Is Defense of the Gospel a Legitimate Activity?

[thomas t]

That particular atheist has a strange idea of what constitutes 'lying'. I get that they think the other side is incorrect, but that doesn't equate to them 'lying'.

He showed up in the thread and clarified that he didn't mean all apologetics. Just some it seems.
I pressed the "informative button" (which doesn't mean I agree with him concerning that particular cite he criticised).

edited for spelling

 

[thomas t]

I won't shout anything down, yet I claim that contradictions in the Bible don't exist, @blü 2 .

Apologetics leads to these, and other examples of atrocious behaviors, being excused and downplayed, twisting great evils (happy is he who dashes your little ones against the rocks) and justifying them to try to make them seem good.

I am entitled to say that the red passage does not exist in the Bible.
This is a perfect example showing that apologitics are 100% legitimate in contrast to what 8 atheists (see poll) want to make everyone believe, it seems.
Of course we can point out that someone reads stories into the Bible that aren't there, I think.

Thanks for proving my point.
Paul clearly said it's best to be like him, unmarried and celibate.

... in circumstances of being persecuted.
The passage explicitely mentions this, please.

He also did say women are not to "usurp authority" over a man and she is basically to shut up in church and fully submit to her husband.

The Bible prescribes equality between man and woman at church. Galatians 3:28.
If the woman cannot speak up there, she needs to get other priviledges at church, so that this going to be evened out, I think.
If people think a woman should not have authority over the man at church... then man should not have authority over the woman either.
That's equality.

It's also hideously cruel, and makes god far more wicked, cruel,

God is not wicked or the way you describe him, I think.

this heinous atrocity

God does not have this kind of atrocity, I think.

@TagliatelliMonster , I don't agree that Dawkins calling God names was right in doing so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster , I don't agree that Dawkins calling God names was right in doing so.

I do.

Every single one of those can be supported and demonstrated by pointing out things he supposedly did and said as recorded in the bible.

For example, someone who orders genocide, is genocidal.
Someone who orders the killing of all toddlers and babies, is infanticidal.
Someone who commands that homosexuals must be killed because that they are an "abomination", is homophobic.
Someone who gives "10 commandments" on how to live and the first 4 are all narcistic and concerning how only he can be worshipped, is petty and jealous.

etc.

 

[blü 2]

I won't shout anything down, yet I claim that contradictions in the Bible don't exist, @blü 2 .

Then we disagree, albeit cordially.

For example, the Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God, and (no matter what Genesis says) made the material universe (1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:2) like the Gnostic demiurge. The Jesus of Mark was an ordinary Jew who didn't become the Son of God until his baptism (or, says Acts, his resurrection). He's the only Jesus who is not a descendant of David, too. The Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke are the products of divine insemination, and thus I take it have God's Y-chromosome.

And that's just for a start.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'd like to ask all atheists of this board... do you consider this a legitimate activity?
Or do you think it is lying?

The Defense of the Gospel is usually called apologetics.

If a person genuinely believes what they are talking about, and this is proven through their actions, then I consider their apologetics legitimate. If they have proven to be a blatant hypocrite then I consider them con men.

James White I would consider legitimate and being truthful. Ravi Zacharias I would consider a con man with everything that has been revealed about his activities now.

I know many Christians who genuinely believe what they speak about, I just consider their reasoning flawed in many cases. But that doesn't make them liars.

I think that apologetics is definitely a necessary activity because what it should be doing is pitting the best christian minds against the best minds of the opposition and together they sought out the arguments between the two.

 

[thomas t]

Then we disagree, albeit cordially.

For example, the Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God, and (no matter what Genesis says) made the material universe (1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:2) like the Gnostic demiurge. The Jesus of Mark was an ordinary Jew who didn't become the Son of God until his baptism (or, says Acts, his resurrection). He's the only Jesus who is not a descendant of David, too. The Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke are the products of divine insemination, and thus I take it have God's Y-chromosome.

And that's just for a start.

I disagree with your assertions in red and green.
And I don't understand "demiurge".

 

[thomas t]

I do.

Every single one of those can be supported and demonstrated by pointing out things he supposedly did and said as recorded in the bible.

For example, someone who orders genocide, is genocidal.
Someone who orders the killing of all toddlers and babies, is infanticidal.
Someone who commands that homosexuals must be killed because that they are an "abomination", is homophobic.
Someone who gives "10 commandments" on how to live and the first 4 are all narcistic and concerning how only he can be worshipped, is petty and jealous.

etc.

