Is apologetics necessary?

[artsylady]

No, I'm not really surprised you're still here. I do believe that unless you accept Christianity, you will have a very deep soulful need to fight it all of your life, whether here or someone else. In my comment, I only meant to show you that there must be an awful lot of information that you need to contradict in order to continue to reject God. If it was as simple as a fairy tale - as some athiests will compare, the information could be refuted and disputed in no less than an hour. But there's obviously much more information that than. And I know you are not one of those who compare it to a fairy tale. I wouldn't insult you that way, just so you know.

[artsylady]

Actually Nik, if you want me to be really honest, there were a few things that caused me to leave the apologetics discussions because I felt there was no give and take. There were a few very solid items that you so easily dismissed while beleiving yourself to be fair and open minded.

One, was the evidence that Noah's descendants, as named in the Bible, are actually names of current places, or names of ancient places since changed to modern names. I asked you to consider the fact that men of these names likely did live and you went to great lengths to say that they could not possibly have been the same men as named in the Bible, or that the Bible obviously had been written after all of these places had alredy been named, which stands in the face of logic and history as we know it.

The other argument that came to mind was the obvious fact that evolutionists do not have a single solid theory (as in dinos to birds) that they all unanimously agree upon. Your answer was simply "that evolution happened". This is the equivalent to Christians saying "because the Bible said so" if they don't know much about the Bible or have no other answers or care to delve more deeply. You probably laugh at answers such as this, but when I hear you answering in such a way, "that evolution happened" it doesn't cause laughter. It causes frustration and sadness that such a brilliant mind cannot see the obvious and question that which should obviously be questionable.

I appreciate the fact that you have learned along the way not to blatantly attack or insult Christians, however your open mindedness and fairness seemed to be a facade that I couldn't help you get past.

That's when I kind of gave up on you. There were a few other things but I can't remember what they were now. If they come to mind, I'll post them.

In any case, you're still here and I just heard that something I'd said had been bumped up so I thought I'd give it another go.

[Bread_of_Life]

Artsylady,

If it was as simple as a fairy tale - as some athiests will compare, the information could be refuted and disputed in no less than an hour.

I'm afraid not. People are particularly "clingy" to this particular fairy tale, and have gone to great lengths to create arguments to defend it - and will go to almost any length to avoid, attack or counter-balance arguments against it.

How easy it is to convince people of something is not always proportional to how obvious that thing is, or how blatantly right you are - it is proportional to how accepting they are of it, and how open minded they are.

One, was the evidence that Noah's descendants, as named in the Bible, are actually names of current places, or names of ancient places since changed to modern names.

I remember that discussion, yes.

I asked you to consider the fact that men of these names likely did live and you went to great lengths to say that they could not possibly have been the same men as named in the Bible, or that the Bible obviously had been written after all of these places had alredy been named, which stands in the face of logic and history as we know it.

Actually, I remember putting forward several possible explanations:

a) That at least some of these places were already named at the time the biblical narrative was written, and that the account of Noah's ark was written specifically to "account for" these names by naming Noah's friends after or similar to the place names

b) That the areas themselves were named after tribes, who existed at the time of the writing of the biblical narrative or before, and that the author of Genesis "explained" these tribal names using the story of Noah's flood.

c) That the areas were actually named after the biblical characters during the course of history.

d) That some coincidence may also be involved, or that the names were common or generic enough to appear within the realms of Christendom.

Of course, we'd have to take it on a case by case basis - I'm happy to try to research each one if you want. However, as I recall, you seemed less happy answering my questions against the flood. But hey, it's all in the past.

The other argument that came to mind was the obvious fact that evolutionists do not have a single solid theory (as in dinos to birds) that they all unanimously agree upon. Your answer was simply "that evolution happened".

Actually, no, I said that common ancestry happened. However, now you mention it, they all agree that natural selection is key to evolution. This is quite significant, because it is the core of evolutionary theory - whether birds evolved from reptiles or dinosaurs is a detail - irrelevant essentially to the larger picture of the origin of species.

Imagine I asked you the same question of Christianity - what do all Christians agree upon? It would be a hard question to answer, would it not? You'd probably say something like "That Christ died on the cross for our sins", or another trite definitional answer like that. Why? Because that's the really important part - pre-trib and post-trib are interesting, but not really essential to being a Christian.

I think you may place an unjustified importance on exactly how evolution happened in each lineage. While this is interesting, and a lot of modern day research goes on in this area to discover exactly how closely sets of animals are related and when lineages split, this does not make up the important parts of the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't rise and fall on whether birds evolved from reptiles or dinosaurs (although they actually evolved from the latter) - or exactly how they evolved from dinosaurs to birds - it rises on falls on the evidences for common ancestry. These evidences are many - they include the fossil record - but many more evidences besides.

Now, can I tell you if we're more closely related to Chimps or Gorillas? No, this one is hotly contested. But I can tell you we're related, and every evolutionist will agree. They'll also agree that we're more closely related to gorillas than new world monkeys, and more closely related to new world moneys than to dogs, and more closely related to dogs than to Wallabies, and more closely related to Wallabies than to snakes, and more closely related to snakes than to frogs, and frogs than to fish, and fish than to bacteria, and bacteria than to plants. That's a lot of stuff to agree upon - that's what "agreeing on common ancestry" means. It's a real big deal - it really does make up the bulk of what evolution is.

[artsylady]

Actually, I remember putting forward several possible explanations:

a) That at least some of these places were already named at the time the biblical narrative was written, and that the account of Noah's ark was written specifically to "account for" these names by naming Noah's friends after or similar to the place names

Well then you'd have to rewrite history for this to happen.

b) That the areas themselves were named after tribes, who existed at the time of the writing of the biblical narrative or before, and that the author of Genesis "explained" these tribal names using the story of Noah's flood.

And that it's impossible that the tribes were names of real men? Isn't it most likely that the tribes were named after real people?

c) That the areas were actually named after the biblical characters during the course of history.

Well, yes. That's right. There you go. Let's continue with this very real possibility shall we?

d) That some coincidence may also be involved, or that the names were common or generic enough to appear within the realms of Christendom.

Of course, we'd have to take it on a case by case basis - I'm happy to try to research each one if you want.

Sure, if you don't mind.

However, as I recall, you seemed less happy answering my questions against the flood. But hey, it's all in the past.

I can't remember at the time what it was but if it won't take a great deal of research, I'll try to refute one point. Yes, I remember I was lazy and the information was very technical and you were asking me to study something I had no interest in, but go ahead again and I'll see what I can do.

QUOTE

The other argument that came to mind was the obvious fact that evolutionists do not have a single solid theory (as in dinos to birds) that they all unanimously agree upon. Your answer was simply "that evolution happened".

Actually, no, I said that common ancestry happened. However, now you mention it, they all agree that natural selection is key to evolution. This is quite significant, because it is the core of evolutionary theory - whether birds evolved from reptiles or dinosaurs is a detail - irrelevant essentially to the larger picture of the origin of species.

I don't think you understand the question. I don't mean a blanket statement like 'evolution happened' or 'common ancestry happened'. I mean a theory within these big pictures, like a lineage where there is proof along the way.

Imagine I asked you the same question of Christianity - what do all Christians agree upon? It would be a hard question to answer, would it not? You'd probably say something like "That Christ died on the cross for our sins", or another trite definitional answer like that. Why? Because that's the really important part - pre-trib and post-trib are interesting, but not really essential to being a Christian.

I don't see it as the same thing. You are asking us for a common religious thing and I'm asking you for a common scientific beleif.

I think you may place an unjustified importance on exactly how evolution happened in each lineage. While this is interesting, and a lot of modern day research goes on in this area to discover exactly how closely sets of animals are related and when lineages split, this does not make up the important parts of the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't rise and fall on whether birds evolved from reptiles or dinosaurs (although they actually evolved from the latter) - or exactly how they evolved from dinosaurs to birds - it rises on falls on the evidences for common ancestry. These evidences are many - they include the fossil record - but many more evidences besides.

And evolutionary theories themselves change constantly. It rewrites itself. What they say is a rock solid argument today is bound to change tomorrow.

Now, can I tell you if we're more closely related to Chimps or Gorillas? No, this one is hotly contested. But I can tell you we're related, and every evolutionist will agree. They'll also agree that we're more closely related to gorillas than new world monkeys, and more closely related to new world moneys than to dogs, and more closely related to dogs than to Wallabies, and more closely related to Wallabies than to snakes, and more closely related to snakes than to frogs, and frogs than to fish, and fish than to bacteria, and bacteria than to plants. That's a lot of stuff to agree upon - that's what "agreeing on common ancestry" means. It's a real big deal - it really does make up the bulk of what evolution is.

Almost every time I read a new discovery, there are some who cling to the old belief and some that embrace the newly written one. I'm just trying to show you that there is so much room for interpretation. They interpret the evidence differently, right? Just the fact that there is so much room for interpretation means that these lineage theories or dating theories are not 100 percent factual as they would have us believe.

Creation scientists also interpret this same evidence differently. Much differently.

[justme7]

Is biblical apologetics really necessary? Can't we just preach the message of the Bible and leave the rest up to God? And is the practice of apologetics biblically supportable? In the biblical record, are there are any examples of men attempting to prove the existence of God or the validity of the Scriptures?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the defending of the faith is found throughout the Bible. you find many examples of the disciples defending the faith....showing by example of the word, that God is; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that works alone do not save, that the gospel of the Lord is truth. there had to be quite alot of 'apologetics' involved in showing a tradition based israel nation and a pagan world that there is one God, that Jesus Christ is His Son who came in the flesh, died for our sins and rose again for our justification. the way i understand it is that apologetics is basically defending the faith.....being able to answer questions and to show in word and faith that Christ is the Lord, our Savior. i think that defending the faith, which really comes down to spreading this message, is completely Biblical. it may not have been called 'apologetics' , but there was plenty of defending this faith in the New Testament.

**i have always wandered why we call it apologetics. that sounds alot like apology, and we don't mean to apologize for being ready to answer our faith.

regardless, if one asks you a hard question they are inquiring about the LORD, which means they want to know something about Him. i want to be ready to tell it. sometimes the telling and the answering of questions makes a difference in people's lives. often times!

think of paul and the 'unknown God'. he had to get in there and say there is a God unknown to you and He is the God; the one and only Mighty God, I AM, God who sees all. what if he had no answer, no inclination to defend and share?

arguments and cirling round and round differences are not always edifying and can be very harmful, but defending this faith and the God we trust is edifying to believers and non-believers alike.