A commenter posted a link to this comment by someone named “Randy” in one of Leah Libresco’s threads. I started typing up a reply (which you can see here), but I cut my reply a little short because I decided Randy was probably the kind of person who a long reply would be wasted on. [...]
Previously in the series: Genesis and Exodus, Leviticus through Deuteronomy, Joshua through Psalms, Proverbs through Song of Songs, Isaiah through Ezekiel, Daniel through Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts through Titus.
This is interesting. Andrew Sullivan is ditching advertising for a new business model:
Richard Dawkins has written quite a bit on why he refuses to debate William Lane Craig. I think you could take his arguments further to argue that atheists should stop agreeing to debate Craig period. But if atheists are going to keep debating Craig, I have a proposal for all those debates from now on.
Last week, I explained why the Pope saying the date of Jesus’ birth is not news. Now, Bart Ehrman reads the book and says it “provides an intelligent, very pious, and not very critical pastoral and soothing interpretation of the accounts of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke.” The details are pretty much what I [...]
I was digging through the archives of Bart Ehrman’s blog (most of which is behind a paywall, sadly) and I came across this gem:
This is the other post I wanted to do in response to Jeff Lowder. In the first one, I documented a pattern of William Lane Craig misrepresenting his opponents’ views. Here, I’m going to bring together previous points I’ve made about Craig’s case for the resurrection (here and here, among other places), to make it [...]
I thought I was done writing about William Lane Craig, but Jeffery Jay Lowder has done two posts challenging my claim that Craig is dishonest. Reading Jeff’s posts makes me think that in my series on Craig, I was trying to do too many things at once: take down his arguments, expose his dishonesty, do it all in a relatively [...]
I’m almost ready to start talking about some modern arguments that many people would say are better than O’Reilly’s or van Inwagen’s. But before I do that, I need to say a little bit about the Bible.