PDA

View Full Version : Stand To Reason- An Eccellent Resource for Christians


Arcesious
02-11-2008, 11:05 PM
This is not a debate thread. (And please, no flaming or arguing/debating anything in this thread. :yodac: )

This is a thread suggesting a very good site for people wanting to find the truths of Christianity and the answers to all the debates on morality and God and such. If you athiests have been wondering why I suddenly dropped out of the debate threads that mention Christianity, it's because I'm listening to all that's on this site before I come back to debate Christianity again, as I want a surplus of strong ammunition the next time I debate for Christianity.

This excellent site I have found is the Stand to Reason website. The podcasts are simply awesome IMO, and as I've been listening to them, they've been answering and countering lots of arguments against Christianity that Athiests here have been using in these debates, I haven't yet scratched the surface on all of what's on this site.

So, if you want to hear some really awesome evidence and proof of the Christian faith and some good lessons, I suggest this site and the Stand To Reason Radio channel very highly.

Here's a link to the site, you have to sign up first to listen to the podcasts:

http://www.str.org/site/PageServer

Edit: This is a source for any Christian, but mostly for Christian Apologetics. However, this can be an excellent resource for any Christian.

Enjoy! :)

El Sitherino
02-12-2008, 02:49 AM
proof of the Christian faith
proof of the faith
proof ... faith



There is no proof, only support.

Darth InSidious
02-12-2008, 09:06 AM
I am unimpressed by the academic content.

Summa Theologica (http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Theologica-translated-Dominican-Province/dp/0870610635/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202824863&sr=8-2)
Summa Contra Gentiles (http://www.amazon.com/St-Thomas-Aquinas-Providence-Salvation/dp/B000NJGGH4/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202824901&sr=1-7)

These, on the other hand, I think will prove pretty useful...if you can get all the way through the first page without your head exploding (I can't). :p

Prime
02-12-2008, 10:12 AM
This eccellent site I have found is the Stand to Reason website. The podcasts are simply awesome IMO, and as I've been listening to them, they've been answering and countering every bit of argument Athiests here have been using in these debates.Can you give examples?

Arcesious
02-12-2008, 07:19 PM
Leave it to the Athiests to try to ruin a thread not maent to debate anything, and only directed at Christians on this site, and it was not intended to be a place where athiests can criticize Christianity... :¬:

I will not debate your posts or anything. I don't care what you say about this site, as you have automatically rejected everything it says, without any proof of basis on you claims as to how it could be unproving of anything. Don't go saying this site proves nothing when you haven't even listened to any of the podcasts and you are too stubborn to listen to anything it says.

Darth Insideous, those are Catholic books, and this thread was intended to link to a 'Christian' resouce. And no I'm not going to debate with you about Catholics being the same thing as Christians because of denominational relations between the different veiws of the Christian religion and whatnot.

That is all. This is not a flame, only a strict response to end any possible debating or spamming that this site proves nothing. I repeat, this thread is not for debating, and People like El Sitherino who want to post things saying that the site proves nothing, just don't post if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to thread intended to support Christians. Prime, I don't intend to debate anything until I have aquired all the information on the site, as the podcasts i have so far heard have said things that you have 'disproved in debate threads, and i have not yet read the other podcats intended to support the podcasts that debate unsupported arguments, that and it would take to long to explain the counter-arguments in the podcasts to all of the tons of different things debated about Christianity, and this thead is not intended to debate Christianity, only provide a resource, but in this case, so far it hasn't diproved everything athiests have said on this forum, so I should probably edit that previous statement you quoted.

"Hopeful query: Do the meatbags wish to spam, master? If so, may i begin assassination protocols at once?" -HK-47
"No HK-47, not now, this is not a debate thread, and it's supposed to have no flaming, remember?" -Me
"Irritated statement: As you wish master... I won't flame with my rapidfire blaster carbine... For now..."

