On being a current apologist: A response to Randy Hardman

[whag]

I can see this is headed into conquest apologetics territory, KG, and I'm bummed that's where you went. I'm not really sure why you even took to Enns, because he's always been controversial for criticizing apologetics. His next book looks like it will take that idea even further.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peteren...-to-defend-it/

Maybe a more reflective faith that encourages "wandering off the beach blanket" is good for some people, while a faith that emphasizes certainty is good for other people.

[jpholding]

It became relevant when you criticized Enns intellect, which has nothing to do with Enns refusal to play the apologetics game

I never said it did. His intellect is proven deficient by way of the quality of his arguments, and I speak of arguments that have nothing to do with either evolution/YEC or with cartoons, but rather with his exegetical incompetence.

He's approaching faith a bit differently than you. Case in point, he doesn't use comic sans, not would he make a dumb cartoon about Elisha and the 42 bears.

He's not addressing a popular audience, you insufferable dumbass. You've seen only TWO? There are nearly 400 now -- as for aesthetics, I have a pro animator in my consult who says they just as good as what you'd find done by Hanna Barbera or some Japanese outfits in the 50s -- which is a plus in a situation where everything is HAND DRAWN rather than whacked out with software. Let's see you do as well with the same tools.

[lilpixieofterror]

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

Hummm interesting, I do some art of my own and JPH's art is pretty decent for what he's working with. Can you do any better?

[KingsGambit]

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.

To me, there's a difference between objecting to, say, the creation narratives because of dealing with other evidence, and between objecting to the conquest narratives because one can't imagine God genuinely doing such a thing on moral grounds. There is not an objective basis for making such a judgment, especially within a Judeo-Christian paradigm where one acknowledges the superior wisdom of God.

(For what it's worth, I do lean heavily in the direction of seeing the commands as largely hyperbole-laden.)

[whag]

To me, there's a difference between objecting to, say, the creation narratives because of dealing with other evidence, and between objecting to the conquest narratives because one can't imagine God genuinely doing such a thing on moral grounds. There is not an objective basis for making such a judgment, especially within a Judeo-Christian paradigm where one acknowledges the superior wisdom of God.

(For what it's worth, I do lean heavily in the direction of seeing the commands as largely hyperbole-laden.)

I think it's unreasonable for you to expect him to use that apologetic if he thinks it's not particularly effective. If some dinkus will lose his faith in the absence of that argument, maybe he needs to stay lost! It's a fairly well-known argument, not only in Christianity but other religions and primitive systems of belief, as well.

[jpholding]

Hummm interesting, I do some art of my own and JPH's art is pretty decent for what he's working with. Can you do any better?

Of course he can't. I lay odds he thought I did it all with software. There are people dumb enough today that they don't even realize toons used to be done by hand.

[whag]

(For what it's worth, I do lean heavily in the direction of seeing the commands as largely hyperbole-laden.)

As such, does that make the apologetic more digestable? The fact that dozens of infants, rather than hundreds, were killed?

I think you unwittingly helped justify why Enns doesn't, and needn't, employ conquest apologetics when he deals with doubters.

I've noticed an interesting trend apologists and theologians moving away from the traditional approaches of Geisler and Craig. It's likely a reaction to fundamentalist belief having infiltrated apologetics and christian culture, but surely due to other factors as well.

[KingsGambit]

As such, does that make the apologetic more digestable? The fact that dozens of infants, rather than hundreds, were killed?

I think you unwittingly helped justify why Enns doesn't, and needn't, employ conquest apologetics when he deals with doubters.

I've noticed an interesting trend apologists and theologians moving away from the traditional approaches of Geisler and Craig. It's likely a reaction to fundamentalist belief having infiltrated apologetics and christian culture, but surely due to other factors as well.

It's not that it makes it more palatable. This simply isn't an issue that has ever caused me emotional difficulty. It's an issue of internal evidence. There are instances where biblical texts talk about a people being utterly annihilated, yet later on (maybe a few chapters later), the same account later mentions said people as still being there, with no sense of embarrassment. This practically begs for an understanding of it being hyperbole.

[jpholding]

I've noticed an interesting trend apologists and theologians moving away from the traditional approaches of Geisler and Craig. It's likely a reaction to fundamentalist belief having infiltrated apologetics and christian culture, but surely due to other factors as well.

No, it's a reaction to the fact that quality scholarship is starting to intersect with apologetics. Not that you'd know the difference.

[whag]

It's not that it makes it more palatable. This simply isn't an issue that has ever caused me emotional difficulty. It's an issue of internal evidence. There are instances where biblical texts talk about a people being utterly annihilated, yet later on (maybe a few chapters later), the same account later mentions said people as still being there, with no sense of embarrassment. This practically begs for an understanding of it being hyperbole.

The problem with you acknowledging that the Jews exaggerated about how many boys they killed is the fact that you end up defending something that probably didn't happen. Rather than saying God has a right to dispatch hundreds or thousands of baby boys (which is a coarse and popular argument all reasonably intelligent doubters surely have heard), it's much easier and more elegant to simply say God didn't order mass infanticide of terrified male infants.

[KingsGambit]

The problem with you acknowledging that the Jews exaggerated about how many boys they killed is the fact that you end up defending something that probably didn't happen. Rather than saying God has a right to dispatch hundreds or thousands of baby boys (which is a coarse and popular argument all reasonably intelligent doubters surely have heard), it's much easier and more elegant to simply say God didn't order mass infanticide of terrified male infants.

Where is there a problem at all? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be casting my stance as based on emotional ease, when I explained its basis from internal text consistency. Again, I wouldn't have a problem defending the "traditional" view if that's where the evidence pointed.

[whag]

Where is there a problem at all? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be casting my stance as based on emotional ease, when I explained its basis from internal text consistency. Again, I wouldn't have a problem defending the "traditional" view if that's where the evidence pointed.

But you said it's largely hyperbole. Enns has chosen not to defend that which is largely hyperbole. That's no emotional but simple common sense. You pick and choose what you defend based in your teaching agenda. His isn't "conquest" focused.

In Enns' case, he's undoubtedly dealing with the more liberal variety of Christian mainly struggling with evolution being true and other aspects of the present age (such as homosexuality being more accepted). These are not the people at which you throw traditional Geisler or Holding apologetics.

Again, apologetics is changing as a result of its previous mistakes. Academicians thus aren't obligated to parrot apologetic talking points that haven't been and currently aren't working.

I like Enns approach. I like his view that the bible is messy because it's meant to be messy. Some of his audience are really connecting to the idea of "wandering off the beach blanket."

[KingsGambit]

But you said it's largely hyperbole. Enns has chosen not to defend that which is largely hyperbole. That's no emotional but simple common sense. You pick and choose what you defend based in your teaching agenda. His isn't "conquest" focused.

In Enns' case, he's undoubtedly dealing with the more liberal variety of Christian mainly struggling with evolution being true and other aspects of the present age (such as homosexuality being more accepted). These are not the people at which you throw traditional Geisler or Holding apologetics.

Again, apologetics is changing as a result of its previous mistakes. Academicians thus aren't obligated to parrot apologetic talking points that haven't been and currently aren't working.

I like Enns approach. I like his view that the bible is messy because it's meant to be messy. Some of his audience are really connecting to the idea of "wandering off the beach blanket."

Enns was one of the participants in the Five Views on Inerrancy debate-style book that came out last year. His dismissal of the passage's veracity was not on the grounds of hyperbole; it was based on his inability to reconcile it with Jesus's teachings. This is a less objective type of argument than that of internal consistency because one can argue precisely how Jesus's teachings are meant to be understood.

Having said that, I'm not entirely opposed to Enns's general approach as put forth in his excellent book Inspiration and Incarnation. I simply do not take some of the potential implications as far as he might. I don't have a problem with the notion that not all of the OT narratives are purely historically accurate in all respects. I do have a problem with the notion that the God as portrayed in the Old Testament is not the true god and is simply a reflection of ancient tribalism. I hope this distinction makes sense.

[whag]

Having said that, I'm not entirely opposed to Enns's general approach as put forth in his excellent book Inspiration and Incarnation. I simply do not take some of the potential implications as far as he might. I don't have a problem with the notion that not all of the OT narratives are purely historically accurate in all respects. I do have a problem with the notion that the God as portrayed in the Old Testament is not the true god and is simply a reflection of ancient tribalism. I hope this distinction makes sense.

The distinction makes sense. Does it make sense that in light of the OT being revealed as much exaggeration, apologizing for incidents and events therein isn't necessary needed anymore? Does it really make sense to apologize for jepthah's rash vow or elisha and the shebears?

[KingsGambit]

The distinction makes sense. Does it make sense that in light of the OT being revealed as much exaggeration, apologizing for incidents and events therein isn't necessary needed anymore? Does it really make sense to apologize for jepthah's rash vow or elisha and the shebears?

I'd say the issue of war reporting is fairly unique because by its nature it is going to contain some (I hate to use this word because it has so many connotations but Enns uses it and it does fit) propaganda. Other types of narrative may be less likely to run into this issue and might be more straightforward. Disclosure: I'm not familiar with the standard apologetic approaches to the Elisha bear incident, but I tend to take it straight up without knowing anything more about the issue.