Lydia McGrew's suspicious excuses for declining a resurrection debate challenge, and more

Lydia McGrew, wife of NT scholar Timothy McGrew, has tried but failed to make her declining of my debate challenge look objective.

What follows are exchanges Lydia and I had, and the replies I made or would have made had she not disapproved of them.

Here is how Mrs. McGrew tried to exude confident swagger while ducking my challenge.  Lydia began by saying she didn't have the remotest interest in defending the resurrection in a debate with me:

from http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2017/11/fake_points_dont_make_points.html#comment-443750

I have not the remotest interest in debating you about resurrection-related matters.

That's too bad, since the resurrection of Jesus is central to the claims of Christianity, while some would argue that Licona's errors on gospel differences are of slightly less moment.

And (I know you'll find this difficult to believe) not because I'm afraid of you. In general, I find it far more constructive to spend my time on the Internet doing positive things rather than debating skeptics such as yourself.

That's not true. You've been debating me for several days now. Either you think debating me is a positive thing, or you can play with semantics and trifle that our recent back-and-forth at your blogs, with my posts that you allowed or approved, doesn't constitute "debate".

That's just how I choose to spend my time.

The degree to which are you concerned about my risking eternal hell, is noted. But since you were open to the possibility of God giving people second chances after death, it only makes sense that you don't find defense to be anywhere near as urgent as the apostle Paul says it is. Well, you aren't an inerrantist, so presto, another reason not to get so uptight about things as Jesus and Paul did.

Nor are the comboxes of What's Wrong With the World nor my personal blog provided as a kind of blank e-paper on which you are welcomed to press and carry out such debates through umpteen comments, regardless of the relevance to the posts actually put up. Maybe some blogs operate that way. We don't.

Oh please, Lydia, your degree ought to have taught you that it is nearly impossible to have any sort of discussion about a biblical matter, without it blossoming out and eventually implicating other subjects (!?).

And the fact that you allowed most of my posts, testifies that either a) you thought those posts of mine were on-topic, or b) you don't seriously believe going off-topic is some type of deal-breaker with you.

Your spiteful tone with me, which appeared with your "troll" insult to me in your very first response some days ago, makes it clear that a) you find me annoying, and yet b) you are aware of what it looks like when you ban somebody who has been issuing legitimate challenges to you.

I hereby challenge you to present whatever apologetics argument you think is the most clear and compelling.

If you'd rather not field my academic challenges to your brand of Christianity, just say so. But David a few minutes ago asked me "what generated the belief in the Resurrection?". Perhaps you think he was going off-topic too?

Posted by barry | November 14, 2017 8:25 PM

(Lydia now replies to me)

I hereby challenge you to present whatever apologetics argument you think is the most clear and compelling.

Excuse me, what? Who the heck do you think you are?
No, that isn't what we're doing here. You do not come across at all as someone truly trying to find the truth, and I will not waste any further time with you. Nobody who speaks in defense of the gospel, not even an apologist, is setting himself up to spend indefinite amounts of time answering anybody with a keyboard who comes along, thumps his chest, and says, "I hereby challenge you." Go away.
Whoever you may *think* you are, you are a bully, a troll, and a time-waster, and you aren't doing any more of it here.

Posted by Lydia | November 15, 2017 12:01 AM

Let me set out some criteria for any potential analogies. The literature must have been written 30 to 60 years after the events it describes. The events must have been considered very important at the time. Whatever happened must have a great power to inspire people. We must also have letters written 20 years or so later which provide a summary of what happened. It would also help if the literature contains some of the greatest if not the greatest moral teachings in history.
So which intertestamental literature best fits these criteria?

Posted by David Madison | November 15, 2017 1:22 AM

I don’t think I have any more to say to Barry, but it might be worthwhile to offer a few thoughts for anyone else who might be interested. We can easily imagine a scenario in which the Resurrection was invented long after Jesus was crucified. We can also imagine that no one actually believed in the Resurrection until long after the idea first appeared in a legendary account. But that isn’t what happened. We have very good reason to think that people believed in the Resurrection at a very stage.
Because of this the sceptic has to alter his strategy. He must now argue that the Gospels misrepresent what really happened and this will probably involve accusations of deliberate fraud. But notice that we are now in a completely different ball game. Imagine how much easier life would be for the sceptic if there was no reason to think that anyone believed in the Resurrection until long after the legend was invented and if the legend itself was invented long after the alleged event.
Certainly, sceptics can claim that the Gospel writers were practising deliberate fraud. Perhaps the fraud was so cunning that Matthew actually invented the accusation that the disciples stole the body just to make the false claim of an empty tomb look more plausible. But, again, imagine how much easier life would be for the sceptic if Matthew had just been writing an entertaining mix of history and fiction. 

Posted by David Madison | November 15, 2017 5:30 AM

I didn't expect to see this avalanche. I'm surprised he didn't electronically slap you with a leather glove when announcing his 'hereby' challenging you to a dual in New Testament history!
It's not hard to see you are in the middle of a series addressing a specific topic. Barry sounds like he has had a fair few debates on the internet and must know how many rabbit holes this topic can produce. You'd think his experience would give him some tact.

Posted by Callum | November 16, 2017 5:32 AM

Barry won't be joining us anymore. He had been attempting to fill my comments threads at my personal blog with comments that ranged from relevant to pointlessly unpleasant. (A sarcastic suggestion on an old post where I recommended a modest clothing site that Christian women on my view ought to wear burkas.) Sometimes bizarre (asking whether I believed that Christian scholars with whom I disagree are not saved, for if I think they are really saved, I should think that perhaps they are right and I am wrong!). Etc. Most of these I didn't publish, since I have moderation enabled there. Some were close enough to relevance that I published and answered them. He then found W4 where moderation is not enabled and began filling my threads here with general debates about Christianity, couched in the style of demand that you see. After he replied with defiance to several warnings, I banned him. We don't have comment-by-comment moderation here, but we do have banning, though we try not to use it unnecessarily. I'm very pleased to have done so, especially as I deeply doubt that taking up his "challenge" would have been at all likely to be effective for his change of mind or salvation.

Posted by Lydia | November 16, 2017 9:18 AM

"However, I am prepared to cross swords with N.T. Wright..."

I haven't paid too much attention to this exchange, but that one made me laugh.

Posted by Nice Marmot | November 16, 2017 10:29 AM

"I'm very pleased to have done so" made me laugh more than it should have. On the effectiveness of taking him up on his challenge, I note that he mentioned anti supernatural presuppositions. Couple that with the impression he gave me that he needs to respond to absolutely ever sentence for 'debate points' and it's a safe bet debates on the historicity of the resurrection or general reliability of the Gospels will quickly run into Hume and the whole field of natural theology!

Posted by Callum | November 16, 2017 10:49 AM

--------------------------

I now respond to the above, since I can no longer do so at Lydia's site.  It is clear that Lydia uses her blog sites for two reasons:  a) to loud-mouth about apologetics issues she feels are important, and b) as her excuse for avoiding debate with informed skeptics (i.e., any such challenge she deems "off topic" because her blog posts didn't initiate the subject.

Sort of like an atheist who has a blog site that rips into Christianity on specified topics, then when an apologist posts a direct challenge, the atheist bans the apologist because such challenge is not how the atheist operates his blog.

It doesn't matter if that is the blog owners "right".  What matters is that Lydia has no interest in defending her version of Christianity from informed criticism, which appears in consistent with her nature as a loud-mouth who ceaselessly blogs about the allegedinly astonishing errors of everybody she disagrees with.

I hereby challenge you to present whatever apologetics argument you think is the most clear and compelling.

Excuse me, what? Who the heck do you think you are?

I am somebody who recognizes Lydia McGrew as a legitimate NT scholar, and wife of legitimate NT scholar Timothy McGrew, and who carries on about her religious faith as if it is totally obvious that atheists and anybody else who disagree with her, including conservative Christian scholars, are making astonishing errors and are otherwise willfully ignorant of the obvious.

No, that isn't what we're doing here. 

Correction, that isn't what you are doing ANYWHERE.  Again, your "right" to limit your blog presence is irrelevant.  I'm not expressing or implying you have some sort of legal obligation to open yourself up to criticisms of what you believe.  I'm only noting the inconsistency between your willingness to post mile-long blogs criticizing anybody who disagrees with you, and your clamming up when directly challenged.  The loud-mouth at the bar sure is scary, nobody wants to fight him.   But the vibe changes when somebody challenges him and then he sits down and says bars are not the appropriate place to host a fist-fight.  Yeah right: we know what you are doing, Mrs. McGrew.  And your attempt to duck and dodge a legitimate academic challenge to beliefs you hold dear, is not the least bit convincing.  How about an atheist who talks shit about many other beliefs, but then reminds a critic that he doesn't accept challenges from others?

Gee, you'd never suspect that atheist was using his blogging "rights" as a dogshit excuse to cover up his fright, would you?

You do not come across at all as someone truly trying to find the truth, 

There is no rule of the universe that says the only type of people capable of kicking your Christian teeth out the back of your biblical skull are those who are "trying to find the truth".  I agree with your criticism of Copan/Flannagan, namely, that their thesis of "hypberbole" to get away from the divinely commanded infanticide of the OT is unconvincing.  How do you suppose I could agree with you on such a scholarly thing, given your premise that I don't come across as somebody truly trying to find the truth?

Could it be that you are wrong, and that I don't need to be "truly trying to find the truth", in order to legitimately conclude that some Christian scholars are in error?

Well gee, if my alleged immunity to the truth doesn't prohibit me from correctly recognizing other Christian scholars' errors, then this alleged attitude of mine also doesn't prohibit me from correctly recognizing YOUR errors.  Try again.

and I will not waste any further time with you. 

An excuse you would not believe for one second if it was being used by an atheist to justify ducking a direct challenge from a respectful Christian apologist.  Fuck you.

Nobody who speaks in defense of the gospel, not even an apologist, is setting himself up to spend indefinite amounts of time answering anybody with a keyboard who comes along, thumps his chest, and says, "I hereby challenge you." Go away.

That would sound most attractive to stupid apologists whose arguments and rebuttals typically evaporate after a couple of rounds.

By the way Lydia:  do you have a keyboard?  Did you come along and thump your chest with challenges to Licona?  What if Licona mostly ducked your criticisms with the excuse you used above?  Would you not be suspicious that he is throwing up a dogshit excuse to cover up the truth that he is genuinely frightened of your criticisms?

And you just reached an all time low in my book:  You tried to challenge my thesis that no church father specifies Matthew as having written a Greek Original, which might indicate, given your level of knowledge, that you know the issue is complex and cannot be decided one way or the other on the basis of a single reply...but no...you seem to think that your single reply to me constituted clear and final evisceration of my theory on this aspect of gospel authorship.  As if I had said Big Bird was the author of Matthew.

Whoever you may *think* you are, you are a bully

Your Ph. D. in English Literature makes rational my deduction that when you speak, you intend the hearer to assume you are using words according to their typical dictionary meanings where you don't otherwise qualify.  
First, the dictionary does not define bully in a way that matches my actions toward you on your blogs, which means while it is nice that you have

a :a blustering, browbeating person; especially :one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable tormented by the neighborhood bully
b :pimp

In none of my posts at your blog did I speak in a blustery way.  If you characterize my challenges to you as browbeating, then you must think apostle Paul was a bully too.  At no time was I cruel, insulting or threatening, and the rest doesn't apply because you don't see yourself as weaker, smaller or in some way vulnerable.

However, psychoanalysis of your quickness to mischaracterize me as worse than I am, might suggest that you were genuinely frightened by my challenges, meaning when you deny being afraid of my challenges, you are a prideful liar.

Second, you are a woman.  Everybody knows women get more emotional than men in general (go ahead, call me sexist, so I can ask how anything other than sexism motivated Paul to specify he was addressing women when prohibiting "malicious gossip" (1st Timothy 3:11).  Gee, where did he get the idea that among the sexes, it is the women at whom the gossip-prohibition should be specifically aimed?  Didn't Paul know that men also gossip?  Or was my generalization true, and women are typically the sex that falls prey most easily to the sin of gossip?).  The fact that you slander me with factually false claims (i.e., calling me a bully) probably links back to a prideful woman's emotions being stirred by somebody with criticisms of her faith that she cannot answer.

Third, when I come to your turf and directly challenge you to put up or shut up concerning matters that you yourself did not raise, I'm doing nothing different than apostle Paul did in Acts 17:2-3, 16-17, 18:4 and 19:8-10, which all say Paul went to synagogues and there, on the Jews' own turf, initiated aggressive debates with them about Jesus.  Nice to know that you think your own hero of the faith was likewise a "bully".

, a troll,

Again, Ph. D. in English Literature justifies the deduction that when you don't otherwise qualify your words, you are using them according to common dictionary meanings, so in this case you are slandering me, since you will not find anything I posted to your blogs that constitutes fulfillment of the dictionary definition of "troll":

a :to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
… trolls engage in the most outrageous and offensive behaviors possible—all the better to troll you with. —Whitney Phillips
b :to act as a troll (see 3troll 2) on (a forum, site, etc.)
… is also notorious, for trolling message boards on the Internet, posting offensive material he himself has written and then suing anyone who responds in agreement. —Mark Hemingway
c :to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts

All of the content I posted to your blogs was respectful and serious, at no time did I post anything that was inflammatory.  You cannot trade on the "irrelevant" definition here since you've been answering my "irrelevant" posts, and even your blog friends who responded to me began taking the conversation in new directions from the original subject you posted.  Are they "trolls" too?  If you think I posted anything offensive, then you must think Jesus and apostle Paul were trolls, because they signify nothing if they don't signify people who offend others.

If you truly felt my comments were "disruptive", you wouldn't have responded to them on the merits, as you did several times, such as when I challenged you saying no church father before Jerome testifies that Matthew wrote anything in Greek.

and a time-waster,

If you found an atheist website where a) they routinely talk about the foolish errors of Christianity, but b) they also justify ducking challenges from apologists by saying "you are a time-waster", you know perfectly fucking well you'd think they are just using a false excuse as cover for their genuine fright at possibly being likely stomped to death should they engage.
--------------

Lydia and others responded a bit more to me, and I now respond here:

Let me set out some criteria for any potential analogies. The literature must have been written 30 to 60 years after the events it describes. The events must have been considered very important at the time. Whatever happened must have a great power to inspire people. We must also have letters written 20 years or so later which provide a summary of what happened. It would also help if the literature contains some of the greatest if not the greatest moral teachings in history.
So which intertestamental literature best fits these criteria?
Posted by David Madison | November 15, 2017 1:22 AM

Hey Dave:  Lydia thinks you are a troll and time-waster because our discussion about how the OT pseudepigrapha relate to the gospel author's literary intentions goes far afield from the criticisms of Licona Lydia was making at that blog.  Be prepared to be banned.  Or did I forget that we live on an earth full of Christians who play favorites no less than politicians do?

Let me set out some criteria for any potential analogies. The literature must have been written 30 to 60 years after the events it describes. 

You are a fool if you think no analogy to the gospels can suffice unless they match historical details of the gospel realities.  My point about Intertestamental Jews expecting some of the revered OT pseudepigrapha to contain fictions, still relevantly applies to the literary world the gospel authors grew up in and wrote in.  

The events must have been considered very important at the time. 

How important were the events of Genesis 6 to the intertestamental Jews reading about how the Watchers had sex with women in 1st Enoch?

Whatever happened must have a great power to inspire people.

Jude 14-15 seems to be implicating by his unqualified use of 1st Enoch 1:9 that he figured his readers regarded that OT pseudepigrapha as normative for doctrine.  Enoch's purpose in speaking of the coming of God in judgment could have been documented from scores of other statements within the canonical OT.  His choice to go outside the canon, to establish doctrine for his Christian readership, clearly implies his belief that 1st Enoch was inspired by God.

 We must also have letters written 20 years or so later which provide a summary of what happened.

You'd have to show the John who wrote the letters was the John who wrote the gospel, before you could pretend that I need to find a similar phenomena in the OT pseudepigrapha before using them as analogy to the gospel author's literary environment.

 It would also help if the literature contains some of the greatest if not the greatest moral teachings in history.

I agree that nothing demolishes the demonic OT savagery quite like the baby-kissing Jesus of the pacifist Sermon on the Plount.

So which intertestamental literature best fits these criteria?

None, your criteria are dogshit, you still need to answer my relevant point that the gospel authors neither grew up in, nor wrote in, a literary environment where histories were expected to be limited to statements of literal historical fact.  Once again, if the environment they grew up and wrote it, was an environment where Jews were expected to gain edification from theological works who historical statements were less than perfectly accurate (OT pseudepigraph), then you go astray from historical reality when pretending that a gospel author would have expected his audience to view every single gospel sentence about history as literal truth the way Lydia McGrew does, despite her utterly useless qualification that he isn't an inerrantist.  Yeah, she just continually asserts that all those contradictions and historical falsehoods skeptics and liberals see in the bible, are capable of reasonable explanation...that's all.

I don’t think I have any more to say to Barry, but it might be worthwhile to offer a few thoughts for anyone else who might be interested. We can easily imagine a scenario in which the Resurrection was invented long after Jesus was crucified. We can also imagine that no one actually believed in the Resurrection until long after the idea first appeared in a legendary account. But that isn’t what happened. We have very good reason to think that people believed in the Resurrection at a very stage.

We also have very good reason from Mark's intentional ending at 16:8 to believe that the resurrection belief that was original, wasn't one that told of Jesus actually appearing to any of the apostles.  The fact that most NT scholars argue for Mark's intentional endinga t 16:8, despite their obvious anticipation of how this helps skeptics established the other gospels' resurrection appearance stories as embellishment, indicates those Christian scholars are admitting a truth they'd rather not admit to (i.e., the case for Mark ending at 16:8 is objective and not the result of bias or prejudice).

Because of this the sceptic has to alter his strategy.

You mean for skeptics that don't have a scholarly level knowledge of the isssues?  Maybe so, but not for me.  I've been advancing the same short-ending-of-Mark attack on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection for about 10 years now. I have to change my strategy about as much as you have to change your god.

 He must now argue that the Gospels misrepresent what really happened and this will probably involve accusations of deliberate fraud.

Correct:  the original resurrection believe was not "Jesus appeared to us" but "an anonymous person told some women at the tomb that Jesus wasn't there because he had risen".  The later gospels only supply the resurrection appearances Mark is lacking, because they are reflecting embellishments to the tradition which began to creep in after Mark completed his gospel.

 But notice that we are now in a completely different ball game. Imagine how much easier life would be for the sceptic if there was no reason to think that anyone believed in the Resurrection until long after the legend was invented and if the legend itself was invented long after the alleged event.

I don't see your point.  Think of how much easier life would be for Christians if the bible didn't testify to God's imperfections as it does in Genesis 6:6-7 and Exodus 32:9-14.  Without those texts in the bible, the speculations of Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig (such as "could an infinitely wise God have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil?") would probably send skeptics running for the hills.  But as it is, the better question is whether Exodus 32:9-14 shows that God has, at least once, learned from a sinner than his rushing to fierce wrathful judgment was morally wrong.

Certainly, sceptics can claim that the Gospel writers were practising deliberate fraud. Perhaps the fraud was so cunning that Matthew actually invented the accusation that the disciples stole the body just to make the false claim of an empty tomb look more plausible.

Given the serious historical problems and implausibilities of the idea that Jesus was buried in a tomb, yes, it appears Matthew felt free to invent crap.  Benny Hinn has lied about every healing he has done, most of which were done not only in the presence of thousands of eyewitnesses, but were also filmed and played for the entire world to see through TBN and other broadcasters.  Do you have the slightest trust that maybe some of those healings were real and genuinely supernatural?  No.  Or do I think more highly of you than I ought?

 But, again, imagine how much easier life would be for the sceptic if Matthew had just been writing an entertaining mix of history and fiction. Posted by David Madison | November 15, 2017 5:30 AM

You aren't making sense.  I have no worries, and firmly believe Matthew's gospel is a mixture of truth and fiction.  Perhaps you only intended your comments as edification for those who already believe the way you do?

I didn't expect to see this avalanche. 

Probably because you spend more time reading "they are without excuse" in the bible, than in noticing the serious academic challenges that atheists often present Christian scholars with.

I'm surprised he didn't electronically slap you with a leather glove when announcing his 'hereby' challenging you to a dual in New Testament history!

That was my rather direct way of telling Lydia to put up or shut up.  But to put your mind at ease, no:  if she had accepted my challenge, this would not have involved our walking 10 paces, turning back and firing pistols at each other.

It's not hard to see you are in the middle of a series addressing a specific topic.

It's also not hard to see that Lydia uses her blog to justify her violation of 1st Cor. 11:1

 Barry sounds like he has had a fair few debates on the internet and must know how many rabbit holes this topic can produce. You'd think his experience would give him some tact.

I don't recall ever posting anything at Lydia's blogs that lacked tactfulness.  Lydia admitted that other apologist blogger allow off-topic comment, so Lydia is irrational to expect me to have somehow "noticed" that in spite of her replying to the merits of my allegedly off-topic posts, she doesn't allow off-topic posts.

