The Christian Worldview Explained

Politics, Social Issues, Religion, Philosophy & other Serious Topics Only.
User avatar
Scavenger Extraordinaire
Scavenger Extraordinaire
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:39 pm
Location: wherever my phone/laptop is
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:34 pm
"I believe Christian Apologetics are one of the best, less off-putting means of doing so for a neutral or hostile audience"
Not really sure how you figure that. The whole point of them are to defend the religion against criticism and demonstrate why it's true. Immediately you're taking a defensive and argumentative position by principle, regardless of how civilly you present the points. That's going to make atheists and others actively against Christianity immediately defensive, and alienate more casual/neutral readers who aren't interested in getting into a religion debate. But that's besides the point, my issue was that the thread titling was somewhat deceptive. In a thread ostensibly about educating people on and discussing the Christian worldview, you spend far more time defending Christianity against arguments from atheists than you do actually talking about Christianity(Christian history, The Bible, Christian philosophers, Christianity in culture etc). You should have named the thread "Why Christianity is true" or if you wanna be less on the nose maybe "The case for Christianity" just so people know what they're getting into upon clicking. Not a big deal or anything, but felt worth pointing out anyway.
User avatar
Best Backpack Ever
Best Backpack Ever
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:12 pm
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:44 am
Beelzebub wrote:"I believe Christian Apologetics are one of the best, less off-putting means of doing so for a neutral or hostile audience"
Not really sure how you figure that. The whole point of them are to defend the religion against criticism and demonstrate why it's true. Immediately you're taking a defensive and argumentative position by principle, regardless of how civilly you present the points. That's going to make atheists and others actively against Christianity immediately defensive, and alienate more casual/neutral readers who aren't interested in getting into a religion debate. But that's besides the point, my issue was that the thread titling was somewhat deceptive. In a thread ostensibly about educating people on and discussing the Christian worldview, you spend far more time defending Christianity against arguments from atheists than you do actually talking about Christianity(Christian history, The Bible, Christian philosophers, Christianity in culture etc). You should have named the thread "Why Christianity is true" or if you wanna be less on the nose maybe "The case for Christianity" just so people know what they're getting into upon clicking. Not a big deal or anything, but felt worth pointing out anyway.

Unfortunately, that's unavoidable. Someone will always be offended or defensive when discussing sensitive matters such as this. Perhaps there are Apologists who are off-putting, but Ravi and his team are not among them. They defend the faith yes, but they do so very cordially, being mindful that they're answering a questioner rather than just a question. We might disagree, but that doesn't mean we can't at least have a hearing, no?

A title was something I didn't want to get too hung up on. I felt it would be a bit more gentle to say "The Christian Worldview Explained" rather than "Why Christianity is Right" as if I was boldly charging in for an argument, which I'm not really. I am simply presenting answers to questions from this worldview, answering and discussing matters on Christianity myself if I can, and then letting the reader make up their own minds from there. I wish merely to introduce, not to impose. Do I believe Christianity is the truth? Yes, absolutely, but even the truth becomes ugly if presented disrespectfully. Either way, thank you for your concern.
Image
User avatar
Scavenger Extraordinaire
Scavenger Extraordinaire
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:39 pm
Location: wherever my phone/laptop is
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:07 am
hold on

so titling the thread "Why Christianity is true" isn't "gentle" enough, but making brazen and ridiculous claims like "secularism and atheism led to the holocaust" without even an attempt to justify them is fine? Surely no one could be off-put by that? You can't even hide behind the "well that's just what Christians believe" excuse because there's nothing biblical about that claim. It's just conspiratorial nonsense. It doesn't matter how many ribbons you stick on it, argumenation is still argumentation. Sounds like you're reluctant to call this what it is, you trying to convert people to Christianity. You wouldn't have linked that laundry list of videos attempting to explain away problems with the faith otherwise. Your opening paragraphs would read more like someone seeking discission, and less like someone seeking to preach. I just think people should be forthright with their intentions is all.

Also on the first bit you missed the point. You said apolegetics is the least off-putting method for talking about Christianity to a neutral or hostile audiance, and that's patently untrue to anyone who understands what apologetics actually is and basic human psychology.
User avatar
Best Backpack Ever
Best Backpack Ever
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:12 pm
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:25 am
Beelzebub wrote:hold on

so titling the thread "Why Christianity is true" isn't "gentle" enough, but making brazen and ridiculous claims like "secularism and atheism led to the holocaust" without even an attempt to justify them is fine? Surely no one could be off-put by that? You can't even hide behind the "well that's just what Christians believe" excuse because there's nothing biblical about that claim. It's just conspiratorial nonsense. It doesn't matter how many ribbons you stick on it, argumenation is still argumentation. Sounds like you're reluctant to call this what it is, you trying to convert people to Christianity. You wouldn't have linked that laundry list of videos attempting to explain away problems with the faith otherwise. Your opening paragraphs would read more like someone seeking discission, and less like someone seeking to preach. I just think people should be forthright with their intentions is all.

Also on the first bit you missed the point. You said apolegetics is the least off-putting method for talking about Christianity to a neutral or hostile audiance, and that's patently untrue to anyone who understands what apologetics actually is and basic human psychology.

I didn't pursue that avenue because I realized I had made a blunder and attempted to correct myself, per my response to Fredo. I made an argumentative claim yes, but then I disengaged the topic because it was going down the debate/argument route which I did not intend for this thread.
Being blunt is not my forte, but if you insist so be it: Indeed, I formally invite anyone who does not know Jesus, to approach and invite Him into their lives. But as I mentioned before, I do not intend to impose the matter. If even just one finds Him through this, splendid, all the effort was worth it then.

That's just me then I suppose. When I think “Apologetics” I think of a cordial case being made that engages the intellect and answers deep philosophical questions, rather than just throwing out a bunch of religious jargon. If that's just me misinterpreting the terms, then my apologies. Regardless, I stand by the presentations made by Dr.Zacharias and Professor Lennox as a reliable means of explanation.

Now, do you have something you'd like to discuss that pertains to Christianity? I think we've gone far enough off course.
Image
User avatar
Scavenger Extraordinaire
Scavenger Extraordinaire
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:39 pm
Location: wherever my phone/laptop is
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:04 pm
Not so sure you're minsintepreting the definition so much as misjudging how people tend to react to things. It follows that someone is probably going to be more receptive if they're simply told about Christianity, rather than being told that Christianity is correct and all their beliefs are wrong. People are naturally highly defensive about their worldviews. Of course directly challenging ideas and making bold statements is fine, but if you're going to do that at least frame it that way.

As far as other discussion, I wouldn't really know where to begin. Outside of "humans are moral and they don't need a god to act morally" I literally disagree with every single claim you made, as far as I remember. If you wanna start somewhere, the issue of vicarious redemption always made Chrisianity a non-starter for me. That kind of justice would be inapplicable literally anywhere else, and it seems utterly immoral in that it negates the importance of personal responsibility.
User avatar
The Other Ripley
The Other Ripley
Posts: 9105
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:03 pm
Location: Twin Seed City
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:14 pm
This is basically most cases for religion in a nutshell:

"We just want complete and undisputed world domination! Is that too much to ask? Why are you so intolerant?"

At least, that's Abrahamic religion for you. The likes of Buddhism and Hindu are surprisingly chill, from what I've heard.

Humanity cannot be led by what it is not allowed to question. As the standard of common sense increases, so does the standard of morality, and unquestionable authority can only tie that progress down.
Unlike you people, I get my news from a reliable source. Image
User avatar
Best Backpack Ever
Best Backpack Ever
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:12 pm
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:31 pm
Alright B, lets start there. First I would like to say I appreciate the question, I truly do. It's difficult to gauge how a person feels through some disembodied text on a screen, but for what it's worth, I appreciate you giving me a hearing. Correct me if I misinterpret what you said, but you're basically saying you don't like how it sounds like in Christianity, a person can say “I believe in Jesus, therefore its compulsory Heaven for me”, thus negating personal responsibility. There most certainly is personal responsibility. It takes more than just saying “I'm a Christian, therefore I'm saved by default.” The sincereity of thought and deed is necessary.

If one were to ask me, “What does it mean to be a Christian?” my simplest response would be: “A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.” If I claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, then it is my responsibility to represent Him truthfully, and obey what He says. “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless."(James 1:22, 26) If a person claims to be Christian, and yet they're an angry, bitter, mess with the condeming attitude of “We're going to Heaven while all those lousy sinners are going to hell”, then they are absolutely NOT right with God. “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” (Romans 2:1)

I find it fascinating how Jesus was so incredibly merciful and forgiving to all the rejected of society; The poor, the prostitues, the infirm, and how the ONLY people He ever rebuked and spoke to about hell, were the religious hypocrites of His time. They claimed to be of God, but were more concerned with making money than representing love and forgiveness. Jesus Himself made it very clear that those who expect a free-pass into Heaven because they merely claimed to be Godly, will be sorely disappointed: "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many wonderful works?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!' Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock."(Matthew 7:22-25)

So yes, there is indeed personal responsibility. Love is the fullfillment of the law (Romans 13:10) and we who claim to be of God and truth, must live the message with our lives rather than just espousing it with our lips. “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)
Image
User avatar
Scavenger Extraordinaire
Scavenger Extraordinaire
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:39 pm
Location: wherever my phone/laptop is
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 7:37 pm
kinda forgot about the forums, it's why I'm replying so late

anyway, it's not about what I like, it's about the idea being ethically preposterous to begin with. according to the christian worldview(protestant evangelical at least, which I'm guessing you fall under) you can act like the most vile piece of trash imaginable, but if you're on your death bed and you repent for your sins with sincerity to the correct god, you get a free ride to eternal bliss. something similar to this happend in the bible iirc, with the theives crucified alongside jesus. on the flipside, if you have a perfectly decent and well meaning person who happens to have been misled spiritually, they'll be condemed to perdition if they die without changing their belief system. any moral framework that gives a mass serial killer/child rapist who's really sorry about what he did more lenience than a spiritually confused but decent man is pretty shitty imo

not to mention, the idea makes no sense to begin with. If a person commits heinous acts, he and he alone is responsible for them. someone else taking the punishment doesn't actually accomplish anything. the entire point of punishment is to deter the future occurence of whatever transgression and to discipline the transgressor in question. having someone else take the punishment accomplishes neither of these.
User avatar
The Other Ripley
The Other Ripley
Posts: 9105
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:03 pm
Location: Twin Seed City
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 3:28 pm
Beelzebub wrote:not to mention, the idea makes no sense to begin with. If a person commits heinous acts, he and he alone is responsible for them. someone else taking the punishment doesn't actually accomplish anything. the entire point of punishment is to deter the future occurence of whatever transgression and to discipline the transgressor in question. having someone else take the punishment accomplishes neither of these.

On top of that, neither is that accomplished by punishing the perpetrator for all of eternity with no means of going back while not letting anyone else see it so that he can't be an example.

Sure, there were plenty of people warning him, but there were also people warning him about that, not just Atheists but those of other religions as well. There really isn't anything that makes Christianity more valid than Islam.

And many people weren't warned about it. Many have come to believe in their non-Christian religions the same way Christians come to believe in theirs. They obviously feel just as strongly about their God, and given that all the ways God shows Himself to people are purely psychological, no one religion can prove it any better than the other, and furthermore, it can be very, very easily explained away by someone who's not afraid to consider the possibility of such.
Unlike you people, I get my news from a reliable source. Image
User avatar
Scavenger Extraordinaire
Scavenger Extraordinaire
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:39 pm
Location: wherever my phone/laptop is
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 1:49 am
Actually to its credit, Christianity does seem to be a good deal more philosophically robust than Islam. This is partially due to Christians having to refine their arguments in the modern era where other ideas can freely compete with it, as opposed to Islam which is still more stuck to its archaic roots ie. people in Muslim countries are afraid of getting murdered. Even that aside, there doesn't appear to be any Muslim answer to someone like Thomas Aquinas. Muslim apologetics are incredibly fucking pathetic. From what I've seen the most cogent ones are just rehashes of Christian arguments. Some of them are literally just "hey look at this arbitrary pattern that has this coincidental corrilation with this important date, Allah is totes real." It doesn't help that the new and old testamaent are not all that cohesive, and more open to intepretation. The Quran and Hadith, from what I've read of them and about them, are much more straightfoward, so it's harder to come up with excuses for the bullshit written inside them.
PreviousNext

Return to Formal Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest