Johnny Skeptic

Gary Habermas and Mike Licona co-wrote a book. I forget the title, and I do not know where my copy of the book is, but I remember that Habermas and Licona said that the certainty of the historical record serves only to reinforce the much better evidence of the Holy Spirit. William Lane Craig essentially holds the same position. I do not understand that position since those men learned about the Holy Spirit from the Bible. In addition, the book of Acts says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The word of God is the Bible. Without the Bible, Jews and Christians would have no knowledge of the specific existence of the God of the Bible, and no specifics regarding what God wanted them to do with their lives regarding many issues.

Toto

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Why waste your time on this nonsense, unless you need to psychoanalyze evangelicals?

These people believe that the Holy Spirit came over them, and told them that the Bible was true. It's not susceptible to rational argument.

Doug Shaver

Actually, Paul said that in his letter to the Romans (10:17).

jaymack2

"reinforce the much better evidence of the Holy Spirit?" What evidence? They're talking about something that is in a different realm from "evidence" used in a scientific sense. I remember hearing something similar to this in an old Bishop Sheen broadcast, where he says that the Scriptures are merely a pale facsimile of what Christians know -- the truth of the Holy Spirit. This removes Christianity from the realm of provable, objective fact and puts it in the realm of subjective experience. It's the convenient safety net anytime you bring up all the inconsistencies, fabrications, and errors in the Bible -- "well, that may be true, but Christianity is REALLY based on a personal relationship with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Christians have been using this argument from at least Paul's time, which is why he didn't even mention the historical details of Jesus' life. From the beginning there were probably so many competing stories circulating about Jesus that it was easier to talk about Jesus coming to each person in the spiritual realm, thus downplaying the historical questions.

Clivedurdle

That happened to me! How come everyone ignores me?:devil1:

Zenaphobe

Here is a quote from Craig that I find telling,

Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), pp. 35-36.] http://atheism.about.com/library/quo..._q_WLCraig.htm

It appears that the whole evidence and argument line of apologists is just a bait and switch.

You find a person who has doubts about Christianities "evidences" and if the arguments don't win them over, well, the problem isn't the arguments, no, the problem is with the unbeliever's secret rejection of God's spirit.

It's a win - win scenario for apologists.

I am glad that I got into apologetics when I was a believer, because once I saw the double standard and the grasping at straws that go on trying to "explain Bible difficulties", it slowly dawned on me that the problem wasn't with me, it was with the arguments.

jaymack2

I am coming to the same realization as you, Zenaphobe. It's kind of a waste of time debating a believer, bringing up all the logical flaws, lies, absurdities, and fabrications in the Bible. At bottom they don't really care about that stuff, because it's all about faith, not reason. The most powerful preachers are the ones who focus on the emotional stuff -- believe in God and you'll be happy forever, or reject God and you'll suffer eternal torment. And I love your quote from Craig because it shows how they demonize people who don't believe -- the fault is always with the nonbeliever because he chooses to reject God, and won't listen to the promptings of the Spirit. Ah, but how do you know if the Spirit is talking to you? Read your Bible, and the Spirit will work within you, giving you the knowledge of how to interpret His voice. And how do you know it's the Spirit and not the Devil who's talking to you? Read your Bible. . . So, you see, they don't want to use the Bible as the ultimate evidence, but then sometimes they do. . . That's why you need priests and preachers, to interpret all this stuff, right?

James Brown

Let me state for the record that I was an apologist that was won over by reason, by the patient, well-documented and explained arguments presented to me by the non-believers that I was trying to convert. The defense of reason does work.

I will say however, that those people who lost their patience with me (even when I was being bull-headed) and who used profanity and insults rather than argument and discussion had no effect whatsoever on my deconversion. Carl Sagan's "this is what we know" is much more effective than Penn & Teller's "Shut the F up!"

Doug Shaver

Same here.

The arguments went on for months. To this day, I don't know how they put up with my crap for all that time. It isn't like they were actually encouraging me to keep it up.

arnoldo

That's why I don't understand people who waste their time putting down what other people believe. :huh: