Is apologetics (often) a waste of time?

[Terry_Sampson]

Gott im Himmel!
Rest your overactive brain a moment. I’m going to do you a favor, IMO, but by private message … with nary a word from me.

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

I do not insist that I am right or that my view of scripture is right.

You do it all the time, telling everyone they’re wrong any time you disagree.

@RichardG

Again, I have no idea where you get that from. It is just not true. faith is individual not dictated.

But you definitely love to dictate!

[Kendel]

Really, who needs Stephen King with stuff like this to read?

[Kendel]

@St.Roymond

@Kendel

As a slave-holder his life demonstrated that he believed the words insofar as they affected him and people just like him.

Jefferson refused to just declare a slave to be free because without some means of providing for themselves

I’m sure his slaves would have seen differently.
You have obviously read some things that conflict with things I’ve read.
When there’s a will to do what is right, there’s a way.

@St.Roymond

@Kendel

My right of self-ownership does not exist there.

No – rights cannot be nullified. Your self-ownership is a fact of existence, the issue is that often it is not recognized.

They’re nullified daily all over the world. Many in my own church see me as created by God himself to bear children and affirm the leadership of men, which of course, in no way infringes on my self-ownership or anything…Those privileges are my opportunities! Whether they’re the ones I want or not.

Do rights exist, if they only appear in a definition?

How so?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

I do not insist that I am right or that my view of scripture is right.

You do it all the time, telling everyone they’re wrong any time you disagree

You mistake contradiction for assertion.

It is you who tells me what Scripture says

It is you wh insists that it means this or that

It is you who claims the authority of learning and study

It is you telling me i must accept this piece of Scripture in this manner

I say no. But I do not tell you a specific alternative. I do not even say that you cannot believe what you do. I just say that I do not

The problem is that I have the audacity to challenge you. You, who has studied so long with this professor or that theologian. All human, of course.

I claim the Holy Spirit? Do you? You have never shown an understanding of how the Spirit works. Have you ever knelt down and prayed specifically for it with the laying on of hands? I have. .I know that He is in me. Do you dare risk the ultimate unforgivable sin and declare otherwise?

Richard

[pjetercatsplat]

@heymike3

It gets interesting when you can disprove atheism but can’t prove the existence of God

I don’t think you can disprove atheism on a universal basis

[pjetercatsplat]

@Kendel

The existence of morality, or some vague thing referred to as “moral intuition,” can be explained well in ways that have nothing to do with God or God creating humans with a “moral intuition.” We even see evidence of “moral intuition” in higher mammals, who cannot attest to their belief in or unbelief in God/god/gods. The most rudimentary features of morality, such as whom one may and may not kill, or with whom one may mate, or from whom one may take food, are clearly understood in the animal world and enforced subjectively and violently. With animals, we might call it socialization. There are probably better terms zoologists use.

Sure, animals can have a moral intuition, that doesn’t mean they are aware of it. They live in the same universe that we do. Naturally, things that aren’t physical would affect them too, but that doesn’t mean they “know it”. The examples you listed have to do with survival, of course they would do it in the way you described, but you can’t say they know what they’re doing. There isn’t much evidence that they have the mental capacity to understand it on a deeper level.

@Kendel

The Hitler example seems to be a pet example in our culture for the existence of “objective” morality and it’s superiority over “subjective” morality. But what it shows us, is that within the wider Christianized western world at that time the NAZIs were outliers, as well as the Italian fascists. Although other forms of killing were justified. However, torture, genocide and slavery were practiced at other times in history by the same groups. Objective morality is not so objective as we would like to believe, and certainly not objective enough to make a universal claim that would lead to believe God gives humans an objective moral intuition.

No, it is just showing us that we fail to follow an objective rule. Furthermore, if you have to justify what you’re doing in a fantastical way (which is likely what you would have to do to justify the things you mentioned), I think that you’re moral intuition is already telling you it’s wrong.

[pjetercatsplat]

@Kendel

The apologist “establishes” the categories for the discussion, whether the apologee thinks that way or not. By focusing the argument on the concepts “objective” and “subjective” the offensive team can distract the apologee from the wider view outside the categories.

Other categories other than objective or subjective? Like what? In some sense, parameters have to be established in order to have a conversation. Otherwise, the questions and answers become too broad.

@Kendel

As much as the apologist is able, the apologist keeps the apologee on the defensive.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Both parties are supposed to ask questions and answer them. Keeping them in the defensive is what you do when you practice apologetics. Both parties should do this.

@Kendel

Whenever possible, the apologist uses vagarities: “it is pretty widely regarded”, “A lot of people say”. There is a lot of strategic wiggle room here.

If you’re on a forum post, I would say especially for me, I don’t want to type out every single person I want to mention. If they ask for clarification, then clarify, but there isn’t anything inherently wrong with saying those things.

@Kendel

• The apologist makes claims and refuses to support them, I refer you to this .

In what way did I not support my claim? You asked my to prove my claim, and I told you proof is not possible in almost any circumstance, and did support my claim by giving examples of it’s truth and showing that there are no counter-examples that I’ve heard of.

@Kendel

• Rather, when support is demanded, the apologist put the burden of disproof on the apologee. See the point above.

Well I already supported my statement, I only said if you had a counter-argument, to state it.

@Kendel

• The apologist misrepresents a person’s world view, and then puts the burden of disproof on the apologee.

So now I misrepresented a person’s worldview and not the atheist worldview. I assume you are talking about @T_aquaticus world view of subjective morality? Alright, sure, I made a mistake in my assumption, but my case for objective morality was still relevant to the discussion and @T_aquaticus questions.

@Kendel

• The apologist is free to misdirect or bring in unexplained tangents to baffle an apologee.
• The apologist uses perfect etiquette in order to humiliate the apologee all the more, when the apologee becomes frustrated with the game.
• The apologist attempts to leave the ball in the apologee’s court, in order to appear undefeated, and further humiliate the apologee.

I’m sure I’ve missed other strategies. I don’t have time to look for more.

These are ad hominem attacks on me personally. You do not know me personally, nor do you know what my motives are or are not. This is a place for discussions. And I have simply been having one with T. Aquaticus.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@Terry_Sampson

If Paul wrote Hebrews, then he was literate in Greek, but not in Hebrew.

Oh dear…

1. Saul (that was Pauls original name) had parents of whom one was Roman and the other Jewish

(You must not know this…or forgot)

2. Saul was educated in the Sanhedrin…he was a zealot for the pharasees and saducees.
   (You must not be familiar with the fact he attended the stoning of Steven on behalf of the sanhedrin). He set out after that to go and persecute Jews…thats why he was on the road when Christ appeared to him asking “saul why do you persecute me”

Paul definately was well versed in both languages because of his parents and because of his training in the sanhedrin. It should come as no suprise as ro why Paul was tasked with taking the gospel to the gentiles…the gentiles werent jewish…greek was the language of the day. Who better to do this than someone well versed in both languages and who knew the scriptures well?

Paul wrote hebrews because in chapter 13, its plainly obvious that he is the only one who could have wrote that chapter as his witness. Paul was imprisoned in rome and relased and a companion of timothy…who was also imprisoned and released…hence the statement.

Read hebrews 13 carefully then do some history study about paul and timothy being imprisoned in Rome in approx A.D 62.

The evidence is almost irrefutable Paul wrote that chapter and given the subject of the rest of the book and all his other writings, clearly he wrote all of hebrews (even if he used a scribe…it doesnt matter)

[Kendel]

I am not interested in the endless cudgel play I see demonstrated here and elsewhere – that calls itself apologetics. I will refrain; it’s hard. I have a life, and this is not it.

You can claim all the points in our exchange so far. I give them to you; they are yours.

Except this one:

@pjetercatsplat

@Kendel

As much as the apologist is able, the apologist keeps the apologee on the defensive.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Both parties are supposed to ask questions and answer them. Keeping them in the defensive is what you do when you practice apologetics. Both parties should do this.

Who is tasked with providing a defense for their hope?
And what is the tenor of that defense to be?

Think about what you’re doing, and how it affects the unbelieving apologee.
Particularly one who didn’t ask for the game but feels the need to engage, when the stick is whirled wide across the room.

I will tell you, if I were not already a Christian, this brand of apologetics would drive me farther away.

[Terry_Sampson]

• “Almost irrefutable”. LOL!
• So was the author of Hebrews referring to the the Hebrew Torah or the Greek Septuagint when he wrote Hebrews 11:21?
• [7/18/2025] Cat got your tongue?

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@Kendel

I will tell you, if I were not already a Christian, this brand of apologetics would drive me farther away

Kendel, i agree its hard. We are so good at being human we often do not represent the fruits of the spirit in our passionate discussions (or debates).

However…

One thing that YOU have shown me is thst behind the scenes is a truly wonderful person who has a love for the Lord.

I will always remember that…it is exactly what reminds me when i forget, that i need to try harder to allow the fruits of the spirit to also guide my dialogue with others.

What i can attest too…clearly my own attempts result in consistent failure.

Thank the Lord we arent saved by our own efforts other than to believe in the suficiency of Christs atonement for us and the cloak of His righteousness that is wrapped around us when “we boldy walk in before the throne” and are therefore deemed sinless because the price has been paid on our behalf.

[heymike3]

@pjetercatsplat

I don’t think you can disprove atheism

That depends on what is meant by the term. One atheist I was speaking with nearly jumped in the air at the prospect for a cause of the universe that is unaware of its action.

Sometimes I am able to begin the conversation by noting that there are only 3 possible statements to explain the origin of the universe. Any chance you know what they are?

[Kendel]

Thank you, Adam.

@adamjedgar

Thank the Lord we arent saved by our own efforts other than to believe in the suficiency of Christs atonement for us and the cloak of His righteousness that is wrapped around us when “we boldy walk in before the throne” and are therefore deemed sinless because the price has been paid on our behalf.

And thank the Lord for the work of his Spirit that makes faith possible.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Kendel

I am not interested in the endless cudgel play I see demonstrated here and elsewhere – that calls itself apologetics. I will refrain; it’s hard. I have a life, and this is not it.

Please try and understand. What you see here is not apologetics. There is no such thing as an apologee…(My dictionary does not recognise the word) Apologetics is not directed at a single person , but it may focus on a single idea or challenge.

It is not about winning or losing. Neither is it about indoctrination or conversion. It is simply about explaining one’s beliefs.

@Kendel

Who is tasked with providing a defense for their hope?
And what is the tenor of that defense to be?

No one

@Kendel

Think about what you’re doing, and how it affects the unbelieving

In truth the intensions i see here are genuine attempts at conversion and witness. People here are passionate about their faith an what they believe, so much that they think everyone should (must?) believe as they do.

We cannot be wrong!. It would mean that our faith fails and we are lost.

we argue. We do not even discuss. We rebuttal and counter attack. We dare not even acknowledge something as being plausible let alone right. Most know what the opposing view will be before they even write it. They have “heard” it all before. Their faith can take any attack. They will prevail.

Until that one post comes that shatters everything.

I pray that post never comes, and especially that I do not post it

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@pjetercatsplat

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Both parties are supposed to ask questions and answer them. Keeping them in the defensive is what you do when you practice apologetics. Both parties should do this.

This suggests that you view apologetics as a battle, not a conversation. The people you present apologetics to are people you want to defeat. It is Us vs. Them.

[Terry_Sampson]

• Is apologetics (often) a waste of time? Face-to-face: Yes!
• Want to debate issues? Try books like these from CQ Research:
  • https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3ACQ+Researcher&s=relevancerank&text=CQ+Researcher&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1

[heymike3]

@Terry_Sampson

Want to debate issues? Try books like these from CQ Research

These look like a quality resource, but I don’t see any reference in their catalog to religion or science. Appears to be strictly political.

[Terry_Sampson]

@heymike3

I don’t see any reference in their catalog to religion or science. Appears to be strictly political.

• Gee, that’s tough, isn;t it? Maybe someday, clever persons will come along and edit collections of written volumes specifically for you.
• Oh look, somebody has written one:
  *Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate Paperback – April 25, 1991
• Whoa! There are more: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Debate+Issues+in+Religion&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss

[heymike3]

Would you recommend those? Or were they the first thing you found?