Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Inspiring Philosophy Academy

63 members • $25/month

3 contributions to Inspiring Philosophy Academy
It Just Works
Wanted to share a "win" moment that happened this week. As background, I've been engaging in evangelism/outreach/apologetics online in a game known as VRChat for over 4 years now. If you know, you know. If not, well, think of it as a pocket of condensed internet culture combined with never ending debauchery and the worst of human inclinations. A place that desperately needs Jesus. But who doesn't desperately need Jesus? Regardless, I attended my first ever Wednesday live-session on Objection Handling this week. It happened to include a special appearance from Big Jon Steel. Not only was it super educational and helpful, but Tim mentioned a principle on engaging others that stuck with me. It was how we shouldn't allow ourselves to be derailed by questions when it's the other person's burden to substantiate their argument. Seeing it played out in practice and the various strategies to stay focused was super helpful. Cue the very next night, when I'm world hopping and come across a deconstructionist who hosts his very own "anti-Bible studies" and creates video content on the matter. We end up engaging and the conversation quickly becomes about Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (stoning a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night). To avoid bloating this post with details, I essentially present the position that the law is not meant to be read as a code or strict, explicit rules but functions more as a legal treatise full of judicial wisdom. He pushed back with classic responses as "nuh uh" and "you're adding to the Bible", and then waved his flag of moral outrage that this is an unjust and disproportional law. I asked him to substantiate his conclusion that this was morally wrong, because all he was doing up to that point was making the assertion that it's immoral and wrong and asking us to just accept it. And it happened. He agreed to demonstrate how he came to that conclusion. I kid you not, the very next words to immediately come out of his mouth were: "Do YOU think this is ok?" It felt surreal that I was already being given the opportunity to practice one of the key principles I had learned the night before! I simply stood my ground, refused to answer, and emphasized that what I think has no bearing on how he reasons to his conclusion. He pushed back in all kinds of ways, like saying that I was "running" because I was afraid to answer. I stayed firm, and that created a turning point in the conversation.
0 likes • 9h
@Than Christopoulos Hit me up whenever you’re down. There’s an onboarding process I like to take new players through to make sure their eyes and minds are spared
⚠️NEW MEMBERS START HERE!
STEP 1: Download the Skool App and turn on notifications. STEP 2: Comment below on this post with the following: - Who are you, and where are you from? - What is your current role or interest in apologetics? - What do you hope to achieve as a member of this community? STEP 3: Attend the weekly live mentorship calls hosted by me or a scholar/specialist! Check the calendar for the call schedule. During these calls, you can ask questions to support your journey in building a strong and confident worldview. Missed a live session? No worries—recordings will be available within 48 hours! Please remember to follow the community rules and guidelines to keep this space positive and productive. Violators will be removed. If you have any questions, feel free to DM me.
1 like • 10d
Comment. But in all seriousness, I’m just a lawyer looking to learn more.
0 likes • 9d
@Jon Steel not even 24 hours and I’m already being exposed smh
1-3 of 3
David Cruz
2
15points to level up
@david-cruz-3415
I'm just here to learn

Active 2h ago
Joined Jul 9, 2026
Powered by