I think...

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Where did I say I appeal to authority? Oh, and I love how on this forum I've been called an apologist several times. I don't even know what the tired old label means, and I am not one.

Huh? How on earth can you claim not to be something if you don't know what it is? THAT is a really stupid thing to say. Perhaps take the trouble to find out what it means.( EG : From The Concise Oxford Dictionary: "apologist:one who defends Christianity" )


You appeal to authority every time you use the bible as evidence.

You try defend Christianity by trying to put a positive spin on biblical content by the simple expedient of denying anything negative by claiming people either don't understand or are taking something out of context.Those are stereotypical apologist tactics.

I'm terribly sorry, a character flaw I know, but I'm simply unwilling to suffer fools,and right now,you take the biscuit on this forum. Can't be bothered with you.


000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

You seem to fit into the broad category of 'presuppositional apologetics'

Another apologetical school of thought, a sort of synthesis of various existing Dutch and American Reformed thinkers (such as, Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, Herman Dooyeweerd), emerged in the late 1920s. This school was instituted by Cornelius Van Til, and came to be popularly called Presuppositional apologetics (though Van Til himself felt "Transcendental" would be a more accurate title). The main distinction between this approach and the more classical evidentialist approach mentioned above is that the Presuppositionalist denies any common ground between the believer and the non-believer, except that which the non-believer denies, namely, the assumption of the truth of the theistic worldview. In other words, Presuppositionalists don't believe that the existence of God can be proven by appeal to raw, uninterpreted (or, "brute") facts, which have the same (theoretical) meaning to people with fundamentally different worldviews, because they deny that such a condition is even possible. They claim that the only possible proof for the existence of God is that the very same belief is the necessary condition to the intelligibility of all other human experience and action. In other words, they attempt to prove the existence of God by means of appeal to the alleged transcendental necessity of the belief—indirectly (by appeal to the allegedly unavowed presuppositions of the non-believer's worldview) rather than directly (by appeal to some form of common factuality). In practice this school utilizes what have come to be known as Transcendental Arguments for the Existence of God. In these arguments they claim to demonstrate that all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of God, because God's existence is the necessary condition of their intelligibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics