Comments on: Dr. William Lane Craig on Kim Hill’s Radio Program http://christiannews.co.nz/2008/dr-william-lane-craig-on-kim-hills-radio-program/ Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:08:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Raj http://christiannews.co.nz/2008/dr-william-lane-craig-on-kim-hills-radio-program/comment-page-1/#comment-73978 Raj Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:22:35 +0000 http://christiannews.co.nz/2008/dr-william-lane-craig-on-kim-hills-radio-program/#comment-73978 I think that's a bit unfair. I usually hate radio interviews, as the interviewer keeps butting-in on the interviewee, and often seems to misunderstand them/misrepresent their views. For instance, I listened to an interview between Gary Habermas and Infidel guy; it was extremely jarring! In light of the pattern of present-day radio interviewers, I think Kim Hill did a great job. Her questions were mostly intelligent, on-track, and the conversation between her and Dr Craig was flowing. It made you want to keep listening. When Kim threw out that Craig's reasoning about Jesus' resurrection was circular, and wouldn't entertain his explanation; that was a bit unfair. It was also annoying when she mixed what Craig was trying to distinguish: plurality of society and plurality of truth. It is obvious that the two are distinct and that the former can be held without giving assent to the latter. Nevertheless, going around and around for a little while on these points was okay; as her art of conversation is really good. Overall I think Kim did a good job. I think that’s a bit unfair. I usually hate radio interviews, as the interviewer keeps butting-in on the interviewee, and often seems to misunderstand them/misrepresent their views. For instance, I listened to an interview between Gary Habermas and Infidel guy; it was extremely jarring!

In light of the pattern of present-day radio interviewers, I think Kim Hill did a great job. Her questions were mostly intelligent, on-track, and the conversation between her and Dr Craig was flowing. It made you want to keep listening.

When Kim threw out that Craig’s reasoning about Jesus’ resurrection was circular, and wouldn’t entertain his explanation; that was a bit unfair. It was also annoying when she mixed what Craig was trying to distinguish: plurality of society and plurality of truth. It is obvious that the two are distinct and that the former can be held without giving assent to the latter.

Nevertheless, going around and around for a little while on these points was okay; as her art of conversation is really good. Overall I think Kim did a good job.

]]>