Help!! Conversation with wife went HORRibly!
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2018, 09:47 PM
RE: Help!! Conversation with wife went HORRibly!
(02-03-2018 01:01 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Two years is enough lurking already. Wink Time to dive in, we don't bite unless you're a total douche. Big Grin

And if you are, you won't be alone!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post
04-03-2018, 08:27 AM
RE: Help!! Conversation with wife went HORRibly!
(03-03-2018 08:16 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(03-03-2018 05:41 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Out of curiosity, why not? Knowing the arguments from both sides only can assist as I see it.

Because it's not going to be advantageous for him to start arguments with everyone he knows. Let's take one argument, for example, one that is pretty much settled within most of New Testament scholarship outside of the most Evangelical of Seminaries - The Bible is a human book. It's not a book by God, it's a book written by humans. To most Catholics that's probably obvious. But to everyday practising church-going protestants, they're often acutely acutely aware that men and women in the Middle Ages gave their lives and became martyrs to get the Bible into the hands of the laity. That's in a way not that different to the apostles who became martyrs to spread the gospel (the good news about their Lord Jesus Christ being resurrected).

Let me tell you, as a former Anglican, that your convictions in this grow even stronger when you talk to Roman Catholics who deny that people were persecuted for possessing Bibles. They come up with the most inventive of responses - "well it wasn't that they couldn't have Bibles, it's that they had bad translations". That's nothing more than a slur. The reality is that it was a universally held belief among theologians throughout the Middle Ages that heretics should be persecuted, and a layperson possessing a Bible was a heresy.

You don't need to learn counter-apologetics to be able to articulate your own beliefs. You only need to learn it if you wish to attack others for their beliefs. And may counter-apologetic arguments are no more sound then the apologetic arguments anyway. You're much better off learning what modern historical-critical bible scholars have to say about things. For example, there's an excellent peer-review paper I read last week by Christopher Zeichmann titled "The Date of Mark’s Gospel Apart from the Temple and Rumors of War: The Taxation Episode (12:13–17) as Evidence". He makes, in my view, a compelling case to show that the Taxation Episode (Mk 12:13-17) was invented by Mark rather than reflecting a genuine teaching of Jesus, and that it likely refers to a tax the Romans imposed in 71 AD and therefore cannot be written down before that date.

I see where you are coming from but I encourage you to reread what I wrote. I never said nor insinuated that HE should go and start these arguments/discussions. Please cite my words that gave you this impression, I would like to know in case I am misreading what I wrote. The reason I said to learn some counter-apologetics is so that for the inevitable apologetics that will come his way he understands them as well as possible. In no way does that mean that he can't put them into his own words but he needs to understand them first. Even if he does what you suggest (which I would encourage) he would be still doing the same thing just with different authors. In my experience, my objections to the Kalam, ontological, and teleological arguments were already in my head but when I read other's take on it, that helped me to word it better when those were tossed out at me. In my case, the outcome was that I was left alone because I knew the topics better than the christians who were merely armchair fans of Craig or McDowell but did not actually understand the topics. THAT was my point and not to go around starting arguments with christians.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2018, 09:14 AM
RE: Help!! Conversation with wife went HORRibly!
Counter apologetics are not useful for the conversations he needs to have. They are also not useful against most Christians. In case you haven't noticed, just about every Christian has their own set of beliefs apart from the traditional creeds that are handed to them by their clergy. Most Christians don't use, and are not interested in, proponents of apologetics. Most people I know wouldn't even know who William Craig or Gary Habermas is. You don't need to be coached by someone as to how to respond to those arguments, just as I'm sure most Christians would agree they don't need to be coached by apologists to defend their beliefs. Apologetics and counter-apologetics are the antithesis of free critical thought. How are you meant to evaluate the merits of an argument if you've been coached not to do so??! Matt Dillahunty for example is guilty of this behaviour from time to time. It's something he should learn to keep in check.

The point is that it isn't helpful, and it's a blockage to learning critical thinking skills. When it comes to Christianity the only counter-apologetic argument that I think is somewhat useful is the question of whether someone believes in covenant theology or dispensationalism. Both models of Christian theology have fundamental flaws that can be explored.

But, and I can't stress this enough, counter apologetics does not give you a voice to express what you believe. If you're going to be an atheist, or a naturalistic believing liberal Christian/deist (articulated in Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason written during the Age of Enlightenment principles which by the way is where we get the very concept of separation of Church and State from), then you need a better foundation for your beliefs then simply a set of counter apologetic arguments about the beliefs of others. Counter-apologetics is NOT a defence of atheism, it's an attack on theism. The Age of Reason is a MUCH better text to read then counter-apologetic arguments.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: