William Lane Craig vs James White: does Calvinism or Molinism best expla...

Is the Trinity compatible with the Koran? Abdulla Galadari & Joshua Siju...

Premillennial vs Amillennial on Christ's return - Daniel Goepfrich & Chr...

Douglas Murray & NT Wright: Does Christianity matter if it isn’t true?

Is the US Church guilty of Trump idolatry? Shane Claiborne vs Johnnie Moore

William Lane Craig: Refuting atheist Coronavirus memes

Literature, CS Lewis and Conversion: Holly Ordway and Laura Miller on Unbelievable? | Hieropraxis

Holly Ordway and Laura Miller had an awesome discussion on the Unbelievable radio broadcast. They talked about the role of Literature in communicating religious belief from the context of C.S. Lewis and  J.R.R Tolkien. Should fantasy literature be used to communicate Christian ideas? They did a great job discussing the topic and it was really done respectfully although they sharply disagreed It's well worth listening to the discussion.

Literature, CS Lewis and Conversion: Holly Ordway and Laura Miller on Unbelievable? | Hieropraxis

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Not Even Mentioning the best Evidence

Overall at Beggars All, Ken has written a blog post about Dr Darrell Bock's encounter with Dr. Bart Ehrman on the Unbelievable? radio program regarding Ehrman's book Forged. Ken has written a great article discussing some of the things that Bock and Ehrman did not have time to discuss during the program in a little more detail and points to more resources on the subject. Awesome post.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Not Even Mentioning the best Evidence

Related articles

• How did we get the New Testament? (goodnewsnow.wordpress.com)
• Another Look at Ancient Literacy Rates (coffeehouseapologetics.wordpress.com)
• Criticism of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" (compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com)
• ‪Darrell Bock on N.T. Wright's New Perspective & Eschatological Language‬‏ (rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com)
• In Explosive New Book FORGED, Bible Scholar Bart Ehrman Exposes Deceptive and Misleading Forgeries in the New Testament (prweb.com)

“Are there Good Reasons for Abortion?” Wendy Savage and Madeleine Flannagan Debate on Unbelievable? | MandM

Here is a great debate on abortion by two women: Wendy Savage and Madeleine Flannagan on the Unbelievable? broadcast. Well worth listening to!!!

“Are there Good Reasons for Abortion?” Wendy Savage and Madeleine Flannagan Debate on Unbelievable? | MandM

Unbelievable? Is God a Moral Monster? Paul Copan & Norman Bacrac | MandM

Several Weeks ago Dr Paul Copan was on Unbelievable? and  it was an interesdting dialogue between him and Dr Norman Bacrac. I've posted a followup on the encounter, but I don't think I posted this article where Madeline Flannagan puts a link to the discussion and comments on it. The discussion was on Paul Copan's book
Is God a Moral Monster?  - n which the events of the Old Testament is recounted for us are discussed and an aplogetic is offered to counter claims of genocide against God. Take a look at the article and listen to the program if you missed it.

Unbelievable? Is God a Moral Monster? Paul Copan & Norman Bacrac | MandM

Related articles

• Ideology and violence (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• Is God a Moral Compromiser? by Thom Stark (arizonaatheist.blogspot.com)
• Copan and the Kettle (unreasonablefaith.com)
• Quote of the Moment: Thom's Snark (unreasonablefaith.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

Unbelievable? 27 Jun 2009 - PZ Myers & Denis Alexander on Faith & Science

Here is an oldie but goodie. I missed this episode of Unbelievable? with Justin Brieley, but I could not pass this up.

Atheist Biologist PZ Myers is an outspoken critic of Christianity. He believes that faith in God and science are contradictory. He debates theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander, Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. Is science is at odds with Christianity as PZ claims?
They touch on Fine Tuning, Rationality, and whether God is an inference to the best explanation.


Unbelievable? 27 Jun 2009 - PZ Myers & Denis Alexander on Faith & Science

Related articles

• Atheist Revolution names PZ Myers "Idiot of the Week" ... them's fightin' words! (cafewitteveen.wordpress.com)
• Craig brings some clarity to morality? (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• Everything you need to know about "ClimateGate" [Pharyngula] (scienceblogs.com)

Discussing the Theology of the Emergent Church: My Discussion with Brian McLaren

Dr James White has recently conversed with Brian McLaren on the UK radio program Unbelievable? by Justin Brierley. It aired today, Saturday April 30, 2011. This is what Dr. White had to say on the subject.

My sincere thanks to Justin Brierley for inviting me to dialogue with the biggest name in the Emergent movement, Brian McLaren on Justin's fine program from London, Unbelievable. You can download the program here, and I would strongly suggest subscribing to Justin's program. You sure hear enough of it on The Dividing Line as I interact with the discussions that take place there from a Reformed and presuppositional perspective!

