Español

¿Es la Biblia nuestra principal autoridad?

¿Es la Biblia nuestra principal autoridad?

By David Pallmann

Many Christians feel that it is wrong to show unbelievers evidence of the truth of Christianity. [1] These Christians consider the traditional method of apologetics to be an affront to the Scriptures by not giving them the respect and place they deserve. The concern is that by displaying evidence of the truth of the Scriptures, more importance will be given to the evidence and not to the Scripture. This reasoning can be stated thus:

  1. If a work leads us to consider something to have greater authority than Scripture, as Christians, we should not participate in it.
  2. Providing evidence for the truthfulness of Scripture involves elevating the authority of the evidence over Scripture.
  3. Therefore, Christians should not use evidence to prove the truth of Scripture.

Michael Krueger expresses this same sentiment when he says,

“If the line of argument leads the nonbeliever to believe in the Bible because it has a stamp of approval from science, archaeology, and historical criticism, then these disciplines and not the Bible will be his ultimate authority.” [2]

In this article I hope to show that the traditional apologist can respond to this type of argument on two fronts. Once we agree on what it means to say that Scripture is the primary authority for oneself, it becomes more apparent that belief is not contrary to presenting evidence for the truthfulness of Scripture. In short, traditional evidence-based apologetics affirms that Scripture is the primary authority for the Christian.

Two types of authority

In order not to err, we must understand that there are two types of authority. The Polish philosopher Józef Maria Bocheński made an important distinction between deontic authority and epistemic authority . [3] A deontic authority is one that is able to tell you how you should behave. Examples of such an authority are your boss or a policeman. These people can tell you, to a certain extent, what to do.

An epistemic authority is very different. Epistemic authorities are empowered to tell you what to believe. Examples of this are a scholar, a doctor, or some other type of expert. These people are highly educated and can be called “authorities” only in their area of ​​expertise.

The main difference between deontic authority and epistemic authority is in the spheres in which they exert their influence. Deontic authorities tell you how to behave. Epistemic authorities tell you what to believe.

Applying the distinction

Now that we know there are two kinds of authorities, let’s explain what it means to say that Scripture is our primary authority. It seems pretty obvious that this phrase implies that Scripture is a deontic authority. When someone says that Scripture is their primary authority, they are essentially saying that they must obey God first rather than men (Acts 5:29). Scripture will determine a Christian’s behavior, even if it conflicts with another authority (e.g., the government).

Reasoned in this way, it is evident that the original argument is mistaken. The first premise refers to a deontic authority, and the second premise refers to epistemic authority. Because of this and under a deontic understanding of Scripture as the believer’s primary authority, the conclusion of the argument is not valid.

Scripture as an Epistemic Authority

Although the argument is invalid from the perspective of the deontic authority of Scripture, there is a drawback. Scripture not only tells us how to behave, it also tells us what to believe. So, not only is Scripture a deontic authority, it also serves as an epistemic authority. Should we also regard Scripture as our primary epistemic authority?

To answer this question, we must have a clear understanding of the role that epistemic authorities play in the formation of well-founded beliefs. First, we must recognize that beliefs based on epistemic authorities are inherently weaker in justification than beliefs based on evidence. This is because when knowledge is acquired through authority, there is one more element in the line that distances the believer from the truth of the belief. When someone believes an argument that is based on evidence, the link between that person and the truth of the belief is stronger. When one relies on epistemic authority, one is trusting that the authority has correctly (hopefully!) based its beliefs on a set of evidence to which the believer does not have free and independent access. The indirectness of belief provides more opportunities for errors to be made. Therefore, when a belief is supported by the statements of an authority, it is unlikely to be true, contrary to what happens with a belief that is directly based on evidence. This leads us to the following argument: Epistemic authorities are not valuable because they possess something valuable that emanates from their authority. They are valuable because they are the means by which we connect to the truth. Epistemic Authorities are useful as long as they can achieve that goal. As Richard Feldman observes:

“ Inferential rules are not excellent because they are used by experts. Rather, experts are good teachers of good methods because they have a better understanding of what is going on.” [4]

Now, none of the above is intended to minimize the importance and contribution of epistemic authorities. It is clear that we cannot have at our disposal all the relevant evidence for every possible belief. That is where Epistemic Authorities grant us access to knowledge about something without having to examine each piece of evidence in detail. The price paid for this advantage is that one puts oneself at greater risk of having acquired a belief that is not true.

To reduce this risk, it is critical that we have sufficient reasons to say that an authority is trustworthy. If there is no way to prove the trustworthiness of an authority, we would have to take one of two positions; either we blindly accept anyone who calls themselves an authority, which would lead us to make arbitrary decisions about which authorities we would trust, or we would be forced to reject all epistemic authority. As John DePoe points out:

“Authorities play a valuable epistemic role because they are sources for acquiring comprehensible beliefs and knowledge that would otherwise be inaccessible, or because they are able to bring us closer to epistemic treasures in a few steps… For me, what is most important is to choose an authority that is so with reasons, I must have solid arguments to consider it an authority in the areas where it presents itself as such.” [5]

It is impossible to have greater epistemic authority when authority is considered the main source of knowledge. Every person must continually decide whether to believe what an authority says. It is their duty to inform themselves and choose which authorities they will trust, but independent access to evidence is always necessary.

The Main Epistemic Authority

It has been clearly stated that evidence is of utmost importance when trying to prove something. There is no way to compare between the main epistemic authority and the main deontic authority. It is through evidence that we judge between various epistemic authorities and decide which ones are trustworthy. This does not deny that there can be a main epistemic authority among various authorities. For example: If I had some symptoms and went to consult two doctors to know their diagnosis. And one doctor only asks me routine questions while the other doctor performs a complete examination. Both doctors are authorities, but the one who performed the complete examination is the main authority, therefore, his diagnosis should be taken more seriously. In this case I can say that I have a main epistemic authority. It should be noted that the word “main” is within a context of comparison. I consider an authority as the main one among other authorities, but within the same area of ​​knowledge. In the same way, the Christian can make Scripture his or her primary authority among other authorities (pastors, theologians, etc.) regarding the nature, will, character, and revelation of God. So, from a certain angle, Scripture is the primary epistemic authority when compared to other authorities, since Scripture is given greater epistemic weight.

But since evidence is central to determining who has the title of authority, it maintains epistemic priority over any authority. Importantly, this suggests that evidence is not itself an authority. On this understanding of evidence and authority, the second premise of the initial argument is false. It confuses justification with authority. Although authorities have a legitimizing role, not all justification comes in the form of authority. If it did, we would have no reason to trust any purported authority as such.

A final consideration

In my view, Christians who use the “primary authority” argument understand something very different from what I have presented here. They do not claim that Scripture is solely their ultimate epistemic authority among a number of authorities on any particular subject. They seem to consider that Scripture should be our primary source of knowledge. To make belief in Scripture conditional on the existence of sufficient evidence is to admit that Scripture is not the primary source of knowledge.

I don’t understand why this is a problem for the traditional apologist. Having faith in an authority on the basis of evidence does not compromise the status of that authority or somehow make the evidence a “higher authority” in any meaningful sense. We must only recognize that evidence is necessary to believe that an authority is trustworthy in what it says. Perhaps some will find this claim unacceptable. But what is the alternative? To believe without any evidence at all? This would be epistemic irresponsibility. Indeed, it seems impossible. For surely before one can believe the teachings of Scripture, one must know them, either by hearing or reading Scripture. This shows that Scripture cannot be the primary source of knowledge.

If critics continue to claim that the traditional apologist holds evidence to be a higher authority than Scripture, then we must only respond that they are claiming that “primary authority” is synonymous with “primary source of knowledge.” This is a definition of “authority” that the traditional apologist has a right to reject. If the critic wants to continue to hold to this definition of the word, I think it is evident that they are arbitrarily creating definitions and concepts in order to accuse those who do not think like them of undermining or undermining the status and standing of Scripture. In which case, they are mucking things up. From the critics’ perspective, the traditional apologist feels no discomfort in not holding Scripture to be his “primary authority.” In doing so, the critics are putting words into the traditional apologist that no traditional apologist would say.

Summary and Conclusion

In this article I have briefly presented an objection to traditional apologetics which claims that the traditional method makes evidence an authority above Scripture. We have seen that the traditional apologist can give a two-fold response. His first response may be to assert that Scripture is his primary deontic authority, but this does not imply that it is his primary epistemic authority. If the critic argues that Scripture is also an epistemic authority, the traditional apologist can reply that epistemic authorities are limited to very specific topics. Thus, we can recognize Scripture as the primary epistemic authority for learning truths about God, but we cannot recognize it as the primary epistemic authority for finding accurate information about God. Furthermore, he can argue that evidence does not function as an epistemic authority, but rather functions as the means for recognizing the competence of an authority. Clearly, if evidence is not a type of authority, then it cannot become an authority superior to Scripture.

I therefore conclude that once we have clarified what is meant by the argument from “the authority of Scripture,” arguments such as the one offered in the introduction are either equivocal, insensitive to the nature of epistemic authorities, or confuse all justification with a type of authority. In either case, the arguments are not valid for reaching that conclusion. Therefore, the traditional apologist can confidently present evidence for Scripture without sacrificing the authority of Scripture.

Grades

[1] I speak particularly of presuppositionalists. However, similar arguments are common among various critics of apologetics. Such arguments are not exclusive to presuppositionalists.

[2] Michael J. Krueger, “The Sufficiency of the Scripture in Apologetics” TMSJ-12/1 (Spring 2001) pp. 69-87.

[3] JM Bocheński, “The Logic of Religion” New York: New York University Press, 1965, pp. 164-167.

[4] Richard Feldman, “Authoritarian Epistemology” (Earl Conee and Richard Feldman Evidentialism), New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 127.

[5] John M. DePoe, “A Classical Edentialist Response to Covenantal Epistemology,” in “Debating Christian Religious Epistemology,” New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2020 , Pages 167-168.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

David Pallmann is a student at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary . He is also a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians and runs the YouTube channel Apologetics ministry Faith Because of Reason.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Jm85zkT

Translated by Gustavo Camarillo 

Edited by Yohangel Morales 

 

/by
¿Hay profetas en la Iglesia hoy en día?

¿Hay profetas en la Iglesia hoy en día?

By Jason Jimenez

Turn on your television and you will surely come across religious programs with someone claiming to speak for God. Go to your local bookstore, and there, I am sure you will find several books written by people who claim to have received divine revelations from God. Go on YouTube, and you will definitely see videos of preachers proclaiming, “Thus saith the Lord.”

This bombardment of “prophetic words” from thousands of voices has undoubtedly caused confusion for many Christians. In one group, you have Christians who get caught up in the sensationalism of the prophetic words espoused by the Word of Faith movement. In another group, you have Christians who doubt prophecy altogether, because they lack the faith to understand its purpose in the body of Christ. And still there are those who do not know what to believe.

So, let’s go back to the Bible to see what it has to say about prophets.

The first thing we notice about Paul is that there are prophets in the Church today. In Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul mentions the office of prophet in the church. Not only that, but Paul also describes the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 12:10. In fact, the gift of prophecy is mentioned more than any of the other spiritual gifts. You can find it in these passages: Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:27-29; 13:1-3, 8; 14:6, and in Ephesians 4:11.

That said, it is vital to understand that the office of prophet in modern times is not the same as that of the Old Testament prophets. Before Jesus came to earth, God raised up prophets (Hebrew: nabi, “to utter”) or seers (spokesmen) as national leaders who spoke with specificity and 100% accuracy in their prophecies (Deut. 18:20-22; Jer. 23:28, 31-33). But after Christ’s ascension to heaven and the completion of the written Word, God uses His modern prophets differently than He did Samuel, Daniel, and Isaiah. The writer of Hebrews makes this clear when he opens his letter with these words: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake long ago unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds” Hebrews 1:1-2 (NASB). 

Furthermore, according to 1 Corinthians 14:3-4, the primary function of a prophet now is to edify, comfort, and encourage the Church. However, that does not mean that predictive prophecy is not exercised among some prophets of God. Like Agabus (in Acts 11:27-28), there are times when a prophet will give a prophetic word from God about the future. That is why we must not neglect prophecy in the Church (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21). But again, the primary purpose of the gift of prophecy, in the Church age, is to encourage and exhort one another (1 Cor. 14:31). Prophets are not called by God to generate visions that others in the church cannot judge (1 Cor. 14:29).

Therefore, we should not look to the prophets for a new revelation, but for an exhortation in accordance with the illumination of the Scriptures.

Finally, the following six indicators will help you distinguish between a true prophet and a false prophet.

  1. The word of a true prophet will be fulfilled. The word of prediction of a false prophet will not be fulfilled (Deut. 18; Jer. 23).
  2. A true prophet never gives a word that contradicts the Bible. A false prophet will twist Scripture to validate a dream or vision he has had. For example, false prophets will take prophecies explicitly intended for Israel and apply them to the United States, directly contradicting God’s promises in the Bible.
  3. A true prophet does not boast or have a profit motive. A false prophet boasts of having received a “prophetic word” or a vision from God as if he were divinely anointed and exploits the church for financial gain.
  4. The ministry of a true prophet aligns with what the Bible teaches. A false prophet speaks more of his heavenly visions and “prophetic words” than what the Holy Bible contextually teaches. “Your prophets saw for you false and foolish visions, and did not reveal your iniquity so that you might return from your captivity, but they saw for you false and deceptive oracles” (Lamentations 2:14).
  5. A true prophet builds up the church and points people to Jesus Christ. A false prophet does not call people to repentance but shares messages that appeal to their needs and desires. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NIV), “For the time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires; and they will turn their ears away from the truth and be turned aside to myths.”
  6. The defense of a true prophet comes from the Holy Spirit. A false prophet continually tells people that he is not a false prophet.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jason Jimenez is president of STAND STRONG Ministries and the author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more information, visit www.standstrongministries.org .

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/9mwmCNy

 

/by
Una celebridad cristiana versus un psicópata

Una celebridad cristiana versus un psicópata

By Bob Perry

If you were looking to follow a Christian apologist you could trust completely, would you choose someone who is a world-famous figure because of his unparalleled ability to articulate the gospel? Or would you go with a diagnosed and confessed psychopath? The best choice is not as obvious as it might seem at first glance. In this case, I would choose the psychopath. And I would say that I am going with the recommendation of the… psychopath. But if this sounds strange to you, read on.

A Christian celebrity

Last month we learned that world-famous apologist Ravi Zacharias was leading a double life. This was admitted by the ministry he founded, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). On the one hand, Ravi was an extraordinary expositor of the gospel. A great thinker. Who defended the faith with clarity and with the experience provided by a rich cultural background. He truly ticked all the boxes. A man who could deal with the most aggressive skeptic with humility, grace, and truth. He was a model apologist. The kind of person every defender of Christianity longs to emulate. At least outwardly.

Behind closed doors, it turned out that Ravi was a degenerate. An abuser of women. His creepy sexual proclivities have been exposed for the world to see. Ravi’s post-mortem downfall is sad. But it is also proof that the prophet Jeremiah was right when he wrote (Jeremiah 17:9) that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond remedy; who can understand it? ”

The psychopath

Although not as popular as Ravi Zachary, David Wood is also an extraordinary communicator. Known for being a reference on the subject of Islam. But David Wood is much more than that. Wood has a PhD in Philosophy of Religion, with a major in “the problem of evil.” He is an expert on this subject as well – mainly because he has lived his entire life as a psychopath. This is not my personal opinion, but a clinical diagnosis. If you wish, you can listen to his testimony here . The thirty-four minutes you spend listening to him will leave you speechless.

https://youtu.be/DakEcY7Z5GU

David Wood feels no emotion when his pets die, or even when his friends die. He admits to the difficulties he experiences as a husband and father. In his own words, he is a “mess of an individual.” He goes into more detail about why he says this, here (starting at minute 30:30).

Wood attempted to kill his father by beating him with a hammer. As a result, he served a prison sentence. It was there that he met Randy, a fellow inmate and Christian who challenged him to answer some questions—and to reflect on the implications of his self-proclaimed atheism. Wood idolized reason and rationality. But Randy forced him to reason about the existence of objective morality, and the Source of it. His story is a powerful example of why the search for truth should be our primary goal. And a reminder that the Truth is found in Jesus of Nazareth—in Him alone.

Reaction to Ravi

The Ravi Zacarias case has received a lot of press. Some of it comes from Ravi’s supporters who deny the allegations against him. People in this camp tend to believe that multiple women, from all over the world, all interviewed privately, have miraculously arrived at identical descriptions of Ravi’s methods and tastes. To continue to believe that is simply delusional.

Then there are the critics of Christianity who are weaponizing Ravi’s story. Turning it into the latest version of the false argument that hypocritical Christians make Christianity impossible to believe. It’s ridiculous. As David Wood puts it: “If you tell me that 2 + 2 = 4 and then punch me in the mouth, that shouldn’t make me doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. And if you tell me that 2 + 2 = 5 and then buy me a new car, that shouldn’t make me believe that 2 + 2 = 5.”

The truth Ravi communicated is still the truth, even if it came from the mouth of a diabolical sexual predator.

These are the extremes. On the other hand, the most reasonable comments have come from those who have given wise counsel about personal and professional accountability. No one who claims to be a minister of the gospel can feel empowered to demand unchecked freedom, as Ravi Zechariah did. And no ministerial leadership team should have allowed him to receive it. Both Ravi and RZIM are responsible for the consequences. The heart referred to in Jeremiah 17:9 lives in all of us. Even those who are considered Christian “celebrities.”

Contrasting characters

Pride is a powerful drug. It allowed Ravi Zacharias to rationalize his perversions. And he used the reach of his global ministry as a justification to cover them up. Because indeed, millions of people would be “disappointed” if the women he abused told the world what he was doing. So this Christian celebrity dug himself deeper and deeper into his own sewer and never admitted that he was drowning. No apologies. No remorse.

On the other hand, the psychopath’s callous rationality led him to recognize his own vulnerability to the trap of pride. In this case, at least, he is the one we can trust. But in his wisdom, he knows better than to encourage us to trust him. Instead, his message is a word of warning: Put your trust in no man .

The immutable truth

Celebrity status has never been a measure of moral virtue. Ravi Zacharias is certainly not the first Christian celebrity to prove this point. And he won’t be the last.

Nor does being a sinner deny anyone the ability to know and live the truth… even if he or she is a psychopath.

The lesson for all of us here is that the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christianity does not reside in any human being. It rests only on the objective reality that is its Source—the character of God Himself. Men will disappoint you. But Truth does not change. And it never will.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org. He is a contributing writer for Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of experience in military and commercial flight. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the United States Naval Academy and a Master of Science degree in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five adult children.

Original source of the blog: https://cutt.ly/qnSxsek

Translated by Daniela Checa Delgado

Edited by Amber Porta

 

/by
Las 5 personas más ilógicas que conocerás en Internet

Las 5 personas más ilógicas que conocerás en Internet

By Alisa Childers

It’s happened to many of us. We post an encouraging Bible verse like Psalm 145:9 on Facebook: ” The Lord is good to all, and his compassion is over all his works .” At noon an atheist somewhere on social media finds the post and leaves a lovely comment:

Seriously? Your god is good? He’s so good and compassionate that he decided to literally drown the entire world in a flood? So good that he’s okay with slavery? That god? Yeah, that sounds amazing.

The person leaving comments like these probably isn’t looking for a real conversation, but they are a great example of the abundance of bad logic waiting to be discovered in the dark corners of cyberspace. Here are the 5 most illogical people you’ll find on the Internet, and how to spot their fallacies:

1. The Straw Man

How easy do you think it would be to take down a fake man made entirely of straw? It would be a lot easier than taking down a real man, that’s for sure. This happens in the world of social media disagreements – All-The-Time. The “Straw Man” is a fallacy where someone simplifies or misrepresents their opponent’s view (builds a straw man), and then argues against that false view (takes down the straw man). Straw men can often be found in discussions about abortion:

  • You : “I think there is good scientific evidence that life begins at conception.”
  • Straw Man : “You mean women should lose their rights and this country should be sent back to the 1950s? That’s ridiculous.”

You made a claim about scientific evidence, not about women’s rights. The strawman has twisted your argument and created one that is much easier to refute.

2. The Red Herring or the Red Lure

The “Red Decoy” fallacy is committed when someone brings up an irrelevant point that diverts attention from the original point that was made. Changing the subject doesn’t actually win an argument, but it can make people forget what they were disagreeing about in the first place.

  • You : “I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus claimed to be God.”
  • The Red Decoy : “The Bible is just a book written by humans; it is no different from any other book.”

Red bait has shifted attention from what the Bible teaches to the credibility of the Bible as a book. It is a worthy discussion, but it is a different discussion, don’t take the bait.

3. The Slanderer

This fallacy is called “Ad-Hominem,” and it attacks the character of the person making the claim, rather than addressing the person’s actual argument.

  • You : “I think it’s best for children for marriage to be between a man and a woman.”
  • The Slanderer : “You only believe this because you’re a fanatic.”

The slanderer has shifted the focus from your claim to his perception of the motive behind it, thereby avoiding the real argument. The strawman, the red herring, and the slanderer can be handled in a similar way, gently bringing them back to their original point.

4. The Self-Destructor

A self-defeator is a person who makes a statement that refutes themselves. You can spot a self-defeating statement by taking the statement being made and applying it to the statement itself.

  • You : “I believe Christianity is true.”
  • The Self-Destructor : “the truth does not exist.”

If you can spot this self-defeating statement, a simple question will bring the fallacy to the surface: “Is that true?”

5. The Gish or Machine Gun Gallop

The “Gish Gallop” (or machine gun fallacy) is a fallacy where someone introduces so many (often individually weak) arguments into a space that it is never possible to respond to them all. This happens most often in live debates, but there are “machine gun fallacies” on the internet too!

  • You : “I believe that Jesus rose from the dead.”
  • The Fallacy Machine Gun: We can’t trust anything the Bible says because the Gospels were written hundreds of years after the apostles were alive, and they all tell different stories. In fact, the Old Testament stories of the Flood and Creation were simply copies of myths from the surrounding culture, and frankly, the resurrection can’t happen because science has proven that miracles aren’t possible. The story of Jesus is nothing more than a compilation of other myths about gods dying and rising in Mediterranean agrarian societies. Paul wasn’t really an apostle so we can’t trust what he said, and Jesus probably never existed anyway.

Note that the fallacy gunner has introduced several possibly related but unsubstantiated claims that no person with a real life or job would be able to sit down and answer in one sitting—it would take all day! There are several ways to deal with a fallacy gunner, but the simplest would be to stay within the scope of your original claim. You didn’t make any claims about the Bible, the Flood and Creation accounts, or Paul’s status as an apostle. You made a claim about a miracle, so that’s a good place to start.

Conclusion :

It’s easy for any of us to fall into some of these traps, so look out for these 5 illogical people while interacting on social media, and be careful not to be one yourself!

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being part of the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had one top ten radio single, four studio releases, and received a Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. Years later, Alisa experienced a profound challenge to her lifelong faith when she began attending what would later be identified as a progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa towards Christian Apologetics. You can currently read, listen to, and watch Alisa’s work online, as well as purchase her recently released book on progressive Christianity, titled Another Gospel.

Original source of the blog: https://cutt.ly/3nSwf67

Translated by Elias Castro

Edited by Cynthia Araya 

 

/by
Cinco consejos para enseñar apologética cristiana

Cinco consejos para enseñar apologética cristiana

By Dr. Doug Potter

I have taught Christian apologetics to a wide variety of students, from 11-year-olds to seminary students. I have done so in a variety of settings; in Christian school, at church, in homes, and at graduate schools; in person and online. I have even helped bring publications to light. Teaching apologetics continues to be a challenge for me. Sometimes I think I have forgotten more apologetics than my students will ever know.

Over the years I have found that apologetics, in the realm of Christian education, is often misunderstood. For example, apologetics, while related to the following topics, is not a study of creationism, worldviews, Christian doctrine, ethics, evangelism, or the Bible. Don’t get me wrong, I am not opposed to the student learning these foundational topics. What I am opposed to is the study of all or any of these topics being called apologetics education. So what does Christian apologetics education encompass ? It is a specialized subject whose focus is the ” use of knowledge to demonstrate that the teachings of Christianity are true .”

Because of this, it applies knowledge from three distinct but interconnected subjects: philosophy and its concern for truth, natural theology and its concern for the existence of God, and history and its concern for Christianity. The foundation of philosophy establishes the absolute nature of truth. On it is built a theistic worldview that is based on the existence of God and miracles. And in these is the historical claim that Christ is God incarnate, His resurrection from the dead, and the teaching that the Bible is the Word of God.

Reasons to teach apologetics

If I am asked for a justification for teaching this, I offer three reasons why every Christian school, church, and Christian home should begin teaching a structured course in Christian apologetics. First, the Bible says that every believer needs to be prepared to give reasoned answers.

“But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is in you, but do this with gentleness and respect.”

( 1 Peter 3:15 ) NASB ; emphasis added .

The justification for Christian education to incorporate the study of apologetics is in what it offers, as it helps the student to have a more effective and efficient preparation compared to any other form.

Second, history demonstrates its success. In the first century, the apostle Paul used apologetics to respond to attacks from Judaism, Hellenism, and early Gnosticism. In the third century, Origen used it to defend the resurrection. Augustine (335-430) used it against paganism, and Thomas Aquinas (1224/5-1274) argued against the intellectual expansion of Islam. There is every reason to believe that apologists today can experience the same level of success using it.

Third, there is a present need. Today’s critics will not allow their objections to Christianity to be ignored. Therefore, the thoughtful person must take them seriously. Apologists must strive to provide good answers. Many young Christians go out into the world not knowing why they believe what they believe. It is not long before they question a faith that has never offered well-reasoned answers. If they go to college, they will be schooled in so-called “academic” views that are contrary to the Christian faith. If they are outside the classroom, their non-Christian friends and the media will speak of these “academic” views as undeniable facts.

In view of these circumstances, I offer five helpful tips that can pave the way toward the educational goal of demonstrating the truth of Christianity .

1. Apologetic education must be directed toward the believer

This may seem obvious, but I have seen professors who claim to have all the answers speak things that are incomprehensible to their students and to the intellectual atheist who is not even in the classroom. My apologetics professor was a master at taking the complex and making it understandable. He did not simplify it or ignore the difficulties, but made it understandable. He instilled in me a desire to develop and practice those skills. Teaching apologetics is not intended to create a professional apologist, any more than teaching physics is our goal to create a professional in physics. Teaching apologetics should defend the faith, but it should also strengthen those who have faith. The Gospel according to Luke shows us the careful planning that goes into preparing and transmitting knowledge for the benefit of the believer:

“ Many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled  among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore I, most excellent Theophilus, have carefully investigated all these things from the very beginning and have decided to write them down to you in an orderly manner, so that you may be fully assured of what you were taught .”

(Luke 1:1-4 NIV)

2. Apologetic education must be appropriate to the age of the student.

I take seriously the words and warning of Jesus in Matthew 18:5-6,

“ And whoever welcomes one such child in My name welcomes Me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. ”

(Matthew 18:5-6 NASB)

As a professional apologetics teacher, I do not believe it is fruitful to teach apologetic arguments to children who have not yet developed abstract reasoning. Let us leave them to normal Christian education. Let us not allow the child’s structure of faith and authority in his parents, his teachers, and the Bible to be damaged, even by apologetics. This does not mean that at their young age they are incapable of learning some apologetics topics. But even when they are a little older, apologetics should not be simplified, nor should reason be allowed to replace their faith. When they are old enough, move on to tip #3.

3. Apologetic education must follow a systematic plan

Not all approaches to apologetics are created equal. Given the situations and reasons above, an educational approach must use a method that demonstrates that solid and valid consecutive arguments can be formulated from scratch to the absolute truth of Christianity. As seen in the verses above, this educational approach must build cases for Christianity (Luke 1:1-4) that are useful to the believer and effective in answering the questions or objections of the unbeliever (1 Peter 3:15).

Any other interest in learning a biblical subject should be part of learning apologetics. It is a branch of knowledge that must be mastered. The responsibility of the teacher includes developing objectives, structuring syllabi, using creative teaching techniques, and making assessments. The responsibility of the student includes reading the materials provided by the teacher, taking notes, listening carefully, working on projects – individual and group – and also taking exams.

4. Apologetic education must be composed of activities

We learn best when we put into practice what a respected and knowledgeable teacher teaches us. The teacher must provide students with the opportunity to succeed and the safety to fail with apologetics, all with a view to developing a lifelong learner of apologetics. One thing I have realized is that I don’t really “learn” something until I use it, and repeatedly. The more I use it, the more it becomes a part of me. My students often tell me that the most meaningful thing I did for them was “force” them to use apologetics and then reflect on and report on it. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. For younger students, I set up role-playing games. For older students, I use internal discussions, mock radio or television programs, or have them talk to someone with a non-Christian worldview. Learning apologetics is also a great opportunity to integrate knowledge from many other subjects.

5. Apologetic education must recognize its limitations

Apologetics can only show that Christianity is true in its core claims like “truth is absolute,” “God exists,” “God raised Jesus from the dead,” and “the Bible is the Word of God.” It cannot make someone believe in Christ. That has to do with their will and the work of the Holy Spirit. Doctrine discovered and based solely on Scripture must be accepted as the command of God and His word. But as my apologetics professor always reminded us, “God never bypasses the mind when He addresses the heart.”

I am sometimes asked whether apologetics will keep a son or daughter from leaving the faith. People can walk away from the faith for all sorts of reasons. All I can say is that if they have received apologetic education, especially as indicated above, at least it will not have been for lack of good reasons showing that Christianity is true.

Keep in mind that young people tend to be what their parents are. The most important person to help young people stay in the faith is you. Don’t forget to ask yourself, what am I doing to improve my knowledge and skills in Christian apologetics?

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/lnZQr1y 

Translated by Rolando Vega

Edited by Gustavo Camarillo 

 

/by

Las contradicciones filosóficas de la cosmovisión transgénero

By Ryan T. Anderson

El pensamiento de los activistas transgénero es inherentemente confuso y lleno de contradicciones internas. Los activistas nunca reconocen esas contradicciones. En su lugar, de manera oportunista se basan en cualquier afirmación que sea útil en un momento dado.

La gente dice que vivimos en una era posmoderna que ha rechazado la metafísica. Eso no es del todo cierto. Vivimos en una época posmoderna que promueve una metafísica alternativa. Como explico en Cuando Harry se convirtió en Sally, en el corazón del momento transgénero hay ideas radicales sobre la persona humana, en particular, que las personas son lo que dicen ser, independientemente de la evidencia contraria. Un niño transgénero es un niño, no simplemente una niña que se identifica como un niño. Es comprensible por qué los activistas hacen estas afirmaciones. Un argumento sobre las identidades transgénero será mucho más persuasivo si se refiere a quién es alguien, no simplemente a cómo alguien se identifica. Y así la retórica del momento transgénero viene con afirmaciones ontológicas: las personas son el género que prefieren ser. Esa es la afirmación.

Los activistas transgéneros no admiten que se trata de una afirmación metafísica. No quieren tener el debate sobre el nivel de la filosofía, así que lo visten como una afirmación científica y médica. Y han cooptado muchas asociaciones profesionales para su causa. Así, la Asociación Americana de Psicología, en un folleto titulado “Respuestas a sus preguntas sobre las personas transgénero, la identidad de género y la expresión de género”, nos dicen: “Transgénero es un término general para las personas cuya identidad de género, expresión de género o comportamiento no se ajusta a lo que normalmente se asocia con el sexo al que fueron asignados al nacer”. Fíjense en el lenguaje politizado: el sexo de una persona es “asignado al nacer”. En 2005, incluso la Campaña de Derechos Humanos se refirió en su lugar al “sexo de nacimiento” y al “sexo físico”.

La frase “sexo asignado al nacer” ahora es favorable porque deja espacio para la “identidad de género” como la base real del sexo de una persona. En una declaración de expertos ante un tribunal federal de distrito en Carolina del Norte en relación con H.B. 2, la Dra. Deanna Adkins declaró: “Desde una perspectiva médica, el determinante apropiado del sexo es la identidad de género”. La Dra. Adkins es una profesora en la Escuela de Medicina de la Universidad de Duke y directora del Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (que abrió sus puertas en 2015). Adkins argumenta que la identidad de género no es sólo la base preferida para determinar el sexo, sino “el único determinante médicamente apoyado del sexo”. Todos los demás métodos son mala ciencia, afirma: “Es contrario a la ciencia médica usar cromosomas, hormonas, órganos reproductivos internos, genitales externos o características sexuales secundarias para anular la identidad de género con el fin de clasificar a alguien como hombre o mujer”.

Esta es una afirmación notable, sobre todo porque el argumento recientemente fue que el género es sólo una construcción social, mientras que el sexo es una realidad biológica. Ahora, los activistas afirman que la identidad de género es el destino, mientras que el sexo biológico es la construcción social.

Adkins no dice si aplicaría esta regla a todas las especies de mamíferos. Pero, ¿por qué el sexo debería determinarse de manera diferente en los seres humanos que en otros mamíferos? Y si la ciencia médica sostiene que la identidad de género determina el sexo en los seres humanos, ¿qué significa esto para el uso de agentes medicinales que tienen diferentes efectos en hombres y mujeres? ¿La dosis adecuada de la medicina depende del sexo del paciente o de su identidad de género?

Pero, ¿qué es exactamente esta “identidad de género” que se supone que es el verdadero determinante médico del sexo? Adkins lo define como “el sentido interno de una persona de pertenecer a un género en particular, tal como el hombre o la mujer”. Tenga en cuenta que la pequeña frase “tal como”, lo que implica que las opciones no se limitan necesariamente a hombre o mujer. Otros activistas son más próximos en admitir que la identidad de género no tiene por qué limitarse a la elección binaria de hombre o mujer, pero puede incluir ambos o ninguno. La Asociación Americana de Psicología, por ejemplo, define la “identidad de género” como “el sentido interno de una persona de ser hombre, mujer u otra cosa”.

Adkins afirma que ser transgénero no es un trastorno mental, sino simplemente “una variación normal del desarrollo”. Y afirma, además, que los profesionales médicos y de salud mental que se especializan en el tratamiento de la disforia de género están de acuerdo con este punto de vista.

Catecismo Transgénero

Estas nociones sobre el sexo y el género se están enseñando ahora a los niños pequeños. Los activistas han creado gráficos amigables para los niños para este propósito, como la “Persona de galleta de género”. La persona de galleta de género enseña que cuando se trata de sexualidad y género, las personas tienen cinco características diferentes, cada una de ellas cayendo a lo largo de un espectro.

Hay “identidad de género”, que es “cómo, en tu cabeza, defines tu género, basado en cómo te alinees (o no te alinees) con lo que entiendes que son las opciones de género”. El gráfico enumera “4 (de infinito)” posibilidades para la identidad de género: “mujer”, “hombre”, “dos espíritus” o “género queer”.

La segunda característica es la “expresión de género”, que es “la forma en que presentas el género, a través de tus acciones, vestido y comportamiento”. Además de “femenino” o “masculino”, las opciones son “macho”, “femme”, “andrógino” o “género neutral”.

El tercero es el “sexo biológico”, definido como “las características sexuales físicas con las que naces y desarrollas, incluyendo genitales, forma corporal, tono de voz, vello corporal; hormonas, cromosomas, etc.”

Las dos últimas características se refieren a la orientación sexual: “sexualmente atraído por” y “románticamente atraído por”. Las opciones incluyen “Mujeres/Hembra/Feminidad” y “Hombres/Macho/Masculinidad”. Lo cual parece bastante binario.

