July 2009

I have determined to start an official apologetics ministry.  My first order of business was to create a name.  I settled on “Thinking to Believe” (unless any of you can think of a better name), since this represents my conviction that thinking is vital to both the acquisition and growth of faith.

My second order of business was to work on a logo.  I have come up with 20 different options.  I covet your help in determining which one I will go with.  I have numbered them 1-20.  It would really be a help to me if you could tell me what you think are the top three, in order of your favorite, second favorite, and third favorite (just list the logo numbers).

Of course, if any of you are into design and want to take your own stab at it, that would be great as well.  You can email me your work at jasondulle@yahoo.com.  As you can see from the diversity present, I am open to different looks, but I prefer something that has an “intellectual aura” to it.  I really like the medieval look (both letters and symbols/designs), so if you could come up with something along that line, that would be great.  Thanks!


When man was created he was naked.  Once he sinned he recognized that he was naked, and felt shame.  That began the clothing industry.  The first designer was not DKNY, but YHWH.  Several others have attempted their hand at the design business since YHWH created his first “fall” line (pun intended), but frankly, I’m not so sure YHWH approves of their designs.

We live in a culture that is clothing less and less of their bodies.  Think of the bikini.  Girls wear bikinis like it’s no big deal, but a bikini is nothing more than underwear worn in public (if a bikini is not immodest, then there is no such thing as immodest clothing!).  It’s a little piece of cloth that barely covers the private parts of her body.  Indeed, in many parts of Europe it is acceptable for a woman to only wear one piece of a two-piece bikini!  How is it that our private parts have become public parts?  How have we allowed our bodies to become a spectacle for all to see?


Why is it that when someone challenges a traditional teaching/practice, he is often labeled as “divisive” or a “troublemaker,” and is summarily dismissed?  It may be true that the individual has a divisive attitude or is acting in a troublesome manner, but the attitude in which he dissents or questions a particular doctrine/practice is separate from the arguments he presents against it.  Someone may be the biggest jerk on the planet, but their attitude has nothing to do with whether their arguments are valid, and their beliefs correct.  Simply pointing out their bad attitude does not answer the question of what is true, nor does it excuse us from interacting with their arguments.  Labeling and dismissing those who question the mainstream view is often just a power play, usually employed by those without a rebutting argument.  It’s a way of avoiding discussion, and having to defend their own point of view.


BudziszewskiJ. Budziszewski made a great summary of the cosmological argument for God’s existence.  He wrote, “Anything which might not have been requires a cause.  Philosophers call such things ‘contingent beings.’  But the universe…is itself a contingent being, so the universe must have a cause.  Now if we say that the cause of the universe is another contingent being, we merely invite an infinite regress.  For the regress to have an end, we must eventually reach a being which is not contingent but necessary—not something which might not have been, but something which can’t not be.  Furthermore this necessary being must be sufficient to cause its effects, and so it must have all of the qualities traditionally ascribed to God: Eternity, power, and all the rest.”

NagelIn his book The Last Word, Thomas Nagel, an atheist professor of philosophy and law at New York University School of Law, defended philosophical rationalism against subjectivism.  At one point he admits that rationalism has theistic implications—implications he does not like.  He suggests that subjectivism is due in part to a fear of religion, citing his own fear as a case in point:

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.  It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief.  It’s that I hope there is no God!  I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. … My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.  One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.  Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.”

Nagel’s admission is consistent with the Christian claim that those who reject the existence of God do not do so wholly for intellectual reasons—the will plays a vital role as well.

Archaeologist Eilat Mazar claims to have discovered what is likely King David’s palace.  If the discovery pans out, this would put a nail in the coffin to those who claim David and/or a vast Davidic and Solomonic kingdom is a Jewish myth.

Greg Koukl was taken to task by a caller on his Christian apologetics radio broadcast (Stand to Reason—str.org) for a statement he often used at the end of his discussions on spiritual and moral things: “At least that’s the way I see it.”  Greg was asked if he truly believed that he could be wrong in his views, and about Christianity in general.  His answer was “yes,” and his reasoning was as follows:

There are two categories of truth: necessary truths, contingent truths.  Necessary truths are truths that cannot be otherwise.  For example I cannot be mistaken about my own existence.  Renee Descartes made this clear when he pointed out that we cannot doubt our own existence.  It requires the existence of a mind to doubt, so the presence of doubt proves that there is a personal mind doubting, and thus we must exist.  This led to his famous dictum: Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am).  Neither can we be mistaken that about the fact that there are no square circles because this is an inherently contradictory concept.  We know these things necessarily.


Next Page »