 |
Read Me: Topics and Guidelines Apologetics 301
February 7th 2007
Replies: x
| Views: 2,136
|
|
Thread
|
Thread Starter
|
Last Post
|
Rating
|
|
dizzle
|
Posted: August 28th 2010
@ 05:32 PM
|
|
Let's post some of the best apologetics links here.
First on my list... Tekton Apologetics Ministries
Massive site with articles on alleged Biblical contradictions and refuting sceptical charges against the Bible. Other article concern misc Christian doctrines such as eschatology (he advocates orthodox preterism), baptism, soteriology, etc.
|
|
|
Kelp
|
Posted: August 27th 2010
@ 07:18 AM
|
|
A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:
For a moral system to be legitimate, it must be grounded in a god
Manwe Sulimo will be defending the affirmative and Chrs181818 will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as makes his first post. The debate will last four rounds.
This debate is taking place here, and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate. The debate participants may not participate in this thread until their debate is concluded.
|
|
Dr. Jack Bauer
|
Posted: December 22nd 2009
@ 11:45 PM
|
|
Hi folks
This is my first post in Apologetics 301 as a moderator, so I thought I'd say a few things to introduce myself to the forum. The other mods are also welcome to follow suit in this thread, since it hasn't been done before.
I have posted very little in this forum at Tweb in the past, largely due to frustration. What I have tended to see is people, some of whom have degrees in various subjects, like science, or perhaps engineering - or women's studies, but who post as though they had...
|
| |
|
|
Kelp
|
Posted: Today
@ 05:22 AM
|
|
A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:
Jesus was crucified.
Mattsterpiece will be defending the affirmative and no_crucifixion will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Mattsterpiece makes his first post. The debate will last 2 rounds.
This debate is taking place here, and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate. The debate participants may not participate in this thread until their debate is concluded.
|
|
|
Oolon Colluphid
|
Posted: Today
@ 05:03 AM
|
|
Professor Stephen 'A Brief History of Time' Hawking (it's a great middle-name isn't it?) has a new book coming out. In it we learn that Professor Hawking's take on religion and God has shifted somewhat.
Here are a few choice quotations:-
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the...
|
|
|
Christopher31
|
Posted: Today
@ 04:19 AM
|
|
Seeing as Yo Lunch's thread on failed prophesies has dragged on for far too many pages, and has largely turned into a vapid serial of one-upmanship, I thought I'd resurrect the intention behind Yo Lunch's original thread. However, instead of looking at prophesies, I'd like to go with something a little more cut-and-dry: contradictions.
There are many of them in Christian scripture. And I'm not convinced that their resolution is simply a matter of context, so let's dispense with that as a...
|
|
|
aspirnietzche
|
Posted: Today
@ 03:25 AM
|
|
1. What evidence do we have of divine intervention?
2. Should naturalism be taken as the default state of reality? If not, what should we put in its place?
3. What is the most effective and/or reliable method for discovering truth or reality? Things to keep in mind:
a. how far can we trust our senses?
b. how do we know what we know?
c. what is intuition?
4. If something cannot be studied by any process, does it exist?
5. What separates us from the other animals?
|
|
|
UK_Apologist
|
Posted: Today
@ 03:14 AM
|
|
Hi, something i want to bounce about here to see what others will come up with:
Debating with someone at the moment and presenting the Christian view that there are evil spirits that are lead by Satan.
The response I have got is:
Evil spirits are just like people. There are evil and good. Also, they are not lead by a Satan any more than all the evil people of the world are lead by one evil human.
I know there are problems with the way this person is responding here but can't quite see...
|
|
|
Seasanctuary
|
Posted: Today
@ 03:13 AM
|
|
In the third edition of Reasonable Faith on page 92, W.L. Craig wrote:
Biblical Christianity therefore provides the two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life for man: God and immortality.
I find this interesting, not because of the typical tiresome assertion that God is needed for anything to matter to us, but because Craig mentions immortality as the other necessary condition for anything to matter.
Suppose there is a God, but death is a natural and final end...
|
|
|
YourMaster
|
Posted: Today
@ 02:53 AM
|
|
I thought you guys would find this amusing (I know I do):
LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
It gets better:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"...
|
|
|
Rusty T
|
Posted: Today
@ 02:08 AM
|
|
What say you about this?
rusty
|
|
|
showmeproof
|
Posted: Today
@ 01:21 AM
|
|
As an atheist, I think that religions are explicable by cultural evolution and are thus completely man made. I have been spending a great deal of time lately towards learning about Canaanite (Levant) religion. I have very far to go, but as of right now my sources include Robert Wright's The Evolution of God which then pointed me towards Israel Finkelstein's and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, Richard Elliot...
|
|
|
volcano rocket
|
Posted: Today
@ 12:29 AM
|
|
Is God Supernatural?
I got a surprising statement from an atheist who claimed God was not supernatural. I am wondering what your thoughts were.
|
|
|
TheAgeOfMeow
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 10:46 PM
|
|
I've come across a youtuber by the name of CalpurnPiso just a few weeks ago, and was pleased to see the depth of his critiques against theism, and refutations of various apologetic arguments, etc. etc. What do you guys think?
http://www.youtube.com/user/calpurnpiso#p/u/251/x3wqaZFJjGE
|
|
|
Eric J. Sawyer
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 10:45 PM
|
|
85729
...to Jesus, if you had been Nicodemus? ( the same referred to in the gospel according to John - refer Chapter 3 )
Or, ....
85730
...to Jesus, if you had been chosen to be one of his disciples? ( one of those whom the Father had given to Son )
|
|
|
sylvius
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 10:12 PM
|
|
Sparko posted this link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm
It starts with this:
The Incarnation is the mystery and the dogma of the Word made Flesh. ln this technical sense the word incarnation was adopted, during the twelfth century, from the Norman-French, which in turn had taken the word over from the Latin incarnatio. The Latin Fathers, from the fourth century, make common use of the word; so Saints Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary, etc. The Latin incarnatio (in: caro, flesh) corresponds...
|
|
|
Individualist
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 10:01 PM
|
|
Were the Gospels originally intended to be thought of as fiction? This is an interesting suggestion from Earl Doherty, author of The Jesus Puzzle. What evidence cause you to agree or disagree with him?
|
|
|
JimL
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 09:50 PM
|
|
If as is admitted God is a simple, indivisible, and immaterial substance and or does not admit of number, then by virtue of what could God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit, be said to be distinct?
|
|
|
yo lunch
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 09:21 PM
|
|
I shall herein show, through the words of Jesus himself, that he was not a true prophet and not divine or from God. Hopefully you can do better than just to trot out your hackneyed exegesis against these damaging scriptures because they have yet to be defended to the satisfaction of most skeptics.
1. "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I shall do it." John 14:14
Any Christian knows that Jesus did not deliver on this one.
2. "And these signs shall follow them that believe, In my name...
|
|
|
JimL
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 08:39 PM
|
|
There is but one God and one "mediator" between God and men, the "man" Jesus.
If we take these words literally then its meaning seems to be explicit in that there is only one God and that Jesus is not that God but rather he is a mediator or a prophet if you will between God and man.
Just wondering how Christians interpret this to mean that Jesus is God?
|
|
|
phaedrus
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 08:37 PM
|
|
There seems to be a particular psychological view that some Christians appear to have of those who are of different or no faith. To be fair, I have only seen it explicitly stated by a handful of posters, but I sense it is a foundational belief of more. I wonder if it makes apologetics or even dialogue problematic.
We may have different views on social policy or education but we can still dialogue with good grace. I may think your views are wrong but I can accept you hold them with integrity...
|
|
|
Eric J. Sawyer
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 09:47 AM
|
|
85158
Are you a god, or a goddess?
