Terry sez,
Once you learn who the apologists are with an agenda you get to the purified layer of honest theologians who tell the truth WHILE MAKING tepid excuses.
Underneath that is the layer of scholars who seem to be neutral and just tell it like it is and let the chips fall.
Once all that sinks in (like a knife in your back) you go away and think about it and think about it and finally get pretty angry!
Not if you understood people's strong proclivity to being deceived (you're too much of a purist, and cannot tolerate obfuscation, which is your biggest mistake, new boy :-))
For me, that is when I went back to the Apologists to see if they were deliberately LYING or not.
No, they just need it to all be true to survive this dangerous and predatory world. It is a haven of safety to have sky daddies with cojones.
For the most part, they aren't lying per se. They are covering up and twisting the facts by creating straw man arguments and diversionary tactics.
It becomes rather glaring once you have some reading under your belt.
There are about three kinds of apologists I have dealt with, other than the typical orthodox apologists such as the church fathers, whom I at least respect.
1. Some self-styled apologists (I can think of one on the Trinity issue) who are really sophists rather than true apologists. They invent multiple possible worlds, at least one of which they think it all fits together better than the usual orthodox understandings, which are seemingly illogical. They win by means of a good memory and ability to confuse others using that memory, so people acquiesce because they can't understand this alternate explanation and therefore assume the sophist is smarter than they are, and should be trusted. They are the most respected in the religious community, because they assure the rest that they have the real truth. "History" is suspect.
They like to hone their skills at creating the "perfect" theology or worldview of life, including heaven and hell and full reconciliation of all good and bad. They start with the assumption that there is an onmipotent being, all loving, all-knowing, all-caring, and so seek to "play down" the known discrepancies in certain biblical accounts that are glaringly obvious to 95% of others who may have never heard an alternate world view.
Those who become good at this sort of sophistry make the most charismatic of religious leaders - in other words, this produces the greatest return on your buck, and they make many other people happy because they now understand the mysteries of the universe, and realize that they are ultimately safe. They also sell boatloads of books.
2. The second type I've noticed are SCARED of losing out in life (too many unpredictable predators and potential disasters) and sky daddies make them safe. (very common) These are generally the amateurs that are rife on discussion boards, and get the most negative responses. But they and others need this fix, like a drug. Kind of like Alcoholics Anonymous.
Once the need to understand all life is abandoned, they are just fine. That happened to me.
Then by starting over, you no longer have this invisible pre-conceived world that cannot be falsified. You can let the VISIBLE, easily substantiated evidence mount up and then decide, even if you've been mulling it for 30 years. You change your views the more evidence you get, just like the scientists. Occam's Razor.
3. Another type also like to hone their skills at creating the "perfect" theology or worldview of life.
They are genuine believers that there is a Great Sky Daddy, and although they will never hear his voice or touch him or see him, certainly because he of necessity must be perfect, we benefit from having a perfect or near-perfect way of explaining it. The more they convince others, the more they convince themselves. If they are criticized, you can tell by their responses if they are really interested in the truth, or rather a better "truth" of their own design.
Randy