If a person talks about “religion,” logic often often takes a back seat…

Gregory Koukl, in Tactics (Zondervan, 2009) offers the following assertions and (in parentheses) responses to the logical contradictions they present:

• “There is no truth.”  (Is this statement true?)

• “There are no absolutes.”  (Is this an absolute?)

• “No one can know any truth about religion.”  (And how, precisely, did you come to                                   know that truth about religion?)

Want any MORE?  Go through the DOOR.


• “You can’t know anything for sure.”  (Are you sure about that?)

• “Talking about God is meaningless.”  (What does this statement about God mean?)

• “You can only know truth through experience.”  (What experience taught you that truth?)

• “Never take anyone’s advice on that issue.”  (Should I take your advice on that?)

If we throw logic away, there’s not much we, or anyone, can say that matters…

(If you want to learn about logic, go to college. If you’ve been there recently, reflect back. There’s a lot of people there more intelligent than you and I, but it’s easy to see that often Logic is not king of the hill. “Why should I believe this?” you ask. “I know this truth though experience,” I reply. And you ask me, “What experience has taught you this truth?” “Keep coming back to adozenseconds.com and you’ll learn why…” I need more time…Class over…)

(Not a bad post for “April 1”?)