Do the Apologists Resent Uneducated and/or Gullible Members?

[_cinepro]

Apologists do not attempt to give rational explanations nor do I think rational explanations play a part in apologetics.

x2

[_karl61]

I told Scott Lloyd (during a brief but educating excursion to MAD) not to put his chariot before his tapir and he didn't think I was funny. For their "robust and earthy" senses of humor, they really can't take a joke.

Scott Lloyd really is totally devoid of a sense of humor. I have been completely astonished at some of his more recent MAD postings, including one in which he recited some blather from the Brethren about how Jesus Christ: Superstar is inappropriate entertainment for TBMs. Later, he discussed his tastes in music, revealing his penchant for white-picket-fence, 1950s "golden oldies." I guess the likes of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are too infused with Satan for him.

Mary Magdalene sings the most beautiful song of all time in Jesus Christ Superstar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn7exBrCiUI

[_why me]

Apologists do not attempt to give rational explanations nor do I think rational explanations play a part in apologetics.

x2

But I am correct. In matters of faith there can be no rational explanations but in matters of history, there can be rational explanations.

[_JohnStuartMill]

The thing about apologists that turns me off the most is that they can't seem to decide when the magic turns on and off. Why would someone bother to give a rational explanation for the lack of Hebrew DNA in Native Americans when they're using the plausibility of that premise to defend the ultimate conclusion "a magic man in the sky can make you live forever"?

Once you admit the existence of magic, there's no need to offer a rational explanation for anything. The fact that apologists continue in this unnecessary endeavor is evidence of how they've compartmentalized their religious and academic lives.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't think they are resented at all.

Without ignorant people like these, there would be no one to worship idiots like WIll Schryver.

The naïve and gullible make their apologetic life worth living. I mean they certainly can't expect to be congratulted by intelligent folk.

[_JohnStuartMill]

By "uneducated and gullible," I think we're talking about chapel Mormons, who would have little reason to revere apologists.

[_Kevin Graham]

Well, Schryver just advertised his new "missing papyrus" argument in the popular thread and so far one respondent has replied. He replied with emoticons bowing down and worshipping Will. Wil expects this. He needs it. He likes feeling special in a crowd of gullble lurkers. I think most lurkers at MADB would be classfied as chapel Mormons. They're all gnorant, either way.

[_why me]

The thing about apologists that turns me off the most is that they can't seem to decide when the magic turns on and off. Why would someone bother to give a rational explanation for the lack of Hebrew DNA in Native Americans when they're using the plausibility of that premise to defend the ultimate conclusion "a magic man in the sky can make you live forever"?

Once you admit the existence of magic, there's no need to offer a rational explanation for anything. The fact that apologists continue in this unnecessary endeavor is evidence of how they've compartmentalized their religious and academic lives.

Well, I am sure that being an apologist is not easy. I wonder how they would have fared during old testament times. How to prove the flood or the parting of the red sea. How to explain Solomon and his verses of lust? It would not be easy.

Apologists always play with the black pieces. They act for the defense and not for the prosecution. Lets us try now to give a rational explanation for the flood and the parting of the red sea? Or better yet, for the crucifixtion. For after all even at the time of Paul the crucifixtion was not proven. There were a bunch of apostles going around claiming that it happened.

Let us assume that hebrew dna were discovered among the indians. Wow, that would prove the Book of Mormon or would it? Or if a city by the Book of Mormon name was discovered. Wow, that would prove the existence of god and we would all be better for it or would we? Or a letter is discovered by a witness who saw the crucifixtion and experienced the miracles...wow...that would prove god to. But...it hasn't happened and so lets try to use rational explanations for the Bible stories and for the Book of Mormon. Very hard indeed.

[_why me]

I think most lurkers at MADB would be classfied as chapel Mormons. They're all gnorant, either way.

Yes, they are all ignorant...you are absolutely right. They haven't reached your summit as of yet. I think that there is hope though...that someday a chapel Mormon or apologist will reach your height...but...I don't think so. They are sooooooo ignorant of the facts and in the lack of rational explanations. What to do???

[_Kevin Graham]

Apologists always play with the black pieces. They act for the defense and not for the prosecution. Lets us try now to give a rational explanation for the flood and the parting of the red sea? Or better yet, for the crucifixtion. For after all even at the time of Paul the crucifixtion was not proven. There were a bunch of apostles going around claiming that it happened.

Don't even pretend Mormonism is on the same level as Christianity when it comes to the number of apologetic quagmires. Mormonism inherits the same problems with traditional Christianity, and then multiplies it by a factor of at least ten.

Let us assume that hebrew dna were discovered among the indians. Wow, that would prove the Book of Mormon or would it?

Uh, no. It would only prove that early 19th century speculations, as expressed by others, including the book, "View of the Hebrews," turned out to be correct.

Or if a city by the Book of Mormon name was discovered. Wow, that would prove the existence of god and we would all be better for it or would we?

Uh, no. It would be impossible to verify such a thing since the Book of Mormon was conveniently conveyed to Smith via a dead language: "reformed egyptian."

Or a letter is discovered by a witness who saw the crucifixtion and experienced the miracles...wow...that would prove god to.

Uh, no. Just because someone writes something doesn't make it true. If you need proof, then look no further than Will Schryver's posts.

But...it hasn't happened and so lets try to use rational explanations for the Bible stories and for the Book of Mormon. Very hard indeed.

You're trying to convince atheists that Mormonism shouldn't be criticized because Christianity has similar problems.

I'm not an atheist, but you seem to be following the usual apologetic line that God is somehow hiding these things from us so we can have faith. If any one of these things were verified, then there would be no reason for faith. Gee, kinda makes you wonder why Joseph Smith wanted Charles Anthon to "verify" his translations. Or it kinda makes you wonder why Jesus verified his resurrection by appearing to his apostles. Why didn't Jesus just require that they have faith like the rest of us? This argument is unique to Mormon apologetics. The proper understanding of "faith" in biblical Greek, has nothing to do with "blind" faith. It is actually referring to a sense of loyalty always based on evidence.