Comments for Jason Lisle's Blog http://jasonlisle.com Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:15:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on About Dr. Lisle by Ben http://jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/#comment-77 Ben Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:15:07 +0000 http://www.jasonlisle.com/?page_id=2#comment-77 I'm confused about where to respond. You said to respond at the top but I think I'm at the top? Not sure, well I just bought an electronic version of The Ultimate Proof and as I'm reading through it I noticed their was a-lot of small things I completely forgot about. In chapter 2 of his book under the section called "The Necessity of Being Non-Arbitrary" Dr. Lisle mentions some people say "It is not important that we have a reason for things like logic and the reliability of senses and memory. It is enough that we are able to act upon them. We can know lots of things, even though we may not have a reason for those things we take for granted." If I understand Dr. Lisle's explanation he is saying that a belief isn't the samething as knowing something, but that when you know something its a fact, and that knowledge and belief are separate things? I'm very confused about that section of that book. Can begging the question be committed when people with a single proposition or a single statement without their phrase "therefore" or "because"? Are the endnotes at the end of each chapter simply a summary? I’m confused about where to respond. You said to respond at the top but I think I’m at the top? Not sure, well I just bought an electronic version of The Ultimate Proof and as I’m reading through it I noticed their was a-lot of small things I completely forgot about. In chapter 2 of his book under the section called “The Necessity of Being Non-Arbitrary” Dr. Lisle mentions some people say “It is not important that we have a reason for things like logic and the reliability of senses and memory. It is enough that we are able to act upon them. We can know lots of things, even though we may not have a reason for those things we take for granted.” If I understand Dr. Lisle’s explanation he is saying that a belief isn’t the samething as knowing something, but that when you know something its a fact, and that knowledge and belief are separate things? I’m very confused about that section of that book. Can begging the question be committed when people with a single proposition or a single statement without their phrase “therefore” or “because”? Are the endnotes at the end of each chapter simply a summary?

]]> Comment on About Dr. Lisle by Nick L. http://jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/#comment-76 Nick L. Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:51:35 +0000 http://www.jasonlisle.com/?page_id=2#comment-76 Ben, you are correct that it is very important to be able to provide a thorough defense of our beliefs. My main life verse is 1 Peter 3:15, a verse Stephen posted in one of his posts. The verse states: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (KJV). You are also correct that a worldview must be consistent throughout. As you said, someone can invent any worldview they wish, but a worldview is not so much an invented ideology as it is a practiced and lived-out mindset. For instance, my worldview tells me that you exist; because of that belief, I’m typing up this post for you to read. A Hindu would not necessarily agree with me that you exist. Even if this hypothetical Hindu were to meet you face-to-face and shake hands with you, they still might deny your existence. Such absurd practices fit within a Hindu’s worldview, but they are not consistent with the way a Hindu lives life. If you hold out a $100 bill to a Hindu, they’ll take it, even if they deny that you and the bill exist. This is an inconsistency. What we try to do in Christian apologetics is to show the inconsistencies that an evolutionary worldview entails. In an evolutionary worldview, science is impossible, but evolutionists still practice science as though their worldview allows for its existence. So the question really does not come down to what you think your worldview says. The question comes down to whether or not what your worldview says is consistent with how you live. Incidentally, our posts are beginning to spread all over this particular thread. You may want to post your next post at the top of the page to keep our responses a bit more tidy and easy to follow. Also know that I do not mind the questions at all. My only concern is that Dr. Lisle may object to the amount of material I’m typing on his blog! ☺ Ben, you are correct that it is very important to be able to provide a thorough defense of our beliefs. My main life verse is 1 Peter 3:15, a verse Stephen posted in one of his posts. The verse states: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (KJV). You are also correct that a worldview must be consistent throughout. As you said, someone can invent any worldview they wish, but a worldview is not so much an invented ideology as it is a practiced and lived-out mindset. For instance, my worldview tells me that you exist; because of that belief, I’m typing up this post for you to read. A Hindu would not necessarily agree with me that you exist. Even if this hypothetical Hindu were to meet you face-to-face and shake hands with you, they still might deny your existence. Such absurd practices fit within a Hindu’s worldview, but they are not consistent with the way a Hindu lives life. If you hold out a $100 bill to a Hindu, they’ll take it, even if they deny that you and the bill exist. This is an inconsistency. What we try to do in Christian apologetics is to show the inconsistencies that an evolutionary worldview entails. In an evolutionary worldview, science is impossible, but evolutionists still practice science as though their worldview allows for its existence. So the question really does not come down to what you think your worldview says. The question comes down to whether or not what your worldview says is consistent with how you live.

Incidentally, our posts are beginning to spread all over this particular thread. You may want to post your next post at the top of the page to keep our responses a bit more tidy and easy to follow. Also know that I do not mind the questions at all. My only concern is that Dr. Lisle may object to the amount of material I’m typing on his blog! ☺

]]> Comment on About Dr. Lisle by Nick L. http://jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/#comment-75 Nick L. Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:34:54 +0000 http://www.jasonlisle.com/?page_id=2#comment-75 Ben, yes, I posted a response the other day that is currently awaiting moderation (most likely due to its length). In it, I responded to a few of the objections from the website you posted and provided a few articles for you to read from the AiG website. Regarding Jesus’ actual physical powers on earth, the Bible is clear that Jesus was wholly God and wholly man during His earthly ministry. Because He is God, He is capable of taking on the form of His creation, living as His creation lives, and undergoing the physical conditions and temptations that His creation undergoes. Jesus was entirely able to turn the stones to bread when tempted to, just as He was able to walk on water and rise from the dead. The fact that He suffered death (even though He certainly did not have to as an immortal Being) ties into the doctrine of redemption. In the book of Exodus, the Hebrews in Egypt observe the first Passover by shedding the blood of a lamb without spot or blemish. A spot is an inherited defect, and a blemish is an acquired defect. Jesus was (and is) “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus was a lamb without spot or blemish. He was born without an inherent sin nature (via the virgin birth), making Him ‘without spot’; and He lived a sinless life, making Him ‘without blemish’. Because He satisfied these two conditions, Christ became the propitiation for our sins. He does not violate the law of non-contradiction by being God and man. The law of non-contradiction states that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Christ limited His power and “took on the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man” (See the full text of Philippians 2). This did not cause Him to be any less God. Ben, yes, I posted a response the other day that is currently awaiting moderation (most likely due to its length). In it, I responded to a few of the objections from the website you posted and provided a few articles for you to read from the AiG website.
Regarding Jesus’ actual physical powers on earth, the Bible is clear that Jesus was wholly God and wholly man during His earthly ministry. Because He is God, He is capable of taking on the form of His creation, living as His creation lives, and undergoing the physical conditions and temptations that His creation undergoes. Jesus was entirely able to turn the stones to bread when tempted to, just as He was able to walk on water and rise from the dead. The fact that He suffered death (even though He certainly did not have to as an immortal Being) ties into the doctrine of redemption. In the book of Exodus, the Hebrews in Egypt observe the first Passover by shedding the blood of a lamb without spot or blemish. A spot is an inherited defect, and a blemish is an acquired defect. Jesus was (and is) “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus was a lamb without spot or blemish. He was born without an inherent sin nature (via the virgin birth), making Him ‘without spot’; and He lived a sinless life, making Him ‘without blemish’. Because He satisfied these two conditions, Christ became the propitiation for our sins. He does not violate the law of non-contradiction by being God and man. The law of non-contradiction states that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Christ limited His power and “took on the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man” (See the full text of Philippians 2). This did not cause Him to be any less God.

]]> Comment on About Dr. Lisle by Nick L. http://jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/#comment-74 Nick L. Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:18:57 +0000 http://www.jasonlisle.com/?page_id=2#comment-74 Ben, I’ll try to cover much of what you mentioned. First and most importantly, Jesus most certainly does claim to be the Son of God. He does so numerous times. See John 14:8-10, John 11:4, Romans 1:1-4, and especially John 10:30. Also, the Roman government denied that He was the Son of God, as did the leaders of the Jews. As a matter of fact, this is made very clear due to the fact that Jesus was accused of and tried for blasphemy after claiming to be the Son of God (see John 19:6-8). Many did believe Jesus’ claim (such as the centurion who said at the crucifixion that Jesus surely was the Son of God), but most of His Jewish audience rejected Him. I would respond by asking your agnostic associate who he believes Jesus truly was, and I would also ask him respectfully if he has read the four Gospels, since his propositions make numerous errant claims about their content. You mentioned Buddhism and a few other religious persuasions, and since I am reaching somewhat beyond my intellectual sphere in attempting to provide an answer or refutation for them, I would defer to anyone (such as Dr. Lisle) who is more familiar with these religions than I am. Any religion not founded upon a literal Genesis will end up failing the AIP test that you read about in Dr. Lisle’s book. Sometimes, the faults of the religion will be difficult to pinpoint when they are dressed up in the jargon of Eastern mysticism. Buddhism fails on numerous accounts, but I only have space for one. Consider the Buddhist belief that there are many, many (even innumerable) ways to become one with ultimate reality (becoming one with ultimate reality is essentially the ‘salvation’ doctrine of Buddhism). If there are many ways, then my way may be different from yours, but neither of us is incorrect. The Mandukya Upanishad states: “Om. This eternal word is all: what was, what is and what shall be, and what is beyond is in eternity. All is Om”. It should be clear that Buddhism involves a great amount of arbitrariness and relativism. Any religion that entails multiple ways to salvation is inherently relativistic, and you are capable of refuting any relativistic worldview. It really is not necessary to become fully educated in the many religions of the world, but if you would like an accessible and thorough presentation of many other religions (from a Christian perspective), check out ‘The Universe Next Door’ by James Sire. I’ll continue in another post. Ben, I’ll try to cover much of what you mentioned. First and most importantly, Jesus most certainly does claim to be the Son of God. He does so numerous times. See John 14:8-10, John 11:4, Romans 1:1-4, and especially John 10:30. Also, the Roman government denied that He was the Son of God, as did the leaders of the Jews. As a matter of fact, this is made very clear due to the fact that Jesus was accused of and tried for blasphemy after claiming to be the Son of God (see John 19:6-8). Many did believe Jesus’ claim (such as the centurion who said at the crucifixion that Jesus surely was the Son of God), but most of His Jewish audience rejected Him. I would respond by asking your agnostic associate who he believes Jesus truly was, and I would also ask him respectfully if he has read the four Gospels, since his propositions make numerous errant claims about their content.
You mentioned Buddhism and a few other religious persuasions, and since I am reaching somewhat beyond my intellectual sphere in attempting to provide an answer or refutation for them, I would defer to anyone (such as Dr. Lisle) who is more familiar with these religions than I am. Any religion not founded upon a literal Genesis will end up failing the AIP test that you read about in Dr. Lisle’s book. Sometimes, the faults of the religion will be difficult to pinpoint when they are dressed up in the jargon of Eastern mysticism. Buddhism fails on numerous accounts, but I only have space for one. Consider the Buddhist belief that there are many, many (even innumerable) ways to become one with ultimate reality (becoming one with ultimate reality is essentially the ‘salvation’ doctrine of Buddhism). If there are many ways, then my way may be different from yours, but neither of us is incorrect. The Mandukya Upanishad states: “Om. This eternal word is all: what was, what is and what shall be, and what is beyond is in eternity. All is Om”. It should be clear that Buddhism involves a great amount of arbitrariness and relativism. Any religion that entails multiple ways to salvation is inherently relativistic, and you are capable of refuting any relativistic worldview. It really is not necessary to become fully educated in the many religions of the world, but if you would like an accessible and thorough presentation of many other religions (from a Christian perspective), check out ‘The Universe Next Door’ by James Sire. I’ll continue in another post.

]]> Comment on About Dr. Lisle by Rebekah L. Holt http://jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/#comment-73 Rebekah L. Holt Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:37:46 +0000 http://www.jasonlisle.com/?page_id=2#comment-73 Hello Dr. Lisle- Just wanted to write to say how delighted I was to hear you're joining ICR! They are a wonderful ministry (which you already know) and I certainly hope they will put you to active work in not only in research but lecturing! Being a native Texan and a close drive to ICR's hospitable and fascinating headquarters, I'm always thrilled when I learn my home state is to improved by such imports like yourself. Every blessing in Christ- Rebekah L. Holt, eQuest For Truth Hello Dr. Lisle- Just wanted to write to say how delighted I was to hear you’re joining ICR! They are a wonderful ministry (which you already know) and I certainly hope they will put you to active work in not only in research but lecturing! Being a native Texan and a close drive to ICR’s hospitable and fascinating headquarters, I’m always thrilled when I learn my home state is to improved by such imports like yourself. Every blessing in Christ- Rebekah L. Holt, eQuest For Truth

]]> Comment on About Dr. Lisle by Stephen Peterson http://jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/#comment-72 Stephen Peterson Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:20:13 +0000 http://www.jasonlisle.com/?page_id=2#comment-72 I would recommend looking at the "Answers Research Journal." http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj I would recommend looking at the “Answers Research Journal.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

]]> Comment on About Dr. Lisle by Ben http://jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/#comment-70 Ben Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:50:18 +0000 http://www.jasonlisle.com/?page_id=2#comment-70 I got involved with another debate again, but it was extremely strange I thought. I was explaning how other religious worldviews refute themselves, but the critic was claiming how all religions are the same, and I was basically committing a straw man with my case. He said natural law and morality come from dharma and uniformity comes from a circle of creation preservation destruction and creation it is there "uniformity of nature" that all life is created preserved for awhile then destroyed. Vishnu brahma and shiva... in Hindu thinking. God isn't a creator god is the universe. His fragmentation is what creates you. I didn't know how to respond to that so I let it go. He claimed Jesus never calimed to be God, It was in fact the roman senate who claimed that 5 months after his death. It was a show of power to other nations that they had killed gods avatar, but even if that was true about the Romans, the Bible still proclaims that Jesus was God the Son. He told me I need to read the five pillars of islam which he supposedly proclaimed that uniformity and natural law (I was talking about the laws of logic, but I think he thought I meant natural laws) explains it, which of course I would have no idea where to find one so I left that too. His friend said that the law of non contradiction is made when people say Jesus was God, but also not God at the sametime. Now their are different theories and understandings of that. Some Christians say Jesus was not fully God on the earth. Jesus was fully God on the earth, and some say that Jesus was both in a different sense. Based on what my grandpa as presented to me on this subject is that Jesus was not God while he was on the earth in his earthly body (I do not know the scriptures he presented for his position on it at the top of my head) but regardless how should that be answered? Was Jesus fully God and man and how would it break the law of non contradition? Eventually at the end of our talk the first person proclaimed he was agnostic, and if that was so what was the point of bringing up all the Islam and Hindu philosphy into the discussion, I don't know what to think. Sorry Nick for all these siturations and questions over the past while. I hope its not too much... I got involved with another debate again, but it was extremely strange I thought. I was explaning how other religious worldviews refute themselves, but the critic was claiming how all religions are the same, and I was basically committing a straw man with my case. He said natural law and morality come from dharma and uniformity comes from a circle of creation preservation destruction and creation it is there “uniformity of nature” that all life is created preserved for awhile then destroyed. Vishnu brahma and shiva… in Hindu thinking. God isn’t a creator god is the universe. His fragmentation is what creates you. I didn’t know how to respond to that so I let it go.

He claimed Jesus never calimed to be God, It was in fact the roman senate who claimed that 5 months after his death. It was a show of power to other nations that they had killed gods avatar, but even if that was true about the Romans, the Bible still proclaims that Jesus was God the Son.

He told me I need to read the five pillars of islam which he supposedly proclaimed that uniformity and natural law (I was talking about the laws of logic, but I think he thought I meant natural laws) explains it, which of course I would have no idea where to find one so I left that too.

His friend said that the law of non contradiction is made when people say Jesus was God, but also not God at the sametime. Now their are different theories and understandings of that. Some Christians say Jesus was not fully God on the earth. Jesus was fully God on the earth, and some say that Jesus was both in a different sense. Based on what my grandpa as presented to me on this subject is that Jesus was not God while he was on the earth in his earthly body (I do not know the scriptures he presented for his position on it at the top of my head) but regardless how should that be answered? Was Jesus fully God and man and how would it break the law of non contradition? Eventually at the end of our talk the first person proclaimed he was agnostic, and if that was so what was the point of bringing up all the Islam and Hindu philosphy into the discussion, I don’t know what to think. Sorry Nick for all these siturations and questions over the past while. I hope its not too much…

]]> Comment on About Dr. Lisle by P. http://jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/#comment-69 P. Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:09:55 +0000 http://www.jasonlisle.com/?page_id=2#comment-69 Hi, I'm an astrophysics Ph.D. student whose research flirts with big bang cosmology. I find myself getting frustrated at times, but I've been unable to find any resources that aren't written for laypeople. Do you have any resources or advice? Feel free to contact me if this blog lets you see the address I entered. Thanks. Hi,
I’m an astrophysics Ph.D. student whose research flirts with big bang cosmology. I find myself getting frustrated at times, but I’ve been unable to find any resources that aren’t written for laypeople. Do you have any resources or advice? Feel free to contact me if this blog lets you see the address I entered.
Thanks.

