TheologyWeb Campus - Apologetics 301

Genocide In The Old Testament?

seer — Mon, 20 May 2013 14:40:23 GMT

When unbelievers complain about the historical (or not so historical) accounts of genocide in the OT I have to wonder why. The Hebrews come into the land and make peace with certain tribes, and pretty much destroyed or exiled the rest. They took the land and prospered - at least for a number of generations. Wasn't this just a good evolutionary strategy? What's the problem?

Kings of Israel and Judah

Ged — Sun, 19 May 2013 04:09:59 GMT

The book of Kings is structured in the form of a �combination lock� which, going backward unlocks the door to ancient history, and forward, tracks the messianic timetable. The books contain a repeating formula where the accession of a king is synchronised with the reign of his contemporary in the neighbouring kingdom (whether Judah or Israel) followed by the number of years that he reigned. Thus, �In the (x)th year of king (A) of Israel, king (B) of Judah began to reign and he reigned (y) years.�

At first sight it seems like a cinch - just do the math and the formula should work? It might have been easy if not for several little quirks in the Hebrew calendar. The reign of some kings appear one year less than the stated length of time because the ancient method of counting treated part-years, beginning and ending a person's reign, as if they were full ones. Even when a king died several weeks into the New Year it was counted as his final 'year.'

Then there was Judah's habit of treating the first full year as 'number 1' and Samaria's method of counting from the part-year instead. Understanding these small variations reveal a finely tuned timeline running beneath the surface of scripture.

Here is my chronological timeline for the Kings of Israel and Judah.

As you can see, there are slight differences to Old Testament chronologists, Thiele, Galil, Kitchen, Ussher. Any discussion welcome on these differences and the historical dates of the Hebrew kings.

Excellent Animated Short | Stephen Fry | Catholic Debate

woody68 — Tue, 14 May 2013 20:31:03 GMT

I found this excellent animation from a debate held in 2009 between Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Fry, Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A FORCE FOR GOOD IN THE WORLD

Best viewed full-screen and in HD!

Richard Dawkins - The Enemies Of Reason (Documentary)

woody68 — Mon, 13 May 2013 00:12:48 GMT

Fantastic viewing!

The Enemies of Reason is a two-part television documentary, written and presented by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in which he seeks to expose "those areas of belief that exist without scientific proof, yet manage to hold the nation under their spell", including mediumship, acupuncture and psychokinesis

Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Dawkins points to some of science's achievements and describes it as freeing most people from superstition and dogma. Picking up from his superstition-reason distinction in The Root of All Evil? (while recycling some footage from it), he then says reason is facing an "epidemic of superstition" that "impoverishes our culture" and introduces gurus that persuade us "to run away from reality". He calls the present day dangerous times. He returns to science's achievements, including the fact that, by extending people's lifespan, it helps them to take more advantage of life. He turns his attention to astrology, which he criticizes for stereotyping without evidence. Having put astrology to the test and referred to larger-scale experiments, he then briefly describes the mechanics of astronomy, and then expresses frustration that 50% of the UK population -- more than are members of one religion -- believe in the paranormal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1N1bGH1gb8

Part 2: The Irrational Health Service

Richard Dawkins examines the growing suspicion the public has for science-based medicine, despite its track record of successes like the germ theory of disease, vaccines, antibiotics and increased lifespan. He notes a fifth of British children are currently not immunised against measles, mumps and rubella, attributing it to fears arising from a highly controversial report linking the vaccine with autism.

