Pondering this thought/question::

Wondering if the "rise" of the use of presuppositionalism in apologetics is related to the increased influence of dominionist theology as both have a common "modern" core in one man Rousas John Rushdoony:

All issues are religious in nature, he posited, and people don’t have the right or the ability to define for themselves what’s true; for that they must turn to a literal reading of the Bible. His defining tome, the 800-page Institutes of Biblical Law, was published in 1973,,, At the heart of Rushdoony’s argument were two biblical passages. Genesis 1:28 commands men to have “dominion” over “every living thing.” And in Matthew 28:18-20, the “Great Commission,” Jesus commands his followers to proselytize to the world. Thus was born dominion theology,,, In this worldview, the mandate for Christians is not just to live right or to help their neighbors: They are called upon to take over or eliminate the institutions of secular government.

Focusing on Rushdoony does not take away the earlier influence Van Til on the dominionist movement but it is the difference between the two that may highlight the growth in both dominionism and presup "logic."

Van Til held true knowledge came from God, whereas Rushdoony asserted that "all non-Christian knowledge is sinful, invalid nonsense. The only valid knowledge that non-Christians possess is 'stolen' from 'Christian-theistic' sources."

Yea this is gonna be a long night,,,roflmao!!

Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit | Atheomedy

A most excellent take on the bullshittery called Christian apologetics. Altho I follow some of the happenings with these mental mind games, probably not as closely as I should. What the author does in his article is shred William Lane Craig down to size in 3 easy steps, "But, are their arguments really that bad, you might ask? YES. Yes, they are. One need look no further than the grand poobah of Christian apologists, William Lane Craig,,,Craig basically relies on sleight-of-hand trickery, as do most Christian apologists. But anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills can see exactly how he pulls the proverbial rabbit out of the hat."

What I especially appreciated is Bennett's attack of Craig's explanation of the Problem of Evil and genocide. I have heard Craig speak on this numerous times. Each time my stomach churns especially in regards to the slaughter of children in the Bile,,,

With respect to the Problem of Evil, Craig argues that evil is actually proof of God’s existence. Because, you see, evil denotes “a departure from the way things ought to be.” And, if there’s “a way things ought to be,” then there must be a design plan set forth by a Creator. QED. Everything is the result of God’s design.

[,,,]
But what about the children, Professor Craig? Why the innocent children?

If [you] believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Those lucky little fucks! Now, excuse me while I go on an infanticidal killing spree, so that more of God’s precious children can “quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy.” I’m sure the parents won’t mind. After all, I’m just expediting their salvation! 

Bennett hits it with this posting IMHO and shows why an apologist's view on Christianity sucks donkey dick,,,ENJOY!!

Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit | Atheomedy