Comments

1. Maori says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 06:02 AM:

   Hmmm… I must say Dr. Craig’s comments are quite surprising. I greatly appreciate his insight in theological issues, it really is second-to-none thinking, however, his political views seem to go into a different direction that strikes one as very biased. Jumping at every so small Democratic misstep, he blindly backs Republican politics (for example going into Iraq without any substantial evidence, there being no real plan on what a solution in Afghanistan looks like after almost a decade long war, increasing the deficit, losing the economy, filibustering every Democratic law effort, being so blatantly opposed to public healthcare, acting very awkwardly in the wake of the Oil Spill Disaster with Reps taking millions and millions of Big Oil Dollars even at this point, the list could be continued on and on). They are corrupt and often behave hypocritically and apart from the fact that they claim to be Christians (which in some cases conveniently gets them important votes), there seems to be little reason not to hold them equally accountable. When I read Paul’s instructions to the early Christians, the main concept that I get is the one of an individual full of integrity. It is very hard to see that on their part, I would even go as far as saying they’re putting the church in disgrace. When non-Christians think of Christians one of the first things that come to their minds are Republicans, conservative media (including Fox News) and so on. They all exist in their anti-intellectual bubble and are very much out of touch. Sharron Angle an ambassador for Christ? Fox News full of true speech (just think of what happened to ACORN)? It seems hard to believe and light of these example it is not difficult to understand the decreasing acceptance of Christians in the country. Paul would sure write another letter addressed to this group of people if he were still alive… anyway, to sum this up I would ask Dr. Craig to be more objective holding Republicans just as accountable as Democrats.

2. Jason says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 02:38 PM:

   I couldn't agree more with what Dr. Craig said-- Very well put.... I was just as surprised as he was when I heard Obama's policy to NASA--- Absolutely rediculous!!!

3. Alex says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 03:43 PM:

   I'd have to agree with Maori here.. Bill Craig is great and an expert in his respective fields, but when he starts talking politics, he sounds just like Tea Party activists who put up signs comparing Obama, Stalin, and Hitler. I'm sorry but someone had to say it, and plus, I have the utmost respective for Bill Craig as a scholar in his respective fields, but his political views seem very biased and ill-reasoned.

4. Mike says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 05:33 PM:

   If you guys really know Craig's work that well, you would know that you can't get away with attacking the person instead of the argument if anyone is paying attention. I haven't read any argument here against what was said, just accusations of bias. That should come after you show his complaints are invalid with an argument of your own - not before and certainly not in absence of any argument at all.

5. Wade A. Tisthammer says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 05:36 PM:

   A couple people here have remarked at how biased Craig is. Maybe he is, but I just didn't see that in this particular blog entry. The idea that one of NASA's foremost new and major goals is to help other nations feel good about past scientific and mathematical accomplishments does smack of imperial condescension. It's not hard to see how some might consider this as a misuse of NASA, even though I believe Muslim outreach is commendable.

6. KStret says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 05:46 PM:

   Maori and Alex,
   You are surprised that someone holds the opinion that NASA on a mission to boost self esteem of Muslims is ridiculous? NASA=space exploration. You don't have a problem with NASA= self esteem therapy for Muslims? That is not their job. Pointing that out is ill-reasoned and means you are a tea party activist? I'm sorry but not understanding, that is not NASA's job and is a waste of tax payer's money shows some major flaws in reasoning. Your point of contention with Dr Craig seems to be that he is not a liberal.

   When Maori says,"he blindly backs Republican politics," you must have missed he comments last week last weak blaming republicans for the appointments they made on the Supreme Court which is bring us very close to the mentality of the law means what I say it means.

   Then Maori goes on a laundry list of liberal political issues and apparently has a problem with people disagreeing with her.

   "for example going into Iraq without any substantial evidence"

   We were not the only country who said Iraq had WMDs. After 9-11 we could not afford to take a chance.

