Here is the place to start. If this one isn’t settled, it is kind of hard to become wise.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”–Psalm 111:10
Andy Stanly’s paraphrase is helpful – “God, the answer is yes, now what’s the question?”
It is that simple and that challenging. I am not God. And I need a lot of wise input.
Well, tomorrow is another year. Thank you for being a part of Think Christianly. We are excited about the next year!
If you are wanting to become better equipped to defend your faith, then it would be hard to find a better resource page than that of Apologetics 315. Here is their end of year post with links to lots of outstanding material. (Thanks Brian for all your work!). For all of their resources, click here. Defending the faith once delivered (Jude 3) is a team effort.
Here is a portion of that post with links to some of the big debates:
In the area of debate, there were a number of notable ones this year:
• The Origins of Life debate with Meyer, Sternberg, Prothero & Shermer.
• The Alvin Plantinga & Daniel Dennett dialogue.
• Bart Ehrman vs. James White: Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?
• List of Michael Licona Debates here.
• William Lane Craig debates Christopher Hitchens here.
• Frank Turek has two debates with Hitchens here and here.
• Douglas Wilson debates Christopher Hitchens here.
• William Lane Craig debates Francisco Ayala on Intelligent Design here.
• William Lane Craig debates Richard Carrier on the Resurrection here.
• Douglas Geivett debates John Shook on the Existence of God here.
• Michael Licona debates Bart Ehrman on the Resurrection here.
• James White debates Dan Barker on Jesus’ existence here.
• William Lane Craig debates George Williamson on God’s existence here.
• Dinesh D’Souza debates Daniel Dennett on God as a man-made invention here.
• Dinesh D’Souza debates Christopher Hitchens here.
• William Lane Craig debates Lewis Wolport on God as a delusion here.
• J.P. Moreland debates Clancy Martin on the existence of God here.
• Mary Jo Sharp debated Ehteshaam Gulam on the resurrection here.
• Phil Fernandes debated Eddie Tabash on God’s existence here.
• Richard Dawkins talked to John Lennox about science and God here.
Happy New Year!
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”–C.S. Lewis
Yes, this title is a mouthful…but facebook, neuroscience, and global bioethics…all in one presentation? who could pass that up? Seriously, these are important things to consider as the world becomes smaller…er socially that is. This was a paper from the recent conference: Global Bioethics: Emerging Challenges Facing Human Dignity.
Abstract: “Online social networking has become a major international cultural phenomenon. Facebook, for example, hosts more than 200 million active users, 70% of whom reside outside the United States. Facebook also hosts a number of bioethics discussion groups, which have the potential to enlarge the global bioethics community, crossing national boundaries and bridging cultures. Online networking offers a number of practical advantages over traveling to conferences and professional society meetings. These include savings in time and expense, immediacy of communication, demographic inclusiveness, greater participation among younger people whose careers are being shaped, and a democratic forum for expression of a broad range of ideas from many perspectives. Some disadvantages include potentially unmanageable volumes of information, vulnerability of participants to uncharitable criticism, lack of participation by older people who could share insights drawn from life experience, dissemination of unverifiable assertions, and overt or subtle commercial influence over content. Interpersonal interaction and dialogue in community are essential to bioethics. Bioethical discourse in the online realm of virtual reality, due to the nature of the medium, has the potential to become more personal, and hence in some ways more effective, than journals. The ability to share facial images, audio and video content, and social as well as cognitive feedback engages social brain systems important for ethical reflection. Such functions include cognitive empathy in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, emotional empathy in the orbitofrontal cortex-ventrolateral region, and interpretation of facial expression in the fusiform gyrus and its connections. An understanding of the neurology of social behavior underlying shared ethical dialogue may contribute to the further development of online media useful in the cultivation of a robust global bioethics community that is appropriately sensitive to regional and universal moral concerns. Online discourse cannot, however, adequately take the place of meeting face-to-face and being present to others.”
I came across this great quote (HT / Apologetics 315)…
“As a disciple, the Christian philosopher is enthralled with Jesus, he trusts Him, and wants everything in his life to enhance Jesus’ reputation among the nations. The Christian is here primarily to serve a Name, not to make a name, and the disciple recognizes that in Jesus all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge reside.”– J.P. Moreland
Amen.