Cold Case Christianity: J. Warner Wallace mistakes repetition for actual argument

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot: “If God exists, he wouldn’t be so hidden”

Posted: 18 Feb 2019 01:10 AM PST

Our “Quick Shot” series offers brief answers to common objections to the Christian worldview.

And what would you think if a skeptic offered brief answers to common apologetics arguments?  Wouldn't you automatically presume from the brief nature of the remarks that that material was shallow?  After all, don't you start out telling yourself that the opinion of a 3,000 poem writer about atheists is infallible?

Response #1:

“Have you considered the notion that God might appear hidden for a reason?

 Yes, and I reject it because by reason of more involved arguments and evidence, the silence is more reasonably ascribed to god's not actually existing.  Remember how unmoved you felt when you read the Book of Mormon?  Same here.  The Mormon god does not exist, THAT is why you don't give a shit about the book of Mormon.  Not because the Mormon god has decreed that you shall be blind to the truth for a while so he can create a higher good with his mysterious ways.

Furthermore, skeptics are wise to avoid getting drawn into the stupid discussion of what the bible god "would" do.  There is good evidence that the silence of god is best explained on a theory that he doesn't exist, not that he has higher mysterious reasons.  Christians cannot even figure out what God "would" do, nor can they even agree on what God did do in the past.  It's thus reasonable for skeptics to say "fuck you" to an offer to waste their time getting involved in the perpectually speculative and irresolvable question of what a highly intelligent ogre "would" do.

Let me give you an example. Even as mere humans, we understand that true love cannot be coerced.

 But since you think there will come a day when you authentically love god without the ability to sin (i.e., after you get to heaven), your god has no excuse for creating creatures who can sin.  if you can authentically love God in heaven without ability to sin, you can authentically love god on earth without ability to sin.

We love our children and want them to love us, but if we forced them to love us (if that were somehow possible), it wouldn’t be true love; it would just be a disingenuous, coerced response.

 Some would say Mom jerking her son out of the middle of the street as the drunk barrels toward him is a greater love than if she merely stood there issuing offers, opportunities, and commands to the kid.  True love often does force the loved person to act.

In a similar way, when we give our kids direction and ask them to accept this guidance as a reflection of their love for us, we must step away and give them the freedom to respond (or rebel).

So you'd never use force on a person you loved?  Your idea of love is rather childish.

If we are ‘ever-present’, they may simply respond – not because they love us – but because they know we are present (and they fear our negative reaction).

I don't see your problem: did you ever read Deut. 28?  What else is that dogshit except "obey me or I'll fuck you up"?

Have you considered the fact that God may remain hidden (to some degree) to allow us the freedom to respond from a position of love, rather than fear?”

No, not any more than I've considered that the Mormon god doesn't make me feel good when reading the Book of Mormon because he has some higher purpose.  Those feelings never come around because the god allegedly behind them doesn't exist.

Response #2:

“Have you been looking for evidence of God’s existence?

 No, I stopped looking after I correctly determined that "god" in the traditional religious sense constitutes an incoherent idea.  I'd no more search for god than I'd search for square circles or other dimensions.

If so, where have you been looking?

Fuck him:  when he decides to quit playing hide-and-seek, he knows where to find me if he's that concerned about having a relationship with me.  Your fantasy that I wouldn't believe god no matter what he did, is contradicted by all human experience, wherein people often change their mind when confronted with infallible evidence.  Sure, some people have mental conditions that prevent them from being this realistic, but I'm not one of them.  So quit making yourself feel better with some excuse that makes it seem wiser for God to keep himself hidden from me. If I cannot benefit from detecting tangible evidence, your god shouldn't have given me my 5 physical senses.

The evidence abounds if we are sensitive to it.

And it doesn't abound if you are objective and neutral toward it, which is why you don't post for skeptics, you only post for Christians.  That's why your apologetics constitute nothing but clever marketing games you can advertise to those who are already Christians.  Atheists who know their bible very well just laugh at you. 

For example, the best explanation for the information we find in our DNA is an intelligent mind.

 Then it was an intelligent mind that created certain animals to be carnivorous...thus your god intended. without relation to "sin",  for animals to suffer horrific misery, when in fact the existence of cattle and other herbivores shows God could have simply made all animals as plant-eaters, preempting much misery.  And if sin degraded life, it would not transform molars into fangs as there's no such thing as a beneficial mutation, remember?  So your god's perverse desire that this world be filled with intelligent beings that inflict horrific misery on each other is clear from your own bible.

