Apologetics is another way of saying 'convoluted testimony'

Post by **_Mercury** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:36 am

Lets face it. At the end of the sunshine song and persecution complex laden efforts of Apologetics, at the end its just a roundabout testimony. Everyone else is wrong and the small minority of true believers are the victor.

On another note...im just musing while one hell pf a thunderstorm rages acrost Memphis along with my sleepy community this evening. Damn, the power just went out...crap.

So this is a bit of a tangential post.

I think one of the biggest developments in my personal journey out of Mormonism was a sense of scale as to how many individuals truly found Mormonism as a nonsensible if not nonsensical way of life.

Its a shame really, all those thousands of uberdevout individuals living and perpetuating a fraud.

Post by **_Gadianton** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:26 am

You just wait, my friend. It all seems like a roundabout testimony, but as the needs of the church increase in the direction of credible defense, and defense that riquires an understanding of current intellectual climate, then it's going to need to spend more ca$h. Future apologists may be well compensated, some might already be. Mind you, this will not be every nobody at FAIR, but the straight A students deep in their graduate work who can be bought, the church will buy. You can buy anything with money, as both apologists and church leaders know. It won't matter if what they are defending is right, as long as it pays the bills. Then again, some apologists have already fattened their wallets or entrenched themselves in an apologetic career that they'll never be able to leave behind.

Post by **_Scottie** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:25 pm

This is one thing I noticed when I was first questioning. Apologetics seem to have the answer to everything on the surface, but dig even just a little bit and the answers come crashing down. The testimony is all that is left to fill in the gaps.

Post by **_Gadianton** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:31 pm

that's a good way to put it Scottie. You can reconcile events and some doctrinal matters with whatever seem to be the best scientific ideas of the time, but it's very superficial and only make reality more of a mystery than it already is.

Post by **_Mercury** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:41 pm

Gadianton wrote:that's a good way to put it Scottie. You can reconcile events and some doctrinal matters with whatever seem to be the best scientific ideas of the time, but it's very superficial and only make reality more of a mystery than it already is.

Apologetics is testimony glue. Problem is, you are piecing together a cheap vase one would easilly acquire from the Goodwill with this glue.

Post by **_Bee Eff** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:52 pm

Mercury wrote:
Gadianton wrote:that's a good way to put it Scottie. You can reconcile events and some doctrinal matters with whatever seem to be the best scientific ideas of the time, but it's very superficial and only make reality more of a mystery than it already is.

Apologetics is testimony glue. Problem is, you are piecing together a cheap vase one would easilly acquire from the Goodwill with this glue.

Apologetics is often crap. It is frequently the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures. One should not need a scientific explanation for religious concepts. We were taught,

James 1: 5
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Yet, they seem to turn increasingly from such advice and rely on their own flawed understanding. You may not receive an answer that you could present to anyone as to how or why, but if you lack, that is where you should go. Apologists seem to forget this advice too often. They present theories that are not solid and use them to argue against detractors. Possibilities exist that allow the LDS Church to be true, that is good enough for me. I don't need a solid secularly based secientific evidentiary argument to support my belief, the possibility that it is true suffices in the presence of my personal spiritual experience.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:26 pm

Hi BeeEff, Welcome to the board!

James 1: 5
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

The problem with this scripture is that most believers of some form of Christianity believe they are being led by the spirit, or have been given truth, or have been touch by the Holy Spirit yet they all believe something different. The, FLDS, Evangelical, Catholics, Mormons, etc. etc. ALL believe they have the "real" truth, or the right truth, or the fullness of the truth or whatever. Sort of makes it difficult to know who is getting the real wisdom or knowledge or confirmation. :-) And of course religions world wide believe the same thing, they may use different terminology but basically they believe their "truth" is the correct one.

Possibilities exist that allow the LDS Church to be true, that is good enough for me.

Is it good enough because you don't care if it is true? Or good enough because it works for you? Or good enough because it doesn't matter?

Do you think other religions might possibly be true?

:-)

~dancer~

Post by **_Mercury** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:42 pm

Bee Eff wrote:
Mercury wrote:
Gadianton wrote:that's a good way to put it Scottie. You can reconcile events and some doctrinal matters with whatever seem to be the best scientific ideas of the time, but it's very superficial and only make reality more of a mystery than it already is.

Apologetics is testimony glue. Problem is, you are piecing together a cheap vase one would easilly acquire from the Goodwill with this glue.

Apologetics is often crap. It is frequently the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures. One should not need a scientific explanation for religious concepts. We were taught,

James 1: 5
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Yet, they seem to turn increasingly from such advice and rely on their own flawed understanding. You may not receive an answer that you could present to anyone as to how or why, but if you lack, that is where you should go. Apologists seem to forget this advice too often. They present theories that are not solid and use them to argue against detractors. Possibilities exist that allow the LDS Church to be true, that is good enough for me. I don't need a solid secularly based secientific evidentiary argument to support my belief, the possibility that it is true suffices in the presence of my personal spiritual experience.

Apologetics is crap. Indeed.

Whats a bigger steaming pile of crap is scripture. There is no 'God' to give you knowledge, so who exactly are you praying to? When God gives someone knowledge let me know. Until then I and the majority of humanity do not treat emotions as knowledge. You make a very bad mistake in mixing the two up.

Possibilities exist that allow the LDS Church to be true...

Care to tell me how we can get to the 'bizarro world' alternate dimension where this statement is accurate?

I don't need a solid secularly based secientific evidentiary argument to support my belief, the possibility that it is true suffices in the presence of my personal spiritual experience.

Then you have no reliance on testable outcomes. You are a fool.

Post by **_Maxrep** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:05 pm

Years before I came across apologetics on the internet I had strong doubts. It seemed like members had become "elaborate excuse makers for the lord". Reading apologetics for the first confirmed that initial impression.

Post by **_Bee Eff** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:36 am

Mercury wrote:
Possibilities exist that allow the LDS Church to be true...
Care to tell me how we can get to the 'bizarro world' alternate dimension where this statement is accurate?

I don't need a solid secularly based secientific evidentiary argument to support my belief, the possibility that it is true suffices in the presence of my personal spiritual experience.
Then you have no reliance on testable outcomes. You are a fool.

Do you believe you think? If you do, please prove that such is the case.

Do you believe that others think? If you do, again provide the evidence.

Do you believe that you have ever actually made a choice? Please prove that such was the case.

Evidence is a limited concept that is overated.

From a scientific position, no, there is no more evidence for God than there is for thought. I do not deny such. Yet I do believe that it is entirely possible that I think, and as such I believe it entirely possible that you think. I severely doubt that we do actually think though, and am even more skeptical that we have made more than a handful of choices if that many. Yet, you will probably state that you "know" that you think, please provide some proof. Posting here, following this, is merely you responding to a stimulis that I have provided with words that are the result of a long history of behavior that has been shaped and reinforced. Your belief that you think is solely based in the neural firing that occurs between the presentation of a stimulis and the external response. The failure to externally respond implies that the stimulis was not in fact strong enough to elicit a response due to your behavioral history and it's impact on neural pathways. Choice does not exist as anyone will "choose" the option that follows from their behavioral history and the consequences thereof.

now, unless you are willing to concede your "thinking" as being a fallaceous belief, I am not obliged to concede that my religious beliefs are fallaceous beliefs.