Web Rider
02-12-2008, 07:38 PM
This is a public forum. If you only wish to address Christians, please go find a Christian forum. You are welcome to say your links are directed at Christians, but you cannot simply say: "atheists, you can't post here!"

not to mention, I doubt you know Prime's religion, so calling him an Atheist is the same as me calling you a witch. The irony about you claiming how horrible we are for rejecting that site out of hand is that you have done the same of what we think. Still, that is a very human quality.

Prime simply asked for examples. You could have simply linked to the podcasts that you feel are the best examples. We have in fact, debated nothing, nor dismissed anything. Prime as simply asked for an example of one of those podcasts that you feel best disproves something atheists said.

You claim to be doing this to gather more information to better support Christianity in your debates. I feel, and Prime likly agrees, that knowing both sides is best, so I'm quite as curious about these things as he is.

EDIT: oh, it's "Excellent", not "Eccellent"

Arcesious
02-12-2008, 07:57 PM
Sorry, prime, i was only assumig that, sorry if i have offended you or anyone else.

Web Rider, I posted this here because there are Christians on this forum, and I don't expect them to go to another forum for me to post soemthing like this. Things like Christianity are often debated here, and the Christians here likely don't go to many other forums, much less likely to a Christian forum, so i though tit woudl be best that I post this here on a forum that they likely most commonly come to more than any other forum.

I have not rejected your evidence, I have observed it, studied it, and now have begun to listen to debates agaisnt it on sites like STR.

The problem is, if i give a link to a podcast, ti won;t work because fromy uor computer's accessign the link, it will read you as not logged on, as it will recognise your computer as not being mine, and it won't let you use my accoutn, which i must say i wouldn't liek you using to listen to the podcasts in the first place, not to remention that I don't think it will work. You'll have to sign up to listen to a podcast. And if you do, you'll see that the podcasts have little details on the side telling what they argue about for Christianity, and quite frankly, there's tons of things...

Web Rider
02-12-2008, 08:00 PM
Then, nobody, even the other Christians you seek to support, can view this material without registering, correct?

EDIT: oops, "can" not "cannot"

Arcesious
02-12-2008, 08:12 PM
Yes, but it's not that hard to register, so what's the problem? I didn't make the site like that, so don't get blame me for it (even though you haven't)... I don't know what the makers' thoughts were behind making people register if they wanted to hear the podcasts, but all i can tell you is it worth goign to the trouble of registering to listen to the podcast, and if there is an unsupported claim in one podcast, it is very likely backed up in another, so don't give up on it on after the very first one you hear if something seems unsupported and therefore blasethemous/hypocritical, as many other non-Christians always seem to do when a source like this is suggested... I have to say that, even though i am a Christian, when i try to think about the arguments from an athiestic/non-Christian point of veiw, I find the arguments quite persuasive, but that's just me, I don't know what you'll think of them.

Web Rider
02-12-2008, 08:14 PM
Yes, but it's not that hard to register, so what's the problem? I didn't make the site like that, so don't get made at me for it... I don't know what the makers' thoughts were behind making people register if they wanted to hear the podcasts, but all i can tell you is it worth goign to the trouble of registering to listen to the podcast, and if there is an unsupported claim in one podcast, it is very likely backed up in another, so don't give up on it on after the very first one you hear if something seems unsupported and therefore blasethemous/hypocritical, as many other non-Christians always seem to do when a source like this is suggested... I have to say that, even though i am a Christian, when i try to think about the arguments from an athiestic/non-Christian point of veiw, I find the arguments quite persuasive, but that's just me, I don't know what you'll think of them.

Oh I just wanted to clarify that it's not just open to anyone. I just finished listening to a few podcasts from a different forum on a different subject and they were free for anyone, so I was just curious.

I doubt I'll have time to listen to them for a few months, college and all. if an interesting debate pops up, I may move them up on my schedule.