----------------------

Here is Lydia's latest tirade against me:

Barry won't be joining us anymore. He had been attempting to fill my comments threads at my personal blog with comments that ranged from relevant to pointlessly unpleasant. (A sarcastic suggestion on an old post where I recommended a modest clothing site that Christian women on my view ought to wear burkas.) 

No, you lying bitch, I wasn't trying to "fill" your comments threads, I relevantly replied in a single post that Christian women wearing full burkas would constitute a greater fulfillment of their duty to not incite the lust of men, a subject rather relevant to your initiating blog piece about how Christian woman should dress.

Sometimes bizarre (asking whether I believed that Christian scholars with whom I disagree are not saved, for if I think they are really saved, I should think that perhaps they are right and I am wrong!). Etc. 

Well excuse me for assuming that your full trust in apostle Paul, means you imitate his tendency to call into question the salvation of any other Christian leader who disagrees with him.  Gal. 1:8-9.

Most of these I didn't publish, since I have moderation enabled there. Some were close enough to relevance that I published and answered them. He then found W4 where moderation is not enabled and began filling my threads here with general debates about Christianity, couched in the style of demand that you see. After he replied with defiance to several warnings, I banned him. We don't have comment-by-comment moderation here, but we do have banning, though we try not to use it unnecessarily. I'm very pleased to have done so,

And stupid atheists who talk shit about Christianity but couldn't tell homoousios from housetop, are also pleased with how the banning function facilitates their creation of a happy online bubble-world where nothing that might disturb their happy equilibrium may enter.  

 especially as I deeply doubt that taking up his "challenge" would have been at all likely to be effective for his change of mind or salvation.

And I'm sure the Jews in the synagogues who threw Paul out, probably also similarly reasoned that taking up Paul's challenge about Jesus as Christ wouldn't have been at all likely to be effective for converting him back to orthodox Judaism.  But we know bullshit excuses when we see them, don't we.

"However, I am prepared to cross swords with N.T. Wright..."
 I haven't paid too much attention to this exchange, but that one made me laugh. 

Posted by Nice Marmot | November 16, 2017 10:29 AM

Once wonders whether Licona similarly laughed when reading Lydia's criticisms.  

"I'm very pleased to have done so" made me laugh more than it should have. On the effectiveness of taking him up on his challenge, I note that he mentioned anti supernatural presuppositions. Couple that with the impression he gave me that he needs to respond to absolutely ever sentence for 'debate points' and it's a safe bet debates on the historicity of the resurrection or general reliability of the Gospels will quickly run into Hume and the whole field of natural theology!
Posted by Callum | November 16, 2017 10:49 AM

Are you just incapable of anything remotely approaching insight?  Yes, I have anti-supernatural presuppositions, which form some of the reason I deny that the Bermuda Triangle is a gateway to the 4th dimension.  And YOU have anti-naturalist assumptions.  So?

If I wouldn't have responded to every sentence, that would leave open the possibility for you people, who already falsely accused me of abysmal ignorance, of further saying that I was "ignoring" some point you had to make.  But your complaint about my thoroughness gave me a laugh.  Ditto for your unjustified leap that I reply in point by point fashion solely for scoring "debate points".

And you are wrong about what the debate would have turned into.  I do not use anything from Hume or natural theology to dispute the resurrection of Jesus.  I simply show that the case for the resurrection of Jesus fails standard tests of historiography.  Now go give your mommy Lydia a hug for how nice she was in getting rid of that guy that could have handed your ass to you in any debate.

 -------------

Lydia responded to me at another blog, here's the context, and I reply point by point:

Mrs. McGrew,
What is your advice to atheists who argue that the ceaseless disagreements between even conservative Christian scholars on what the NT says and means, rationally warrant an unbeliever to conclude that those issues really aren't capable of reasonably certain resolution, and to therefore refrain from investigating them?

Seems to me that W.L.Craig's disagreement with Copan/Flannagan on whether the bible portrays God as commanding infanticide, including your own claim that you hope to find out, after you get to heaven, what those passages really mean, rationally warrants the unbeliever in characterizing the whole business as too convoluted to deserve investigation.

Seems to me that with scholars like you and James White disagreeing so much with Licona on his conclusions and methodology on gospel differences, this rationally warrants the unbeliever in characterizing the whole Christian theodicy business as too convoluted to deserve investigation.

Seems to me that Norman Geisler's disagreement with Licona about inerrancy and apologetics methodology, rationally warrants the unbeliever in characterizing the whole business as too convoluted to deserve investigation.

Seems to me that if Geisler and Harris can disagree with each other about whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead (JETS 33/3 (September 1990) 379-382), with Beckwith weighing in and being "overwhelmed and impressed by Harris' scholarship" (JETS 33/3 (September 1990) 369-373), this rationally warrants the unbeliever in characterizing the whole business as too convoluted to deserve investigation.

Seems to me that the series "Counterpoints", in having Christian scholars debate each other on numerous topics from hell to historical Adam to apologetics methodology, rationally warrants the unbeliever in characterizing those biblical and philosophical subjects as being too convoluted to deserve investigation.

If you are aware that spiritually alive people cannot resolve these matters, then must you not conclude that spiritually dead people are only going to fare worse if they dare enter the fray (i.e., isn't it irrational to classify spiritually dead people as 'unreasonable' for their refusal to investigate biblical matters)?

Posted by barry | November 14, 2017 4:31 PM

(Lydia responded)
Being spiritually alive has zilch to do with it.

Which is precisely why you are a fake Christian.  The bible is rather clear that one's spiritual deadness is precisely why they reason incorrectly and consider the gospel foolishness (1st Cor. 2:14).

 I'm an epistemologist and a professional philosopher.

You didn't list the most important attribute you have:  you think you are born again.  SO you must think the attributes you listed have greater relevance to this debate than your spiritual life in Christ.

 I'm all about the arguments.

Correction, you are all about certain limited arguments.  You are NOT about meeting any bible critic in neutral territory to defend that Paul said is the foundational doctrine, the resurrection of Jesus.

 I don't think the Holy Spirit is zapping either me or Mike Licona, especially not in our understanding of Plutarch, for heaven's sake.

Well gee, no atheist would ever confront you with such a stupid challenge, but there is a legitimate question as to whether you think the Holy Spirit is zapping you when you do your bible studies.

So you must think Paul got it wrong when he said:

 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. (1 Cor. 2:13 NAU)

 It would be absurd to suppose that I'm calling any other Christian's relationship with Jesus or eternal destiny into account by disagreeing on these matters. We have to do the hard work of following the arguments and making up our own minds, which is an attitude one would think a skeptic would welcome.

Your fear of crediting the Holy Spirit with any of your spiritual conclusions is noted, but is still unbiblical.

 I've laid out arguments (in this post, concerning Plutarch, in case you didn't notice). If you're actually interested in the subject I'm discussing, rather than in spamming my comments threads with other topics, I suggest that you read and study the arguments and see who you think has the better of the argument.

No thanks, I might die on my way to the library to look up something you said about Plutarch, and end up in hell.  Whereas if I pay more attention to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, then if there be any truth to it, I will increase the odds I'll notice it, accept it, become a Christian, and avoid the risk of hell.  You might want to work on your utter apathy toward the salvation of the lost.

 But I honestly doubt that you have much interest in the differences of opinion between myself and Licona on these points, as your many comments virtually admitting as much and attempted topic shifts have shown. I suggest you stop it. We do have a banning mechanism.
Posted by Lydia | November 14, 2017 5:15 PM

It doesn't get any richer than this:  I want to discuss the one fact of history you think is the most important fact that any atheist could possibly be confronted with, the resurrection of Jesus, which Paul says makes or breaks Christianity (1st Cor. 15:17), and you, a conservative Christian, threaten to ban me if I don't drop the issues related to the most important Christian doctrine and agree to start prioritizing far less important matters?

I think Paul prohibited women from being teachers with good reason.  You end up prioritizing the irrelevant and prohibited "word-wrangling" (2nd Tim. 2:14) far more than you prioritize the more important aspects of your beliefs.  Jesus upbraided the Pharisees for prioritizing stupid shit like tithing of mint over the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23).

--------------

Lydia engaged me on my challenge that despite early fathers' willingness to tell the reader the language Matthew wrote in, and naming it as "Hebrew", they significantly never specify that he wrote in "Greek", an attack upon conservative scholars who think canonical Greek Matthew ultimately originated with Matthew.

But despite my posting of a reply, she deleted it and allows her reply to stand as if her reply sent me running scared.  So I answer her reply here:

barry said...

"Moo criticizes Gundry for making assertions without arguing, for arguing circularly, for not taking seriously the possibility that Matthew was writing about events slightly differently because he was an eyewitness..."
---------one reason i don't take seriously the possibility that Matthew's author was an eyewitness (that is, not after I did my own extensive analysis of the sources, though I still answer apologetics arguments on the merits)) is because of the majority Christian scholarly opinion, confirmed true by my own investigations, that the author borrowed extensively from Mark.
 Assuming as true that Mark is the earliest gospel, and that it is used extensively by Matthew's author (two theories most Christian scholars hold to)...
 ...then it doesn't matter if you can come up with a hypothetical scenario in which a eyewitness chose to use a non-eyewitness source to tell the world about events that the eyewitness saw and heard first-hand....eyewitnesses don't normally do that, so unless a Christian can show Matthew was an exception to the normal way of doing things, then the normal way (i.e., people who have first-hand knowledge do not rely as extensively on second-hand reports of same as Matthew did) will have greater plausibility (i.e., an eyewitness did not author Matthew).
 Matthew's authorship is unlikely for several reasons Christians cannot easily dismiss, not the least being that
 all church fathers agree he wrote in Hebrew letters,
 NONE of them express or imply he ever wrote in Greek despite their interest in telling the reader which language he wrote in,
 Jerome bluntly asserted that a) an unknown person was responsible for Greek edition of Matthew, and b) that person created that edition by translating Hebrew Matthew into Greek (Lives of Illustrious Men),
 All church fathers are agreed Matthew intended to address "Jews", so that's another reason to believe he'd have found Aramaic or Hebrew sufficient to facilitate his intent.
 and finally, most Christian scholars deny that canonical Greek Matthew reads like "translation Greek".
 Those who declare anonymous authorship have far more historical support, than conservative who argue from silence that because Matthew could have, he likely did, create a second original in Greek. The early fathers, intent to tell the reader the language Matthew wrote in, would more than likely have mentioned this Matthean Greek had they believed Matthew ever created such a thing.
 11/11/2017 8:32 PM

Lydia McGrew said...
While Markan priority and Matthean literary dependence on Mark is certainly the majority view, it is not a knock-down.

That is a false start:  Why are you saying it isn't a knock-down?   "Knock-down" is not required in order to be reasonably and rationally justified to hold a theory about an historical matter.  As somebody as obviously familiar with issues of historiography as you are, you surely realize that you don't stay afloat in a debate merely because you can correctly point out that you opponent's theory didn't knock yours out of the ball park.  If your opponent's theory has greater probability of being correct than yours, your problem of losing the debate would exist despite the fact that the greater probability didn't constitute knocking your theory down.

It's important to remember that when one starts questioning Matthean authorship (which is supported by evidence of its own)

I'm sure your Christian bloggers appreciate that edifying comment.

by treating Matthean literary dependence on Mark as having unassailable status.

I don't treat Markan priority as unassailable.  I treat it as the theory that has greater probability of correctly explaining the literary relationship to Matthew, than the theory of Matthean priority.  Again, yo don't stay afloat in a debate, in sight of your opponent offering a plausible theory, by noting that such theory wasn't unassailable.  The person who wins the Synoptic Problem debate is the person whose theory proves to be the most plausible.

I don't camp on Matthean priority either, but it deserves more credit than it gets in "the majority of scholarly circles," etc.

How much time do you recommend an unbeliever spend researching such scholarly failings, before you'll agree they've studied enough to justify drawing conclusions about the matter?  Or do your views about God giving second chances to some unbelievers, dissuade you from caring about such things?

Matthew's dependence on Mark is by no means so unshakably established that it can bear the weight of being treated as somehow contradicting Matthean authorship.

I can buy that an eyewitness MIGHT use a bit of hearsay to document his own version of events.  But about 80% is Matthew is merely his quoting of Mark.  Some would say the extreme degree to which Matthew's author relies on Mark's second-hand account, makes it more likely Matthew's author did not have any first-hand eyewitness memories of his own about those events.  Your burden would be to show that eyewitness authors around the time of the first century sometimes made as extensive use of second-hand for events they witnessed, as Matthew made use of Mark.  And you won't be doing that anytime within the next 10 or so collapse/expansion cycles of the universe.

Wenham's discussion here is highly useful. It's surprising how many of the arguments for Markan priority could just as easily be turned on their heads as arguments for Matthean priority. Many scholars have seemed unable to distinguish arguments for Markan priority from arguments for Matthean-or-Markan priority.

Yes, some Markan priority arguments can backfire, but some of the more weighty ones don't. 

1 - If Mark drew upon Matthew, how plausible is it that he would have knowingly "chose to exclude" the part about Jesus being born of a virgin, when, under your theory of Matthean priority, Mark was willing to copy less theologically significant stories from Matthew, such as how Jesus called the disciples to service (1:16 ff)?  Doesn't it stand to reason that if Mark is going to be repeating things form earlier Matthew, he'd be more likely to repeat the most theologically significant stuff?  This is even more powerful if you accept the patristic evidence that Mark wrote for new Christians of Rome, where Peter allegedly originally preached, since the Romans had their own stories of men who became divine, such as Romulus.  Not likely at all that Mark would believe Jesus was truly born of a virgin, but "chose to exclude" this from a Roman audience. Furthermore, the virgin birth story certainly supports Mark's portrait of Jesus as Son of God.

2 - If Mark drew upon Matthew, doesn't that negate the unanimous external witness that names no other source for Mark except Peter?  If conservative scholars can be reasonable to balk at skeptics and liberals for maintaining Markan priority in the face of unanimous patristic evidence that Matthew was written first, then we skeptics can be reasonable to balk at the conservatives for naming Matthew as one of Mark's sources, when the patristic evidence not only never says Matthew was such a source, but names only the preaching of Peter, and Mark's own memory of it, as Mark's source.  The close literary parallels between Matthew and Mark not only demand a literary interdependence, but require scholars like you to explain how likely it is that Peter's oral statements about Jesus' words and actions just happen to have been expressed in ways nearly identical to the way Matthew describes the same words and actions of Jesus.

3 - If Mark drew upon Matthew, how plausible is it that he would have knowingly "chose to exclude" the part about the Sermon on the Mount?  Sure, there's lots of Jewish stuff in there, likely not of much use to Romans, but there's also lots of stuff that applies to all Christians in general, such as the beatitudes, and how to pray, and nearly everything in Matthew 7. 

If Matthew did depend to some degree on Mark, this scarcely constitutes an argument that he was not an eyewitness. Indeed, authors such as Gundry and many others want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to treat Matthew as wholly dependent on Mark for anything *true* in his gospel, thus treating him (functionally) as not an eyewitness. On the other hand, they want to note many *differences* between Matthew's wording, emphases, and versions of the stories and then treat these as evidence that Matthew fictionalized! But the fact that Matthew diverges from Mark in so many ways could better be explained by his actually having his own memories of the events.

So far you are only proposing a possibility.  But there is a counter possibility:  Matthew diverges from Mark's version, because he wishes to white wash history and make it more difficult for gainsayers to prove their points.  For example, the well known problem of Mark asserting Jesus "could" not do many miracles because of the unbelief of others, and Matthew's parallel which changes it to "did" not do many miracles, so that Matthew's change just happens to make it more difficult for skeptics to attack the alleged omnipotence of Jesus:

 4 Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household."
 5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. (Mk. 6:4-5 NAU)

 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."
 58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. (Matt. 13:57-58 NAU)

Most scholars find the following argument nearly unassailable:  If this literary parallel is explained as a case of Mark borrowing text from earlier Matthew, how likely is it that Mark would change Matthew's far more omnipotence-friendly "did not", to something that looks like an attack on Jesus' omnipotence: "could not"?
The general rule is that the scribe doing the copying does not create the more difficult reading, but creates the one that is more theologically acceptable and smoother, and the more difficult reading is likely the earlier one.

This possibility is left out of account, so that the divergences are noted but treated as evidence of Matthew's unreliability!

I don't see the problem.  If Mark was earliest and really did originally write that Jesus "could not" do many miracles, then Matthew's changing it to "did not" doesn't sound like he's making the change because he was there to witness the event, but he is making the change for purely theological reasons (i.e., making it more difficult for skeptics to attack Jesus was more important to Matthew than was the accuracy of Mark's description).

That is argumentatively illicit. For example, the fact that Matthew has slightly different versions of what was said in various stories need not at all indicate some sort of fact-free literary adaptation of Mark but could indicate a somewhat varying memory, just as we often find in truthful eyewitnesses.

Again, you are only arguing possibilities.  Matthew's changing "could not" to "did not" doesn't sound like a change motivated by his actually having witnessed the event described.  It sounds like he is changing one single word in order to make Jesus' omnipotence that much harder for skeptics to attack.  And if Matthew wrote for Jews, he'd know they'd be likely to pounce on the "could not" and say "aha...Jesus couldn't be the divine son of God because his miracle-hands were tied by unbelief of others".

My own book on undesigned coincidences shows a number of places where Matthew's unique material is confirmed by coincidences with other gospels. This sometimes occurs even in places where Matthew's version of the story in other respects is much like Mark's.

Guess I'll have to wait on that till I can get it through the library.

If Mark in fact wrote first, it isn't all that surprising that Matthew would use his gospel to some degree so that he didn't have to "reinvent the wheel" at every point.

Well it should be surprising.  John has nearly no literary parallels with the Synoptics, so there's a legitimate defeater to your idea that a gospel author would wish to reinvent the wheel.  Especially in light of Clement of Alexandria's specification that John already knew the Synoptics gave the "external facts", and instead of repeating them, chose to write a "spiritual" gospel.

I can easily imagine myself doing such a thing even for events I witnessed myself, though nowadays we would, of course, have different conventions as far as citation, avoiding concerns of plagiarism, obtaining permission, etc.

Please give a couple of examples where you believe you would a) be an eyewitness to an event, but also b) choose to incorporate as much second-hand material in "your" report of the event, as Matthew did when incorporated Mark (i.e., Matthew uses about 80% of Mark).  Again, while i don't deny that an eyewitness might do something like this on a much less extreme scale, Matthew's use of Mark is very extensive, and it is precisely this extensive use of second-hand reporting, that is what we justifiably do not expect those with their own eyewitness memories to do.  If you saw a car crash, then wrote about it later in a letter to a friend, would you phrase your version in the words that had been chosen by a non-eyewitness who wrote about the event?  Come on.

 11/12/2017 4:36 PM
Lydia McGrew said...
"NONE of them express or imply he ever wrote in Greek despite their interest in telling the reader which language he wrote in"
 That's actually not correct. Tertullian, for example, in Against Marcion refers to the widespread knowledge of a gospel which is overwhelmingly likely to be the Greek version (since a Hebrew version was never widely used) and attributes it to Matthew as the author.

That's actually not correct.  First, Tertullian's using a Greek form of Matthew, doesn't argue that Matthew authored a Greek original.  Today, despite knowing Matthew didn't write in English, we still refer to the English gospel of Matthew and said it was written by Matthew.  What we mean is that Matthew was the author of the source material from which the English is derived.  Seems likely therefore that when Tertullian attributes his likely Greek version of Matthew to Matthew, he isn't formally asserted that Matthew created a Greek original, but only saying Matthew is responsible for the source material that was the basis for the Greek version now available to Tertullian.

Second, one reasonable interpretation of Papias' infamously terse comment is that after Matthew wrote the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language, other people "translated" them as best they could.  The part about their attempt to do the best they could, sounds more like "trying to translate", not trying to interpret, since translating Aramaic would naturally have been difficult for most people, who were not bilingual, especially given that Aramaic wasn't a language popular outside Jewish circles anyway, while it hardly makes sense to say that anything in Matthew is something Matt's contemporaries would find "hard to interpret".

Third, a check of your references yields 4 times Tertullian in his Against Marcion refers to Matthew:

We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfill the law and the prophets.

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, ch. 2

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage - I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew - whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters.

Id, Book 4, ch. 5.

For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband.

Id, book 4, ch. 34

The very amount and the destination of the money, which on Judas’ remorse was recalled from its first purpose of a fee, and appropriated to the purchase of a potter’s field, as narrated in the Gospel of Matthew, were clearly foretold by Jeremiah: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued, and gave them for the potter’s field.”

Id, book 4, ch. 40

It appears that Tertullian's comment most specific to your cite is either 4:2 or 4:5.  But again, Tertullian here clealry isn't doing all which I claim the other fathers did, and formally specify the language Matthew wrote in.  His using a Greek Matthew and then saying Matthew wrote it, without more, likely doesn't mean anything more than what we mean when we hold up an English translation of Matthew and assert that Matthew was the author.  We expect the audience to know that we don't literally mean Matthew wrote in English!

Later writers such as Epiphanius and Augustine also quote from the Greek Matthew and attribute it to Matthew.

What you aren't acknowledging, when you clearly should have, was that the statements by Augustine and Epiphanius that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew letters, outweighs your inferential argument that they sued a Greek language version of Matthew and attributed it to Matthew:

"Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek."Harmony of the Gospels, Book 1, ch. 4, Schaff, P. (2000). The Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

I also don't know why mention Epiphanius, since he specified, as if he were responding to arguments to the contrary, that "it is true" that the Matthew was the only NT author to write in the Hebrew language:

"They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, “According to the Hebrews,” and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet in the New Testament."   Panarion, 30:3,7 

Lydia continues:

In any event, the Greek version of Matthew *exists* and is therefore a phenomenon that must be explained!

In light of the fact that every church father who specifies the language Matthew wrote it, says it was Hebrew, the Greek language version used by the fathers was likely either a) someone having not merely translated, but converted Hebrew Matthew into Greek for church use, or b) translated Hebrew Matthew into Greek.

It is fairly irresponsible to conclude on the basis of an argument from silence that Matthew must never have written in Greek, as that leaves the gospel's existence in Greek unexplained.

But I don't leave the Greek version unexplained, and arguments from silence are more powerful where, like mine, the person doing the testifying would not be expected to be silent, had they known about the thing they are silent on.  Again, it is highly unlikely that the church fathers who mention Matthew's written language, are only specifying Hebrew and consciously choosing to avoid mentioning that second original in Greek they believe Matthew also authored.  It's more likely that because the fathers who want to tell us what language Matthew wrote it, only say it was Hebrew, that they mention only Hebrew, because they had no knowledge that Matthew wrote a second original in Greek.

The Greek version was given an authority from its earliest existence that is best explained by its having an apostolic origin.

No, it gained authority because most people in the church after Matthew's time didn't speak Hebrew, hence, creating a Greek edition or translation was necessary to serve the church's gentile interests.  You will say Matthew would surely have recognized this and created a second original in Greek, but while that isn't impossible, you still cannot show your explanation for the patristic witness to solely "Hebrew" for Matthew's original written language, is better than mine.

The early Christians didn't just give any old book that kind of prestige on the basis of some kind of subjective feeling about it!

Agreed, Matthew's Hebrew was utterly useless to the church that after the 1st century became far more Gentile than Jew.  

Authorship was important to them.

So was the books ability to edify the church, the reason Eusebius says non-canonical 2nd Peter is nevertheless used:

Church History, Book 3, ch. 3
The Epistles of the Apostles
One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.

Lydia continues:

Nor (Hengel is good on this) do we have reason to believe that the Gospels ever circulated anonymously *in the relevant sense*--that is, without titles ascribing them to their authors.

Dan Wallace, while finding Matthean authorship tradition reliable, disagrees and says the titles were not part of the autograph, but added later on the basis of tradition:

The titles of NT books were not part of the autograph, but were added later on the basis of tradition. Still, the tradition in this case is universal: every MS which contains Matthew has some sort of ascription to Matthew.1 Some scholars suggest that this title was added as early as 125 CE.2 The fact that every inscription to this gospel affirms that Matthew was the author coupled with the fact that nowhere does the author identify himself makes the tradition quite strong, but still short of proof.

Indeed, the earliest patristic statments on gospel authorship imply Matthew originally circulated anonymously: why specify that Matthew was the author of a gospel, if the fact was not in controversy?  

Ehrman's use of "anonymous" in this context is grossly misleading. I have written about that point elsewhere.

You don't provide a link or reference, so I cannot evaluate your criticisms of Ehrman.

"and finally, most Christian scholars deny that canonical Greek Matthew reads like "translation Greek"." Which simply means that it isn't a wooden translation. Actually, writing two versions in different languages is something that bilingual authors have done for many years.  At the time of the Reformation it was a known thing for authors to write separate versions of their documents both in Latin and in some vernacular such as German or Dutch. The compositions would have been separate and would have contained some differences of wording. One would not have been a wooden translation of the other. But that does not mean that they were not in a significant sense a version of the same thing.

I think we are beyond this kind of trifle.  Again, you here use mere possibilities (Matthew as bilingual can produce a gospel in Hebrew and Greek, despite serious problems with saying Matthew was a tax-collector), when in fact the weight of the patristic evidence strongly favors his authoring only a Hebrew version.

Btw, notice here that I, the blog author, had to split my comment due to the character limit. So please, no whining about that (which I've noticed, possibly in one of your more trollish comments that I didn't publish--I can't recall) as though it's some kind of plot to stifle dissent. It's set by blogger, and I have no control over it.

No worries, your stifling of respectful dissent has been previously documented, supra.

Lydia McGrew's violation of New Testament ethics

Jesus taught that slanders come from an evil heart:

 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."    (Matt. 15:19-20 NAU)

Apostle Paul required Christians to be patient with those who are in error:

 24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.    (2 Tim. 2:24-26 NAU)

Lydia's god would probably think her violation of these NT ethics outweighs her scholarly credentials or arguments.

In my first communication to Lydia, I used a normal respectful tone:

barry said...

Hello Lydia,

"I'm a homemaker and homeschooling mom living in the Midwest. I also write analytic philosophy articles."

----------then unless I'm uneducated in this, there's about two other people in the world that are like you. I never thought I'd actually meet a homemaking housewife who was into philosophy. I was surprised as the level of thought you put into the Copan/Flannagan thesis on biblical genocide.

"As for real-world atrocities, God permits them but does not command them."

--------How do you answer the slew of bible passages where God is often not just commanding such things, but forcing people to kill and other sins?

Ezekiel 38-39, God will bring future pagan armies against Israel, in 38:4, the metaphor "hook in your jaws" brings to the minds of the originally intended hearers the ancient farming practice of forcing an animal to go in a direction it doesn't want to go, by putting a hook in its jaws (or gaffing a fish to force it into the boat). That is, a biblical prophet has characterized God's sovereignty over the human will in what appears to be a hyperCalvinist way.

Deuteronomy 32:39, God takes responsibility for all murder.

2nd Samuel 12:15-18, the Lord "struck" the child born to David/Bathsheba, it was very sick, then later it died.

Deuteronomy 28:15-63, God will bring unspeakable horrors on his people if they disobey. Worse, in v. 63, he will "delight" as much to do this, as he "delights" to bring prosperity on those who obey him. I can buy that God can be willing to "discipline" his disobedient people and for this to be consistent with his all-goodness, but to take "delight" to cause rape (v. 30), that's a whole 'nother ball of earwax.

Isaiah 45:7...even assuming the better translation is not "evil", but "calamity", God is still claiming to be the cause of "calamity" which is presented in the verse as the opposite of peace, and the opposite of peace would be war, famine, rape, murder, i.e., the very "evil" that modern translators are trying to avoid by rendering it as "calamity".

Jeremiah 15:1-6, God will "appoint" slaying-by-sword/beasts to devour, over Israel for their disobedience (here's a curious thought...if God chose to delay manifesting himself to Israel until the 20th century, would these kinds of bible verse say God appointed GUNS over Israel, to shoot them?

Hosea 13:16, God will cause Samaria to both fall by the sword, and cause her pregnant women to be "ripped up", because Samaria hath sinned.

Can we infer that when early church fathers characterize Marcion as a fool (who said the god of the OT was really just a demon), they were wrong?

"The idea of saying that baby boys deserve to be "executed" because otherwise it is probable that they will grow up to be evil is itself pretty wicked."

-----------It also contradicts a slew of bible passages about not only God's sovereign ability to turn the hearts of the wicked, but about how Hebrews should be confident their kids will remain in the Lord if they raise them in the Lord.

Since bible inerrancy never had any respectable level of probable truth in the first place, and since nowhere does the NT express or imply that one must harbor any certain view of inerrancy, I don't see any harm in a Christian excising from the bible those passages which he or she think do not harmonize with Jesus' ultimate teaching about love. And that would include possible excision of words of Jesus where he supported infliction of horrible fates on people.

 Barry

 2/28/2017 5:20 PM 

In my second communication with Lydia, I asked about the moral contradiction within the Christian who a) thinks a literal hell is an ever-present reality for unbelievers who could die at any moment, and yet b) asks unbelievers to take some time to investigate gospel matters.

barry said...

I was just wondering:

You mention Christian disagreement about the nature of hell. 

If it is at least possible that the literal fire and smoke eternal conscious torment version of hell is the one that is real, and if it is true that the unbeliever researching the nature of hell and Jesus' resurrection could die at any moment, then...

...doesn't this counsel against McGrew and other Christians telling unbelievers to take the time to examine Christian claims? 

The way the bible puts things, you could die in a car wreck somewhere between Lydia's gospel lecture and your attempt to locate the nearest library to follower her advice to study the gospel more.

And yet the bible nowhere expresses or implies how the unbeliever is supposed to balance the obvious need to avoid picking the wrong gospel, with the obvious urgency to get saved and quash the risk of hell as soon as possible. 

Lydia, if you believe the literal fire interpretation of hell could possibly be correct, I'd like to ask you: do you ever tell unbelievers to take the time to examine Christianity? If so, doesn't the threat of hell represent such an unspeakably infinite risk, that actually getting saved ASAP is more important than taking time to investigate? We don't take time to investigate when the police tell us to move away from a bomb that might explode at any moment...do we? 

What would you think of an atheist mother with no parenting issues, who became so worried about the possibility of hell being real, that she considered her job, kids and husband as mere distractions, and so gave up custody of the kid, divorced the husband, quit her job, and just sat in a local library all day long for years, researching the conflicting claims of Christian scholars on the person and nature of Jesus, visiting local church pastors, and not being very successful given that she isn't a bible scholar?

Would you praise her for doing what makes biblical sense (Matthew 19:29)?

Or would you condemn her for violating common sense (i.e., abandoning her family due to religious fanaticism)?    11/07/2017 8:40 PM  

In her first reply, she accused me of a) being a troll and b) having better things to spend my time on:

 Lydia McGrew said...

God is a) outside of time, b) not willing that any should perish, c) all-just, and d) all-powerful. If a person who does not presently know Christ seeks Christ and seeks the truth, he will find the truth. Just exactly how this works out it isn't my business to predict. God might miraculously preserve the person's life as he seeks here on earth. God might give a truly sincere seeker who wishes to know if God is real *and is prepared to submit to him* a second chance after death. God might send someone to the person. And so forth. Of course none of this means that a person should do intrinsically wrong things such as divorcing an innocent spouse (which Jesus himself commanded against), etc., in order to spend more time investigating Christianity. Nor is this necessary. Nor is that what that verse means. Virtually any non-believer has some opportunity in his life to ponder, to think, to pray ("God, if you are real," etc.), and, in our society, to investigate. Such a person might use the time that he's spending trolling Christian bloggers and asking them silly, hyperbolic questions, for example, and use that time instead seriously to investigate the evidence for Christianity. Most people have hobbies. Finding out if Christianity is true isn't more important than loving one's spouse and children, but it is more important than golf, TV, Facebook, etc., etc.

As for urging a person to "get saved ASAP" no matter what his actual state of mind, his heart, and his questions, of course I do not do that because "getting saved" is not some magic formula but a true request, made to a person (God, through his Son Jesus Christ), for a relationship with him and for forgiveness of sins. God would know if the person were faking it. I'm not going to urge someone to say a prayer like nailing a horseshoe over his door even though he doesn't believe in it. That would be pointless superstition and have no theological value or power to save. Which is what any moderately well-informed, intelligent Christian who knows a modicum of Christian theology should say, which makes the question quite pointless.

In short, I won't indefinitely answer such things, as both my time *and yours* could be better used.

11/08/2017 9:07 AM

I made a direct reply to another post of hers:

I don't understand why Lydia thinks Rabshakeh's taunt is some type of undesigned coincidence.

Lydia frames the questions as follows:

-----

This is very strange. Sure, it's a trash-talking Assyrian envoy. He could easily be telling lies. But why would he think the people would be susceptible to the claim that Hezekiah has angered Yahweh by taking away the high places and requiring them to worship in Jerusalem?...One might easily conclude, and not only from this passage, that the high places were only places of pagan worship. The people might not have been happy about Hezekiah's breaking them up, but they would not be likely to believe that Yahweh would be upset about it--Yahweh who had commanded again and again against idolatry. Why would the envoy even try such a claim?

-----------

Yes, they WOULD likely believe that Yahweh would be upset about Hezekiah's monotheism-inspired reform:

Immediately prior to Hezekiah's reign, the Hebrews tolerated worshiping Yahweh alongside other gods, see 2nd Kings 17. If then the Hebrews were tolerant of polytheism at the start of Hezekiah's reform, they would likely have interpreted Assyria's later dominance over Hezekiah as a sign that Yahweh was angered at Hezekiah's destruction of what were believed to be places of legitimately syncretist worship.

Sennacherib likely would have known the Hebrews under Hezekiah were other than strict monotheists, therefore, he would have reason to believe they'd automatically assume that if Hezekiah were defeated by Assyrians, then surely Yahweh had given this pagan army such a victory, and only because Hezekiah must have done something to anger Yahweh. Since they viewed polygamy as consistent with Yahweh worship, they'd have felt Yahweh was also satisfied with the syncretist worship occuring on the high-places, so that his wrath would come upon anybody tearing them down...such as Hezekiah.

Further, it appears that the Hebrews also gave in to the standard ANE view that whenever disaster strikes, somebody surely must have made a god mad. Deut. 28:15-63, Isaiah 13:15-16, Hosea 13:15-16. Sennacherib surely would have detected such attitude, and therefore taunted Hezekiah as he did, thinking the average Hebrew would take Hezekiah's losing the battle as a sign that Hezekiah's reforms angered the polytheism-promoting Yahweh.

So while I don't see much reason to accuse the Kings-author of making up a fictional speech from the Assyrian king, I don't think Lydia has shown how her "undesigned coincidence" argument has rendered the fictional-speech theory any less likely than the literal historicity theory. I am an atheist and a skeptic of bible inerrancy, there's nothing here that disturbs my views in the least. I don't join ranks with immature idiot skeptics less intent on scholarship and more intent on bible-bashing mania, but it appears the latter are the only type of skeptics Lydia was refuting.

If Lydia wishes to combat careful skeptics like myself, who stick to the academic matters, she might wish to explain why conservative inerrantist commentators have been turning themselves inside out trying, unsuccessfully, for centuries, to source the "great wrath" that came against Israel (2nd Kings 3:27) in something, anything, other than the wrath of a Moabite idol.

The issue is not whether the idol was a real god. It obviously wasn't.

The issue is whether the biblical author responsible for that story was a henotheist. I say "yes".

 Posted by barry | November 7, 2017 6:21 PM

Lydia's first reply leaped allow my having brought up a related issue from 2nd Kings 3:27, with her characterizing my question about it, as if I had inexcusably understood her article to be an invitation to a rock-throwing match (!?)

Well, first of all, Yahweh was *constantly* telling the people not to worship other gods, and all of your attempts to argue that *they* would have projected *their* desires to engage in idolatry onto Yahweh are pretty thin gruel--highly unconvincing. The mere fact that they worshiped false gods doesn't mean that they thought Yahweh approved of, say, Asherah worship. Asherah worship was always seen as being in competition with the worship of Yahweh.

But more: The envoy specifically says that the high places *were Yahweh's own altars*. Your theory does not explain this at all.

If the high places were pagan places of worship, one would be more likely to think that the god to which they were dedicated (whoever that was) had sent the Assyrians rather than Yahweh, if they weren't even his altars at all.

It's from the other, widely scattered verses that we learn that the altars apparently *were* altars to Yahweh. It's just that after the building of the Temple they were deemed, at least by some, Hezekiah inter alia, to be in the wrong place and no longer pleasing to Yahweh.

As for your other verse, I'm not going to give you my own opinion (though I have one, and it is one that has been given by many-a commentator for many-a year and therefore one that you, presumably, have already considered and disdained), for this reason: Not only are you presumably already immune to all reasonable interpretations of the passage, but I do not wish to give the impression that the force of an undesigned coincidence in one part of Scripture can be somehow held hostage to one's ability to give an answer satisfactory to the skeptic to a completely unrelated alleged Bible difficulty in some completely different part of Scripture. That's just silly. Making an argument from an undesigned coincidence is not an invitation to a verbal rock-throwing match, where I toss out an argument on my side and then you bring in something from a totally different place, toss it over here, and say, "Oh, yeah? Well, what about *that*!"

Oh, by the way, I'm not an inerrantist.

Posted by Lydia | November 7, 2017 6:51 PM

In other post, I asked Lydia what she thought of the atheist explanation taht says the savage god of the OT reflects nothing more than the mindset of the barbarians who authored it:

Blogger barry said...

Mrs. McGrew,

you said "On the other hand, skeptics shouldn't be able to overwhelm the Christian with a much larger list of allegedly problem texts in which God kills people or bamboozle Christians into treating God Himself as just a Big Man In the Sky who cannot morally take life, even by His own hand, without due process."

------------What do you think of the more down-to-earth atheist explanation for the savagery of this OT god, the explanation which says the reason why the Hebrew god ordered such wholesale slaughter of other peoples, is because this god constituted nothing more than the mindset of the ancient tribal people who worshiped him?

If you confess you cannot really explain why the God of Moses/Joshua ordered infanticide, then can you really be "sure" that classifying that god as nothing more than a reflection of the ancient Hebrew mind-set, is wrong?

Church fathers say many bad things about Marcion, but could it be that not all of Marcion's criticisms of the prevailing orthodoxy, were unjustified?

Lydia's first reply misrepresented me as doing little more than misrepresenting her, and accused me again of being a troller, and further asserted that she deleted one of my replies because she mischaracterized it as a long nuisance post:

11/11/2017 3:25 PM Delete

Blogger Lydia McGrew said...

I didn't say that I can't explain why the God of Moses ordered infanticide. In fact, I'm quite open to thinking that he didn't. In short, you do not understand where I am coming from. When I say that I do not know what to do with the passages, this expresses (among other things) the possibility that the attribution of the command to God is false,not that I assume that God did give the command but merely "don't know why" he gave it.

You have misunderstood my position again and again and are trolling in ignorance, despite the fact that I have addressed you directly. Over at W4 I said, "By the way, I'm not an inerrantist," and *after* that you posted a long, nuisance comment at this blog in which you went on and on about the ICBI statement on inerrancy. Are you not able to read, or what? I didn't publish that comment because it showed that you don't read what I write or don't care or something. Fortunately, I have full moderation here and am not obligated to keep wasting my time. So bag it, because it's unlikely I'll publish any more of your comments, since you keep ignoring what I say. I'm sure you have better ways to spend your own time as well, including taking more seriously the possibility that there is a God who has a claim on you.

 11/11/2017 3:49 PM

Some would argue that Lydia's lack of patience, her "fuck you" sounding spiteful replies and her slanders of her critics, mean that she has violated basic NT ethics, something God would probably find a bigger deal than whatever her atheist critic's misunderstandings were.



from https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20704380&postID=7327561391327152165&page=1&token=1510448800274
"I'm astounded (okay, maybe not astounded) at the attitude by which you assume that anyone, including Matt Flannagan, is bound to "keep up with you" rather than ignoring you."
----------I never expressed or implied that Flannagan had any sort of obligation to "keep up" with me.  I merely pointed out that it is unexpected that he avoids a direct criticism of his book and clearly prioritizes his trifles with me about proving god from objective morals.

Yes, there might be an innocent explanation, yes, he has the freedom to ignore whatever he wishes, but since Flannagan wrote a book on the dispossession hypothesis, to make God appear more politically correct to modern western notions of love and fairness, you cannot blame me for drawing conclusions from his disinterest in answering my criticisms of his book's basic thesis.

"One wonders what world you are living in in which people are bound to answer your every accusation, question, comment, or stand accused of being prima facie paralyzed by the brilliance and difficulty of your objections. Good grief. This is what's wrong with the Internet."
--------Matt's fear of my criticism is a reasonable deduction from his carefully avoiding it, despite reminders, while yet he remains willing to continue trifling with me about matters the bible ascribes far less importance to, such as proving god from the alleged existence of objective morals, a type of argument not even found in the bible directly.

Lydia, when you ask what world I live in, you are implying that I am delusional.  Since that's factually false, that's slander, and Jesus said slanders come from an evil heart:

 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." (Matt. 15:19-20 NAU)

There is a reason why you find it constantly necessary to include implied insults in your replies to me, and you'd appear more scholarly if you stopping using them.

Is that too much to ask?

Read 2nd Timothy 2:24-26.






from https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20704380&postID=7327561391327152165&page=1&token=1510448800274


Blogger Lydia McGrew said...
It's not an issue of a whole lot of importance to me,
--------------Some would argue that your online critique of Copan/Flannagan indicates its a bit more important to you than you let on here.

"but I'm inclined to disagree. Dispossession would result in death only indirectly and not as the intention of the act. Some acts are intrinsically immoral. Others aren't. Killing babies is. Driving people out of an area, arguably, is not *intrinsically* immoral.  11/11/2017 4:51 PM"
----------Not sure I see the significance of your distinction.  God credits himself with all human death (Deut. 32:39) and God  presumably knew the ANE harsh conditions the Canaanite children would endure as their parents reluctantly agreed to relinquish the land.  Spots of vegetation sufficient to permit homesteading and cattle raising would likely already be snatched up by other existing tribes, especially OUTSIDE the "land flowing with milk and honey", so that Canaanites who head in that direction would likely not be welcomed with open armsby those existing tribes, and if they were, the arms would belong to savages who would subjects the Canaanite kids to inhuman slavery or other crimes.  I'm sorry, Lydia, but viewing God as evil, given the dispossession hypothesis, remains reasonable, whether you can trifle that dispossession was less evil than killing them.

You are also disagreeing with scholarly Christian apologist Glenn Miller, who says the immediate killing of the Canaanite parents and kids would have been more loving and merciful, given the harsh realities of the ANE, than allowing them to walk away after military defeat.   That is, it probably isn't my spiritually dead nature, that causes me to say dispossession would have resulted in greater misery to the children.


https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20704380&postID=8448328738616150409&page=0&token=1510450341743

"Moo criticizes Gundry for making assertions without arguing, for arguing circularly, for not taking seriously the possibility that Matthew was writing about events slightly differently because he was an eyewitness..."
---------one reason i don't take seriously the possibility that Matthew's author was an eyewitness (that is, not after I did my own extensive analysis of the sources, though I still answer apologetics arguments on the merits)) is because of the majority Christian scholarly opinion, confirmed true by my own investigations, that the author borrowed extensively from Mark.

Assuming as true that Mark is the earliest gospel, and that it is used extensively by Matthew's author (two theories most Christian scholars hold to)...

...then it doesn't matter if you can come up with a hypothetical scenario in which a eyewitness chose to use a non-eyewitness source to tell the world about events that the eyewitness saw and heard first-hand....eyewitnesses don't <i>normally</i> do that, so unless a Christian can show Matthew was an exception to the normal way of doing things, then the normal way (i.e., people who have first-hand knowledge do not rely as extensively on second-hand reports of same as Matthew did) will have greater plausibility (i.e., an eyewitness did not author Matthew).

Matthew's authorship is unlikely for several reasons Christians cannot easily dismiss, not the least being that

all church fathers agree he wrote in Hebrew letters,

NONE of them express or imply he ever wrote in Greek despite their interest in telling the reader which language he wrote in,

Jerome bluntly asserted that a) an unknown person was responsible for Greek edition of Matthew, and b) that person created that edition by translating Hebrew Matthew into Greek (Lives of Illustrious Men),

All church fathers are agreed Matthew intended to address "Jews", so that's another reason to believe he'd have found Aramaic or Hebrew sufficient to facilitate his intent.

and finally, most Christian scholars deny that canonical Greek Matthew reads like "translation Greek".

Those who declare anonymous authorship have far more historical support, than conservative who argue from silence that because Matthew could have, he likely did, create a second original in Greek.  The early fathers, intent to tell the reader the language Matthew wrote in, would more than likely have mentioned this Matthean Greek had they believed Matthew ever created such a thing.







https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20704380&postID=1850990138266929579&page=1&token=1510451506551
Mrs. McGrew,

Could it be reasonably argued by a Christian that because the world is so utterly awash in sexual temptations far more than ever before, that there is a duty on Christian women to be a bit more conservative in their public presentation than they ever needed to be in the past, and thus to don full burka when in public?

Seems to me that the woman who says "I cannot control another man's choice to lust after me" sounds more like her attempt to avoid the place that spiritual maturity leads, than she sounds like somebody intent on being as godly as she can be.

Indeed, if Christians are not supposed to desire to dance near the edges of acceptable/non-acceptable conduct, then it would appear that donning full burkas is the only choice consistent with women professing godliness, even IF Tertullian didn't go to that extreme in his "On the Apparel of Women"




On November 13, 2017 I also posted the following reply to Lydia, it hasn't been made available for public viewing yet:
http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2014/08/no-magic-bullet-copans-insufficient.html?showComment=1510521307340#c3546813680585453207

Several problems:

1 – Do you deny the salvation of all scholars who disagree with you, who profess a Christian faith?  If not, then there are obvious problems with the fact that you are just as eager to dismiss views from another part of the body of Christ, as atheists are eager to dismiss another atheist’s views on politics.  If God works in mysterious ways, then you cannot be so sure that another conservative Christian scholar’s assessment of the biblical evidence and moral situation is faulty, that is, you cannot be so sure as to justify this apparent eagerness you have to just write off anybody and everybody who happen to disagree with you. 

I don’t think you can respond that you gave Glenn Miller a fair hearing.  For while I supplied you the link to his article, you merely quip that Miller is certainly wrong “IF he implies that it's morally better to hack a baby's head off with a sword than to dispossess the baby's family of their land…”  That sounds like you didn’t even read his article, thus sounding like you were willing to draw a conclusion for reasons other than scholarly analysis.  I don’t know…maybe you are a strong charismatic, and like apostle Paul, you cannot imagine that any Christian who disagrees with you, might actually be correct to do so.

2 – The bible has proven insufficient to enable conservative Christians to agree with each other about theology and morals (I assume you won’t take the sinfully prideful position that the bible IS this clear and all conservative scholars who disagree with you are just wrong), so you are forced to accept the possibility that God might be communicating his exact views through some of those Christian scholars who disagree with you.  In other words, it makes far more sense, given your Christian presuppositions, to be a bit slower to dismiss Christian scholarly beliefs opposite to yours, than you are with your “Honestly, I'll disagree with anybody”  Attitude.  Disagreeing with <b><i>other members of the body of Christ</b></i> about what God is like, carries serious risks, according to your conservative view of NT Christianity, does it not?

3 – I don’t understand how you can say killing children by sword is intrinsically evil, unless you think your God’s acts are intrinsically evil? 

Have you never read about God causing pagans to kill Hebrew children, rape Hebrew woman and forcing them to endure abortion by sword (Isaiah 13:13-18)?

Have you never read the nearly exact parallel in Hosea 13:15-16?

Have you never read that one curse God will inflict on Hebrews who disobey him, is parental cannibalism (Deuteronomy 28:15, 53-57)?

Have you never read that one curse God will inflict on Hebrews who disobey him, is causing pagan men to rape Hebrew women (28:15, 30)?

Have you never read that God will take just as much “delight” to cause these atrocities, as he takes in blessing those who obey him (28:63)?

Didn't you know that God thinks "hook in your jaws" is the appropriate metaphor to keep in mind when thinking about the degree to which God overrides human freewill and forces people to sin (Ezekiel 38:4, 16 - 39:6)?

4 - Do you believe that children who die before the age of accountability go directly to heaven?  If so,  how can you call their death by sword at such early age "intrinsically" evil?  Must we not do here, as we normally do when teaching kids morality, and discuss why the consequences that follow an act, dictate to what degree it is moral or immoral?  So if the murder of a young child results in the obvious good of their eternal salvation, then you aren’t being very thorough or scholarly to focus solely on the temporal earthly consequences of beheading children.  And do I need to argue that as a Christian, you are obligated to prioritize the spiritual eternal consequences of an action far above the earthly temporal consequences?   

Matthew Flannagan fails to show child torture is objectively immoral

At another blog, Christian philosopher and apologist Matthew Flannagan and I are having an argument about whether any actions of humans are objectively moral or immoral.

I am an atheist, and deny that any moral can be "objective" (i.e., good or bad for reasons transcending the human mind).

As predicted, Flannagan has cited to the popular example of "don't torture children purely for entertainment", in his effort to convince me that some actions of humans are objectively immoral.

For unknown reasons, Flannagan has asked me whether I think societies that approve of child torture solely for entertainment, have made a morally mistaken judgment.  He seems to think that he is going to prove something significant whether I say "yes" or "no", despite the fact that the moral opinion held by an atheist is clearly insufficient to demonstrate that the hypothetical wrong is objectively wrong.

My shorter answer (as posted to Matt's blog) is given below, followed by my more point-by-point answer

barry jones

Nov 9, 2017 at 2:22 pm

Matt,

My point by point response to you will be at my blog tomorrow, but for now, answering your most critical point is perhaps best.

You ask “so you think that a society which endorses the torture of children is making a mistaken moral judgment?”

Yes, I believe a society which endorses the torture of children is making a mistaken moral judgment.

First, unlike other atheists, I admit that my personal basis for finding such torture of children immoral, is entirely subjective. If my genetics had predisposed me toward a sociopath mentality, and had I been raised by sociopaths, I could easily have come to believe that where I am entertained by it, torturing children is morally good. I really don’t see how you think my agreement with the consensus of humanity (i.e., that torturing children solely for entertainment is unacceptable) does anything toward your goal of demonstrating the existence of objective morals.

Second, I notice that while you had asked me whether I think America’s former endorsement of race-based chattel slavery or that Europe’s death penalty for atheism were morally mistaken notions, you DIDN’T ask me whether I thought burning a woman to death for practicing prostitution in her fathers house, was morally mistaken.

Leviticus 21:9 is God’s command to burn such a female to death.

If you believed my agreement with most people that slavery and killing atheists is morally wrong, somehow did something to support your belief in objective morality, then, to be consistent, shouldn’t you think my agreement with most people that it is wrong to burn a prostitute to death for working out of her father’s house, can also somehow do something to support your belief in objective morality?

Or does your trust in the objective goodness of the god of Leviticus 21:9 forbid you from asking why the vast majority of humans in history eschewed burning people to death?

If under your logic, the world’s majority view eschewing of child-torture spells “because God himself doesn’t like it either”,

…then the world’s majority view eschewing burning prostitutes to death would necessarily also scream just as loudly “because God himself doesn’t like it either”.

Which would then mean your logic could be used to “argue” that Leviticus 21:9 was not something God commanded.

I don’t see where you have left to run: You can avoid the above criticism by saying you infer god from something other than human majority moral opinion, but if so, what was your point in asking me to give my moral opinion in child-torture?

------------------- 

Here is my more in-depth answer.  I usually avoid this because the sheer quantity of material gives apologists more opportunity to transfer focus off of real problem areas and give the false impression from their focus on less essential areas that they've adequately answered:

Nov 8, 2017 at 9:55 am
Barry you write:
 I can truthfully say that I constantly hear Christian apologists raising “don’t torture children purely for entertainment” as if the proof that it was objectively true was the fact that they happened to make the statement.
And I can just as truthfully say that I’ve never seen a Christian apologist explain exactly why they believe torturing children purely for entertainment is objectively immoral, except of course in the question-begging manner of “the bible tells me so”, which hardly conduces to beneficial dialogue with atheists who do not espouse the divine inspiration of the bible.
The example of torturing children for fun actually comes from an atheist, writers not “Christian Apologists” it is standardly used in the Euthyphro objection to divine command ethics.

But I wasn't wrong to assert that it is standard fare among apologists too.  When I challenged you to establish the existence of any absolute or objective moral, you too appealed to "do not torture children solely for entertainment".

As an example of an action which cant be made right or wrong by someones willing it to be so.

I'd say such debates are convoluted, since logically there is no such thing as an objective good or bad.  My advice is that atheists simply point out that because the evidence that God exists is unspeakably weak, that debate needs to be resolved, before you plunge into the abyss of conveniently unfalsifiable trifles, such as whether an act can be morally good merely because god requires that the act be done.

Second, Despite your prefacing those comments with the word “truthful” I am skeptical what you say is correct. I am reasonably familiar with the literature on God and Morality, and I don’t know of any defender of objectivism who defends it simply by asserting it, nor do I know any who argue that “the bible tells them so.”

Well I said that about "Christian apologists", I didn't say every defender of objectivism believe their merely asserting their theories proved them true.

On the contrary, many of the standard texts on God and Morality explicitly spell out why they think moral obligations are objective
For example, Robert Adams cites several reasons why it’s plausible to think that our concept of a moral obligation involves a presupposition such things are objective. for example such this as that “‘wrong’ has the syntax of an ordinary predicate, and we worry we may be mistaken in our moral judgments”,

Most people would agree that the disobedient child who doesn't go to bed when ordered to do so by their parent, is making a mistake in moral judgment.  But what time children must go to bed is hardly subject to objective verfiication.  The employee can later believe that he was morally mistaken to insult his boss.  But his sense of moral mistakenness is clearly limited to the circumstance.  So our sense of making moral "mistakes" does precisely nothing to justify the inference that there are morals which are objective.

that neither we, nor society, can “eliminate all moral requirements just by not making any demands”

That presupposes that moral requirements exist.  I deny the assumption.  Civilized society obviously couldn't be what it is without some people making moral demands and other people obeying those demands.  Again, the fact that such a thing would conduce toward civilized society doesn't argue, at all, that any moral requirements involved in the matter were objective.  I don't obey my employer out of any sense that such a thing is objectively good.  I obey solely to earn a paycheck so I can keep a roof over my head.  Nothing more is required, and this motive of mine is not capable of being shown objectively immoral.  And it would be foolish to assert that some objective moral requires one to obey one's employer.  There would have to be qualifications that become so numerous that the relativity of the entire business would be assured.

and that “what the Nazi’s did to the Jews was horribly wrong whether or not the Nazi’s thought so

But all they are doing is asserting the wrongness and dogmatizing that it be so whether the Nazis thought so or not.  This hardly establishes that Nazi treatment of the Jews was objectively immoral.

and it would have been more horribly wrong if they had managed to persuade the Jews that it was not wrong” [I cite all this in my original article which Carrier responded to]

Same answer:  assuring the reader that the Nazis were wrong, not matter what, hardly suffices to establish that their treatment of the Jews violated some objective moral.

Stephen Evan’s similarly stresses that we assume or presuppose that moral judgments are the “kind of thing we can be mistaken about”

Already answered:  we clearly also feel mistaken often when disobeying requirements or mandates that aren't objective, such as parentally imposed bedtimes, or jaywalking.  Our sense of our own mistakenness is absolutely fused to the culture.  And room need to be made to significantly deal with those in society who feel no sense of mistakenness when they engage in acts others find immoral, such as vigilante justice, or stealing from the corrupted rich to help the unfairly treated poor.

and we criticise societies and other people for making mistaken moral judgments, all of which presupposes objectivity.

No, we might believe our criticism of Hitler's treatment of the Jews goes back to some type of objective moral, but it doesn't.  If we had been born in Germany in 1910, we could just as easily have believed our country got it right in mistreating the Jews. But no, we act as if the American way is god's way, we just cannot imagine that America is also a mere culture.

Nor is this unique to Christian writers the idea that objectivity is presupposed by our concept of moral obligations is actually common in secular ethics and there are textbooks such as James Rachels, Loius Pojman, or Shafer Landau which note things like the fact societies have made moral mistakes or the existence of moral reformers,

that proves nothing.  Protestants and Catholics disagree on whether Luther's reforms were morally good or bad.

or the fact we think some cultural mores or moral systems are worse than others and so on, all of which presuppose objectivity.

They do not presuppose objectivity, they presuppose that we THINK they presuppose objectivity.  The truth is most people feel their own peculiar set of morals are objective, and they are in fact mistaken.

Or the fact we engage in debate with other people over what is the right thing to do.

The fact that Christians disagree with each other about moral issues makes plausible the inference that there are no objective standards, or if there are, they are mooted by our apparent inability to recognize them.  

In fact, in the quote, you cite from an earlier post I went on offer an argument for my conclusion. In other words, I put forward a hypothetical situation where a community endorsed the torture of children and asked whether you think a society which judged it was ok to do this was mistaken in doing so, or whether you thought there judgment it was permissible to torture children was correct.

No, you didn't present that as a question, you simply declared, in several different ways, why you think a) the moral holds true in all situations, and b) how I'd be "biting the bullet" if I tried to differ with you on it.

In fact, I put the challenge to you in the post? Most people judge that such a society does make a mistake, which shows that they presuppose that moral judgements are objective.

Already answered.

So seeing you missed this argument

I didn't miss it, you failed to specify what your moral yardstick was, for saying that torture of children purely for entertainment, was objectively immoral.  Assuring me that you think such act is always immoral, isn't that yardstick.

I’ll put it to you again, do you think that a society which endorses the torture of children is making a mistaken moral judgment?.

Yes.  But only because of my genetic predispositions and my environmental conditioning.  Had I been raised by sociopaths, I could very well take the position that i don't really care what other people do to their kids.

You don’t need a hypothetical example there are lots of concrete historical ones, for example in the US not long ago it was accepted culturally that race-based chattel slavery was permissible?

Why are you asking me whether I agree with the current US law that race based chattel slavery is immoral?  Yes, I reflect the beliefs and customs of the culture I was born and raised in.  This does precisely nothing to help you establish that this moral belief of mine derives from an objective moral.

It was accepted that atheism was a capital crime that warranted death in 18th century England?

Same answer:  My belief that the death penalty for atheism is immoral, is entirely subjective and relative.  Had I been born in 18th century England, I could well have been one of the legislators that enacted such law.  Depends on culture.

In your view were these judgements mistaken or were they entirely correct?

In your view, was the judgment of Moses mistaken or entirely correct when he required the burning to death of any prostitutes who work out of their priest father's house (Lev. 21:9)?

If you believed my agreement with most people (that slavery and killing atheists is morally wrong), somehow did something to support your belief in objective morality, then, to be consistent, shouldn’t you think my agreement with most people that it is wrong to burn a prostitute to death for working out of her father’s house, can also somehow do something to support your belief in objective morality?

Or does your trust in the objective goodness of the god of Leviticus 21:9 forbid you from asking why the vast majority of humans in history eschewed burning people to death?

If under your logic, the world’s majority view eschewing of child-torture spells “because God himself doesn’t like it either”,

…then the world’s majority view eschewing burning prostitutes to death would necessarily also scream just as loudly “because God himself doesn’t like it either”.

Which would then mean your logic could be used to “argue” that Leviticus 21:9 was not something God commanded.

Now if you say burning prostitutes to death used to be morally good but is no longer morally good, then you just said one of God's own morals was relative (i.e., burning prostitutes to death for working out of their father's houses isn't always good or always bad, but depends on the culture).

If you say no, it only depends on whether God tells us to do it, then you are still making one of God's morals subjective, since you'd then have to say that burning prostitutes to death for working out of their father's houses is good when God tells us to do it, and bad when god tells us not to do it.

That is, the objectivity of God's own morals can be turned on and off like a light switch.

No, Dr. Flannagan, I am NOT changing the subject by showing that the Christian position runs into significant problems in the area of objective morals, anymore than YOU were changing the subject by pointing out what secular writers on morality had to say.  

And so what?  Are you willing to defend the idea that your god's morality is objective, yes or no?

If yes, then where can we debate that?

Matt Slick fails to show that torturing babies is objectively immoral

Matt Slick of Carm seems to think the baby torture example just rips Jesus out of the sky and slams him into the face of all atheists:

Matt Slick: The proof that moral absolutes exist is in the statement I gave you: "It is always wrong for people to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure." 

No, he who asserts, must prove.  YOU are asserting it is always wrong for people to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure, so YOU have the burden.  Provide the reasons why you think such act is always wrong.

If you can falsify that statement, you have proven me wrong.

There is nothing to falsify if you set forth a proposition and offer nothing to support it.

Let's throw your logic back in your face:  "It's always wrong to count nickels on Tuesdays solely for personal pleasure".  I give this moral maxim, like you gave yours, without supporting argument.  Do you have anything to refute?   Of course not.  So if I were to say "If you want to tell me that it is not a moral absolute, then all you need to do is falsify it. Go ahead", that would actually be dishonest, in that it gives the false impression that I have fulfilled my burden of proof and now the monkey is on your back.

Therefore YOU, Matt Slick, are being dishonest when you talk so confidently about how the atheist is free to falsify.  YOU are the one asserting your moral maxim.  YOU therefore cannot view your opponent as morally or intellectually obligated to "refute" it unless and until you provide supporting argument as to why you think such baby torture is always wrong.

Or is this the part where you confess that you don't really know what the fuck to do if your opponent doesn't automatically agree that you've fulfilled your own burden?

You have not falsified the statement. I have not found any atheist that has falsified the statement yet.

You just did.  Hello, my name is Barry Jones.

  If you want to tell me that it is not a moral absolute, then all you need to do is falsify it. Go ahead.

Correction, if I want to tell you its not a moral absolute, I can achieve that goal by pointing out that you never supported your premise.  Your bare statement that the maxim constitutes a moral absolute, certainly doesn't make it so, you are not god, remember?  If so, then you aren't obligating anybody to answer anything until you have supported your maxim with argument.

Again, there is nothing to falsify, you've simply set forth an unsupported moral maxim, as if its truth were so obvious that it did not need to be supported.   I say that stems from your other irrational beliefs, such as Calvinism (i.e., presuppositionalism, questioning the truth of Christian claims is absolutely forbidden, and the futility of non-Christian thought is an untouchable icon of absolute truth).

Once you start revealing the secret you are guarding so closely (the reasons you think such baby torture is always immoral, you are the claiming so that's YOUR burden) the more you will cease looking like a frightened barking child and the more you will sound like a professional philosopher who is willing to put all his cards on the table.