Answering Objections To Apologetics.

[Yahweh_is_gracious]

Ive responded to two of your posts merely cuz I think they were wrong, if you post an opinion on a forum others are going to tell you theirs, even those who disagree. You dont seem to understand what debating is : p

If you say so.

 

[Hyvent]

I read the OP, and while I can see the logic behind it, I don't agree with it. Along with apologetics is the intent of the apologist, and that is where I think the problem exists. Defending the faith is one thing, but one that is very seldom seen. More often than not, a Christian learns apologetics in order to justify having heated debates, oneupmanship of other people from different viewpoints, and feed their own ego. Human nature though, so what can you do?

I read the OP, and while I can see the logic behind it, I don't agree with it.


I'm glad that you're being respectful and cordial. I really appreciate that you're willing to disagree with me but not do so in a mean spirited way. I hope you don't mind if I do the same with what you've said. I'll quote what you say in order to avoid putting words into your mouth and creating easy positions to tear down.

I also have a question. What exactly don't you agree with? Could you provide me an example?


Along with apologetics is the intent of the apologist, and that is where I think the problem exists.


I can't agree more! The intent of the apologist is vital if one is going to engage in discourse and debate on hot topic issues. I preach this all the time to those that I teach. I believe that this is a crucial issue.


I do have a few questions that would help me more clearly understand your position.


1) Do you think that this problem is insurmountable and thus, should be avoided?


2) Do you think that apologetics should be discarded on the basis of the ill-intent of any given apologist? If so, why?


Defending the faith is one thing, but one that is very seldom seen.


I don't know who you have watched debate but I'll provide two examples of people who should be the standard of debating and one who should've never gotten into apologetics.


1) William Lane Craig


He has an entire ministry dedicated to debating atheists and yet I have never seen him so much as raise his voice. He's consistently polite even when he is constantly interrupted. This is highlighted in his debate with theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, who on three different debates interrupted Dr. Craig throughout the entire debate. Dr. Craig was very gracious during every debate. I find his willingness to debate Dr. Krauss three times, even after knowing how Krauss would conduct himself shows what it looks like to be respectful during debates.


2) Greg Koukl


I don't have an example like the one above but Greg has an uncanny way of being respectful even when he isn't treated with the same type of respect.


3) The one who shouldn't have gotten into apologetics.


Dr. Kent Hovind. I think he is the epitome of what you're talking about. In every lecture I have ever seen, he comes across arrogant, pompous, disrespectful, mean spirited, egotistical to the point that it disgusts me. So I am very sympathetic to your opposition of apologists.

 

[Hyvent]

I couldn't agree more! I have always wanted to be more concise in my written thought but when I reread some of these arguments, some of them were just vacuous, incomplete thoughts, and over all bad representations of my position. I hope to mend this in my updated version.

 

[Yahweh_is_gracious]

I read the OP, and while I can see the logic behind it, I don't agree with it.


I'm glad that you're being respectful and cordial. I really appreciate that you're willing to disagree with me but not do so in a mean spirited way. I hope you don't mind if I do the same with what you've said. I'll quote what you say in order to avoid putting words into your mouth and creating easy positions to tear down.

I also have a question. What exactly don't you agree with? Could you provide me an example?


Along with apologetics is the intent of the apologist, and that is where I think the problem exists.


I can't agree more! The intent of the apologist is vital if one is going to engage in discourse and debate on hot topic issues. I preach this all the time to those that I teach. I believe that this is a crucial issue.


I do have a few questions that would help me more clearly understand your position.


1) Do you think that this problem is insurmountable and thus, should be avoided?


2) Do you think that apologetics should be discarded on the basis of the ill-intent of any given apologist? If so, why?


Defending the faith is one thing, but one that is very seldom seen.


I don't know who you have watched debate but I'll provide two examples of people who should be the standard of debating and one who should've never gotten into apologetics.


1) William Lane Craig


He has an entire ministry dedicated to debating atheists and yet I have never seen him so much as raise his voice. He's consistently polite even when he is constantly interrupted. This is highlighted in his debate with theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, who on three different debates interrupted Dr. Craig throughout the entire debate. Dr. Craig was very gracious during every debate. I find his willingness to debate Dr. Krauss three times, even after knowing how Krauss would conduct himself shows what it looks like to be respectful during debates.


2) Greg Koukl


I don't have an example like the one above but Greg has an uncanny way of being respectful even when he isn't treated with the same type of respect.


3) The one who shouldn't have gotten into apologetics.


Dr. Kent Hovind. I think he is the epitome of what you're talking about. In every lecture I have ever seen, he comes across arrogant, pompous, disrespectful, mean spirited, egotistical to the point that it disgusts me. So I am very sympathetic to your opposition of apologists.

I theoretically "could" engage in a discussion with you, but I just really don't care to. I don't think I need to defend myself to anyone. I might be wrong about that. I'm known to be wrong quite frequently, and I am okay with that. My ego doesn't need me to be "right" to be intact. It was a nice effort on your part though to play the part of polite.

 

[Hyvent]

I theoretically "could" engage in a discussion with you, but I just really don't care to. I don't think I need to defend myself to anyone. I might be wrong about that. I'm known to be wrong quite frequently, and I am okay with that. My ego doesn't need me to be "right" to be intact. It was a nice effort on your part though to play the part of polite.

I theoretically "could" engage in a discussion with you, but I just really don't care to.

You engaged in the discussion the moment you decided to provide your disagreement with my post. So if you really didn't care, you wouldn't have said anything to begin with. However, like you, I've been known to be wrong quite a bit. The human nature thing seems to just keep rearing it's head doesn't it?


I don't think I need to defend myself to anyone.

Glad to see you're grounded there but I wasn't asking you to defend your views as much as I was asking for clarification about your view.


It was a nice effort on your part though to play the part of polite.

I'm no actor, though. I couldn't play the part of anything if you paid me but given your encouragement here, I think I may take up acting now since I did such a good job.

 

[Hyvent]

This may be silly to add but your username isn't far off from my usual one Yahweh is God, which I shortened to Yig after a request from a fellow chatter.