Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 77 results found
Greg discusses whether or not the concept of the Trinity makes sense. 0:01 Does the Trinity make sense? 0:04 Now some people say the Trinity, the idea that there's one God who subsists in three 0:09 fully distinct but fully divine persons, just doesn't make sense. 0:13 Well, this depends on what you mean by the concept of "making sense."
Is baptism purely symbolic, or is baptism necessary for regeneration?
What is the nature of marriage? Is marriage about love? When people are in love, they get married. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what gender the person may be, so the argument goes.
When the Bible was written, writers and historians were free to shift some things around a to make a point, and it wasn’t considered deceptive or an error. It was a different way of writing. It's the same with Genesis.
When scientists claim that any intelligent design inference is an example of God of the Gaps, they are presuming that there actually is an explanation gap, that is, there simply is no explanation for the phenomena in question. The “God of the Gaps” complaint comes up when theists suggest that design is a better explanation than a naturalistic one in certain areas of science, particularly the beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the development of life from simple to complex over time.
Arguing a point based on what Jesus, allegedly, did not say betrays a misunderstanding about the Bible that so-called “red letter” Christians seem to fall into. The mistake is thinking that red-letter verses (the words of Jesus) have more authority than the rest of the Bible.
In July 1995, Time Magazine made a stunning announcement. In an extensive article on the mind they wrote, “Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not: some entity deep inside the brain that corresponds to the ‘self,’ some kernel of awareness that runs the show” (July 17, 1995, p. 52). In other words, there is no soul.
Has anyone else but me noticed an inherent contradiction in the underlying convictions that drive annual “Earth Day” celebrations? The vast majority of those who attend such fetes are Darwinists who believe humans have a moral obligation to protect the environment? My question is: Why?
It’s common of late to justify one’s “sexual orientation” by an appeal to nature. The claim “I was born this way” is all that’s needed to stem moral criticism of homosexuality. But why settle for this approach? Why think that the state of nature is an appropriate guide to morality?
The result of criminalizing hate under certain circumstances is that only certain types of people get protected. In a state with hate crime legislation, penalties levied for an assault on me would be milder by statutory requirement than for the very same assault on a homosexual. Why? Because as a straight, white male I do not belong to a class protected by this law.