Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 99 of 99

Thread: Why is apologetics almost unknown?

  1. #91
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,814
    Amen (Given)
    9044
    Amen (Received)
    20889
    Quote Originally Posted by Sea of red View Post
    Usually, when I hear accusations of persecution, bias, or prejudice from Evangelical Christians/Conservatives, I can't help be skeptical of the charges.
    Based on your own prejudices and bias, no doubt.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  2. Amen Adrift, Jedidiah amen'd this post.
  3. #92
    tWebber stfoskey15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central OK, USA
    Faith
    Deist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    461
    Amen (Given)
    776
    Amen (Received)
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    Exactly how much is claiming the universe is 13.5 billion years across or Earth is 4.5 billion years old going to help inventing better technologies which, if used the right way (a thing science cannot guarantee) can help to advance certain parts of the material conditions of men?

    In other words, where exactly is modern scientific view of the universe directly involved?
    I'm pretty sure evolution has been very influential in our understanding of biology. And an accurate knowledge of cosmology is necessary if we ever want to travel to the stars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Hmm. How is Lewis' argument on hell like what you've described? I'm familiar with Lewis' argument, but I don't remember him arguing either that people have "full knowledge of the consequences of our actions and the existence of God" or "that we can cause infinite harm to God and deserve infinite punishment."
    The latter argument was one I read on the Internet. Going into a bit more detail on the former argument (what do you think of this article's job of summarizing Lewis' views?) it appears as tho I was wrong. But isn't having "full knowledge of the consequences of our actions and the existence of God" necessary for the concept of hell as described by Lewis to be just?
    Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.

    "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

    "We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

  4. #93
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,664
    Amen (Given)
    6213
    Amen (Received)
    5995
    Quote Originally Posted by stfoskey15 View Post
    The latter argument was one I read on the Internet.
    I skimmed through the argument and the first page, but couldn't find anything about causing infinite harm to God. There are a number of issues I can see with his argument, but that doesn't seem to be one.

    Quote Originally Posted by stfoskey15 View Post
    Going into a bit more detail on the former argument (what do you think of this article's job of summarizing Lewis' views?) it appears as tho I was wrong. But isn't having "full knowledge of the consequences of our actions and the existence of God" necessary for the concept of hell as described by Lewis to be just?
    I didn't read the whole thing cause it's very long, but from what I did read it seemed pretty accurate. Rather than "full knowledge of the consequences of our actions and the existence of God", I think it might be more accurate to say about Lewis' view that God is just, and that those in hell cannot excuse themselves by saying that they didn't have enough to go on, or that they weren't given enough opportunity to accept Christ. Perhaps it's semantics, but I think there's an important distinction, especially in light of a book like The Great Divorce, which paints a picture of people willfully self-deceived. You should read it if you haven't. It's short, and entertaining.

  5. #94
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,610
    Amen (Given)
    2511
    Amen (Received)
    1513
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    Exactly how much is claiming the universe is 13.5 billion years across or Earth is 4.5 billion years old going to help inventing better technologies which, if used the right way (a thing science cannot guarantee) can help to advance certain parts of the material conditions of men?
    It would probably come as a huge surprise to anyone not familiar with the field to learn just how much advanced modern physics research is being done by astronomers. As our models of theoretical physics advance, there are two major ways in which they are being tested: In massive colliders built by CERN etc where matter is accelerated to huge speeds and then the collisions are analysed to understand what is within the matter and how it is interacting; and in astronomical entities of neutron stars, black holes, galaxies etc that naturally create very interesting and complex physical systems, and by studying these systems carefully we can test all kinds of hypotheses about quantum physics and relativity and essentially conduct 'experiments' of kinds that we would have no hope of conducting on earth (good luck building a black hole in your lab for example).

    Obviously major breakthroughs in our understandings of theological physics could potentially result in inventions like fusion power, anti-gravity technologies, room temperature superconductors etc that would have dramatic implications for our life on earth. Thus astronomy - our modelling of cosmic phenomena and careful comparison of observation against models - is one of the most cutting edge sciences in terms of advancing our understanding of the basic physical laws of the universe. At lot of people imagine astronomy as getting up at night to look through a telescope and write in a journal the location of a star, but in practice the big telescopes are all automated so you just program what you want them to be aimed at and have no need to either get up at night or be anywhere near the telescope as the next day the data collected by the telescope is in your computer system. What the astronomer is doing instead will be looking carefully at things like the different amounts of light the star is emitting in different parts of the spectrum or changes in that over time, and how those things tie into different physical phenomena - e.g. a planet orbiting that star passing in front of it; some particular type of nuclear reaction within the star; the star moving away or towards us at particular speeds; energy being given off by black holes etc - so the astronomer is doing a heck of a lot of mathematically-based computer modelling and comparing that to the empirical data being obtained. I think it's a fascinating field of research.

    Quote Originally Posted by stfoskey15 View Post
    The latter argument was one I read on the Internet. Going into a bit more detail on the former argument (what do you think of this article's job of summarizing Lewis' views?) it appears as tho I was wrong. But isn't having "full knowledge of the consequences of our actions and the existence of God" necessary for the concept of hell as described by Lewis to be just?
    In his book about hell, Lewis presents souls as having the ability to move between heaven and hell at will (at least initially). His hell is not full of any fire or devils or God-inflicted suffering, but rather those people who are nasty just gravitate towards living in a place by themselves and reveling in their nastiness (he doesn't really grapple with questions like "well, wouldn't those people want to have a set of innocents they could be nasty to?"). His hell becomes a bad place because of their presence rather than due to anything much else.

    His view is thus much closer to an Eastern Orthodox idea of "hell is something we create within ourselves by becoming horrible people" rather than the traditional evangelical / Roman Catholic idea of Hell as a place of punishment that God sends unbelievers to roast for eternity in. Of course, once you start saying that hell is something we do / create etc rather than something God does, you can't really assert that being a Christian in this life is necessary or sufficient for salvation. Thus both Lewis and the Eastern Orthodox tend to be pretty fine with the idea that non-believers can be saved after death, while evangelicals tend to prefer the idea that believing the gospel in this life is essential for salvation.
    Last edited by Starlight; 01-09-2017 at 11:37 PM.

  6. #95
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,664
    Amen (Given)
    6213
    Amen (Received)
    5995
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    In his book about hell, Lewis presents souls as having the ability to move between heaven and hell at will (at least initially). His hell is not full of any fire or devils or God-inflicted suffering, but rather those people who are nasty just gravitate towards living in a place by themselves and reveling in their nastiness (he doesn't really grapple with questions like "well, wouldn't those people want to have a set of innocents they could be nasty to?"). His hell becomes a bad place because of their presence rather than due to anything much else.

    His view is thus much closer to an Eastern Orthodox idea of "hell is something we create within ourselves by becoming horrible people" rather than the traditional evangelical / Roman Catholic idea of Hell as a place of punishment that God sends unbelievers to roast for eternity in. Of course, once you start saying that hell is something we do / create etc rather than something God does, you can't really assert that being a Christian in this life is necessary or sufficient for salvation. Thus both Lewis and the Eastern Orthodox tend to be pretty fine with the idea that non-believers can be saved after death, while evangelicals tend to prefer the idea that believing the gospel in this life is essential for salvation.
    As usual, this isn't really that accurate of an assessment of either Lewis, or of so-called Evangelicals (or Roman Catholics as far as I can tell). Lewis doesn't paint people in hell as "horrible people", but as people who are mostly self-serving, self-worshipping, who desire a shadow of good, rather than the good itself. Perhaps that does make them horrible in the end, but you're putting some spin on it that I don't recall Lewis doing. Also, Lewis doesn't say hell is something we do/create, it's probably more accurate to say that he believed it was a place the damned find themselves in. They walk themselves into hell, and lock the doors behind them. Lewis certainly believes that God allows people to find themselves in hell, and in that sense, it most certainly is something that God does, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. I don't know how that leads to the conclusion that, "you can't really assert that being a Christian in this life is necessary or sufficient for salvation". I'm pretty certain that's not something Lewis would agree with.

    I'm not an EO, and I mostly accept Lewis' view on the subject of hell. I know a lot of others who are not EOs who do so as well. In fact, I'd say that most of the Christians on this forum probably accept something close to his ideas on the subject of hell, and we only have a few EOs among us.

    Starlight, in the future, please stop talking for Christians, whether they be EOs, RCs, Evangelicals, or others. You don't really know what they believe. There are a number of non-Christians on this forum who have a grasp. You don't. Stick to whatever strange "Baptist" church you used to go to in New Zealand, and stay with that.

  7. Amen Jedidiah, Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  8. #96
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,610
    Amen (Given)
    2511
    Amen (Received)
    1513
    As usual Adrift, you're wrong about everything. Doesn't that get tedious?

  9. #97
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,796
    Amen (Given)
    5143
    Amen (Received)
    9671
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    As usual Adrift, you're wrong about everything. Doesn't that get tedious?
    I see that Weird Al had you in mind...



    It doesn't seem to bother you at ALL.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  10. #98
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    It would probably come as a huge surprise to anyone not familiar with the field to learn just how much advanced modern physics research is being done by astronomers. As our models of theoretical physics advance, there are two major ways in which they are being tested: In massive colliders built by CERN etc where matter is accelerated to huge speeds and then the collisions are analysed to understand what is within the matter and how it is interacting; and in astronomical entities of neutron stars, black holes, galaxies etc that naturally create very interesting and complex physical systems, and by studying these systems carefully we can test all kinds of hypotheses about quantum physics and relativity and essentially conduct 'experiments' of kinds that we would have no hope of conducting on earth (good luck building a black hole in your lab for example).

    Obviously major breakthroughs in our understandings of theological physics could potentially result in inventions like fusion power, anti-gravity technologies, room temperature superconductors etc that would have dramatic implications for our life on earth.
    Well, but in that case, the improvement (if it should come) would be coming from the testing of models, perhaps including of models that are abandoned for astronomy.

    AND even a model theoretically connected to heliocentrism is a model which if tested in CERN is other than heliocentrism.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  11. #99
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by stfoskey15 View Post
    I'm pretty sure evolution has been very influential in our understanding of biology. And an accurate knowledge of cosmology is necessary if we ever want to travel to the stars.
    Biology has tested truths which might have been discovered due to evolution, but which do not imply it.

    If I am right, travelling to the stars might be risky as well as a waste of time.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •