Advice to apologists from a critic

[cdowis]

This is Jeff Durban, a sincere. friendly critic of the church.  Giving good advice on how to talk with atheists and others who strongly disagree with you.

[Atheist Mormon]

Quote

Advice to apologists from a critic

Please tell us what do you think of this video?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Please tell us what do you think of this video?

Please tell us what you think of this video, AM.  

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

.............This is Jeff Durban, a sincere. friendly critic of the church.  Giving good advice on how to talk with atheists and others who strongly disagree with you.

Jeff seems like a very nice guy, but his either-or categories are irresponsible and not in keeping with the Bible.  However, his notion that one should win people not arguments is very perceptive and practical.  I have met a number of kind and considerate evangelicals (some on this board) who have done likewise. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Please tell us what do you think of this video?

While I disagree with him in many areas, I really like his approach.  Some of the antiMormons tell me to prove or convince them, that I have the burden of proof ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof")  I simply tell them that this is between themselves and their Creator.  I show them the way God provides to test these claims, and the burden lies upon themselves to test it.

Edited November 27, 2017 by cdowis

[Atheist Mormon]

19 minutes ago, cdowis said:

While I disagree with him in many areas, I really like his approach.  Some of the antiMormons tell me to prove or convince them, that I have the burden of proof ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof")  I simply tell them that this is between themselves and their Creator.  I show them the way God provides to test these claims, and the burden lies upon themselves to test it.

I really appreciate your answer but I am somewhat disappointed that you do not dish back the tactic they so unscrupulously use, I am sure he is a nice guy but I'd love to reply on his ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof") as if Christianity stands in solid grounds (evidence-wise). If this is a faith issue they have to do alots of learning to like all of us. To me it is a huge waste of time from their end to prove LDS wrong.  I don't care much for apologetics but if I were to pick up someone on my side that person would be Van Hale, I listen his radio programs over thirty years as early as debating late Walter Martin and Shawn McCraney I don't think any of them walked out with the confidence they started. I liked his style because the reality about the Church is already out there if anyone cares to investigate, their problem was not knowing enough their Christianity to defend.......Thanks for your reply.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I really appreciate your answer but I am somewhat disappointed that you do not dish back the tactic they so unscrupulously use, I am sure he is a nice guy but I'd love to reply on his ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof") as if Christianity stands in solid grounds (evidence-wise).

I was not quoting him but several others who  typically focus on proof and evidence for the Book of Mormon etc

Edited November 27, 2017 by cdowis

[Atheist Mormon]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

I was not quoting him but several others who are typically atheists and focus on proof and evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Yes, that would be hard....,.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jeff seems like a very nice guy, but his either-or categories are irresponsible and not in keeping with the Bible.  However, his notion that one should win people not arguments is very perceptive and practical.  I have met a number of kind and considerate evangelicals (some on this board) who have done likewise. 

I have been online for about 16 years now, and I'm sure you have ample experience too. What I have noticed is that people online generally dig in their heels even if they have clearly lost. Especially when they know I'm LDS. They will do just about anything not to look like they have lost a point to an LDS poster. So, a good while back I just usually didn't try to "win" or debate an issue. I just supported people in views I believe to be correct, and presented my views. I also learned from other people, so hopefully I taught other people some things they had not considered as well. Sharing like concepts or interpretations is a good way to start a conversation, and perhaps draw other people in. Simply trying to push one's own viewpoints makes one out to be an internet bully, and not a very good Christian. Every once in a while I get exasperated with someone, but hopefully on the whole most people view me as a contributor to this and other forums. I think that is the best way to represent our Savior and our Church online.

[carbon dioxide]

As time goes on, I have less and less interest in those who are critical of the church who want or demand evidence for things before they will believe.  The way I see it, that was a first estate test that we all passed in the premortal world.  All of us showed we could be faithful and accept God with all of the evidence staring at us right in the face.  We all passed that test and so we came here to our second estate to take a different kind of test.  A test that requires faith and not hard evidence.  Those who pass this harder test are the ones that rise to the top and get their great eternal rewards.  Those that demand evidence are simply wanting to retest what they all passed in the first estate.   To those I say fine.  Retest your first estate test again and earn a reward that is fitting for a that test.  They choose to bail out on this second estate test and earn an F grade.  It is really no skin off the nose of those who still want to take this second estate test and get a good score.

