MandM header image 2

Advance: Exploring Tough Questions About Christianity

April 23rd, 2013 by Madeleine

This blog’s Matthew Flannagan is scheduled to speak alongside Dr Glenn Peoples, Dr Chris Tucker, Sean du Toit and Jacqui Lloyd at this Friday’s one day Auckland conference Advance: Exploring Tough Questions About Christianity.

Advance: Exploring Tough Questions About Christianity

From the promotional material:

Are faith and reason enemies? Should we take Christianity seriously in the world of ideas? Can we even know that Christianity is true? Thinking Matters and Evangelical Union are proud to host Christian philosopher, blogger, and popular speaker Dr Glenn Peoples to explore these questions and examine the evidence.

Workshops sessions available:

    • Dr Chris Tucker on the ‘problem of evil’
    • Shawn Means on maths, the universe, and God
    • Sean du Toit on who wrote the books of the New Testament
    • Dr Matthew Flannagan on reading difficult Old Testament passages

The day will conclude with a panel featuring Dr Glenn Peoples, Dr Matthew Flannagan, and Jacqui Lloyd which is open to any question.

The location is ‘GAPS’ 17A Powell St, Avondale – slightly out of the city (and a 10 min walk from Avondale train station), this rustic location is ideal for seminars and discussion.

Cost: $15. Lunch is included.

Register at the Facebook event page here.

Tags:   · · · · · · 15 Comments

Leave a Comment


7 + = fifteen


15 responses so far ↓

  • Should we take Christianity seriously!!??

    Yeah, in the same way that we take a turd seriously!!!!!

  • Why don’t you ever discuss the workers taking on the capitalists?

  • Johnny Goober, why be so rude and hurtful? If you can’t take Christianity seriously but just swear at it go in peace some place else.

  • Kim, when the asinine lunacy of Religion ceases to be a force
    that poisons the world, I might consider your thoughts.

    And frankly, Christianity is just so fucking ridiculous and funny that I can’t seem to help myself!

  • Johnny, keep up the intelligent well thought out rigorous comments, there is a reason I have allowed your comments to stand they say more about the bankruptcy of certain types of skeptical views than any post I wrote ever had.
    ( also look up the word bigot in the dictionary sometime, you might find it has a meaning thats application is closer to home than you profess)

  • FYI – bigot |ˈbigət|

    noun

    a person who is bigoted: religious bigots.

    ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a superstitious religious hypocrite): from French, of unknown origin.

  • Sorry, forgot to add the source:

    New Oxford American Dictionary

  • bigoted |ˈbɪgətɪd|

    adjective

    having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

  • Most Christians support gay marriage in New Zealand. It is just American funded fundies who make a lot of noise who make it seem otherwise.

  • Frodo, the notion that “gay marriage” is contrary to the teaching only of american fundamentalism and is I think demonstrably false. Both historically and in terms of the confessional stances of orthdox versions of various demonination.

    But note also the definition of bigot: a bigot is not someone who believes same sex unions are not valid marriages. A bigot is someone who holds any belief on the basis of (a) prejudice: ie irrationally without any grounds or basis and (b) are obstinate: that is they hold to that belief obstinately in the teeth of evidence or reasons to the contrary and (c) this motivates them to consider there own position superior and to be intolerant torwards the views of others.

    So for example claiming without any evidence or argument that same sex marriage is just, that those who disagree are ignorant bigots ( i.e morally inferior) and who should be legally prohibited from acting on those beliefs ( intolerant) and clinging to this position obstinately when others point out the purported arguments for it fail, would count as bigotry under the definition of the term.
    Certainly someone coming into MandM and expressing the comments Johnny Goober does, would I think be a better example of “bigotry” than simply assuming that certain departures from liberal orthodoxy are bigoted purely because they are departures from liberal orthodoxy.
    revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

  • Matt,

    This seems like an old topic from years past, but seeing as you would handle the reading of difficult OT passages…
    Have you responded to Thom Stark accusation that you are being inconsistent with your Hyperbole defense on the Joshua extermination passages? Mainly, Stark pointed out that you neglected to consider the assumed literal use of women on the Benjamite Wives’ passages in favor of Copan’s interpretation that the words ‘all’ are just either stock phrases or hyperbolic expressions which you and Wolterstorff have endorsed?

    I know its an old argument and I dont know if this was addressed at all?

  • Alvin yes I responded to that argument in an article I had published last year. There is actually nothing inconsistent about saying that language can be used literally in one context and hyperbolically in another. In fact hyperbole functions by taking phrases which have a literal meaning in various contexts and using them in a non literal way.

  • I stand by.my statement that most Christoans IN NEW ZEALAND beleive that gay marriage should be allowed.

    I did not claim anything about the history of Christianty, or about other nations. Try to read more carefully.

    My assertion is just a statistical fact backed up by multiple surveys.

    I also think it is true that the most vocal opponents of gay.marriage.in New Zealand are not the Orthodox or even the Roman Catholics, but rathet evangelical groups who have been planted my United States based groups.

    I fail to see anything bigotted in either.of these assertions.

  • Frodo, I’d be interested in the surveys you mention, the stance of almost every denomination in NZ suggests the opposite.

    I also am initially skeptical of your claim about “evangelicals” in NZ. Most evangelicals I know are in fact based the UK stream of evangelicalism not plants from the US.

  • “….the stance of almost every denomination in NZ suggests the opposite…”

    That is not true even of the hierarchy of the churches which tend to be divided in the big denominations (with the exception of the Roman Catholics… and even there there are many clergy who support gay marriage and ordination) But what I claimed was not that the heads or governing bodies of churches were in approval – but that Christians were. Again you need to learn the skill of reading what is actually said rather than what you imagine has been said.

    The Anglican and the Presbyterian churches have a big division on the issue of gay marriage and ordination among their representatives on councils and synods, but the opinion of the average christian (of all apart from USA style evangelicals) is that gay marriage should be legal. This is true even among lay Roman Catholics.

    Sigh.. again I did not say ALL evangelicals were USA plants… I said that the ones most likely to be vocal against gay marriage were… please pay attention.

    I also am initially skeptical of your claim about “evangelicals” in NZ. Most evangelicals I know are in fact based the UK stream of evangelicalism not plants from the US.