I get the feeling at times that they are just presenting a parody of a rational argument.

mountainman

So do I - its more accurate.