Arcesious
02-12-2008, 08:29 PM
I'm glad to see soemone who doesn't automatically reject thigns like what's on that site. :)

Web Rider
02-12-2008, 08:43 PM
I'm glad to see soemone who doesn't automatically reject thigns like what's on that site. :)

well, seeing as I couldn't find any "OMG PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH US ARE SATANISTS!!!" I couldn't find a good reason to reject any of it. I may still disagree with it though.

Det. Bart Lasiter
02-12-2008, 08:46 PM
Leave it to the Athiests to try to ruin a thread not maent to debate anything, and only directed at Christians on this site, and it was not intended to be a place where athiests can criticize Christianity... :¬: You posted it in a debate forum.

Also, I agree with sithy, I don't think this (or anything else currently known to mankind) is proof of a deity's existence.

Totenkopf
02-12-2008, 08:54 PM
Darth Insideous, those are Catholic books, and this thread was intended to link to a 'Christian' resouce. And no I'm not going to debate with you about Catholics being the same thing as Christians because of denominational relations between the different veiws of the Christian religion and whatnot.

Keep in mind that while all Christians aren't Catholic, all Catholics ARE Christians (by definition). But I'm curious as to what litmus test(s) you use to suss out the "legitimate" from the "illegitimate" Christian, especially given how the Protestants have splintered significantly since leaving the Catholic fold.

Jae Onasi
02-12-2008, 11:02 PM
This is a public forum. If you only wish to address Christians, please go find a Christian forum. You are welcome to say your links are directed at Christians, but you cannot simply say: "atheists, you can't post here!"


However, the thread topic was on a resource about a Christian site, and the thread author was rather specific. He is free to state that the topic is restricted to discussion of Christian topics, just like someone is free to state a thread is restricted to one of the many other religions, philosophies, or ethical beliefs.

The theism/atheism discussion can go in one of the several other threads devoted to that purpose. In this thread, please stay on the topic defined by the author.

Web Rider
02-12-2008, 11:24 PM
However, the thread topic was on a resource about a Christian site, and the thread author was rather specific. He is free to state that the topic is restricted to discussion of Christian topics, just like someone is free to state a thread is restricted to one of the many other religions, philosophies, or ethical beliefs.

The theism/atheism discussion can go in one of the several other threads devoted to that purpose. In this thread, please stay on the topic defined by the author.

I never disagreed with that point. Nor did I attempt to debate the ins and outs of Christianity in any manner.

Sorry--I meant to note that my post was directed generally to all posters, and not at you in particular. :) --Jae

Darth InSidious
02-13-2008, 05:36 AM
Darth Insideous, those are Catholic books, and this thread was intended to link to a 'Christian' resouce.
Oh, I'm sorry! Perhaps I shouldn't have posted two of the most influential and important Christian philosophical and theological works of the last thousand years! Next time I'll just post some inconsistent muttering to have spewed forth from Lambeth Palace, shall I? Or would you rather it was Foxe's Book of Lies?

And no I'm not going to debate with you about Catholics being the same thing as Christians because of denominational relations between the different veiws of the Christian religion and whatnot.
Ha. Right.

At least learn to spell.

Arcesious
02-13-2008, 09:12 AM
Yeah I didn't see any point in that Insideous... I can spell fine by the way, when in writing and not typing, thank you, I just happen to type very fast and I'm bound to make some typos. You still understood what it meant, and you know it didn't make your eyes bleed trying to read it, so don't give me that, so I don't see any point in saying that when it wasn't badly enough typoed for you to be unable to understand it.
No debate-baiting please. If you also want to provide another resource, than make another thread... jeesh...

Those books I admit are very well done, after researching what they were about, but I'm sorry if it offends you but the Christianity I know is not your Christianity. Catholism is Christianity in a basic sense, as it stems from the same source and is very similar, but the actual Christianity I'm refering to is the Apologetic type, not the Protestant or Catholic or anything else. Perhaps I should edit my first post to say that this thread is meant as a resource for Christian Apologetics. Still, Protestants and Catholics and evngelicals and all othose other Denominations are still Christians, and what i just said doesn't mean to say that I don't think they are, only that this thread is most likely to well support Apologetics.
Lol i just answered a debating type of question, but the whole point was to get everything in this thread straight and understood.