[carbon dioxide]

delete

Edited November 27, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Damien the Leper]

I've known Jeff for a few years. He is head pastor of Apologia Church in Tempe, AZ. He is an adherent to the Westminster Reformed theology. This video is reasonable. I'm not a fan of his presuppositional apologetics. Every year, he and some of his flock try witnessing to visitors and missionaries at the Mesa Temple during Advent and at Easter. He once claimed at a local apologetics conference that the good morals and principles held by atheists assume his Christian worldview. Overall, I'm not impressed with him.

[3DOP]

15 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I've known Jeff for a few years. He is head pastor of Apologia Church in Tempe, AZ. He is an adherent to the Westminster Reformed theology. This video is reasonable. I'm not a fan of his presuppositional apologetics. Every year, he and some of his flock try witnessing to visitors and missionaries at the Mesa Temple during Advent and at Easter. He once claimed at a local apologetics conference that the good morals and principles held by atheists assume his Christian worldview. Overall, I'm not impressed with him.

Valentinus. Hi. Apologia Church? Who names their church that? 

A 21st Century Cornelius Van Til guy?

Rory

PS: Are you ever going to settle down to one thing? Sure you will if the Lord tarries. I was 49 before I did. God bless you Valentinus. I sure want all the best for you. I covet your prayers like no one I know here. Thanks.

Edited November 27, 2017 by 3DOP

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

PS: Are you ever going to settle down to one thing? Sure you will if the Lord tarries. I was 49 before I did. God bless you Valentinus. I sure want all the best for you. I covet your prayers like no one I know here. Thanks.

Your question reminded me of Elder Neal Maxwell’s October 1992 General Conference address:

“Each of us is an innkeeper who decides if there is room for Jesus!  Consecration is the only surrender which is also a victory. It brings release from the raucous, overpopulated cell block of selfishness and emancipation from the dark prison of pride. Yet instead of striving for greater consecration, it is so easy to go on performing casually in halfhearted compliance as if hoping to “ride to paradise on a golf cart.” (Henry Fairlie, The Seven Deadly Sins, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979, p. 125.)”

“Jesus counseled His disciples, “Wherefore, settle this in your hearts, that ye will do the things which I shall teach, and command you.” (JST, Luke 14:28.) Getting thus settled precedes consecration. The Prophet Joseph Smith said gospel knowledge “does away with darkness, suspense, and doubt” and how “there is no pain so awful as that of suspense.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 288.) Being settled keeps us from responding to every little ripple of dissent as if it were a tidal wave. We are to be disciples, not oscillators, like a “reed shaken with the wind.” (Matt. 11:7.) More members need the immense relief and peace which can come from being “settled” without which those individuals will be like “the troubled sea, when it cannot rest.” (Isa. 57:20.)”

[MosiahFree]

I can certainly respect Durbin's attitude and appreciate the spirit of his advice, but his Reformed theology will always be the pressing issue for me when it comes to matters like this. Presbyterians with a conservative theology  can be pretty cerebral in their approaches to ministry (which I admire) but their doctrines like limited atonement quickly crop up and I must abandon ship soon after.  

[Gray]

Better terms here would be apologist and counter-apologist. "Critic" implies critical thinking, which generally isn't the driving force behind those advocating for or against a particular religious view.

[Tacenda]

I listened to a podcast today on the origins of polygamy and was sickened that the bible had so many scriptures about women and how they are men's property and the abuse they suffered because of the laws set forth. If Jesus condoned this I don't know that I can believe in him. I'm scared because I know the repercussions of not believing in him. I'm holding on by a thread but when I see how women are treated in the bible, I believe people that read it are going to continue with it. And that it's probably written for men by men in the name of God/Jesus and it's bunk. 

