If you tuned in to Radio Rhema at 11:00am (NZ time) on 10 May 2012 you would have heard this blog’s Madeleine Flannagan and Sue Bradford discuss topical issues such as US President Barack Obama stance on gay marriage, Colin Craig’s comments on New Zealand women being promiscuous, free contraception for beneficiaries among other issues, on “The Panel” on Pat Brittenden morning.
You can listen online here.
Tags: Pat Brittenden · Radio Rhema · Sue Bradford · The Panel8 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Today's New Atheists proclaim themselves our culture's party of reason. It is a claim they cannot sustain. Reason is the New Atheists' weakness, not their strength and in fact, the Christian faith is a far better place to look for True Reason. Making their case accessible to the first-time inquirer as well as the serious student, this top-flight team of writers presents a sound defense and a strong introduction to the true reason uniquely found in Christianity.
The book begins by examining foundational philosophical approaches to the Bible as well as the methodological challenges those philosophies create for interpreting the Bible. It then addresses textual and historical challenges and how to deal with them. Finally it looks at ethical, scientific, and theological challenges demonstrating the Bible's moral integrity in relationship to contemporary moral emphases.
Many philosophers have considered the strengths and weaknesses of a virtue-centered approach to moral theory. Much less attention has been given to how such an approach bears on issues in applied ethics. The essays in this volume apply a virtue-centered perspective to a variety of contemporary moral issues.
The challenge of a seemingly genocidal God who commands ruthless warfare has bewildered Bible readers for generations. A range of expert contributors engage in a multidisciplinary approach that considers this issue from a variety of perspectives: biblical, ethical, philosophical and theological.
The nineteen essays here raise classical philosophical questions in fresh ways, address contemporary challenges for the church, and will deepen the thinking of the next generation of apologists. Packed with dynamic topical discussions and informed by the latest scholarship.
While New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others proclaim loudly their rationality, clear thinking, and incontrovertible scientific arguments, others are beginning to wonder how genuinely rational they are. Have they proved anything? Have they argued convincingly? Have they pinpointed any real challenges to the credibility of Christian faith?
Are these programs available on iTunes?
I found it a little dis-heartening just how hard it seemed for host it to register just was Madeleine was saying about relationships.
Btw- What’s with this liberal radio host that Rhema has doing talkback these days? I heard this morning (Saturday, 26th) the guy interviewing some liberal in America I think. He asked him in an affirmative tone of voice if he’s from the same organisation that runs Bishop Spong’s website! (He was.) I didn’t hear the whole thing; just caught a few minutes, so I can’t give a full account of the segment.
They seemed to be talking mainly about the proposed Obamacare mandate on contraception and abortion pills (and surgical abortion?) which would force private individuals and hospitals to go against their religion (you know, in the same way forcing a Muslim surgeon to handle pig body parts would be too politically incorrect…. whereas Catholics, and their beliefs, are fair game.) The result was the usual propaganda that completely ignored the central issue of religious freedom.
A bit worrying to hear! (Because I much more prefer to hear rightwing propaganda which stubbornly refuses to be swayed by emotional arguments. :))) )
madeleine – comparing a gay relationship with an incestuous relationship is so weak…different health issues and power issues between those relationship.
Everything you said contradicted back on itself, you have no logic and you should engage your brain before going on the radio.
I’d suggest you don’t bother trying to make sexuality a barrier to human rights…sicko
Fatty wrote:
“comparing a gay relationship with an incestuous relationship is so weak…different health issues and power issues between those relationship.”
So if a father conceived a daughter but never knew of her existence the daughter grew up not knowing who her father was and when she was 30 she met him at a social event, felt an attraction, formed a mature and supportive relationship based on mutual trust and respect and then wanted to get married and discovered she was infertile that would be their right?
No health issues. No power issues. Consenting adults. Love. Committment. That is all you need right?
One should not “bother trying to make sexuality a barrier to human rights afterall” or else one is a “sicko”.
Lets face it mother-son or father-daughter incest is as old as human history and happens ‘naturally’ in the animal kingdom all the time. It must be right. Far more common amongst animals than homosexuality.
A romantic relationship between same-sex adult triplets would also meet fatty’s categories of relationships that are human rights.
Health issues no different as between gay couples and power imbalances are less likely if we are talking about consenting adults of the same age and same family status within the greater family.
If health issues are a justifiable ground for denying someone the “human right” of marriage then why are disabled people, people with genetic disorders, women in their forties, drug addicts allowed to marry or procreate?
If power imbalances are a justifiable ground for denying someone the “human right” of marriage then why are CEO’s allowed to marry check-out operators? 40 year olds allowed to marry 18 year olds? Control freaks allowed to marry doormats?