Why We Have Apologetics (and the answer may shock you)

[@markshaw8150]

Dude, what I most appreciate is your own humility that prevents you from talking down or talking bad about those who disagree or just haven't reached perplexity yet (or even complexity). You explain clearly. Yet always with a heart to respect and honor all listeners. Heartfelt gratitude! I am teaching my own series on deconstruction for my fellowship of churches, and I lean heavily on folks like you, Rob, Brian M, Richard R, Tim Ritter, Tim Mackie, etc. Hebrews 6:10

[@DavidJones-bl5wu]

It's a joy to hear how clearly you explain things. Maybe it's just because it makes sense to me, and maybe it doesn't to others. But I think the cryptic nature of scripture was part of what scared folks about the gnostic movements back in the early centuries of the Church. Once you stop needing to defend literal interpretation, some folks are made free to fly and some folks are compelled to try and treat water spiritually. Great stuff, thank you!

[@zissou8900]

Thank you Pete for all the hard work! You literally saved my faith during my de- and reconstruction episodes. God bless you! Greetings from Germany.

[@rms4621]

Thanks for being such a great resource. I borrowed your book from the library. Its so hard for me to teach the bible to my kids when im so confused myself...lol but the beauty is in constantly seeking the nature and character of God in specific circumstances and times. Thanks again for all you do. Be encourage.

[@matthewmorgan2763]

This is so refreshing

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding any acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@rms4621]

I commend you for wanting an open dialogue good for you.

[@elt-on]

@Theo Skeptomai This is an interesting definition for atheism. Is it yours? I venture you’ve been accused of expressing agnosticism rather than atheism. The difference is subtle per your definition. Keith Yandell has an interesting chapter in “Christianity and Philosophy” wherein he writes, “Suppose that there is either a phenomenological, or else a theoretical, unity among descriptions of numinous experiences. Then … the occurrences of numinous experiences in widely divergent cultures, places, and times does provide some confirmation of the claim that God exists.” (Yandell, “C&P,” (Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), ch. 1, p. 43. Personally, Gödel, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Feyerabend, and others have convinced me that the sort of epistemic certainty you’re seeking doesn’t exist…anywhere. This turns out to bode well for my “faith.” I do not think empiricists or rationalists can embrace this dilemma as gracefully. Agree? Further, the invisibility of God is like unto Prince Hakeem in “Coming to America!” If Hakeem makes it obvious that he’s the heir to the kingdom of Zamunda when he arrives in America then he will not find a bride who loves him unconditionally. Similarly, God seems to be fond of a certain type of blind faith. Therefore, it seems to me that apparentness would not be apropos. I’m not suggesting that faith is entirely, or in all ways, blind. I will come back to this if you’re interested. Additionally, regarding the invisibility of God, it seems to me that it would be shameful, in a certain way, for God to be apparent (visible) to mortals. Hence the incarnation is such a scandal. Of course, the cross is also a huge part of that scandal. I’ll leave this here for now. Lastly, I’m sure you’re tired of reading/hearing Dostoevskian-styled moral arguments. I imagine you’ll call on E.O. Wilson (or his derivative, Sam Harris) in an attempt to establish a foundation for secular ethics. (Such a geocentric/homocentric view of evolution and the universe, don’t you think?) In the interest of time; therefore, I’ll forgo referencing Hume’s “Is-Ought” and/or pointing out when you inevitably commit what G.E. Moore called a “naturalistic fallacy,.” (See Book 3 of Hume’s “Treatise of Human Nature,” and Moore’s “Principia Ethica.”) Instead, I’ll simply ask you this. When the 2nd Law has run its course, entropy has peaked, and absolute zero rules the universe, will it matter if humans were successful in continuing to evolve via cooperation? Will it matter if they haven’t? Can you really live with that? I do not mean, “Can you handle that?” I mean, “Can you live like nothing really matters?” I suggest you cannot, and that you live everyday as if life has objective value/meaning. Therefore, you live in an irrational tension; you live as if God existed. You can resolve this tension by accepting the irrational notion known as faith! I hope this constitutes a “cordial response.” Sincerely, this was my intention. Peace and Love

[@davidpinheiro9650]

Excellent video. The content is so relevant that I think it would make sense to create this content but in a self contained format, with no references to the other videos, going a little deeper into the various items.

[@frankmerendino1855]

Wow! i'd love to hear more on how one merges the modern and ancient Jewish approaches to biblical interpretation. IOW, how can one glean the best of both without damaging the integrity of either?

[@tycNvk]

Thank you for all your upload. I’ve been trying to find a video of yours on your belief on death and resurrection of Christ but I couldn’t. Do you believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Thanks.

[@ImprovforGodsglory]

Binging on your videos for discernment and wisdom (Found you through Brad Jersak) … please consider investing in a gimbal if you have to hold the camera. Love marmalade.

[@MickPope]

There ya go, Pete Enns airs his dirty laundry in public ;-)

[@joshuablank3668]

Pete is the best.

[@tycNvk]

Does what you say about being cryptic applies to Old Testament only but New Testimony as well?

[@dynamicloveministries334]

Doe you anything pointing to the necessity of bodily resurrection in order to bring forth fruit in the Christian today, a link between the empty grave and the new life. I don't know why the promise of immortality and the empty grave does not enjoy centre stage in Christianity.

[@letgodbetrue8864]

If you deny the power of the Holy Spirit, you’re gonna have to rely on natural research/intellect to defend the faith.

[@jolabrese]

I am sure it was started by we Canadians... "I'm sorry." #dadjoke

[@anthonybarber3872]

Why bother?

[@wgold22]

Short summary 4 assumptions that causes ideas to clash of an ancient text in modern times (not saying all 4 are accepted by all) 1. The Bible is cryptic 2. The Bible has no contradictions 3. The Bible is relevant for us 4. The Bible is divinely inspired

[@DesGardius-me7gf]

“Why should we turn to someone other than historians or scientists, the experts in their related fields of research, for answers related to history or science? Apologists are just there to take advantage of you, telling you what you want to hear when the evidence tells you otherwise. The sheer existence of apologists is reason alone to raise suspicion. Their dishonesty is blatant when you simply double check what they say. In the end, historians and scientists are not just one big conspiracy against Jesus, the Bible is simply wrong about most things.” -Joseph R. Hanson

[@librulcunspirisy]

Middle Eastern Iron Age fairy tales shed light on the culture that produced them. And nothing else.