Paul:<br><br>Ron D in his statement and subsequent link has giving perfect reason as to why trying to prove the historicity of the Virgin Conception is a poor way to do apologetics. What needs to be challenged is Nicholas D. Kristof presuppositions. Which are as follows:<br><br>1.) Materialistic Philosophy<br><blockquote><span style="background-color:yellow;">Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view. <br>My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend.<br>Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians. </span></blockquote><br><br>2.) Anti-Scripture<br><blockquote>[color:blue]My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend. Those kinds of mainline Christians are vanishing, replaced by evangelicals.</font color=blue></blockquote><br><br>3.) Evangelicals as anti-intellectuals<br><blockquote>[color:green]The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. <br>The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America<br>But mostly, I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic. I worry partly because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain.</font color=green></blockquote><br><br>The response to this would be as said in the Bahnsen article:<br><blockquote>As Paul at Athens, we must demand a complete, change of world-outlook and presupposition (based on the authority of God's word) and not just a mere addition of a few facts.</blockquote><br><br>Now I am not going to add much to this too many other people have done a better job than I could besides this reply is much later than I wanted but my days have been spent programming so I haven't devoted the time to it as I wanted to. But I did find an article by J.P. Holding that answers all of the comments regarding the Virgin Conception (but not the bodily ascension or other papist claptrap) that Kristof raised in the article. <br>On the Virginal Conception and Birth of Jesus <br><br> <br><br><br> <br><br><br><br><br>
