MandM have just one thing to say on the David Bain trial:
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Do not expect any commentary or speculation on the trial at MandM until the verdict is in.
Tags: Justice6 Comments
MandM have just one thing to say on the David Bain trial:
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Do not expect any commentary or speculation on the trial at MandM until the verdict is in.
Tags: Justice6 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.
Today's New Atheists proclaim themselves our culture's party of reason. It is a claim they cannot sustain. Reason is the New Atheists' weakness, not their strength and in fact, the Christian faith is a far better place to look for True Reason. Making their case accessible to the first-time inquirer as well as the serious student, this top-flight team of writers presents a sound defense and a strong introduction to the true reason uniquely found in Christianity.
The book begins by examining foundational philosophical approaches to the Bible as well as the methodological challenges those philosophies create for interpreting the Bible. It then addresses textual and historical challenges and how to deal with them. Finally it looks at ethical, scientific, and theological challenges demonstrating the Bible's moral integrity in relationship to contemporary moral emphases.
Many philosophers have considered the strengths and weaknesses of a virtue-centered approach to moral theory. Much less attention has been given to how such an approach bears on issues in applied ethics. The essays in this volume apply a virtue-centered perspective to a variety of contemporary moral issues.
The challenge of a seemingly genocidal God who commands ruthless warfare has bewildered Bible readers for generations. A range of expert contributors engage in a multidisciplinary approach that considers this issue from a variety of perspectives: biblical, ethical, philosophical and theological.
The nineteen essays here raise classical philosophical questions in fresh ways, address contemporary challenges for the church, and will deepen the thinking of the next generation of apologists. Packed with dynamic topical discussions and informed by the latest scholarship.
While New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others proclaim loudly their rationality, clear thinking, and incontrovertible scientific arguments, others are beginning to wonder how genuinely rational they are. Have they proved anything? Have they argued convincingly? Have they pinpointed any real challenges to the credibility of Christian faith?
© 2006–2026 MandM — Sitemap — hosted by churchWEB — Cutline — Modifications by Madeleine Flannagan.
This reminds me of Pr 17:28.
I’ve written a response to this post:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/are-we-innocent-until-proven-guilty-in-a-court-of-law/
Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I wasn’t so much responding to your post as using it as a jumping off point. My sole intention was to examine a fallacious aphorism.
No worries – I enjoy the dissection of ideas and thought you raised some interesting points.
Are you saying you are opposed to blow by blow media accounts of trials?
We got asked to blog on the trial by a number of people, we kept getting asked for our opinion on it and people keep searching our site to see if we had blogged on it so we wrote the above.
To answer your question, yes we do take issue with media and net and twitter accounts of trials as they are happening.
They report complex pieces of evidence in tiny soundbites and they do so out of the context of the entire case and minus the body language, intonation and facial expression and frequently without the accompanying visual evidence, that the court gets to hear and see.
Further, given as a society we charge our courts with making the decision as to criminal guilt or innocence we question the appropriateness of the practice of such reporting when such reporters/bloggers/tweeters know that those hearing the reports are going to take the information and asess whether they think the accused is innocent or guilty and publicly speculate.
To my mind this is not appropriate; the charges are serious, a person’s entire future and reputation is at stake and in this instance several people lost their lives. It is the court’s place to decide and it potentially undermines the presumption of innocence that all accuseds are entitled to receive from society. Further, in this case, there is an attempt to deflect guilt onto someone who is dead who cannot defend himself who too deserves the presumption of innocence.
In addition, if there is a mistrial and a new jury has to be selected it makes doing so and ensuring a fair trial very difficult.
So no, Matt and I will not participate in trial by blogosphere or permit our blog to be used to do so.
good on you guys, there are far too many people making judgement on little or no evidence at all. bang on the button it is up to a court to decide on verdicts not the general populace. i admire your ethics.