This was a great debate and D'Souza clearly was more articulate and made better arguments. However, I wish he had done a better job explaining the problem of evil (this is the Biblicist in me speaking).
I understand that he tailored his arguments to a mixed and maybe mostly secular audience, but at times he did not do justice to the biblical data and the central doctrine of the sovereignty of God. He also did not fully acknowledge the link This was a great debate and D'Souza clearly was more articulate and made better arguments. However, I wish he had done a better job explaining the problem of evil (this is the Biblicist in me speaking).
I understand that he tailored his arguments to a mixed and maybe mostly secular audience, but at times he did not do justice to the biblical data and the central doctrine of the sovereignty of God. He also did not fully acknowledge the link between original sin and its effect on the decay of the entire creation. He also tried to avoid the biblical concept of corporate responsibility to explain why God allows some to suffer for the sins of others, the same way He allows all to benefit from the righteousness and sacrifice of one man, namely Jesus (such an idea rooted in ancient near eastern thought is rather foreign to modern secular thought). I understand that with such an individualistic audience these facts would weaken his case, but the biblical truth does not have to be altered for the sake of the audience.
that being said, he acquitted himself very well of the task of building a rational defense of morality as having its source in God (outstanding job from a philosophical angle) might needs a few improvements from a theological angle. But the man is a philosopher not a theologian
between original sin and its effect on the decay of the entire creation. He also tried to avoid the biblical concept of corporate responsibility to explain why God allows some to suffer for the sins of others, the same way He allows all to benefit from the righteousness and sacrifice of one man, namely Jesus (such an idea rooted in ancient near eastern thought is rather foreign to modern secular thought). I understand that with such an individualistic audience these facts would weaken his case, but the biblical truth does not have to be altered for the sake of the audience.
This is the problem with many of the attempts to build a rational defense for Christianity that excludes special revelation.many of the so called rational arguments often runs counter to the Word of God.
that being said, he acquitted himself very well of the task of building a rational defense of morality as having its source in God (outstanding job from a philosophical angle) might needs a few improvements from a theological angle. but the man is a philosopher not a theologian