Rebuttal to Frank Turek on Morality

Frank Turek "explains" why God allows natural disasters. See here. I responded first with Deuteronomy 28:15-63 to remind Christians that their "biblical" god is a far cry from the concerned empathizing Jesus they've invented in their heads.

I then responded with my own argument as follows (this was deleted by unknown person about 5 minutes after I posted it, hence, you no longer wonder why I cross post to my blog here).



Barry Jones1 second ago
Turek's "ripple-effect" argument is not convincing to anybody except the predominantly Christian audiences that are already desperately searching for anything that will help them feel better about their own faith.

Furthermore, the ripple-effect could be used to justify immorality. How do you know that God didn't want my stealing a car yesterday to play an integral role in the reason why African Bush tribes will hear the Christian gospel next year? 

You can tell yourself that the evil act remains evil even if God can use it for a greater good, but since many allegedly "evil" acts also produce morally good effects (the morally bad murder of a family member caused the good of the surviving family becoming Christian in faith), then how the hell do you know which effect determines the moral status of the act and which effect doesn't? 

Is rape evil because it hurts the woman, or good because by ripple-effect it causes Eskimos 5,000 miles away to hear the gospel for the first time 5 years later? 

Is rape bad because it hurts the woman, or good because it taught her to be more careful about walking home late at night? 

Is pedophilia bad because it hurt the child, or good because it came to the attention of a vigilante who later gunned down that pervert before he could molest more kids?

==========================

You will say "the ends don't justify the means", but I really have to wonder how many tears you'd cry if you found out the local pedophile who was recently released on parole was gunned down by unknown person.  Gee, that murder wasn't in conformity to American legal ideals, so you just won't be able to come in to work for a few days while you "get over" it, eh?  NOT.

my reply to Hank Hanegraaff on James Patrick Holding and origins of morality

Bible Answer Man26K subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
On the Bible Answer Man broadcast, host Hank Hanegraaff relates a conversation he had with his daughter who is attending college. While explaining that morality is not dependent on God, one of her liberal professors invoked the Euthyphro dilemma. Not knowing how to deal with this conundrum, she went to Hank's book, The Complete Bible Answer Book Collector’s Edition and was able to answer this objection, and in doing so, stressed the need for apologetics on college campuses. Read our JOURNAL article "Out of the Nest and Off to College: A Time for Exploration" for FREE on our website https://www.equip.org/article/out-of-...

Barry Jones13 seconds ago (edited)
Morality obviously comes from a person's environmental conditioning, and how they react to their environment is governed by their genetic predisposition. The idea that atheists cannot explain morality without borrowing "capital" from Christianity or theism, is absurd. Frank Turek pushes this criticism the most, and I steamroll him at my own blog: https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/08/frank-tureks-absurd-belief-in-objective.html I'm so skeptical of the Holy Spirit "moving through argument" that I think conversion to Christianity on the basis of argument has nothing more spiritual to it than becoming convinced by the evidence that a criminal defendant is guilty. While the Christian will insist on leaving room for the biblical "necessity" of the Holy Spirit to move in the heart of the unbeliever, the Holy Spirit is more likely nothing more than a gratuitous afterthought. Thousands of heretical Christians also insist the only reason they converted to the "truth" was the HOly Spirit's prompting, so apparently, this highly esoteric view does not lend itself very well to the cause of truth-discovery, it is merely a Christian refusal to close the door on a "biblical" truth for which there is precisely ZERO evidence.



Barry Jones40 seconds ago (edited)
Hank should also worry about taking the log out of his own eye before he judges others. Hank allows James Patrick Holding to author CRI Journal articles, yet Mr. Holding is a closet homosexual and has been sued multiple times for libel, and has never answered those charges on the merits.

Holding is currently being sued for libel by me. 

It is very reasonable to say that if one's spiritual walk with Christ is more important than 'argument', then Hank needs to fire Mr. Holding until Holding repents of his 20-year long intentional disobedience to Ephesians 5:4, Colossians 3:8, etc. 

Until Hank cuts off fellowship from Mr. Holding, Hank will be guilty of disobeying 1st Cor. 5:11-13, because Holding is a full-time "reviler" and thus is living in sin, not merely having a few spiritual hiccups along the way. 

This is to say nothing of the fact that while Hank's morals are conservative and Evangelical, Mr. Holding is a closet homosexual, or at least he was for most of his "apologetics" career, and if he gave up that sin, he certainly has never evinced the slightest repentance over it, nor any repentance for his ceaseless sins of reviling and slander.  If conservative evangelicals first ask "are you walking in the light of Christ?" before they allow some "teacher" to teach, then CRI needs to fire Holding and repent of their ever having known him.

So, has Hank ever heard of the Matthew 18 process? Or does he disagree with apostle Paul and say "reviling" is not a sin? https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/10/my-new-warning-to-another-follower-of.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/01/james-patrick-holding-unconscionable.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/06/james-patrick-holding-disqualified-by.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/05/james-patrick-holding-formerly-robert.html

My reply to to Evan Vansickle

From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYZXj6LmRT8

EVAN VANSICKLE2 subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
An introduction to apologetics, especially prepared for Mountainside Church of Christ's series on "Reasons to Believe" the Christian faith. This presentation makes a case for the practice of apologetics, exposes today's unique need for apologetics, highlights the basic attitude toward defending the faith, and shares one foundational strategy for apologetics.

Barry Jones1 minute ago (edited)
The "need" for apologetics strongly argues that conversion to Christianity is not a spiritual but a psychological thing. You can say the Holy Spirit chooses to move "through" apologetics arguments, but that is quite esoteric and unconvincing, and appears geared only to impress those who already believe that way, which then means the response is not an argument or a defense. God everywhere in the bible is getting people to do what he wants without needing to "move through" the arguments of other human beings. For this reason, the more apologetics is "needed", the more the Holy Spirit becomes a completely gratuitous afterthought.

The Patheos Christians are quietly deleting challenges again

I made a perfectly valid criticism and reply to a Patheos article "Has Christian Apologetics Failed?
March 2, 2019 BY ESTHER O’REILLY".

The reply was:




The reply was deleted.  See here


Esther O'Reilly's bio:

About Esther O’Reilly
I am a teacher and doctoral student of mathematics, but a lifelong student of human nature. I seek to understand what is good and what is sad and what is true. When I’m not mathing or teaching, I enjoy writing about faith and culture, researching film and music history, reading great literature and philosophy, pretending to play the piano like Bruce Hornsby, writing the occasional poem, and editing the occasional film project. My interest in Pop Culture Things tends to be inversely proportional to the level of interest they generate among other people of my generation. I am, after all, a Young Fogey. I occasionally write theological reflections too—in a bad Anglican, high-Church Baptist sort of vein. You’ve all been warned. My opinions can be curiously strong, but I am always learning how to express them better. Though I retain little patience for post-modernists. Thanks for reading. You can find my freelance social commentary at The Stream and The Federalist, or sample some of my film criticism at Tyler Smith’s More Than One Lesson. Follow me on Facebook or Twitter, @EstherOfReilly. Send questions, comments or snark to estherioreilly@gmail.com.

See here.   I emailed her about it, and will update.

Here's the email Esther sent me March 10:

Hi Barry. This is something Patheos does automatically on occasion for reasons unknown, not something I do. I don't keep up with or monitor my comment threads one way or the other. Later I can have a look and see if I can just check a box that lets this through. But I wasn't holding it back deliberately.

my miracle-challenge to Zachary Cawley

Zachary Cawley describes himself thus:

Joined Jun 26, 2016 Description
Zachary Cawley, here! I am a Christian apologist that also delves into anarcho-capitalism (the anarchist variant of Libertariansim). I aim for accuracy, which means the diseased fundammentalism espoused by a great many atheists and fellow Christians is out of the question!  

If you like what I create, you can support me by donating crypto! If this is a good enough success, A MakerSupport and (maybe) a Patreon will be justifiable! Ask me for the BTC, ETC, ETH BTCP, LTC addresses! YOu can help me obtain TUBES for Bittube by registering on the Airtime/Bittube plugin with this referring link: https://bittubeapp.com?ref#!undefined

See here. 

Concerning the issue of whether miracles can happen, Cawley went to James Patrick Holding's YouTube channel and defiantly joined in Holding's mockery of the skeptical view, by saying

Erggo the Magnificent2 weeks ago

Seems like Jesus could have also filled them in later. Gospel of John has several encounters between Jesus and his disciples after the Resurrection with plenty of opportunity for conversation and teaching.

tektontv2 weeks ago"But that assoomes mirakles happin durrrrrr...."
9Zachary Cawley2 weeks ago@tektontv Oh! But, James! Simply saying miracles are improbable makes it so! Dun'cha know!? Lol

See here.

So I did what I do best, and challenged this individual to put his money where his mouth is, by sending the following message to his "discussion" forum at his own YouTube Account.  My message was:

I noticed the following comment you posted over at tektontv:

Zachary Cawley2 weeks ago

@tektontv Oh! But, James! Simply saying miracles are improbable makes it so! Dun'cha know!? Lol------------------

I'm an atheist, and I'm willing to discuss with you my defense that the skeptical view of miracles is more reasonable and academically justifiable than the Christian view 

You can contact me at my blog by responding to articles I've already posted challenging Craig Keener and others, see https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/12/my-questions-to-dr-craig-keener.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/06/craig-keener-failing-again-to-take.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-faces-of-miracles-serialized-ebook.html
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/07/demolishing-triablogue-part-4-steve.html 

Or you can respond to me by email.  barryjoneswhat@gmail.com 

Here is the screenshot:



I've preserved the challenge like that since there is a chance it will be quietly deleted, as quiet deletions are usually what happen to my challenges.  See here for the original post.

So I guess only time will tell:  Did Mr. Cawley mock the naturalistic view because he has sufficient education about the philosophy of miracles to actually back up with robust argument his obvious belief that miracle-skeptics are unreasonable? 

Or was there a reason the bible warned people to watch out for "Christians" whose zeal exceeded their knowledge?  If converted Christians could maintain stupidity despite their zeal back in the 1st century (Acts 18:26), then apparently, being zealous to the point of talking all bold, does NOT place the skeptic under an intellectual obligation to either believe the  message or admit their own stupidity. 

Something more than high-strung polemics must be engaged before there can be any game in play for the skeptic to "lose".

Yes, I'm pretty sure Christian apologists will take this challenge as a sign that I just run away from arguments and cry whenever it looks like somebody might challenge me.

YEAH.