Timeline for Should apologetics take into account deeper convictions behind rational arguments?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14 at 17:20 | history | edited | 1277154 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 88 characters in body
|
| Nov 14 at 17:14 | history | edited | 1277154 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 88 characters in body
|
| Nov 14 at 16:23 | history | edited | 1277154 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 88 characters in body
|
| Nov 14 at 16:13 | history | edited | 1277154 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
More specific questions
|
| Nov 14 at 14:51 | comment | added | 1277154 | @raygrant Thanks for your comment! I didn't intend the last 5 paragraphs to provide an answer. More like a (very long) introduction to the question. Providing some context and explation. Because I doubt anyone would understand the question without explaining the term deeper convictions? | |
| Nov 13 at 19:59 | comment | added | ray grant | @1277154 - This is an important question with vast implications! However the format needs changing. The first two paragraphs present the question well. But the last 5 paragraphs provide the answer...and should be written separately as an answer. It is quite okay for the questioner to give an answer on BH.SE. Good insights. Peace. | |
| Nov 12 at 22:40 | answer | added | ray grant | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 10 at 22:20 | answer | added | SuperFlash | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 13 at 12:22 | comment | added | Mike Borden | I would say 'giving a reason to everyone who asks for the hope that is in you' is apologetic. Debate scenarios, however, are a different platform. No one (apparently) is asking the other anything in 'good faith' in such forums and the pressure of having an audience makes true concession to the opposite view very difficult indeed. There may be some benefit to individuals in the viewing audience but lots of people viewing on both sides are just getting their intellects tickled or looking for 'instant win' sound-bytes, IMO. | |
| Apr 13 at 10:19 | comment | added | 1277154 | @MikeBorden Ha yes I get your point. But then what is the point of apologetic debate? | |
| Apr 6 at 13:17 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 2 at 3:08 | |||||
| Apr 6 at 13:16 | comment | added | GratefulDisciple | @NigelJ Jesus does more than preaching. Also, seeing with the eyes of others doesn't imply agreeing, but does imply understanding & compassion, which lies behind a everyday expression "I see your point". In this lecture about co-knowing citing 1 Cor 9:19-23 ("... I have become all things to all people, so that I may be every possible means save some ..." ) in minute 35, it's implied that St. Paul practiced compassion w/ the blind Jews, but obviously wouldn't sin. | |
| Apr 6 at 12:39 | comment | added | 1277154 | @NigelJ You see what is given you to see, and that's good. But of course other people might also be given to see with the eyes of others. Yes there's sin and unbelief. But who's without sin? Are you? | |
| S Apr 6 at 12:20 | history | suggested | agarza | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed grammar, punctuation
|
| Apr 6 at 11:12 | comment | added | Nigel J | @Mark Paul preached in Acts 17:16-34.. He neither argued nor debated. And one is always ready to give an answer if someone is genuinely moved by the hope one expresses in Christ. But, again, that is neither argument nor debate. You are excusing prolonged argumentation with irrelevant texts. 'The servant of the Lord is not to strive' is more apposite, 2 Timothy 2:24. ('Strive' is also rendered 'quarrelsome' by some.) | |
| Apr 6 at 10:55 | comment | added | user61679 |
@NigelJ Paul the apostle does not follow your advice in Romans chapters one and two - What about Acts 17:16-34? Or 1 Peter 3:15?
|
|
| Apr 6 at 8:43 | comment | added | Nigel J | @GratefulDisciple I do not see things with the eyes of others. I see what is given me to see. I do not sympathise with that which rejects Deity. Paul the apostle does not follow your advice in Romans chapters one and two. Nor does Jesus of Nazareth in his many discourses. There is no 'difficulty'. There is sin and there is unblelief. I disagree fundamentally and robustly with your suggestion. | |
| Apr 6 at 3:52 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 6 at 12:20 | |||||
| Apr 6 at 0:59 | comment | added | GratefulDisciple | @NigelJ I see it as "engagement" not obsession. Engagement implies willingness to listen and to see the world from someone's eyes until the atheist can say to you: "you can now see my difficulties", at which point you score one point toward leading the (hopefully not hardened) atheist to reciprocate and see the world from your own eyes, which is the eyes of faith. I do this with someone and was successful. Have you done much listening to their difficulties? Try it, and be compassionate; it can change you for the better. True faith is not afraid, darkness cannot overcome it (John 1:5). | |
| Apr 5 at 22:16 | comment | added | Nigel J | I do not understand the obsession with arguing with atheists. The fool hath said in his heart, God is not' saith the Psalmist. Best not argue with a fool or one becomes like them. | |
| Apr 5 at 22:01 | comment | added | Matthew | I don't have time to Answer now, but a lot of apologists I follow argue that mere logic can't bring one to God, because rejection of God is ultimately based on spiritual factors. Which is to say, the answer isn't only "it should", but "it must". | |
| Apr 5 at 21:33 | comment | added | Mike Borden | You can't really assign deeper convictions/predispositions to somebody else when it's so difficult to even pinpoint one's own deeper convictions/predispositions. I think what you're describing is the difference between apologetic debate and conversation. | |
| S Apr 5 at 20:37 | review | First questions | |||
| Apr 6 at 3:52 | |||||
| S Apr 5 at 20:37 | history | asked | 1277154 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |