The first one, published today, was my piece attacking the argument that those accused of child abuse should not be permitted to attempt raising a defence. It is already drawing comments – feel free to jump in – it is published on Vote No as, “Classic Anti-Smacking Argument Exposed.”
Others slated for publication on Vote No are Matt’s fisks of the Rev Dr Margaret Mayman’s flawed moral theology around the smacking debate (published on Vote No as, Rev. Mayman’s “Anti-Smacking” Argument Flawed); and former Children’s Commissioner Dr Ian Hassall’s arbitrary ethical reasoning on common anti-smacking arguments published on Vote No as, “Anti-Smacking Arguments Shown to be Flawed.”
(I’ll update this post with direct links to Vote No as each article goes live.)
Tags: 2 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.
Ok, I added my two cents worth.
Your response was excellent – I loved the observations on reasonable force.