In regard to the believability or effectiveness of an apologetic method, the apologist will have to take their neighbor’s word for it. The neighbor’s internal response is not verifiable.
If the neighbor, even George Santos, wants the apologia dropped, the apologist can continue to badger and condemn, which will continue to reinforce distrust and division.
If some sort of apologetic is to take place at that point, one would expect one of a very different nature.
1 Like
It is perplexing when the argument is about whether or not a person can snap their virtual fingers an infinite number of times.
Woah!!! 
I think I gave the machine (ChatGPT) a run for its money:
Generic question about an infinite series through successive addition, and a follow up comment confirming a program can complete an infinite number of tasks, gave me this response:
“In theory, a program can complete an infinite number of tasks, as long as the tasks can be described algorithmically and the program has access to an infinite amount of resources (such as memory, processing power, etc.). In practice, however, all programs have limitations in terms of resources and time, so they may not be able to perform an infinite number of tasks.”
At one point do the number of tasks go from a finite number to an infinite number?
(I expected an error, but instead got a flashing cursor for 30 seconds maybe, felt longer, and the following text came up slowly)
“The transition from a finite number of tasks to an infinite number of tasks is not a well-defined concept, as it depends on the definition of “finite” and “infinite.” In mathematical terms, a finite set is a set that has a finite number of elements, while an infinite set is a set that has an infinite number of elements. In the context of a program or a computer system, the number of tasks that can be performed can be considered finite if the available resources (such as memory, processing power, etc.) are limited. When the available resources are unlimited or extremely large, it may be possible to perform an unlimited or extremely large number of tasks, which can be considered to approach infinity. However, even in this case, there may still be practical limitations that prevent the program from actually performing an infinite number of tasks.”
(and then as if checking its answer, the cursor blinked for a few more moments before it completed the response)
1 Like
The Gospels largely only make reference to Him from the start of his ministry, so any speculation about his early life is just that, speculation. But I would think it odd if things suddenly changed at one point. If He is God incarnate, why would it be different before.
Some should just be walked away from.
1 Like
Shaking the dust from your feet, and while Jesus has harsh words about this, which is true, yet that word you shared may still find life in some of the most unexpected ways.
1 Like
Yes. Better to walk away than entrench enmity deeper. But that walking away must also include the humble commitment to leave the situation alone entirely. Not to return to the situation, or prod it or try to revive it. To recognize that one is powerless (for good, that is). The situation is in someone else’s hands entirely.
1 Like
Easier said than done, especially for my weak in many ways self. It also gets revived every not-infrequent time there is an in-your-face self-contradictory disingenuous statement.
For me, it’s related to solipsism.
Solipsism is the belief that I am the only “real” person - the only one with a consciousness. To the solipsist, the consciousness apparent in others is just an illusion. Others are just objects. Maybe they are just human-like robots, fragments of our imagination, or NPCs in a simulation.
Sounds silly at first. But the kicker with solipsism is that it cannot be disproven via reason or empirical evidence. Try it yourself.
So, why am I not a solipsist? I could treat others however I want! I could live without guilt, pity, or other nagging on the part of my conscience.
The sole reason I am not a solipsist - and indeed, whether they realize it or not, I believe this is why most people are not solipsistic - is faith.
Along with most others, I have made a prelogical choice to not only accept the existence of other souls, but to do my best to spare them of unnecessary pain.
Maybe it’s difficult to see how this led to my becoming a Christian. Jesus Christ is, as far as I’m aware, the only holy figure that preached and died for the notion of treating others as ends in themselves. He embodies charity as well as the bearing of another’s suffering - two sides of the same coin - otherwise referred to as “love,” “grace,” or “mercy.” (And in a way, “forgiveness” is also a form of this.)
Nearly all faiths preach the renunciation of earthly desires. However, Jesus goes further: “love thy neighbor,” “turn the other cheek.” He urges us to pursue kindness and mercy relentlessly, as though we were a father to all mankind.
So to summarize: whether we consider ourselves religious or not, being a good person requires faith. We need some kind faith to fill gaps that logic can never occupy. It doesn’t have to be religious faith, but if you’re anything like my old agnostic self you have to constantly tend to your gaps, refilling refilling refilling all the time like you’re trying to preserve the shape of a wet sandcastle.
Christ, though, inspires faith with the perfect shape and form to fill that gap. This faith still requires attention and maintenance, but unlike the hodgepodge of ’ secular’ faiths it replaces, it is fundamentally solid.
2 Likes
What’s your take on that? (Welcome, btw. ; - )
Hi Dale, thank you for the warm welcome.
Really interesting quotation. I’m not sure if belief in God is an experience per se. I remember how it felt the moment I came back to God. Or at least I remember the moment I reversed course & started my journey back. I think that moment could be described as an “experience.” Although, maybe the term “epiphany” is more apt.
Thanks, this really made me think!
Would you say you’ve had any “experiences” or “epiphanies” of God on your journey?
1 Like
Experiences absolutely, epiphanies maybe. I referred to one just today in another conversation. (It was when I knew I was in an unrecoverable tailspin not very long after having gone to med school at the age of forty-three 
, thirty years ago last fall.) If you have the patience, you might glean some more from an extended conversation about God’s providential interventions into the lives of his children, Evidence that is foolish to deny, that I’ve already cited above. There are other accounts scattered around over my several years here, but some favorites are Cabela’s, Request and Articulate Reply, and my losing a kidney.
This is becoming a more common experience. Even Augustine went there, and I think he might have been the first.
It’s hard to police the entire forum for what any one of us perceives as truth. The Mods do a good job of allowing freedom of expression and ideas within the bounds of the Forum rules. And any public forum like this comes with the assumption (often stated outright) that one can encounter a wide variety of views — enter at your own risk; read at your own risk.
As far as the term “disingenuous”, which is christianese for “lying” and “dishonest”, I would like to see fines imposed for its use. It has been used on me for telling the truth. If one disagrees with something or finds it counter to reality, state the case. I have seen that done very well in this forum. But it’s in discussions.
Calling someone (other than oneself) “disingenuous” assumes more than factual error, which is not the place of anyone here to judge.
2 Likes
Out of curiosity, I did a search of the term’s use in the forum. There were numerous results by numerous people using the term in a wide variety of statements.
I believe this goes against the forums rules either way. I believe I have been guilty of it which is different from expressing confusion over a perceived statement. And I know of a conversation where this has genuinely occurred and when I brought this to the other person’s attention, I was told they don’t care. In that particular case, I’m pretty sure I let it go.
- Which would not support a conclusion that the word is meaningless.
1 Like
And some have even been deleted by the mods.
Yes, if fines were imposed for its use, then BL could probably fund itself for a while just through the Forum.
2 Likes
It does go against the forum rules.
“Disingenuous” does not imply confusion on the part of the reader. It implies dishonesty on the part of the writer or even questioner.
My protests against being called “disingenuous” were deleted as part of an exchange in which it was applied to me for asking a question for clarification. Because I didn’t understand what was meant.
1 Like
“by means of a pretense of ignorance or unawareness” that sounds like drunken fist