Apologetics Anyone?

[intet_at_tabe]

intet-at-tabe, thanks for the input.


I agree, it's hard to discuss something when the subject at hand is so vague that you can't be sure what you're talking about.

We can approach most issues in society with a certain measure of objectivity. It's easy to understand what we mean when we talk about sports, the weather, or even politics. A statement like It's raining in Boston is meant to be taken literally, and should mean essentially the same thing to everyone who hears it. We can argue about how hard it's raining and in what parts of Boston, etc., but at least there's a basis for discussing the subject and arriving at a consensus.

With religion, however, there's no such basis. Can we truly say what a statement like John 3:16 is supposed to mean, despite the fact that it constitutes a defining belief of millions of twenty-first century Christians? If it's 'true', it's true in a way that's vastly different from the way we define 'true' in any other context.

And this is deliberate. Religion has survived for so long because it can be whatever the believer wants it to be. Nonbelievers aren't supposed to examine and criticize religious claims the same way we would any other claim in society.

I too find religion and mythology a fascinating subject. The creation myths of human civilization are wonderful in their poetry and imagination. However, believers seem to think it's an insult to their scripture to read it as the literature it is. Some think it should be accepted as the literal truth, in the face of overwhelming evidence that it isn't literally true. Others think it's 'true' in a deeper, more spiritual way, whatever that means. This is why it's so difficult to discuss religion with believers.

Thank you so much for the personal pm to me and this entry from you Pista Gyerek. Really great to read your two posts.

I specificly admire and enjoy your clear thoughts on the subject of OBJECTIVITY towards undefined none-objective religious fairytales, translated from the Greek language and the Greek Bible in to latin around the late 700 by a couple of munks. In other words, the Christian Bible we all know of where the context are what a couple of munks thought it meant according to their translation of the Greek Bible then - some 1300 years ago.

In my best itellectual judgement, one can never speak of objectivity or scientific truth, when talking about religion. No matter which religion. All our societies throughout the world have evolved during our time of history - century following century. Religion never evolves - nor do Christians when talking religion.

It simply does not make any sense to me, when some believer in order to explane his believes and his/her faith inChristianity, The Lord Jesus Christ , the Story of Creation etc., and the thoughts behind and in it, says: "All you have to do is to read....John 3:16", as if this statement is the only obvious truth, that will make you instantly rush to the nearest church, fall to your knees to ask for forgiveness and give thanks to the Lord.

To me it unfolds an extreme fear in individual human thinking, natural reasoning and judgeging on any actual subject or issue on your own. But then, this is excactly what religions in generel need, a totally manipulated flok of none-independent human beings, who all need for someone else - a religious leader - to tell them what to do? No dialogue here neither.

Think of the Klux Klux Klan from the southern states of the USA 1500-1960, still working and practicing but invicible these days, better known in the short expression - for the K.K.K. A group of ultra white religious americans - Christian Crusadors, who took copyright on their own way of the Bible - that is the King James Bible (the old testamente) believing in God and Christianity, by burning down the churches of the enslaved african americans, who were imported by the thousands to the New World from the year 1500, only alowed to keep the color of their skin and some culturel and musical background from Africa, beside hundreds of lashes from the wip on their backs - to show them the love of the Christian God - for centuries.

Even in the 1930-1950´s african american citizens, were not alowed to vote or study how to read and write nor calculate. In fact ordinary american schooling to african americans were prohibited by US law. No dialogue here neither.

Now, where in the Christian Bible does it speak of those condescending abusive rules only for african americans? What is the natural Christian explanation for this according to the words of - a Christian God? Where does the dialogue appear?

But then the Christian Crusadors around the year 1000, who came from every royal family in Europe brought with them all the way down to Turkey to meet the muslims and the mauers - a set of very short simple rules: Either you will believe in Christianity and the Lord Jesus Christ - or I will cut off your head with my sword. So in short for the native population: Either you´re with us or against us. Keep the Bible high in your right hand, but the sword higher in your left hand. Simple white Christian pedaggogy equals no whatsoever dialogue here neither.

Pista Gyerek. It does seem as if the originator of this interesting thread Mr. Ron Price, may not himself want to engage in a dialogue?

[Pista Gyerek]

Nice talking to you.

Religion never evolves - nor do Christians when talking religion.

You couldn't be more wrong, actually. The difference between religion at its inception and religion today is vast.