La persona de galleta de género trata de localizar estas cinco características en el cuerpo: identidad de género en el cerebro, atracción sexual y romántica en el corazón, sexo biológico en la pelvis y expresión de género en todas partes.persona de pan de género

La persona de galleta de género presentada aquí es la versión 3.3, incorporando ajustes realizados en respuesta a las críticas de versiones anteriores. Pero incluso éste viola el dogma actual. Algunos activistas se han quejado de que la persona de pan de género se ve demasiado masculina.

Una falta más grave a los ojos de muchos activistas es el uso del término “sexo biológico”. La revista Time hizo una crítica por la misma transgresión en 2014 después de publicar un perfil de Laverne Cox, la “primera persona trans” que aparece en la portada. Al menos la gente de Time obtuvo crédito por tratar de ser “buenos aliados, explicando lo que muchos ven como un tema complicado”, escribió Mey Rude en un artículo titulado “Es hora de que la gente deje de usar la construcción social del ‘sexo biológico’ para defender su transmisoginía”. (Es difícil mantenerse al día con el momento transgénero). Pero Time fue juzgado culpable de usar “una comprensión simplista y anticuada de la biología para perpetuar algunas ideas muy peligrosas sobre las mujeres trans”, y no reconocer que el sexo biológico “no es algo con lo que realmente nacimos, es algo que los médicos o nuestros padres nos asignan al nacer”.

Hoy en día, los “aliados” transgénero en buen estado no utilizan a la Persona de Galleta de Género en sus aulas, pero optan por el “Unicornio de Género”, que fue creado por Trans Students Educational Resources (TSER). Tiene una forma corporal que no aparece ni masculina ni femenina, y en lugar de un “sexo biológico” tiene un “sexo asignado al nacer”. Esos son los cambios significativos en la Persona de Galleta de Género, y se hicieron para que el nuevo gráfico “retratara con mayor precisión la distinción entre género, sexo asignado al nacer y sexualidad”.

Según TSER, “el sexo biológico es una palabra ambigua que no tiene escala ni significado además de que está relacionada con algunas características sexuales. También es perjudicial para las personas trans. En su lugar, preferimos el ‘sexo asignado al nacer’ que proporciona una descripción más precisa de qué sexo biológico puede estar tratando de comunicarse”. El Unicornio de Género es el gráfico que los niños probablemente encontrarán en la escuela. Estos son los dogmas que probablemente sean catecismos a profesar.Unicornio

Si bien los activistas afirman que las posibilidades de identidad de género son bastante amplias —hombre, mujer, ambos, ninguno— también insisten en que la identidad de género es innata, o establecida a una edad muy temprana, y a partir de entonces inmutable. El Dr. George Brown, profesor de psiquiatría y miembro de la junta por tres veces de la Asociación Profesional Mundial para la Salud Transgénero (WPATH en inglés), declaró en su declaración ante la corte federal de Carolina del Norte que la identidad de género “se establece generalmente en una etapa temprana de la vida, a la edad de dos a tres años de edad”. Dirigiéndose al mismo tribunal, la Dra. Adkins afirmó que “la evidencia sugiere fuertemente que la identidad de género es innata o fija a una edad temprana y que la identidad de género tiene una base biológica sólida”. (En ningún momento de su declaración de expertos citó ninguna fuente para ninguna de sus afirmaciones.)

Contradicciones Transgénero

Si las afirmaciones presentadas en este ensayo te parecen confusas, no estás solo. El pensamiento de los activistas transgénero es inherentemente confuso y lleno de contradicciones internas. Los activistas nunca reconocen esas contradicciones. En su lugar, de manera oportunista se basan en cualquier afirmación que sea útil en un momento dado.

Aquí hablo de activistas transgénero. La mayoría de las personas que sufren de disforia de género no son activistas, y muchos de ellos rechazan las afirmaciones de los activistas. Muchos de ellos pueden ser considerados como víctimas de los activistas, como lo muestro en mi libro. Muchos de los que sienten angustia por su sexo corporal saben que en realidad no son el sexo opuesto, y no desean “transición”. Desean recibir ayuda para poder identificarse y aceptar su ser corporal. No creen que sus sentimientos de disforia de género definan la realidad.

Pero los activistas transgéneros sí. Independientemente de si se identifican como “cisgénero” o “transgénero”, los activistas promueven una cosmovisión altamente subjetiva e incoherente.

Por un lado, afirman que el verdadero yo es algo más que el cuerpo físico, en una nueva forma de dualismo gnóstico, pero al mismo tiempo adoptan una filosofía materialista en la que sólo existe el mundo material. Dicen que el género es puramente una construcción social, mientras que afirman que una persona puede estar “atrapada” en el género equivocado. Dicen que no hay diferencias significativas entre el hombre y la mujer, sin embargo, se basan en estereotipos sexuales rígidos para argumentar que la “identidad de género” es real, mientras que la encarnación humana no lo es. Afirman que la verdad es lo que una persona dice que es, sin embargo, creen que hay un verdadero yo que descubrir dentro de esa persona. Promueven un individualismo expresivo radical en el que las personas son libres de hacer lo que quieran y definen la verdad como deseen, sin embargo, tratan despiadadamente de hacer cumplir la aceptación de la ideología transgénero.

Es difícil ver cómo se pueden combinar estas posiciones contradictorias. Si tiras demasiado fuerte en cualquier hilo de ideología transgénero, todo el tapiz se deshila. Pero aquí hay algunas preguntas que podemos plantear:

Si el género es una construcción social, ¿cómo puede la identidad de género ser innata e inmutable? ¿Cómo puede la identidad de uno, con respecto a la construcción social, ser determinada por la biología en el útero? ¿Cómo puede la identidad de uno, ser inalterable (inmutable) con respecto a una construcción social en constante cambio? Y si la identidad de género es innata, ¿cómo puede ser “fluida”? El desafío para los activistas es ofrecer una definición plausible de género e identidad de género que sea independiente del sexo corporal.

¿Hay un género binario o no? De alguna manera, no existe y sí existe, según los activistas transgénero. Si las categorías de “hombre” y “mujer” son lo suficientemente objetivas como para que las personas puedan identificarse como, y ser, hombres y mujeres, ¿cómo puede el género también ser un espectro, donde las personas pueden identificarse como, y ser, ambos, o ninguno, o en algún lugar intermedio?

¿Qué significa tener un sentido interno de género? ¿Cómo se siente el género? ¿Qué significado podemos dar al concepto de sexo o género (y por lo tanto qué “sentido” interno podemos tener de género) aparte de tener un cuerpo de un sexo en particular? Aparte de tener un cuerpo masculino, ¿cómo se “siente” ser un hombre? Aparte de tener un cuerpo femenino, ¿cómo se “siente” ser una mujer? ¿Qué se siente ser a la vez un hombre y una mujer, o no ser ninguno de los dos? El desafío para el activista transgénero es explicar cómo son estos sentimientos, y cómo alguien podría saber si él o ella “se siente” como el sexo opuesto, o ninguno, o ambos.

Incluso si los activistas trans pudieran responder a estas preguntas sobre los sentimientos, eso todavía no abordaría el asunto de la realidad. ¿Por qué sentirse como un hombre (sea lo que sea que eso signifique) hace a alguien un hombre? ¿Por qué nuestros sentimientos determinan la realidad sobre la cuestión del sexo, pero muy poco en otras cosas? Nuestros sentimientos no determinan nuestra edad ni nuestra estatura. Además, pocas compran la pretensión de Rachel Dolezal de identificarse como una mujer negra, ya que claramente no lo es. Si los que se identifican como transgénero son el sexo con el que se identifican, ¿por qué eso no se aplica a otros atributos o categorías del ser? ¿Qué pasa con las personas que se identifican como animales o personas con cuerpos capaces que se identifican como discapacitadas? ¿Determinan la realidad todas estas identidades autoproclamadas? Si no, ¿por qué no? ¿Y deberían estas personas recibir tratamiento médico para transformar sus cuerpos de acuerdo con sus mentes? ¿Por qué aceptar la “realidad” transgénero, pero no la realidad transrracial, transespecie y transcapaz? El desafío para los activistas es explicar por qué el sexo “real” de una persona está determinado por una “identidad de género” interior, pero la edad y la altura y la raza y las especies no están determinadas por un sentido interno de identidad.

Por supuesto, un activista transgénero podría responder que una “identidad” es, por definición, sólo un sentido interno de sí mismo. Pero si ese es el caso, la identidad de género es simplemente una revelación de cómo uno se siente. Decir que alguien es transgénero, entonces, sólo dice que la persona tiene sentimientos de que es el sexo opuesto. La identidad de género, así entendida, no tiene nada que ver con el significado de “sexo” o cualquier otra cosa. Pero los activistas transgéneros afirman que la autoproclamada “identidad de género” de una persona es el “sexo” de esa persona. El desafío para los activistas es explicar por qué la mera sensación de ser hombre o mujer (o ambos o ninguno) hace a alguien hombre o mujer (o ambos o ninguno).

La identidad de género puede sonar muy parecida a la identidad religiosa, que está determinada por las creencias. Pero esas creencias no determinan la realidad. Alguien que se identifica como cristiano cree que Jesús es el Cristo. Alguien que se identifica como musulmán cree que Mahoma es el Último Profeta. Pero Jesús es o no es el Cristo, y Mahoma es o no es el Último Profeta Final, independientemente de lo que alguien crea. Así, también, una persona es o no es un hombre, independientemente de lo que alguien, incluida esa persona, crea. El desafío para los activistas transgénero es presentar un argumento de por qué las creencias transgénero determinan la realidad.

Determinar la realidad es el corazón del asunto, y aquí también encontramos contradicciones. Por un lado, los activistas transgéneros quieren la autoridad de la ciencia mientras hacen afirmaciones metafísicas, diciendo que la ciencia revela que la identidad de género es innata e inmutable. Por otro lado, niegan que la biología sea el destino, insistiendo en que las personas son libres de ser quienes quieren ser. ¿Cuál es? ¿Nuestra identidad de género es biológicamente determinada e inmutable, o autocreada y cambiable? Si el primero, ¿cómo explicamos las personas cuya identidad de género cambia con el tiempo? ¿Estas personas tienen el sentido equivocado de género en algún momento u otro? Y si la identidad de género se crea a sí misma, ¿por qué otras personas deben aceptarla como realidad? Si debemos ser libres de elegir nuestra propia realidad de género, ¿por qué algunas personas pueden imponer su idea de realidad a otros sólo porque se identifican como transgénero? El desafío para el activista transgénero es articular alguna concepción de la verdad como la base de cómo entendemos el bien común y cómo se debe ordenar la sociedad.

Como documento en profundidad en Cuando Harry se convirtió en Sally, las afirmaciones de los activistas transgénero son confusas porque son filosóficamente incoherentes. Los activistas confían en reclamos contradictorios según sea necesario para avanzar en su posición, pero su ideología sigue evolucionando, para que incluso los aliados y las organizaciones LGBT puedan quedarse atrás a medida que avanza el “progreso”. En el núcleo de la ideología está la afirmación radical de que los sentimientos determinan la realidad. De esta idea vienen exigencias extremas para que la sociedad juegue con las afirmaciones subjetivas de la realidad. Los ideólogos trans ignoran las pruebas contrarias y los intereses en competencia; menosprecian las prácticas alternativas; y tienen como objetivo silenciar las voces escépticas y apagar cualquier desacuerdo. El movimiento tiene que seguir parcheando y apuntalando sus creencias, vigilando a los fieles, coaccionando a los herejes y castigando apóstatas, porque tan pronto como sus furiosos esfuerzos marcan por un momento o alguien se enfrenta con éxito a él, toda la farsa se expone. Eso es lo que sucede cuando tus dogmas son tan contrarios a verdades obvias, básicas y cotidianas. Un futuro transgénero no es el “lado correcto de la historia”, pero los activistas han convencido a los sectores más poderosos de nuestra sociedad para que atiendan sus demandas. Si bien las afirmaciones que hacen son manifiestamente falsas, se necesitará un trabajo real para evitar la propagación de estas ideas dañinas.

