Paul CopanAnmeldelser
Forfatter af Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God
Anmeldelser
In this timely and readable book, apologist Paul Copan takes on some of the most vexing accusations of our time, including:
God is arrogant and jealous
God punishes people too harshly
God is guilty of ethnic cleansing
God oppresses women
God endorses slavery
Christianity causes violence
and more
Copan not only answers God's critics, he also shows how to read both the Old and New Testaments faithfully, seeing an unchanging, righteous, and loving God in both.
Because Christianity (in my view) has influenced the world over the last two millennia, it is challenging to reconcile the actions of this ancient people group in the Near East. However, the author Paul Copan in his book, “Is God A Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God” reminds his 21st Century readers in an objective way, the world in which the ancient Israelites find themselves. While their global economic and cultural structure was their reality, the God of Abraham worked within their unprincipled system. Their God worked within His volunteered restraint of His free-willed creatures, all the while revolutionizing how people approached Him vs. other/false spirits, issues of forced labor, the role of women in society, and more.
Whether you are a bible student or you take an interest in the subject matter, Copan applies proper hermeneutics when deciphering between descriptive text and proscriptive elements within the framework of the ancient Israelites. Good read!
This book reminds me a great deal of A Short History of Atheism by Gavin Hyman, who, like Paul Copan, dismisses popular writers on the subject of atheism. Gavin instead describes the history through a select collection of philosophers. I'm not convinced that that constitutes the entire, or even main history of atheism. Copan complains that atheistic writers don't show show any nuanced understanding of theology. I'm not sure that matters, though. In the first place, theology generally presupposes belief, and a conviction that God is good, no matter what, convictions that professed atheists are unlikely to accept. Moreover, theologians have widely varying ideas. Copan says "God isn't some abstract entity, or impersonal principle as Dawkins seems to think he should be." I know a deeply religious college professor of religion, influenced by Paul Tillich, who believes that God is not a being, but Being itself." The professor does not believe that God confers salvation or eternal life, listens to prayers or intervenes in human affairs, except to lay down a lot of rules. He believes that Jesus was a fully human prophet, and that there are many ways to God, i.e, different religions. I asked if he therefore considered Mohamed and the Buddha to be prophets, but he is still thinking about that
I also question the importance of theology because I am skeptical of how much self-professed Christians know. In tests of religious knowledge, like those from the Pew Forum. whether about religions in general, or Christianity in particular, atheists, Jews and Mormons do the best. Many atheists who left Christianity did a great deal of reading and thinking before hand. Some even went to seminary or were ordained. There is a website started by Gretta Vosper, the self-professed atheist minister in the United Church of Canada, for clergy who have lost their faith.
In R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s article "The Scandal of Biblical Illiteracy: It's Our Problem", he says 'Researchers George Gallup and Jim Castelli put the problem squarely: "Americans revere the Bible--but, by and large, they don't read it."' "Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels. Many Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples. [...] 60 percent of Americans can't name even five of the Ten Commandments.' 'A Barna poll indicated that at least 12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Another survey of graduating high school seniors revealed that over 50 percent thought that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. A considerable number of respondents to one poll indicated that the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Billy Graham.' "The survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that non-believers were able to answer more questions about religion correctly than believers, even when one controlled for educational background. It also showed that people were also ill-informed on some of the questions related to their own religion. A majority of Protestants, for example, were unable to identify Martin Luther as the primary figure behind the Protestant Reformation." At least the atheists that Copan is complaining about have read the Bible enough to complain. I've read it in its entirety.
On to the book itself. At the end of Chapter 1 ("Who Are the New Atheists"), Copan speaks of the "profound, well-documented influence of Christian faith in the world [...] preserving literature, advancing education, laying the foundations of modern science [a rather mixed record, that], cultivating art and music, promoting human rights and providing better working conditions, and overthrowing slavery," Many of these things are done by many other religions and secular institutions. For those who say that, if not for Christianity, we would not have all those lovely Madonnas done by such-and-such an artist, no, but he would have painted something else equally lovely. Martin Luther King, Jr. was apparently not impressed with the churches commitment to civil rights, as evidenced by his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." African slavery in the Americans was established by Christians. The 18th and 19th century fight to end slavery did not include only Christians; a number of atheists were protesting as well. More, the people that they were fighting against were, by and large, professing Christians who pointed to the Bible to justify slavery. In the United States, some churches went into schisms, North vs South on the issue of slavery.