Dawkins criticizes the growing field of alternative medicine which does not pass the same objective and statistical rigour as scientifically derived treatments using controlled double-blind studies. Without verifiable evidence, alternative therapies must rely on biased anecdotes and word of mouth to perpetuate. Dawkins observes these treatments have fanciful rationales and rituals behind them, with many alternative treatments employing pseudoscientific jargon such as "energy", "vibration" or "quantum theory" to give themselves greater credence to patients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCbVAr3iGWo

:)

Does Prayer Change Behavior?

seer — Thu, 09 May 2013 20:51:14 GMT

It seems that praying for others helps us to be more forgiving, less vengeful and more cooperative. Good things - correct?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2.01411.x/full

Quote:

Several studies tested whether partner-focused prayer shifts individuals toward cooperative tendencies and forgiveness. In Studies 1 and 2, participants who prayed more frequently for their partner were rated by objective coders as less vengeful. Study 3 showed that, compared to partners of targets in the positive partner thought condition, the romantic partners of targets assigned to pray reported a positive change in their partner's forgiveness. In Study 4, participants who prayed following a partner's �hurtful behavior� were more cooperative with their partners in a mixed-motive game compared to participants who engaged in positive thoughts about their partner. In Study 5, participants who prayed for a close relationship partner reported higher levels of cooperative tendencies and forgiveness.

Forgiveness is associated with a variety of indicators of positive relationship functioning, including relationship satisfaction (e.g., Fincham & Beach, 2007), increased commitment (e.g., Karremans, Van Lange, Ouwerkerk, & Kluwer, 2003; Tsang, McCullough, & Fincham, 2006), and effective conflict resolution (Fincham, Beach, & Davila, 2007; see Fincham, 2009, for review). Thus, forgiveness is an important facet of relationship well-being and it is important to examine its correlates.

And The Logos Was God...

seer — Thu, 09 May 2013 16:53:08 GMT

John Chapter 1
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Quote:

lo�gos
[loh-gos, -gohs, log-os]
noun
1. Philosophy . the rational principle that governs and develops the universe.
2.
Theology . the divine word or reason incarnate in Jesus Christ. John 1:1�14.

We live in an intelligible, rational universe. With rational minds that can turn around and understand and investigate this logical universe. So what makes more sense? That the universe and our rational minds were created by the non-rational, non-intending forces of nature, or that they were created by a Rational Mind that had intention?

God created the animals, then he created the animals?

The Pixie — Wed, 08 May 2013 12:08:42 GMT

I am wondering what Biblical inerrantists make of this. Many will claim there are two different creation myths: in the first God creates plants, animals, then man and woman together; in the second, God (or rather, Lord God as the KJV says) creates man, plants, animals and then woman.

So what we see is God creating all those animals in Genesis 1:

Genesis 1

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Then in Genesis 2 he goes and creates them all again:

Genesis 2

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

For anyone interested in the word "formed" here is the Hebrew and here the concordance, and it is clear that it means to create (as a potter forms a pot, or a carpenter forms a chair).

Richard Dawkins - Flying Horses & Splitting The Moon

woody68 — Mon, 06 May 2013 15:27:11 GMT

In this brief exert from a interview Richard critiques the Muslim journalist on his belief in flying horses and the splitting of the moon by the prophet�

When asked about creationism - the journalist blatantly lies in order to save face! The Qu'Ran pretty much mirrors the bibles version of genesis in many ways but the Muslim journalist (an apparently well regarded one) lies:)

I'm trying to find the full interview to see if Richard picks him up on this lie but from his response he may not have�

Excellent viewing though!!

[HQ] Christopher Hitchens vs Tony Blair Debate

woody68 — Fri, 03 May 2013 00:17:38 GMT

I know most would have seen this but from what I can gather all version on YT are poor quality with very poor - out of sync - audio.

Here is a beautiful version in high quality with excellent audio!

About:
In a world of globalization and rapid social change does religion provide the common values and ethical foundations that diverse societies need to thrive in the 21st century? Or, do deeply held religious beliefs promote intolerance, exacerbate ethnic divisions, and impede social progress in developing and developed nations alike?

The Motion: Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world.

25% For - Pre Debate Results - Against 55%
20% Undecided

32% For - Post Debate Results - Against 68%

Non-Christians, How Do You See It?

Adrift — Thu, 02 May 2013 19:12:55 GMT

Hello everyone. This thread is for non-Christians. It's not a debate thread. Its just an information gathering thread to gauge unbelievers perceptions on a certain subject.

