Apologetical articles

Let us begin our consideration of questions which are raised against the faith that was once and for all delivered unto the Saints: I. Is it absolutely necessary for us to believe in the Trinity to be classed as a Christian? The doctrine of the Trinity is the bedrock of the Christian faith, in fact, you cannot even begin to understand the scripture apart from this truth being held too. Now that does not mean that you have to have full working knowledge of it to be saved; nor does it mean that you cannot be saved without believing in it. But what it does mean is this:  over time and by means of being taught and personal study one must come to this biblical treasure as being the only viable understanding of all of the scriptures and what have to teach.  Now it is true that in the Old Testament, God uses a lot of singular pronouns to describe Himself. No trinitarian denies this reality; but the Unitarian denies and out right rejects the plural pronouns which God uses to describe ...

In recent days there was a vicious attack on a young child by a dog (not the first time) which is a very sad thing when it happens. But what came out of this is a clear evidence that Evolution is nothing more than a complete lie. And that Genesis 1:26-27 is vindicated as being the truth: Man has inherent dignity; worth and value And here are the reasons why this is the case: Conclusion one: the very fact that such a horrendous act produces in other humans such  a brokenness inside due to the loss of a child provides us with a clear sign that we have been created in the image of God. And the loss of life cripple us to a degree that the loss of animal could never measure up to.  And here is the reason for that: the bond between a human parent and child transcends any other bond because it is a God given gift.    Conclusion two: the fact that the taking of a life in such a manner requires swift action on the part of the law (the dog is to be put down). This is the recog...

The fallacy of conversion therapy   It would appear that since the last time we discussed this notion while much as been said on the issue; not much has changed into terms of definition: what exactly is conversion therapy? What constitutes as conversion therapy or what does not? No answer. And perhaps that is a part of the problem for the LGBT "community" is not wanting to have well defined ideal so that anything that they deemed as inappropriate or evasive being put into the category.  But this leads to another problem with the concession:   "will not impact everyday religious practice. …parents will remain able to raise their children with the values of their faith, and simply expressing the teachings of a religion will not constitute conversion therapy.” The fundamental presupposition in this should be clear: how can they guarantee that such a law will not encroach on a person's fundamental religious convictions?   And what we need to see is that if...