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek  

 

Ryan T. Anderson es fundador y jefe de redacción de Public Discourse. También es investigador senior William E. Simon en The Heritage Foundation.

Blog Original: https://bit.ly/3gOEiuq 

/by

El Apologista (en español)

By Terrell Clemmons

Jorge Gil: The next generation apologist for the world

Jorge Gil was born in 1982 to a single mother in Costa Rica. When he was one year old, she left him in the care of his grandparents and moved to the United States, where he died ten years later. Following her death, with a grandfather who was away most of the time, a grandmother who showed her love by giving him everything he wanted, and adolescence approaching, young Jorge began to explore. With no father figure and no boundaries, he soon discovered that he liked liquor and marijuana, and both became regular pastimes. Like much of Latin America, the culture around him was nominally Catholic, and he could easily party all night and go to mass the next day, without qualms. He never doubted the existence of God. He just never cared about him.

Still, he was a smart student. He graduated from high school at sixteen, and by eighteen he had completed three semesters of college. However, with the expansion of freedom had come the expansion of partying. When the aunts who were footing the bill for his education saw that he was squandering the opportunity, they cut off the funding. At that point, his Aunt Shirley invited him to the United States, where she lived, and where he could work and earn his own funds to finish school. He arrived in North Carolina two weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11.

But a change of scenery doesn’t make a change of lifestyle. A steady income of his own simply freed him up to do whatever he wanted, and life settled into a steady cycle of hard work followed by hard partying. Who needed school?

Being musically and technologically inclined, he also built a recording studio in his apartment. This attracted friends, including women, and before long, he had hooked himself on one in particular. Neither of them had a plan or ambition for life, and they drifted into carelessness and recklessness before and after children came into the picture. Jorge’s daughter Leda was born in 2007, followed by son Aiden in 2008. With both Jorge and his mother caught in codependency, Aunt Shirley took charge of everyone’s situation.

Arrested

In 2012, several years of irresponsible living caught up with Jorge. It started with a routine traffic stop while he was driving home from a friend’s house. Although he had been drinking a little, his breathalyzer test registered under the legal limit, so that wasn’t a problem. But his driver’s license was expired. So he was taken to the police station, where, by some mysterious misfortune, a second breathalyzer test showed a blood alcohol concentration 0.1% over the limit. Jorge was held overnight in the Sampson County Jail, and now faced a DUI charge.

The next morning, he woke up to an immigration officer waiting for him. The reason his driver’s license had expired was that he had let his immigration permit lapse, and he was now being placed on immigration hold. Driving with an expired license was a lesser offense, and the DUI charge was on shaky ground. But this immigration situation was a more complicated matter. In consultation with his attorneys, Jorge decided that he would plead not guilty to the DUI charge and remain in county jail while they prepared his immigration case.

Arrest: Part 1

“Do you have anything to read?” he asked his Mexican bunkmate on his first day in jail. His bunkmate had two books, a Colombian classic called One Hundred Years of Solitude and a Bible. Jorge had no interest in reading the Bible, but after finishing the novel in two days, the Bible was the only book there was, and prison days were long. He read the Gospels.

To his surprise, he found himself intrigued. As if in an answer to a nascent prayer, the following week a black man named Cortez was transferred into his pod. (A pod is a large communal cell.) Cortez had what is called “jailhouse preacher syndrome,” meaning he was in and out of jail and while in jail he preached the gospel and taught Bible studies. Jorge took it all in, and when another preacher visited him two weeks later and presented the gospel with all his field preacher fire, Jorge gave his life to Jesus on the spot. At that moment, all the urges and desires of his old life—a pack or two of cigarettes a day, drinks every night, and marijuana here and there—left him, never to return.

Cortez went to work discipling him right away. He told Jorge to stop using profanity, both in Spanish and English. Jorge did, and the two studied the Bible together every day until Cortez was transferred a few weeks later. With Cortez gone, Jorge took it upon himself to become the new crazy preacher. Even though he was new to the Bible, he used whatever he could find. He asked Aunt Shirley to get him some resources, and although he didn’t quite know what to ask for, he soon had a study Bible, some Our Daily Bread devotionals, some InTouch magazines, and a stack of commentaries, which he devoured and spread as best he could like there was no tomorrow. He reached out to some in the community and asked for Bible donations, and soon each new inmate received a warm welcome and a Bible of his own from him. The inmates began to call him preacher and come to him for advice, and between the providence of God and the flame that drove his regenerated heart, Jorge grew into the role of preacher-teacher with passion.

Arrest: Part II

Six months after Jorge entered the Sampson County Jail, he was transferred to a federal immigration detention center in Georgia. The DUI charge had been dismissed, and by the time he got out, in addition to becoming a preacher, he had befriended all the guards, served as their go-to translator, read some sixty books, and accumulated a stack of yellow legal pads filled with notes, ideas, and sermon outlines.

Although he had put himself through “preacher school,” as he now calls it, immigration facilities presented a whole new set of challenges. These were not people who were in prison for crimes per se, but who like him were being rounded up and processed for deportation or reinstatement as residents. In North Carolina, most of the inmates came from some sort of Christianized background and had a reasonable context to relate to the gospel. Here, he encountered Buddhism, Islam, Rasta, Hinduism, Baha’i, and other world belief systems. He began to preach or speak as he had done before, and the men challenged him with questions he had never encountered: “How can you say Jesus is the only way?” and “Hasn’t the Bible been corrupted?” and the like. How was he to respond to this?

He prayed, and his answer came in the form of an AM-FM radio given to him by a Mexican man who was being deported. Holding the antenna up to the window, Jorge found a radio teacher who took his breath away. The man had a funny accent, and Jorge thought he was some kind of Messianic Jew because his name was Ravi, which he assumed was a mispronunciation of rabbi. Jorge sat by that window every day, writing down everything this man said, and asking Aunt Shirley to send him every book she could find related to Ravi Zacharias.

The books and notebooks continued to pile up until November, when Jorge received a full pardon and was released. He returned home 110 pounds lighter, nine months drug-free, insatiably thirsty for knowledge of this Jesus he loved, and with a heart willing to share it with the world. He began searching for online discipleship programs as soon as he could get his hands on a smartphone.

The Director

Life since that pivotal year has taken many twists and turns. His employer had kept him in his job and he was welcomed back enthusiastically, but his relationship with the mother of his children deteriorated rapidly. Not only had he not changed, she was not happy with these changes in him. She left a few months later in a violent rage, never to return.

His Aunt Shirley, who had been like a mother to him all these years, died in 2014 in a horrific murder-suicide shooting, and after that, he discovered in a new way the richness of the body of Christ, when his small rural church stepped in to help him with his children. He went to every apologetics conference he could find within driving distance, and sought out mentors to help him grow as an apologist and man of God. He met Frank Turek of Cross-Examined and in 2015 was hired as Cross-Examined’s social media director. He also met Angelia (“Lia”) in 2015, and in 2017 she became his wife and accepted the mantle of mother to his children.

Today, he serves as the Executive Director of Cross-Examined. He oversees all projects, including the translation and publication of apologetics resources in the world’s languages, including Chinese and Russian. He oversees Cross-Examined’s social media operations and, as the millennial techno-wizard that he is, keeps them always on the cutting edge of technologies, in order to reach younger generations on their own terms and turf.

He speaks and leads seminars abroad on a wide range of topics—postmodernism, same-sex marriage, the problem of evil—contextualizing the content as much as possible for local audiences, and creates and hosts online communities, with the goal of advancing the gospel and offering sound apologetics to the world.

Man of God

He is a busy man who loves what he does. “I certainly didn’t plan this,” he says. “God gave me this opportunity, and it’s a joy to be able to allow him to use me to connect the North American apologetics movement and create one in Latin America.”

However, he finds his greatest joy in his family.

Seeing that family unit that I never had – I never knew my biological father, I was raised by my grandmother, my biological mother died (I barely knew her), and my grandfather who was supposed to be the role model in the house always left for work, and when he came home he was drunk – seeing the relationships I have with my children and with my wife, and the one my children have with her is incredible. I think that’s what I enjoy the most.

The Scriptures speak of God calling His people, establishing them, and making them flourish. I think Jorge Gil has just begun in that flourishing part.

Out of the trenches

How Jorge Gil grew in his calling

“One of the things people don’t know about me,” Jorge says, “is my struggle with not having a title.”

He was at a business meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society one day when the president, Angus Menuge, asked him what his area of ​​expertise was. “Brother,” he said, “I’m riding on a high school diploma.”

Besides Christian scholars of various titles like Dr. Menuge, Jorge’s circle of colleagues includes apologetics giants like J. Warner Wallace, Greg Koukl, and the late Dr. Norman Geisler, so it is understandable that he feels intimidated at times. But the way he is leading his Christian life is hardly “ridable.” Consider this:

Diligence: For one thing, since his Christian conversion seven years ago, Jorge has dedicated himself to learning everything he can related to the Christian faith. Although he was not deported in 2012, his temporary residency status meant he would have to enroll in school as a foreign student, which entailed a much higher tuition cost.

As a single father, formal education simply wasn’t an option for him for some time. So George studied on his own—theology, apologetics, philosophy—which made him a more suitable vessel for sharing the gospel.

Humility: Second, since he never had a father figure to speak of, he intentionally sought out godly, educated men to help and advise him. He met Richard Howe, who was the director of the philosophy doctoral program at the Southern Evangelical Seminary, at an apologetics conference and asked Dr. Howe if he would be his philosophy mentor. He built relationships with people he saw as role models, not because of their “star status,” but to learn from them. One of the many questions he would ask is, “What would you tell your thirty-year-old self that you wish they knew?” He also offered his services as a translator, to subtitle their videos, for example, or to republish their biographies in Spanish. No charge; it was all about offering what he had to give in service to the cause.

Faith: And third, Jorge never let intimidation or the lack of a degree stop him from doing what he believed God was calling him to do. He is currently pursuing his associate, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees all in one fell swoop. At the same time, he insists that it is not the degrees or seminary that prepare you for the job, but the God who calls you to it.

“If you want it and you believe that God has called you to something,” he tells people,

Then go for it, and things will fall into place. Don’t think, “I’ll graduate and then do apologetics.” No, get in the trenches. If you have to get your degree while you’re in the trenches, do it. But don’t be intimidated by all those people who have big letters in front of or after their names. Remember, God grabbed a bunch of fishermen and turned the world upside down. I believe He still operates the same way today.

Absolutely. I think the rest of us can learn from Jorge’s example. The Christian life is never about what we have or don’t have. It’s about the God we know and what we do with what we have. By those lights, Jorge “graduated” a long time ago.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger who writes about apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published on salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2HndWQI

Translated by Priscilla Fonseca

/by

El realismo modal, libre albedrío y el infinito actual en Dark

INTRODUCCIÓN

En este escrito aprovecho de algunas cuestiones filosóficas y científicas mencionadas en la serie Dark para explicarlas de manera sencilla a personas que tal vez no habían escuchado o que habían usado erróneamente y que de alguna manera guardan relación con la teología cristiana.

Definiendo conceptos

En la serie de Dark se suele hablar de términos como “realidad” o “mundos” para distinguir entre el mundo de Jonas, el mundo de Martha y el mundo de origen. Asimismo, algunos youtuberos que analizaron la serie mencionaron “línea temporal” y “universo”. ¿Pero son todos estos conceptos la misma cosa? Bueno, eso depende del contexto. Déjame mostrarte cómo es que yo distinguiría estos términos y que podrían ayudarte para abordar cuestiones metafísicas relacionadas con la teología o la apologética, tales como los mundos posibles y el multiverso.

Definiré realidad como la suma de todas las cosas reales. En este sentido, la realidad es una categoría o clase más que un estado o atributo.

Por mundo quiero decir la suma total de todo lo que existe, incluidas las entidades abstractas no espaciotemporales. Ahora, si las entidades abstractas existen, entonces, tanto mundo como realidad son lo mismo en el presente contexto.

El universo significa el sistema total espaciotemporal de materia y energía (impersonal), es decir, la suma total de objetos materiales, de alguna manera accesible a los sentidos y a la investigación científica.

En cuanto a la línea temporal, este sería algo relativo. Por ejemplo, la línea temporal puede ser tanto la historia de principio a fin de la realidad como la de cada uno de sus universos que pudiera contener.

Y hablando de universos paralelos, por multiverso me refiero a la hipótesis que habla sobre la existencia de un conjunto de universos como el nuestro. Ahora, dado que establecimos que la realidad o el mundo contienen todas las cosas que son reales, entonces los universos sería más bien un subconjunto dentro de un mundo. Así que la idea de que universos paralelos que están conectados unos con otros como lo plantea la serie de DARK, es, al menos, lógicamente posible (si es físicamente posible, es algo que dejaré a los astrofísicos resolver).

Un mundo posible, es un mundo que podría haber sido diferente al actual, o sea, al mundo en el que nosotros vivimos.

Y si hablamos de mundos posibles, entonces estamos obligados a hablar del realismo modal de David Kellogg Lewis. Su teoría propone principalmente que todos los mundos posibles lógicos son tan reales como nuestro mundo (el mundo real o actual). Los mundos posibles en el realismo modal tienen las siguientes 6 características[1]:

  1. Los mundos posibles existen: son tan reales como nuestro mundo.
  2. Los mundos posibles son el mismo tipo de cosas que nuestro mundo: difieren en el contenido, no en la clase.
  3. Los mundos posibles no pueden reducirse a algo más básico: son entidades irreductibles por derecho propio.
  4. La “actualidad” es indexada. Cuando distinguimos nuestro mundo de otros mundos posibles al afirmar que solo es real, solo queremos decir que es “nuestro” mundo.
  5. Los mundos posibles están unificados por las interrelaciones espaciotemporales de sus partes; Cada mundo está aislado espacialmente de todos los demás mundos.
  6. Los mundos posibles están causalmente aislados unos de otros.

Así que como puedes ver, dado 5 y 6, la serie de Dark estaría en lo incorrecto al hablar de mundos que se interconectan o de un mundo que da origen a otros mundos. Así que lo que realmente sucede en la serie, es que existe un mundo, una sola realidad, donde existen varios universos que se interconectan unos con otros a través de la máquina transuniversal de la que nunca se toman la molestia de describir su funcionamiento.

Libre albedrío

Para hablar de libre albedrío, es necesario definir el determinismo. Tomo la siguiente definición:

El determinismo es la visión de que para cada evento que ocurre, hay condiciones tales que, dadas, nada más podría haber ocurrido. Por cada acontecimiento que ocurre, su ocurrencia fue causada o requerida por factores previos, de manera que, dados esos factores previos, el acontecimiento en cuestión tenía que ocurrir. Una forma de determinismo lo define como la postura de que todo acontecimiento es causado por acontecimientos causales anteriores y las leyes pertinentes son suficientes para la producción de ese acontecimiento. En cualquier momento t, sólo hay un mundo futuro físicamente posible que se puede obtener. Cada evento es el resultado inexorable de una cadena de eventos que conducen a ese evento y son suficientes para él.[2]

Con esto en mente, ahora pasemos a hablar sobre el libre albedrío como es expuesto en la serie. Según DARK (y varios youtuberos que analizaron la serie) no existe el libre albedrío como tal por el simple hecho de que los personajes nunca toman decisiones diferentes a como lo hicieron en el ciclo de tiempo anterior, cada vez que se repite el ciclo de tiempo, todos ellos “eligen” siempre lo mismo, lo que demuestra que el libre albedrío no es más que una ilusión—todo está determinado. Así, el único personaje con libre albedrío en la serie resultó ser Cluadia (al menos la Claudia del último ciclo). Ya que es ella quien logra escoger una opción diferente a como lo habían hechos las anteriores Claudias, y esto da paso a que se rompa el bucle temporal y la serie logra terminar en la forma a como lo hizo.

El problema con esto es que se vuelve incomprensible porque solo en Claudia se aplica el PPA y en los demás personajes no si todo está determinado.[3] Una vez que se repite el ciclo, este comienza con las mismas condiciones que el anterior y como todo lo físico está sujeto a las leyes de la causalidad, pues no hay forma de que las cosas ocurran de diferente manera[4].

Pero regresemos a la cuestión del libre albedrío que es lo que nos compete aquí. Mi mayor problema es la definición que toman de libre albedrío, que podría ser como sigue:

Las criaturas libres tienen la capacidad de elegir entre alternativas que compiten entre sí, y realmente podrían elegir una u otra de las alternativas.

Como ustedes pueden ver, en Dark se confunde el libre albedrío libertariano con el principio de posibilidades alternas. La única relación que existe entre ambos es que el PPA es suficiente para el LAL, pero no necesario. Y aunque existen muchas versiones del LAL, considero que la siguiente es correcta:

La libertad [libertaria] no requiere la habilidad de elegir de otra manera que no sea como uno lo hace. […] lo que es crítico para el libre albedrío [libertariano] no es la capacidad de elegir de manera diferente en circunstancias idénticas, sino más bien no ser causado a hacer algo por causas distintas a uno mismo.[5]

Creo que esta versión del libre albedrío es correcta porque las ilustraciones de Harry Frankfurt son demoledoras para demostrar que la libertad (libertariana) no requiere de la habilidad de escoger diferente a la manera que la persona lo hace:

Consideremos a un hombre que, sin saberlo, tiene su cerebro alambrado con electrodos controlados por un científico loco. El científico, quien apoya a Barack Obama, decide que va activar los electrodos para hacer al hombre votar por Obama si el hombre entra en la casilla para votar por Mitt Romney. Por otro lado, si él elige votar por Obama, entonces el científico no va a activar los electrodos. Supongamos, entonces, que el hombre entra en la casilla de votación y presiona el botón para botar por Obama. En ese caso parece que el hombre vota libremente por Obama. ¡Aun si no estaba dentro de su poder el hacer nada diferente![6]

Si aplicamos esta ilustración a los personajes de Dark, podemos concluir que no se requiere que ellos escojan de otra manera a como lo hicieron en los ciclos pasados para que puedan tener libre albedrío (al menos libre albedrío libertariano).

Infinitos actuales

La última cuestión filosófica de la que quiero hablar es el concepto de infinito utilizado en la serie. En el mundo de Dark, tanto en el universo de Jonas como en el de Martha, el tiempo se ha repetido una y otra vez infinidad de veces desde el pasado. Por supuesto, esto es posible puesto que el mundo de Dark adopta la teoría B del tiempo, donde el flujo del tiempo es solo una ilusión y que tanto el pasado, el presente y el futuro son igualmente reales, que el tiempo no tiene tensión, es decir, el devenir temporal no es una característica objetiva de la realidad. Por eso es por lo que, en el último capítulo de la tercera temporada, cuando Claudia se encuentra con Adán, le dice lo siguiente: “Lo que ha ocurrido hasta ahora ha sucedido una infinidad de veces, pero este momento entre tú y yo aquí, es la primera vez que ocurre”. Pero en una teoría A del tiempo, donde el devenir del tiempo es una característica objetiva del tiempo, esto es metafísicamente imposible.

Primero definamos lo que es un infinito potencial y uno actual:

El infinito potencial es la concepción de infinito como un proceso. Este proceso se construye empezando por los primeros pasos (por ejemplo 1, 2, 3 en la construcción del conjunto de los números naturales) que se refieren a una concepción acción. Repetir estos pasos (por la adición de 1 repetidamente) al infinito, requiere de la interiorización de estas acciones en un proceso. El infinito actual es el objeto mental que se obtiene de la encapsulación de este proceso.

…el infinito potencial se percibe como una transformación que se repite sin fin, en donde pueden generarse tantos elementos del proceso como se quiera. Por otra parte, el infinito actual hace referencia a una cosa terminada, un objeto estático que puede construirse a partir de un proceso.[7]

La relevancia filosófica de esta distinción es que algunos filósofos argumentan que el infinito actual no puede existir en la realidad. Por ejemplo, el filósofo medieval Al Gazali argumento a favor de la existencia del universo. Según Gazali, la serie de acontecimientos pasados fue formada al añadir un acontecimiento tras otro. La serie de acontecimientos pasados es como una secuencia de piezas de dominós cayendo una tras otra hasta que la última pieza que cae hoy es alcanzada. Pero él argumenta que ninguna serie formada por añadir un miembro tras otro puede ser actualmente infinita, pues uno no puede pasar por un número infinito de elementos a la vez.

William Lane Craig nos da el ejemplo de contar hasta el infinito:

No importa cuán alto uno pueda contar, siempre habrá una infinidad de números que contar. Si no es posible contar hasta o infinito, ¿cómo sería posible contar a partir del infinito? Sería como si alguien alegase haber hecho un contaje regresivo de todos los números negativos, terminando en cero: …, -3, -2, -1, 0. Eso parece una locura. Pues, antes de que él pueda contar 0, necesitaría contar -1 y, antes de contar -1, necesitaría contar -2, y así sucesivamente, de regreso al infinito. Antes que cualquier número pudiese ser contado, una infinidad de números tendrá que ser contada primero. Uno acaba de ser arrastrado cada vez más y más en el pasado, a tal punto que no es posible contar ningún número más.

Pero entonces, la última pieza del dominó jamás podría caer, si un número infinito de piezas tuviese que caer primero. Por lo tanto, hoy, nunca podría llegar. ¡Pero, obviamente, que aquí estamos! Eso muestra que la serie de acontecimientos pasados debe ser finita y debe tener un comienzo.[8]

Así que, si que, si la Teoría A del tiempo es correcta, esa escena donde Claudia se encuentra con Adán nunca llegaría a darse en primer lugar, porque no puedes pasar por una cadena de eventos infinitos desde el pasado hasta el presente.

Otra paradoja muy interesante que demuestra lo absurdo de esto, es la paradoja del ángel de la muerte propuesta por Alexander Pruss y Robert Koons[9]. De acuerdo con la paradoja, supón que existe una cantidad infinita de ángeles de la muerte. Digamos que tú estás vivo a la media noche. El ángel de la muerte núm. 1 te matará a la 1:00 a.m., si todavía estás vivo a esa hora. El ángel de la muerte núm. 2 te matará a la 12:30 a.m., si todavía está vivo en ese entonces. El ángel de la muerte núm. 3 te matará a la 12:15 a.m., y así sucesivamente. Una situación como esa parece obviamente concebible, dada la posibilidad de un número realmente infinito de cosas, más lleva a una imposibilidad: tú no puedes sobrevivir después de la media noche y, aun así, no puedes ser asesinado por ningún ángel de la muerte en ningún momento.

Este argumento se puede formular de la siguiente manera y es utilizado para argumentar a favor del pasado finito del universo:

  1. Un conjunto formado por adicción sucesiva no puede ser un infinito actual.
  2. La serie temporal de acontecimientos es un conjunto formado por adicción sucesiva.
  3. Por lo tanto, la serie temporal de acontecimientos no puede ser un infinito actual.

CONCLUSIÓN

A pesar de todas las preguntas que podrían haberse dejado sin responder en Dark, así como el uso impreciso de las teorías del tiempo y de algunos conceptos filosóficos, eso no amerita que sea mala, al contrario, jugar con las imposibilidades lógicas y metafísicas siempre le dará ese toque maravilloso a las obras de ciencia ficción, y más si se pueden utilizar de referencia para explicar algunos conceptos de filosofía que de otra manera sería aburrido para para el lector ajeno a estos temas.

Notas

[1] https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realismo_modal (consultado el 29 de julio del 2020).

[2] W. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, p. 280.

[3] De acuerdo con los expertos en comentarios de YouTube, los personajes que existen debido a ellos mismos por culpa del bucle (abuelos y nietos son la misma persona) no poseen libre albedrío, solo los personajes “originales” que son del universo de origen pueden tener libre albedrío. Por supuesto, lo curioso es que esta explicación hace nada para proveer dicha distinción a un nivel ontológico.

[4] Existe otra explicación para que Claudia pudiera elegir de forma diferente con el transcurso de los ciclos: la indeterminación o que al menos el universo tiene un cierto grado de indeterminación. Lo que significaría que con cada ciclo que pasa, este sería diferente al anterior en un grado micro, pero da la posibilidad de que después de millones de ciclos exista uno que será muy diferente a comparación de los anteriores. Puedes ver esta explicación con más detalle aquí: https://youtu.be/2M4hJsSArF8

[5] https://es.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P270/el-libre-albedrio/?fbclid=IwAR3ugT8Yyvsx-8kV2YoxR-L1lLFD0huewXPyrzuU7yfSvEroiFWdKwRmOfQ (consultado el 29 de julio del 2020).

[6] Ibid.

[7] ROA FUENTES, Solange y OKTAC, Asuman. El infinito potencial y actual: descripción de caminos cognitivos para su construcción en un contexto de paradojas. Educ. mat [online]. 2014, vol.26, n.1 [citado 2020-07-29], pp.73-101. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1665-58262014000100004&lng=es&nrm=iso. ISSN 1665-5826

[8] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/ (consultado el 29 de julio del 2020).

[9] http://robkoons.net/media/83c9b25c56d629ffffff810fffffd524.pdf (consultado el 29 de julio del 2020).

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek 

 

Jairo Izquierdo es miembro del equipo de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined.  Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y filosofía del lenguaje.  Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y director de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

/by

Oposición Dominica al Conocimiento Medio

In 1588 the Dominican theologians Domingo Báñez (1528-1604) and Tomas de Lemos (1555-1629) emerged as the leading opponents of middle knowledge. Báñez and Lemos advanced three major criticisms of the doctrine. [1] First, it contradicts Aquinas’s understanding of God’s general concurrence. For Aquinas, general concurrence constituted God’s sovereign generation of events by acting directly upon secondary agents (e.g., humans), moving them in advance and working through them to bring about those events.

In order to make God the author only of good events and not of bad ones, Aquinas derived a strong distinction between efficacious and inefficacious concurrence. Efficacious concurrence occurs when secondary agents produce effects that God intends them to produce; in this case, God’s power over the agents is infallibly and irresistibly directed toward producing their intended effects. Inefficacious concurrence occurs when secondary agents produce effects that God does not intend them to produce; in that case, God’s power over the agents is sufficient or sufficient for those agents to produce the effects God intended, but it is not infallibly or irresistibly directed toward those effects. Thus, imperfect creatures redirect God’s power toward producing sinful events, which cannot happen apart from that power. On Aquinas’s view, efficacious concurrence is intrinsically efficacious, and inefficacious concurrence is intrinsically inefficacious.

While efficacious concurrence inevitably produces effects that God positively volitions [2] , inefficacious concurrence inevitably produces effects that God does not intend to produce but merely permits. In contrast to Aquinas, Molina declared that general concurrence amounted to God’s sovereign causality of events by acting directly on those events and not on secondary agents. He therefore denied that secondary agents must be moved by God to use their causal power. Furthermore, Molina argued that intrinsically, God’s general concurrence is neither efficacious nor inefficacious. Rather, it is intrinsically neutral and is extrinsically made efficacious or inefficacious by the relevant secondary agents. [3]

Second, Báñez and Lemos argued that middle knowledge implied passivity in God, since making divine concurrence intrinsically neutral seemed to make God relate in exactly the same way to the good and evil actions of creatures. In the words of Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “God would be neither the author of good nor of evil acts, at least as far as his intrinsic and free determination is concerned, because neither good nor evil acts would come from Him, at least as far as the performance of these acts is concerned.” [4] Accordingly, God’s essence as actus purus (pure act), as defined by Aquinas, is compromised if God were not to decree what free creatures would do in each set of circumstances, but instead sit back as a helpless spectator and watch what happens. [5] Third, Báñez and Lemos asserted that middle knowledge eviscerated God’s freedom, since God would know what He would freely do in any set of circumstances in which He found Himself. [6] Because they found these criticisms persuasive, the vast majority of contemporary Dominicans followed Báñez and Lemos in accusing Molina.

Regarding divine concurrence, Molina defended his position by asserting the incoherence of the Thomistic alternative held by his Dominican interlocutors for three reasons. First, the Dominicans could not explain God’s detailed knowledge of evil events. While the Dominican position had the ability to delineate God’s detailed knowledge of good events, as well as God’s general knowledge that good events would not occur in various circumstances (based on his decisions to concur inefficaciously rather than efficaciously with creatures), Molina held that the Dominican position lacked an explanation of how God knows exactly which evil events would occur. [7] Freddoso illustrates Molina’s point with the following example:

Let us take the state of affairs of Peter remaining loyal to Christ in H, where H is the situation in which Peter actually freely denies Christ. Since God’s concurrence with Peter in H is itself sufficient to produce the desired effect of Peter remaining loyal, it only follows that Peter will not remain loyal. But there are many ways in which Peter could deny Christ, a host of intentions on which he could act, different degrees of cowardice or outright malice that his act could evince, different words he could use. How can God know all the relevant details with precision, given only his prior resolution not to causally predetermine Peter’s loyalty in H? [8]

Second, Molina charged that the radical asymmetry proposed by the Dominicans between God’s causal contribution to good and evil events was nonsensical. For an evil event can differ from its benign analogue only by virtue of some historical circumstance. In this regard, Molina pointed out that the same act of sexual intercourse, with all its physical and psychological characteristics, is good if the couple is married, but bad if they are not. Imagine that the history of the couple’s relationship in both cases is exactly the same, except for the short visit to a priest where the marriage ceremony was performed. Is it not absurd, Molina asked, to suppose that God’s intrinsically efficacious concurrence is necessary in one case but not in the other? If creatures are capable of performing the same act without intrinsically efficacious concurrence when it is evil, why are they not equally capable of performing the same act without intrinsically efficacious concurrence when it is good? [9]

Third, Molina argued that on the Dominican view, God cannot truly will the virtuous events that He chooses not to predetermine through His intrinsically efficacious concurrence. For example, if God truly intends that Judas repent after betraying Jesus, and if God can effect this repentance simply through efficacious concurrence, then why does God refuse to grant such concurrence? In general, Molina held that the Dominicans made it impossible to blame creatures for their evil acts, since those acts necessarily resulted from the absence of God’s efficacious concurrence. Sins become acts of God’s omission, making God the author of sins as if they had been produced by God’s omission. Thus, Molina declared:

Again, what resentment will God have on the Day of Judgment against the wicked, since they were unable not to sin as long as God did not effectively incline and determine them to good, but rather solely by His own free will decided from eternity not to determine them to do so? Most likely, if this position is accepted, our freedom of choice is completely destroyed, God’s justice towards the wicked vanishes, and a cruelty and perversity are perceived in God. That is why I consider this position to be extremely dangerous from the point of view of faith. [10]

For these reasons, Molina concluded that if divine concurrence were intrinsically efficacious or inefficacious rather than, as he insisted, intrinsically neutral, then ostensibly free creatures would be nothing more than puppets controlled by God, who alone possesses freedom. [11]

In response to Báñez and Lemos’s second charge that middle knowledge implied divine passivity, Molina claimed that it does so only if one conceives of God in a Thomistic sense as pure act, the determining cause of all that occurs. But Molina insisted that one should abandon the doctrine of pure act as philosophically incoherent and contradictory to Scripture. For if God is pure act, then God’s attributes are not distinct from one another. But surely, for example, God’s omnipotence and God’s omnibenevolence denote two distinct properties, each of which is irreducible to the other. [12] This can be seen conceptually by observing that an entity could be all-powerful without being wholly loving, and an entity could be wholly loving without being wholly good. However, both attributes are philosophically necessary to God’s status, pro Anselm, as the greatest being conceivable, and both attributes are affirmed biblically (Genesis 17:1, 1 John 4:8). [13]

Rather than pure act, Molina believed that God must be understood as essentially infinite and tripersonal, an understanding that precluded divine passivity. God’s infinity, or the sum total of his great making properties, includes his omniscience, which in turn includes his middle knowledge. Taking advantage of this knowledge, the tripersonal God chooses, in his creative decree, all that will happen (the actual world [14] ) from all that could possibly happen given human freedom and natural indeterminism (the set of all feasible worlds [15] ). Far from sitting idly by, God is the active agent whose free decision is the indispensable factor in producing all human actions. [16] And God’s free decision produces these actions indeterministically, so that God cannot be accused as the author of sin. In fact, each of the three Trinitarian persons is grieved by sin (Gen. 6:6; Luke 19:41-44; Eph. 4:30). [17] This sorrow was so strong that it moved God to enter human history and become incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, to solve the problem of sin once and for all and thus redeem all who place their faith in him (Rom. 3:24-25; 8:3-4; Eph. 1:7; Titus 2:14). [18]

Regarding Báñez and Lemos’ third charge that middle knowledge destroyed divine freedom, Molina emphasized that middle knowledge does not give God knowledge of what he himself would do under any set of circumstances. If God had such knowledge, Molina admitted, that would certainly destroy divine freedom. [19] Middle knowledge only gives God knowledge of what any possible creature would freely do under any conceivable circumstances. Here Molina emphasized that the way God has middle knowledge is supercomprehension, or his ability to infinitely perceive the essence or pattern of each individual or possible creature that exists solely in his imagination prior to the divine creative decree. Because these individual essences are abstract, not concrete objects, and God perfectly understands his own imagination, supercomprehension follows inevitably as a result. But it is logically impossible for God to supercomprehension himself, since God is a concrete object (even more than that, the only logically necessary concrete object), not an abstract object that exists within God’s imagination. God’s individual essence is also not an abstract object existing within God’s imagination, but is one and the same as his existence. [20] Furthermore, Molina insisted that supercomprehension can only occur when the knower infinitely transcends in fullness or totality that which is known. Since God cannot infinitely transcend his own perfection, the idea that God supercomprehended himself again proves to be self-refuting. Tying together the threads of his case, Molina asserted:

God does not know, solely by virtue of the knowledge which precedes the act of His will, what part of His own will will determine itself with respect to any object which may be created by Him, although, by virtue of that same knowledge He does know , on the hypothesis that His will were to choose to determine itself to one or another order of things and circumstances, what each created faculty of choice would volition or do in its freedom within that order. Now the reason of this is, that whereas the divine intellect and knowledge surpass in perfection by an infinite distance every created faculty of choice which they contain eminently in themselves and which for this reason they comprehend in an infinitely more eminent manner than that in which it is knowable (that is, itself [21] ), so they too do not surpass the divine will in perfection nor comprehend it in a more eminent manner than that which is knowable in itself. However, as has been said, it is this kind of understanding that is required to know about free choice, before it determines itself, which part it is going to determine itself in its freedom under any given hypothesis. [22] 

Molina went on to assert that in choosing to create the present world, God freely decides what all of his future actions in that world will be. These actions are in no way determined by God’s prevolitional knowledge, but are entirely dependent on God in his freedom. Therefore, God knows everything that he will do in the world in his free knowledge, not in his middle knowledge. In other words, God has foreknowledge of his own actions in the present world, not by knowing in his middle knowledge what he would do in every conceivable circumstance, but by knowing what he has decided, in his creative decree, to do in every future circumstance, by means of his almighty power to carry out his freely chosen will. [23]

Grades

[1] Robert Joseph Matava, “Divine Causality and Human Free Choice: Domingo Báñez and the Controversy de Auxiliis,” PhD diss. (University of Saint Andrews, 2010), 1 – 24.

[2] Translator’s note. The verb here is “to will” which has no literal translation in Spanish. “To will” expresses an exercise of will or an inclination toward something, not merely “wanting something.” The confusion arises because there are two words in English that are translated into Spanish as “querer” (to want) and “to will.” The first of these is what we know as “wanting something” in the sense of having a desire and intention for it. While the second can be specified as a volition of the agent.

[3] Alfred J. Freddoso, “Introduction,” in Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 18 – 19.

[4] Réginald Gartigou Ñagrange, The One God , trans. Bede Rose (St. Louis: Herder, 1943), 466.

[5] William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience , Studies in Intellectual History 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 270

[6] Domingo Báñez, Pedro Herrera, and Didacus Alvarez, Apologetica fratrum prædicatorum in provinciâ Hispaniæ sacræ theologiæ professorum, adversus novas quasdam assertiones cujusdam doctoris Ludovici Molinæ nuncupati (Madrid, 1595), 3.25; Thomas of Lemos, Acta omnia et Congregatioum disputationum, quae coram SS. Clement VIII and V Panlo Summis Pontificibus sunt celebratae in causa controversy et illa magna de auxiliis divinae gratiæ (Lovain, 1702), 8.5.

[7] Ludovici Molina, Appenidx ad Concordiam, continens responses ad tres objectiones et satisfactiones ad 17 animadversiones (Libson, 1589), 4 – 7.

[8] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 39.

[9] Ibid., 40; Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 4.14.13.53.2.13.

[10] Molina, Foreknwowledge , 4.14.13.50.14.

[11] The Dominicans did not feel that they were denying human libertarian freedom. In fact, they argued that creatures possessed libertarian freedom, though without using the modern phrase. But Molina found these claims philosophically incoherent and concluded that despite what they said, the Dominicans ended up with a compatibilist freedom.

[12] However, Molina also held that neither God’s omnipotence nor his omnibenevolence is separable from God’s essence. So I don’t think the evidence allows us to conclude what Molina’s position was (or even whether he had one) concerning divine simplicity. It seems to me that Molina’s doctrine is compatible with either divine simplicity (the mainstream Christian view) or divine univocity (the minority view held, for example, by Scotus), depending on whether one thinks the doctrine applies at the level of essence or at the level of attributes.

[13] Molina, Concordia , 1.14.13.19.2.10.

[14] Translator’s note. Original: “the actual world.” It does not refer to a temporal adjective, i.e., to the “contemporary world.” But to the world that God has actualized or made real . “In religious jargon, it is not unusual to refer to God as creating the world. However, in the semantics of possible worlds, this is semantically improper. Rather, God’s creative activity must be referred to as “creating the heavens and the earth,” but as actualizing a particular possible world (since possible states of affairs have no beginning, and the language of creation implies this).” The above excerpt was taken from the Scientia Media section of the article on Middle Knowledge in the Internet Philosophical Encyclopedia. Consulted on July 24, 2020 at: https://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/  See also definitions (3) and (5) of the Royal Spanish Academy: https://dle.rae.es/?id=0d341nz  (3) tr. To put into action, to carry out. (5) tr. To make abstract or virtual linguistic elements become concrete and individual. Consulted on February 15, 2019. See also: http://www.filosofia.org/enc/ros/actualiz.htm ; Consulted on July 24, 2020.

[15] Translator’s note. Original “feasible world”. In modal logic, feasible worlds are a subset of worlds within the possible worlds that, given a set of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, are within the power of God to actualize (see note 14). Others call them “metaphysically possible worlds”. See Moreland, J.P. & Lane Craig, William. “ Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview ”, 2nd Ed. Kerigma Publications, pp. 609-616, Keathley, Kenneth, “ Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach ”. Ed. B&H Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 16-18, 38-41, 149-152, Lane Craig, William. “ The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom ” ed. Wipf and Stock Publishers, pp. 129 – 13, MacGregor, Kirk, “ Luis de Molina: Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge ”. Ed. Zondervan 2015, pp. 79 – 96. For the definition of possible worlds, see What is the logic of possible worlds about? , Jaramillo, Raúl, https://www.apologetica.com.ar/logica-mundos-posibles/ ; consulted on July 24, 2020.

[16] Ludovici Molina, Appenidx ad Concordia , 26 – 27.

[17] Molina, Concordia , 5.19.6.1.26.

[18] Ibid., 3.14.13.46.18, 20.

[19] Molina, Foreknowledge , 4.14.13.52.13.

[20] Here Molina focused on a trivial Thomistic idea, since Aquinas believed that the notion of God as pure act was logically equivalent to the identity between God’s essence and his existence. Molina takes these to be two entirely different notions, interpreting pure act as the actualization of God completely determining everything that happens and the identity between essence and existence as the Anselmian claim that the idea of ​​God in the mind, including in the mind of God, cannot exist apart from a concrete reality of God ( Appendix ad Concordiam , 13, 36, 41).

[21] This reflexive understanding of “what is knowable” is implicit in the immediate context and is in the Latin construction “quodam eminentiori modo, qua,m illud sit cognoscibile” ( Concordia , 4.14.13.52.13).

[22] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 52.

[23] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 52.

 

Excerpt Luis de Molina: Life and Theology , MacGregor, Kirk, Ph.D.

Translation and Annotations: Eng. Raúl Jaramillo

/by

Agradar a Dios en medio del confinamiento

In this writing I would like to share with you some reflections that we can learn from some people in the Bible who went through very difficult times and that we can apply in our days with respect to these moments of confinement and isolation in our homes.*

David’s response to suffering

Let’s see what the following verses in the Psalms say:

Save me, O God, For the waters have come up to my soul. I am drowned in deep mire, where I cannot stand; I have come to deep waters, and the flood has overflowed me. I am weary of calling; my throat is hoarse; my eyes fail from waiting for my God. (Psalm 69:1-3)

Lift me up out of the mire, that I may not be drowned; Let me be delivered from those who hate me, and from the depths of the waters. Let not the flood overwhelm me, Nor let the deep swallow me up, Nor let the pit close its mouth upon me. Answer me, O LORD, for Your loving-kindness is gracious; Look upon me according to the multitude of Your tender mercies. Hide not Your face from Your servant, For I am in distress; Make haste, hear me. Come near to my soul, redeem it; Deliver me from my enemies. You know my reproach, my confusion, and my disgrace; All my adversaries are before You. Scorn has broken my heart, and I am in distress. I looked for a compassionate man, but there was none; I looked for comforters, but I found none. (Psalm 69:14-20)

We can see that in these verses David is going through very difficult times; he expresses to God that he feels desperate, troubled, tired, distressed and dismayed.

But there is something else regarding David’s attitude in this situation that is revealed to us verses later:

I will give thanks to the name of God with a song; I will exalt him with thanksgiving. This will please the LORD more than a sacrifice of an ox, or a calf with horns and hooves. (Psalm 69:30, 31)

What was David’s response after expressing his deepest feelings to God? What did he say he would do? Did he say he would turn away from God or forget about Him? Of course not, he said he would praise God’s name with songs!

Habakkuk’s response to tribulation

David was not the only one who had a similar reaction. The Bible tells us the story of another who suffered tribulation, and in the midst of his troubles, he praised the name of God with songs:

Though the fig tree does not blossom, Though there is no fruit on the vines, Though the olive crop fails, Though the fields yield no food, Though the sheep are cut off from the fold, Though there is no herd in the stalls, Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The Lord GOD is my strength, He makes my feet like hinds’ feet, And makes me walk on my high places. (Habakkuk 3:17)

What did Habakkuk do when he heard this terrible news from God? He composed this beautiful praise in response! Habakkuk is aware that when misfortune after misfortune comes he will fall into grief, a reaction anyone would have. But will he let the pain consume him? Not at all! He promises that he will rejoice in the Lord.

Paul and Silas’ response to confinement

Now let’s see what Paul and Silas did when they were thrown into prison:

After they had severely beaten them [Paul and Silas], they threw them into prison and ordered the jailer to keep them safely. When he had received this order, he put them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks. But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners heard them. Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. All the doors were immediately opened, and everyone’s chains were loosed. (Acts 16:23-27)

I don’t know about you, but if I got beaten up and then put in jail, the last thing I would want to do would be to sing. But notice that despite being in that situation, Paul and Silas prayed and sang to the Lord. Why? I don’t think they did it because they were happy, rather, I think they did it because they knew it would please God.

Our response to suffering and pain

The automatic response for most of us to suffering and pain is to grieve and mope, to feel sorry for ourselves, and to hope for comfort and encouragement from those around us. These people’s reaction was different. And they are a model of how we should respond to times of pain and tribulation in a way that pleases God. When you and I are at our best, when everything is going well, we have no problem praising God. However, praising Him when things are going badly, when everything seems to be going downhill, is not easy at all. The last thing on our minds is probably singing to Him! And yet, that is what pleases God: praising Him, exalting Him, thanking Him in the midst of suffering, that pleases God’s heart. I know it is very difficult to think of praising God because it pleases God, because you might think that He is pleased to see us suffer, but that is not the case. Praising God in the midst of pain shows something about us: that we have faith in Him, and this will open a way for God to work in our lives.

Three ways to please God in the midst of confinement [1]

What to do in times of confinement? Once again David seems to shed some light on this:

For he will hide me in his tabernacle in the day of trouble; he will conceal me in the secret place of his dwelling; he will set me high upon a rock. (Psalm 27:5)

The psalmist tells of a time he was living in when God would hide him and protect him from evil. From the context, it seems that David wants to teach us that, in the time of war, in the time when his kingdom was invaded, God would free him from his enemies by placing him in his tabernacle, His temple (Psalm 27: 3).

Now, think about our current situation where we are advised or commanded to stay at home to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. It seems that we can get at least three lessons from verses 3 to 5 of this psalm where David will be hidden in God’s dwelling place and then put him in a higher place where he cannot be reached.

  1. Deepen our relationship with God

Observe what David will do in the time of confinement, in the time of hiding:

One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in his temple. (Psalm 27:4)

We see that in the midst of the crisis (Psalm 27: 2, 3) David makes only one request: to be in the house of God all the days of his life. The first lesson we can learn here in this time of confinement is to deepen our relationship with God. David’s recommendation is not to invest time in passing entertainment, but to take this time that we are at home to meditate on how we are carrying out our relationship with God. Are we doing what pleases Him? Take David’s example, he says that he will make a plan to be closer to God while he is in hiding. Take some time to read or study the Bible, read books or take a time of prayer.

  1. Contemplate the beauty of God

Verse 4 also tells us that David only wanted to contemplate the beauty of God. This does not mean that we try to “see” God and remain in a kind of trance, but rather to reflect God’s love through our attitude. How do people around you notice when you are in love? Your attitude. Your attitude changes towards others: you become kinder, more caring, more helpful. Who will we reflect this attitude with? With our family. Maybe on normal days you don’t spend time with your family because everyone does some activity that prevents you from relating to them, but nothing prevents you from spending time with your loved ones now that we are in confinement. Spending time with your husband(wife), child(ren), brother(s) can be hard, no doubt, there may be more friction than usual, but David says that this is the best time to manifest God’s love with our loved ones through our attitude. Do not allow boredom, tiredness or annoyance to make you take it out on your family. Take advantage of the time to unify more with the beings you love.

  1. Deepening our knowledge of God

Finally, verse 4 tells us that David desires to inquire in His holy temple. To inquire means to get to know something through questioning. During this time of confinement, we will be tempted to distract ourselves with social media, streaming series , video games, whatever. But how much time will you spend to increase your knowledge? David tells us that when the time of confinement comes, he would use the time to investigate, ask questions, question himself to increase his knowledge. Entertainment at home is not bad, of course, but do not forget to use this valuable time that you may not have again to read the Bible or to study a book by a Christian author.

Grades

[1] I thank Pastor Josafath Izquierdo for his help in this section of the writing.

*You can find the video of this article here: https://youtu.be/julXojCRNAE

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

Jairo Izquierdo is a member of the Social Media team and an author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He studies philosophy and theology, with his current focus being classical logic, epistemology, Christian doctrines, and philosophy of language. He is co-founder of Filósofo Cristiano . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship director at the Christian Baptist church Cristo es la Respuesta in Puebla, Mexico.

/by