bossmanham, Pope Benedict, condoms, and me

bossmanham and I have just concluded a Facebook conversation.  He had posted this:
Like usual, the media has made someone say what they didn't actually say. Sad. The media truly is dead.

about this column from Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin - "The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???"

bossmanham is a bit too sympathetic to Rome for my taste, and I chimed in with a comment.  The following is our dialogue.

--Rhology-- Well...I don't know about that. He said it, after all.
This kind of ridiculous double standard doesn't make sense from Roman Catholics, like: "It does not carry dogmatic or canonical force."
Oh, b/c Jimmy Akin says so? Where's his imprimatur, nihil obstat, or Cardinal hat? Where's his Magisterium card?

Also, the Pope's statement that the use of condoms by males prostitutes could be "the first step towards moralization" was quite disturbing. As if the job of the church is to see that the world is "moralized". I think that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pope doesn't know the Gospel. He talks like a politician, not a shepherd of souls.


--bossmanham-- It's the spin the media has put on what he said that is the problem. A private interview with the pope isn't a dogmatic judgment. Catholics are pretty clear about this actually. Only when the pope speaks ex cathedra does it carry infallible force in their view. The pope can have private views that are wrong according to RC doctrine.

The media has painted this statement as an approval of using condoms, if only in this situation, when it seems that what he is saying is that in that case, it is a realization by the prostitute that what he is doing isn't necessarily right; that perhaps they are having a moral reckoning that what they are doing is wrong. That's what I take away from it after reading about it for a bit.

I'm not sure why Akin would need any of those things to try to interpret what the pope was saying. As a Catholic, it would seem he'd have some knowledge as to Catholic dogma.

I'm not sure how the pope saying that someone may be realizing their moral failure could lead you to believe that his soteriology is one of moralizing the world. I don't have a problem with moral teachings as long as we aren't concluding that that can make us right with God. So I think you're being a little hasty saying, "I think that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pope doesn't know the Gospel." I don't think we can make that judgment off of this tiny portion of an interview.

But I will agree that it seems to be something said carelessly. I wouldn't have said that was acceptable at all, but would have said that if you need to use a condom, you shouldn't be having sex. So it was a dumb thing to say, but my critique of media spin still stands.


--Rhology-- ‎--A private interview with the pope isn't a dogmatic judgment.

Says you. You need to explain why what you say is more important/authoritative than what the Pope says.

--Catholics are pretty clear about this actually

Not that clear, if you read the combox of the post to which you linked. One is tempted to think that RCism is a blueprint for anarchy.

--Only when the pope speaks ex cathedra does it carry infallible force in their view.

Not that anyone can ever identify when he does speak ex cathedra.

--could lead you to believe that his soteriology is one of moralizing the world.

Why would someone who's familiar with the Gospel say anything, ever, to the effect that "moralising the world" is a worthy goal?

-- I don't think we can make that judgment off of this tiny portion of an interview.

I didn't, thanks for your concern. ;-)
But you'd never catch me saying anything like that. Ever. Words mean things, you know?


--bossmanham-- ‎"Says you. You need to explain why what you say is more important/authoritative than what the Pope says"

Because what the pope says isn't always authoritative as dogma. Beyond that it could be debated, I'm sure. Just like many opinions of other Catholic theologians, liberal or conservative.

"Not that clear, if you read the combox of the post to which you linked. One is tempted to think that RCism is a blueprint for anarchy."

Well one reason I'm not Catholic is because I don't think their hierarchical structure is Biblical. I honestly don't think that many random internet Catholics are that informed about their dogmas. But then here's another problem with magisterial infallibility, who interprets the magisterial proclamations?

Anyway, I said they were clear on what is authoritative from the pope. That doesn't mean that I approve.

"Not that anyone can ever identify when he does speak ex cathedra."

Perhaps, but what IS ex cathedra teaching is distinct from the dogmatic proclamation that ex cathedra is all that is considered infallible.

"Why would someone who's familiar with the Gospel say anything, ever, to the effect that "moralising the world" is a worthy goal?"

I don't know that he said that, but I also wonder what the problem with moral teaching is. Jesus did it. So did Paul. That doesn't mean it saves you, but it also doesn't mean that it's bad to tell people to stop sinning either.

"But you'd never catch me saying anything like that. Ever. Words mean things, you know?"

Well we all have unguarded moments, which is why I'm thankful for the forgiveness of Jesus :D


--Rhology-- ‎--what the pope says isn't always authoritative as dogma

The problem is that it's virtually never clear when it is authoritative as dogma. It's left up to the layman in real practice, just like now.
And of course, why would a layman have authority to pronounce this statement of the Pope non-authoritative? Akin has no standing, no authority. Guy's not even a priest.
I should think Akin should do the right thing and submit himself to the Pope, not the other way around.

--But then here's another problem with magisterial infallibility, who interprets the magisterial proclamations?

Um, yep.

-- I also wonder what the problem with moral teaching is. Jesus did it. So did Paul.

I'm sure you realise that "moralising the world" is far different from teaching people about morals.

--we all have unguarded moments, which is why I'm thankful for the forgiveness of Jesus

And if your statements were to cast doubt on your acceptance of Christ ALONE as your atonement and merit... you would not in fact have His forgiveness. That's the problem here.


--bossmanham-- Well just because it isn't clear when it is authoritative doesn't mean really anything about it, other than we may face epistemic issues in figuring out when it is. I would say that Catholics would say that a private interview where the pope airs his private views on things is clearly not.

"I'm sure you realise that "moralising the world" is far different from teaching people about morals."

Sure. But I'm not sure the pope has ever advocated the former.

"And if your statements were to cast doubt on your acceptance of Christ ALONE as your atonement and merit... you would not in fact have His forgiveness. That's the problem here."

I don't think confusing statements one may make causes you to not have forgiveness. No one is perfect, and I'm sure I haven't spoken clearly before. Doesn't mean my relationship with Christ is nullified, does it?


--bossmanham-- Also, "moralizing the world" seems a tad ambiguous anyway, as I could take it as just spreading moral teachings. If it means to preach sinless perfection to gain heaven, well then Catholic dogma is against that.


--Rhology-- The point is: Why say "moralising the world"? Why not talk about preaching the Gospel? A man's priorities say a lot about him.

-- I would say that Catholics would say that a private interview where the pope airs his private views on things is clearly not.

I'm questioning on what basis they say that.

-- I'm not sure the pope has ever advocated the former

He just did, man.

--I don't think confusing statements one may make causes you to not have forgiveness.

If you're THE POPE, a man who has studied theology his entire life, and say stuff like that, there's a reason. The reason is not that he made a mistake or that he's ignorant. The reason is that he believes what he said and communicated what he believes.

-- Doesn't mean my relationship with Christ is nullified, does it?

