Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #1

Post by Jagella »

The Location of the Empty Tomb Argument:
Jesus' empty tomb is very convincing evidence for his resurrection. We know where that tomb is; it's right here outside Jerusalem. Take a look.

Jesus Himself is Proof of the Resurrection Argument:
The most obvious and convincing evidence for the resurrection is the risen Jesus--forget doubting Thomas blessed but not seeing. You can just see the risen Jesus for yourself.

The Superior Morals of Christians Argument:
Christians are very holy people. They must have the Holy Spirit indwelling them to guide them into righteousness that no heathen can match.

The Power and Knowledge of Christians Argument:
As promised in the New Testament, Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. They work miracles through the power of God, and we can prove it. Bring on those amputees. We can pray and those limbs will be restored.

The Bible is Indeed Holy Argument:
The Bible is the most loving, sensible, and peaceful book ever written. It chronicles many loving acts of God as he without exception acts with gentleness and care for all people. Go ahead and read it for yourselves!

So are we likely to see such arguments from Christian apologists?

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #21

Post by Jagella »

liamconnor wrote:
I thank you for the compliment.
Although I was sincere, I didn't mean it as a compliment so much as lamenting your wasting your gray matter in a vain attempt to defend your religion's shortcomings.
however, the argument presented is subjective. It amounts to "If I were God, I would do x; but the biblical god did z; therefore, the biblical god is not god."

Yes?
I'd say that the Bible god cannot live up to what he logically would do if he was real, therefore it is wise to conclude that he only exists in the minds of apologists and theologians.
AFter all, is it more probable that a God will do exactly as we would, or differently fro what we would?
Actually, if the Bible god cannot act as intelligently and ethically as we do, then it's sensible to conclude that he was made up by primitive and barbarous people.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #22

Post by Mithrae »

Jagella wrote:Actually, if the Bible god cannot act as intelligently and ethically as we do, then it's sensible to conclude that he was made up by primitive and barbarous people.
Who, exactly, do you mean by "we" in this sentence? You and Liamconner? The average of your two divergent perspectives? The whole range of human behaviour, or the average of it?

Or just people who think like you do?

If the latter - as implied by the suggestion that "primitive and barbaric people" hold different opinions - this seems to be a fairly subjective argument.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #23

Post by Jagella »

liamconnor wrote:Apologists use the evidence at hand, not the evidence that isn't.
The "evidence at hand" is essentially a set of documents written two millenia ago by some of the members of an emerging religious cult. Some of these writers are anonymous, and we know little about the others. We have virtually no solid evidence for their claims. Apologists know these facts, and they try to make this woefully weak evidence convincing. Like I have been trying to explain to you in vain, it is unreasonable to conclude that the Bible god, if real, would provide such weak evidence. If we really did have good evidence for the Bible god, then we'd have solid, demonstrable evidence that he is real, that Jesus is his son risen from the grave, that he works miracles and prophesies through his people and that he leads them "into all truth." Since we don't have good evidence, then apologists cannot argue that we do without looking deceitful or foolish.

I don't know how to make it clearer than that.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #24

Post by ttruscott »

Wootah wrote:That's the basis of most Christian argument. The Bible is a love story. Surely the appeal is clear in the Bible to listen and follow God to green pastures where he will love and care for us.

Then what is the meaning of broad is the way but narrow the gate and many are called but few find it??? The mischaracterization of life as GOD's method to FIND or CREATE HIS Bride is not only foolish because it denies history but also because it is illogical and a method of unnecessary suffering.

I consider the true story to be that life on earth is HIS method to cure HIS Bride's addiction to evil and bring all HIS Church into acceptance of the need to banish the reprobate from all of created reality...iow, this is the story of a few people in a rehab center within a prison, and how they are cured.

Sure it is a love story but it especially does not apply to all the people in the prison and the best of that story, the green pastures et al, though available, are often missed out by HIS people who cling stubbornly to their sins.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #25

Post by Jagella »

Mithrae wrote:
Jagella wrote:Actually, if the Bible god cannot act as intelligently and ethically as we do, then it's sensible to conclude that he was made up by primitive and barbarous people.
Who, exactly, do you mean by "we" in this sentence?
I'm glad you asked. By "we" I mean any person with a modern education and morality. Modern morality sees genocide, racism, homophobia and slavery as wrong and religious freedom and scientific thinking as good.
You and Liamconner?


Yes, and I think it's safe to say that I might include you. You impress me as a person who realizes that mass murder is not only wrong but stupid as well. You are no doubt smarter and more moral than the god you believe in. How is that possible if he's real? It is very possible if primitive and barbaric people made him up.

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #26

Post by bjs »

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

This phrasing seems unnecessarily awkward.

It is exceedingly vague. It is built on the assumption that there reader already agrees a priori that these are valid arguments which reasonably should be true of Christianity.

Instead of this intellectually sloppy approach, I recommend taking one of these issues and demonstrated that it should be true of Christianity but is not.

Until that is done, it would seem that Liam had the right idea in post two. He wrote, “ I am not sure what offering bad arguments for Christianity does against Christianity.�
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #27

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to post 24 by ttruscott]

Actually what is the meaning of Jesus statement according to you if everyone has already chosen their lot?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #28

Post by Jagella »

bjs wrote:...I recommend taking one of these issues and demonstrated that it should be true of Christianity but is not.
Let's take a look at all five arguments that no apologist would dare to utter.
The Location of the Empty Tomb Argument:
Jesus' empty tomb is very convincing evidence for his resurrection. We know where that tomb is; it's right here outside Jerusalem. Take a look.
The reason apologists would be wise to avoid this empty-tomb argument is because it posits an actual empty tomb that anybody can try to visit only to discover there is no such tomb. Many apologists like William Craig use an empty-tomb argument taking care to avoid pointing out that the empty tomb in their argument is merely a part of the resurrection stories. If Jesus really rose from the dead, then his followers would no doubt have marked the spot of his empty tomb. They didn't, and the probable reason is that there never was an empty tomb and no resurrection.
Jesus Himself is Proof of the Resurrection Argument:
The most obvious and convincing evidence for the resurrection is the risen Jesus--forget doubting Thomas blessed but not seeing. You can just see the risen Jesus for yourself.
This argument is very obvious. If you wish to think logically, then you must conclude that no wise god would raise his son from the dead, demand we believe that his son is risen, and then take his risen son away. On the other hand, people perpetrating a hoax could claim a resurrection but never produce that risen person. Apologists understand this problem and avoid mentioning that Jesus hasn't been seen in 2,000 years.
The Superior Morals of Christians Argument:
Christians are very holy people. They must have the Holy Spirit indwelling them to guide them into righteousness that no heathen can match.
This argument would also be very useful if the claims of Christianity are true. If a holy god indwells a person, then we logically expect that person to be very moral. What we do see are TV preachers fleecing their flocks! Christians are no more moral than non-Christians, and their claims to godliness are bogus. This fact is well known, and as a result no apologist can make this argument honestly.
The Power and Knowledge of Christians Argument:
As promised in the New Testament, Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. They work miracles through the power of God, and we can prove it. Bring on those amputees. We can pray and those limbs will be restored.
An all-powerful, miracle-working healing god would have no problem restoring an amputated limb. Claims of miraculous healing on the part of Jesus fill the gospels, and Jesus is quoted as saying his followers would perform even greater wonders. It never happens! Knowing that miracles cannot be demonstrated to happen, apologists avoid this argument like the plague.
The Bible is Indeed Holy Argument:
The Bible is the most loving, sensible, and peaceful book ever written. It chronicles many loving acts of God as he without exception acts with gentleness and care for all people. Go ahead and read it for yourselves!
Apologists are well aware that the Bible is full of dark stories of pain, suffering, and death. It chronicles the atrocities of the god who is claimed to have authored it. Knowing these facts apologists never would describe the Bible as the most loving, sensible, and peaceful book ever written.

Some lies are just too outrageous even for Christian apologists!

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #29

Post by Mithrae »

Jagella wrote:
Mithrae wrote:
Jagella wrote:Actually, if the Bible god cannot act as intelligently and ethically as we do, then it's sensible to conclude that he was made up by primitive and barbarous people.
Who, exactly, do you mean by "we" in this sentence?
I'm glad you asked. By "we" I mean any person with a modern education and morality. Modern morality sees genocide, racism, homophobia and slavery as wrong and religious freedom and scientific thinking as good.
You and Liamconner?

Yes, and I think it's safe to say that I might include you. You impress me as a person who realizes that mass murder is not only wrong but stupid as well. You are no doubt smarter and more moral than the god you believe in. How is that possible if he's real? It is very possible if primitive and barbaric people made him up.
I don't believe in any god, though I'd say that the case for idealism/panentheism is stronger than the case for materialism or philosophical naturalism.

Certainly it's possible that primitive people completely made up the stories in the bible. Isn't it also possible that primitive people only partially made up the stories, slanderously using a real god as a pretext justifying the conquest of Canaan or the like?

Or even more radically, isn't it possible that the moral ideals aspired to in our time of plenty and relative peace - which are nevertheless still routinely ignored, as for instance in the unprovoked 2003 invasion of a sovereign nation on the opposite side of the world (Iraq) - may not be universal absolutes?

Disagreements with the morality portrayed in the bible seem to be a fairly subjective argument which provide little if any reason for supposing that its god does not exist. Of course they may be an excellent reason not to follow that god, if we rule out the second possibility above, that the nasty bits are human corruptions.


####

Jagella wrote: Let's take a look at all five arguments that no apologist would dare to utter.
The Location of the Empty Tomb Argument:
Jesus' empty tomb is very convincing evidence for his resurrection. We know where that tomb is; it's right here outside Jerusalem. Take a look.
The reason apologists would be wise to avoid this empty-tomb argument is because it posits an actual empty tomb that anybody can try to visit only to discover there is no such tomb. Many apologists like William Craig use an empty-tomb argument taking care to avoid pointing out that the empty tomb in their argument is merely a part of the resurrection stories. If Jesus really rose from the dead, then his followers would no doubt have marked the spot of his empty tomb. They didn't, and the probable reason is that there never was an empty tomb and no resurrection.
This also doesn't seem to be a very logical argument. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is sited in a very plausible location which would have lain outside the walls of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death. However the region was obviously ruled by the Roman Empire, not by Christians, and reportedly in the early 2nd century CE the Christian site of veneration there was covered by a Roman temple to Venus (probably after the second Jewish revolt in the 130s CE). This again seems plausible, since replacing sites of unwanted religions with one's own temples or churches was a practice which the Roman Catholic Church continued when it became the dominant power.

Perhaps you don't see a "Here specifically is an empty tomb" argument not because an empty tomb never existed, but because it would be a pathetically weak argument? A sceptic would simply say "So? There's been two thousand years to move the body."

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Apologetics Arguments You're Not Likely to Hear

Post #30

Post by Jagella »

Mithrae wrote: Certainly it's possible that primitive people completely made up the stories in the bible. Isn't it also possible that primitive people only partially made up the stories, slanderously using a real god as a pretext justifying the conquest of Canaan or the like?
Yes, the bible writers may have been slandering a real god. It's possible. It's also possible that that real god was Peter Pan. Since we lack proof of the Bible god, we must rely on our personal assessments of his existence. In this case I am relying on my personal point of view regarding what the Bible god might do.
Or even more radically, isn't it possible that the moral ideals aspired to in our time of plenty and relative peace - which are nevertheless still routinely ignored, as for instance in the unprovoked 2003 invasion of a sovereign nation on the opposite side of the world (Iraq) - may not be universal absolutes?
Actually, I'm sure that our modern morality is not based on a "universal absolute." Obviously some people disagree and murder innocent people, for instance. Nevertheless, opposing genocide and slavery as wrong is generally agreed upon.
Disagreements with the morality portrayed in the bible seem to be a fairly subjective argument which provide little if any reason for supposing that its god does not exist.
All arguments are subjective. If we lack proof, then we must argue our point of view. You are doing exactly that when you disagree with me. So yes, it is my opinion that slavery and genocide are wrong and would not be practiced by a holy god. If you disagree, then you are welcome to argue that a holy god would condone genocide and slavery.
This also doesn't seem to be a very logical argument.
What logical fallacy am I committing? I could be wrong about the early Christians marking the spot of Jesus' empty tomb. Just because I could be wrong does not mean that I am making a logical error. The possibility of error is not a mistake in logic.
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is sited in a very plausible location which would have lain outside the walls of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death. However the region was obviously ruled by the Roman Empire, not by Christians, and reportedly in the early 2nd century CE the Christian site of veneration there was covered by a Roman temple to Venus (probably after the second Jewish revolt in the 130s CE). This again seems plausible, since replacing sites of unwanted religions with one's own temples or churches was a practice which the Roman Catholic Church continued when it became the dominant power.
Thanks for this information, but how does it demonstrate that I made a logical error? Recall that in the opening post I posted arguments that an apologist is unlikely to make, in my opinion. If you wish to argue against what I said, then you need to argue that an apologist would argue that way. You seem to be explaining why there may be no empty tomb today even if Jesus did rise from the dead. Your scenario is very possible. However, there still is no empty tomb regardless of why there may be no empty tomb. Since we have no empty tomb, apologists must avoid that fact if they wish to sound convincing.
Perhaps you don't see a "Here specifically is an empty tomb" argument not because an empty tomb never existed, but because it would be a pathetically weak argument?
The strength of the "Here specifically is an empty tomb" argument hinges on whether or not we have an empty tomb that anybody can check out. It is indeed a "pathetically weak argument" if there is no tomb. On the other hand it is a potentially strong argument if there is such a tomb.

Understand?

Post Reply