ellauri032.html on line 244: To understand the method which Pascal employs, the reader must be prepared to follow the process of the mind of the intelligent believer. The Christian thinker – and I mean the man who is trying consciously and conscientiously to explain to himself the sequence which culminates in faith, rather than the public apologist – proceeds by rejection and elimination. … To the unbeliever, this method seems disingenuous and perverse: for the unbeliever is, as a rule, not so greatly troubled to explain the world to himself, nor so greatly distressed by its disorder; nor is he generally concerned (in modern terms) to ‘preserve values’. He does not consider that if certain emotional states, certain developments of character, and what in the highest sense can be called ‘saintliness’ are inherently and by inspection known to be good, then the satisfactory explanation of the world must be an explanation which will admit the ‘reality’ of these values. Nor does he consider such reasoning admissible; he would, so to speak, trim his values according to his cloth, because to him such values are of no great value. The unbeliever starts from the other end, and as likely as not with the question: Is a case of human parthenogenesis credible? and this he would call going straight to the heart of the matter.
ellauri162.html on line 775: In 2011, she agreed to debate Christian apologist William Lane Craig, but later pulled out, saying “I hadn’t realised the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style, and having now looked at his previous performances, this is not my kind of forum.” Chickened out, that´s all.
ellauri162.html on line 781: William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, Christian theologian, Christian apologist, and author. He is Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University and Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology (Biolan University). Craig has updated and defended the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. He has also published work where he argues in favor of the historical plausibility of the resurrection of Jesus. His study of divine aseity and Platonism culminated with his book God Over All. He is a Wesleyan theologian who upholds the view of Molinism and neo-Apollinarianism.
xxx/ellauri125.html on line 541: masters of this renowned science, and apologists for it. The
xxx/ellauri174.html on line 59: In 1664, Malebranche first read Descartes' Treatise on Man, an account of the physiology of the human body. Malebranche's biographer, Father Yves André reported that Malebranche was influenced by Descartes’ book because it allowed him to view the natural world without Aristotelian scholasticism. (Okay, siis taas tämmönen uskonnon apologisti pahan luonnontieteen kynsistä.) Malebranche spent the next decade studying Cartesianism.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 773: The Quran’s use of the infancy story or legends built upon that story pose a special problem for Muslims apologists: the Quran is a divinely-dictated book that contains accounts of Jesus Christ found in unreliable literature some 100 to 200 years after the last book of the New
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 801: Muslim apologists would then be making the claim that “Christians made a mistake by not seeing the text’s truthfulness and historical validity.” The problem with this objection is triune: a) the criteria for canonicity, b) the history of the books, and c) the theology of the gospel itself.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 807: c) Lastly, the psychopathology of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is loftier and more theologically expansive than the psychopathology of the NT documents! If Muslim apologists choose to argue that the book contains correct theology and history concerning the nature and work Jesus Christ, they will have to deal with the ramifications of a book that teaches Jesus was a nasty boy in more ways than the NT documents otherwise elucidate. Thus, the book would then contradict the teachings of the Quran itself!
xxx/ellauri229.html on line 541: This baroque had its apologists and theoreticians, who maintained that the body existed for the purpose of deriving the greatest amount of pleasure from the greatest number of sites simultaneously. Merg Brb, its leading exponent, argued that Nature had situated - and stingily at that - centers of pleasurable sensation in the body for the purpose of survival only; therefore no enjoyable experience was, by her decree, autonomous, but always served some end: the supplying of the organism with fluids, for example, or with carbohydrates or proteins, or the guaranteeing - through offspring - of the continuation of the species, etc. From this imposed pragmatism it was necessary to break away, totally; the passivity displayed up till now in bodily design was due to a lack of imagination and perspective. Epicurean or erotic delight? - all a paltry by-product in the satisfying of instinctive needs, in other words the tyranny of Nature. It wasn´t enough to liberate sex - proof of that was sex had little future in it, from the combinatorial as well as from the constructional standpoint; whatever there was to think up in that department, had long ago been done, and the point of automorphic freedom didn´t lie in simple-mindedly enlarging this or that, producing inflated imitations of the same old thing. No, we had to come up with completely new organs and mem bers, whose sole function would be to make their possessor feel good, feel great, feel better all the time.
xxx/ellauri261.html on line 658: In his book Mere Christianity, the apologist C. S. Lewis, creator of Narnia and writer of fascinating scifi books in Portuguese about Mars and Venus*, objected to Hamilton´s version of Christian atheism and the claim that Jesus was merely a moral guide:

10