Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Evangelicals vs. Christianity - How theological method justifies wrong politics

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

  • Evangelicals vs. Christianity - How theological method justifies wrong politics

    While I certainly would not disagree that Trump is lying what I have noted in quite many discussions in here and elsewhere is the tendency to avoid accepting the truth by making claims about “fake news”, pointing to the fact that points are made by “liberals” and thus are invalid. So the lies are covered up in a seemingly never ending system of claims.

    There is a seemingly never ending line of personal attacks for anyone who disagrees with Trump and great support for even some very doubtful sources supporting him. Not by everyone, and not everywhere but to a surprisingly high degree especially by Christians whom one would suppose stod the higher moral ground.

    While I certainly do not agree with Frank Schaeffer on everything and I think he uses a harsh tone I think he has a fair point when it comes to showing that the lies are not discovered due to the development of a system in which one has learned to simply not trust anyone opposing Trump. I grew up in a Christian family and went to church every sunday and have often been baffled both by the tone and the ideas that Christians support on tweb. I think Schaeffer put words on my considerations when he wrote:

    “Why do evangelicals support Trump instead of the evolution of empathy that is best represented by the ethical watershed event of the teachings of Jesus? Because evangelicalism isn’t about facts, let alone true spirituality. It’s a made up political reality based not on logic but theological methodology.” https://frankschaefferblog.com/2018/...orn-star-pres/
    I think Schaeffer forgets that this does not go for all evangelicals but I certainly see the tendency. Another tendency I also noted in here is summed up by Schaeffer as well:

    People who didn’t grow up in the evangelical bubble don’t realize what they’re demanding when they ask an evangelical to accept simple facts as true: say, that Trump is a lying fraud. The white evangelical brain is deaf, blind and dumb to reality given its cradle to grave conditioning as Nelle Smith writes about in “When You Argue with a Fundamentalist You Don’t Know What You’re Asking For” https://frankschaefferblog.com/2018/...orn-star-pres/
    What strikes me most when I go to tweb is not that I disagree with the evangelicals. It is how I find that they seemingly disagree with the Christ and have gone very, very far in their aim for political power and lost the empathy, love and compassion which is at the heart of the Christian message.

    I think we are seeing the evangelicals associating very strongly with a political movement that someday will fall due to the fact that it is simply not based on the truth. And i think the evangelical movement will fall with it to some degree. Christianity, however, will not. It is a different thing.

    Take the time to listen to Schaeffer on this rather important clip with the title Abandoning Jesus. Embracing Trump. https://frankschaefferblog.com/2018/...bracing-trump/

    Happy Easter
    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

  • #2
    Frank Schaeffer is a bitter, cynical, uninformed ex-Christian who has no business lecturing Christians about what they believe or who they support politically. That he claims the Resurrection can not be logically defended is so astoundingly ignorant that it gives me no reason to consider anything else he might have to say.

    In short, this essay is nothing more than your typical liberal posturing to tickle the ears of the low-info crowd.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Frank Schaeffer is a bitter, cynical, uninformed ex-Christian who has no business lecturing Christians about what they believe or who they support politically. That he claims the Resurrection can not be logically defended is so astoundingly ignorant that it gives me no reason to consider anything else he might have to say.

      In short, this essay is nothing more than your typical liberal posturing to tickle the ears of the low-info crowd.
      So if we sum up your post what we get is:

      1) A personal attack
      2) A claim that he is factually wrong though you provide nothing to contradict him
      3) An unsupported claim that if he is wrong in one case (which you did not proved) he is probably wrong in most other cases (which you did not prove either)
      4) A claim that he is just speaking to low info people which is a personal attack on those who happen to find it interesting and see some points in it

      What we did not get was good and factual reason for finding it wrong. I think what you mainly did was to actually support his theory that some people are stuck in a bubble. Like he said: “Why do evangelicals support Trump instead of the evolution of empathy that is best represented by the ethical watershed event of the teachings of Jesus? Because evangelicalism isn’t about facts, let alone true spirituality. It’s a made up political reality based not on logic but theological methodology.”

      Until you provide facts and true spirituality I will see your input as support for Scheaffer's points.
      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

      Comment


      • #4
        And the fact that you're so eager to throw this moronic essay in the face of Christians proves MY point that "this essay is nothing more than your typical liberal posturing to tickle the ears of the low-info crowd."

        But you know what? I will refrain from further commentary until you present a "good and factual reason for finding" Schaeffer to be right. Deal?
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #5
          So after we had:

          1) A personal attack
          2) A claim that he is factually wrong though you provide nothing to contradict him
          3) An unsupported claim that if he is wrong in one case (which you did not proved) he is probably wrong in most other cases (which you did not prove either)
          4) A claim that he is just speaking to low info people which is a personal attack on those who happen to find it interesting and see some points in it

          We now get:

          1) More personal attacks
          2) An attempt to change focus

          It is not a fact that I am eager to throw this in the face of Christians. I would just like to debate it with anyone who takes any interest, whatever religious view they might have or not have. I wonder if you read the parts that say: “I think Schaeffer forgets that this does not go for all evangelicals but I certainly see the tendency.” and perhaps more importantly: “And i think the evangelical movement will fall with it to some degree. Christianity, however, will not. It is a different thing.”

          Like I wrote I grew up in a Christian family and I have many Christian friends and relatives who would take no offense in what I wrote. Some would actually agree completely. I think Schaeffer has a very good point when he says that he is an atheist who believes in God. It is a paradox and it is contradictory but what it shows rather interestingly is that we often limit ourselves to specific boxes and think we have to hold certain views because we think we belong in a particular box.

          You initially claimed that “Frank Schaeffer is a bitter, cynical, uninformed ex-Christian who has no business lecturing Christians about what they believe or who they support politically.” Apart from the obvious personal attack I think this shows a great deal of box-thinking. It seems it cannot be the case that he is a happy, honest, informed ex-Christian whom you just happen to disagree with. Or did I miss a point somewhere?

          Gadamer (who was actually a Christian by the way if that can lower the level of personal attacks :-)) had the point that if you want to understand a text you need to read it under the premise that it is trying to tell you something true (there are some exceptions of course). If, before you even start, you have concluded that the writer “is a bitter, cynical, uninformed ex-Christian who has no business lecturing Christians about what they believe or who they support politically” how would it even be possible to catch a point, learn something new and being open to other views. I think that is a true spiritual point :-)

          Happy Easter
          "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

          Comment


          • #6
            That you happen to agree with Schaeffer's (mis)characterization and entirely opinion-based conclusions about Christian beliefs is not a "good and factual reason" for thinking he's right, so you're still two-steps in this discussion.

            And I wonder, you say that "if you want to understand a text you need to read it under the premise that it is trying to tell you something true". Is this a standard you apply to the Bible, or whenever I post a link to, say, Breitbart, or Tektonics.org, or give my own opinion on a topic? Or are these the "exceptions" you coyly alluded to? If you're allowed your exceptions, then why am I not allowed mine? Hmmm?

            And this is where your hypocrisy is on full display: You accept Schaeffer's opinion despite him not presenting any substantive arguments to support his claims that, for example, the Resurrection can not be be logically defended, or that man-caused climate change is scientific fact, yet when I present a counter opinion, you suddenly demand facts and evidence.

            As always, one should consider the source since Frank Schaeffer could be described, at best, as an "unreliable narrator".

            Source: Frank Schaeffer: Still the Enfant Terrible

            Frank [wrote] a kiss-and-tell-all, gossip-engorged memoir that trashes the faith of his parents. Family secrets are either exposed or made up. This pungent brew is called: Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back (Carol and Graf Publishers, 2007). Frank claims that his parents were warped fundamentalists. Their beliefs cut against reality and could only be preserved by selective attention and thought-stopping. Frank alone seems to have noticed this. I know several people who lived at the Schaeffers’ retreat center, L’Abri. They report nothing of the sort.4 The definitive biography, Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life by Colin Duriez, concurs.5

            [...]

            Frank’s narrative would be compelling if it were true. But it is not. Frank did perceive the evangelical political movement from the inside and worked with his father in mobilizing evangelicals to become more active, especially concerning abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Out of his work came two credible and significant film series, How Should We Then Live? (1976) and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (1979), both featuring Francis Schaeffer.6 That part of the narrative is true. What is false is Frank’s assessment of his significance in forming the religious right, of evangelicalism, and of politics.

            Frank Schaeffer overstates his role as a catalyst for the religious right. The key movers and shakers of the religious right were players such as Pastor Jerry Falwell and televangelist Pat Robertson. It was Francis A. Schaeffer, Frank’s father, who had the greatest influence in getting evangelicals involved in political reform and cultural change. [...]

            Evangelicalism is a big target for Frank’s fiery darts. He hurls them with vigor, but misses the mark every time. He does not distinguish evangelicalism from fundamentalism, which confuses matters. For Frank, they are the same, since they both affirm the full inspiration and final authority of the Bible as well as Jesus’ claim that “no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” (John 3:3, all Scripture citations NIV). Frank’s conflation of fundamentalism and evangelicalism is odd and inept, since his father broke from a fundamentalist Presbyterian group in the 1950s. He did so because of its lack of love and concern for evangelism.7 Along with Carl Henry, E. J. Carnell, Bernard Ramm, Harold Ockenga, and others, the elder Schaeffer was a leading figure in the development of evangelicalism. That movement shared with fundamentalism the belief in a high view of the Bible and in the historic Protestant doctrines. Evangelical thinkers, unlike fundamentalists, advocated social and political engagement and cultivating the life of the mind.8 Evangelicals did not totally separate from culture and from those who deviated even slightly from their denomination’s doctrine. For these reasons, evangelicals were sometimes accused of being liberal by fundamentalists.9 By failing to make these distinctions, Frank loses credibility.

            [...]

            Frank’s attack against politically conservative Christians is reactive, not substantive. He equates disapproval of homosexual practices and opposition to gay marriage with hatred and homophobia. Logic textbooks term this the ad hominem fallacy. Instead of considering the logic of an argument (which is tough work), you tear down the character of the one making the argument.

            http://www.equip.org/article/frank-s...fant-terrible/

            © Copyright Original Source

            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Charles View Post
              While I certainly would not disagree that Trump is lying what I have noted in quite many discussions in here and elsewhere is the tendency to avoid accepting the truth by making claims about “fake news”, pointing to the fact that points are made by “liberals” and thus are invalid. So the lies are covered up in a seemingly never ending system of claims.
              That's politics, unfortunately. As Christians, we are not electing a Pope, we are electing representatives for our political interests and how we feel the country should be run.

              There is a seemingly never ending line of personal attacks for anyone who disagrees with Trump
              And for those who agree with his political stances as well.

              and great support for even some very doubtful sources supporting him.
              We live in an oversaturated environment where there simply IS no unbiased reporting. It's the unfortunate nature of having the world so connected.

              Not by everyone, and not everywhere but to a surprisingly high degree especially by Christians whom one would suppose stod the higher moral ground.
              This isn't very helpful. There are personal morals Christians are supposed to uphold, and there are political positions we take that we feel align with our morals. You can't conflate the two as identical.

              While I certainly do not agree with Frank Schaeffer on everything and I think he uses a harsh tone I think he has a fair point when it comes to showing that the lies are not discovered due to the development of a system in which one has learned to simply not trust anyone opposing Trump.
              I think this is FAR too broad a brush to paint anyone with. It's too easy to point at a finger at a subset of people and claim they represent the whole, while subtly backtracking and saying "but not all of them... ". The damage is already done and the fallacy has already been made.

              I grew up in a Christian family and went to church every sunday and have often been baffled both by the tone and the ideas that Christians support on tweb. I think Schaeffer put words on my considerations when he wrote:

              “Why do evangelicals support Trump instead of the evolution of empathy that is best represented by the ethical watershed event of the teachings of Jesus? Because evangelicalism isn’t about facts, let alone true spirituality. It’s a made up political reality based not on logic but theological methodology.” https://frankschaefferblog.com/2018/...orn-star-pres/
              Why do Evangelicals support Trump? In what way? In what area? What Evangelicals? I don't think Jesus ever specifically taught us how to govern in the recorded teachings of His from the Bible. For a specific instance, we are taught to give to the poor, but we are not taught to invade our neighbor's house to collect their 10% from them. The giant brush he paints us evangelicals with is both improper and mean-spirited. And besides, he's flat out wrong. He MAY have a FEW people pegged, but it's in no way representative of the whole. Personally, I think Schaeffer is just exposing the axe he is grinding against Conservatives.


              I think Schaeffer forgets that this does not go for all evangelicals but I certainly see the tendency.
              And I think what Schaeffer has done is commit a giant logical fallacy.

              Another tendency I also noted in here is summed up by Schaeffer as well:

              People who didn’t grow up in the evangelical bubble don’t realize what they’re demanding when they ask an evangelical to accept simple facts as true: say, that Trump is a lying fraud. The white evangelical brain is deaf, blind and dumb to reality given its cradle to grave conditioning as Nelle Smith writes about in “When You Argue with a Fundamentalist You Don’t Know What You’re Asking For” https://frankschaefferblog.com/2018/...orn-star-pres/
              Calling someone a "lying fraud" isn't at all helpful to a discussion. Claim certain stated claims are factually inaccurate. But when you dismiss someone as a "lying fraud", then you automatically dismiss EVERYTHING they are saying as a lie... even things that we Evangelicals think are true. And then Schaeffer goes for the racist tactic of painting all "white evangelicals" the same, which is yet another fallacy.


              What strikes me most when I go to tweb is not that I disagree with the evangelicals. It is how I find that they seemingly disagree with the Christ and have gone very, very far in their aim for political power and lost the empathy, love and compassion which is at the heart of the Christian message.
              Depends. Sometimes the message is a tougher form of love than the post-modern laisse-faire live and let live nonsense that excuses itself for real love. True Christian empathy is not content with telling sinners that they are fine in their sin. I think one has to redefine what empathy really means in order to make it match what Schaeffer is calling it.

              I think we are seeing the evangelicals associating very strongly with a political movement that someday will fall due to the fact that it is simply not based on the truth.
              And I vehemently disagree. I feel conservatism is more strongly aligned with truth than liberalism ever could be. And I think liberalism spreads quite a bit of misinformation, and its hold on the millennials will slip the older they get.

              And i think the evangelical movement will fall with it to some degree. Christianity, however, will not. It is a different thing.
              It's a subset of Christianity. And it has been villainized from numerous directions. And we have allowed the conversation to be dominated by our opponents, and are losing our young people as a result.

              Source: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1010/Amid-Evangelical-decline-growing-split-between-young-Christians-and-church-elders


              “For me, a lot of this has especially come into play with the treatment of the LGBTQ community – holding a hard line without listening and without taking that posture of grace and hospitality,” the aspiring minister says. “I want the church to be a place of conversation and shared journey. I’m not ready to throw it out yet. But I do want to see it grow, and change.”

              © Copyright Original Source



              This quote has so much wrong with its mind set that it is no wonder we are losing population...

              Take the time to listen to Schaeffer on this rather important clip with the title Abandoning Jesus. Embracing Trump. https://frankschaefferblog.com/2018/...bracing-trump/
              It's a big fallacy running through the entire piece, so it's difficult to respond to what he is saying without stating the fallacy up front on every reply...


              Happy Easter
              To you as well.
              Last edited by Bill the Cat; 04-02-2018, 09:20 AM.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              - Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #8
                In addition to what Bill points out is the fact that much of the "support for Trump" is more rejection of liberalism that it is support for Trump. If we lived in a pure democracy where each individual voted of specific details things might appear quite differently. The fact that we are given two pre-developed approaches and must choose one of these supports the idea that many do not support Trump, but rather object to the much worse (in our view) approach of those who denigrate him. I am a perfect example of this so called support for Trump. I do not much like Trump, but the liberals are so much worse that it appears to be support when I reject their approach in favor of the one Trump is taking.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  That you happen to agree with Schaeffer's (mis)characterization and entirely opinion-based conclusions about Christian beliefs is not a "good and factual reason" for thinking he's right, so you're still two-steps in this discussion.
                  First of all I do not agree with Schaeffer completely and I made that very clear in the opening post. Second I never presented the fact that I agreed with him (which I don't completely) as good reason for anyone to agree. Both he, you and I have opinions and that is not illegitimate. In your reply you pointed to things being factually wrong but you did not provide any facts. That was what I pointed to. I wonder how you manage to put so many factually wrong statements in such few sentences.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  And I wonder, you say that "if you want to understand a text you need to read it under the premise that it is trying to tell you something true". Is this a standard you apply to the Bible, or whenever I post a link to, say, Breitbart, or Tektonics.org, or give my own opinion on a topic? Or are these the "exceptions" you coyly alluded to? If you're allowed your exceptions, then why am I not allowed mine? Hmmm?
                  The exceptions would be stuff like satire, jokes, mythological stuff, poetry and stuff like that which is of such a nature that if you take it too litterate you would miss the real point. The point with the approach of an open reading is of course not that you should never conclude anything but that you should not conclude before you even start reading. I have read the Bible many times and I have read it with the most searching heart but I have come to the conclusion that I don't believe in it. So, yes, I read it with a very open heart. I have read quite many Breitbart articles and as you know I have given quite many reasons for finding particular articles so factually wrong that given the limited time I have got I don't read their stuff because I feel too uncertain if I can trust it or not. I don't write off anything they write solely on the base that they write it.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  And this is where your hypocrisy is on full display: You accept Schaeffer's opinion despite him not presenting any substantive arguments to support his claims that, for example, the Resurrection can not be be logically defended, or that man-caused climate change is scientific fact, yet when I present a counter opinion, you suddenly demand facts and evidence.
                  The fact that you need to use words like "hypocrisy" to characterise me when you have misrepresented my view and made many false statements is a bit strange. On the surface, however, you have a fair point but there is quite a lot to say about it:

                  1) I did not mention or use the Resurrection point in my opening post and I never claimed to agree with Schaeffer on everything so I fail to see why I am a hypocrite for agreeing with and using parts of the text. You remember my words: "While I certainly do not agree with Frank Schaeffer on everything and I think he uses a harsh tone [...]"

                  2) You claimed his point about the Resurrection was so absurd that he would probably be wrong in most other cases and you gave no reason. That was what I pointed to.

                  3) I have studied deeply in the Bible and different philosophical thinking about the Ressurection and i think it belongs it the category of things that cannot be logically defended. Even the disciples were baffled. Saying it is not logically defendable is not the same as saying it did not happen. It only means it is beyond the grasp of our mind, which would actually seem to make it even more important. But anyway, that is simply another point, and not something my original points are influenced by.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  As always, one should consider the source since Frank Schaeffer could be described, at best, as an "unreliable narrator".
                  As for the article you point to I have got the following points:

                  1) Whether or not he overstated his importance for the religious right is completely irrelevant to the quotations and points i pointed to. I don't take much interest in that part so I would rather see why the points I used are wrong.
                  2) The article claims that "He does not distinguish evangelicalism from fundamentalism, which confuses matters." Then it goes on to tell how his father was very focused on not being fundamentalistic. I know that Frank Schaeffer is perfectly aware of this distinction and what he points to is that evangelism changed in the wrong direction and became more and more fundamentalistic. He has even pointed out that his father would disapprove of what is going on now.
                  3) In my opening post I pointed to the fact that I think he tended to forget that not all evangelicals are the same. I also pointed to the fact that I think he uses too strong language at times. That is a problem and the article points to that is being ad hominem. I think the knife cuts both way since the article itself seems to try to disprove his points at least partly by pointing to his character. So while he does have his ad hominem moments, he certainly does not always have them and again it does not prove my points in the opening post wrong. Like I wrote: "While I certainly do not agree with Frank Schaeffer on everything and I think he uses a harsh tone [...]

                  Happy Easter once again
                  "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Chuckles View Post
                    In your reply you pointed to things being factually wrong but you did not provide any facts.
                    And you did not provide any reason to think that Schaeffer was factually correct. Certainly that would be the place to start since you're the one who presented his editorial as something worth considering. Instead, you hypocritically attempt to hold me to a standard that you refuse to hold your source to. Until you or Schaeffer demonstrate that his opinion is supported by verifiable fact and isn't simply liberal naval gazing, then all we have here is a difference of opinion, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

                    As for the Resurrection, you claim to "have studied deeply in the Bible", and yet you somehow missed Peter's perfectly logical defense of the Resurrection in Acts 2, or Paul's many excellent logical defenses throughout his letters, such as 1 Corinthians 15 where he makes not only a historical case but also argues that Jesus rising from the dead was a philosophical and theological necessity. The reason this is important is because Frank Schaeffer often presents himself -- and is presented by ignorant skeptics like you -- as an "expert witness", but when you find that your witness is not the expert he claims to be then it casts his entire testimony into doubt.

                    So here's the bottom line: Schaeffer presented his opinion about evangelicals. That's fine. He's free to say whatever he wants, and his objectors are free to say whatever they want in return. There's no where else for that discussion to go. But when he tries to bolster his opinion by making a factually false statement -- in this case, his astoundingly ignorant claim that the Resurrection can not be logically defended -- then what reason is there to consider his opinion worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys?
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      And you did not provide any reason to think that Schaeffer was factually correct. Certainly that would be the place to start since you're the one who presented his editorial as something worth considering. Instead, you hypocritically attempt to hold me to a standard that you refuse to hold your source to. Until you or Schaeffer demonstrate that his opinion is supported by verifiable fact and isn't simply liberal naval gazing, then all we have here is a difference of opinion, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion.
                      Like I said I did not agree with Scheaffer on everthing and thus I don't see a need to defend every claim he makes especially if I don't even use it. I will of course support the quotes I used and the points I refered to and found interesting. When you point to an article by Breitbart you don't start of by making a proof of each specific claim in it, do you? And if someone refuses to take it serious without providing anything to contradict it, you would usually ask for something, right? Ok, I think we agree then.

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      As for the Resurrection, you claim to "have studied deeply in the Bible", and yet you somehow missed Peter's perfectly logical defense of the Resurrection in Acts 2, or Paul's many excellent logical defenses throughout his letters, such as 1 Corinthians 15 where he makes not only a historical case but also argues that Jesus rising from the dead was a philosophical and theological necessity. The reason this is important is because Frank Schaeffer often presents himself -- and is presented by ignorant skeptics like you -- as an "expert witness", but when you find that your witness is not the expert he claims to be then it casts his entire testimony into doubt.
                      I wonder why you need to use words like "ignorant skeptics like you". You recently refered to an article claiming Schaeffer was using the ad hominem method and now it seems you are using it yourself. For what reason? The fact that I explicitly said I don't agree with him on everything should seem to indicate that I don't see him as an expert or take everything he says as an ultimate truth. I know Christian society and the Bible very well myself.

                      What you refer to in the Bible does not contradict the idea that the Resurrection can not be logically defended. Like I pointed out the point is not that it did not happen. The point is that it is not understandable to the human mind how this happened. The fact that the Bible claims there were eye witnesses and even many of them does not explain how it happened and it does not take away the magic. So I think you are missing the point of saying it cannot be logically defended. It is not a critique, it is a way to maintain the magic. Actually I have heard Schaeffer refer to himself as a Christian many times so I think you should understand it in these terms. The fact that the Bible presents it as a theological necessity does nothing in order to make it logically defensable since many theological claims are understood through faith and not through reason.