 

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to a podcast today on the origins of polygamy and was sickened that the bible had so many scriptures about women and how they are men's property and the abuse they suffered because of the laws set forth. If Jesus condoned this I don't know that I can believe in him. I'm scared because I know the repercussions of not believing in him. I'm holding on by a thread but when I see how women are treated in the bible, I believe people that read it are going to continue with it. And that it's probably written for men by men in the name of God/Jesus and it's bunk. 

 

It's hard to say what Jesus might have believed about women, but women have a relatively strong role early in Christianity, and only later their role starts to diminish as the Roman patriarchal "pater familias" starts to become the model for Christian church hierarchy. Does that help at all?

 

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I really appreciate your answer but I am somewhat disappointed that you do not dish back the tactic they so unscrupulously use, I am sure he is a nice guy but I'd love to reply on his ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof") as if Christianity stands in solid grounds (evidence-wise). If this is a faith issue they have to do alots of learning to like all of us. To me it is a huge waste of time from their end to prove LDS wrong.  I don't care much for apologetics but if I were to pick up someone on my side that person would be Van Hale, I listen his radio programs over thirty years as early as debating late Walter Martin and Shawn McCraney I don't think any of them walked out with the confidence they started. I liked his style because the reality about the Church is already out there if anyone cares to investigate, their problem was not knowing enough their Christianity to defend.......Thanks for your reply.

I listened to Van Hale for a while. And listened to Shawn McCraney. He has sure evolved right? He is down on the Christian churches as well. I like alot of what he says actually. Too often churches become big business. But now I'm not too sure about the Bible even. I am going down an unknown road and don't know what to do.

My son-in-law's mother is from Aguascalientes, Mexico and at this time cross stitching a huge mural of Jesus Christ to give to my husband and I for Christmas. She is under the impression I'm this devout believer. I don't know what to do. I don't deserve to hang it on my wall with all these doubts. I've done a huge turnaround now that I know what has been said in the bible. I can't even bring myself to give bible a upper case letter. What is happening?

I'd like to see these apologetics give answers to the treatment of women in the bible. I do want the answers but I think I already know that most of the bible is fiction. ETA: https://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm

Edited November 27, 2017 by Tacenda

[Damien the Leper]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Valentinus. Hi. Apologia Church? Who names their church that? 

A 21st Century Cornelius Van Til guy?

Rory

PS: Are you ever going to settle down to one thing? Sure you will if the Lord tarries. I was 49 before I did. God bless you Valentinus. I sure want all the best for you. I covet your prayers like no one I know here. Thanks.

He even has a podcast called Apologia Radio. I even remember a podcast about Protestants still being under the condemnation of the Council of Trent. 

I've been attending the LDS church for almost 6 months and I do so silently. The stake president doesn't think I should seek rebaptism as I still do not believe in the same way as the majority of LDS members. I go to Sacrament meeting and then I leave.

Always good to hear from you, Rory.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's hard to say what Jesus might have believed about women, but women have a relatively strong role early in Christianity, and only later their role starts to diminish as the Roman patriarchal "pater familias" starts to become the model for Christian church hierarchy. Does that help at all?

That's definitely a "relatively" and then only to Roman practice. It's just not egalitarian by any stretch. We have Paul's infamous comments in various places. We don't have any of the original disciples being women. While relative to the Jewish practice at the time Jesus was extremely progressive the reality is that cultural effects had a big influence on how people lived and understood early Christianity. (Hardly surprising I might add - just that if people are expecting some sort of proto-second wave feminism they'll be very disappointed)

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'd like to see these apologetics give answers to the treatment of women in the bible. I do want the answers but I think I already know that most of the bible is fiction. ETA: https://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm

I'm not sure I'd say fiction, but I think the Old Testament is definitely highly influenced by what uninspired scribes thought. Likewise from a Mormon perspective the Law of Moses was an intermediate step because the Jews weren't prepared to live the higher law at the time. As such it by its very nature will have elements we find distasteful from our perspective.

Likewise I'm a bit dubious of "origins of polygamy" claims.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

As time goes on, I have less and less interest in those who are critical of the church who want or demand evidence for things before they will believe.  The way I see it, that was a first estate test that we all passed in the premortal world.  All of us showed we could be faithful and accept God with all of the evidence staring at us right in the face.  We all passed that test and so we came here to our second estate to take a different kind of test.  A test that requires faith and not hard evidence.  Those who pass this harder test are the ones that rise to the top and get their great eternal rewards.  Those that demand evidence are simply wanting to retest what they all passed in the first estate.   To those I say fine.  Retest your first estate test again and earn a reward that is fitting for a that test.  They choose to bail out on this second estate test and earn an F grade.  It is really no skin off the nose of those who still want to take this second estate test and get a good score.

Yes, but

Quote

". . . the  Book  of  Mormon  must  submit to every test, literary criticism with the  rest. Indeed, it must submit to every  analysis  and  examination.  It must submit to historical tests, to the tests of archaeological research and also to the higher criticism.     . , the world has a right to test it to the uttermost in every possible way."  B. H. Roberts, Improvement Era, 14:667

and

Quote

"though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."  Austin Farrer, Light on C. S. Lewis, Harcourt and Brace: New York, 1965, p. 26.

and 1 Peter 3:15, "be ready always to give an answer [apology] to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's definitely a "relatively" and then only to Roman practice. It's just not egalitarian by any stretch. We have Paul's infamous comments in various places. We don't have any of the original disciples being women. While relative to the Jewish practice at the time Jesus was extremely progressive the reality is that cultural effects had a big influence on how people lived and understood early Christianity. (Hardly surprising I might add - just that if people are expecting some sort of proto-second wave feminism they'll be very disappointed)

 

No, it's not egalitarian, but at least the personhood of women seems to have been better respected, earlier on. Everything is conditioned by culture.

[Avatar4321]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to a podcast today on the origins of polygamy and was sickened that the bible had so many scriptures about women and how they are men's property and the abuse they suffered because of the laws set forth. If Jesus condoned this I don't know that I can believe in him. I'm scared because I know the repercussions of not believing in him. I'm holding on by a thread but when I see how women are treated in the bible, I believe people that read it are going to continue with it. And that it's probably written for men by men in the name of God/Jesus and it's bunk. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to a podcast today on the origins of polygamy and was sickened that the bible had so many scriptures about women and how they are men's property and the abuse they suffered because of the laws set forth. If Jesus condoned this I don't know that I can believe in him. I'm scared because I know the repercussions of not believing in him. I'm holding on by a thread but when I see how women are treated in the bible, I believe people that read it are going to continue with it. And that it's probably written for men by men in the name of God/Jesus and it's bunk. 

 

two things:

 

1) Notice your feelings. God doesn't give us a Spirit of fear. That comes from another source.

2) the only way yo know what the Father and Son think is by revelation. That requires an exercise of faith. When I was asking questions the faith I showed was if there was a God, He had the power to reveal Himself to me. I then went about studying the scriptures and seeking answers to questions. I don't know the details of your journey but whatever choices you make, make them out of faith not fear

[cdowis]

On 11/27/2017 at 12:00 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

". . . the  Book  of  Mormon  must  submit to every test, literary criticism with the  rest. Indeed, it must submit to every  analysis  and  examination.  It must submit to historical tests, to the tests of archaeological research and also to the higher criticism.     . , the world has a right to test it to the uttermost in every possible way."  B. H. Roberts, Improvement Era, 14:667

Perhaps in a perfect world this would true, but he does not live in the real world as it is today, where the atheist rules over the sciences and archaeologists do not even bother to read a "book delivered by an angel", where expert opinion is considered as fact.

The hatred of the world is greater than he could have imagined and is clear that he is very naive in thinking that, as Nibley pointed out,  whether the Book of Mormon would be taken seriously by scholars, and get a honest test of its authenticity.

Edited November 29, 2017 by cdowis