Readers of this blog will note that Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan, who makes such a big deal out of the "fallacy" of moral relativity, quietly and conveniently stopped responding to me after I started battering him with justifications for moral relativity.
I recently posted another challenge to him at another one of his blogs, see here. In case that comment gets deleted, I'm preserving it below:
The purpose of this blog is a) to refute arguments and beliefs propagated by Christian "apologists" and b) to restore my reputation after one homosexual atheist Christian apologist trashed it so much that he got slapped with four libel-lawsuits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5
Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction. Jason Eng...
-
I challenged "annoyed pinoy" at his blog as follows: 1 comment: barry November 7, 2019 at 4:01 PM I'd like to d...
-
Update July 14, 2017 : In 2008, I posted to another discussion forum several quotes from Holding, showing how highly he lauded the Contex...
-
Since Windows 10 came out, many have bemoaned the fact that Chessmaster 9000 will not install on it. I was one such person, and I personall...
Does the bible require Christians to do apologetics? Yes. Does the bible allow them to do the type of apologetics that involves their wrangling of words? No. According to Titus 3:9-11, you don't have interactive dialogue with those who deny Paul's veracity. You "warn" them twicej (warnings don't require dialogue), then you are to have nothing to do with them.
Apparently, Paul placed more restrictions on his followers, than what he allowed for himself. Probably because he felt that apostles had more privileges than non-apostles, or had greater spiritual power so that apostles could play such games with people without being as subject to the temptations of the devil as non-apostles. So I don't care if Paul himself wrangled words, that doesn't automatically imply he wanted his followers to imitate everything he did. Common sense says what the NT directly commands of Christians in general is far more imposing on their conduct, than their more indirect argument that they are allowed to do just whatever they find the apostles doing. Paul also enraged entire cities to the point of his being arrested. Gee, does that mean Paul necessarily wanted his followers to enrage entire cities and get themselves arrested? If you did that, you wouldn't be able to form churches and obey the stuff in the pastorals on church government. The last comment in Acts about how the Romans soldiers allowed Paul to promote, during house arrest, the very things that got him arrested, is absolute fiction.