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      So here's the bottom line: Schaeffer presented his opinion about evangelicals. That's fine. He's free to say whatever he wants, and his objectors are free to say whatever they want in return. There's no where else for that discussion to go. But when he tries to bolster his opinion by making a factually false statement -- in this case, his astoundingly ignorant claim that the Resurrection can not be logically defended -- then what reason is there to consider his opinion worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys?
                      As pointed out above I think you missed what his true point about the resurrection was. And even if you are not that still does not prove my points or the other points of his that I pointed to wrong. And you are yet to even start to adress them. I hope you will do so.
                      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Charles View Post
                        Like I said I did not agree with Scheaffer on everthing and thus I don't see a need to defend every claim he makes especially if I don't even use it. I will of course support the quotes I used and the points I refered to and found interesting. When you point to an article by Breitbart you don't start of by making a proof of each specific claim in it, do you? And if someone refuses to take it serious without providing anything to contradict it, you would usually ask for something, right? Ok, I think we agree then.



                        I wonder why you need to use words like "ignorant skeptics like you". You recently refered to an article claiming Schaeffer was using the ad hominem method and now it seems you are using it yourself. For what reason? The fact that I explicitly said I don't agree with him on everything should seem to indicate that I don't see him as an expert or take everything he says as an ultimate truth. I know Christian society and the Bible very well myself.

                        What you refer to in the Bible does not contradict the idea that the Resurrection can not be logically defended. Like I pointed out the point is not that it did not happen. The point is that it is not understandable to the human mind how this happened. The fact that the Bible claims there were eye witnesses and even many of them does not explain how it happened and it does not take away the magic. So I think you are missing the point of saying it cannot be logically defended. It is not a critique, it is a way to maintain the magic. Actually I have heard Schaeffer refer to himself as a Christian many times so I think you should understand it in these terms. The fact that the Bible presents it as a theological necessity does nothing in order to make it logically defensable since many theological claims are understood through faith and not through reason.



                        As pointed out above I think you missed what his true point about the resurrection was. And even if you are not that still does not prove my points or the other points of his that I pointed to wrong. And you are yet to even start to adress them. I hope you will do so.
                        It'll save time if I just quote myself: "Until you or Schaeffer demonstrate that his opinion is supported by verifiable fact and isn't simply liberal naval gazing, then all we have here is a difference of opinion, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion."
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          It'll save time if I just quote myself: "Until you or Schaeffer demonstrate that his opinion is supported by verifiable fact and isn't simply liberal naval gazing, then all we have here is a difference of opinion, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion."
                          I am sorry to hear that since if "all we have here is a difference of opinion" it means that you cannot show it to be wrong. I had the impression you though you could and I think you should try. I have written quite many and rather detailed answers to you and there are quite many points in them that you have not even started to adress so I think you are escaping the points at too high speed instead of actually giving an answer.
                          "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Chuckles View Post
                            ...if "all we have here is a difference of opinion" it means that you cannot show it to be wrong.
                            It's an opinion, which, by definition, can neither be right nor wrong. I'm much more interested in those statements that Schaeffer presents as true but which are factually wrong because we can use that to determine whether or not his opinion is worth a hill of beans. In this case, it's not even worth a single bean.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              It's an opinion, which, by definition, can neither be right nor wrong. I'm much more interested in those statements that Schaeffer presents as true but which are factually wrong because we can use that to determine whether or not his opinion is worth a hill of beans. In this case, it's not even worth a single bean.
                              Well you made such a huge point out of the Resurrection point and I have actually adressed that even though it was not important with regard to the opening post. So basically you did not adress the points in the opening post but focused on something else. When I made you aware that I believe you misunderstood the point so that it was not factually wrong and did not even contradict Christianity you started to want to "save time". I don't think your approach has been convincing.
                              "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              145 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              395 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              113 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              197 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              365 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X