Tag: Paul Jenkins
-
Passion in Apologetics
In a previous post I asked the question, “What does success in apologetics look like?” We read through the Apostle Paul’s encounter with the Athenians at the Areopagus, took note of the content of his message and the way he presented it, as well as his hearers’ responses, and, keeping in mind that the Apostle sets the example for us as apologists, we concluded that success in apologetics does not depend upon people’s response to our message. Success, therefore, is determined by the content of the message itself and the extent to which we reason in line with Biblical truths …
-
Another Atheist Gives Up
Paul Jenkins asks, “How come so many people claim to believe patently crazy stuff?”
I’ve reached my nonsense-tolerance limit as far as presuppositional apologetics is concerned, and I’ll no longer engage with it in any but the most cursory way. PA is a minority belief within the broader theistic morass (indeed it appears to be an undesirable bedfellow to much of that morass) so ignoring it will be of little consequence.
So there you are. Paul J has joined the ranks of atheist quitters. I have not seen where he has established anything close to his implicit claim that …
-
Paul Jenkins, Naughty Children, and Hell
Introduction
Somewhat understandably, our friend Paul Jenkins categorizes the discussion of, “whether Hell is ‘eternal conscious punishment’ on the one hand, or ‘annihilation’ on the other” as, “Not just piffle, but risible piffle.”
The alternative that occurs most obviously to me is, “Hell doesn’t exist — it’s a horror story told to children to stop them being naughty.”
One might question how Paul is so dogmatically certain that hell doesn’t exist. Of course it does not matter how certain Paul feels he is with regard to the alleged non-existence of hell if hell does in fact exist. It does …
-
“Theology is Piffle” – Paul S. Jenkins on Debate
Once upon a time I wrote to Paul S. Jenkins in a comment on his blog and said, “Any time you are willing to debate, ‘Theology is Piffle’ let me know!” In response he asks, “Is it worth debating?” Answering his own question, he writes, “Probably not, because in order to ‘debate’ sensibly about something, both sides must be clear that they are discussing the same thing.”
Is it true that both sides in a debate must be clear that they are discussing the same thing? Probably not, and I can think of any number of debates where the participants …