#apologetics

Yes, I was using 'reason' in its broadest sense, to refer to our ability to cognize truth. I believe my point was about the epistemological status of divine revelation. A revealed truth can either (a) tell us something we were already capable of knowing by means of unaided reason, (b) confirm which of several possible answers we've reached is correct, or (c) give us knowledge we are wholly incapable of arriving at via our unaided reason. Since, logically, no truth can contradict any other truth, it follow that, if the divine revelation is true—which the believer will hold that it is—then it cannot be the case that it will contradict any truth established by reason. One of the main jobs of apologetics is to show that divine revelation does not contradict anything established by human reason, and therefore that theism is *reasonable* or *rationally warranted*—which is not the same thing as establishing that theism is *true*, although that too is the work of apologetics.

---

A number of non-theists become upset at the idea of truths that they cannot independently test or verify, especially given the weight that modern natural science places on these things. So, you will frequently hear invectives against faith, ones that usually miss the mark, due to failure to understand the nature of faith.

---

I won't go into the nature of faith as understood be Christians, but only note that there is nothing contrary to reason to take something to be true on faith or trust, if one has rational warrant to believe that the one whose word one is taking on the matter (a) knows what he is talking about, and (b) is trustworthy. It follows that IF we have rational warrant to believe that there is God, God is omniscient, God is all-trustworthy, and God has given us a divine revelation, then we can trust it.

---

The atheist is usually inconsistent here: since he is not omniscient, but a finite human being like everyone else, he accepts almost everything he claims to know on the basis of trust in things that he cannot independently verify or test—often things with far less warrant than a revelation from God.

---

This can be seen by an analysis of the concept of verification or testing. If we try to SAY what we mean by this, we will have to lay down criteria for accepting something as rationally warranted, but any such criteria would have to themselves be rationally warranted, but there is no non-circular way to verify or test them—hence the principle "never accept anything as true until it has been verified or test" should not itself be accepted until it has been verified or tested, which it cannot be, non-circularly. To put it another way: if we are rationally warranted in trusting reason, the basis of our trust in reason cannot be the product of our reason, which we be circular. To trust reason thus requires a kind of existential leap of faith—although one would not call trust in reason "irrational" (unless one self-defeatingly uses one's reason to undermine reason)

View more

On Twitter I have used a whole range of categories to tag different accounts with. Most accounts would fit into more than one category. The major part of this classification is about religion. Christian or non-Christian then Catholic or Protestant and within the Catholic Faith a number of points showing interest in: Prolife, Mary, Rosary, Theology, Apologetics and so on. Another major category on the level of Christian or non-Christian is if the account makes to family life.

---

As you can see I do enjoy classifying but here on ASK I don't classify people. ASK, of course, does not allow one to do this in the way that Twitter does but I would hope I would not use the function even if it existed. I feel here it is more about finding out about people and sharing knowledge and seeking knowledge.

---

In my interaction with people I am always hoping to draw them closer to God and so I am aware if someone is Christian or non-Christian Catholic or Protestant, what moral code they hold too, of course whether male or female, married, single or dating. But it is more about the person and the seeking of knowledge to me than these categories.

---

Thanks for the question it has given me reason to think.

View more

hey pal - haven't heard this one in awhile! I love delving into the deeper epistemology of the Bible when questions like these are brought up. there are plenty of great books out there that deal with apologetics like this, so that is a definite recommendation if you're interested in digging deeper. faith, after all, if false, is of mediocre significance. but if true, infinite importance.

---

to answer your question, the hebrew word for "four corners" used in original Aramaic-based scrolls is "kanaph", or "ארבע פינות". by definition, it implies an extremity to a geometric shape. it is always, unfailingly associated with extremities. this is where the confusion arises - people often assume, by default, that it projects an image of a square. however, if one were to examine the other uses of the word "corner", words such as pinoh (cornerstone), paioh (geometric corner), ziovyoh (right angle), krnouth (corner), or most importantly, paamouth (if God wanted to convey the image of a square, flat, four-cornered earth, it would be this word).

---

but diction is always intentional. isaiah 40:22 describes a spherical earth under dominion of God, whilst many scholars have argued that readers must not be too pedantic. they point to references to 'four corners' of empires, countries, oceans and other geographical entities in ancient times. in essence, philosophers of the time already agreed with grecian ideas of the spherical earth - there was no contradiction with biblical usage of the word 'kanaph'.

View more

Cái logic những người đấy có học vấn cao rất là cùn em ạ. Các giáo sứ v.v đều học trường được nhà thờ xây dựng, nhà thờ đầu tư (catholic school) và có môn gọi là christian apologetics tức là chuyên học để bào chữa cho kinh thánh.
Các cái môn học và lòng tin đấy cho rằng Adam và Eva là có thật mà không giải thích được nguồn gốc của người da đen và lảng chánh hoặc không đụng chạm tới việc phân biệt chủng tộc.
Cho rằng Thế giới mới có 6000 năm tuổi mà bằng chứng tìm ra rằng trái đất lâu hơn rất là nhiều.
Cho rằng câu truyện Con tàu Noah là có thật nhưng không giải thích được vì sao trên thế giới lại có hàng triệu giống loài khác nhau. Và không giải thích được những sinh vật độc nhất ở Australia.
Từ chối Big Bang và từ chối thuyết tiến hóa.