]]> Comment on About Dr. Lisle by Ben http://jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/#comment-68 Ben Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:24:07 +0000 http://www.jasonlisle.com/?page_id=2#comment-68 I understand if people bring up a field I don't know about I explain how its process must perform under uniformity of nature and how you can't account for it, but what if they say carbon dating, fission track dating, luminescence dating, or starlight estimates seem to be mostly accurate and correct due to the amount of most scientist that agree with its calculations. Regardless if its 100 percent accurate or 0 percent accurate it must work with uniformity of nature? Seems like I would just be repeating myself. What if someone says uniformity doesn't happen, its changes all the time but its moving so slow that we as people can't detect it with our senses or with scientific tools yet. Of course that would be begging the question correct? How should I start a debate with someone who has rejected biblical authority? Should I start with asking for an account for laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and absolute morality? One of my friends says you just need to love the person, you just need to tell the person about the good news of the gospel and the love of Jesus and if they reject that standard walk away until they come back to you, but most people at least I'm aware of reject it and are aware of what the Bible claims, regardless. I do know that love is obviously needed for ministry and teaching, but apologetics is just as important as well isn't it? Doesn't the book of Acts mention Paul giving explanation and argument for the faith? Even Proverbs chapter 4 mentions how we should approach a fool. I've heard Dr. Lisle say a worldview must be consistent or you can come up with anything, but how is that so? I could say either people don't exist and/or mars is made up of sugar. If I believed anything in my worldview why would it matter if I'm inconsistent or not? Basically the last 5 or 3 minutes of Dr. Lisle's presentation on his logical fallacy dvd is what I'm referring to is what I'm not grasping well yet. Thanks alot Nick again for addressing alot of these issues. Its been a huge blessing. I understand if people bring up a field I don’t know about I explain how its process must perform under uniformity of nature and how you can’t account for it, but what if they say carbon dating, fission track dating, luminescence dating, or starlight estimates seem to be mostly accurate and correct due to the amount of most scientist that agree with its calculations. Regardless if its 100 percent accurate or 0 percent accurate it must work with uniformity of nature? Seems like I would just be repeating myself. What if someone says uniformity doesn’t happen, its changes all the time but its moving so slow that we as people can’t detect it with our senses or with scientific tools yet. Of course that would be begging the question correct?

How should I start a debate with someone who has rejected biblical authority? Should I start with asking for an account for laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and absolute morality?

One of my friends says you just need to love the person, you just need to tell the person about the good news of the gospel and the love of Jesus and if they reject that standard walk away until they come back to you, but most people at least I’m aware of reject it and are aware of what the Bible claims, regardless. I do know that love is obviously needed for ministry and teaching, but apologetics is just as important as well isn’t it? Doesn’t the book of Acts mention Paul giving explanation and argument for the faith? Even Proverbs chapter 4 mentions how we should approach a fool.

I’ve heard Dr. Lisle say a worldview must be consistent or you can come up with anything, but how is that so? I could say either people don’t exist and/or mars is made up of sugar. If I believed anything in my worldview why would it matter if I’m inconsistent or not? Basically the last 5 or 3 minutes of Dr. Lisle’s presentation on his logical fallacy dvd is what I’m referring to is what I’m not grasping well yet.
Thanks alot Nick again for addressing alot of these issues. Its been a huge blessing.

]]> Comment on About Dr. Lisle by Ben http://jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/#comment-67 Ben Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:14:31 +0000 http://www.jasonlisle.com/?page_id=2#comment-67 Dr. Lisle wherever you are I would really love to hear your thoughts regarding Nick and I's conversation. Nick. I thought I read differently, okay three basic laws. In a unforunate but furtunate way I lended a good friend of mine Dr. Lisle's book and all his DVDs regarding apologetics assuming she would watch them in a week or so but its been way longer so I'm not exactly sure when I'll get it back but I was going to by a electronic version on AIG so its kinda hard for me to refresh my memory on all this material. I debated someone for my second time ever with this presuppitonal approach in person regarding morality and relativism. The person kept trying to change the subject to something random off topic after I pointed out arbitrariness in his worldview. I didn't want to anger him or try to turn him away from God so every other topic he brought up I tried giving spiritual truth to him, but still he changed the subject time to time. I always heard it was rude to interrupt but I wasn't sure how to keep the topic on morality and such. When I do the A.I.P. test mentioned in Dr. Lisle's book is it really necessary to use every part or just use the ones that appear more often? I know that their are subcategories within arbitrariness, inconsistencies, and the preconditions of intelligibility but I just know what the basic words mean, not the sub categories. If I don't know them its not necessary correct? Just the basic terms? Same with logical fallacies. I know equivocation is a type of ambiguity but it seems very unnecessary from what I understand. I'm not sure if this fear is from the fruit of the flesh mentioned from scripture or demonic or something else, but God has given me a huge desire to make sure kid's are guaranteed to stay in the faith. Dr. Lisle's lesson's on apologetic s has caused me to be secured in it, but kid's at my previous high school, and around my home country I worry for their faith, and I want to teach them about all this material but seemingly where to start. I'm very young and I wouldn't know how to begin a ministry anyway, this article kinda explains what stirs me up http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4/going-gone. Just this urge is seemingly growing in me and I'm not sure where or how can God use it to teach others through me. I forgot but a few days ago you had some articles or some points you had for me but it was pending or it needed to be requested through Dr. Lisle first? Anyway I can get those still or is it still a waiting progress? Also, would Deuteronomy 11:26 be an example of excluded middle, and the Genesis account be creation be an example of law of identity? I'm still trying to figure out how God can account for the other two laws but simple scriptures like these are seemingly all I can find. Dr. Lisle wherever you are I would really love to hear your thoughts regarding Nick and I’s conversation. Nick. I thought I read differently, okay three basic laws. In a unforunate but furtunate way I lended a good friend of mine Dr. Lisle’s book and all his DVDs regarding apologetics assuming she would watch them in a week or so but its been way longer so I’m not exactly sure when I’ll get it back but I was going to by a electronic version on AIG so its kinda hard for me to refresh my memory on all this material. I debated someone for my second time ever with this presuppitonal approach in person regarding morality and relativism. The person kept trying to change the subject to something random off topic after I pointed out arbitrariness in his worldview. I didn’t want to anger him or try to turn him away from God so every other topic he brought up I tried giving spiritual truth to him, but still he changed the subject time to time. I always heard it was rude to interrupt but I wasn’t sure how to keep the topic on morality and such. When I do the A.I.P. test mentioned in Dr. Lisle’s book is it really necessary to use every part or just use the ones that appear more often? I know that their are subcategories within arbitrariness, inconsistencies, and the preconditions of intelligibility but I just know what the basic words mean, not the sub categories. If I don’t know them its not necessary correct? Just the basic terms? Same with logical fallacies. I know equivocation is a type of ambiguity but it seems very unnecessary from what I understand.

I’m not sure if this fear is from the fruit of the flesh mentioned from scripture or demonic or something else, but God has given me a huge desire to make sure kid’s are guaranteed to stay in the faith. Dr. Lisle’s lesson’s on apologetic s has caused me to be secured in it, but kid’s at my previous high school, and around my home country I worry for their faith, and I want to teach them about all this material but seemingly where to start. I’m very young and I wouldn’t know how to begin a ministry anyway, this article kinda explains what stirs me up http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4/going-gone. Just this urge is seemingly growing in me and I’m not sure where or how can God use it to teach others through me. I forgot but a few days ago you had some articles or some points you had for me but it was pending or it needed to be requested through Dr. Lisle first? Anyway I can get those still or is it still a waiting progress?

Also, would Deuteronomy 11:26 be an example of excluded middle, and the Genesis account be creation be an example of law of identity? I’m still trying to figure out how God can account for the other two laws but simple scriptures like these are seemingly all I can find.

]]>