What reason could you give me to think that he has a relationship with Christ, to begin with?


--bossmanham-- Did he say "moralizing the world?" I think he said that the use of a condom by such a person is a moralizing step. And just because that might be a priority wouldn't mean it's THE priority. Without knowing the man, I couldn't make that call.

"I'm questioning on what basis they say that."

You'd have to ask them, I suppose. They'd probably point to the magisterial teaching.

"If you're THE POPE, a man who has studied theology his entire life, and say stuff like that, there's a reason. The reason is not that he made a mistake or that he's ignorant. The reason is that he believes what he said and communicated what he believes. "

We're debating what he said too, so just saying this statement damns him would be begging the question. He's said other things too. It's not as if one sentence of an interview is an appropriate source to gauge his soteriology.

"What reason could you give me to think that he has a relationship with Christ, to begin with"

He professes Christ as Lord. I have no reason to doubt that. Just being the pope doesn't mean he isn't saved


--Rhology-- ‎--You'd have to ask them, I suppose.

Oh, I do. Over and over again.

--They'd probably point to the magisterial teaching.

Which is as easily identifiable as "ex cathedra" papal pronouncements.

--He professes Christ as Lord.

The demons do too, and the unregenerate will. There's a bit more to it, and a few things you need to NOT have in your confession, like any trust in your own merit for example.


--bossmanham-- Heh, the Catholic bloggers you interact with don't really have a handle on their own theology. But I've not looked into it enough to see if there are good answers.

"The demons do too, and the unregenerate will"

They know Christ is God, but they don't profess Him as Lord. And I'm aware that unregenerate can make the false claim that they are in Christ. I'm saying we can't make that determination because we don't have access to their hearts.

And Catholics don't trust in their own merit. They think the merit comes from God through the sacraments and then through the actions the sacraments and God enable and initiate. They do believe one has to willingly do good, but they chalk it all up to grace.

The main disagreement historically was over justification, and I think it's mostly talking past one another. Plus, I've quoted to you citations where the pope extols the merits of Luther's teaching on justification. I don't think your contentions here are viable.

Not only that, I'm not sure that vocalizing the doctrine of sola fide is a necessary condition of salvation.


--Rhology-- ‎--They do believe one has to willingly do good

And there it is.

-- I've quoted to you citations where the pope extols the merits of Luther's teaching on justification

I'm confused now. When do I believe that what a Pope says outside of an official ex cathedra capacity really matters? Trent is infallible w/o question and it condemned the Gospel.

-- I'm not sure that vocalizing the doctrine of sola fide is a necessary condition of salvation.

Normally no. But Ben16 is a trained theologian. He's the Pope! If he believed the Gospel, it would come out sometime. Since it never does...


--bossmanham-- There what is? You don't think we need to willingly do good?

"I'm confused now. When do I believe that what a Pope says outside of an official ex cathedra capacity really matters? Trent is infallible w/o question and it condemned the Gospel. "

Because we're talking about the pope.

Trent was pretty much overturned in Vatican 2 (at least the anathemas, though they can't say that) and I don't judge people by 500 year old documents. Though I can judge that the institution that is Catholicism is inconsistent in what it says and what it practices.

I mean at one time it was said there is no salvation outside the institutional Catholic church, and now we're separated brethren and they've pretty much adopted an expanded mercy, respond to the light given, explanation of those outside and their salvation. 500 long years since Pope Pius and the Trent boys.

"Normally no. But Ben16 is a trained theologian. He's the Pope! If he believed the Gospel, it would come out sometime. Since it never does..."

Again, I've cited to you where he does. And I'm not sure how being a theologian magically changes his status. You and I can't examine his heart, let alone his life, so I don't think we can make that judgment.


--Rhology-- ‎--(at least the anathemas, though they can't say that

Haha, well, those were no small thing! And that's precisely what I'm talking about.
Besides, appealing to po-mo flower-child Vatican II is not the way to go. There's a reason many conservative RCs shy away from it.

-- I don't judge people by 500 year old documents.

What about judging them by their still-active allegiance to them? Their unwillingness to put them aside and embrace the biblical faith?

--And I'm not sure how being a theologian magically changes his status.

It leaves him w/o excuse. He has zero excuse for speaking imprecisely and for not sharing the Gospel most every chance he gets. I challenge you to find me one place where he's shared it.


--bossmanham-- I agree they were no small thing. I'm not defending it, I'm saying they only give it lip-service today, because if they didn't it would show that, in fact, Roman Catholic dogma CAN change. Then they'd have to admit something they espoused didn't come from apostolic succession. But in practice it is ignored.

"It leaves him w/o excuse. He has zero excuse for speaking imprecisely and for not sharing the Gospel most every chance he gets."

Well we're all without excuse, and hopefully the blood of Christ covers our imperfections. Of course we can't really take one sentence from an interview and say it proves he believes a false gospel.

"The Letter to the Philippians, provides moving testimony of Paul's shift from a justice founded on the Law and achieved by observing certain prescribed actions, to a justice based upon faith in Jesus Christ. ... It is because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus Christ that Paul focuses his Gospel on a steadfast contrast between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the Law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ"

"Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbor the Law is present and fulfilled. So in communion with Christ, in faith, which creates charity, the Law is realized. We become just by entering into communion with Christ, who is love."

I mean that really contradicts at least two cannons of Trent.


--Rhology-- ‎--I mean that really contradicts at least two cannons of Trent.

If he really believes consistently with that, then here are the consequences:
1) He's a hypocrite. As Pope, he is bound to uphold the infall teachings of Rome, but here he's beating up infall anathemas.
2) What does it say about his conscience, that he would rise to be THE BIG CHEESE of a church that has officially anathematised the Gospel? Not "a priest". THE POPE.
3) He's a double-talker, a politician. These quotations are incompatible with the goal of "moralising the world".


--bossmanham-- ‎1) Perhaps, or he's just unwittingly inconsistent.

2) It shows that they no longer believe that we're anathema.

3) You've not shown that he actually said anything about moralizing the world. Those words aren't in the statement.


--Rhology-- ‎1. Unwittingly? The man has been thinking theology longer your and my combined lifetimes. Highly doubtful. Lk 12:48 and all that.

2. They SHOULD. That's part of the point, I should think. If they don't, I guess it would go to show two things:
a) What you said about their unbiblical authority structure - they can't live it out! (very Francis Schaeffer-like)
b) The supposed strong distinction between infallible-authoritative teaching and fallible-non-authoritative teaching is a phantom. Individual RCs will pick and choose between whatever whoever says, as they like. If they say they're supposed to be held fast to infallible-authoritative teaching and yet toss it aside as you're suggesting they've done, that's the exact same as what they do with what *I* say.

3. "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where ***this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization***, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."


--bossmanham-- ‎1) I don't know for sure. I'm just saying it isn't necessarily some malevolent intent on his part just because he's the pope.

2) I agree, and think this should be pointed out to RC's.

3) I don't take that as his whole goal is to moralize the (world).

On starlight and stupid arguments

Tommykey has provided an argument against young-Earth creationism that the Jolly Nihilist describes as "well-nigh impossible to refute".  Sounds like I have a stiff challenge ahead of me.


Me: I point out that I don't see why it's unreasonable to think God created the light beams as well as the stars. What possible evidence could prove their criticism wrong OR right?

Tommykey:

Events like Supernova 1987A? It occurred 168,000 light years from Earth but was not observed until 1987, hence the name.

With your approximate 6,000 year time frame, the progenitor star Sanduleak 69 should have been created in a state of supernova, with the light beams manifesting a state of supernova reaching the Earth at the moment of creation. However, since that did not happen, you will need to identify for us at exactly what point in the last 6,000 or so years the star went supernova and then the light of the supernova traveled at a greater than light speed in order for us to observe it in the year 1987.

But to take the matter further, with the more powerful telescopes at our disposal, such as Hubble, we are able to see the birth of stars in places such as the Carina Nebula. The story you're advocating is one of a creator poofing things into existence, whereas what we observe all around us are processes and objects at different stages in those processes, such as stars being formed, mature stars, and stars that have died. If God created the stars some 6,000 years ago to provide us with light in the night sky, then why do new stars continue to form?

Events like Supernova 1987A? It occurred 168,000 light years from Earth but was not observed until 1987, hence the name.

I am literally shaking my head here.  Why would this be a difficulty?
Let's pretend the creation occurred at 7000 BC, a nice round number.  And then the light was observed on Earth in 1987.  7000+1987=8987.  So the supernova exists out there and was created in the course of supernova, as well as the light beams from the supernova up to 8987 light years from Earth.  That's a little exercise called "addition", and I learned it in kindeygarten.  I commend it to you.
In fact, you go on to describe it pretty close to that in your comment.  So where's the problem?

Your facile objection continues:

However, since that did not happen, you will need to identify for us at exactly what point in the last 6,000 or so years the star went supernova and then the light of the supernova traveled at a greater than light speed in order for us to observe it in the year 1987.

1) Correct, it did not happen.  There was never a time at which the star was not supernova.  Probably (It's not as if we can know for sure - we're not there.  We're looking a VAST distance away, and you're assuming w/o evidence that the laws of physics hold the same way at that distance).

2) The light having traveled faster than what we know as "the speed of light" is possible.  I'd ask you to prove a negative, but you'd demur and throw out another argumentum ad incredulum.  Suffice it to say, you don't know how fast light goes outside of, say, the solar system.  You just think you do, and it's a de fide tenet of your religion, so you hold fiercely to it.

3) What part of "give me a reason to think it's implausible that the light was ALSO created, in transit, at creation" don't you understand?  Where's the power of your argument?


we are able to see the birth of stars in places such as the Carina Nebula.

"Birth" is a specious term here. You mean coalescence of material into a galaxy.  So what?  Where did the matter come from?


The story you're advocating is one of a creator poofing things into existence, whereas what we observe all around us are processes and objects at different stages in those processes, such as stars being formed

No argument as to why I should think God didn't create things "in process".  Just an assumption.


If God created the stars some 6,000 years ago to provide us with light in the night sky, then why do new stars continue to form?

B/c He did create SOME stars at creation.  Then, see, there are OTHER stars ALSO.

Questions to which it's hard to get answers

bossmanham invited me over to this thread where he's been participating and I thought it'd be fun to respond to "Teacup" in particular.

@Teacup,

You defined “theory” for us. When has the disputed part of evolution - macroevolution from common ancestor - been REPEATEDLY OBSERVED?
You said a theory explains the facts. Which facts does ID not explain? Be specific, give me 3 and explain why.
You talked about fossils. Please prove that any of the organisms who are fossilised ever had children.
You mentioned intermediate skulls. How do you KNOW they are intermediate between apes and humans? And why believe you when so many past “intermediate” skulls have been found, trumpeted as “intermediates”, and later quietly rejected?
You mentioned dinos -> birds. Why is it that many scientists are now doubting this connection, how do you know they did evolve into birds, and how do you know that any fossils you might bring up in support of that contention had children?
You mentioned “legitimate scientific journals”. Do you not realise that this commits the genetic fallacy? How exactly do logical fallacies strengthen the Darwinian position? Be specific.
You mentioned creationists refusing peer review. Again, genetic fallacy, as well as argument from ignorance and unknown other cause. Maybe the peers reject them for no good reason or on ideological grounds. You have to think these things thru.
You mentioned “fundamentalists”. Again, genetic fallacy. Further, ppl such as Dawkins easily qualify as “Darwinian fundamentalists”. I don’t see you dismissing them for that reason!
You mention Hitchens - you think he MUST discuss such things? This is just stupid. Who’s forcing him at gunpoint to do so?
And when has Hitch ever debated a creationist? (Calling ID theorists “creationists” is more evidence of your fundy ignorance. Strawmen are also logical fallacies.)

Finally, the moronic comment from Stephen Roberts is more-than-adequately answered here:http://bit.ly/fVZfMK Do try again.

Peace,
Rhology

YouTube debate about science and evolution

In the comments of a YT video of Kent Hovind at Cal Berkeley, I recently had a discussion with a Darwinian named maskofsan1ty.
I don't love Hovind and I think he probably plays fast and loose with facts some of the time, but OTOH he's useful b/c it shows how even someone who's a bit of a doofus can make a fool of pretty much any Darwinian he faces.  I don't know why so many Darwinians are bad at debating, but it might be a useful skill to learn, you'd think. 

Me: Which is funny - a guy w/o an advanced degree makes evolution and evolutionists look like fools.
I'd respect the evolutionary establishment alot more if they could actually win a debate or two with creationists.

Him: Wining a debate is irrelevant! It doesn't make something real or not it only tests the debaters skills at debating! The only reason Kent Hovind is respected by creationist is because he is a good debater and is able to make it seem like he knows what he is talking about and has valid evidence when in reality he has no idea or evidence. He is a fraud who knowingly misrepresents the science of evolution so that people find it hard to believe.

Me: Hovind presents quite a lot of evidence. Just b/c you disagree with it doesn't mean he doesn't show any.  Ironically, all the evidence you think you have is easily explainable under a creationist mode or is fallacious, while there are data your position can't explain. You clearly haven't done enough reading into the matter.

Him: It's not me who disagrees with it, it's science! All of his 'evidence' for a God can be, and has been, disproven with ease. Show me some of this evidence that cannot be explained by any other way then by creationism?

Me: Haha "it's science!" You're a 110% acolyte, man. Signed over your brain and everything!
Science can't access the supernatural.
Science can't tell you whether other minds exist.
Can't tell you whether evidence exists.
Can't tell you what constitutes evidence.
Can't tell you what is moral.
Can't tell you whether YOU exist.
Can't explain fossilised trees VERTICALLY passing thru "millions of years" of geological strata.
Can't explain the origin of life. Or of intelligence.


Him: No one ever claimed that science can be used to prove everything. It has a good success rate though! It has never claimed to know how life has formed though the production of amino acids is pretty convincing that at some point we will be able to. Vertical petrified trees have been explained SCIENTIFICALLY!!
Might I add that your comments refute the existence of intelligence!!


Me: Oh, a good success rate when it is constantly getting overturned? But it's nice to see you have blind faith, with your "give us a chance!" comment. You're a disciple, man. I note that you did not respond to the most foundational of my challenges. Thus, I have answered your question - creationism explains these fine, whereas science cannot by your own admission. Thanks for the fail! Also, please explain the vertical fossil trees on an old Earth schema.

Him: That's the beauty of science. It changes according to new evidence. Evolution has been around for 150 years but there has been no evidence to prove it wrong (feel I need to add that it has to be credible scientific evidence). The longer a scientific theory remains uncontested the more likely it is for it to be true. Vertical trees like the petrified trees in Yellowstone were found after the Mt St Helens eruption in 1980. Which challenge did I not respond to?


Me:  Read my 2nd response to you where I said "science can't" and gave you a long list. That's what you can't respond to. And fossilised trees a la St Helens would be more like a young Earth substantiation. Remember, these trees I'm referring to straddle 10s of millions of yrs (according to old Earth) of strata. How did that happen slowly?
And unfortunately, science has not changed to accommodate its limitations. Too many new atheists are ignorant of philosophy of science (and logic)


Him:  Yeah, you may well be right. But it's irrelevant and I can't see how Christianity can. I never said they were fossilised. I said they were vertical. Ok, I've done some quick research into these tree's crossing millions of years of strata and have only found creationist sites. Can you link me to a peer reviewed article please? Atheism and science have nothing to do with each other so your last sentence is irrelevant.

Me: I reject the necessity of linking to "peer-reviewed" sites. I prefer logical arguments. But to make you happy, know how to use bit ly links? bit dot ly slash a4MCOt. That's your Darwinist Bible site. It says "You be the judge as to the most logical interpretation... slow accumulation over thousands of years or... rapid burial during a massive world wide flood." LOL, yes, I will be. The 'explanation' seems to be that some creationists disagree with others. Wow!


Him: Unbelievable! Peer reviewed articles are the foundation of science and without them scientific research would be a mess and would achieve nothing. The reason you don't feel the necessity for them is because there are none that support the creationist idea! The worldwide flood is a ludicrous idea with absolutely no proof! I would love to continue debating you but I can't bring myself to argue with someone who 'rejects the necessity of peer-reviewed' papers.

Me: No, proper experimentation, logic, and repeated observation are the foundation of science. Sheesh, you ppl with your obsession over peer review! I fully expect few peer-rvw articles to be YEC b/c of the philosophically ignorant biases of the scientific community at large. You have yourself done a good job of confirming that diagnosis of ignorance. OK, nice talking to you.

Reflections on the Slick-Barker debate

Matt Slick and Dan Barker recently debated the topic "Is There Reason to Be Good Without God?"

Around the 1 hour, 1 minute mark, the first cross-examination period contained the following exchanges:

Exchange 1

Barker: Could you succinctly, in one sentence or less, define the word "good"?

Slick: Well, I would theologically and as a Christian, I would say it's worth exploring more. Good is that which is in compliance and conformity with the nature of God.

B: So it's obedience to His nature and commands, basically. What He says.

S: Well, obedience to a nature isn't the issue. Obedience to the command would be. But I would say goodness is based on the very nature of what God is.

B: So people who obey and follow whatever God says, they are good people and people who do not are bad people, regardless of the consequences in the real world, your standard is judging...good by what God says is good. Am I clear on that ?

S: Well we're not saying that God just arbitrarily declares sthg good.

B: I don't care if He does it arbitrary or not. Whatever His reasons are, that's your standard.

S: His reasons lie in His own nature and essence.

B: OK, well, whatever they are.

A few notes:
-While I think Slick came out the clear victor in this debate, he lost his way in a puzzling manner more than twice.  This is one of those times.  What is "it's worth exploring more" supposed to mean?  It's been explored, a lot; I'd've wished Slick might have prepared a bit more beforehand on that count. 
-Slick could have been clearer on the relationship of God's nature as that from which the command flows. He commands X because X is in accord with His nature.  If He hadn't commanded X, X would still be objectively good, but nobody else would know that b/c He hadn't communicated it to anyone.  And we sort of are, actually, saying that God arbitrarily declares something good, in a sense anyway.  He's The Arbiter; there's no higher standard to which He appeals.  He decided/decides what is good and that's it - it's good.  I wish Slick would have said that and then continued to expose the emptiness of the alternative that Barker was offering.
-Barker makes a lot of money and a name for himself for being an apostatised preacher, yet he demonstrates very little understanding of a solid biblical view of things. This is one of those times, and it's amazing how this topic is so fundamental to the Christian message! The man claims to have preached countless times at revivals, been a full-time evangelist, done crusades, etc.  James White, commenting at times on Barker and even face to face with Barker in debate, has expressed doubt that Barker ever preached, or even knew, what the Reformedigelicals would call "the Gospel", and this is more evidence that he never did and still doesn't.  Specifically, note that he said, "people who obey and follow whatever God says, they are good people and people who do not are bad people".
What?!??!   Could Barker really be so clueless as not to know that biblical doctrine is that NO PEOPLE are good?  The question is terrible and unhelpful. The correct answer is:  "You claim to be a former preacher; how could you have forgotten Romans 3, the first part of preaching the central message of Jesus?  Nobody is good, none seeks after God, no, not one.  People do good and bad things, so to answer the question you were weakly trying to ask, yes, obeying and following what God says is good in and of itself.  And obviously, part of the analysis is gauging, as you put it, 'consequences in the real world', but again w/o a standard to know whether those consequences are themselves good or bad, which you don't have outside of an arbitrary Barkeristic one, you're still stuck unless someone bridges the Is/Ought gap with a normative command."  
All that to say, the evidence that Barker ever had very little more than a superficial understanding of the Bible is strong.  He is a liar and a bit of a fraud. 

Exchange 2

Barker: Define the word "ought".

Slick: Sthg you should do.

B Isn't 'should' a synonym for 'ought'?

S: Yeah, that's why you really ought to belive that definition is true.   ::Laughter:

B: Well if ought and should are synonyms, then what are those synonyms referring to? What does "ought" actually mean?

S: That's interesting, b/c I've got this quote from you..."if you ever get into a situation where you're stumped, over your head, or out of ideas and can't think of a way to loop the argument around, then there's always the appropriate tactic of backing up and making the person define his terms" (Losing Faith In Faith, p 113).

I'm gonna assume you're backed up b/c you can't define good rationally.

B: ...I've been asked to ask you these things. It doesn't mean I'm stumped.

Slick goes on to partially whiff on the definition of "ought/should", as he goes on to naïvely throw in, "If I love my wife, then...", which was walking right into Barker's cannon fire. I suppose this is a time when I will (appropriately, since we're so near to Thanksgiving) express gratitude to and for the various skeptics who have engaged me over the course of many comboxes - their questions and challenges have forced me to think this issue through. It does not appear that Slick has, as he got caught at precisely the point where he should have been prepared to stick a fork in Barker by asking just one or two more questions.
What Slick should've said is found here, basically. We ought to do what God has commanded, b/c what God commands is objectively good by definition, in and of itself. The OUTWORKINGS of such is where the "if, then" statements come in - that's step 2. Barker's "if, then" also is step 2; Slick should have zeroed in better on Barker's assumed step 1 (the definition: "that which minimises harm is good") and camped there the entire debate. Slick did do that at times, and Barker had no answer except to make emotional appeals to the crowd and argumenta ad populum. "If, then" statements are useless for DEFINING such things as "ought/should", though, b/c obviously it doesn't tell us whether the if-action is good, much less whether the then-consequence is good. It's merely another exercise of the naturalistic fallacy. Slick, to his credit, pointed that out numerous times in the debate, though it would've been nice if he had named it and cited Hume, he who also a priori rejected the miraculous b/c of his naturalistic presuppositions, as its originator, just to stick it to the naturalistic atheist Barker.

Anyway, I also bring this exchange up b/c it illustrates how airheaded Barker often is. He didn't just toss out the statement about "(if you're) stumped...mak(e) the person define his terms" in a debate cross-examination question. No, he wrote it in his book, which has now gone through at least one revision since its original publishing. What a ridiculous thing to say! Defining terms is perhaps the most important tactic in debate, for the edification of all. This seems to stem from the common skeptical viewpoint where the skeptic/Christian or atheist/theist debate centers around facts and not presuppositions. Creationism, for example - Creationists argue there's a set of facts, and we are trying to explain the facts via the narrative we support. Darwinians like to argue instead that "you have no facts", which is idiocy. Nobody "has" facts. Facts exist; how we explain them, for which worldview they are evidence in support - those are the questions. Sometimes, though, the skeptics will accidentally grant the obvious, thus exposing their more-common objections and complaints as mere chicanery, smokescreening, and gamesmanship.

Barker should know this, but I'd struggle to find any evidence that he's ever thought this deeply about the situation, despite being confronted with it numerous times in public debates. It's illuminating as to why he remains an atheist, though - if you don't think deeply about such things, then I'd certainly expect you to be an atheist.

Blabber

Brabble Frabbitz said:

But theologues abandon such common sense


Then again, he also said:

It's such a reflex of yours, dashing off to the logical fallacy chart to determine which one a detractor violated. I wasn't even saying Christianity is wrong on any particular position.

and

I have a knack for spouting off, then realizing the need to restrict my comments to rational argumentation

and

But what the hey -- a fallacy doesn't cost me a dime and sometimes it's fun to sling a few.

and also, ironically:
I can't stomach arrogant hypocrites.

That's worth a chuckle.

Intervention-2

Continuing from last time with the same interlocutor:

More response to come, but since this is essential, I'd like to remind you of the actual content of my 1-10 question.

--what would you say is the Bible's general evaluation of knowledgeable apostates, who attempt to turn people's hearts away from Jesus?  Maybe rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is your basic hellspawn and 10 is straight from the lips of God Himself.  

Not what was Pulliam's position vis-a-vis Christianity.  What is the Bible's position vis-a-vis people like Pulliam?  (And you, incidentally, just so we're clear.)

I'd like to know what you think the Bible says about men like Pulliam (and yourself).
Does the Bible think that apostates who have a great deal of learning about Jesus and who turn away and put out a great deal of energy trying to turn others away from Jesus as well are really really good people? Or does it speak of them in slightly, um, more condemnatory terms?  1 = the Bible is very condemning of such people.  10 = they're going straight to Heaven barnone.

This is what you think the Bible says about you and Pulliam.

-----------------------------Later email-----------------------------

--"Your comment was a breach of decorum, a violation of custom."

Is this really persuasive to you?  It's amazing that someone could say this with a straight face.  

Turning away from orthodox Christian faith is itself a breach of decorum, as you and Pulliam have done.  So...what?  

A Yanomamo about to plunge his spear into a rival tribesman's heart would react the same way if a whitey like me shouted "Stop!" and got in his way. What possible meaning could this have?

--"Having been a missionary you must be familiar with this kind of issue."

Enough to realise when it's really an issue and when baiting a bunch of atheists to make idiots of themselves is quite worthwhile, yes.  Pulliam's blog is not exactly a missionary ground for open-hearted people, ready to hear the Gospel.  I go there to overthrow tables and challenge people, and thus appeal to the lurkers that the "we're the High Priests of Rationality" atheists are just empty poseurs.  Judging by the emptyheaded but fervently-emotional response, mission accomplished. 

That's not the only reason I posted what I posted, but it's one of the principal factors.

--"Out of ignorance you make a gaffe and offend the natives. "

Only someone UNfamiliar with actual mission work could make such a comparison.

--"Americans don't think it is appropriate to speak ill of the dead in the presence of their family and friends, especially during the grieving period. "

Some don't think it's EVER appropriate to talk about religion or politics.  You don't seem to mind offending THEM. 

Others don't think it's EVER OK to turn your back on the religion you once espoused.  Why be so hypocritical? 

The answer is that some customs are best broken, b/c they are stupid and/or wicked customs. 

--" I'll grant you that it appears to be a bit of a stretch to associate a blog with "in the presence of family and friends."  "

It's not a BIT of a stretch.  It's an unreasonable stretch.  If family mbrs were atheists, I'm aiming right at them - they need to repent and get their heads out of the sand.  If they are Christians, why are they reading his blog?  his blog itself is offensive to Christians!  And why read THAT PARTICULAR COMBOX?  

This is not even debatable, it's so silly, and yet it's the crux of that for which most people have been abusing me.

--"We're still building the cultural rules around behavior in the blogosphere and trying to figure out how it should relate to the rest of our lives.  "

You don't seem like you're "building rules" when you condemn me, or when you fail to call others out for abusing me.  Why be so hypocritical?

--" You are not the only one confused by this situation."

Do be kind enough to speak only for yourself.

--"Shortly afterwards somebody else created a Facebook page dedicated to taking messages for Ken's family"

On which page I made a conscious decision NOT to post. 

And on which page a fellow Christian blogger posted a pure condolence, and then was abused for it!  How do you not see this?

--"you apparently misjudged the social situation"

I did?  

Not at all - I knew exactly what was coming.  I baited the atheists, and I got exactly what I expected - a spot lesson in atheist and liberal hypocrisy.

--"This is where 1 Cor 9:19-27 comes in.  Paul "became all things" and so conformed to a lot of ridiculous restrictions on his freedom so that he wouldn't offend his audiences."

Yes, for issues like eating meat.  Not in issues like proclaiming the truth.  See, Paul also said Acts 17, and Galatians.  It's BOTH, and there's a time for each.

--"What in God's name did you mean by that first sentence?"

I meant that his arguments against Christianity were pitifully bad and weak, and the implication is that he wasted much of his life since he had great education in Christian theology and yet couldn't muster anything close to a powerful stroke against it.  

It is an expression of contempt for the way the man led his life, much like you'd have contempt for a 50 year old man throwing a tantrum b/c his mommy said he couldn't have a popsicle.  

--"Was it your greater purpose to let everyone know that you hated Ken so much you got pleasure out of humiliating him?  What kind of tactic is that? "Let us do evil that good may come?""

1) Hatred?  The only time "hate" has been expressed, it's opponents ascribing it to me.  You can't read my mind, and you don't know whether I hate Pulliam.  But you apparently feel freedom to impugn my character, don't you?  How is that not a violation of "social custom" and rank hypocrisy on your part?

2) You've just now elevated "violation of social custom" to "evil"?  How did that happen?  Where's your connecting argument? How do you even know what evil is?

3) Is there sthg evil about humiliating a man like Pulliam, who spent a great deal of his time trying to drag people to Hell with him?  Do you ever call out PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and Hitchens for humiliating Christians?  I doubt it!  Hypocrisy.

--" a whole flock of his friends from work and the neighborhood got up during the eulogy to thank my brother for things he had taught them."

I'm sorry to hear about your brother, but an anecdote about a bunch of people who obviously couldn't tell their left hands from their right does not constitute an argument.  What good did your brother do them?  On atheism, they'll all be dead in 50 years and all will be forgotten in another 100. So what? 

--"Had that happened and I had learned about it, I would have firmly escorted the individual out of the area with a warning not to return unless he wanted to deal with the police."

1) Hopefully you're not making a foolish analogy as if my posting on Pulliam's blog is similar to showing up at his funeral to shout and yell.

2) Apparently might makes right for you.  Your comment is very educational.

3) You apparently think that it's OK to call down judicial punishment on someone who violates social custom.  You're quite the judgmental man!

--"If you had heard somebody making comments like that about your child at the viewing or in the vestibule at church or at the gravesite or at some community event a week or a month or even a year later, wouldn't you want to do the same thing?"

1) Once again, a foolish analogy. Why not make a real analogy?  Is this really the best you can do?

2) Was my baby an apostate from the faith, with a PhD in theology?  Help me understand what you're thinking here.

3) Why are the same atheists who rip me for my comment the ones who make tawdry and disgusting jokes about my beloved wife? 

--"Your comment not only provoked understandable hostility, it completely undermined your testimony."

What's the argument?  

It might undermine the wrong ideas who think that Jesus was a pansy Who never offended anyone!  Maybe that's why you're where  you are - you can't bear to deal with the real Jesus.

--"I see a lot of discussion about your behavior.  I see hardly anything about Jesus. "

And the argument that this is my fault and not the fault of those who hate Jesus?

--"Not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, it can take awhile for me to recognize when I'm being conned. "

Conned by asking you to demonstrate that you have any idea what you're talking about, biblically speaking? You said you used to be an evangelical pastor, and that you've been in church longer than I have. 

If you were really a pastor and if you knew anything much about the Bible other than you can quote John 3:16 and think that Jesus wants us to be nice to everyone, you'd know that the Bible has nothing good to say about such apostates as you and Pulliam.  What it has to say is fearful.  

The entirety of Jude - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/jude/1.htm

The entirety of 2 Peter 2 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/2_peter/2.htm

Luke 17:1-2 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/luke/17.htm

Isaiah 45:9-10 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/isaiah/45.htm

2 Tim 2:16-26 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/jude/1.htm

Heb 6:4-8 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/hebrews/6.htm

Heb 10:26-38 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/hebrews/10.htm

And on and on it goes.  

The answer is that the Bible regards men such as Pulliam and you at a 1; your end will be fearful and horrific. I of course hope Pulliam repented before he died suddenly, but it's doubtful, sadly.  You still have time. Repent now and ask Jesus to forgive your great sin.  He will, but He won't if you continue in your foolish and hypocritical rebellion.  It'd be one thing if you had a good reason to buck against Him, but you don't even have that, as we've seen here.  Your predicament is sorry and sad, but all too common.

Peace,

Rhology

In which I try not to butcher Romans 2:13-16

enchantednaturalist.com said:

what is your take on Romans 2:13-16? Doesn't this support the notion that all humankind, regardless of whether they read or have access to God's word, shares a common moral sense at some level?

Romans 2:12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Matthew Henry says:
Three degrees of light are revealed to the children of men:
1. The light of nature. This the Gentiles have, and by this they shall be judged: 
As many as : have sinned without law shall perish without law: that is, the unbelieving Gentiles, who had no other guide but natural conscience, no other motive but common mercies, and had not the law of Moses nor any supernatural revelation, shall not be reckoned with for the transgression of the law they never had, nor come under the aggravation of the Jews’ sin against and judgment by the written law; but they shall be judged by, as they sin against, the law of nature, not only as it is in their hearts, corrupted, defaced, and imprisoned in unrighteousness, but as in the uncorrupt original the Judge keeps by him. Further to clear this (v. 14, 15), in a parenthesis, he evinces that the light of nature was to the Gentiles instead of a written law. 


He had said (v. 12) they had: sinned without law,: which looks like a contradiction; for where there is no law there is no transgression. But, says he, though they had not the written law (Ps. 147:20), they had that which was equivalent, not to the ceremonial, but to the moral law. 


They: had the work of the law.: He does not mean that work which the law commands, as if they could produce a perfect obedience; but that work which the law does. The work of the law is to direct us what to do, and to examine us what we have done. Now, (1.) They had that which directed them what to do by the light of nature: by the force and tendency of their natural notions and dictates they apprehended a clear and vast difference between good and evil. 


They: did by nature the things : contained in the law.: They had a sense of justice and equity, honour and purity, love and charity; the light of nature taught obedience to parents, pity to the miserable, conservation of public peace and order, forbade murder, stealing, lying, perjury, etc. 
Thus they were a: law unto themselves.:  They had that which examined them as to what they had done: 
Their : conscience also bearing witness.: They had that within them which approved and commended what was well done and which reproached them for what was done amiss. Conscience is a witness, and first or last will bear witness, though for a time it may be bribed or brow-beaten. 
It is instead of a thousand witnesses, testifying of that which is most secret; and their: thoughts : accusing or excusing,: passing a judgment upon the testimony of conscience by applying the law to the fact. Conscience is that candle of the Lord which was not quite put out, no, not in the Gentile world. The heathen have witnessed to the comfort of a good conscience...


Their: thoughts the meanwhile,: metaxy allelon: among themselves,: or one with another. The same light and law of nature that witnesses against sin in them, and witnessed against it in others, accused or excused one another...according as they observed or broke these natural laws and dictates, their consciences did either acquit or condemn them. All this did evince that they had that which was to them instead of a law, which they might have been governed by, and which will condemn them, because they were not so guided and governed by it. So that the guilty Gentiles are left without excuse. God is justified in condemning them. They cannot plead ignorance, and therefore are likely to perish if they have not something else to plead. 


2. The light of the law. This the Jews had, and by this they shall be judged (v. 12): As many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.: They sinned, not only having the law, but: en nomo: in the law,: in the midst of so much law, in the face and light of so pure and clear a law, the directions of which were so very full and particular, and the sanctions of it so very cogent and enforcing. These shall be judged: by the law;: their punishment shall be, as their sin is, so much the greater for their having the law.
(Source)

I agree 100% with this.  To say it more simply and with poorer words, the Apostle Paul has made two references to the fate of the unregenerate and to God's revelation to said unregenerate in chapters 1 and 2.
In chapter 1, he says:


   18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
      24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
      26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
      28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


The Apostle Paul says that God's existence is known to all, b/c God has made it known to all.  B/c of their wickedness, they suppress the truth that He exists and has given a moral law, à la John 3: 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” 

All people also have the light of conscience, in Romans 2.  The Jews have the Law, so that convicts them of sin.  The Gentiles don't have the Law, and yet they are a law unto themselves b/c God wrote the requirements of the Law on their hearts.  Their consciences defend them, or accuse them, depending on what the man's self-examination yields, but it's never the case that a given man will 100% of the time be "acquitted" by his conscience.  We all have guilt and shame over what we've done, and we can either uncomfortably ignore it, ask God for forgiveness for what we've done, or sear our consciences with a hot iron to the point that they don't bother us anymore.
Perhaps the most misunderstood part of these 2 chapters is that Paul is laying out the problem until the very end of chapter 3.  He is not giving us the solution - that starts in 3:21.  The light given here is a light unto condemnation.  Men know that God exists, and yet what comes of that?  Idolatry, homosexuality, further descent into wickedness (chapter 1).  Men have the law written on their hearts, but what comes of that?  Their thoughts accuse them, and God judges them (chapter 2).  The solution is unique and singular - the good news that Jesus Christ gives the free gifts of forgiveness of sin and eternal life through repentance and faith in Him.  But that good news doesn't come to all, and for those to whom it does not come and even more acutely for those to whom it does come and who reject it, wrath and judgment await.  May the Lord be pleased to save all who read this from such a fearful destination!

Intervention

A participant in the recent comment box lynch mob regarding my brief comment on the late Former Fundy's recent passing into eternity wrote me a personal note.

I'm writing to you because Patrick Chan pointed out to me that you have a personal email attached to your blogger account.  I posted some comments on the Triablogue blog that were partly in response to your
comment on the Nov 1 posting to Ken Pulliam's blog.  Patrick was absolutely correct that I should have checked your blogger account to see if you had an email address attached.  I have wanted to email Steve
and Peter Pike before but they don't post an address.  I assumed you all had the same practice.  I know, I know!

It's not worth it to keep hashing over the issue, but since I now know you have an email I figured I ought to send you something.  I used to be a pastor in my evangelical days.  I also have been an elder in evangelical reformed, PCA, and PCUSA churches of various sorts on and off for over 25 years.  Never, never, never in all that time have I seen or heard anybody, pastor, elder, or layperson, make comments about a deceased person as obnoxious as your comment about Ken Pulliam.  And yes, I've been to and officiated at funerals of some pretty notoriously wicked people.  And yes, the gospel was preached, all of it, including God's judgment, hell, and heaven.

How many other Christians do you know who say things like this to or in the presence of grieving family members?  How old are you?  Have any close family members die?  Ever been the executor for someone's estate? If you haven't I suppose you could be partly excused.  Most likely, somebody from Ken's immediate family is going to go through his blog, especially the more recent parts, possibly this week, possibly next
week, and they are going to hit your comment.  Want to guess what kind of an impression it's going to make?

I read your post on your own blog about Ken's death.  That post appeared to me to be thoughtful and appropriate, until you got to the part where you defended your comment.  If only you had restrained yourself to that post!

 Hello,

I have asked and asked and asked, I don't know how many times, in the relevant comboxes, those who are abusing me to explain what was so bad about my comment.  All have declined to explain themselves.  You seem levelheaded, which is a rare find, and so I'd like to ask you the same question.  Please paste the comment in its entirety so I can know which one you're talking about and then explain its "obnoxious" content.

Also, since you claim to have been a Christian for a longer stretch than I have so far been, what would you say is the Bible's general evaluation of knowledgeable apostates, who attempt to turn people's hearts away from Jesus?  Maybe rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is your basic hellspawn and 10 is straight from the lips of God Himself. 

Your other questions:
-I don't know too many other Christians who would.  There are some I admire who would, yes.  Many of the others I know need to practice being a bit more offensive for the sake of the Gospel.
-A public blog is hardly "the presence of grieving family members".  What are these grieving family mbrs doing checking the comboxes of a blog whose content is known to be controversial and contentious, unless they're looking for a little something beyond condolences from ppl they care about?  Virtually all the commenters are unknown to them personally.
-These family mbrs are under the impression that Dr Pulliam is in heaven b/c of a profession of faith made decades ago, his later actions notwithstanding. Will they be as open to listening to the voice of reason later?  Maybe, maybe not.
-My age is irrelevant, and can be found with a little investigative work if someone has it in their head to set themselves up for commission of the genetic fallacy.
-My own child died.  Is that close enough a heartbreak for you, sir? 
-No, never executor of an estate.
-The impression I wanted to make I made.  I got all the atheists and mockers to show their true colors, using MUCH more abusive language of me than I *EVER* used of Pulliam, dead or alive.  I got them to show that their expressions of evolutionary ethics are just abstract to them, to be disposed of when convenient.  I also brought Pulliam's online life back into focus - the man spent ALL his online time, not a little of it, to tear down the Bible and its message and its Savior. 