---

Vâng học vấn rất cao trong cái trường cùi thì cũng chả đáng để tôn trọng. Và đã đặt niềm tin quá sâu vào tôn giáo của mình rồi họ sẵn sàng từ chối bất cứ bằng chứng nào đi ngược lại, và bày ra đủ loại logic cùn để bào chữa cho kinh thánh của mình.

---

Đây là ví dụ điển hình của một nhà "khoa học" của công giáo tên là Ray Comfort.
Ông ông tìn vào bất cứ thuyết tiến hóa nào, cho rằng kinh thánh là đúng 100% và cho rằng tất cả mọi thứ trên trái đất được chúa chế tạo ra.
Và một logic của ông ấy chính là quả chuối, ông ấy cho rằng chúa tạo ra quả chuối vừa tay con người, dài vừa đủ và ngon.
Nhưng ông ấy quên mất rằng quả chuối là do con người chọn lọc và nhân giống và cho nó "tiến hóa" thánh quả chuối bây giờ.

View more

I do talk to them; some conversations really help, whilst others - I don't mean this in an offensive way - make you realise how many people haven't reasoned through their faith.

---

A good place to start exploring your faith is to ask questions, challenge assumptions, and in doing so, you will find questions that people our age are unsuited/ unable to answer. I'll start with a simple one: How do you know God exists? Don't look it up online - think about it for a good minute or so and ask yourself: Why do I believe?

---

If you hold on to your faith so strongly without having reasoned this out - it really isn't the healthy sort. I don't pretend to have completely reasoned this out or that this is an unanswerable question. It's just a good starting point to have, to be sure of, before delving off into stuff like Calvinism vs. Arminianism, good works, sin and other issues that the church still debates about.

View more

Good point. Yes and No. Homosexuality in the Bible is black and white if and only if you'd read the Bible as most Christians do: out of context.

---

For example, have you encountered "preachers" in buses with envelopes saying "God loves a cheerful giver"? That is 2 Corinthians 9:6-7. Now these people expect you to give something, and if you have this conviction that there is such a God you'd end up giving something. You're not giving everything, you'd think. Walang mawawala sa'yo. Parang lucky charms lang ng mga Chinese. Walang mawawala if you hand out a five or a ten. Cheerful giving naman di ba? WRONG. We're not reading the entire book.

---

First chapter first verse of Paul's 2nd Letter to the Corinthians said: "...To the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia." See that? To the church of God. This letter, this string of guidelines is for the church of God --- the group of believers. Paul is not saying "you go out and be beggars for Christ" what he is saying is "you go help one another, in love; give what you can, give only what will make you happy". The Bible is not asking a mixed group inside the bus to donate, it's not the Bible who demands, it's the "preachers" who do.

---

Though I've studied Apologetics and Hermeneutics right after Sunday School to prepare for ministry duties (just basic, I mean come on, high school - what do we know then?), I won't discuss all homosexual practices one by one. Just proving to you that there's something wrong in the way we all read our Bibles is enough.

---

And oh, there's porn in the Bible. Song of Songs/Song of Solomon. Though I doubt if you'd be aroused reading it. During my early ministry years I don't. I was like "your breasts are like fawns - what the hell is this shit?" But when you study linguistics, actually not necessarily linguistics but literature - figures of speech, types of metaphors, and how cultures differ from one another in their form of writing, you'd understand: The Western culture, or the culture we know today, are visually oriented: see to believe. Hence our metaphors are visual: ex. pig = fat.

---

Hebrew culture is different: they are emotionally oriented, hence their metaphors are emotional.
"Your breasts are like fawns" doesn't mean your breasts look like deer and are drooping. It means your breasts solicit tender feelings the same way a baby deer does. In our culture, fawns are puppies. Again, you have to know Hebrew culture just to know that Hebrews despise dogs, and their favored pet are toddler deer.

---

Well, though I answered this http://ask.fm/nuncavolvera/answer/105350019595 http://ask.fm/nuncavolvera/answer/102797567755, I was glad I met her only just recently. Yes I was aching to know someone like her way way before, but I wouldn't be ready for her then. If it was, I guess I'd just troll her. LOL. You know that thing they say, "maturity has nothing to do with age"? True. But it has a lot to do with time. Knowledge matures too.

View more

First off, He is not MY God, He is OUR God, He is THE God. How could you ask of He as shown me any proof? You and I and everyone in this world are living proof that God does exist. How else can you explain how perfect this universe was made? How can you explain the gravity holding us on earth? Earth was placed in the PERFECT distance away from the sun, any closer we would burn... Any farther we would freeze. How could you explain that? Certainly that didn't just "happen". Christians don't believe in God simply because someone told us to. We are not going but blind hope. It's blind hope that people who don't believe in God think that this Earth was created by some sort of miraculous accident and where is the proof that that happened? Everything has a Creator. I mean that is the most proof I can give you. I mean not everything I believe is based off of proof, I have to also have faith. "For we walk by faith and not sight." Jesus came to this earth, He was risen from the dead. How could that happen? He fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament and God is all knowing. He knows the future, He told those prophets what will happen and it did. I mean if that doesn't point to the handiwork of an all powerful being, I don't know what does. I'm sorry I can't pull up a bunch of articles or anything but just go visit Apologetics press website and read some of the entries, I hope you find what you need. I am sorry I can't give you a more specific answer than that. I mean oxygen isn't something you can see, but you know it's there because it's keeping you alive. Just think about it and research. There is absolutely no possible explaination except that there is a God. And He is very much alive.

View more