A basic yet simple definition of apologetics is defending the faith. However if you interact on the internet for any great length of time you will soon realize that you are only going over the same issues with the same people. Every now and then you get a new face or so you think however it could very well be the same person again underneath a different name. In this posting I am going to show you some of the comments made by one of these Anti-Christians so that you know what you will be facing on the internet.
"when the adequate and objective response is given, many critics brush it off with simple insults, ridicule, mockery, and more logical fallacies instead of addressing and providing substantial reasoning toward how and why there could possibly be errors in the argument."
Well I see more insults, ridicule and mockery from LDS apologist than anyone else. For it might be a simple question about how to test the spirit and because the apologist knows the direction the conversation is going and they don't want to answer it with a proper response they will sidestep. Therefor when we make it clear we are wanting to stay on topic or have to re-ask the question because it wasn't answered the first, second or 8th time in a row it is taken as mockery.
"The critics do not care. If they did care, they would realize that the tiresome arguments they employ repeatedly is fruitless. For example, it would be like someone pointing out the same arguments as to the earth being flat and that those who believe that the earth is spherical are in the wrong – despite the scientific and academic data we have available. Yet, they still propose their arguments, ask people to take them seriously and not to rely on the biased scientific information that supports a spherical earth."
We don't care huh? I don't know about you but I highly doubt that anyone would spend as much time as we do trying to reach even one lost soul if we didn't care. While the purpose of an LDS apologist is to defend the church at all cost. The purpose of a Christian apologist is to not only defend the cross and what it stands for, but to try and reach those who are burdened by religion with the message of the cross. It is these LDS apologist that try and remind them of how unworthy they are that keeps them on the endless hamster wheel.
I love his attempt to use the Earth being flat as an argument. First off a Christian would never use an argument that isn't supported by scripture. And Scientific evidence has only further supports the Bible in everything that science has tried to refute. The problem then stems from the LDS apologist wanting to somehow claim that science supports a novel. Which if you think about that then maybe Star Wars is true.
"They take something said online against the Church, or read it in a pamphlet or book on Mormonism, and then present it as valid truth. They do not take into consideration of researching and thinking through whether or not there is support for the assertion being made or if there is an adequate rebuttal. If they do, they quickly dismiss it, or refuse to accept it. Had they done this, they would have to develop better arguments to answer the rebuttal’s already provided."
Well the fact is with Mormonism truth is relative. Apologist from within the church can't even agree on which argument to use on different issues and when called out it is only their opinion. The only pamphlets or books used are those officially published by the church. After all why use a book that is used by an apologist if it is only their opinion. The most common quotes used are by those of your prophets because they are the voice of the church. A problem that comes from a result of that is once the prophet is dead it is then only their opinion.
I would like to know what research he is referring to. Because any "research or thinking" as he puts it usually is from LDS apologist and I think I have covered that already. And I would ask why there would be a need for a better argument when the original is really never answered honestly. For example if anyone has ever spent time on fair you will often see an argument that would try and link the Green Bay Packers winning the Superbowl to the earthquake in Japan by way of high gas prices. I realize that is an extreme but the point is they get any honest reader so confused that they give up and they take that as an victory, which in a way could very well be.
"Anti-Mormon’s heavily rely on Anti-Mormon sources to heighten the gross misdemeanor of their arguments. In short, this means that Kim does not utilize any form of persuasion, he just shows how quoting something that is said elsewhere."
Well for starters I would like to clarify what an Anti-Mormon is. I have never met someone involved in Ministry to the LDS that has anything against those who are LDS. That would be better classified as Anti-Mormonism. After all it is the extra Biblical doctrine we stand against and not the person who believes in it. However that isn't the main point. The point is they want to try and ignore the homework done by people such as Bill McKeever, Sandra Tanner, Rocky and Helen Hulse and yet ignore that they rely so heavily on FAIR and FARMS for their counter claims. For I have yet to be in a long conversation with an apologist without them giving a link to FAIR or one of it's authors. Which the whole "Do as I say, not as I do."
"the Test of a Prophet argument fails on two premises: 1) Critic’s utilization is out of proper context of the passage itself and, 2) They refuse to utilize the same argument, logic, and criticism to fairly support or condemn Biblical Prophets. Because, if they had, many of the Old Testament Prophets would be disposed of as much as the critic’s wish to dispose of Joseph Smith."
1) Out of context? They like to claim things are taken out of context by constantly trying to change the definition of words like generation for example. I don't need to go through them all, you just need to google his false prophecies and they are readily available. 2)Didn't he just say earlier that they constantly change arguments? Anyway, I have yet to see any Christian apologist change their stance on any issue. However Joseph gave timelines for his prophecies and are easily tested as a result.
"Now, the question that he asks is adding to the Bible not changing it, but adding to the Bible. Here is another question – what did the Apostle Paul add to the Bible? What did the Gospel Writers add to the Bible? How many times did the Bible have changes made to it? This is called special pleading. Inerrantists hold near and dear that there are no errors in the Bible. That to add to the Bible, it is dangerous. The problem with this is that they fail to grasp that the Bible is not one singular book. The term Bible means Biblia, which means a book of books. It is adequately named because there were many different books written by many different men in many different times of the past. Again, more special pleading is what we see here. Now, for some real facts on the nature of the Bible as it had been added too and taken away from"
Now what is the Bible meaning about adding to his word? Does it mean additional books? After all who had the authority to write Scripture in the New Testament. Only those who were the original apostles. Once they were gone written scripture stopped. Not once did any of their writings change or add to what God's intentions were. So they are trying to say that a book written by John should not be included in the cannon if Josephs isn't.
Stay tunned for more as I share what Anti-Christians try and do to justify their stance.
- ► 2013 (11)
- ▼ 2011 (17)