Changing the way we approach apologetics could help the church better reach the younger generation! Greg Cootsona has some ideas.
Thank you for sharing Greg’s article. I share his sentiment and call for a logical Christian ministry that reflects the words and actions of Jesus. The big problem is that we are so far away from this position. I see that here on this forum. I represent the words and actions of Jesus and I am confronted with all the doctrines that conflict Him. It is not just science that ministries need to befriend, but also to abhor anything that degrades another human (Matt 5:44) or uses religion for a political agenda (Matt 22:21).
Many here seem to point to CS Lewis as some sort of solution for this problem, but I don’t see it, although I have not found a better representative of harmony between Jesus and the science of God’s creation.
Interesting. And of course I agree. Theists jumping on scientific findings to support theism isn’t very good science any more than what you get with atheists jumping on science to support atheism.
I have also argued for an alteration of the definition of apologetics changing it from arguments for the existence of God to simply a defense of the rationality of a belief in God. My principle complaint is that the former invariably arrives at a god which I neither recognize nor have reason to believe in. Thus I would much rather accept the rationality of non-belief in God as an alternative way of thinking than to alter God into something which can be more easily be pushed onto other people.
“He is currently writing Emerging Adults, Christian Faith, and Science to be published by InterVarsity Press in 2017.”
suggest either the article to be recooked or the bio to be out of date.
As long as we teach fairy tales to young adults and try to attract them by becoming “yes my dear” or “God - or the Church does what you want because we love you”
we should not be surprised that they are attracted by better entertainment programs and find people reaffirming their own viewpoints in troves on the Daftnet.
In days gone by the pubertarian could look at the church to see that it had authority that was above their parents authority, that which you want to get out of as a pubertarian, thus allowed them to find independent authorisation. With the church having lost / destroyed its own authority be aligning scripture to public opinion instead of explaining it rationally there will be no interest in large corrupt institutions.
If we have to explain the birth of Jesus as an act of magic because we can not fathom that he was born out of an extraordinary act of Love which is the Hallmark of God, what worldview can we offer a younger generation that is trained to look up to logic and rationality instead of magic. Explain that this word of God is the only thing that can turn an act of hate and oppression into a beacon of love and hope - and that God gave is the power to use his word.It might also give us some idea on how to treat the unborn.
And instead of telling them that we are born again as a beeter self we shall teach them we are born again as a lesser self because the self that is born in us is Jesus. To teach of a God that created life declares that he was not live himself and
to teach that he rose again to live as a separate unit from us instead of living in us is a continuous declaration of selfishness. To promise one another that the are born again after death as a better version of ourselves without dental problems, wrinkles and sagging bodily features but a wishful pody is only a manifestation of our sinful nature. If after death we still want to remain a individual distinct from God the lesson on earth was a loss.
We have to change our vocabulary to get away from the term supernatural which is by most people, even Christians, confused with that that is against the natural, irrational and thus ridiculous because they confuse natural with normal and thus put God into that what is not natural / normal. With physical this confusion cannot arise as we will quickly agree that love is metaphysical, as is logic and information.
So first of all we need to go back to basics and learn to believe in a God that is sovereign, that does not answer prayers as a form of wish fulfillment because he loves us and does not need our advise to make our politicians wise. Thou shalt not tempt the lord
Than we should make sure we can explain the bible with an up to date bible translation. If you still own one that says it’s okay to kill your slave as long as he dies slow and painful you should ask yourself which “primitive goat herder”, as Hitch so lovingly referred to the authors of the bible, would come up with such idea. It’s those who were translating it out of suffering superiority themselves and think that’s what they would have accepted in the time without smartphones. . Anyone else figured that it must either mean “if he can’t come to work for two days because it hurts” and the loss is the one of the employer who just lost two days of work for him, or they would have needed to amend the previous paragraph to say how to deal with a slow death of a free Israelite. It is more telling about the person translating the bible what h thinks of our forefathers.
Already far to much rant so I wish us all a loving and logic Christmas and some time to question ourselves why we prefer the magic over the reality. Is it because we think its not good enough for us? Is our suffering perhaps just the consequence of sin as in having our own expectations of better for us instead of us making it better for others.
Have a blessed Christmas everyone
This is exactly the case! It is being updated!
Well put, Mitchell and I completely agree. Arguments that only religious worldview are rationale cannot succeed. It would be better and more honest simply to own that, as many here do. On the other hand, to argue that religious worldview are also rationale should be better received since they do not require any flimflam tricks. Honesty is definitely the best policy here. There is nothing wrong with elaborating what one feels are the benefits of a religious worldview. Doing so cleanly without disparaging anyone else’s worldview would improve ones presentation if only by not insulting ones potential converts.