Apprentice Owl Apologetics

“There’s only one God, ma’am; and I’m pretty sure He doesn’t dress like that”- Chris Evans as Captain America in Marvel’s The Avengers                 For those of you who know me personally, you already know that I am a massive comic book geek. For those of you who only know me through this page, you now know that I am a massive comic book geek. The quote from The Avengers actually got me chasing this thought “What does God look like?” The Bible has a few occasions where God appeared to men in his full glory, but they had to avert their eyes from his face, for no one can look upon the full glory of God and live. Most theologians would say that because people have sin within them, we cannot totally enter the presence of God or we would be destroyed by his perfection.                 There are other instances where God appeared in other forms to people or an individual. For example, Moses and the burning bush or when God descended as a cloud upon a mountain to speak with Mo

                One of the caricatures I have been seeing on atheist pages is a picture of Abraham sacrificing Isaac and equating him to people like Casey Anthony and so on. They will go on and on about how the Bible condones child sacrifice and the like just from this one story. There are a few things that people tend to leave out because it discredits this argument, and that is what I would like to attempt to convey to you today.                 One must look at on whose authority Abraham was doing this deed. Well go to Genesis 22, it starts with God calling Abraham to take his only son, Isaac, and sacrifice him as a burnt offering in the region of Moriah. This is where many people stop and accuse God of condoning child sacrifice, but bear with me a moment. In my translation (New International Version), it says that God tested Abraham. This is indicative of God wanting to test Abraham’s faith in Himself and to make sure that Abraham loved God more that he loved Isaac, whom

                This is probably going to be one of those posts that is going to get me in quite a bit of trouble. Ever since the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, the topic of evolution has been a controversial topic. Before one goes much further though, I feel that evolution must be defined. When evolution is used, it is actually a blanket statement for two specific processes. One of these processes is micro-evolution, which is the optimization of a species through the natural selection for the genes that allow individuals to survive and pass on their genes. The other term is macro-evolution, which is the attempt to use the mechanisms of micro-evolution and natural selection to account for the origin of life.                 So where does religion come into play here? One could start by looking at macro-evolution, as micro-evolution is a really well-defined field and is seen in the world we see today. People could also argue against macro-evolution, which would say that l

                A common objection to choosing a specific religion is normally a question phrased as “Aren’t all religions basically the same?” I would argue that, at least with the leading religions of today that they are only superficially similar, and fundamentally different; as opposed to the common view of the other way around. One can look at the tenants of each religion and determine this for themselves.                 A religion must also provide answers in four different areas, origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Origin being the beginning of the world and the historical chronicle of that religion; meaning answering the question of “Why are we here?”; morality providing a good set of ethics, and destiny answering the question of “Where is this all going?” This isn’t everything a religion must do, however. The religion must also answer these four questions in a way that the answers are true, and these answers are coherent with each other when one looks at the big