Ravi Zacharias: Apologist in Error? (Part 3)

In case if you were wondering, Part 3 is 6 minutes long because I ran out of video memory space. So I had to upload these first 3 videos, then delete them on my camera, then record part 4. Argh, so annoying!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christitnity
• Apologetics
• Ravi
• Zacharias
• Atheism
• Feminism
• Bible
• Morality

[Povvels]

When you argue with fools, people from a distance can't tell the difference. There's a lot of big words being thrown around here, and the guy in the video seems very concerned with showing everyone how clever he is. That seems foolish.

[noilleberrebellion]

well put.

[BassP86]

The reason why I stated that mehod as such was because you said that we need asufficient standard to "distinguish human laws from divine laws in the bible". This led me under the impression that you were granting that if the OT and NT laws did not contradict, then we must distinguish which laws in the Bible were made up by men.

[philstilwell]

Sure. You said,

"Jesus claimed to BE God in the Flesh. What logically therefore follows is that we examine the laws to which Jesus referenced and see if they are consistent with those of the Commandments."

There is not a single phrase in the 1st sentence that is found in the 2nd.

I therefore assumed that you must be using "logically" in a colloquial sense.

I'm a bit weary of asking for a modicum of rigor with not success.

I'm moving on. Cheers.

[BassP86]

"Specifically when you say "What logically therefore follows...". If I accept your colloquial use of "logically" for the sake of expediency, don't come back at me with the more rigorous definition (and ironically the one I prefer)." - I'm not understanding what you're saying in this objection. Would you care to elaborate?

[philstilwell]

Review your words. Specifically when you say "What logically therefore follows...". If I accept your colloquial use of "logically" for the sake of expediency, don't come back at me with the more rigorous definition (and ironically the one I prefer).

This is a perfect example why I'd like you to present your arguments in syllogistic rigor.

[BassP86]

That's not how logic works. Whether or not the claim is true, the statement still has to follow logical validity regardless. It is not substantiated that:

A) All birds have purple tails.

B) All cats are birds.

C) Therefore all cats have purple tails.

Whether or not the argument is true is irrelevant. The argument still follows logical validity, even though it may NOT be true. Don't confuse truth with validity, Phil. (cont.)

[philstilwell]

That Jesus was God in the Flesh.

[BassP86]

And what claim is that?

[philstilwell]

You've wrongly categorized the method and disposition of skepticism as an ideology. The 3 tests for truth you've mentioned are themselves great candidates for part of the foundation of this skepticism.

If you'd like to see how I assess christianity with these tests, check out philstilwellDOTcom.