The Word

In studying the Bible as a young man, I found intimations of the idea that forms of media favor particular kinds of content and therefore are capable of taking command of a culture. I refer specifically to the Decalogue, the Second Commandment of which prohibits the Israelites from making concrete images of anything. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth." I wondered then, as so many others have, as to why the God of these people would have included instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture. We may hazard a guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract, universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of drawing pictures or making statues or depicting ideas in any concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking.
~ Neil Postman

Tolerance

Right-wing writer shoots himself dead at altar of Notre Dame after marriage equality passes | The Raw Story

This article was linked in Facebook. Here is a sampling of the comments in the subsequent thread.

"good. no one will miss you"

"Good riddance to bad garbage"

"One less to worry about"

"Good."

"Turns my heart to little crunchy peanut butter."

"I not only like this post • I love it ;)"

"The only sad thing about this is that more narrow-minded bigots didn't do the same..."

"He won't be missed, but the really sad thing is the hate in the comments. I can't believe there are so many comments wishing for death on conservatives and republicans."

He that Winneth Souls is Wise

Watch "Defeated atheist Walks Away (Presuppositional Apologetics)" on YouTube

Hi there! You haven't heard from me in a while. Sorry about that. Please watch this video as an example of how not to defend the gospel.

On the one hand, there is nothing this Christian apologist says that I disagree with. He skillfully exposes the flaws in the atheist's worldview. On the other hand, by the time the atheist angrily walks away he is no closer to accepting the gospel than he was before talking with the apologist. Perhaps he is even less likely now to repent and believe the gospel.

If the point was to show that the apologist's view of abortion and morality was more logically consistent than the atheist's view, then I suppose the apologist was successful. If the point was to lead the atheist to Christ, the apologist failed miserably. But is outfoxing atheists the primary goal of apologetics? No, the point of defending the gospel is to persuade atheists and other nonbelievers that Christianity is true. In reality, this Christian apologist failed as a defender of the gospel either way.

If we aren't defending Christian truth in a way that persuades others to follow Christ, we are wasting our time and energy on a fruitless endeavor. There are plentiful examples in the Bible of Jesus, the Apostles, and other saints intelligently proclaiming God's truth. While they did not persuade everyone, there is not a single case where they ended a debate with, "Well, I certainly made that guy look like an idiot, didn't I?"

The true purpose of Christian apologetics is to persuade others that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that He died and rose again to save us from our sins. To use apologetics to show everyone how clever you are is actually very stupid.

"An argument in apologetics, when actually used in dialogue, is an extension of the arguer. The arguer's tone, sincerity, care, concern, listening, and respect matter as much as his or her logic - probably more. The world was won for Christ not by arguments but by sanctity: 'What you are speaks so loud, I can hardly hear what you say.'"
― Peter Kreeft