No Special Rights, So . . . One Law for All | MandM

One of the best things about the blogosphere is the ability to read thoughts and word of people from all over the world. An article by John Tertullian posted on the M and M blog sheds a light on the subject of how should we address the evils inherited from colonialism and racism from the point of view of the things that are happening in New Zealand. As someone who lives with the results of European colonialism (who doesn't?), I find that I am far from objective. It is still good to see what other people think. This article deals with how a particular indigenous ethnic group, the Maori, is now trying to find its place in New Zealand society and how they can get back some of what was taken from them. The thing that really amazes me in this discussion is that people who benefited and still benefit will admit and say "Yes, it's horrible what was done to you and it was completely unfair." However, they seem to stop there and never answer the next question: "How do we compensates and make restitution for those injustices?" I don't pretend to know the answer and the United States has nothing to teach New Zealand on this. Think about it. Just two weeks ago people were calling for the President of the United States to provide his birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States and when provided it, they said he should provide his grades and transcripts to prove he deserved the opportunities he has had and had not taking the place of some deserving (read "White") person (read "man"). Yes, racism is still with us - even and especially in America.

No Special Rights, So . . . One Law for All | MandM

dangerous idea: Straw Men Burning: Tim McGrew on Misinterpretations of the McGrews' article on the Resurrection

I've been following the discussion on using Baye's Theorem for calculating a probability for Jesus' Resurrection. The paper was originally written by Doctors Tim and Lydia McGrew. Dr William Lane Craig also made a similar argument in his debate on the Resurrection against Dr Bart Ehrman much to Ehrman's consternation. Tim McGrew wrote a response to the criticism posted on Dr. Victor Reppert's blog. Follow the link to read it.

dangerous idea: Straw Men Burning: Tim McGrew on Misinterpretations of the McGrews' article on the Resurrection

In addition Dr. Reppert wrote a short post explaining how he sees the role of probability theory philosophy of religion.

dangerous idea: On the use of probability theory in the philosophy of religion

Calvinistic Cartoons: Fatherly Advice

Great advice!

Calvinistic Cartoons: Fatherly Advice

Related articles

• A TULIP Idea Even Non-Calvinists Can Appreciate (creativepreacher.wordpress.com)
• Be a Kinder Calvinist (lechatmysterieux.wordpress.com)
• Ten Myths About Calvinism (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• How Many Calvinists Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb? (counteringcalvinism.wordpress.com)

Madeleine on Unbelievable? | MandM

A scant few weeks ago Dr Paul Copan appeared on the UK radio program Unbelievable? to discuss his book Is God A Moral Monster? Paul Copan's view is that people have been misunderstanding several passages in the Bible that appears that God commanded His people to perpetuate genocide on the people of Canaan.  He argues that, like many accounts of the period, instead of truly meaning that everything was killed - men, women, children, and live-stock - the Bible is just saying that the Israelites' enemies lost really, really badly and not that they killed everyone - even civilians. I'm personally not completely sold on this viewpoint but I find it interesting.  In weeks after a program, Unbelievable?'s host Justin Brieberly, reads e-mails and correspondence on earlier programs. In the episode just a couple of weeks after Paul Copan appeared, he read an e-mail from Madeleine Flannagan who, along with her husband Dr. Matthew Flannagan, agree with Dr Copan's view. In the following link to their blog, the Flannagans posted the text of what was read on the air. I'm still not sure if I'm convinced I mean why not just go with what the text says and understand that God had good enough moral reason and authority to command what God do/does and do/allow what God does?  If we disagree - we are wrong.  Be-that-as-it-may, I found Madeliene Flannagan's expressions well-worth reading and she summed up the position in a very compact way.

Madeleine on Unbelievable? | MandM