- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted August 22, 2013
No clear winner (go read A.W. Tozer)
Picking cherries off the 30 foot cherry tree without using the proper tools was difficult. However, after renting a boomlift, the job was expidited, entertaining for children, and productive.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
God or Godless? Is a "debate" between a now atheist former minister (with an affection for biblical illiteracy and liberal view of the Bible) and a liberal doctor of theology who likes to have "orthodox" views when they are convienient.
While John, the atheist, stays on topic more often, his arguments are weak and easily desmissed. If he would have read the vereses he referenced much of the time, he would not have used them. The thought that an all loving, knowing, and wise Creator does not exist because he cannot fathom how he would allow suffering (65 percent of his argument), is irrational. I cannot fathom the temperature variation on Mars, but don't deny it.
On the other hand, Randal the Christian, cannot make it through a topic without an illustation that requires most of the topic to explain how it aids his argument. And when he does attempt to stay on topic, his arguments often do not affirm his position when he is in the affirmative.
Like me referencing picking cherries, these men pick their responses without a well thought out rationalization. Their tools are "you too," "no, your wrong," and "the Bible isn't trustworthy on this topic" (stupidly used by both debater).
The best argument comes from John when Randall says he doesn't believe what the Bible says, and John encourages to finish the step to denying all of the Bible if he is going to deny a lot of it. Randall's denial of biblical truth is a really egnoramous statement from a really ignorant professor. If he would follow his own advise in his closing argument, then he would see the Bible is true and trustworthy.
Alas, neither is a clear victor, and the main loser in this debate is orthodox Christianity. But that is the result when liberal theologians come together. It would behoove the reader of this review to read Tozer (who argues for orthodoxy and Biblical trustworthiness in fewer pages).
Posted June 5, 2013
Highly recommended. Rauser is no match for John Loftus; if you
Highly recommended. Rauser is no match for John Loftus; if you are already a non-believer I could almost advise skipping Rauser's contributions as they don't really say anything at all. It's basically just him saying that we need to believe b/c the bible says so or stating that the texts don't mean what they actually say.
Sadly, at the time they were written, the texts meant a lot of what they said and even sadder is that people in 2013 still use the bible as their moral compass. (Sacrifice your virgin daughters to gang-rape since homosexuality is wrong, anyone?)
Loftus has the power of reason and science on his side and is actually providing proven, factual information to the reader while Rauser is simply twisting words and telling boring stories about people who have experienced so-called miracles.
Anyway, it is a very good read and I would also recommend to anyone interested in this subject any of the books written by Richard Dawkins.
0 out of 4 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.