Kosh

Ooh, that's catchy, I like it! But... did you
steal it from Dennis Miller?

NOGO

I have not read this book but think of it this way. Humanity has gone through 2000 years of Christianity and I don`t know how many countless people were converted to it. What is so extraordinary about converting people to Christianity. People have been converted to more bizarre and irrational myths so why not Christianity.

Bottom line is this. A scientific theory falls on a single experiment which contradicts it. With religion even if all humans are converted to a single belief that is no proof that it is anywhere close to the truth.

Just pick up any apologetic book which claims to answer all the critics. One thing which will immediately jump out at you is that all these books are written for believers. The arguements simply can't make it in a critical forum.

BLoggins02

NOGO: I'd like to amend your thought slightly. I believe these books are actually targeted towards two classes of people:

1) Yes, people who already believe, as you said. One of the major goals of apologetics is to reinforce the faith in those who have reasonable doubts. There will always be people who never question critically, but most people (esp college age) start asking critical questions, and apologetics want to squelch any rational objections to Christianity before they fester into full-fledged unbelief.

2) People who are looking for a "reason to believe". These are people who like Christianity because of it's claims for the afterlife, or perhaps because it's the only thing socially acceptable in certain geographies. But these people won't just accept "you should accept Christ or you will go to Hell", they need a little more convincing. They convince themselves that they will only convert if they have rational evidence first. Apologetics works well with these people because most of them WANT to believe so bad that they will fail to critically examine the evidence. They will also be more willing to fall for the "begging the question" technique followed by affirming the consequent that people like Lee Strobel seem so fond of. ("Assuming God exists, we should expect to see these things. We see these things, therefore God exists").

I'm not saying that there aren't people who have come to Christianity even after critically examining the arguments, that's like the Christians who say that all of we former Christians who are now atheists/agnostics must not have been TRUE Christians, but it does seem like apologetics works well with people who just want what LOOKS like rational reasons to believe. They never stop to consider the logic behind the reasoning.

Also, I don't think that apologetics are evil creatures trying to convert people to the dark side or anything. I remember being a Christian, and honestly I was so afraid of watching my friends go to Hell that I got into apologetics to "save" them. I just didn't want them to go to Hell, it didn't really matter to me that it was Christianity that was saving them, just that they were saved.

Just my $.02

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

Hondo

I read Boyd's book about a year ago and came away with these thought's.
1. It felt like a set-up, that allowed Boyd to make his apologetic points.
2. After each point was made, there was no further questioning on that point. It was like O.K. if you say so.
3. Very superficial, nothing deep. The father asked some good questions, nothing terribly profound.
4. The father went over to the Dark Side with a whimper, not a bang.
5. I was truly surprised when it was over, there seemed to be alot more that should have been said.

IHMO

Hondo

JamesKrieger

CORRESPONDENCE 3: IS THE RISK OF FREEDOM WORTH ALL THE SUFFERING?

Ed shoots back and says to Greg:

</strong>

Greg goes on to make his first point that there's a strong relationship between potential for evil and potential for good.

</strong>

Fair enough. However, I'm not seeing any major philosophical insight here. Human beings make choices. Those choices can be "good" or "bad" or "neutral" depending on what standards of morality where using for measurement. That's basically all that Greg is saying. To be fair to Greg, though, he seems to be using this as a set-up to make his other points.


</strong>

Here we see Greg already making assumptions. Greg is assuming that this God must be humanlike and have emotions just as humans do. However, he gives no evidence to support this premise.


</strong>

If that is true, then why does God create Plasmodium falpicarum, the malaria parasite? Why does He create prions, which cause mad cow disease? Why does he create bacteria? Viruses? Singe cell organisms? Why does he create entities that have no capacity for love at all? Why does he create living things that have no capacity for emotion? Plants? Shrimp? Plankton? Why does he create so much life that goes extinct (99% of all life that has existed thus far on this planet has gone extinct)?

</strong>

The biblical perspective reveals human beings who throughout history have suffered from the ill choices of God. I've already mentioned how God sent a plague to the Israelites for eating the meat that He sent to them (Num 11:33), as well as the other examples of God's cruelty and barbarism (Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16, Proverbs 20:30, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 13:8, Psalms 3:7, Psalms 52:5). There are also the extremely cruel Mosaic laws in Exodus where the punishments don't fit the crime, like the stoning of children for cursing their parents (Exodus 21:17).

</strong>

Here I have to ask the question that many skeptics ask. God is supposedly a perfect, omnipotent being. If this is true, then why did God need to do this to forgive the sins of mankind? Couldn't he have found a better way? An omnipotent being wouldn't need to become human and die on a cross to forgive sins. Let's say that he did need to do this. If he did, then why did it take him so long to finally do it? Mankind had been around for a while by then.

</strong>

Here, we have a classic example of plain wishful thinking. No matter how much we desire for there to be a heaven, it won't mean there really is one. If I really like some girl, it doesn't matter how much I like her...there's no guarantee she's going to reciprocate those feelings! It might be comforting to believe that there is a heaven, but it's most likely a case of simply living a fantasy and denying reality.


</strong>

The Bible has a happy ending? When everyone who is not a Christian is tossed into a lake of fire?

lpetrich

Also, why not create Heaven and be done with it? And skip all the pain and suffering and heresies and infidel religions and commisssion of sins and eternal punishment and humanity looking cosmically insignicant and looking like some oddball ape species.

And the free-will excuse gets very tiresome after a while -- if it leads to sin, then it is best to get rid of it; consider MT 5:29-30, 18:8-9, MK 9:43-47

Where Jesus Christ advises removing parts of one's body that cause one to sin. But if that is the case for body parts, why not also free will?

The ultimate solution is, of course, Matthew 19:12

Ron Garrett

Back off Kosh, or I'll resort to NIETZSCHE!