Comments | mahf: Apologetics

mahf

Apologetics

Aug 09, 2005 12:56

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 ( Read more... )

Comments 12

shaptastic August 10 2005, 00:22:51 UTC

Why is it called "Apologetics"?

mahf August 10 2005, 00:36:38 UTC

Here's the etymology:

Middle English, formal defense, from Latin apologticus, from Greek apologtikos, suitable for defense, from apologeisthai, to defend oneself verbally, from apologos, apology, story.

(The comment has been removed)

mahf August 10 2005, 01:09:37 UTC

Well, in most arenas of human thought, philosophy and theology included, people typically put forth ideas, and then other people criticize them. The response is usually called a defense. The point is to arrive at reasonable conclusions. Either way, there have been plenty of attacks on Christianity and most belief systems in general ( ... )

defense anonymous August 10 2005, 03:47:11 UTC

i'm not trying to start shit or anything shaptastic, but you yourself are guilty of attacking beliefs ( ... )

shaptastic August 10 2005, 13:22:25 UTC

Nevermind. Just forget I said anything.

nope shaptastic August 10 2005, 14:27:23 UTC

i won't just nevermind.

my post had three distinct arguments, and i'd like to hear what you thought about any or all of them.

i think i added something to the conversation by clarifying and extending some of mahf's statements about apologetics, and i think you might have something to add to it in response. i opened myself up a little by explaining how i think people (eg myself) come to Christ. i think you'd add something to the conversation by explaining how you've come into certain beliefs, whatever they are. i'd be especially interested to know if my theory on what motivates belief applies to someone who apparently doesn't share some of my beliefs.

+nick+

Re: nope shaptastic August 10 2005, 21:40:43 UTC

First of all, I would like to say I am not into proving my own beliefs, because I can't. I can explain what I believe, and why I believe them, but I can't prove anything. I really don't believe anybody can. I think there is a certain aspect of faith that is beyond proof ... if it could be proven, it really wouldn't be faith at all, that's the whole point. Faith is belief without the proof, or at least I think it should be ( ... )

Re: nope shaptastic August 10 2005, 21:40:59 UTC

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 ( ... )

Thread 8