I highly recommend listening to this discussion. It is extremely useful. It underscores and showcases what happens when two people who disagree can come together and present what they believe and why. The differences are evident and clear and cannot be ignored. Thankfully, Brian McLaren is a much better at articulation of theology and the Emergent Church than Rob Bell. I found Brian McLaren's discussion of the dominance of the "Prosperity Gospel" in the part of Africa he visited extremely interesting. The "Prosperity Gospel" is not Biblical at all and going the "Emergent" Route is just trading one heresy for another.

Discussing the Theology of the Emergent Church: My Discussion with Brian McLaren

Speaking of Rob Bell, he was Unbelievable? Last week. He debated Adrian Warnok. The audio is available here as well as some comments from Warnok: Listen to my face to face debate with Rob Bell about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived. There is even a video of the encounter. You can find that video at this link: Unbelievable? Debate: Heaven and Hell

Unbelievable? | Premier Christian Radio, Saturday - Licona vs Ehrman on the Resurrection

Last Saturday there was a debate on the Resurrection on the Unbelievable? radio/webcast on UK. It featured Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Bart Ehrman. As a bonus, Dr James White is reviewing the exchange on his webcast this week. Listen to the Dividing Line this week to hear it. And follow the following link to get the discussion from the UK.


Unbelievable? | Premier Christian Radio, Saturday

Related articles

• Michael Licona on Bart Ehrman (goodnewsnow.wordpress.com)
• Licona on Erhman (str.typepad.com)
• Review: The Resurrection of Jesus-Part 2 (simuliustusetpeccator.com)
• Bart Ehrman on Textual Reliability of the NT? (war-on-error.xanga.com)

Unbelievable? 4 Jul 2009 - Peter Hitchens debates Islam

I found a great interview/debate on the Internet in which Peter Hitchens and Ibrahim Mogra debate on the subject on which is better for Britain - Christianity vs Islam. Here is an introduction I saw on the website where I got the debate:

Peter Hitchens vs. Ibrahim Mogra: Is Islam or Christianity the best future for Britain?

July 4, 2009 on Premier Christian Radio

Peter Hitchens is a well known journalist and Anglican Christian. Unlike his atheist brother Christopher, he believes Christianity is an essential bedrock for society. He says Islam will fill the spiritual vaccuum of Britain if secularists have their way.

Ibrahim Mogra represents the Muslim Council of Britain. He says that Muslims are only interested in living harmoniously within society.

They discuss Sharia Law, multiculturalism, religious freedom and more.

Some great points were made. One fact that I did not know was that there are now more Muslims in Britain than Anglicans! I had no idea! I think Hitchens made good points. My problem with trying to harmonize Christianity and Islam.  They both claim to be objectively true but they say opposite things. They both can't be true. Either you reject both or accept one. You can't accept both. Another important point Peter Hitchens made is the fact that if Christianity is recedes people still need spirituality and something else will take its place - Islam. And the same things could happen in the United States and there will be more Muslims than Christians. Do we want a society like Sudan, Paskistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.




Unbelievable? 4 Jul 2009 - Peter Hitchens debates Islam

Unbelievable? 3 Jan 2009 "Misquoting Jesus" Ehrman & Williams

Image via Wikipedia

I'm fascinated by the work of Bart Ehrman. How can he do such very good scholarship deciphering textual criticisms yet come to such different conclusions about how reliable the Bible is than Peter Williams, Dan Wallace, or James White? Why does he overstate the differences the textual variants make? These variants have been known for centuries, why would it only matter now? If Christian theology rose and fell on these variants,  why hasn't it affected Christian doctrine. The funny thing is that most of the cults and theological differences giving rise to so many different generations are not based on the important differences in manuscripts. Ehrman's arguments are based on the New Testament because there are far fewer textual variants of the Old Testament. Ehrman is also not willing to apply the same rules for accepting historical documents for other historical documents than he does for the New Testament. Ehrman also ignores the wide spreadness of the manuscripts and there are more than one line of transmission,

One thing that is very interesting  in this discussion centered around Mark 1: 41. Ehrman argues that a few manuscripts say Jesus became angry instead of  Jesus being filled with compassion and that shows the manuscript was changed.  I liked how Peter Williams answered that. I think that Williams is right.

Unbelievable? 3 Jan 2009 "Misquoting Jesus" Ehrman & Williams

Related articles by Zemanta

• 2 reviews of Bart Ehrman (Christian fundamentalist to liberal Christian) (rateitall.com)