Copan goes on to argue to God's pride or arrogance is actually almost a synonym to humility, both of which are to be considered as an accurate assessment of one's strengths and weaknesses. As for jealousy, Copan links this to love, the natural reaction of a loving husband who wants to reconcile with his erring wife. Copan glosses over the fact that after leaving Egypt, this resulted in thousands of deaths: entire households being exterminated it if the head of the household displeased God. the Levites killing three thousand, and a plague killing fourteen thousands. Generally, when someone quotes the Bible at me, I quote back a contrary verse, but I will tell the persistent that I cannot see how the Bible can be considered to be authoritative if they are going to quote what they like and ignore what they don't.
Copan argues that Mosaic law was always understood to be temporary, to be revised as Israel's moral understanding grew, and that it is always superior to any other Near Eastern code.. Other Near Eastern legal system, however, allowed the wife to seek a divorce as well, and protected her property rights, which the Mosaic law doesn't mention. He cites the case of requiring a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce, which Jesus later denounced as being a concession to human hard-heartedness,, as proof that Mosaic law was intended to be revised, However, God never ordered divorce, as he ordered various other penalties, so it was always optional. He argues that the lex talionis, i,e,, an eye for an eye, was never to be taken seriously. His evidence is the special case of a slave owner knocking out the eye or tooth of a slave - the owner isn't dealt a similar injury, but the slave goes free. While this is more humane than many other systems of slavery, it doesn't necessarily apply to free persons. Obviously they cannot be set free to punish the aggressor.
Moving on to genocide, Copan argues that the order and claim to kill everyone was an exaggeration, since there will still Canaanites, but I will point out that that appears to have applied specifically to city dwellers, which would have eliminate the educated and military, political, and religious leaders, leaving peasants. These could have been reduced to serfdom or slavery, but assuming, as Copan does, that Moses lived in the 13th century BC/BCE, Copan tells us that they were no longer an identifiable entity by 1000 BC/BCE. Yes, as Copan tells us, other people were equally bad, we have only the argument the the Children of Israel were God's chosen people to make them any better. This is what horrified me when I tried to read the Bible as a teenager - these were supposed to be the Good Guys. This is when I began turning away from Christianity, and then religion altogether.
While I understand what Copan is saying about debt slavery, it remains that women were not freed in the seventh year. In certain cases they could be redeemed, but what if their family wasn't interested in redeeming them, or if they couldn't, because they hadn't recovered from the debt that made them sell her in the first place? She couldn't be sold to a foreigner, but could she be sold to another Israeli? If a male debt slave decided to be permanently enslaved in order to remain with his slave wife and children, was there any guarantee that the family wouldn't by broken up by sale? Since part of the willingness to become a permanent slave was that he liked his master, did this mean that he (and his family) couldn't be sold?
The special pleading goes on. I would join the first reviewer, TonyMilner, in recommending the much more thorough review of this book by Thom Stark, "Is God a Moral Compromiser?". (It's longer than this book.)
Upon reading it you'll realize that, while there is the need to gain more knowledge of the philosophical and apologetic issues, how much of it requires just plain common sense one needs to adequately confront objections to the Christian faith.
Copan covers issues such as:
– Can we know truth an reality or is it all relative?
– Is reincarnation a valid belief?
– Do humans have free will?
– How can God be three, yet one?
– Is Jesus God?
– Are there contradictions in the Bible?
and much more.
An excellent read, especially for those new to the study of apologetics.
"Dawkins is quite wrong in asserting that the Christian faith—like Islam— was spread by the sword. If he took an honest look at Christian history, he would have to acknowledge that the earliest Christian movement was one of the politically and socially dis-empowered. This movement was first called “the Way” (Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) in honor of its Savior (John 14:6), and it often gathered to itself slaves and members of the lower classes. In the first three centuries, the church grew by deeds of love and mercy and the proclamation of the Good News of Jesus. Holy wars had no place in this nonviolent movement. "
The authors present a detailed, through and sometimes dense answer to multiple aspects of this question. The most encouraging part of the book to me is its very existence. The authors are more conservative than me, but they respect scripture and the questions it raises. I am relieved to know I am not alone in struggling with these questions in my faith. I am glad the authors consider these questions important enough to bring intense intellectual prowess, historical research, and theological scholarship to bear.
Their final answer to the question is "No." I cannot do their book-length argument justice in this review, but I will try to provide a summary. The Canaanites were not innocent, and the evil they perpetuated was so vile and unrepentant for centuries, that God issued a unique exemption to the normal prohibition against killing innocent people. God's goal for his people was not the extermination of the Canaanites but driving them out of the land. Indeed, they were not exterminated as is evident from continuing conflict later in the Old Testament. God's justice was not partial; when the Israelites turned away from him for centuries, he drove them out of the land just as he did the Canaanites. Even this line of argument raises many uncomfortable questions, which the authors address with thoroughness and depth.
Their answers are not perfect; for example, they sometimes split the hair between what God commanded and what his leaders (e.g. Moses) commanded a little to thinly for me. However, reading this book has given me confidence that God welcomes these questions and has answers.
I think two chapters in the final part of the book (on Jihad and Just War) do not fit with the core message and are more distracting than helpful. The book's greatest strength is is depth and focus on Christians dealing with a difficult portion of our scriptures. Branching out into Islam subverts this strength and could be seen as a tu quoque fallacy. Just war is an extremely important and fascinating topic, but trying to address it in a single chapter gives it short shrift and does not fit well with the rest of the book. I think the book would have been better served by replacing these two chapters with chapters about the genocide of Native Americans and other atrocities committed in the name of the church (some are briefly mentioned).
Even after reading this book, some of the stories of the conquest still make me uncomfortable, and I think that is as it should be. Right or not, such violence should not be treated lightly.
Overall, this book has significantly eroded an important stumbling block to my faith, and I recommend it for anyone who wants to take the Bible seriously but struggles with what appears to be God commanding genocide.
It is in response to these ideas that Copan and Craig have teamed up to write this inter-disciplinary book. They show that creation out of nothing is biblical, and scientifically and philosophically grounded. They don’t explore the rich theological implications of creatio ex nihilo but do show that there is a very strong cumulative case for the doctrine and contra May it is a thoroughly biblical one.
The first three chapters explore the Old Testament, the New Testament and much of the extra-biblical evidence. At times these chapters read like a rich mosaic of commentators, but the conclusion in each one is that creation out of nothing is not a second-century invention; it is implicit in both testaments as well as explicit in the Jewish and early Christian writings.
The second half of the book (chapters 4-8) deals with scientific and philosophical arguments. Chapter 5 exposes the error that many – such as Barbour – make in conflating conservation and creation: ‘Creation is distinct from conservation in that creation does not presuppose a patient entity but involves God’s bringing something into being’ (165).
Chapter 5 explores the problem of the creation of abstract objects such as mathematics concepts. They examine three possible solutions: absolute creationism (which seems to be anything but absolute!), fictionalism and conceptualism. They conclude that much creative work is being done and still remains to be done on this issue; hence, they are not prepared to pronounce judgment over which solution is the most plausible. (I’m tempted to say none of the three they mention!)
The impossibility of an infinite past is explored in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 examines two broad lines of scientific evidence that the universe is not eternal and that it had an origin a finite time ago. The first of these evidences is the expansion of the universe and the standard big bang model of creation; the second, thermodynamics.
The final chapter examines naturalistic alternatives to creation ex nihilo; namely, that the universe created itself and that the universe sprung into existence uncaused out of nothing. Here they ably show the fallacious nature of these arguments.
One need not agree with all their arguments, but Copan and Craig have provided an excellent, inter-disciplinary and timely cumulative case for creatio ex nihilo.
Lastly, Copan's style is conversational and easy to follow. This gets on my nerves because I prefers stilted, academic language when dealing with these topics. YMMV.
3.9/5
backwards. This view was first proposed by David Friederich Strauss (1808-1874) and developed by Martin Kãhler and most recently by Rudolf Bultmann, who suggested that even searching for a historical Jesus was in fact anti-thetical to Paul's justification of grace through faith. Seeking historical verification represents failure of faith.
The pendulum swung back when Ernst Kãsemann delivered a lecture in 1953 that rejected these arguments. He proposed that without a historical grounding Christianity "would collapse into docetism — a faith in a chimera." Crossan, former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, sides with the earlier thinkers, reiterating that Jesus must be separated from theological encrustation, that the Gospels contradict each other on significant historical descriptions, and that believing in the traditional supernatural events becomes an obstacle to faith.
Craig, an evangelical, supported by Buckley, of course, argues that if we cannot believe in the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, the miracles, then the foundations of belief will come crashing down. If any of those events can be disproved, faith is destroyed.
Crossan uses Aesop's Fables as an example of his position. Animals speak in those stories. We accept today that animals can't speak now, but we can't prove they couldn't in ancient Greece. To debate whether they could or could not may be fascinating, but it obscures the real point and moral messages Aesop was trying to convey. Jesus and the Gospels similarly used fables and parables to convey a truth. Did the
Good Samaritan really exist as a person? The debate can go on ad infinitum, but whether he did or not misses the point. To debate the historical accuracy of Jesus' life, Crossan suggests, also misses the point. We get lost in the debate and are distracted from the moral of His message. As Crossan states, "When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with integrity: 'Our story about Jesus' virginal birth is true and factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of his mother's womb, he was walking, talking, teaching, and preaching (which I must admit is even better than our story) — that's a myth.
We have the truth; you have a lie.' I don't think that can be said any longer, for our insistence that our faith is fact and that others' faith is a lie is, I think, a cancer that eats at the heart of Christianity."
Marcus Borg, in his commentary on the debate, provides a valuable insight regarding how we understand resurrection. He states that resurrection as understood by the Jews and Romans of the first century is different from common interpretation today. Modern Christians confuse it with resuscitation, i.e., the restoration of life to the corpse that then goes on as before requiring sustenance, elimination, etc. Crossan prefers the first century interpretation that meant moving on to a new life, something different, a spirituality not requiring a body or physical existence. Hence the presence of Jesus’ corpse in the tomb is irrelevant for Borg and Crossan. The visions seen by the Apostles and Paul do not require a physical being.
This debate, which was held at Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, and the essays from other scholars reflecting on the debate, are fascinating and a model of how a reasonable dialogue can be conducted between two diametrically opposing viewpoints.
Of course, it's all non-sense, but enchanting, nevertheless.
P.S. William Lane Craig has gained a reputation recently for trying to take on Richard Dawkins (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig) and his debate with Christopher Hitchens is available on YouTube.
Copan begins by attempting to make sense of the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. I loved the short discussion comparing the two times that God called Abraham: The first time to come to the promised land, the second time to sacrifice his son. Because of similar language, Copan argues that Abraham “couldn’t have missed the connection being made … God is clearly reminding him of his promise of blessing in Genesis 12 even while he’s being commanded to do what seems to be utterly opposed to that promise.” Outside of this, though, the Abraham/Isaac story is one of those sections of Copan’s book that just didn’t work for me. It doesn’t seem to matter how it’s explained to me, as soon as someone tries to pull this story down from the level of mythology and make me imagine it to be a true story that really happened, I start to feel queasy. I’d have a few choice words for God if he told me to kill my son. If Copan doesn’t mind, I’ll continue to classify this Bible passage as “storied theology,” where it’s much more palatable.
Copan spends several chapters talking about Israel’s slavery laws, and this section is superb. Was this law ideal? Certainly not. But there are three points I’d like to bring out here:
[1] We are discussing the Law of God, not what actually transpired among imperfect people. Yep, they kept slaves against the rules. The law was not faithfully followed.
[2] Copan points out again and again that Israel’s laws were a great improvement over the surrounding nations. God held Israel to a higher standard.
[3] Although this point gets little press time in the book, as the law evolved, it became more and more humane. Compare, for example, the Book of the Covenant, quoted by the Elohist in Exodus 21, with the Priesthood writings in Leviticus 19, and finally with the Deuteronomist’s instructions in Deut 22.
Yes, the Old Testament law seems archaic and brutal by today’s standards. Yet it’s clear Israel was learning and was trying to become Godly. Perhaps slowly approaching the standard God had in mind. Buy the book and, if you read nothing else, study chapters 11-14.
Next, Copan tackles what I feel are the most troublesome issues; genocide and ethnic cleansing. Particularly, the conquest of Canaan. Copan points out (rightly) that the Bible’s claims of utter annihilation are highly exaggerated, and that archaeological evidence hints that no such mass conquest took place. For the most part, Israel peacefully settled into Canaan without warfare and without driving out its inhabitants. But whether or not the conquest really happened, the fact remains that the Word of God graphically describes these holy wars in quite unholy terms, and claims that God commanded this inhumanity. Read, for example, Numbers 31:17-18, where God gives instruction regarding Midianite captives: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Copan tries to soften the command, explaining that the non-virgin women were seducing Israel’s men and the boys would grow up to become warriors, but nothing can soften that one.
Copan presents a word game at this point. Moses commanded the armies to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites and not to “leave alive anything that breathes.” Joshua didn’t do this; we have lots of evidence of Canaanite people remaining afterward. Yet if you read Joshua 11:12, it says Joshua did as he was told; he utterly destroyed them as Moses commanded. Ergo, since Joshua didn’t kill ‘em all, but the Word of God says he did what he was told, then we can apparently consider Moses’ original command as hyperbole…the rhetoric of war. God didn’t really sanction genocide.
Well, whatever. Copan’s next attempt to justify this evil by reminding us that God is the author of life and has a rightful claim on it falls flat for me. If any kids were killed, they would go straight to heaven anyway, he says. The danger of that kind of thinking hardly needs discussion!
Though well-researched and thought-provoking, I finished the book with the feeling that Copan tried his best to tackle an impossible topic. I think it’s a four-star attempt and a fun book; I can’t judge the loser of a debate merely because he was given an indefensible position, right?
3 
DubiousDisciple | 11 andre anmeldelser | Jun 1, 2012 |
DubiousDisciple | 11 andre anmeldelser | Jun 1, 2012 | 
1 TonyMilner | 11 andre anmeldelser | Dec 6, 2011 |
TonyMilner | 11 andre anmeldelser | Dec 6, 2011 | 
Paul Copan, the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, has written this latest volume to “guide readers, Christian or not, into practical answers to tough questions” (9). The book has a threefold structure, dividing the work into issues concerning truth and reality, worldviews and Christianity. This book is similar in both structure and content to Copan’s previous works such as True For You, But Not For Me (Bethany 1998) and That’s Just Your Interpretation (Baker 2001).
Section One tackles the egoism of Ayn Rand and the moral relativism of Jack Kevorkian who is quoted as saying, “I’m an absolute autonomist. Do and say whatever you want to do and say at any time you want to do or say it, as long as you do not harm or threaten anybody else’s person or property” (22). Copan points out to the reader how ironic it is that many will deny moral absolutes but then qualify their statements with universal standards. For example, Kevorkian’s philosophy of absolute autonomy comes with the qualifier, “Just as long as you don’t hurt anyone.” It is noted how such a philosophy is logically inconsistent and self-destructive. The final chapter argues, “Deception is morally permissible…under certain specific conditions” (29). Scriptural examples are given for clarification (Exod. 1:15-21; Joshua 2; 8:2; 1 Sam. 16:1-5; 2 Kings 6:18-23).
Section Two dedicates two chapters to miracles and three chapters to issues surrounding homosexuality. Chapter 8 asks, “Does the Bible Condemn Loving, Committed Homosexual Relationships?” Copan argues the affirmative while at the same time pointing out how the church has fallen short in reaching out to this ostracized segment of American society. This chapter is carefully laid out, with the exception pederasty is defined four times in nine pages. Chapter 9 asks, “Aren’t People Born Gay?” The author concludes, “Both sides must be careful not to commit the either-or fallacy (‘it’s either biology or environment; either nature or nurture, either determined or a choice’). Regarding homosexuality, it seems wiser—and clearer—to talk about influences rather than causes” (98). The final chapter focuses on gay marriage. Here, Copan argues the traditional definition of marriage should not be changed. Among his nine objections is the point the state cannot be morally neutral about gay marriage. Those asserting what the state ‘ought’ to do involve a moral standard (113).
Section Three contains three chapters on the “Yahweh Wars” of Joshua and Judges. In 25 pages the author points out some of the main differences between the biblical holy wars and Islamic jihad. One of the more significant observations made by Copan in this section was poorly explained. He notes, “The tolerant passages [of the Qur’an] precede the militant ones” (158). In other words exegetes of the Qur’an have adopted a view of progressive revelation in which earlier teachings expire and are overridden by later revelation. Thus, the principle of naskh differentiates between teachings from Mecca and those from Medina.
Furthermore, two chapters focus on the Second Coming where Matthew 24 and parallels are placed within their historical context. The apologist demonstrates exegetical prowess by conducting word studies and checking parallel passages. Copan rejects the popular Pre-millennial approach to eschatology and hermeneutics. For example, he notes how the image of a darkened sun is figurative speech referencing political upheaval (Is. 13:10; 34:4-6; Jer. 4:23; Ezek. 32:7; Joel 2:10; Amos 5:18-20; 8:9). Furthermore, he affirms this imagery denotes the end of national Israel and the beginning of God’s new people, the church, who are the new “Israel.” Thus, Copan rejects interpreting the Bible in a woodenly literal manner. His main point, however, is that Jesus was not mistaken concerning the timing of his yet future return. The book concludes with a chapter on denominational division among Christians—a topic of interest to members of the Stone-Campbell Movement.
This volume is timely with topics such as homosexuality, jihad and eschatology. However, the title may mislead some to believe the book is shallow coffee shop theology. Yet, I question whether this is college freshman material. The book will better serve seminarians and professors as it is demanding at times. It is worth both the price and the effort!
A Ramey
På dette site bruger vi cookies til at levere vores ydelser, forbedre performance, til analyseformål, og (hvis brugeren ikke er logget ind) til reklamer. Ved at bruge LibraryThing anerkender du at have læst og forstået vores vilkår og betingelser inklusive vores politik for håndtering af brugeroplysninger. Din brug af dette site og dets ydelser er underlagt disse vilkår og betingelser.
In this timely and readable book, apologist Paul Copan takes on some of the most vexing accusations of our time, including:
God is arrogant and jealous
God punishes people too harshly
God is guilty of ethnic cleansing
God oppresses women
God endorses slavery
Christianity causes violence
and more
Copan not only answers God's critics, he also shows how to read both the Old and New Testaments faithfully, seeing an unchanging, righteous, and loving God in both.
Contracapa
Is the God of the Old Testament nothing but a bully, a murderer, and an oppressor?
Many today--even within the church--seem to think so. How are Christians to respond to such accusations? And how are we to reconcile the seemingly disconnected natures of God portrayed in the two testaments?
In this timely and readable book, apologist Paul Copan takes on some of the most vexing accusations of our time, including:
God is arrogant and jealous
God punishes people too harshly
God is guilty of ethnic cleansing
God oppresses women
God endorses slavery
Christianity causes violence
Copan not only answers the critics, he also shows how to read both the Old and New Testaments faithfully, seeing an unchanging, righteous, and loving God in both.
"This is the book I wish I had written myself. It is simply the best book I have read that tackles the many difficulties that the Old Testament presents to thinking and sensitive Christians. Paul Copan writes in such a simple, straightforward way, yet covers enormous issues comprehensively and with reassuring biblical detail and scholarly research."--Christopher J. H. Wright, international director, Langham Partnership International; author of Old Testament Ethics for the People of God
"Lucid, lively, and very well informed, this book is the best defense of Old Testament ethics that I have read. A must-read for all preachers and Bible study leaders."--Gordon Wenham, emeritus professor of Old Testament, University of Gloucestershire
"The New Atheists have attacked the morality of the Old Testament with a vengeance. In honesty, many Christians will confess that they struggle with what looks like a primitive and barbaric ethic. Paul Copan helps us truly understand the world of the Old Testament and how it relates to us today."--Tremper Longman III, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies, Westmont College
"Copan takes on current New Atheist biblical critics and powerfully addresses virtually every criticism they have raised. I know of no other book like this one, and it should be required reading in college and seminary courses."--J. P. Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy, Talbot School of Theology; author of The God Question
"There's virtually no scholar I'd rather read on these subjects than Paul Copan. This handbook of responses to tough ethical issues is able to both diminish the rhetoric as well as alleviate many concerns."--Gary R. Habermas, distinguished research professor, Liberty University and Seminary
Paul Copan (PhD, Marquette University) is the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University in Florida. He is the author or editor of many books, including When God Goes to Starbucks.
--Este texto se refere à edição paperback.
Sobre o Autor
Paul Copan (PhD, Marquette University) is the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University in Florida. He is the author of several apologetics books and lives with his wife and five children in Florida. --Este texto se refere à edição paperback.