Apologetics and Evidence

I have written before on post-modernism , but not quite so directly. I have recently developed a new way to understand it historically speaking, so that one can get a better grasp of what it is, how it got here, what it means, and where it is going.   Probably more often than not, when someone gives you an explanation on what post-modernism is, you will likely hear something like, “it is the idea that everyone has their own truth” or something to that nature. I think it is helpful to have more than this description. It is helpful to know where post-modernism came from in order to give it less of an authority. If we know where something came from, then it seems to reduce the power that it has. This is why the word  mystery  exists. If  knowledge is power , at least in some sense, then taking the mystery away gives some authority and/or power over such. One of my favorite quotes is from Jacques Cousteau, who said, “If we knew what was there, then we wouldn’t have to go...

“Those are just Semantics… You are just Playing Word Games.”  Have you ever been accused of this? Why are they word games? Are we just spewing out sounds from our mouth that have no meaning? At this point, when someone is accused of playing words games, if the accusation were true, they might as well be shouting gibberish (unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing).  When one makes the flippant claim after you try to show him or her the truth through logic , that you are playing word games, or that you are just discussing semantics (“pffft” followed by an eye roll), these actually are words with meaning. More frequently than I would like to admit, I hear the misapplied accusation of “semantics” or “word games” used as an argument in order to dismiss what was said before the accusation. The thing is, when someone says this, you can simply ask him what he means. Often, he will just tell you that you are playing with words. Here is how to show him that he is misunderst...

Is it Wrong to tell people About Jesus? I have recently discovered a Barna report which explains that some people find it to be morally wrong to evangelize. First of all, let me say why I think this is the case. Under the guise of postmodernism, people believe that truth is in the subject, rather than the object. Truth is relative, in other words. If your truth is different than my truth, then it would be a severe problem, nay, a moral trespass, to offer someone a different truth that would cause them to leave their own truth. It would be offensive, and morally wrong, if it were the case that truth is relative. For instance, if it were true for me that Mormonism was the way I saw reality, then to change my reality to biblical Christianity would be disastrous. It seems that harming one’s reality should be a reason for concern, but the problem is, what if the way someone views the world does not correspond to the truth? If the truth is not in us (the subject) bu...