If you answered yes, or no, or maybe, or I am not sure, or it's complicated but I will try to explain myself, then please do so ...
|
|
|
Individualist
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 08:10 AM
|
|
1 Corinthians 9:5, KJV: Are these "brethren" the physical brethren of Jesus? Are they just other Christian men, just as the "sister" mentioned is only a Christian woman?
Note the placement of the term "brethren" ("brothers," NASB) between "apostles" and "Cephas." Also, since these men are identified as "of the Lord," doesn't that imply that they're not brethren of the writer, unlike the "sister"?
|
|
|
aspirnietzche
|
Posted: Yesterday
@ 05:10 AM
|
|
I just want to see if this goes anywhere.
|
|
josephrubbens
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
TheFiveSolas
|
Posted: September 1st 2010
@ 09:48 PM
|
|
Up until a recent move to new headquarters in NYC I was a weekly attendee/contributor (from the opposite viewpoint of course) to an atheist organization called The Center for Iniquity (ooors, sorry, Inquiry). During one of the discussions there, and one in a web forum I brought up my observation that I was unaware of even a single Atheist charity organization. Several people challenged me on this assertion, but were unable (at the time, and in subsequent weeks) to provide me with even a...
|
|
|
DigitalInkling
|
Posted: September 1st 2010
@ 07:31 PM
|
|
I just listened to a debate between William Lane Craig and Dr. Shelly Kagan. It was the first debate that I have ever heard William Lane Craig participate in that I felt he lost.
http://static.veritas.org/media/files/a09cbia01.mp3
Craig didn't seem as prepared as usual. Kagan's Social Contract appeared to be rational on the surface. I also think Kagan's questions to William Craig were very effective in the debate.
I want to make it clear I totally disagree with Kagan's position but I...
|
|
|
Eric J. Sawyer
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
Seasanctuary
|
Posted: September 1st 2010
@ 06:29 AM
|
|
I watched the video version of this and was surprised at its popularity. The Case For A Creator claims God specially created "most major phyla" 3.8 billion years ago and they've evolved naturally since then. So birds, fish, snakes, and humans could have evolved from a common ancestor so long as God made that ancestor directly!
What's the point of spending 3/4 the film bashing "Darwin" when it actually assumes Darwin's theory is correct? The Case For A Creator only has two essential arguments:...
|
|
|
nightbringer
|
Posted: August 31st 2010
@ 08:23 PM
|
|
I'm not sure if Plantinga has presented this argument in standard essay form but he gave it at a lecture at Biola University. You can listen to it here and read an outline of it here.
He argues that the probablity of our cognitive faculties being reliable (i.e. prone to reliably producing true beliefs) is low or inscrutable given naturalistic evolution. He therefore concludes that one cannot rationally accept evolution and naturalism. I think it's an interesting argument but I'd like to hear...
|
|
|
plasdas
|
Posted: August 31st 2010
@ 07:30 AM
|
|
This thread will try to discuss 3 things:
Does the fact that with simple feedback mechanisms you can get in theory an infinitely complex system rule out the need for the need for a creator?
Does Chaos theory negate the possibility of god being omnipotent and all powerful?
And does what theists believe to be god, just the maths behind what they are doing/thinking/ whatever, running in the same direction/ throwing something unusual out?
As a small introduction; when you make the output of an...
|
|
|
The Pixie
|
Posted: August 30th 2010
@ 08:03 PM
|
|
One piece of evidence for the empty tomb that seems to crop up here every now and again is that the Bible states that women found the tomb empty. The argument goes (as I understand it) that if this had been made up, the author would have said the tomb was found empty by men, as women would not have been consider reliable witnesses at that time; it is therefore more reasonable to suppose that the account of the empty tomb is true.
Here are a couple of web sites that use that...
|
|
|
Individualist
|
Posted: August 30th 2010
@ 05:15 PM
|
|
There is an obvious similarity between chapter 2 of 2 Peter and the epistle of Jude (actually named Judas, but nobody wants to call it that). What accounts for this? Were there both based on a common source? Did one copy the other?
Also, were "Peter" and "Judas" the original names of the authors of these epistles? What's with the similarity of the names in the closing of 1 Peter to the names from the Pauline epistles (yeah, I am asking about 1 Peter, too)?
|
|
|
Metacrock
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher31
|
Posted: August 30th 2010
@ 11:45 AM
|
|
I still keep company and contact with my religious friends. For the most part, they are lively, intelligent, and an endless source of sharp conversation. It really would be a pity to lose their insights and input.
Aside from my feelings about their participation in my life (which, as noted above, is mostly positive), I continue to come up against a very peculiar difficulty when in debate with them. I'm not sure what to call this difficulty so, for the purposes of description, I'll call it...
|
|
|
Anon
|
Posted: August 30th 2010
@ 11:31 AM
|
|
One of the most intriguing examples of an extreme counter-cultural belief, in my opinion, is Young Earth Creationism. Like other minority-view topics, like germ theory denial, the rejection of evolution, racism and holocaust denial, and 9-11 conspiracy theories, the bulk of the mainstream scientific and sociological evidence is stacked against their position. Yet millions of people, some extremely intelligent and accomplished, continue to hold to the idea absolutely. I'm opening this thread to...
|
|
|
Abigail
|
Posted: August 29th 2010
@ 12:35 AM
|
|
I watched this show on More 4 tonight and was interested in the piece where they asked reception aged children (4/5 year olds) some questions about naturally occuring things and the answers they gave showed their internal models were basically creationist.
The questions were (basically):
Why are some rocks very sharp:
a. because layer upon layer builds up forming a point
b. so that animals can scratch itches on them
Why don't lakes have waves:
a. they don't have moving water flowing into...
|
|
|
Oolon Colluphid
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
lao tzu
|
Posted: August 28th 2010
@ 12:32 PM
|
|
From the slacktivist:
As a white male Baptist, it is my duty today to denounce the violence perpetrated by Patrick Gray Sharp, 29, who yesterday attacked the police headquarters in McKinney, Texas, in a heavily armed but ineffectual assault involving a high-powered rifle, road flares, "gasoline and ammonium nitrate fertilizer."
This blogpost was featured in the thread "On behalf of white male Christians" posted at the SecularCafe, in their Religion forum. Amusingly enough, a number of my...
|
|
|
salvationfound
|
Posted: August 28th 2010
@ 09:17 AM
|
|
The postmodern generation doesn't really care so much about what people
call truth. "Truth is relative" "Your truth is not necessarily my truth".
I guess I want to know if atheism cannot promote itself without speaking
about truth? Why is atheism relevant to a postmodernist?
A Christian can speak of "life having meaning", "we know where we go when
we die", "we know where we came from" but what can atheism promote to
the postmodernist?
|
|
|
yo lunch
|
Posted: August 28th 2010
@ 01:04 AM
|
|
I am starting this thread to counter the old out-card that is taught in Apologetics 101 wherein the number one argument against Biblical contradictions is to say that it was quoted "out of context." The pointing out of a few preposterous and unbelievable passages from the so-called "Revealed Word of God" will eleminate such inane assertions! However, i am sure that there will still be some who will continue to use such feckless "refutations.":pray:
Now, let us begin with the absurd notion...
|
|
|
Kelp
|
Posted: August 27th 2010
@ 10:42 PM
|
|
A Gym Debate Thread is open to debate the following issue:
The Trinity is Biblical.
dale will be defending the affirmative and no_crucifixion will be defending the negative. The debate will begin as soon as dale makes his first post. The debate will last two rounds.
The debate is taking place at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=3029180#post3029180 Only dale and no_c may post there and they may not post here until the debate is over.
|
|
|
Eric J. Sawyer
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
Eric J. Sawyer
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
fm93
|
Posted: August 20th 2010
@ 09:54 AM
|
|
As a high school student with a strong interest in apologetics, I find myself in a minority, both amongst my peers and amongst Westerners in general. It seems that, at least in the area I'm from, most adults are unaware of apologetics issues, and even fewer teenagers possess such knowledge or even interest. Thus, finding this forum was quite a blessing for me, as it is a place where nearly everyone seems to have knowledge of apologetics, and several Twebbers here are also about my age. So, I...
|
|
|
Eric J. Sawyer
|
Posted: August 18th 2010
@ 04:26 AM
|
|
84956
According to some Christians, the non-material part of us, is immortal. In simple terms it will continue after we have been buried or cremated, or whatever is the custom or ritual adhered to by your particular religion, faith, belief system, culture or lack thereof and the material part will be re-joined to it, by being re-constituted, or something like that.
Yet the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:50-56, does not seem to be saying this. In fact, he seems to be saying that our whole...
|
|
|
YourMaster
|
Posted: August 17th 2010
@ 03:29 PM
|
|
Here we go, it's 11:47
Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cosmological-argument.htm
Okay great, the universe had a cause. Then Dr. Craig adds in Aquinas' old argument that an actual infinity is impossible. Well, prove it? Just because Aquinas never observed an infinity doesn't prove infinities can't exist (argument from ignorance). Without proving his...
|
|
|
YourMaster
|
Posted: August 16th 2010
@ 07:54 AM
|
|
only if they can find ones dumb enough to sign up for the exercise:
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/05/31/vatican-wishes-to-debate-atheists-only-respectful-atheists-need-apply/
The foundation, he said, would only be interested in “noble atheism or agnosticism, not the polemical kind – so not those atheists such as Odifreddi in Italy, Onfray in France, Hitchens and Dawkins”.
Religion gets more retarded every day. I'm sure not mentioning the fact that they're a hot bed of child...
|
|
|
Seasanctuary
|
Posted: August 14th 2010
@ 05:10 PM
|
|
A thread for discussing Alan Germani's article of the same title.
Summary: These popular anti-religious writers are failing to adequately address concerns about the nature of morality. Since these concerns are as important to many religious (and non-religious!) people as the justification of specific religious beliefs, this failure is a major rhetorical problem.
Germani is writing from the perspective of a Randian Objectivist, in a journal for the same group. This doesn't factor in...
|
|
|
jimbo
|
Posted: August 14th 2010
@ 10:23 AM
|
|
I want to see how many and which Christians on this board accept these stories as historically accurate and factual. I am trying to determine how various TWEBBERS deal with some of the more blatant contradictions between the historical claims of the Bible and what modern research and science tells us is true history.
Cheers,
Jimbo
|
|
|
YourMaster
|
Posted: August 13th 2010
@ 08:02 PM
|
|
I'll make this short and sweet (because debunking Aquinas doesn't require much more than a few paragraphs, sorry Tom). In the spirit of brevity I'm simply going to list the argument title and what element of the argument is flawed.
1) Argument from motion: according to Saint Tom only actual motion can convert potential motion into actual motion. Maybe and maybe not (we don't know). His inductive inference certainly didn't account for the quantum world. However, the real flaw is his assumption...
|
|
|
Kelp
|
Posted: August 13th 2010
@ 03:59 PM
|
|
A debate thread is open to debate the following issue:
If it's true that the God of Christianity (GOC) is omniscient (god knows all p where p is a true proposition) then it's false that the GOC has free will (the ability to make autonomous decisions; i.e. actually make a non-arbitrary, non-determined choice)
nickcopernicus will be defending the affirmative and Kenny will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as nickcopernicus makes his first post. The debate will last 5...
|
|
|
Christopher31
|
Posted: August 12th 2010
@ 02:06 PM
|
|
It's reasonable to define yourself and your function by accepted norms. That's why Bill Hybels has defined his pastorate as being a pastor. Dig it:
You see? Bill Hybels became a pastor so he could do what other pastors are doing: lead people into a devoted life under Christ. Isn't it nice that this celebrity Christian can garner so much attention in the media by being all pastory and stuff? Or is there more?
Very good. Membership does not equal discipleship. Has any of this struck...
|
