Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Apologetics of Confrontation and Anger

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    But perhaps you might want to consider the possibility that this is a factor in the shift away from traditional Christian faiths in the U.S. Since 2007, Christians, as a share of the U.S. population, fell 7.8% to the current level of 70.6% (http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/), and the trend appears to be continuing.
    Part of this is because thinking now is that Niceness = godliness. We need more hellfire preaching!

    Increasingly, the young seem to be shifting away, citing any number of factors. I don't know about anyone else, but when I am reviled as a "godless scum," "baby-killing liberal," or "hypocrite," I do not find myself inclined to run towards those acting that way.
    No need to go around calling people 'scum' all the time, yes, but those in darkness hate being exposed!

    "Look how Nice we are!!!! Come join our Nice little group in church" is not right way to go.
    Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Roy View Post
      "Your argument is invalid because you were born in December".


      I concede the point....
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        I haven't interacted with you much, but I thought I would bring this point up. Jesus responded like the above to the Pharisees and Sadducees, but not to sincere people who were not yet believers. The Roman centurion for example was said to have greater faith than he had seen in Israel. Harsh words seem to be reserved for those who either are insincere, or who are "on the attack". You don't seem to be in either of those two groups from what I have seen.

        Also, different people respond to harsh words differently. Some people respect the more harsh approach, while others see it as distasteful. I'm rather blunt, but I tend to the more "soft" approach. However, I've also seen where a harsher approach is necessary.
        I wish I could say I was never one of those "atheists on the attack." I will still challenge a statement I do not agree with, but I think age has mellowed me a bit. And the current political climate dismays me a LOT. Somehow, we have to find a way to return to civility and bridge the enormous divide that currently exists. I think there are bad people in the world - but I do not think someone who thinks differently than I is "automatically bad." Most of the time, we have the same basic moral fabric and values - but we differ in how they are expressed and applied.

        But I have learned, through experience, that a harsh approach has never really achieved anything for me - except to piss off the person I am confronting and more strongly polarize the relationship. When I encounter someone who is "on the attack," I find it largely a waste of my time to engage. I'll ask if they can tone it down, but if they cannot - I'll move on.

        Of course, I am not under a requirement to spread the Christian (or any other) message, so that might change things. But I still find it regretful when people choose polarizing language instead of looking for common ground. When I attack - it really says nothing about the person attacked - it says a lot about me.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
          Part of this is because thinking now is that Niceness = godliness. We need more hellfire preaching!

          No need to go around calling people 'scum' all the time, yes, but those in darkness hate being exposed!

          "Look how Nice we are!!!! Come join our Nice little group in church" is not right way to go.
          You're taking an observation to its extreme, Demi. No one suggested "wimpiness" or failure to challenge things that ought be challenged. There is a difference between what we challenge and how we challenge it. In the Jesus exchange I cited, Jesus could have made exactly the same point without the "Hypocrites!" (indeed, that is how I remembered it). All of the rest of his response was a rebuke, and a powerful one. "Hypocrites" added nothing to it and, IMO, denigrated the message. Rather than keep open the possibility that some of them MIGHT have caught the rebuke and taken it away and thought about it, Jesus first polarized the situation, virtually ensuring that the message that followed would not be heard by any of his accusers.

          This is the dynamic I see so often from those most passionate about their beliefs, from the far right to the far left. If the goal is to convince and convey a message, the approach defeats the goal, IMO.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I wish I could say I was never one of those "atheists on the attack." I will still challenge a statement I do not agree with, but I think age has mellowed me a bit. And the current political climate dismays me a LOT. Somehow, we have to find a way to return to civility and bridge the enormous divide that currently exists. I think there are bad people in the world - but I do not think someone who thinks differently than I is "automatically bad." Most of the time, we have the same basic moral fabric and values - but we differ in how they are expressed and applied.

            But I have learned, through experience, that a harsh approach has never really achieved anything for me - except to piss off the person I am confronting and more strongly polarize the relationship. When I encounter someone who is "on the attack," I find it largely a waste of my time to engage. I'll ask if they can tone it down, but if they cannot - I'll move on.

            Of course, I am not under a requirement to spread the Christian (or any other) message, so that might change things. But I still find it regretful when people choose polarizing language instead of looking for common ground. When I attack - it really says nothing about the person attacked - it says a lot about me.
            My experience has been different. I will agree that most people in most Western countries dislike the aggressive approach, but certainly not all. I know that I have personally rethought some things when given a harsh answer, although admittedly not always. It really depends on the person, the situation, and other stuff.

            The "moral fabric" seems to be increasingly different between the left and right as time goes on. While there is some common ground, it is a lot less than it used to be. As people move further and further from that common basis, which in the USA, and many other Western countries used to be grounded in Christianity, politics gets more and more polarized. I see it continuing down this path for a long time to come barring a miracle.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              My experience has been different. I will agree that most people in most Western countries dislike the aggressive approach, but certainly not all. I know that I have personally rethought some things when given a harsh answer, although admittedly not always. It really depends on the person, the situation, and other stuff.

              The "moral fabric" seems to be increasingly different between the left and right as time goes on. While there is some common ground, it is a lot less than it used to be. As people move further and further from that common basis, which in the USA, and many other Western countries used to be grounded in Christianity, politics gets more and more polarized. I see it continuing down this path for a long time to come barring a miracle.
              I have to disagree. The common fabric we share is extensive. I doubt many people living in the U.S. would argue with any of the following:

              1) People should not randomly kill one another
              2) People should have the right to personal property
              3) Everyone has the right to feel safe
              4) We should not turn our back on someone who needs our help
              5) No one has the right to enslave another person
              6) Our government should represent the will of the people
              7) Children should be protected from harm and nurtured

              I could keep going, and the list would be long. Our differences are not really about our core values - they are about how those values are expressed in everyday life. So we all believe we have the right to feel safe, but some feel that safety would be enhanced by more guns, and some think the problem is too many guns of the wrong type. Then there are the cases where the situation pits one value against another. Abortion, for example, pits 1) against 5), creating a deep divide: if you come down on the side of 1), you are approving 5). If you come down on the side of 5), you are approving 1).

              These are the places where our differences come to the fore - but instead of working to find common ground and solving the problem, we live in an age where each side entrenches, polarizes, and insists it has to be "their way."

              And I have to say that, while this country has a very high percentage of Christians, our government was formed specifically on the principle of religious freedom - that each person should have the freedom to worship (or not) as they saw fit. Our nation's demographics are shifting. Christianity is shrinking. Atheism, Judaism, Islam, and other worldviews are on the rise. It is inevitable that they are going to want the world to encompass their faiths as well. As that shift occurs, it is natural that some Christians will feel they are "losing something," because they are. The world they once dominated is shifting to a different world. It is natural to want to preserve things "the way they were." The familiar is comfortable - the unknown is scary.

              But the change is going to happen. Just as globalism is going to happen. Our retreat into nationalism is inevitably temporary. With the ability to travel across the planet in a matter of hours, an Internet and phone system that span the globe, an economic world that increasingly binds countries to one another, and the ability to know what is happening on the other side of the planet in a matter of seconds or minutes, it is inevitable that borders will become more permeable, businesses and finances will flow with increasing freedom, and people will bring with them their cultures, beliefs, and ideas. Fighting against it is merely an exercise in fighting the tide. If a country truly becomes successful in closing itself off in the spirit of "nationalism," what will happen is what happened to North Korea when it made that decision. Today, North Korea is a developing country - while South Korea is a booming economy. Look at a photograph from space taken at night: South Korea is lit up like a Christmas Tree, and North Korea is largely dark. North Korea's people are hungry and brainwashed by their government. South Korea is thriving. THERE is an object lesson on nationalism versus globalism.

              Anyway - that was a bit of a tangent. Change happens. Adjusting to change is difficult. The question for all of us, I think, is how do we live in the new reality, and preserve who we each are?
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-22-2017, 10:55 AM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                But if the goal of apologetics is to explain the faith, and convey the message of Christ risen, does a confrontational and angry apologetic EVER successfully convey the spirit of Christ?
                A major factor is the potential receptiveness of the person being apologeticalized.

                When an atheist (of the variety we see here on T-web) comes to this Christian owned and operated website, they're generally not coming for fellowship, or to learn about Jesus. They are often in full on attack mode, here to do battle.

                When I encounter one like you, with whom discourse is actually possible, I enjoy the interaction.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                  There is a button on the bottom of pist that says amen.
                  Of course, when one is pist, they're not likely to amen.


                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Of course, when one is pist, they're not likely to amen.


                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      A major factor is the potential receptiveness of the person being apologeticalized.

                      When an atheist (of the variety we see here on T-web) comes to this Christian owned and operated website, they're generally not coming for fellowship, or to learn about Jesus. They are often in full on attack mode, here to do battle.

                      When I encounter one like you, with whom discourse is actually possible, I enjoy the interaction.
                      Compliment received - and appreciated. I used to be an atheist [bad word], but I found something interesting about [bad word] - they tend to smell really, really, bad.

                      (I sincerely hope I did not just violate any terms of service...)
                      Last edited by Cow Poke; 11-22-2017, 01:55 PM.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Compliment received - and appreciated. I used to be an atheist [hiney bo], but I found something interesting about [hiney bos] - they tend to smell really, really, bad.

                        (I sincerely hope I did not just violate any terms of service...)
                        Veiled profanity is, indeed, a violation of the ToS. If you can't edit that out, I'll be happy to do it for you.
                        Last edited by Cow Poke; 11-22-2017, 01:56 PM.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Veiled profanity is, indeed, a violation of the ToS. If you can't edit that out, I'll be happy to do it for you.
                          Sorry about that. Yes - please edit and replace the "veil" with whatever you deem appropriate. Perhaps "atheist backside?"

                          Also don't forget you'll need to edit the same phrase in your reply...
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Of course, when one is pist, they're not likely to amen.


                            They report the pist instead. Right?



                            Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              Sorry about that. Yes - please edit and replace the "veil" with whatever you deem appropriate. Perhaps "atheist backside?"

                              Also don't forget you'll need to edit the same phrase in your reply...
                              I got really creative in the reply.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                                They report the pist instead. Right?

                                Yeah, but all seriousness aside, I never did like that word.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                13 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X