Boundaries of apologetics

Summer of 2010 started with an encounter with Mormons, which emphasized the importance of apologetics and knowing the details about my faith. It led directly to the start of NNC (or BBW, or just Apologetics cell, even though our premise isn't really just on apologetics). After several months of apologetics and a few presentations, I was a bit amused to note that the end of Fall 2010 was marked by a case where apologetics just didn't work.

I was working with someone on a project the other day, when he started talking about religion. He talked a bit about meaning of life, then proceed to note that the Christian God is insane. Curious, I asked him to expand a bit. He pointed to the Old Testament, and the purging of Canaan. Oyy...

As the conversation went on, I found out that he grew up in a Catholic school, taught by people who simply told him to ignore apparent contradictions between OT and NT, and that didn't make sense to him. After telling him that I agree with him, that one should think about their faith and be active in figuring things out, we launched into things:

God of the Old Testament
I pointed out that major destructions of people groups were not unwarned: Noah was warned and had a chance to tell other people (Genesis 6), Canaan's purging was also forewarned (Genesis 15.16). Sodom and Gomorrah's issues were described as an outcry...other people were complaining about how bad the situation in those cities are (Genesis 18.20)! To top it off, Abraham argued for the cities, saying that there must be some good people there (Genesis 18.22-33), where God agreed that He will not destroy good people. I brought up that God was ready to destroy Israel (but still want to give humans a chance) when they worshiped the golden calves in Exodus 32 but relented. God didn't kill anyone there, Moses did (Exodus 32.25-29)!

I pointed to the healing of Naaman, a general of the enemies of Israel (2 Kings 5.1-19) and Nineveh, a city that pillaged and burned Israel. (Jonah 3). I stopped around there, even though I had more examples still. My point has been made already, and I realized one fundamental assumption I've made here, in my interpretation of the OT: the sovereignty of God. And although I've placed examples of God being merciful to contrast his view of an angry God, our difference in fundamental assumption meant we could not meet at a common ground.

I was just told ignore things that didn't make sense. How could that be?
Ah. Apologetics. I explained to him what apologetics is, and that most people don't bother with it, but that's not the proper attitude. Just as we investigate scientific principles that we believe, we should also examine the what our faith says as well. We talked about dinosaurs. Young Earth creationism and Genesis 1-2. Big bang. Evolution. Archeological evidence of Biblical events. Philosophy behind translation of the Bible. I mentioned that I grew up believing science, and things had to fit together before I can whole-heartedly accept this. I admit, I have not been able to figure everything out. Evolution and big bang arin't exactly easy concepts to grasp. But I'm at an okay place right now in terms of that.

...but how can you believe all this?
He asked me, what if God was just a made up concept and all these things just happened to have fit together?

Well...Voltaire believed that. One quote attributed to Voltaire is "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Enlightenment era philosophies. Sure. He advanced the principles of Locke (Tabula Rasa, "the blank slate"), in that we are fundamentally bad people, but society forces us to conform to become good people, and that we can shape people's behaviour. Later on, Freud reinforces that idea, with the id/ego/superego.

I subscribe more to Hobbe's ideas (the Social Contract). We agree that people are fundamentally bad, but it is rather difficult make someone good. Can we actually just colour in the blank slate and make someone good? Or do we need a central governance to make sure people behave, implying that people cannot be expected to be good when left to their own devices? It's evident what our modern society believes...communism failed (a whole different discussion altogether) and democracy, which is an implementation of the Social Contract, is widespread. Our own society believes people are fundamentally bad.

But this isn't what we disagreed on. We disagreed on the solution. He said he wouldn't mind becoming a Buddhist. Buddhism believes that the individual had the ability to become a good person and be perfect, on his own accord. I didn't believe that. My life experiences tells me that I need Jesus, because if we can be good on our own accord, humans would've all been good already. So I shared a bit of my own stories and how I got to this point in my faith.

Concluding
I think, even though we've hit a lot of different topics and (hopefully), I presented a decent case, I've been reminded the limitation of apologetics here. I cannot expect someone to believe just because I could answer all his questions. Apologetics allowed me to present my case in a intellectual, logical way, to lend creditability to the hope of my faith, and not be stuck with a "uhhh I dunno"

I'll point to Mikee for a discussion about apologetics and Jorge for further thoughts on how to properly use apologetics. We're called give the reason for the hope that we have. We can plant things with our arguments and logical debates, but God is the one that makes the seeds grow.