In another active thread I'm currently in, I'm debating the use of insult rhetoric on this forum. One of my arguments is that the use of insult is often done, or at least perceived to be done in the spirit of spite, mean-spiritedness, and cruelty, and that that perception matters when it comes to getting one's point across.

The folks I'm talking to have stated that that's not the perception they're trying to give off at all, and that instead they're attempting to force the insultee to rethink their position or, alternatively, to shut up.

Instead of guessing about what others think, I thought it might be interesting to go right to the source. What do you think the intent of insult rhetoric is? What's your perception?

Thanks.

Why Faith Matters...

seer — Thu, 02 May 2013 14:55:36 GMT

From the Hoover Institute:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/article/6577

Quote:

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

So are people of faith more generous? Better for the community over all?

The sons of Lamech

The Pixie — Wed, 01 May 2013 13:04:38 GMT

These are descendants of Cain:

Genesis 4

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

So what does this mean? Looking at Jabal, he was not the first to keep livestock - that was Abel. Was he then the first to specifically keep cattle (I ask because I have a feeling the Bible uses "cattle" to mean domesticated animals in general). When it says "the father of" does that mean a pioneer (like Darwin is the father of evolution) or should it be taken literally; all keepers of livestock are descended from him (or at least, such was the case when the verse was written).

Julia Sweeney - Letting Go Of God (VIDEO)

woody68 — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:05:37 GMT

After reading the book and listening to the audio-cd I was very keen to get to see this act in the flesh! Unable to see it live I turned to youtube and finally found it!

If you've not seen it then I seriously recommend a viewing. Both enlightening and funny!!

About:
Letting Go of God is a humorous monologue by Julia Sweeney chronicling her search for God. She begins in the Catholic church, the religion her family raised her in, and takes a Bible study class. What she learns there leads her to new questions, and in search for answers she explores meditation, Buddhism and New Age gurus, then describes what she learned from the sciences and from sharpening her critical thinking skills. She discovers that to accept the truth leads to surprising revelations. She concludes by sharing how this effects her family.

Hope you enjoy this as much as I did!

Woody

What was the point in creating the universe?

little_monkey — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:58:42 GMT

So the questions are:

1. Once in Heaven, can you sin? If not, you have no free will.
2. If yes, can you be banned from Heaven for having sin? If yes, then salvation is not eternal and chances are, one by one, over an eternity, we will all be banned.
3. If no, then God is in for a very rough ride as everyone can curse him with impunity.

Since God is all-knowing, and surely knows the answers to 1,2,3, then what was the point in creating the universe?

The Unaligned Soul

firstfloor — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:16:57 GMT

The first commandment �you shall have no other gods before me� highlights the potential in religious faith for misdirected worship. It is sufficient to consider the multiplicity of faiths around the globe to appreciate the hazard. The only assurance that anyone has of their own faith is the confidence they feel by fellowship in their own religious denomination. These are groups of people effectively asking each other and replying to each other that yes, they are doing the right thing. Churches are however a highly controlling environment where people deliberately subject themselves to combined and synchronised worship in order to achieve group coherence. My thesis is that this behaviour is inconsistent with the freedom of thought necessary to achieve adherence to the first commandment.

The construction of the New Testament is itself the product of identity formation over as much as 300years culminating in the Roman synod in 382 CE. How do we test our claim that any of it is reliable except by an illogical self-referencing argument? The fact is that there is no way to tell that this Bible is authoritative in any respect. While The Bible may not be trustworthy insofar as it identifies for us who G-d is, nevertheless it does contain human wisdom such as the first commandment and should be respected for that.

The unaligned soul, one not committed to any particular faith claim, automatically satisfies the first commandment because no concept of G-d is given priority over another. I would suggest also that it is the only sure way to be obedient to the first commandment and put oneself in the correct relation to G-d while G-d remains mysterious.