On Creationism

This is something I wrote two years ago when challenged to a debate by a guy styling himself "War_Eagle" on CARM. He then failed to show up, pretending he never knew about, claiming to have put me on ignore after issuing the challenge. How very brave of him! To their credit, CARM were then willing to move the thread to the atheism section, where others could respond. However, they do keep that hidden to casual visitors, so you would eed to get an account to see it. http://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/secular/general-secular-and-apologetic-topics/atheism-agnosticism-sec-humanism/28051-biblical-slavery Slavery in the Ancient world Slavery was institutional in the ancient world. In many cultures, such as ancient Rome, a slave might have a pretty good life, but many slaves, even in the same culture, were treated badly. For example in Egypt: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm The least fortunate captives were sent to work as slaves in the dreadful g...

Traditionally, Peter was thought to be martyred in AD 64 or 65 by crucifixion, and there seems to be some evidence to support this, include a letter by Clement of Rome written later in the first century, and no reason to suppose otherwise. Much of the argument for Petrine authorship revolves around the dating of the letters. A date later than AD 65 clearly indicates a letter was not authored by Peter. The issue of motive is an interesting one. Why would an anonymous author want to pass of his letter as that of Peter? The most likely answer is that the author was a sincere Christian, who felt his letter was important, and perhaps was what Peter would have said, and gave it Peter's name to lend it authority within the church. It is worth noting that we do have a Gospel of Peter, which, like the letters, explicitly claims to be the work of the apostle. Christianity nevertheless rejects the Gospel of Peter, so the church itself acknowledges that some texts that claim Petrine author...

I came across a series of blog posts by a guy called Clay Jones (D.Min. Associate Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University according to his blog) that attempt to justify the destruction of the Canaanite people. It is illustrative of the lengths Christians will go to to rationalise Biblical atrocities. An issue from the start is how far we trust the Biblical text. The Bible authors clearly had an agenda here; they were themselves trying to justify their conquest of the Canaanite lands. What they were doing was typical of the time; tribes fought each other, and the winner got the land while the losers got slaughtered. Later the Jews were on the receiving end (and it is notable that the Babylonians were considerably more moral by not doing that to the Jews). Let us suppose, however, that the Biblical account is accurate, since we are supposing God exists here. God Ordered the Canaanite Destruction Because of Their Sins http://www.clayjones.net/2015/03/canaanite-punishment...

Understanding Psalm 137 Psalm 137: 9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock. For reference, the Hebrew can be found here: http://biblehub.com/text/psalms/137-9.htm Why was it written? Perhaps a bit of historical context is in order. When the Psalm was written, the Jews were in exile in Babylon. Clearly they were not happy about it, and what we read in Psalm 137 is the glee one of the captives feels at the thought of the Babylonian children getting bashed against rocks. However, as this page makes clear, a lot of good actually came of the exile. The Jewish people developed a strong independence that it is still apparent today, and allowed them to survive the best part of two millennia without a homeland. Furthermore, the Jewish faith was re-made at this time, explain why this tragedy had befallen the people, and to some degree borrowing concepts from the Babylonians (and consequently the Christian faith would be quite differen...

In Who was Jesus? A Christian Perspective , William Lane Craig makes this claim: For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for ...

What will it be like for people in heaven? What sort of bodies do they have? The Bible does not address this much so we have to speculate, but we get a few hints. Paul The biggest text we have on this issue is by Paul: 1 Cor 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, [n]earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy,...

Abortion is a tricky moral subject, one I am thankful I have never had to deal with on a practical basis. It is also a topic Christians like to trot out whenever their are floundering in a moral discussion. They assume all atheists are pro-abortion, and so, whatever the topic, say atheists cannot be moral if they condone the murder of humans. Is a single cell with human DNA a human being? We all shed skin daily, and that skin is dead cells with human DNA. No one sheds a tear for those cells, so why shed a tear for a fertilised cell? The fertilised cell has the potential to be a person, but is not itself a person. It has none of the attributes that we value in our fellow man. Nevertheless, Christian fundamentalists insist that a fertilised cell has the same rights as an adult, and specifically that killing a fertilised cell is murder. What they do not seem to realise is that a huge number of fertilised cells never make it to the second week of pregnancy: Here is a page at Medl...