Peace,
Rhology

So far, no reply, but I guess that fits the non-responses from everyone else.

Mike Licona - The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

Today marks the release on Amazon of Mike Licona's new book - The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.

With endorsements from such men as Craig Keener, William Lane Craig, Dan Wallace, and Gary Habermas, this book promises to be an important addition to the literature surrounding this topic.  It is in fact a revision of his doctoral dissertation.  It has now taken a place near the top of my wish-list, actually.  Not that I get to read that much these days, but still.  Go buy it or something.

Imposing your existential insecurity

enchantednaturalist.com said:

And please stop imposing your existential insecurity on atheists, who imbue their own lives with meaning and purpose (and acknowledge the human origin of morality) rather than relying upon an unwarranted belief in a dictatorial, sadistic (and masochistic), whimsical deity for these things. Please stop projecting.

Also, everyone, please stop imposing your existential insecurity on Christians, whose lives are imbued by God with meaning and purpose (and acknowledge the divine origin of morality) rather than relying upon an unwarranted belief in dictatorial, sadistic (and masochistic), whimsical genes and biological drives for these things. Please stop projecting.

Dr Ken Pulliam, the Former Fundy, has died

The death of Dr Ken Pulliam, the author of the Former Fundy blog, is most definitely an occasion for mixed emotions among those who love Jesus. 
On the one hand, the man had just submitted a chapter to an upcoming anti-Christian book edited by John Loftus.  He just finished a massive blogseries in which he attempted to dismantle the wonderful doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ.  He was an apostate from the faith after earning a PhD in theology from Bob Jones University.  This last is what sets him apart from many - unlike a Dan Barker, whose education in Christianity is in reality minimal and easily seen to be shallow, a Bart Ehrman, whose post-grad education (Masters and PhD) is more along the lines of history and textual criticism, or a Richard Carrier whose PhD is in ancient history but who to my knowledge does not claim to have been a Christian, Pulliam's studies were in the very field that should lead one to know Jesus better - theology.  He was in a position to know a great deal about the Savior, and yet though he believed in Him, he decided a life lived apart from Jesus would be better than a life lived with Him.

Which brings us to the other hand.  Outside of a extraordinary change of heart that he had kept entirely secret, there can be virtually no doubt of his eternal location.  His heart attack struck him suddenly, at a relatively young age (50), and probably allowed him little time between its onset and his transition into eternity to reflect and repent.  He had just submitted an essay for a book called The End of Christianity.  The Lord will judge him by his works in this life and find that he wanted to be far from Him.  Thus Dr Pulliam will be granted exactly what he wanted in life - a life lived outside of the grace of Jesus. 

Obviously the man knew a great deal about Jesus and yet wanted nothing to do with Him.  He blogged a lot, attempting to turn people away from thinking that the Bible is true.  He was running headlong toward this end; shall we shake our fists at God for giving the man what he wanted?  And yet, we who know better and who love Jesus are sad to see another soul wallow in its self-deception to the bitter, bitter end.  Dr Pulliam was a wolf who attempted to destroy the flock of God; I will not shed too many tears when animal control puts a bullet in the wolf who has been tearing up my sheep.  Yet at the same time, I know the analogy of "wolf" does not entirely cover it.  And I hope that Christians who know his family will reach out to them and offer them the hope of the good news of the forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Jesus' name and will weep with them.

It is interesting to see how uptight people get when it comes to death.  Death truly is our great enemy and equalizer, yet how many are prepared for it?  A few examples of what I mean:
1) I left a brief comment on Dr Pulliam's latest blogpost (obviously he had several ready for scheduled publishing):

Goodbye Dr Pulliam. Your pitiful arguments against Christianity will be missed. I pity you greatly.

-Rhology 

 I have received several comments in response.  I wouldn't call them consistent with atheistic reasoning.  Pulliam wouldn't have lived more than a few more decades, and in 100 years, who will remember any of us? 

2) Dr James McGrath devotes half of a brief post to eulogise Dr Pulliam.  The other half he spends reaming me for my comment!  Apparently I have "decided to bring yet further shame on (my)self and (my) faith tradition by harassing someone who has recently died and has no opportunity to respond".  So, that little comment constitutes "harassment", eh? 
One can only wonder about what sort of motivations are present in Dr McGrath, that the announcement of the man's death quickly steers away from the man to discuss a third-rate blogger like me. Sometimes McGrath could stand to think things through a little more thoroughly, to be sure.
But I would like to ask: What precisely is disgusting about my comment? The implication that the man might be spending eternity separated from the God he claimed not to believe in?
I know the answer - McGrath is a servant of the same being as Dr Pulliam was and is, and death makes such men nervous.  Don't talk about man's eternal destiny after somebody died!  It's not polite! 


3) Ditto with the "The Church of Jesus Christ" blog, which calls me "disgusting".
Here is the comment I left (and which I do not expect them to publish):

Hello,
Thanks for your thoughts. It is apparent that you have not really understood who Dr Pulliam was. One wonders whether you read his blog very much. He and I have had extensive conversations within the past year, and he has just finished a series in which he did everything within his (limited) power to kick dust on the glorious and wonderful doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ. He had a PhD in theology from a Christian university (yes, Bob Jones U is offbeat and has problems, but they’re still Christian) and yet turned away from the Christian faith and did his best over the course of many years to destroy it in the minds of others.
He was not your ally. He was not an unwitting pawn. He was a wolf. Biblically speaking, the only way he could have been worse for the Body of Christ would have been if he had stayed within its ranks to wreak havoc from the inside.
I guess I don’t understand what’s so disgusting here. Is it that I said I pity the man? He had just submitted a chapter in an upcoming antitheist book, and died suddenly. Where do *you* think he is? That’s why I pity him. You sort of make it sound like I am dancing with joy at his death. If that’s what you think, you are very wrong.
Peace and less prejudice to you,
Rhology

Finally, God has already spoken on this topic.  Here are some parts that will prove offensive to those who prefer to believe only part of what God has said and leave the rest to the side b/c it makes them uncomfortable. 
Psalm 7:6 Arise, O LORD, in Your anger; Lift up Yourself against the rage of my adversaries,
         And arouse Yourself for me; You have appointed judgment.
Psalm 3:7Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God! For You have smitten all my enemies on the cheek; You have shattered the teeth of the wicked.

Psalm 2: 1Why are the nations in an uproar  And the peoples devising a vain thing?
    2The kings of the earth take their stand   And the rulers take counsel together
         Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, 3"Let us tear their fetters apart  And cast away their cords from us!"
   4He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
    5Then He will speak to them in His anger  And terrify them in His fury...

John 3:36  He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Romans 2: 1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil...