Apologetics

[mahf]

Last weekend I went to a conference (although I hesitate to call it that since there were only about 20 of us there) in Jacksonville. It was the First Annual Faith and Functionality Conference to be exact. It was a great trip. I had a lot of fun at the conference as well as just shootin’ the bull with my friend Nick

Comments

Re: nope

[shaptastic]

I think that's the difference: acceptance. When I think of having to defend something, in my mind, it connotates a lack of acceptance by the other party. For example (and this is a really stupid example), let's say you saw a movie that you really liked, and you told me to see it because you thought I'd like it. I saw it, and I didn't like it. I could tell you "I didn't like that movie." "I didn't think it was that funny." "I couldn't buy the plotline." Whatever, I didn't like the movie. But that doesn't mean I have to try to deny you the right to like the movie. Hell, if you liked the movie, good for you, that means you got your money's worth. But obviously, you did like it, you thought it was funny, and you thought the plot was decent. But there isn't anything I can do about that. You liked it, I accept it. But it's not for me. Just because I tell you that I didn't like it doesn't mean you should feel like you have to defend yourself to me. It would be different if I said, "Anyone in their right mind could see that movie sucked." Or "You must be an idiot if you liked that movie." That would be an attack, because I am attacking your point of view, whereas in the first scenario, I am expressing MY point of view, and just how it is different from yours. And that's ok.

I think I've said enough for now.

Re: nope

[shaptastic]

Should I not expect a response from you, or what?

Re: nope

[mahf]

Just to let you know, Nick just went out of town, so while I'm sure he'll respond eventually, it may not be for a few days. I'm just trying to stay out of your discussion and see how two very different people work this out.

Re: nope

[shaptastic]

hey man.... i'm newly wed, fresh off a vacation, in the middle of moving all our crap to a new place, and i'm not even a real blogger in the first place. so, i apologize for not getting back to you for a week.

i think part of our confusion is that you're talking about broadside attacks on some abstract belief system "out there," and mahf and i are talking about an internal battle in someone drawn to belief in Christ. you're right; arguing broadly against christianity or any other belief system is like mental masturbation.

the apologetics mahf and i are talking about would actually take place between two or so people, and in the mind of the new believer. i'll use that movie example, and i'll assume that movies can express truth about humanity and the world. sometimes i watch a movie and find its vision of human life compelling; sometimes i watch a movie and wonder if the writer and director are even real human beings. sometimes, though, they'll elicit a reaction that's one part attraction and one part revulsion.

i could stop here and say, "i kinda liked that movie, but kinda didn't." instead of copping out, i say, "tarantino might really have something to say about redemption. jules' vision of a life shepherding others is compelling. even so, tarantino's vision of human nature is too pessimistic; the human condition isn't so hopeless that just one of many characters who have a near death (or worse!) experience is able to transcend his life in the underworld." i have bought the movie, i feel compelled to believe it, but i attack the parts i can't buy into. that is, i take in the whole message because there's something really compelling about it, but my mind rejects/attacks certain parts. i might do this for a couple of reasons, either because those parts offend some previously held beliefs, or because those parts offend my sense of reason and logic by contradicting other parts of the movie. in this real example, i resist tarantino on both counts.

the analogy to christianity is simple: i believe the role of apologetics is to reconcile the person who finds the story compelling to those parts of the story that tell a truth that is new, or seemingly contradictory, or just unpleasant. done this way, apologetics looks like countless conversations i've had about a variety of topics; conversations that weren't about winning or losing or attacking or defending, but about trying to understand and maybe even believe the fullness of a story.

again, this is not at all about proving christianity true, but about grappling with honest barriers to belief in Christ. i haven't even attempted to tell you the story, or why you would believe it. i think mahf's got pretty decent reasons for believing the story, and for wanting to be a character in it. ask him about it sometime, if you want.

in the meantime, i've given you a moderately trivial example of something that's influenced my belief in the fallen human condition and the possibility of transcending that (pulp fiction). maybe you could say something about a belief you've got, a belief that contradicts judaic or christian doctrine, or even just a trivial example like mine.

+nick+

Re: nope

[shaptastic]

First off, congrats on getting married.

Secondly, what you said makes total sense, and I get it. We're like little Fonzies now. The analogy really helped.

As far as me personally, everything that I disagree with about Judeo-Christian doctrine I disagree with because my beliefs are held together by my conviction that God is perfect. I am not willing to bend that either. "Nobody's perfect except God" as my mom always used to say, and I believe that. The reason why I believe that is because I think that's really the only reason to worship a supreme being, in my opinion. I don't want to worship God just because he has power, because that's really worship out of fear, or out of greed - either you want Him to do something for you, or you hope He doesn't. I want to worship God out of love, out of respect, out of admiration. I won't really define what "perfect" is here, that's a whole nother comment.

Therefore, anything that depicts God as anything less than perfect (in my eyes) goes against my beliefs. This is why I have a lot of problems with the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is not a God I'd want to worship out of love. He seems like someone to worship because he can either break the shackles of slavery or flood the earth, depending on whatever He wants to do. And that's just not how I roll.

Going back to your example. You can say you "did and didn't like a movie," ... but how good would a movie have to be for you to worship it?