The Biblical God was an entity with powers and intentions; today, the word 'God' can refer to anything from a Big Magic Guy to a vague mystical force. Ancient believers at least expected that their acts and prayers would have concrete consequences; nowadays, believers consider it a virtue to have faith even if their prayers seem ineffectual. The modern believer is obliged to prove his faith through professing nonsense like John 3:16 and performing rituals that aren't meant to be understood.

It does seem as if the originator of this interesting thread Mr. Ron Price, may not himself want to engage in a dialogue?

Ron will probably show up and post some word salad that doesn't have anything to do with the points others have raised. He seems like a good-natured guy, but he's not equipped for dialogue.

And I'll say this, Baha'i is definitely the least offensive religion I've come across. Their emphasis on peace, tolerance, and enlightenment is admirable. But as I've always said, there's no good deed that religion inspires that couldn't be inspired by a sincere commitment to, for example, peace, tolerance, and enlightenment.

[intet_at_tabe]

Pista Gyerek- I accept your opinion on the matter, however I do not concur with your opinion.

The Christian Bible has not changed it´s lines and words, or any chapter or God´s commandments to Moses for more than 2000 years in telling the story of an invisble God and his son the human being called Jesus Christ.

What I presented to ya all yesterday, was and is scientificly proven historical facts from many different sources on the segregasion and condescending abusive behavior from one group of Christians towards another group of Christian believers, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the superstition implemented stories of subjective character in the King James Bible. It should be talked of, what they today in the Justicial department would call: Hearsay.

Which obviously mean that everything according to the Bible that happend in the past should be announced as THE TRUTH, THE ONLY THRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE THRUTH - so help you God, was not observed by the one individual or individuals in a group, who actually presently present those myth´s of the past times as a Christian believer - today.

Religion never presents historical facts. Because religion is a matter of faith, and does not represent scientific approved of methods.

[Pista Gyerek]

intet-at-tabe,

You don't have to go back to slavery or the Inquisition to find religious-related things to get mad about. The religious fundamentalists in the USA, no longer satisfied with trying to coerce society into believing that a fetus inside its mother's body is a separate human being, are now claiming that embryonic stem cells deserve human rights. They are trying to push their Bronze Age moral code onto our culture by opposing the rights of homosexuals to marry. And they're trying to teach the pseudoscience of creationism in public schools, as if their scripture represents actual scientific research.

If someone wants to sing hallelujah, that's none of my business. But the ongoing attempts to make this country a theocracy certainly are my business.

[John Watt]

Please remember that there is the flesh and energy of life on this earth that transmutes and evolves, with transmigrations of the soul to spiritual realms, and into the veil. No church of God ever fell from heaven to this earth, and we all should only look from our own soul, unless you can walk in someone else's His-Storic shoes.

The greatest spiritual dilemma facing us today is reconciling The Holy King James Bible, The Book of Mormon and The Q'ran. Those Persian Magi High Priests who knew enough to follow His Star, and made that great effort, need to be heard also.

If I sound vague, sounding vague is as close as I can get to understanding and expressing the awefull nature of life on The Garden of Eden. The same Sun has shone on everyone from eternity.

May All Peace Be Upon You,
as always, John Watt

[Bahaichap]

Since there are so many questions raised and issues discussed concerning people’s basic assumptions about life, about their philosophy, about their religious beliefs, indeed, about their very approach to reality and the way their society goes about organizing things, it seemed like a useful exercise, useful at least to me and hopefully to some others at this site, to say a few things about: My Position and Beliefs: My Religion. I do this at this site and dozens of other sites on the internet and I use this post as an opening note. I get a wide range of reactions.

Religion, in the sense that I am using it here, is the set of values, beliefs and attitudes each of us has as we go about our daily life at a particular moment in time, in this case, at the time of my writing of this post on the internet and in the case of the person reading this post, at the time of the response of that reader to what he has just read in my writing. My apologetics, then, is strengthened by the common witness and testimony of my fellow human beings about the role of values, beliefs and attitudes in our lives and in relation to the world in which we live.

The religion I belong to---the set of values, beliefs and attitudes that represent my life as a member of the Bahá'í Faith---is an outgoing and dynamic organization. It is not distracted by internal controversy as many if not most other religions are in their spiritual life. It is a Faith highly focussed on the new Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, the Bahá'í Faith’s Prophet-Founder and this Faith is responsive to the world’s need for united action. I hope this opening note of some 2200 words provides a general, a useful, a helpful context for any continuing discussion you and I may have. If the note I strike is too long, I advise readers to just click me off, a simple enough exercise of the hand and the mind.-Ron Price in Australia.
_______________________
Apologetics is a branch of systematic theology, although some experience its thrust in religious studies or philosophy of religion courses. Some encounter it on the internet for the first time in a more populist and usually much less academic form. As I see it, apologetics is primarily concerned with the protection of a position, the refutation of the issues raised by that position's assailants and, in the larger sense, the exploration of that position in the context of prevailing philosophies and standards in a secular society, a religious society, indeed, any society past or present. All of us defend our positions whatever these positions are: atheistic, theistic, agnostic, humanistic, sceptic, cynic, realist, pragmatist and any one of a multitude of religions, denominations, sects, cults, isms and wasms.

Apologetics, to put it slightly differently, is concerned with answering both general and critical inquiries from others. In the main, though, apologetics deals with criticism of a position and dealing with that criticism in as rational a manner as possible. Apologetics can help explore the teachings of a religion or of a philosophy in the context of the prevailing religions and philosophies of the day as well as in the context of the common laws and standards of a secular society. Although the capacity to engage in critical self-reflection on the fundamentals of some position is a prerequisite of the task of engaging in apologetics, apologetics derives much of its impetus from a commitment to a position.

Given the role of apologetics in religious and philosophical history and in the development of the texts and ideas that are part and parcel of that history, it is surprising that contemporary communities generally undervalue its importance and often are not even aware of the existence of this sub-discipline of philosophy. Authors, writers, editors of journals and leaders known for defending points in arguments, for engaging in conflicts or for taking up certain positions that receive great popular scrutiny and/or are minority views engage in what today are essentially forms of secular apologetics.

Anyone concerned with the history of apologetics is also involved with the history of hermeneutics and they all confront the question of interpretation. Questions of interpretation concern biblical interpreters. They concern lawyers who debate the meaning of the Constitution. They concern psychiatrists as they reflect upon their interpretation of case histories, and anthropologists and historians who ponder the data of their disciplines.

Naturally in life, we all take positions on all sorts of topics, subjects, religions and philosophies. Often that position is inarticulate and poorly thought out if given any thought at all. With that said, though, the apologetics I engage in here is a never-ending exercise with time out for the necessary and inevitable quotidian tasks of life: eating, sleeping, drinking and a wide range of leisure activities. The apologetics that concerns me is not so much Christian or Islamic apologetics or one of a variety of those secular apologetics I referred to above, but Baha'i apologetics.

As a Bahá'í whatever proof I offer about my beliefs as I try to help others to make sense of them, this proof I offer is relative. It depends on the total context of the statements which I make. It depends on the explicit and implicit conventions concerning their meaning as well as the experiential component of my statements and much else. My findings, rooted as they are in subjectivity, relativism and pragmatism, can be verified only by individuals capable of assuming and willing to assume my point of view. To put this another way, the verification of my ideas requires of those with whom I engage in dialogue that they know something about my position, my beliefs. This is true in all scientific endeavour: in the physical and biological sciences, in the social sciences and in the various studies in the humanities of which religion is but one of these many fields.

One can be convinced of the truth of something, have a sense of certitude and know little to nothing at all about the object. Often, faithful self-abandonment is more valuable than cerebral consent. Society and the millions of individuals in it are caught in cross-fires between noncommitment, scepticism, cynicism and defensiveness on the one hand and the upholding of categorical imperatives, the justifying of arbitrary absolutes, the insistence on finality and agreement, irrational commitment and aggressiveness on the other.

This is the general climate in which apologetics takes place with an interdependence of diverse points of view, with passionate expressions and proofs all lying along linking lines and lines that cannot be linked. The world has become very complex for the votaries its multitudinous faith positions.

There are many points of comparison and contrast between any form of apologetics which I won't go into here. Readers here might like to check out Wikipedia for a birds-eye-view of the subject. Christians and Muslims will have the opportunity to defend their respective religions by the use of apologetics; secular humanists can also argue their cases if they so desire here. I in turn will defend the Baha'i Faith by the use of apologetics. In the process each of us will, hopefully, learn something about our respective Faiths, our religions, our various and our multitudinous positions, some of which we hold to our hearts dearly and some of which are of little interest.