I disagree with this whole line of reasoning which is making allegations about the person of someone when you see some actions of his that each require visiting the context of that particular event.

For example, even if I kick the ball often to get the ball off the grass, I'm no soccer player.

 

[blü 2]

I disagree with your assertions in red and green.
And I don't understand "demiurge".

Mark's Jesus was not descended from David (Mark 12:35-37). Which other Jesus was not a descendant of David?

'Demiurge' (from the Greek word for 'craftsman') is a term from Gnosticism, where God is spirit so pure and remote that it's unthinkable [he]'d create matter; therefore [his] heavenly companion the Demiurge creates the material universe. This is what the Jesuses of Paul (1 Corinthians 8:6) and John (John1:2) do. The Jesus of Mark unambiguously does not, being an ordinary Jew. The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke don't exist until their divine conception, so they don't either.

 

[Clara Tea]

Truth is the root of spiritualism.

God expects us to be truthful. Lying for Jesus is wrong. We can't lie to support a bible which we know is flawed.

In the movie "A Few Good Men" an Ollie North type character (played by Jack Nicholson) did unspeakable things, like murder whole villages then cover it up. Nicholson's character said that he is doing things that Americans don't have the stomachs to do, and Tom Cruise's character said "tell the truth" and Nicholson's character said "you can't handle the truth."

An old saying: "The truth, told with bad intent, beats all the lies you can invent."

Currently Christians are lying to support their side (as if it is some kind of football game).

Christian lies:

1. Evolution is wrong, creation is right.
2. God is good
3. The bible is perfect
4. We'll be raptured, leaving God's destroyed environment behind
5. Mankind's impact on Global Warming is a myth
6. Christians love peace

Elected Christian leaders:

1. Ruined God's environment by cutting trees, over-fishing, warming the globe (with coal and oil), putting in logging roads in pristine forests

2. Outsourced factories abroad to get cheap foreign labor competing with American workers using child slave labor (taking the kids away from their parents, depriving them of educations or any hope to get out of their predicament). They could have taken up Senator John Kerry's idea of refusing trade unless they treat kids better.

3. Ignored the poor. Lies like "the homeless don't want jobs," keep us from helping them.

Gen 1:25 Man created before animals
Gen 2:18 Man created after animals

If we point out errors in the bible, some lying Christians want to cover that up (rather than tell the truth), then they tell lies about honest Christians, and say they are not true Christians because they embarrass and attack the faith by using the truth.

Since when is an honest person the subject of attack by Christians?

 

[pearl]

The Jesus of Mark was an ordinary Jew who didn't become the Son of God until his baptism (or, says Acts, his resurrection). He's the only Jesus who is not a descendant of David, too. The Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke are the products of divine insemination, and thus I take it have God's Y-chromosome.

These are not contradictions, they are the result of the theology and christology of the authors beginning with the 'crucified lives.' And it is not the purpose of apologetics which is to defend, not question.

 

[Altfish]

We teach as fact that the universe created itself when it didn't exist, and for no reason whatsoever.
And we teach that most of the values espoused in the bible are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, oppressive, patriarchal, imperialist,
superstition etc..
Religion IS taught in American schools - but it's a new form of religion, state sanctioned.

Yes, because there is evidence to support those issues.
Religion should be taught at home and at church.
You can teach about ALL religions and non-belief then pupils learn all the options.

 

[blü 2]

These are not contradictions, they are the result of the theology and christology of the authors beginning with the 'crucified lives.'

If there was an historical Jesus they can't all be right, though they can all be wrong. The three basic Christologies are not reconcilable so it's correct to say they contradict each other.

And it is not the purpose of apologetics which is to defend, not question.

Yes. Apologetics is not about truth or historical accuracy but defending the party line, whichever one it may be, hence not something the historian in me admires.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'd like to ask all atheists of this board... do you consider this a legitimate activity?
Or do you think it is lying?

The Defense of the Gospel is usually called apologetics.

I'm surprised you ask this. It is evident that atheists make it a passionate hobby to assault any form of apologetics employed at RF.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree with this whole line of reasoning

It's what the words mean. A genocidal homophobe is someone who doesn't like homosexuals and thinks genocide is ok and/or orders / engages in it.

So how is the god of the bible not a genocidal homophobe?
Has he ordered genocide? Yes.
Has he engaged in genocide? Yes.
Does he like homosexuals? No.

which is making allegations about the person of someone when you see some actions of his that each require visiting the context of that particular event.

So you think there is some "context" where god can order the mass slaughter of an entire tribe or ethnicity, or engage in it himself, so that it is not an act of genocide, even though the extermination of an entire tribe or ethnicity is literally what genocide is?


Genocide is genocide, dude.
And calling homosexuality an "abomination" or ordering those who engage in it to be executed, as it says in the bible, is about the ultimate homophobic statement. There's no context there. There's just: gay men having sex = abomination = death.

 

[thomas t]

Mark's Jesus was not descended from David (Mark 12:35-37). Which other Jesus was not a descendant of David?

'Demiurge' (from the Greek word for 'craftsman') is a term from Gnosticism, where God is spirit so pure and remote that it's unthinkable [he]'d create matter; therefore [his] heavenly companion the Demiurge creates the material universe. This is what the Jesuses of Paul (1 Corinthians 8:6) and John (John1:2) do. The Jesus of Mark unambiguously does not, being an ordinary Jew. The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke don't exist until their divine conception, so they don't either.

I disagree with your claim that Mark rules out that Jesus made the universe.
But let's now turn to Mark 12:35-37.

For me it comes across as saying "how do you teach this when you also teach something else."
It seems to me, this question was designed to be the beginning of a debate (that never took place).
It does not rule out that he is David's son, as I see it.
Maybe, Jesus wanted to bring across something like "hey, you guys know nuts about these things."

 

[thomas t]

It's what the words mean. A genocidal homophobe is someone who doesn't like homosexuals and thinks genocide is ok and/or orders / engages in it.

So how is the god of the bible not a genocidal homophobe?
Has he ordered genocide? Yes.
Has he engaged in genocide? Yes.
Does he like homosexuals? No.






So you think there is some "context" where god can order the mass slaughter of an entire tribe or ethnicity, or engage in it himself, so that it is not an act of genocide, even though the extermination of an entire tribe or ethnicity is literally what genocide is?


Genocide is genocide, dude.
And calling homosexuality an "abomination" or ordering those who engage in it to be executed, as it says in the bible, is about the ultimate homophobic statement. There's no context there. There's just: gay men having sex = abomination = death.

genocide is genocide, the intended killing of a people, yes.
But I don't link this activity to him as a person.
As I said, kicking the ball is sometimes just that: kicking the ball.
That doesn't make me a soccer player or ball kicker when I merely wanted the ball off the grass. It's not a personality trait of mine when I just kick the ball every once in a while.

Well, in the Bible it says anyone who is male and has sex with men is to be killed.
Gays and straight people alike, I have a friend who once had sex with 2 gays. However, he's perfecty straight.
God could not have talked these topics without running the risk of being misunderstood by the then people.
They did not know the difference between "sexual orientation" and casual sex with members of the same sex, if you are straight.
Let's assume God merely disapproved of the latter form of consensual contacts... he wouldn't have a chance of getting this message across back then.
In a sense that he would have been understood by the then population.
So no, in my opinion you can't say that he was homophobo, I think.
I think God loves all homosexuals.
(I don't say he approves of gay sex, either, btw.. I'm neutral here)

 

[thomas t]

Currently Christians are lying to support their side (as if it is some kind of football game).

Christian lies:

1. Evolution is wrong, creation is right.
2. God is good
3. The bible is perfect
4. We'll be raptured, leaving God's destroyed environment behind
5. Mankind's impact on Global Warming is a myth
6. Christians love peace

I don't think that Christians are lying.
1 is not a lie, I think.
2 is not a lie, I think.
3 is not a lie, I think.
I don't lie, I think.

 

[halbhh]

And yet that is something god never promoted, and Jesus never taught it.

But of course Jesus taught it. If He had not, then we'd have a meaningful contradiction (not just a seeming contradiction that disappears once you read more fully, or a nothing one that has no significance, but a real one).

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Matthew 19 NIV
----
Perfect agreement, as one would expect.

Notice a key thing: celibacy is only for some.

Just like in Paul: celibacy is better for some, and marriage is better for others.

We are expected to be ourselves -- each one a unique person.

Some people are not strongly inclined sexually. Some are.

Each person, individual.

 

[halbhh]

So meta, an apologetic comment in a post about apologetics. Plus the good ole' run of the mill cherry picking.

If you read, you'd see the context. And if you accepted the full text, meaning all the parts, then you would not be cherry picking.

 

[halbhh]

@Rival you might possibly be interested in post #78 just above