   " there being no real plan on what a solution in Afghanistan looks like after almost a decade long war, increasing the deficit, losing the economy,"

   I am sorry Maori but who is in power now? The democrats control the Senate, Congress, and presidency and they have for over a year. At some point they have to take responsibility and stop blaming Bush. On top of that, Obama is dumping gasoline on a fire when it comes to the deficit and the economy. The deficit is Bush's fault but it's ok for Obama to keep spending like a shopaholic? The economy is Bush's fault but Obama claimed the second stimulus would turn the economy around, which it hasn't. You have a problem with there being no solution in Afghanistan but Obama waited two or three months to just meet with the General in charge and that is ok?

   "filibustering every Democratic law effort"

   Until recently the democrats had a super majority and the presidency. They still hold both houses. The republicans couldn't filibuster.

   "being so blatantly opposed to public healthcare"

   The dems had a super majority, the problem was with the democrats. Republicans couldn't have done a thing to stop the health care bill. People don't want socialized medicine. In fact 60-65% want the bill repealed. The reason for that is that it doesn't work. There are other countries that have it and our health care system was better.

   "acting very awkwardly in the wake of the Oil Spill Disaster with Reps taking millions and millions of Big Oil Dollars even at this point"

   Do you know who one of Obama's biggest donors was? IT WAS BP! He gave a waver to them despite BP having one of the worst safety records of all the oils companies.

   "When non-Christians think of Christians one of the first things that come to their minds are Republicans, conservative media (including Fox News) and so on. They all exist in their anti-intellectual bubble and are very much out of touch"

   Judging for your response on these political issues, you are not well informed. The fact that you think republicans can filibuster when the dems had a super majority says it all. Yet, you accuse anyone who disagrees with you as being anti-intellectual?

   "Fox News full of true speech (just think of what happened to ACORN)?"

   What do you mean by this comment? Please tell me you are not defending ACORN.

7. Max says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 11:38 PM:

   I had exactly the same reaction as Maori. As a non-American who has only ever heard Craig's theological views before this really made me cringe. But I think it is better summed up here than I could ever do: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/2934/%E2%80%98should_muslims_be_able_to_build_mosques_wherever_they_like%E2%80%99_/

8. KStret says on Jul 15, 2010 @ 12:35 AM:

   Max,
   "I had exactly the same reaction as Maori."

   If the head of the IRS said the president told him the most important mission was to teach kids basket weaving, common sense would dictate that would be ridiculous. Why? Because the IRS job only pertains to collecting taxes. It has nothing to do with basket weaving. The same thing is true of the NASA story. Why do you and others have difficulty seeing this? If you admit it is rediculious for NASA to have a mission to hug Muslims, it reflects badly on President Obama and you like Obama, so you can't have that. What do you do? Name call. Dr. Craig is the equivalent of a tea party activist and that makes you cringe. By name calling you take the attention of the subject because you can not defend your position. It is common sense that NASA should not have a therapeutic self esteem out reach to Muslims. They should be focusing on.....I don't know..... space exploration maybe...
   This is a common sense issue not a political one.

9. KStret says on Jul 15, 2010 @ 12:50 AM:

   "I would even go as far as saying they’re putting the church in disgrace. When non-Christians think of Christians one of the first things that come to their minds are Republicans"

   This is the line the far left is attempting to sell to churches. Conservative Christians need to shut up. It is the conservative Christians that are scaring everyone away. While the conservative Christians are not allowed to talk, the far left will partner with the government on faith based initiatives to pass far left legislation. They will quietly partner with Marxists...I mean social, economic, and environmental justice activists groups. While this is going on, they will redefine the theology of the church and the definition political policies. Immigration, cap and trade, and health care are biblical and moral issues. If you disagree, you are a right wing tea party activist who is destroying the church.

10. Andrea says on Jul 16, 2010 @ 09:33 PM:

    Please come to Minneapolis for debate! I would love to see! I just discovered you today on youtube after watching some wackadoo on nightline claiming to be the leader of "American Athiests". I think it's really cool what you do and it's nice to have someone out there defending God with a touch of science.

11. KDR says on Jul 17, 2010 @ 10:47 AM:

    Maori, strange that you would criticize Dr. Craig for his critique of the NASA situation and then enter into a anti-republican, anti- foxnews tyrade. Who is playing politics here?

12. KDR says on Jul 17, 2010 @ 01:32 PM:

    Maori, strange that you would criticize Dr. Craig for his critique of the NASA situation and then enter into a anti-republican, anti- foxnews tyrade. Who is playing politics here?

13. Maestro says on Jul 18, 2010 @ 08:29 AM:

    I actually think it's not necessarily a bad idea to expect NASA to cooperate more with whatever agencies deal with space in muslim nations. It's not like the whole muslim world is completely, absolutely broke.
    But perheps they currently don't invest nearly as much money into space exploration as they could, so you'd have to kind of motivate them to do that via offering cooperation.
    But to say that one of NASA's mission is to try and make muslims feel good about some past scientific endeavors doesn't really sound like what NASA should perhaps do: Get them to invest a lot more money into space exploration and cooperate with NASA.

14. John Quin says on Jul 23, 2010 @ 04:58 AM:

    I'm going to be unpopular here and side with Alex & Maori.
    I think WLC does come across as aggressively conservative in many of these blogs.

    Now having said that it's very had to judge someone on the basis of a few blogs. It's one thing to be conservative and something very different to being judgemental and legalistic. I would never presume to think that WLC is either.
    It should be noted that I'm am Australian and this is a very secular/pluralistic society. So effectively this may be a bit of a culture clash.
    I grew up in a very conservative xenophobic denomination and I can tell you that all too often conservatism and judgmentalism/legalism go hand in hand.

    But that said, is WLC wrong? Basically I'd often have to say no.

    The problem I see with being too liberal is that you end up endorsing some sins. People can't help themselves its all black and white.
    It's better to consider the example when the prostitute was dragged before Christ. He never endorsed her behaviour but he never stood as an accuser either. IMHO the balance between legalism and lawlessness is a tricky one and one that we humans often do poorly.

    In the end WLC does look very conservative through the eyes of some, but being challenged by that is not necessarily a bad thing. As we are living in the post enlightenment period we tend to have a strong emphasis of individual rights over and above the rights of the collective. That linked with the strong level of importance we place on sexual pleasure is the perfect recipe for having an emotional bias towards the rights for homosexuals.

    Personally I do think that on the whole homosexuals do not choose their sexuality and that the existence of homosexual couples need not necessarily led to social decay. I would state this however based on my scepticism regarding the ability to actually know the precise intent of some biblical passages and further more scepticism as to whether the bible always articulates the will of God. Sufficed to say that if it were possible to directly ask God about homosexuality in the 21st century I would follow his advice to the letter. I understand perfectly well that most of you will feel as though God has already made his will know on this issue. Perhaps with more study I will gain that level of confidence regarding biblical interpretation.

    I think many people 'downunder' would respect WLC's intellectual arguments but they would be put off by his appearance of conservatism. It should be noted however that Americans to seem to mix up religion and politics an lot. It's not just me that has observed this. Listening to N.T. Wright I have heard similar comments.

15. KStret says on Jul 24, 2010 @ 10:47 PM:

    John,
    In this blog, the fundamental question was should NASA be engaging in a self esteem boosting out reach mission to Muslims? Is that NASA's job? No it is not. This issue is not a political one but a common sense issue. If the IRS was teaching basket weaving, I would like to say 100% of the people would agree that was a waste of tax payers money and had nothing to do with the IRS's mandate. This issue is the exact same thing. What is the problem then? Maori and Alex's fundamental problem with Dr. Craig was predicated on the idea that Dr. Craig isn't a liberal. If that is the case why would they take umbrage with this story? Probably because it reflects badly on president Obama. They like Obama and his policies, so they have to attack Dr. Craig. If you noticed they could not defend their positions and they didn't bother to do so. If Dr Craig has conservative views, so what?

    "I grew up in a very conservative xenophobic denomination"

    All you are doing is name calling. The left has many insults that end in isms and phobias but they can not articulate why their ideas are better or conservative ideas are wrong. Why? The fundamental problem with the ideology is it is inherently illogical.If you disagree with position X that is ****ism you are *****phobic. That is not an argument. They are so convinced that they are correct and it is so ingrained in them that they don't realize that is what they are doing.

    
    "It's better to consider the example when the prostitute was dragged before Christ. He never endorsed her behavior but he never stood as an accuser either."

    Jesus told people to sin no more. In other words, stop doing certain behaviors. Also, I believe the story of Jesus and the prostitute was added later in the bible and did not appear in the early writings.

    "I would state this however based on my scepticism regarding the ability to actually know the precise intent of some biblical passages and further more scepticism as to whether the bible always articulates the will of God. Sufficed to say that if it were possible to directly ask God about homosexuality in the 21st century I would follow his advice to the letter."

    The bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. It is pretty clear about that. Many liberal Christians argue that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so that means it's ok. First, Jesus was quoting the old testament frequently. I am sure if he thought that homosexuality was ok, he would have made that known. Secondly, he said any man who even looks at another woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery. Do you really think someone who said that is going to ok with homosexuality? Looking at another woman =bad but being gay =good?

    "It should be noted however that Americans to seem to mix up religion and politics an lot."

    There is that same argument again. Don't talk about conservative politics while the far left slips their policies into the bible.

16. John Quin says on Jul 25, 2010 @ 06:34 AM:

    Hi KStret
    While I was all set up to engage your post on a point by point basis it's just a bit too tempting for me and it's all gone bad for me before. In the past I have tended to exceed the limits of what's an acceptable manner for Christians to behave on the internet.
    Instead I'll just point out that my post was mostly articulating my opinion.
    Someone's opinion is not an academic argument and I think it is wrong to believe that the opinions of Alex, Maori and myself can be dismissed by some statement of logic. In my opinion WLC often does come off as unnecessarily conservative and preoccupied on American issues. This tends to happen in his blog and to a lesser extent podcasts. I've never noticed it in the debates that I've viewed. I'm not wishing for him to 'water down the truth' in anyway but if 'RF' is to become the global witness that it deserves to be then perhaps this feedback should not be quickly dismissed.
    It was never my intent to invalidate conservative beliefs based on the fact that they are conservative. However I was trying to articulate the fact that conservatives and liberals do each have their own common pitfalls.
    By calling my 'home' denomination conservative & xenophobic I was talking about my life experience. Their doctrine is wrong for other reasons than being conservative and I would never categorised them as being led by 'another spirit'. I was just giving some background to the fact that 'I've lived it' so I'm not just theorising here. Any yes there is no hyperbole when I call them xenophobic and no I am not trying to cast all conservatives as being xenophobic.
    It has been my experience that many people outside of the USA to see American Christians 'buying in' to many political issues. And yet again if 'RF' is to have a truly global appeal it will have to do more than just translate WLC's words into another language. He should aim to maintain the integrity of his beliefs while having a broader appeal and less of a USA based focus.
    But that's just my opinion.

17. KStret says on Jul 25, 2010 @ 12:52 PM:

    .John,
    "While I was all set up to engage your post on a point by point basis it's just a bit too tempting for me and it's all gone bad for me before. In the past I have tended to exceed the limits of what's an acceptable manner for Christians to behave on the internet."

    With all due respect, you are proving my point for me. Unless I am misunderstanding you, what you are saying is you can not have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without resorting to name calling or getting angry.

    "Someone's opinion is not an academic argument and I think it is wrong to believe that the opinions of Alex, Maori and myself can be dismissed by some statement of logic"

    You need to have some logical reasons for why you believe what you believe.

    1. I believe the moon is made out of green cheese.
    2. That is just my opinion.

    That isn't a logical argument. What reasons do you have for believing that? Opinions can be wrong.

    Maori for example, had a myriad of left wing policies listed that Dr. Craig should support. Even though I haven't heard him articulate his position on many of the issues she brought up, she assumed that he disagreed with her and couldn't understand how anyone could be against these issues. Her argument amounts to Dr. Craig isn't a liberal, therefore he is a tea party activist. She assumes that her position is correct without making a coherent argument as to why she is correct.

    "In my opinion WLC often does come off as unnecessarily conservative and preoccupied on American issues."

    Dr. Craig is American, why wouldn't his focus be mainly on American issues? I couldn't tell you a thing about Australian culture or politics other than I enjoy eating at the Outback restaurant every now and then. I bet you couldn't tell me very much about American culture and politics but know a great deal about Australian culture and politics.

    Does a Christian want a supreme court justice who is going to rule that Christians don't have the right to believe in the theology they want to in a University setting or otherwise? No they don't. Is that an issue that Christians should be concerned about? Yes, it is. Is talking about that issue being overtly political? I don't think so.

    Would Alex or Maori be equally upset with Dr. Craig if he was arguing that socialized medicine is a human right and the bible mandates that the government take over the health care industry? Probably not.

    "By calling my 'home' denomination conservative & xenophobic I was talking about my life experience. Their doctrine is wrong for other reasons than being conservative and I would never categorised them as being led by 'another spirit'. I was just giving some background to the fact that 'I've lived it' so I'm not just theorising here. Any yes there is no hyperbole when I call them xenophobic and no I am not trying to cast all conservatives as being xenophobic."

    Unless you quantify that statement and back up your contention, all you are doing is name calling. Conservatives disagree with position X, therefore conservatives are xenophobic isn't a argument.

    "It has been my experience that many people outside of the USA to see American Christians 'buying in' to many political issues."

    What issues are they buying in to? If you are a christian there are certain beliefs that go along with it. If you do not have certain beliefs, it would be inconsistent with Christian theology. A Christian can not be culturally liberal. That amounts to turning a blind eye to certain sinful behaviour and ignoring the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah. They can not support abortion or homosexuality. Christianity isn't a moral relativistic theology

18. John Quin says on Jul 25, 2010 @ 07:49 PM:

    KStret
    Perhaps I haven't articulated it properly but the opinion that WLC is conservative to the point that at might get in the way of having a broader appeal is basically a statement about aesthetics.
    You can't make logical statements to invalidate someone's perception, it is their own.

    But collectively if enough people think WLC's blogs are a 'put off' it will get in the way of his greater objective of witnessing. I'm of the opinion that you can modify your style without selling out on your values.

    And no I don’t wish to have a protracted debate on this issue. You can choose to interpret this as liberals not being able to defend their comments if you wish but from my perspective I can't see any benefit to us or others in what is essentially arguing.

19. KStret says on Jul 25, 2010 @ 11:52 PM:

    John,

    "Perhaps I haven't articulated it properly but the opinion that WLC is conservative to the point that at might get in the way of having a broader appeal is basically a statement about aesthetics."

    I understand the point. However, as I said before certain beliefs are inconsistent with Christianity. I don't think Dr. Craig is crossing the line on the topics in his audio blog.

    "You can't make logical statements to invalidate someone's perception, it is their own."

    Yes you can. My perception is that the moon is made out of green cheese. That perception is demonstrably false. We are not talking about your favorite flavor of ice cream that is 100% subjective.

    "But collectively if enough people think WLC's blogs are a 'put off' it will get in the way of his greater objective of witnessing"

    That is an argument that the far left is currently using in this country to co-opt the churches and shut their opposition up. Socialized medicine, cap and trade, and many other issues are not far left policies they are biblical. They say that, while they infiltrate the churches and change Christian theology to socialist doctrine. It's a good plan.....

    Church attendance is falling because they won't stand up for anything, they are not teaching doctrine very well, and they are not teaching apologetics. It isn't because people associate the church with the far right.

20. KStret says on Jul 26, 2010 @ 12:09 AM:

    Another reason church attendance is dropping is because increased secularism in the culture. Which makes the point of 'shut up so you can bring more people to Jesus', more ridiculous.
    1.Secularism brings church attendance down,
    2. the secular progressives argue that because the church is so conservative people are afraid to go

    The result are lower and lower church attendance and no opposition or push back to secular progressive values being absorbed in the culture.

    This obviously isn't happening fast enough for the progressive movement, so they are speeding it up by partnering churches with socialist activist groups and the government. Political issues become biblical issues and Christian doctrine becomes social doctrine.

    The results that follow this formula if they are successful are not good

21. Max Richey says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 11:18 AM:

    Perhaps we can send to Islam a message about the breeding of low self-esteem that results from a guilt imposed, or let's say Holy Conviction, that religious oppression is not the handiwork of our God.

    Perhaps we can simply write it on a very long, flame resistant(no pun intended) banner, and attach it to a next generation escape vehicle, while pursuing lower earth orbit in a less significant NASA mission.

    Aren't we also trying to learn to take off from the ground and achieve escape velocity?

    http://alogicalchristianity.org