Prime
02-14-2008, 01:25 PM
Prime as simply asked for an example of one of those podcasts that you feel best disproves something atheists said.I take it that means I won't get an answer. I'll move along then...

mimartin
02-14-2008, 05:28 PM
Well I went to the site with a semi-open mind. I did not sign up for the podcast as I felt it was prudent to first decide what the site actually stood for.

I read “A Review of ‘Pleasantville (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5119),’” I have to admit it never occurred to me that “Pleasantville” was an attack on Christianity. I failed to realize that it was actually a “dangerous” movie. I did not even know that there were no Christians or churches depicted in the fictional television world of Pleasantville. So I guess by this reasoning that any show, movie or book that does not depict Christians or churches in them is automatically evil and dangerous. I don’t remember seeing any in “Star Wars”, so is “Star Wars” dangerous?

I also read the article “Killing Abortionist (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5390)” by the same Gregory Koukl that wrote the stirring review of “Pleasantville.” I’m not going to comment on this article, but even though I would have handled the subject differently I thought he did a decent job of showing both sides even though he was clearly trying to justify taking someone life.

The third article I read was “Is Aids a Noble Disease?” (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5364) This article was just offensive, while the author Gregory Koukl makes a point to write that not all AIDS related deaths are caused by Homosexual activity, he acts like it really is between every denial. I pray he never has to find out how misinformed he really is.

The last article I read (or rather laughed through) was “Do Animals Have Souls? – Here’s proof” (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5206) by Gregory Koukl. The title is completely misleading as Mr. Koukl does not provide any proof. The only thing it proved to me is that I was not going to sign up to listen to the Podcast.

So I guess like Darth InSidious, as a Baptist , I am not your type of Christian. Thank you for the link.

Arcesious
02-14-2008, 07:10 PM
Hmm... I agree somewhat. After lookign further into the site besides the podcasts, there are some things I don't agree with either. The podcasts I agree with, but those articles I don't agree with, so I'm not completely narrow-minded in thinking everything on the site is true. STr isn't a perfect resource, but most of the podcasts are good IMO. Apparently this 'Greg Koukl' doesn't have everything straight... I think It's better to see all of what the site has, and decide by your own judgement what points the site proves and waht points it doesn't or is wrong about, instead of completely denying the rest of what's on the site based on what one person who the site supports has said.

Samuel Dravis
02-14-2008, 07:27 PM
I read the article Science>"Science Doesn't Tell Us Anything Important". First, the author rejects physicalism, which is fine with me. Unfortunately, he then pulls a Descartes and comes up with a soul/body split. I am not a fan of that, since he 1) didn't explain how the soul could control anything physical, 2) completely disregarded normal uses of the word soul, and did not define what he was talking about, and 3) that type of argument makes people into...monsters, of a sort. Saying that there are some sort of ineffable "people" (souls in the article) inside of us that control our bodies and feel our experiences is abhorrent. I am not separated from reality looking out through the windows of my eyes. When I know someone I know them, I don't know some monster-inside, a sort of homunculus, as the article's thinking suggests. The separation of the person from reality is unwarranted, objectionable and lacks any distinction that could possibly make it meaningful. The author goes on to say that since science does not tell us anything about the nonsense he created, it is therefore limited in some way. In what particular way, however, he chooses to leave undefined. I am not too worried about science's inability to handle incoherent concepts, and I'm not sure why Koukl is.

Second, I read Philosophy>"Can Computers See?". This also contains an unwarranted mind/body problem, but I have already said my piece on that in the above. In this article, Koukl tries to show that color is "more than" light, because we can see color even when there are no light waves present (black). While I agree that light waves are not color, I disagree with Koukl's presenting color as something "more than" light waves. I don't find that particular light waves are even in question here. Koukl's (mis)use of the word color is the problem, not any real issue with color or whether a computer can "detect" color or not. It's easy to see his mistake if you look at how the word color is actually used. To use his example, someone can say when they see nothing, that they see black. This is perfectly fine, because people know what black means; that is, they know how to use the word black. Black is a color because it is used like a color and it can be distinguished from other colors (a red-green colorblind person would not be able to meaningfully use the separate words "red" and "green"). Yes, a computer knows what red is, and so do we. Although we might use different words for different ways to recognize color - Koukl tries to make this distinction more than it is, but I'm not sure for what purpose; humans see color, machines detect color - we're still talking about the same thing. Unfortunately, Koukl does not take the way the word color is used into account, and therefore he ends up with a lot of metaphysical statements that are neither true nor false - they're simply nonsense.

To be honest, I am not very impressed by this website. While I haven't looked at everything, those contents I have examined are riddled with systematic critical errors, and seeing several references to the likes of Behe et al really don't help its credibility. I suggest that interested Christians look elsewhere for stronger arguments, because from what I have seen Mr. Koukl's website is only useful as an example of what not to say.

mimartin
02-14-2008, 08:01 PM
I think It's better to see all of what the site has, and decide by your own judgement what points the site proves and waht points it doesn't or is wrong about, instead of completely denying the rest of what's on the site based on what one person who the site supports has said.

Actually it seems all the articles are by Gregory Koukl Transcriptions of commentaries by Gregory Koukl from the radio broadcast Stand to Reason.

I choose four articles not because of the author, but because the subject matter was interesting to me or because I had some knowledge of the subject. In fairness to the site, I did not choice anything dealing with science. I also read some of the short commentaries just to be sure my original opinion held true. I am not judging the site, beyond saying it is not for me. Then again, the church I am a member of is not entirely for me.

Darth InSidious
02-15-2008, 09:56 AM
Yeah I didn't see any point in that Insideous... I can spell fine by the way, when in writing and not typing, thank you, I just happen to type very fast and I'm bound to make some typos. You still understood what it meant, and you know it didn't make your eyes bleed trying to read it, so don't give me that, so I don't see any point in saying that when it wasn't badly enough typoed for you to be unable to understand it.
No debate-baiting please. If you also want to provide another resource, than make another thread... jeesh...
Type slower. You implied that this thread was for resources to do with Christianity and reason.

Those books I admit are very well done, after researching what they were about, but I'm sorry if it offends you but the Christianity I know is not your Christianity. Catholism is Christianity in a basic sense, as it stems from the same source and is very similar, but the actual Christianity I'm refering to is the Apologetic type,
There's no such thing as "Apologetic Christianity". There is apologetics as a subject, however, for which both of Aquinas' Summas are very useful.

not Tthe Protestant or Catholic or anything else. Perhaps I should edit my first post to say that this thread is meant as a resource for Christian Apologetics. Still, Protestants and Catholics and evngelicals and all othose other Denominations are still Christians, and what i just said doesn't mean to say that I don't think they are, only that this thread is most likely to well support Apologetics.
Lol i just answered a debating type of question, but the whole point was to get everything in this thread straight and understood.
These last two paragraphs make no sense to me. Sorry. :confused:

Arcesious
02-15-2008, 06:58 PM
Eh, i give up debatign whatever proof this site i linked shows...

i guess I'll just leave this as a resource for whoever wants it, but i don't realyl want to argue about it anymore.

I don't know just what kidnof christians foudned that site, and when it talked about Christian apologetics, i assumed they were of Apologetic Christinaity. I didn't knwo that wasn't a denomination.whatever they are, that's what i consider to be a true Chrisitan. Except for Gregory Koukl, he doesn't have everything straight, but most of the other guys on that site do, IMO.