A common objection heard from atheists, agnostics and other skeptics these days is that the God of the Old Testament was immoral because He allegedly endorsed such horrors as forced servitude, genocide and rape.
As RZIM’s Brandon Cleaver explained recently in a lengthy analysis of the issue, “slavery in the Bible was vastly different. First, according to many scholars, the Hebrew word (ebed or eved) that is often translated as slave in the Old Testament is more reasonably rendered as servant.
“Furthermore, slavery among the Hebrews in the Old Testament often occurred when individuals sold themselves into servanthood to pay off debt. Therefore, it was voluntary.”
In the following video, crossexamined.org’s Dr. Frank Turek makes that point and more in responding to a series of questions that taken together frame the argument that the God of the Bible is a moral monster:
San Francisco’s 49ers and the Kansas City Chiefs meet Sunday in the Super Bowl and millions of people around the world will be tuned in to watch what could be one of the most exciting such games ever.
Nobody on the playing field, in the grandstands, listening on radio or watching the game on TV will have any doubt whatsoever about the purpose of the game — score more points than the other guys and win the Lombardi Trophy, the biggest victory anybody can gain in the great game of football.
But how should the “score” be calculated in the game of life? Depends on what the rules are, according to Dr. Frank Turek of cross-examined.org. As he explains in the following video, it’s a lot like how we know the difference between a touchdown and an interception:
It may seem like a question with no relevance in the real world, but the issue of the source and nature of concepts and principles like justice influences pretty much all aspects of everybody’s daily lives.
It’s not often that Plato’s forms are discussed in campus discussion forums these days, but then Dr. Frank Turek of cross-examined.org has a way of inspiring spirited conversations on topics of eternal significance.
In the following video, Turek is asked by a student who appears to be deeply interested in philosophy about Plato’s forms and whether they explain the existence of moral laws apart from the existence of God.
Believe it or not, there are actually millions of our fellow Americans who think politics is not something they need or want to think or care about. What Congress, the President and the courts do every day is just not very important to them.
These folks include devout fundamentalist Christians, people who go to church maybe once or twice a year on the traditional holidays, and others who think religion is a joke. In other words, a lot of the people served by congressional aides have little or no concept of the relevance of government to their daily lives.
Cross-examined.org’s Dr. Frank Turek explains why everybody should pay attention to politics, using a satellite photo that shows in vivid black-and-white the most essential difference between North and South Korea. And he makes some points you might find useful over the holidays when family and friends back home ask about your job on Capitol Hill.
What if evolution is true, both in terms of micro and macro changes over time? If it is, does that mean there is no room for the Christian God as creator of the universe and everything in it, including humans and animals?
Cross-examined.org’s Dr. Frank Turek says no, there still must be an explanation for the existence of the first molecule. Evolution properly understood is an explanation of how God did it, not an argument against the existence of God in the first place.
Turek was asked about this issue earlier this month during a presentation, noting that he’s an advocate for micro-evolution, but stops short of the “molecule to man” version of macro-evolution. Even so, he explains why God is essential regardless.
Yes, it’s Monday and the first day of the week is the hardest one in which to wrap one’s mind around a complex philosophical question such as “can time be infinite.” But it will be just as complex tomorrow and every other day, so how about let’s go ahead and address it today.
It’s one of the most commonly heard warnings whenever debates erupt in Congress or elsewhere in our public policy forums with even the remotest links to divisive social issues — “Don’t impose your morality on me!”
But if you work in Congress, the reality is that you are in one way or another, to a greater or lesser degree, part of the inherent process of defining, applying, revising or communicating the morality government enforces on — and on behalf of — us all every day.