Norman Geisler: Perbedaan antara revisi

Geisler terutama dikenal sebagai seorang apologetika Kristen klasik. Antara tahun 1970 dan 1990 ia berpartisipasi banyak debat publik dan mendapatkan reputasi sebagai seorang pembela theisme, mukjizat alkitabiah, [[kebangkitan Yesus]], dan reliabilitas (dapat dipercayanya) [[Alkitab]]. Penerbitan pertama kerangka metode apologetikanya dicantumkan pada lampiran buku tahun 1990 ''When Skeptics Ask'' ("Ketika orang skeptis bertanya"). Lampiran ini diberi judul "Reasoning to Christianity from Ground Zero" ("Penalaran Kekristenan Dari Dasar Nol"). Di dalamnya terkandung pandangan tingkat tinggi dari sistem holistik apologetika klasik yang telah dikembangkannya​ selama bertahun-tahun. Kerangka pertama terdiri dari 14 poin argumen.:<ref>Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). When skeptics ask (p. 289). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

TheIkhtisar overviewsistem ofini hiskemudian systemsedikit wasdipersingkat laterdalam streamlined slightly into askema 12-point schema.poin, Assejak oftahun 1999, it could be summarized assebagai followsberikut:<ref>Geisler, N. L. "Apologetics, Argument of", in ''The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics''. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 1999</ref>

Geisler advocates the view called [[graded absolutism]], which is a theory of [[moral absolutism]] which resolves the objection to absolutism that in moral conflicts we are obligated to opposites.{{Sfn |Geisler |2009}} Moral absolutism is the [[Ethics|ethical]] view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Graded absolutism is moral absolutism but clarifies that a moral absolute, like "Do not kill," can be greater or lesser than another moral absolute, like "Do not lie". According to graded absolutism, in [[Ethical dilemma|moral conflicts]], the dilemma is not that we are obligated to opposites, because greater absolutes are not opposites of lesser absolutes, and evil is not the opposite of good but is instead the privation of good. Since evil is the privation of good, only the privation of the greater good counts as evil, since whenever there is a moral conflict, we are only obligated to the greater good. The real dilemma is that we cannot perform both conflicting absolutes at the same time. 'Which' absolutes are in conflict depends on the context, but which conflicting absolute is ‘greater’ does not depend on the context. That is why graded absolutism is also called 'contextual absolutism' but is not to be confused with [[situational ethics]]. The conflict is resolved in acting according to the greater absolute. That is why graded absolutism is also called the 'greater good view', but is not to be confused with [[utilitarianism]]{{Citation needed |date=January 2012}} (see also [[prima facie right|''prima facie'' right]].)-->