✓ Critiquing the Apologetics of Frank Turek
The following features brief critiques of Frank Turek’s apologetics content,
including his I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist podcast.
These are intended to generate deeper discussions in the comments sections.
◉ 2025-03 04
HELP! My Professor Says Jesus is a Myth!
Mar 4, 2025 — Is it possible that Jesus, the most influential person in history, was just a fictional character? In this midweek…
This episode responds to a student’s encounter with a university professor who claimed that Jesus is a mythical figure. The host defends the historical existence and uniqueness of Jesus by appealing to New Testament reliability, non-Christian historical sources, and the psychological profile of Jesus.
| Claim | Critique |
|---|---|
| 01. “How did he become the most influential human being in history if he didn’t exist?” (used rhetorically to deny Jesus as myth) ➘➘➘ Argument from popularity / Non sequitur / Begging the question | ◉ This argument assumes influence necessitates historicity, which is not logically valid. Mythical figures like Hercules or King Arthur have also had substantial cultural influence without being real. Influence reflects narrative power, not ontological reality. |
| 02. “Why would they [Jews] give up their long held religious beliefs… and then be tortured and killed for saying it was true?” (on the apostles’ beliefs) ➘➘➘ Appeal to consequence / Argument from incredulity / Circular reasoning | ◉ The claim assumes sincerity implies truth. People have died for countless beliefs that were later proven false. Additionally, the historical martyrdom of the apostles is not well-evidenced beyond Christian tradition, so the premise itself is questionable. |
| 03. “Nobody believes Jesus was a myth who is a scholar. I’m sure you can find stuff on the internet all you want, but you’re not going to find scholars saying…” ➘➘➘ Appeal to authority / Strawman | ◉ The statement exaggerates scholarly consensus and misrepresents mythicist positions by implying all are fringe or internet-based. There are credentialed scholars like Richard Carrier who argue for mythicism, even if in the minority. Minority status does not equate to falsity. |
| 04. “Programs always come from programmers… it’s not a God of the gaps argument to say there’s an intelligence that put that [DNA code] in there.” ➘➘➘ False analogy / Category error / Special pleading | ◉ Comparing DNA to human-coded software is a false analogy. Biological processes differ fundamentally from engineered systems, and assuming intelligence from complexity mirrors classic “God of the gaps” reasoning—filling explanatory gaps with divinity rather than allowing for unknowns or future discovery. |
| 05. “We can trust our minds… which should tell us that our minds were put together by a designer…” ➘➘➘ Self-referential incoherence / Non sequitur | ◉ Trust in cognition does not require a designer. Evolutionary epistemology offers a naturalistic account of reliable cognition. The argument commits a self-referential fallacy by presuming a trustworthy mind to argue for the necessity of a designer of that mind. |
| 06. “Jesus… is the embodiment of truth… he totally exposes people with his insight, he somehow delivers the message without adding offense.” ➘➘➘ Unsupported assertion / Idealization bias | ◉ This poetic claim is not substantiated with independent evidence and represents a theological rather than historical or philosophical assertion. The idea that a person is the “embodiment of truth” is metaphorical and lacks coherent epistemic grounding outside the faith framework. |
| 07. “This Jesus… is a character who could not have been invented.” ➘➘➘ Argument from incredulity / Circular reasoning | ◉ The idea that no one could have invented Jesus relies on a subjective sense of character uniqueness and assumes its conclusion—that he must be real. Many literary characters combine seemingly paradoxical traits; uniqueness does not prove historicity. |
Main Topics:
- Defense of the historicity of Jesus: 45%
- Critique of mythicism: 25%
- Science vs. faith arguments (DNA, mind, logic): 20%
- Apologetic advice to students: 10%
➘ #historicity, #jesusmyth, #faithvsreason, #epistemology, #newtestament, #apologetics, #mythicism, #philosophyofmind, #intelligentdesign, #cognitiveepistemology
◉ 2025-03 07
What REALLY Happened During the Crusades with Bill Federer
Mar 7, 2025 — How much do you know about the history of the Crusades? Were they unprovoked attacks by Christian armies, or was there…
This episode explores the historical backdrop and unfolding of the Crusades, with Bill Federer attributing their origin to Islamic expansion and claiming defensive motivations by European Christians. The conversation blends historical narrative with theological interpretation, often blurring scholarly history with Christian apologetic perspectives.
| Claim | Critique |
|---|---|
| 01. “The Crusades bought Europe two centuries… Had they not happened, the Muslim armies would have invaded Eastern Europe two centuries earlier.” (in defense of the Crusades’ necessity) ➘➘➘ Post hoc reasoning / Speculative counterfactual / Historical determinism | ◉ This claim lacks evidential grounding and projects a speculative causal chain without robust historical certainty. It assumes a linear inevitability to Islamic conquest and treats a hypothetical absence of the Crusades as deterministically disastrous, ignoring complex geopolitical dynamics and alternate possibilities. |
| 02. “Jesus never led armies. Muhammad did. Jesus never married. Muhammad had 11 to 22 wives. Jesus never tortured anybody. Muhammad did.” (contrasting Jesus and Muhammad to imply moral superiority) ➘➘➘ False equivalence / Loaded comparison / Moral absolutism | ◉ The selective contrast lacks a consistent ethical or philosophical framework. It oversimplifies historical and cultural contexts, projects modern expectations onto ancient figures, and operates from the unjustified assumption that ethical comparison validates theological truth claims. |
| 03. “We know from Romans 13 that the purpose of government is to protect innocent people from evil… a just ruler uses force to protect innocent people from evil.” (defense of Crusade as just war) ➘➘➘ Circular reasoning / Theological assumption as premise | ◉ This claim imports a religious scripture as an unquestioned normative standard in an argument that purports to explain historical causality. It uses theological assertion to justify military action while presuming what it seeks to prove: that divine authority supports political violence. |
| 04. “Pope Urban II… assured that even those who died during the campaign… would receive immediate forgiveness and eternal salvation… This sounds a lot like jihad.” (on indulgences and Crusader motivation) ➘➘➘ Tu quoque / False equivalence | ◉ While rhetorically compelling, equating medieval Christian indulgences with Islamic martyrdom doctrines is a misleading analogy that ignores vast theological and eschatological differences. It aims more to deflect criticism than to engage in meaningful comparative analysis. |
| 05. “The Christians had embraced pietism… this withdrawal allowed the Umayyad Muslims to conquer all of North Africa.” (on causality behind Muslim conquests) ➘➘➘ Oversimplification / Unfalsifiable hypothesis | ◉ Attributing sweeping historical outcomes to spiritual withdrawal offers no measurable or falsifiable criteria and ignores political, economic, and military explanations. This pseudo-historical claim reduces complex conquests to moralized causation. |
| 06. “If you’re a molecular machine, you can’t know that… If there’s no order to the universe, you wouldn’t get a consistent outcome…” (on naturalism and reliability of reason) ➘➘➘ Strawman / Category error / Presumption of dualism | ◉ This critique of materialist epistemology mischaracterizes naturalism by assuming that only a mind separate from matter can yield reliable cognition. It ignores developments in cognitive science and evolutionary theory that explain perception and reason as emergent, not divinely implanted. |
Main Topics:
- Historical framing of the Crusades and Islam: 60%
- Theological justification for violence: 20%
- Comparative religious apologetics (Jesus vs. Muhammad): 15%
- Commentary on medieval church authority and indulgences: 5%
➘ #crusades, #justwar, #historicalrevisionism, #religiousviolence, #comparativereligion, #apologetics, #islam, #pietism, #indulgences, #epistemology
◉ 2025-03 11
3 BIG Reasons Why God May Choose to Hide Himself
Mar 11, 2025 — Why doesn’t God make Himself more obvious? If God truly exists, why wouldn’t He just appear to everyone and settle all…
This episode addresses the theological problem of divine hiddenness, specifically why God does not reveal Himself more overtly, even after the resurrection. Frank Turek offers speculative rationales rooted in divine mercy, free will, and soul-building, referencing scripture, apologetic reasoning, and thinkers like C.S. Lewis and Søren Kierkegaard.
| Claim | Critique |
|---|---|
| 01. “God gives us enough freedom so he doesn’t overpower our will… not so much evidence that we don’t have free will to go our own way.” (defending divine hiddenness) ➘➘➘ False dichotomy / Special pleading / Unfalsifiable hypothesis | ◉ This presumes that a being could perfectly balance revelation and free will without ever proving it empirically. The assertion creates a theological loophole where any degree of divine absence can be excused by claiming it preserves autonomy—making it impervious to falsification and void of testable criteria. |
| 02. “Jesus, in hiding the truth from some people… is in a way doing an act of mercy.” (on parables and selective revelation) ➘➘➘ Redefinition / Moral rebranding / Contradiction of omnibenevolence | ◉ Recasting epistemic concealment as mercy contradicts the claim of a perfectly loving deity who desires all to know the truth. Selectively withholding life-altering truth while punishing ignorance fails any rational standard of fairness and responsibility. |
| 03. “Whenever we see a message, it always points back to a mind… DNA… is a message… therefore there must be intelligence.” (on DNA as design) ➘➘➘ False analogy / Argument from ignorance / Affirming the consequent | ◉ Equating DNA to human messages confuses metaphor with mechanism. Biological sequences arise from evolutionary processes, not intentional communication. The claim arbitrarily defines “message” to suit the conclusion and assumes intelligence by default, ignoring natural explanations. |
| 04. “If there’s a creation… design… moral law… you reason back to a cause… a moral law giver.” (on natural theology) ➘➘➘ Begging the question / Category error / Non sequitur | ◉ This reasoning leaps from observed phenomena to an undefined agent by pre-loading assumptions about what constitutes causality. It treats abstract concepts like morality and logic as empirical “effects” requiring external agency, which conflates metaphysics with physics. |
| 05. “Jesus really did rise from the dead… then you realize that that cause beyond us is the Christian God.” (conclusion from resurrection claim) ➘➘➘ Circular reasoning / Lack of external corroboration / Appeal to authority | ◉ This argument hinges entirely on the truth of a specific scriptural narrative, offering no independent historical or philosophical justification. Using resurrection to prove divinity assumes the text’s reliability before it’s demonstrated, thus arguing in a circle. |
Main Topics:
- Divine hiddenness and free will: 40%
- Natural theology and apologetics: 35%
- Resurrection-based theological claims: 15%
- Biblical interpretation and anecdotal theology: 10%
➘ #divinehiddenness, #apologetics, #epistemology, #freethought, #naturaltheology, #resurrection, #cognitivescience, #dna, #faithvsreason, #theodicy
◉ 2025-03 14
Did the Apostles REALLY Die as Martyrs? with Dr. Sean McDowell
Mar 14, 2025 — How much evidence exists for the martyrdom of the apostles? Did they REALLY die for their faith? Christians often use…
This episode features Sean McDowell discussing his research into the historical evidence for the martyrdom of Jesus’ apostles. The argument centers on whether their willingness to suffer and die provides epistemic justification for the resurrection claims, and if that sincerity differentiates Christian martyrdom from that of other faith traditions.
| Claim | Critique |
|---|---|
| 01. “They were in a position to know whether Jesus had risen from the dead or not… their willingness to suffer cannot be separated from the belief that he indeed appeared to them.” (on the apostles’ credibility) ➘➘➘ Non sequitur / Argument from ignorance / Hasty generalization | ◉ Willingness to suffer does not equate to eyewitness accuracy or truth. People can be sincerely mistaken or motivated by community cohesion, psychological factors, or evolving myth. The claim fails to bridge the gap from subjective belief to objective verification. |
| 02. “There’s no evidence that any wavered or recanted… if they had recanted, critics like Celsus or Porphyry would have mentioned it.” (on argument from silence) ➘➘➘ Argument from silence / Wishful thinking / Confirmation bias | ◉ This line of reasoning assumes complete historical documentation and a preserved adversarial record—an unrealistic standard. Absence of evidence in surviving texts is not positive evidence of unwavering belief. It interprets silence in favor of a preferred conclusion. |
| 03. “Their willingness to die for what they saw with their own eyes… points toward their sincerity, that they’re not liars.” (contrast with Islamic martyrs) ➘➘➘ False dilemma / Sincerity fallacy / Equivocation | ◉ Even if sincere, sincerity does not imply truth. The argument reduces epistemic justification to personal conviction and uses it as a proxy for historical verification. It also commits a false dilemma by ignoring third options like delusion or group reinforcement. |
| 04. “Christians were martyrs for the belief Jesus had risen… that makes their martyrdom unique.” (defense against other religious martyrs) ➘➘➘ Special pleading / Anecdotal distinction | ◉ Martyrdom for resurrection claims is not epistemically privileged over martyrdom for legal protest, mystical visions, or doctrinal fidelity. Each claim must be evaluated on evidence, not on the emotive uniqueness assigned by insiders. |
| 05. “If Jesus rose from the dead… then he’s the Son of God… and Christianity is true.” (summary implication of martyrdom claim) ➘➘➘ Circular reasoning / Unsupported premise | ◉ This deductive leap assumes the resurrection as proven when it is still the point of contention. The martyrdom defense presupposes the apostles’ experiences were veridical, using theological conclusions to bolster historical premises. |
Main Topics:
- Martyrdom as evidence for resurrection: 45%
- Evaluation of apostolic death traditions: 30%
- Comparison with other religious martyrdoms: 15%
- Responses to historical objections: 10%
➘ #martyrdom, #resurrection, #historicalmethod, #faithvsreason, #apostolictradition, #apologetics, #cognitivebias, #argumentfromsilence, #sincerityfallacy, #christianclaims
◉ 2025-03 18
Is Christianity Making a Comeback? with Cliffe & Stuart Knechtle
Mar 18, 2025 — Are we witnessing a renewed interest in God, Christianity, and Jesus in today’s culture? For this midweek podcast,…
This episode features apologists Cliffe and Stuart Knechtle discussing their outreach efforts on college campuses and their encounters with students and secular thinkers. They address objections to Christianity, the problem of divine judgment, and the ethical implications of belief systems, positioning Christianity as emotionally stabilizing and intellectually superior to secular worldviews.
| Claim | Critique |
|---|---|
| 01. “If I believe that all religions lead to God, that is obviously a truth claim… the overwhelming evidence is Jesus Christ is reliable.” (on religious pluralism vs. exclusivity) ➘➘➘ False dichotomy / Unsubstantiated assertion / Confirmation bias | ◉ The framing misrepresents pluralism as a monolithic truth claim rather than a metaphysical openness to epistemic humility. The appeal to “overwhelming evidence” for Jesus’ reliability relies heavily on internal scripture without sufficient corroborating external verification. |
| 02. “If God doesn’t judge… I do not matter to Him.” (defense of divine judgment as evidence of value) ➘➘➘ Non sequitur / Emotional reasoning / False analogy | ◉ This conflates punitive response with care, presuming that judgment is necessary for significance. A God could hypothetically value human beings without resorting to eternal punishment or retributive justice, so the logic does not hold universally. |
| 03. “Jesus comes along and says… you need to repent… pick up your cross… we all have sinned.” (explanation of sin and repentance) ➘➘➘ Circular reasoning / Theological presupposition / Loaded terminology | ◉ This argument presupposes the doctrine of sin as a given without providing independent epistemic support. It imports scriptural language as if it inherently carries authority, ignoring that sin, as a concept, is defined by the system trying to prove itself. |
| 04. “If there is no God who creates our sexuality for a purpose, it doesn’t matter whether you have sex with… someone of the same gender.” (on homosexuality and divine intent) ➘➘➘ False premise / Naturalistic fallacy / Arbitrary teleology | ◉ The claim assumes that lacking divine teleology negates moral significance, which is unproven. Human meaning-making and ethical boundaries are possible without an external deity, and invoking purpose does not automatically confer moral authority. |
| 05. “Christianity… says people don’t die, they just change location.” (response to divine killings in scripture) ➘➘➘ Begging the question / Semantic evasion / Moral equivocation | ◉ This reframing attempts to soften violent biblical acts by redefining death, but it fails to address the ethical problem from a non-Christian framework. It assumes the very afterlife it needs to justify its moral defense, thus arguing in a circle. |
Main Topics:
- Defense of Christian sexual ethics: 30%
- Moral justification of divine judgment: 25%
- Public campus apologetics and deconversion narratives: 20%
- Arguments about religious exclusivity and relativism: 15%
- Comparisons between Christianity and secularism: 10%
➘ #religionexclusivity, #judgment, #sin, #moralphilosophy, #apologetics, #homosexuality, #campusevangelism, #pluralism, #divinecommandtheory, #faithvsreason
◉ 2025-03 21
How to Raise Brave Kids to Have Bold Faith with Kirk Cameron
Mar 21, 2025 — How do you capture your child’s attention so they know and live THE truth of Jesus? How can you educate and entertain…
In this episode, Kirk Cameron discusses his efforts to instill Christian values in young children through storytelling, public advocacy, and a new kids’ show called Iggy and Mr. Kirk. He criticizes modern secular culture, promotes a return to biblical morality, and claims that spiritual education is essential for cultural survival.
| Claim | Critique |
|---|---|
| 01. “The culture is the way that it is… largely because of the lack of what the family of faith has done over time.” (on societal moral decay) ➘➘➘ Oversimplification / Moralizing narrative / False attribution | ◉ This assertion reduces complex socio-cultural changes to a single religious cause. It fails to account for secular humanistic movements, evolving social contracts, and empirical psychological development, instead moralizing societal pluralism as religious neglect. |
| 02. “Culture… if we don’t get to the kids and teach them the good guys and the bad guys and the real framework for history… they’re going to be lost.” (on indoctrinating youth with specific moral binaries) ➘➘➘ Black-and-white thinking / Indoctrination / Fear-based reasoning | ◉ By casting moral education in rigid binary terms, this rhetoric leaves no room for epistemological nuance or value pluralism. It treats disagreement as moral failure and promotes ideological conformity over critical engagement with diverse worldviews. |
| 03. “If we deny the Father before men, then He’ll deny us… but the desire of my heart is to honor the Father…” (on fear of divine rejection) ➘➘➘ Appeal to fear / Theological coercion / Emotional blackmail | ◉ This claim leverages divine disapproval as a behavioral incentive, which undermines voluntariness in belief. Fear-based piety lacks epistemic merit and shifts motivation away from truth-seeking to appeasement of presumed supernatural threats. |
| 04. “If there’s no God, the family sucks, and America is just a white supremacist slave nation.” (on societal narratives without God) ➘➘➘ Strawman / False dilemma / Slippery slope | ◉ This extreme dichotomy caricatures secular or progressive critiques of history, falsely attributing them to atheism writ large. It ignores nuanced, evidence-based historical analysis and falsely presents theism as the sole bulwark against moral and national collapse. |
| 05. “We’re not fighting for victory; we’re fighting from victory… after the crucifixion and the resurrection…” (on Christian activism) ➘➘➘ Presupposition / Circular reasoning / Theological triumphalism | ◉ This claim assumes the resurrection as historically validated and uses it to justify cultural intervention. It reflects triumphalist thinking and offers no external validation for the foundational premise, instead recycling doctrine to support itself. |
Main Topics:
- Christian cultural engagement and activism: 35%
- Religious media and child education: 30%
- Critique of secularism and gender ideology: 20%
- Personal testimony and apologetics: 15%
➘ #faitheducation, #indoctrination, #culturalcritique, #childrensmedia, #religiousactivism, #epistemology, #fearbasedbelief, #moralabsolutism, #apologetics, #theologicalcoercion
◉ 2025-03 25
C.S. Lewis on How Do Demons Deceive Us? Plus Q&A
Mar 25, 2025 — Why is propaganda and empty rhetoric so appealing to some people? In this midweek episode, Frank explains how the…
This episode is a commentary on the first letter of C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters, used to discuss how demons allegedly influence human thought through distraction, pride, and cultural jargon. The host expands these themes into a critique of secular ideologies, materialism, and moral relativism while promoting Christian supernaturalism as intellectually and morally superior.
| Claim | Critique |
|---|---|
| 01. “Use jargon, not argument, says Lewis… In our contemporary culture, jargon would be things like love is love and my body, my choice… DEI really isn’t about diversity, equity and inclusion.” (on modern slogans and deception) ➘➘➘ Strawman / Ad hominem / Reductive fallacy | ◉ This critique caricatures nuanced ethical and political positions as mere deceptive buzzwords. It dismisses entire frameworks without addressing their philosophical substance, relying on rhetorical labeling rather than counter-argumentation. |
| 02. “If you’re not reasoning, you’re just reacting… There’s got to be an explanation for that. And the explanation is not atheism.” (on atheism’s alleged inability to explain thought) ➘➘➘ False dichotomy / Category error / Begging the question | ◉ This assertion falsely equates materialism with irrationality, ignoring well-established naturalistic theories of cognition. It presumes theism is the only viable explanatory model for consciousness without establishing why materialist or emergentist accounts are insufficient. |
| 03. “Morality isn’t molecules in motion. Logic isn’t molecules in motion. Mathematics isn’t molecules in motion. Consciousness isn’t molecules in motion.” (on abstract entities and naturalism) ➘➘➘ Composition fallacy / Mischaracterization / Non sequitur | ◉ Abstract concepts like logic and mathematics need not be reducible to physical matter to exist meaningfully within a naturalist ontology. The critique conflates metaphysical non-materiality with supernaturalism, ignoring philosophical alternatives like Platonism or conceptualism. |
| 04. “We can’t believe in miracles because all we see is natural causes around us, and they’re ordinary… That just doesn’t follow.” (on naturalism’s alleged limitation) ➘➘➘ Strawman / False assumption / Presupposition bias | ◉ This frames skepticism toward miracles as irrational when it is actually grounded in evidential rigor and methodological consistency. It presumes a supernaturalist worldview and then faults naturalism for not sharing its priors, resulting in a biased evaluation. |
| 05. “Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favor, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues…” (quoting Lewis to discourage reasoning) ➘➘➘ Appeal to fear / Anti-intellectualism / Philosophical romanticism | ◉ This notion celebrates emotional and spiritual intuition over critical analysis, suggesting that deep rational inquiry inherently favors Christianity. It romanticizes “universal thinking” as dangerous for skeptics, which reflects ideological presupposition, not demonstrable truth. |
Main Topics:
- Demonic deception and distraction (via C.S. Lewis): 40%
- Critique of secularism and materialism: 30%
- Defense of Christian metaphysics and morality: 20%
- Political and legal commentary: 10%
➘ #cslewis, #screwtapeletters, #divineepistemology, #naturalism, #supernaturalism, #miracles, #consciousness, #logic, #materialism, #philosophyofmind
◉ 2025-03 28
How Can Murder and True Crime Point Others to Jesus? with Jimmy and J. Warner Wallace
Mar 28, 2025 — Why are so many people fascinated with evil stories of murder, and true crime? And more importantly, can we use that…
This episode discusses how the public fascination with crime and murder can be leveraged as an apologetic tool to point people toward Christianity. Jimmy Wallace and J. Warner Wallace explore human depravity, moral value, and identity through the creation of their new graphic novel Case Files: Murder and Meaning, aiming to integrate realistic law enforcement experiences with Christian themes subtly embedded in narrative fiction.
| Claim | Critique |
|---|---|
| 01. “If human life has value, there must be a God that gives it that value.” (on grounding human dignity) ➘➘➘ Non sequitur / Begging the question / False premise | ◉ This assertion presupposes that intrinsic value cannot exist independently of divine command. Secular moral realism and other philosophical accounts (e.g., Kantian dignity) offer frameworks for objective human value without appealing to supernaturalism. |
| 02. “Christianity is the answer to the problem of evil… There would be no need for Jesus if we had never sinned.” (theodicy explanation) ➘➘➘ Circular reasoning / Assumption of sin nature / Lack of falsifiability | ◉ This explanation depends entirely on the Christian doctrinal framework, assuming sinfulness without external corroboration. It reframes the existence of evil as validation of Christian truth claims rather than confronting the epistemological challenge that gratuitous evil poses to an all-powerful, benevolent deity. |
| 03. “The world is fallen and needs a redeemer.” (on human nature and need for salvation) ➘➘➘ Loaded language / Presupposition / False dichotomy | ◉ This statement embeds theological assumptions into empirical descriptions of human behavior. Acknowledging human flaws does not logically necessitate religious redemption, nor does it rule out non-religious frameworks for moral growth and societal improvement. |
| 04. “The Christian worldview must make sense of evil in a messy world, otherwise it’s not true.” (on Christianity and coherence) ➘➘➘ Coherence theory fallacy / Category error | ◉ While internal coherence is a necessary property of a worldview, it is not sufficient to establish truth. Fictional systems (e.g., Tolkien’s Middle Earth) can be coherent without corresponding to reality. The argument conflates narrative internal logic with metaphysical veracity. |
| 05. “You don’t achieve your identity. You receive your identity.” (on Christian conception of identity) ➘➘➘ Arbitrary definition / False universalism / Subjective validation | ◉ This characterization privileges one theological view of identity while dismissing others without argument. Human identity construction is a complex process involving self-concept, social interaction, and existential reflection—not merely passive reception from an external authority. |
Main Topics:
- Using crime fascination as an apologetic tool: 40%
- Grounding human value and dignity: 30%
- Problem of evil and human nature: 20%
- Identity formation in Christian worldview: 10%
➘ #problemofevil, #apologetics, #humanvalue, #identityformation, #christianworldview, #faithvsreason, #theodicy, #crimefiction, #naturalism, #moralphilosophy
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment