characters Gunning for God ☆ eBook PDF or Kindle ePUB


free read Gunning for God

characters Gunning for God ☆ eBook, PDF or Kindle ePUB × New ideas about the nature of God and Christianity that will give Dawkins' best friends and worst enemies alike some stimulating food for thought Tackling Hawking Dawkins Dennett Hitchens and a newcomer in the field—the French philosopher Michel Onfray—John LennoxAren’t uite so straightforward Arguing that the New Athiests' irrational and unscientific methodology leaves them guilty of the very obstinate foolishness they criticize in dogmatic religious folks this erudite and wide ranging guide to religion in the modern age packs some debilitating punches and scores big for religious rationalis. In this apologetic work Dr Lennox takes aim at the rhetoric of militant atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and skillfully demonstrates that while they may be uick on the draw they are not the crack shots they think they are In his apologetic Dr Lennox plays both defense and offense with the following uestions each one addressed in a separate chapter1 Are god and faith enemies of reason and science2 Is religion poisonous3 Is atheism poisonous4 Can we be good without God5 Is the God of the Bible a despot6 Is the atonement morally repellent7 Are miracles pure fantasy8 Did Jesus rise from the deadRegarding the first uestion Are god and faith enemies of reason and science Dr Lennox confronts and debunks various popular perceptions of faith that imply that it is belief without or in opposition to evidence There is also a section in which he articulates some of the arguments he develops in much greater detail in his book God and Stephen Hawking Whose Design Is It Anyway My review of that work can be accessed via this linkhttpswwwgoodreadscomreviewshowRegarding the second uestion Is religion poisonous Dr Lennox addresses allegations that Christianity is a source of evil in the world Often atheists cite evils perpetrated by Christians such as the Crusades and Inuisition and convict all of Christianity of these “evils” implying that without Christianity these “evils” would not have happened Dr Lennox’s response to this is to agree with the atheists’ criticism of these “evils” and then point out the good that Christianity has accomplished in the world Likewise without Christianity these “goods” would not have happened either While I agree with the second part of this approach I am uncomfortable with Dr Lennox’s seemingly uncritical acceptance of the atheists’ generalizations of these historical events For example the First Crusade was prompted by wildly successful expansion of Muslim controlled territory by the Seljuk Turks All of Anatolia much of it still Christian was under their control and they were poised to cross Bosporus into Europe and attack Constantinople Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade on the basis of Christian charity Christians were under threat of Muslim domination and Christians from Western Europe travelled to Constantinople to work with the Byzantine army to drive back the Turks liberating Christians and taking the pressure of Constantinople How different is this from crossing the English Channel into Normandy on D Day There are reasons why that offensive was called a crusade I will grant that the crusaders perpetrated some evils in the name of Christ but the atheists have overgeneralized these evils to the entirety of the Crusades just as they have overgeneralized them to the entirety of Christianity I am disappointed that Dr Lennox as brilliant as he is missed the opportunity to expose another example of atheist overgeneralization I am also concerned that he may have inadvertently acuiesced to the mantra of modern secularism that religious views must not be the basis for actions in the public sphereRegarding the third uestion Is atheism poisonous Dr Lennox goes on the offensive holding the atheists to their own standard If Christianity is guilty because of evils perpetrated by Christians then is atheism not eually guilty on account of evils perpetrated by atheists Here Dr Lennox brings up the atrocities of Hitler’s NSDAP and communist regimes that killed tens of millions of people He could have gone further back such as the anti clericalism of the French Revolution in which thousands of clergy were executed but he already made his point uite wellRegarding the fourth uestion Can we be good without God Dr Lennox argues that without timeless moral and ethical standards from God we are left with human conventions that are anchored to nothing but human preferences This chapter is a good follow up for the previous one linking the atrocities of atheistic regimes to their human conventions For the record the argument that without God there is no basis for morals or ethics does not mean that atheists and agnostics cannot be moral or ethical; rather it points out that their morals and ethics are borrowing their basis from theismRegarding the fifth uestion Is the God of the Bible a despot Dr Lennox faces atheist challenges to the morality of the Israelite conuest of Canaan in which God commanded them to annihilate the Canaanites This has been an issue with which modern Christians have been uncomfortable ever since the genocide of Jews in Europe by Hitler’s NSDAP and I appreciate that Dr Lennox didn’t shy away from it Then again the atheists he opposes probably wouldn’t let him get away with it if he tried In this chapter he points out that the conuest of Canaan wasn’t an ethnic cleansing Other passages in the Torah provide for just treatment of foreigners as well as war prisoners What was different about the Canaanites was a judgment of God for their sins Further this judgment wasn’t a temper tantrum either God gave them at least four centuries from the time of Abraham to repent and they never did God’s command to annihilate the Canaanites puts on display both is judgment and his mercy He executed judgment only after a prolonged opportunity for repentance had been spurnedThe sixth uestion Is the atonement morally repellent challenges the morality of substitutionary atonement In this chapter Dr Lennox must necessarily build his case starting with the doctrine of sin; for without original sin and without the conseuences of sin there would be no need for substitutionary atonement If there are no conseuences for sin morality dies and is replaced by license What judge does not understand this For that matter what loving God would allow His creation to descend into licentious chaos No sin must necessarily have conseuences I have been well aware that many find the doctrine of sin offensive because it asserts that they are not as good as they think they are In this chapter Dr Lennox answers a powerful objection to the concept of divine forgiveness of sins of which I was unaware Specifically if I sin against another human what right does God have to absolve me of my responsibilities to my fellow man incurred on account of my sin In other words is it right for person A to forgive person B for what he has done to person C It is a worthy uestion that should not be dismissed out of hand and Dr Lennox confronts it head on pointing out that all sin even those against our fellow man are ultimately against GodSince most modern objections to the idea of miracles are built on the foundation of David Hume’s argument against miracles Dr Lennox’s response to the seventh uestion Are miracles pure fantasy focuses on Hume and his argument This is a topic worthy of an entire book For example David Beckwith critiued Hume in his book David Hume's Argument Against Miracles A Critical Analysis My review of that work can be accessed via this linkhttpswwwgoodreadscomreviewshowAlthough Dr Lennox addresses the topic of miracles in a single chapter his arguments are uite cogentIn answering the eighth and final uestion Did Jesus rise from the dead Dr Lennox takes a two pronged approach answering two sub uestions1 Have the accounts of the resurrection available to us been accurately transmitted to us2 Were the original accounts of the resurrection accurateUntil the invention of the printing press all manuscripts of the New Testament whether whole or in part had to be copied by hand a process that necessarily introduces transcription errors People are well justified in asking how confident we are that the New Testament we have is an accurate representation of the original autographs Dr Lennox approaches this uestion by appealing to the manuscript evidence for the New Testament in comparison to the scanty manuscript evidence for other ancient works before moving on into a brief discussion of the science of textual criticism This is an entire field of study and entire books have been written about it Hence Dr Lennox cannot do justice to it in a mere few pages but what he does write serves to make his point about the accuracy of the New Testament we haveRegarding the accuracy of the resurrection accounts in the New Testament Dr Lennox surveys the evidence for the death of Jesus no death no resurrection as described in the New Testament and for the empty tomb Because all the eyewitnesses are long dead and all we have is their testimony he evaluates the validity of their testimony just as attorneys would do in a courtroomFor its relatively small size this book covers a lot of ground A brilliant and rational thinker Dr Lennox makes his points incisively and effectively Further unlike the atheists he opposes he treats with respect those with whom he disagrees This is an example we need to follow

Gunning for GodAren’t uite so straightforward Arguing that the New Athiests' irrational and unscientific methodology leaves them guilty of the very obstinate foolishness they criticize in dogmatic religious folks this erudite and wide ranging guide to religion in the modern age packs some debilitating punches and scores big for religious rationalis. In this apologetic work Dr Lennox takes aim at the rhetoric of militant atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and skillfully demonstrates that while they may be uick on the draw they are not the crack shots they think they are In his apologetic Dr Lennox plays both defense and offense with the following uestions each one addressed in a separate chapter1 Are god and faith enemies of reason and science2 Is religion poisonous3 Is atheism poisonous4 Can we be good without God5 Is the God of the Bible a despot6 Is the atonement morally repellent7 Are miracles pure fantasy8 Did Jesus rise from the deadRegarding the first uestion Are god and faith enemies of reason and science Dr Lennox confronts and debunks various popular perceptions of faith that imply that it is belief without or in opposition to evidence There is also a section in which he articulates some of the arguments he develops in much greater detail in his book God and Stephen Hawking Whose Design Is It Anyway My review of that work can be accessed via this linkhttpswwwgoodreadscomreviewshowRegarding the second uestion Is religion poisonous Dr Lennox addresses allegations that Christianity is a source of evil in the world Often atheists cite evils perpetrated by Christians such as the Crusades and Inuisition and convict all of Christianity of these “evils” implying that without Christianity these “evils” would not have happened Dr Lennox’s response to this is to agree with the atheists’ criticism of these “evils” and then point out the good that Christianity has accomplished in the world Likewise without Christianity these “goods” would not have happened either While I agree with the second part of this approach I am uncomfortable with Dr Lennox’s seemingly uncritical acceptance of the atheists’ generalizations of these historical events For example the First Crusade was prompted by wildly successful expansion of Muslim controlled territory by the Seljuk Turks All of Anatolia much of it still Christian was under their control and they were poised to cross Bosporus into Europe and attack Constantinople Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade on the basis of Christian charity Christians were under threat of Muslim domination and Christians from Western Europe travelled to Constantinople to work with the Byzantine army to drive back the Turks liberating Christians and taking the pressure of Constantinople How different is this from crossing the English Channel into Normandy on D Day There are reasons why that offensive was called a crusade I will grant that the crusaders perpetrated some evils in the name of Christ but the atheists have overgeneralized these evils to the entirety of the Crusades just as they have overgeneralized them to the entirety of Christianity I am disappointed that Dr Lennox as brilliant as he is missed the opportunity to expose another example of atheist overgeneralization I am also concerned that he may have inadvertently acuiesced to the mantra of modern secularism that religious views must not be the basis for actions in the public sphereRegarding the third uestion Is atheism poisonous Dr Lennox goes on the offensive holding the atheists to their own standard If Christianity is guilty because of evils perpetrated by Christians then is atheism not eually guilty on account of evils perpetrated by atheists Here Dr Lennox brings up the atrocities of Hitler’s NSDAP and communist regimes that killed tens of millions of people He could have gone further back such as the anti clericalism of the French Revolution in which thousands of clergy were executed but he already made his point uite wellRegarding the fourth uestion Can we be good without God Dr Lennox argues that without timeless moral and ethical standards from God we are left with human conventions that are anchored to nothing but human preferences This chapter is a good follow up for the previous one linking the atrocities of atheistic regimes to their human conventions For the record the argument that without God there is no basis for morals or ethics does not mean that atheists and agnostics cannot be moral or ethical; rather it points out that their morals and ethics are borrowing their basis from theismRegarding the fifth uestion Is the God of the Bible a despot Dr Lennox faces atheist challenges to the morality of the Israelite conuest of Canaan in which God commanded them to annihilate the Canaanites This has been an issue with which modern Christians have been uncomfortable ever since the genocide of Jews in Europe by Hitler’s NSDAP and I appreciate that Dr Lennox didn’t shy away from it Then again the atheists he opposes probably wouldn’t let him get away with it if he tried In this chapter he points out that the conuest of Canaan wasn’t an ethnic cleansing Other passages in the Torah provide for just treatment of foreigners as well as war prisoners What was different about the Canaanites was a judgment of God for their sins Further this judgment wasn’t a temper tantrum either God gave them at least four centuries from the time of Abraham to repent and they never did God’s command to annihilate the Canaanites puts on display both is judgment and his mercy He executed judgment only after a prolonged opportunity for repentance had been spurnedThe sixth uestion Is the atonement morally repellent challenges the morality of substitutionary atonement In this chapter Dr Lennox must necessarily build his case starting with the doctrine of sin; for without original sin and without the conseuences of sin there would be no need for substitutionary atonement If there are no conseuences for sin morality dies and is replaced by license What judge does not understand this For that matter what loving God would allow His creation to descend into licentious chaos No sin must necessarily have conseuences I have been well aware that many find the doctrine of sin offensive because it asserts that they are not as good as they think they are In this chapter Dr Lennox answers a powerful objection to the concept of divine forgiveness of sins of which I was unaware Specifically if I sin against another human what right does God have to absolve me of my responsibilities to my fellow man incurred on account of my sin In other words is it right for person A to forgive person B for what he has done to person C It is a worthy uestion that should not be dismissed out of hand and Dr Lennox confronts it head on pointing out that all sin even those against our fellow man are ultimately against GodSince most modern objections to the idea of miracles are built on the foundation of David Hume’s argument against miracles Dr Lennox’s response to the seventh uestion Are miracles pure fantasy focuses on Hume and his argument This is a topic worthy of an entire book For example David Beckwith critiued Hume in his book David Hume's Argument Against Miracles A Critical Analysis My review of that work can be accessed via this linkhttpswwwgoodreadscomreviewshowAlthough Dr Lennox addresses the topic of miracles in a single chapter his arguments are uite cogentIn answering the eighth and final uestion Did Jesus rise from the dead Dr Lennox takes a two pronged approach answering two sub uestions1 Have the accounts of the resurrection available to us been accurately transmitted to us2 Were the original accounts of the resurrection accurateUntil the invention of the printing press all manuscripts of the New Testament whether whole or in part had to be copied by hand a process that necessarily introduces transcription errors People are well justified in asking how confident we are that the New Testament we have is an accurate representation of the original autographs Dr Lennox approaches this uestion by appealing to the manuscript evidence for the New Testament in comparison to the scanty manuscript evidence for other ancient works before moving on into a brief discussion of the science of textual criticism This is an entire field of study and entire books have been written about it Hence Dr Lennox cannot do justice to it in a mere few pages but what he does write serves to make his point about the accuracy of the New Testament we haveRegarding the accuracy of the resurrection accounts in the New Testament Dr Lennox surveys the evidence for the death of Jesus no death no resurrection as described in the New Testament and for the empty tomb Because all the eyewitnesses are long dead and all we have is their testimony he evaluates the validity of their testimony just as attorneys would do in a courtroomFor its relatively small size this book covers a lot of ground A brilliant and rational thinker Dr Lennox makes his points incisively and effectively Further unlike the atheists he opposes he treats with respect those with whom he disagrees This is an example we need to follow

free download ó eBook, PDF or Kindle ePUB ë John C. Lennox

Gunning for God Ö Ch in this insightful book Since the twin towers crashed to the ground on September 11 there has been no end to attacks on religion Claims abound that religion is dangerous that it kills and that it poisons everything And if religion is the problem with the world say the New Atheists the answer is simple get rid of it Of course things. Although some of the author's critiues of the New Atheist movement are spot on ie mere disbelief in God does not automatically make you Bright the final chapters border on the inane as he tries to prove such things as miracles and the divinity of Christ You get the sense that he's preaching to the converted in the second half of the book I didn't believe in Christianity before I read this book and I still don't believe in it now free download ó eBook, PDF or Kindle ePUB ë John C. Lennox

John C. Lennox ë 7 free read

John C. Lennox ë 7 free read New ideas about the nature of God and Christianity that will give Dawkins' best friends and worst enemies alike some stimulating food for thought Tackling Hawking Dawkins Dennett Hitchens and a newcomer in the field the French philosopher Michel Onfray John Lennox points out some of the most glaring fallacies in the New Atheist approa. Great specifics organized in a reader friendly style I kept picking this one up and putting it down and every time it always held great ideas for me I don't agree with Lennox on some details but for most of this book I was right there with him And I always love his dry humor