On being a current apologist: A response to Randy Hardman

[KingsGambit]

It's a lot different if the cartoons are aesthetically awful and pointless. I've seen two of his cartoons in total.

How many have you seen and which are you favorites? Perhaps I'm wrong, and most of them are great tools.

Not that many. It seemed like you were objecting to cartoons in the first place. But this is a derail and not worth arguing about. I echo Nick's point about Alister McGrath; he's a Christian apologist who has spoken extensively about evolution and has a PhD in biology, and I'm not aware of anybody going after him. Enns is controversial for other reasons.

[Apologiaphoenix]

KG has it correct. I don't have a problem with Enns being an evolutionist. My problems with him are elsewhere.

[whag]

Not that many. It seemed like you were objecting to cartoons in the first place. But this is a derail and not worth arguing about. I echo Nick's point about Alister McGrath; he's a Christian apologist who has spoken extensively about evolution and has a PhD in biology, and I'm not aware of anybody going after him. Enns is controversial for other reasons.

I think Enns is more outspoken on the matter. He's much more aggressive than McGrath in criticizing Christian academia for anti-evolutionism.

[whag]

Not that many. It seemed like you were objecting to cartoons in the first place. But this is a derail and not worth arguing about. I echo Nick's point about Alister McGrath; he's a Christian apologist who has spoken extensively about evolution and has a PhD in biology, and I'm not aware of anybody going after him. Enns is controversial for other reasons.

KG has it correct. I don't have a problem with Enns being an evolutionist. My problems with him are elsewhere.

Do you think he's given up?

[KingsGambit]

I think Enns is more outspoken on the matter. He's much more aggressive than McGrath in criticizing Christian academia for anti-evolutionism.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Enns has a knack for tearing down proposed solutions without suggesting any of his own, and is controversial for taking stances such as arguing that the OT conquest accounts are inaccurate because it contradicts Jesus's ethics so much (and from what I have seen, doesn't seem to take attempted solutions proposed by other Christians very seriously at all).

[whag]

Not that many. It seemed like you were objecting to cartoons in the first place. But this is a derail and not worth arguing about. I echo Nick's point about Alister McGrath; he's a Christian apologist who has spoken extensively about evolution and has a PhD in biology, and I'm not aware of anybody going after him. Enns is controversial for other reasons.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Enns has a knack for tearing down proposed solutions without suggesting any of his own, and is controversial for taking stances such as arguing that the OT conquest accounts are inaccurate because it contradicts Jesus's ethics so much (and from what I have seen, doesn't seem to take attempted solutions proposed by other Christians very seriously at all).

I see everything regarding this issue. You gave a perfect example. Do you think defenses of cruel war raids are any more effective at winning people to Christ? If so, I'd like to hear why.

Besides, some apologists like WLC have defended the genocides while concurrently acknowledging evidence they might not have happened at all. I say why bother defending it if one of your defenses is that it probably never happened? Such apologetics come across as two faced.

Clearly Enns has thought about this. His conclusion given Jesus' benevolence is that Jesus wouldn't order a soldier to kill a baby. Maybe that helps enns maintain a workable relationship with the creator rather than one filled with nagging doubts about OT difficulties.

I like his approach. If I ever became a Christian, that's probably how I'd approach it.

[whag]

[Enns] doesn't seem to take attempted solutions proposed by other Christians very seriously at all).

What solutions have been proposed that justify the methodical killing of infant boys in war? I'm not familiar with the persuasive ones that you think Enns should be proposing.

[Darth Executor]

What solutions have been proposed that justify the methodical killing of infant boys in war? I'm not familiar with the persuasive ones that you think Enns should be proposing.

Seeing how liberals like yourself have killed millions of unborn children for the most trivial of reasons I'm surprised you need so much persuasion.

[KingsGambit]

What solutions have been proposed that justify the methodical killing of infant boys in war? I'm not familiar with the persuasive ones that you think Enns should be proposing.

You mentioned being familiar with some of the various solutions WLC brings up... and those are what I am referring to.

[whag]

You mentioned being familiar with some of the various solutions WLC brings up... and those are what I am referring to.

Solutions depends on your perspective.

I'm starting to understand your objection to Enns more now. You have two significant differences in perspective. He's hesitant to claim certain knowledge about events that should be believed on faith. (Enns responding to the question "How do you know?" with "we don't"). The other difference in perspective is that he sees conquest apologetics as undignified as creationist apologetics. Neither have much to do with salvation, after all, do they?

I wish Christians had more latitude to choose how they teach and think. Belief is laborious enough without peer pressure from others to parrot talking points just because they solved something for YOU.

[whag]

Seeing how liberals like yourself have killed millions of unborn children for the most trivial of reasons I'm surprised you need so much persuasion.

Seeing how you get upset when those millions need health care, I'm surprised you think that's clever.

[OingoBoingo]

Solutions depends on your perspective.

True. There's a lot that goes into the perspective of Judeo-Christianity belief. One needs to keep in mind certain presuppositions. For instance, there's presuppositional belief in a perfect divine being who is innately justified in all of his decisions concerning his creation. There is an underlining belief in the intrinsic wickedness of humanity since the fall. There is a belief in the contractual obligation between the children of Israel and the perfect divine being concerning the Promised Land. There is a belief in a divine creator being who can foresee all future realities and their consequences. There is the historicity of the cultural oppression towards the Israelites by their neighbors, and how to best nip that in the bud. There is a belief in a spiritual division between the legal administration under the Old Testament law and that of grace under Christ Jesus found in the New Testament. There is a belief in civil behavior concerning the theocratic nation state of Israel, and the spiritual adoption of Gentiles world over. And there is a belief in a supernatural accuser and persecutor of the faithful who had/has free reign as the god of this World/prince of darkness based on the fallen nature of the world hence the fall. There are even presuppositional beliefs that hold that the accuser (god of this world) legally held (and possibly continues to hold) dominion in the world because of a transition in power based on the fall of Adam, and that his actions were at times attributed to the perfect divine being in the Old Testament, but the factor of the accuser's influence was only revealed through progressive revelation, and that his power over this world will finally be overcome at the parousia.

[whag]

True. There's a lot that goes into the perspective of Judeo-Christianity belief. One needs to keep in mind certain presuppositions. For instance, there's presuppositional belief in a perfect divine being who is innately justified in all of his decisions concerning his creation. There is an underlining belief in the intrinsic wickedness of humanity since the fall. There is a belief in the contractual obligation between the children of Israel and the perfect divine being concerning the Promised Land. There is a belief in a divine creator being who can foresee all future realities and their consequences. There is the historicity of the cultural oppression towards the Israelites by their neighbors, and how to best nip that in the bud. There is a belief in a spiritual division between the legal administration under the Old Testament law and that of grace under Christ Jesus found in the New Testament. There is a belief in civil behavior concerning the theocratic nation state of Israel, and the spiritual adoption of Gentiles world over. And there is a belief in a supernatural accuser and persecutor of the faithful who had/has free reign as the god of this World/prince of darkness based on the fallen nature of the world hence the fall. There are even presuppositional beliefs that hold that the accuser (god of this world) legally held (and possibly continues to hold) dominion in the world because of a transition in power based on the fall of Adam, and that his actions were at times attributed to the perfect divine being in the Old Testament, but the factor of the accuser's influence was only revealed through progressive revelation, and that his power over this world will finally be overcome at the parousia.

That's what KG and I were discussing in referring to Craig. Some of those presuppositions are outlined here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaug...the-canaanites

Glenn Miller addresses some of them here:


http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html


I don't think they detailed the presupposition that Satan influenced the genocides, though. That's an interesting one that I never heard. Thanks!

[Darth Executor]

Seeing how you get upset when those millions need health care, I'm surprised you think that's clever.

You don't get upset when millions need healthcare? What kind of monster are you.

[whag]

You don't get upset when millions need healthcare? What kind of monster are you.

Not in the annoyed sense, no. Conservatives are up in arms about no universal health care?