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.