Here’s a nice "Art of War" for apologetics, in list form, entitled Truth Tactics. Nice tips for those of us defending Christianity. If you like the list below, go and read his entire post.
Christians are privileged to be emissaries of the living God, heralds of hope, and defenders of divine truth. This is why it is imperative for them to approach apologetics in an intelligent fashion. Certainly, a good portion of this effort will involve the discovery and implementation of important apologetic strategies.
- The form and style of the worshiping community should be conducive to apologetics.
- Sometimes, it is just as important to show that Christianity is embraced by intellectuals, as it is to demonstrate specific intellectual arguments.
- Though Christianity is a call to a "higher" life, transforming a person’s perspective and priorities, it is still a human life, resembling, in many ways, the life of the past.
- Becoming a Christian involves a recognition of the cost of discipleship, as well as the anticipation of a joyful new life.
- Apologists should exude and promote hope.
- In speaking with unbelievers, apologists must learn to balance evidence and mystery, certainty and ignorance.
- Christianity’s unique features should be highlighted.
- There is a cultural benefit to be gained from engaging secular society with a strong apologetic.
- It is important for Christians to consider ways of reaching non-readers.
- Christians must learn the art of indirect apologetics.
How does one "balance" evidence and mystery? Isn't this just a disingenuous way to throw up the dust of mystery when the clear-eyed demand for evidence cannot be answered? Xianity fails on so many fronts to provide evidence for its outlandish claims that it has no choice but to resort to "mystery" when challenged.
Also, #5 is a joke considering what goes on here and elsewhere in dealing with gay people. What you people exude is condemnation, persecution and hatred.
How does one "balance" evidence and mystery?
While one could abuse this, we must also admit the limits of our understanding. Not that we should NOT try to understand, but admit that reason and logic have their limits. Only someone omniscient could understand everything.
As M. Scott Peck said in Further Along the Road Less Traveled:
In other words, like in science, we can claim to know some things fairly definitively, we can not know everthing, and we must grow comfortable with outstanding questions. That's where mystery comes in, and also, where faith sometimes stands in.
So, we could accept the trinity, or relativity, even if we don't fully understand it. We can try to understand it, maybe understand it some, but it's ok if we don't fully grasp it or it's implications.
Am I saying that the trinity is as sure as relativity? Not at all, only mentioning that sometimes, we take an authority's word for it until we have the resources or understanding to comprehend it ourselves. That's faith.
Regarding point #5, perhaps Christians should exude more hope with it comes to gays. Hope of God's acceptance AND his ability to heal the homosexual of their dysfunction. But anti-reparative therapy people want to take that hope away. They believe it to be a false hope.
I'm sure some people would accuse AA of being a false hope too, since many people don't get cured of their alcoholism. But many do.
The xianity you describe does not offer hope to gay people. Rather, it has always given us nothing but despair and rejection (or "acceptance" on terms so intolerable that they amount to rejection). The very terms you use to illustrate your idea of "hope" illustrate this. We do not need "hope" for a "cure," but hope that xianity will repent its evil ways.
I agree with Peck on mystery. However, religion does not respect mystery at all; rather, it substitutes an unproven and arbitrary certainty for true mystery. Religionists lack any sense of humility before the great mysteries of reality. Throughout history they have asserted notions which cannot be proven to explain that mystery. They seek to replace something profound and unfathomable with something little and local. Mystery can only be experienced, not systematized. And it cannot be replace with dogmas, churches, and scriptures. Out of this effort can only come the distortions and evils we see illustrated in your posts. Hubris, I think its called.
religion does not respect mystery at all; rather, it substitutes an unproven and arbitrary certainty for true mystery. Religionists lack any sense of humility before the great mysteries of reality.
True, many do, but that’s just immaturity. And many liberals substitute tolerance for a lack of moral courage or conviction, thinking that their “tolerance” is virtue. I guess the extreme abuses of grace or truth exist at both ends of the spectrum.
Mystery can only be experienced, not systematized.
I don’t think so. If we approached science like this, we would have learned nothing. Faith and God are realities just as science is, only they can not be measured with the tools of empiricism. That does not mean, however, that all experiences are of equal validity or value. While we may want to exercise more caution and humility in such a subjective arena, we do not need to live in the realm of constant uncertainty or agnosticism. We can know SOME things.
And it cannot be replace with dogmas, churches, and scriptures.
Agreed, but that does not eliminate the need or usefulness of these things. It merely puts them in balance and perspective.
Out of this effort can only come the distortions and evils we see illustrated in your posts. Hubris, I think its called.
I’m surprised that you are so judgmental and sure of your moral evaluation. Shame on you for judging my certainty with your uncertainty.
Faith and God are realities…
Cough Cough sputter… Thats the mother of all question begging.
"I'm surprised that you are so judgmental and sure of your moral evaluation. Shame on you for judging my certainty with your uncertainty."
?! Pot. Kettle. Black.
Not at all. Your judgments are in violation of the principles you espouse. Mine are not ;) I do not practice uber-tolerance and subjective morality while proclaiming other's wrongness.
I proclaim others' wrongness, with all the humility I can muster, precisely because I *believe* in the existence, reasonableness, and knowability of moral and ethical truth. So while you may want to call me judgemental, your own value system seems to obviate such behavior. Mine does not.
I am pointing to the logical inconsistency of your value system v. your actions.
You're projecting onto me a "liberal" mindset. I deny such an identification. I obviously don't practice 'uber-tolerance' and subjective morality. Isn't it obvious?
I "proclaim" you're wrongness for the precise reasons you claim for yourself. You are judgmental according to a fantasy which has no basis in fact. I judge you accordingly. You have no logical inconsistency because your opinions aren't based in logic, only faith.
You judge all moral disapproval, save your own, as judgmental. So whatever! In fact, in your opinion, anyone who judges homosexuality as sin by definition must be judgmental.
Came across this blog via a Technorati search on the topic of "Apologetics." I have dealt with the "homosexual behavior and the effects of Christian faith" issue many times at my blog. There is a precise reason why unrepentant homosexuals hate genuine Christian faith. It is God's Word that condemns them in their sin…not the Christians who are trying to encourage them to repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives.
I recently found this analogy at another website. I found it to be profoundly accurate!
This analogy certainly describes the current political debate today on this issue:
The Pit… A homosexual fell into a pit and couldn't get himself out. A pharisaic fundamentalist came along and said, "You deserve your pit." A psychologist came along and said, "Accept your pit. That way you'll be happy." An apostate liberal came along and said, "Your pit is God's beautiful gift to you." A gay activist came along and said, "Fight for your right to stay in your pit." A researcher came along and said, "Discrimination against pits is illegal." A charismatic came along and said, "Just confess that you're not in that pit." Respectable people came along and said, "We don't associate with pit-dwellers." His mother came along and said, "It's your father's fault you're in that pit." His father came along and said, "It's your mother's fault you're in that pit." His wife came along and said, "It's all my fault you're in that pit." But Jesus, seeing the man, loved him, and reaching into the pit, put his arms around the man and pulled him out.
Quoted from Deliver Ministries – Freedom from Homosexuality!
Ten Principles For Doing Apologetics
The Gospel of Christ is simple enough for even a child to understand; yet, to the seeker, turned believer, turned student, turned apologist, turned evangelist (in some cases), the depth of it all is truly infinite!
Isn't it great to realize that Go…
"In fact, in your opinion, anyone who judges homosexuality as sin by definition must be judgmental."
Well, duh! Anyone who judges anything is, by definition, judgmental. And I don't think "all" moral disapproval is wrong at all. I just disagree with your judgment when it comes to hx.
btw: the little story provided by whatsername above is profoundly stupid. One could attack anyone one doesn't like as being in a pit (eg, christianity is a "pit"). And, all gays don't hate your religion (Andrew Sullivan, for instance), and there are plenty of straights who hate it. I don't hate all forms of xianity, just the literalist, right-wing wingnut division.
Ahh…thank you for the welcome Louis! Nothing like being meanspirited to the newcomer!
So, the analogy is “profoundly stupid?” Another judgment being leveled by you? Yet, no one else can make a judgment… in your eyes. Well guess what? Your impression(s) of what is judgmental is not important compared to God’s judgment as revealed through His Word, the Bible.
You stated, “I don’t hate all forms of xianity, just the literalist, right-wing wingnut division.”
So, just which “form” of Christianity do you like? Let me guess…one that isn’t “judgmental” about a favorite sin of yours?
Ahh…thank you for the welcome Louis! Nothing like being meanspirited to the newcomer!
First of welcome. Nice to see a new face.
Secondly, while I don't necessarily agree with Louis on many points, we don't pull our punches with people here with our comments and posts. Maybe that raw energy caught you off-guard, but if you read through many of the comments around here it is a very common occurrence and requires a thick skin.
Well guess what? Your impression(s) of what is judgmental is not important compared to God's judgment as revealed through His Word, the Bible.
Maybe that is the case for you. However, most everyone on this planet labels people as profoundly stupid. Even many Evangelicals when it comes to those that ignore the Bible and the teachings of the Lord. Perhaps that is not the case with you, and if so, I commend you, but it is more common than you would think.
At the same time you are in effect being just as judgmental with your reliance on the Bible and God as being the arbiter of judgment of people, things, policy, and life. Maybe that has sway with Evangelicals and traditional Christians, but it has no sway with Jews, Muslims, or in this particular case Atheists.
– Silver
Now, wait a minute. I didn't say the poor newcomer was stupid, just the analogy she posted. And, another thing, xians revel in judgment – fine. But when called on the quality of their judgments, they get all defensive and boo-hoo all over the place about how their religion is being persecuted and how mean we are to give them back exactly what they give us. I don't give a fig whether xians are judgmental or not (after all, they're just emulating their version of god), but they shouldn't expect a free pass from the objects of their ire. Christine is a perfect example of such: my philosophical differences with her version of xianity are dismissed as merely defending my "sin" (another stupid word). Why should I give her or her ilk the benefit of the doubt when she (and seeker) makes it quite clear that she has nothing but contempt for me and my viewpoint?
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Why should I give her or her ilk the benefit of the doubt when she (and seeker) makes it quite clear that she has nothing but contempt for me and my viewpoint?
Louis, in fact, I am defending your right to do just that. :D
I didn't say the poor newcomer was stupid, just the analogy she posted.
Welcome to my world. I call someone's arguments illogical, or their conclusions vapid, or their sexuality immoral, and am accused of being a hater.
Calling someone's sexuality immoral is a direct attack upon them and their character, not an argument they've made. Thus, it is hateful.