At the outset, then, in this my first posting, my intention is simply to make this start, to state what you might call "my apologetics position." This brief statement indicates, in broad outline, where I am coming from in the weeks and months ahead. -Ron Price with thanks to Udo Schaefer, "Baha'i Apologetics?" Baha'i Studies Review, Vol. 10, 2001/02.
----------------------------------
I want in this second part of my first posting to finish outlining, as best I can, my basic orientation to Baha’i apologetics. To save me reinventing the wheel so to speak, may I suggest readers here google the official Bahá'í site at bahai.org so that they have some idea what the Bahá'í faith is, what are its teachings and its history. Then these same readers can post a reply to this post with specific questions and critiques. Critical scholarly contributions or criticism raised in public or private discussions, an obvious part of apologetics, should not necessarily be equated with hostility. Questions are perfectly legitimate, indeed, necessary aspects of a person's search for an answer to an intellectual conundrum. Paul Tillich, that great Protestant theologian of the 20th century, once expressed the view that apologetics was an "answering theology."-Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, U. of Chicago, 1967, Vol.1, p6.
-------------------------
I have always been attracted to the founder of the Baha'i Faith's exhortations in discussion to "speak with words as mild as milk," with "the utmost lenience and forbearance." This form of dialogue, its obvious etiquette of expression and the acute exercise of judgement involved, is difficult for most people when their position is under attack from people who are more articulate, better read and better at arguing both their own position and the position of those engaged in the written criticism than they are. I am also aware that, in cases of rude or hostile attack, rebuttal with a harsher tone, the punitive rebuttal, may well be justified, although I prefer humour, irony and even gentle sarcasm rather than hostile written attack in any form. Still, it does not help an apologist to belong to those "watchmen" whom the prophet Isaiah calls "dumb dogs that cannot bark."(Isaiah, 56:10)
-----------------
In its essence apologetics is a kind of confrontation, an act of revealing one's true colours, of hoisting the flag, of demonstrating the essential characteristics of one's faith, of one's thought, of one's emotional and intellectual stance in life. “Dialogue does not mean self-denial,” wrote Hans Kung, arguably the greatest of Catholic apologists. The standard of public discussion of controversial topics should be sensitive to what is said and how; it should be sensitive to manner, mode, style, tone and volume. Tact is also essential. Not everything that we know should always be disclosed; not everything that can be disclosed it timely or suited to the ears of the hearer. To put this another way, we don't want all our dirty laundry out on our front lawn for all to see or our secrets blasted over the radio and TV. Perhaps a moderate confessionalism is best here, if confession is required at all—and in today’s print and electronic media it seems unavoidable.

I want to thank Udo Schaefer, "Baha'i Apologetics," Baha'i Studies Review, Vol.10--2001/2, for some of what I write here. Schaefer, a prominent Baha’i writer, scholar, lawyer and man of many intellectual seasons, emphasizes that one's views, one's faith, should not be opportunistically streamlined, adapting to current trends, thus concealing the real features of these views, features that could provoke rejection in order to be acceptable for dialogue. To do this, to be opportunistic and saying what others want to hear often puts one in the danger of losing one's identity, if not one’s honesty and integrity.

It is almost impossible, though, to carry the torch of truth, partial truth, of one’s convictions, indeed, of any set of words in any colour, through a crowd without getting someone's beard singed. If one has no beard one’s emotions can be equally fried and hung out to dry in the process of verbal or written exchange. In the weeks and months that follow, my postings quite possibly may wind up singing the beards of some readers and, perhaps, my own. Emotions, if not fried when exposed, are often behind barricades of self-defence and that is natural because what is being considered is at the centre of a person’s life. Such are the perils of dialogue, of apologetics.

Much of Baha'i apologetics derives from the experience Baha'is have of a fundamental discrepancy between much secular thought and the Baha'i teachings on the other. In some ways, the gulf is unbridgeable but so, too, is this the case between the secular and much thought in the Christian or Islamic religion or, for that matter, between variants of Christianity or even within what are often the muddy and pluralistic waters of secular thought itself.

Anyway, that's all for now. It's back to the spring winds of Tasmania, about 3 kms from the Bass Straight on the Tamar River. The geography of place is so much simpler than that of the philosophical and religious geography that the readers at this site are concerned with, although even physical geography has its complexities as those who take a serious interest in the topic of climate change are fast finding out. Whom the gods would destroy they first make simple and simpler and simpler. I look forward to a dialogue with someone, anyone who is inclined to respond to what I’m sure for some is this overly long post. Here in far-off Tasmania--the last stop before Antarctica, if one wants to get there by some other route than off the end of South America--your response will be gratefully received.-Ron Price, Tasmania, Australia(1900 words).

[John Watt]

Yeah, I'm still here, just reading, not having more to type.
Thank you all.

as always, John Watt

[Bahaichap]

We Could Conclude This Thread.....at this point. The subject matter has filled libraries and will go on to do so. I am happy to continue the discussion here at this thread or on a new one.-Ron Price, Tasmania