The Apologetics Death Spiral

[Andius]

Twitter especially, with its limit of first 140 and now 280 characters, has greatly affected debating. We are now in an era where people prefer sound bites and slogans over reasoned, thought out discussions of any length -- even short ones. This can be seen by the use of "tl/dr" for much of what exceeds two paragraphs.

That is quite true. All the more reason why long-format video debates in Youtube have become a more productive means. One good example of a channel with rich exchange of ideas is Paul Vander Klay's Youtube channel and (Still one of my favorites, hehehe ) is James Patrick Holding's on the shorter but still academically rigorous style channel when it comes to addressing critiques of Christendom within the areas of Social Science.

[rogue06]

That is quite true. All the more reason why long-format video debates in Youtube have become a more productive means. One good example of a channel with rich exchange of ideas is Paul Vander Klay's Youtube channel and (Still one of my favorites, hehehe ) is James Patrick Holding's on the shorter but still academically rigorous style channel when it comes to addressing critiques of Christendom within the areas of Social Science.

Those are good for getting the message out but one look at the comments section of your typical YouTube video shows that they don't do debate very well at all. That's why JPH often invites scoffers to come here for a debate.

[thormas]

I agree to certain extent, where a great many social media platforms don't exactly give the space and format required for a proper debate. But to be fair, the video debate format that has grown in Youtube is actually really great for long format debates. A few discord platforms within academic social circles have also provided a good alternative to traditional forums (Reddit tends to be poorly moderated) of debate.

I would actually do fault the apologetics movement to a certain extent. One terrible consequence I have noticed on the rise is the amount of young people hailing from American conservative backgrounds (growing up indoctrinated with terrible books such as Tactics by Gregory Koukl, ) with a hostile mindsets against most college professors and Academia in general. I can't help but notice how the Christian witness in Academia becomes compromised when orthodox intolerance, be it coming from crazed left-wingers viewing Whites in their social privilage as enemies or crazed right-wing reactionaries viewing progressives as threats to society. On the side of the Church (our side), there is some apologetics material that I consider is doing more harm than good in advancing the Gospel, especially when it comes at the cost of good quality apologetic books (The more difficult ones to digest admittedly).

Well said.

I too think some of the Youtube debates and interviews are of a high quality. I also agree with your critique of some of the young and their education/indoctrination and the intolerance on both sides.

[Andius]

When I first came here I spent most of my time on Apologetics and Philosophy, but a number of years ago I found myself almost exclusively posting on Civics. And I have seen that on other sites too, Politics seem to have taken over. Not sure why that is.

Well something surely caused you to fixate on politics only.

[Andius]

Because we, as a nation, have become so incredibly divided politically, and that's driven, to a large extent, on Biblical principles.

The American division is hardly new, and I dare say it's virtually a prominent feature on what I consider Anglo-Saxonic political and social organization. But I imagine the social tensions are becoming intense to the point of militancy, desiring the destruction of the other, casting tolerance to the wind. I do grant the various manifestations of Protestant Churches (both imported and natively created within the territory) form a HUGE pillar on what molds the USA.

It is getting harder and harder to speak on Biblical issues without sounding like I'm condemning the Democratic Party.

And I would hope that in your condemnation, you also do as well to the Republican Party. They to have steered many into directions that are unbecoming of the character of the Christ (And I tend to sympathize with Republican sensibilities, but it bothers me when they don't practice what they preach) causing much unnecessary suffering, along with the Democratic party.

[Andius]

I set up a thread in general theistics for honest seekers, and apparently there aren't any! Where's the good fallow soil when you want to find it to plant some seeds?

Going to have to take a looksee, stirred my attention.

[Andius]

TWeb has definitely gone downhill quite a bit over the past few years, and I blame both sides for this.

The membership has become infested with a plague of scoffers who have no interest in theology, or God. As far as I can tell, it's an ego trip. It boosts their own ego when they come here and show off their own self-righteousness while putting down Christians, God and the Bible. And many of the Christians on this site are no better: They give in and show their own stupidity in thinking they can set these fools straight.

True true. The Bad faith displayed by many tends to ruin such dialogues. Wether it's crazed anti-Christian secularists driven by the notion that religion is scourge that must be wiped out (Christendom is treated as a threat), or Christians viewing non-Christians unworthy of toleration (The non-Christian viewed as a threat), these are the utter rabble that ruin the dialogues.

The Bible has the clear answer in Proverbs 26:4-5, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes." According to verse 5, yes, definitely answer them according to their folly, if there be any hope of setting them straight. But after several years of this, it has become obvious that this isn't going to happen. So we go to verse 4. And this is definitely what I see in the Civics forum: Many Christians have become no better then the scoffers in the way they have reduced themselves to senseless squabbling.

Well on the bright side, it is a treatment I am glad is being dished to someone say like the likes of Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins, glad both Christians and Atheists have begun smartening up and driving those two into cultural irrelevancy where they and their arguments belong.

Verse 12 tells us, "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." And Christians on this site are doing nothing more than shoveling back their vomit.

A good chunk of Civics in general. Just garbage discussions.

There are a few godly Christians on this site, far too few, who are here to share the Lord's blessings, wisdom, knowledge and insight. But look at the numbers of views compared to the numbers of views that the Civics threads are getting.

Well judging who acts in accordance to the character of the Christ is definitely a sensitive thing to assert, made even more complex when one projects the understandings of one's people and traditions unto Christ himself. Sorry cases I've seen in some American Christians (of conservative stripe) embrace notions of "Supply-Side Jesus" (basically a neoliberal Jesus), and others (from liberal stripes) notions of "All-tolerant Jesus" (basically an Americanized Jesus divorced from the Historical Semitic Jesus).

A month or two ago, I admitted to one of the faculty of this site that I am part of the problem. I seldom post anything of any value, and maybe I should start doing so. I have been a Christian for more than fifty years, and have found a lot of things I can share, even from my own experiences. So recently I have started doing so.

Looking forward to see what you got. I too am thinking something similar.

Is there any hope for this website? I certainly hope so. But as long as Christians are making fools of themselves by acting just as foolish as the scoffers they are reacting to, I wonder.

I have great faith that it can adapt well, I consider TWeb still in good hands.

"But reject foolish and ignorant speculation, for you know that it breeds quarreling. And a servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome, but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, and forbearing. He must gently reprove those who oppose him, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. Then they will come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to his will." (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

Maybe the best suggestion I could make comes from a dentist I heard talking about teeth: "Ignore them and they will go away."

I suppose, but as far as I am concerned, Christendom must never shy away from the challenges and accusations it receives and address them. Such has been the character of the Church for well over a good 2000 years.


And when possible, and if good faith on both parts is shown, it can be a good venue of inter religious dialogue with others of other creeds. It's the thing I have liked of sites such as Patheos.

[Andius]

Those are good for getting the message out but one look at the comments section of your typical YouTube video shows that they don't do debate very well at all. That's why JPH often invites scoffers to come here for a debate.

Yeah... Youtube comments rarely make the proper venues for discussion either....

[Andius]

Well said.

I too think some of the Youtube debates and interviews are of a high quality. I also agree with your critique of some of the young and their education/indoctrination and the intolerance on both sides.

Thanks. Yes, if one knows where to look, great stuff can be found. Ugh, but is irks me when ignorant blabbermouths such as Rationality Rules (still stuck in New Atheist mentality) or Endeavor (a closet-racist neo-reactionary) publish content. At best, interact with them by exposing their profound ignorance and incompetence of understanding the subject matters they handle and casting them to irrelevancy.

[thormas]

You should contribute much more often. Your response in this post are on point, calling both Christians and others to task.

As you say, "Christendom must never shy away from the challenges and accusations it receives and address them" but I add this should be done respectfully, without calling others heretics or telling them they will burn. If that is the only argument, it leaves much to be desired is one's understanding of Christianity.

[thormas]

I set up a thread in general theistics for honest seekers, and apparently there aren't any! Where's the good fallow soil when you want to find it to plant some seeds?

I checked and not sure what thread your refer to in GT. I would be interested unless you demand only literalists/fundamentalists.

[Andius]

You should contribute much more often. Your response in this post are on point, calling both Christians and others to task.

As you say, "Christendom must never shy away from the challenges and accusations it receives and address them" but I add this should be done respectfully, without calling others heretics or telling them they will burn. If that is the only argument, it leaves much to be desired is one's understanding of Christianity.

Definitely thinking about it. Heh. Much to discuss for sure.
Well the respectfulness is only possible so as long as both parties show mutual good faith and accomplished due dilligence. Something in league such as the assertions that democracy is an Enlightenment innovation (it is not, it precedes it) or that Psalms 92:12 and Isaiah 57:1 regarding righteousness constitute a contradiction in the Bible (poetic passages do not constitute absolutes) will not give me much motive stay friendly. I do not consider those who haven't done their due dilligence on a subject matter they desire to discuss or debate worthy of respect. and only worthy to be treated as rabble.


But on the other hand a respect vested in good faith is definitely key. Treating in a priori fashion as an enemy definitely ruins a dialogue.

[NorrinRadd]

Twitter especially, with its limit of first 140 and now 280 characters, has greatly affected debating. We are now in an era where people prefer sound bites and slogans over reasoned, thought out discussions of any length -- even short ones. This can be seen by the use of "tl/dr" for much of what exceeds two paragraphs.

Screen life has shot my attention span to smithereens.

[rogue06]

Screen life has shot my attention span to smithereens.

Ironically after Twitter doubled the number of characters allowed in a post, the average number actually used has dropped slightly.

[thormas]

Definitely thinking about it. Heh. Much to discuss for sure.
Well the respectfulness is only possible so as long as both parties show mutual good faith and accomplished due dilligence. Something in league such as the assertions that democracy is an Enlightenment innovation (it is not, it precedes it) or that Psalms 92:12 and Isaiah 57:1 regarding righteousness constitute a contradiction in the Bible (poetic passages do not constitute absolutes) will not give me much motive stay friendly. I do not consider those who haven't done their due dilligence on a subject matter they desire to discuss or debate worthy of respect. and only worthy to be treated as rabble.


But on the other hand a respect vested in good faith is definitely key. Treating in a priori fashion as an enemy definitely ruins a dialogue.

I agree that the onus of respect is on both sides. It is possible if we just discuss ideas and not make accusations or condemn individuals (which too many here do). Tassman and I have been having a discussion on atheism and belief for over a month and it has been respectful. We disagree strongly and we do give the occasional barb followed by a smiley but, to date, no one has been condemned to hell, branded a heretic or spoken for God and passed eternal judgment to hell.

I don't considered anybody rabble and I will try to have a conversation with any even if they might not have a great deal of 'expertise' or knowledge of the Bible. However, they can't simply fall back on 'you're a heretic' or 'wait till judgement day' when they are challenged.