If you are childish and insist that the teeth of lions didn't transform from molars into fangs until after "sin" entered the world, you are most certainly a waste of time to argue with.

The best explanation for the beginning of the universe is an all-powerful, non-spatial, non-temporal, non-material Being.

Already kicked Frank Turek's Big bang bullshit to the wind.  For starters, Genesis 1-2 neither expresses nor implies any gigantic explosion, and it certainly wouldn't have been seen that way its originally intended and pre-scientific addressees.  Nobody in the ANE believed in a big bang.  You should not ask whether the big bang can be "reconciled with" Genesis.  Professional liars get paid every single day to reconcile their dishonest theories with the known evidence, they're called lawyers.  The more objective inquiry asks "how did the author intend his words to be understood" and "how did the originally intended addressees likely understand his words?".  Once you ask that, no more biblical big bang for you.

The best explanation for transcendent, objective, moral laws and obligations is the existence of a transcendent, objective and personal moral law giver.

 The trouble being that you cannot name any act that you can show to be objectively immoral, since you cannot demonstrate any objective moral standard.  The most you can do is scream "don't torture babies to death solely for entertainment", then blindly insist that anybody who disagrees with you is too mentally abnormal to justify responding to...which therefore does nothing more than derive an objective moral out of a dogma. Sorry but "most people think its wrong!" might be good for enacting social policy, but doesn't rise to the level of demonstrating the existence of a transcendent objective standard for morality.  Try again.

The evidence of God’s existence is available, even though God can’t be physically seen.

 And given how people's skepticism of anything is assuaged when they finally see evidence of it, your god has no excuse for pretending that it is better to remain hidden.  You never talk about the good that could be done of your god made himself known to everybody, in the same manner that anybody else makes themselves known to others, because you know that far more unbelievers would convert, thus implying that your god's choice to remain hidden is a defect in his intelligence...or that he simply doesn't exist.

Have you been looking in these areas, or have you attributed these aspects of reality to something other than God?”

The latter.

Response #3:

“Sometimes we miss the activity of God because we aren’t open to seeing it.

 There you go again, YOUR APOLOGETICS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SKEPTICAL OBJECTIONS, THEY ARE CONCERNED SOLELY TO IMPRESS THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE A CHRISTIAN FAITH.

How many times has something incredibly unlikely occurred and we simply attributed it to chance?

 Are you addressing Christians who should be filled with the Holy Spirit and thus never attribute anything to chance?  Only idiot rank Arminians would pretend that God is ever surprised.

How many miraculous cures were attributed to a mis-diagnosis?

How many mis-diagnoses were attributed to miracles?

How many unimaginable ‘close-calls’ were chalked up as luck?

Ok, then to Whom do you ascribe the "luck" of the pedophile who happens to convince a little girl to enter his home unsupervised?  What is your god doing at that point in time? 

God often shows Himself to us in supernatural ways, but we simply fail (or refuse) to see it.

Let the scared pussy known as your god part the Red Sea in front of us, the way he allegedly did for Pharaoh.  Let Jesus come back to earth and do his miracles in public, so that Christianity's theologians can then debate whether the ensuing mass hysteria and mob activity that ends up causing people to be trampled to death, was "god's mysterious will",

Then lie to yourself and say unbelievers are incapable of changing their mind when presented with contrary evidence.  Yeah right, like every unbeliever in the world NEVER changes their mind on ANY subject even when confronted with convincing contrary evidence.  No, that NEVER happens, we just all plod along sticking our fingers in our ears, jumping up and down, singing to ourselves to drown out the contrary evidence, because we are trying to avoid acknowledging reality.  FUCK YOU.  Unbelievers are sued all the time, and in thousands of cases, one party will make drastic concessions after the "discovery phase" has completed.  you are a liar...the average unbeliever is NOT horrifically narrow-minded about examining theistic evidence.  That's merely a slur you tell yourself so you can feel better about the fact that your god doesn't exist.

Are you willing to set aside your bias against supernatural explanations long enough to recognize the hand of God in the events you used to attribute to chance, luck or good fortune?”

First demonstrate that "supernatural" has a coherent meaning, then we can talk.  Deal?  No, you don't demonstrate coherency with a mere dictionary definition.  The dictionary also has a definition for "hydra", do you suppose that makes the concept of a multiple headed sea monster that grows two new heads each time one is cut off, is the least bit coherent?

Sometimes we miss the activity of God because we aren’t open to seeing it.

An answer that would surely impress the Christians who already agree with you, but laughably dismissed by informed atheists.  There ought to be a law:  you are not allowed to sell Jesus unless your arguments thereto rise above the level of preskool.

But nice job in coddling the preferences of today's largely attention-deficit culture.

What's next, Wallace?  5-minute Sunday services?  After all, couldn't we argue that we have fellowshipping in the Spirit while nose-glued-to-computer-screen no less than we do when at church?  Gee, wouldn't that make church more attractive to the unbeliever?

Yup, Holding is "pathologically" obsessed to avoid admitting he fucked up

James Patrick Holding discovered several days ago that I had filed a third libel lawsuit against his "Apologetics Afield" corporation.  I'm not going to give you the link because, as usual, the way he shows this is by libelous and defamatory means.

Since I sued his corporation thus forcing him to hire a lawyer, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that any lawyer would tell him that he needs to stop doing, in the future, what he is accused of in the past...reporting on my prior litigation in a way that voids the "fair-report" privilege, and subjects him to liability for libel.

ALL lawyers tell their clients to shut the fuck up when litigation is pending. That's because stupid retarded people have a nasty habit of saying things they will be forced to account for in front of a jury...yeah, jury trial, a time in the Defendant's life when his retarded tweb friends are not available to create the happy snark-bubble world that Holding lives for every second of the day.

But today, February 8, 2019, Holding, as usual, proved that he really is a pathologically obsessed asshole who would rather die than do the smart thing and shut the fuck up...he has to continue reporting about my prior judicial proceedings.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qkV76_4XAk

I don't think that particular video is libelous, but that conclusion of mine only gets Holding in more trouble with the jury, since this video shows that Holding does indeed realize that the inaccurate, unfair and biased way he had reported in the past on my judicial proceedings, the ways that are described in the 2019 lawsuit, were indeed at variance with Florida law.   Sure is funny that, after he got schooled the hard way by the legal arguments in my Complaint, suddenly, Holding's next bit of pathological obsession doesn't contain the same degree of manipulation and photoshopping that his other libelous judicial proceeding reports did.

Regardless, I'm sure Holding's lawyer will have something to say about his client continuing his obsession even after getting kicked in the head.

Anybody wanna make a bet?  I'll bet $50 that after Mr. Holding's lawyer files his first document with the Court, Mr. Holding will not be posting to the internet anymore comments about my prior lawsuits.  Perhaps I'm stupid, since I just made a case that Holding likely wouldn't even listen to his own lawyer.

Cold Case Christianity: Is the Bible True? The Value (and Limits) of the Early Church Fathers

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Is the Bible True?

The Value (and Limits) of the Early Church Fathers

Posted: 06 Feb 2019 01:35 AM PST

I had the great pleasure and privilege several years ago to speak to students (and visitors) at Rutgers University. Ratio Christi hosted the three hour event. Julie Miller (RC’s Chapter Director at Rutgers) and her husband Buzz did an amazing job organizing and hosting the event. I was asked to defend the reliability of the New Testament Gospels, and afterward we opened the floor for a one hour question and answer session. As part of my case for the reliable transmission of the key claims of the Gospel authors, I retraced the New Testament Chain of Custody for the audience. This sequence of early believers links the eyewitness authors with their immediate students in an effort to examine the content of the original claims of the Gospels. Early Church Fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement play an important role in this chain of Gospel stewards; the writings of these students of John and Paul help us verify the content of the 1st Century teaching related to Jesus.

 If you disagree with conservative Christian scholar Craig Evans' theory that John often puts words in Jesus' mouth that Jesus never actually spoke, then yes.

The ancient letters of these three Church Fathers have great value for this reason. Is the Bible true?

 Fallacy of Generalized question:  Is the Koran true?

These letters are an important piece of evidence.

During the Q and A session, a young man asked an important question, echoing concerns I’ve addressed on other campuses around the country. Here’s the paraphrase: “The Church Fathers wrote about more than what John or Paul taught them about the historical activities and claims of Jesus; they also wrote about theological issues, and many of their theological positions are rejected by non-Catholics. If we reject the theology of some of these men, how can we trust anything else they said? How do we know where to draw the line, and are we just ‘cherry-picking’ as we use what happens to serve our cause (while rejecting the stuff we don’t like)?”

Once again, the best analogy here is a courtroom analogy. There are many times when a witness is asked to describe what he (or she) saw or heard, but there are important limits. I might ask a witness, “What did the suspect say to you?” This kind of question is appropriate and the witness’ response will be allowed in the trial.

 Nope, that's inadmissible hearsay.  You'd have to therefore respond to the objection by citing to a court rule allowing hearsay in certain specific circumstances.

But if I step beyond this and ask, “Why do you think the suspect said that?” the defense attorneys will likely object to my question before the witness even gets a chance to respond: “Your honor, that’s an inappropriate question, the witness is being asked to offer an opinion, and it’s irrelevant what the witness thinks in this regard. This witness can’t read the mind of the suspect.” It’s one thing to ask a witness to strictly recall what he or she heard, another to offer an opinion about what this means or what may have motivated the statement in the first place.

That would fall under the "present-sense impression" exception to the hearsay exclusion rule.

When there are multiple eyewitnesses used in a criminal trial, there’s a good chance these witnesses will come from a variety of worldviews and lifestyles. They will probably hold a divergent set of beliefs, attitudes and opinions.

 But the case usually doesn't center on how different people interpret something somebody wrote.

In fact, they may even have varying opinions about the guilt of the defendant in the case. None of these varying views will be apparent to the jury, however, because our questions on the stand will be limited to the actions or statements of the defendant. In a similar way, the Early Church Fathers provide us with key information related to the statements of the gospel authors.

 Yes, like Irenaeus insisting that Jesus lived into his 50's and had a 10 year ministry.

That’s the limit of their testimony and the evidential boundary for which they have value. They may disagree with each other (or later theologians) about what they think we ought to interpret from the life and teaching of Jesus, but that’s outside the scope of their testimony.

Just one problem:  the NT says Christians have the seal of the Holy Spirit and are otherwise the temple of God, so you run a very serious risk of denying what the Holy Spirit says, when you reject the theological opinions of the church fathers.  I would argue that because apologists like you evince not the slightest interest in viewing somebody as speaking inerrantly by the Spirit, you are effectively nullifying that NT doctrine.  Probably because you live in a modern culture that scoffs at the idea that somebody should be viewed God's mouth-piece.

We simply want to know what John and Paul said about Jesus so we can make sure the Gospels and New Testament letters we have today contain the same information as the originals. I’m not interested in the political, social or theological inclinations of these men;

 Then you should be, because there is a possibility that what they said was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and if so, there's no guarantee that standard rules of hermeneutics will help you figure out who spoke for god and who didn't.  If the NT authors often gave OT texts new twists, then standard rules of hermeneutics will not be sufficiently reliable to justify confidence that your interpretation of a NT statement is the correct one.  They were all over the map.

You also overlook that the church fathers wrote for churches to guide them as spiritual leaders.  You might glibbly dismiss any such person today, but back then it was a bit more serious.  And given the general lack of literacy, you really have to wonder:  why did god allow those congregations to be led by these men who allegedly held incorrect theological opinions?  Could it possibly be that there appears no infallible check on their theology because there actually isn't one? Gee, you can't accept that, cuz the bible is inerrant, right?

I simply want to know, “What did John and Paul say about Jesus?”

The content confirmation of the Early Church Fathers is yet another way to verify the trustworthy nature of the New Testament.

 It also opens doors of possibility to gospel authorship denial that you cannot easily close.

I've notified Christian Research Institute of James Patrick Holding's sins

Just now I sent a warning message to Christian Research Institute.

They sometimes allow James Patrick Holding to author articles in their CRI Journal.

I find in 2019, what I found in 2015, that CRI needs to be notified that Mr. Holding's libels of me constitute an on-going sin of Mr. Holding that has defined him for 20 years and which he has absolutely zero intention of ever repenting of.  Back when Walter Martin was heading CRI, Holding would have been tossed overboard like chum.  Here's the message:

https://www.equip.org/contact/

February 6, 2019,  1:00 p.m.

One of your occasional CRI Journal authors, James Patrick Holding, is now being sued a third time for libel.

  You can get a copy of the 97-page Complaint at the following blog:

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/01/james-patrick-holding-unconscionable.html

Mr. Holding has been persistently insulting, slandering and libeling everybody he disagrees with for the better part of the last 20 years, in diametric opposition to CRI's own rules prohibiting Christians from insulting others.  See

https://www.equip.org/article/reclaiming-civility-as-a-christian-virtue/

Here is the email I sent to Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg NAMB and other people that are either Holding's spiritual mentors, or have in some way told the world that Mr. Holding is qualified under biblical criteria to hold the office of Christian "teacher":

------begin quote:

Dr. Habermas and all others,

This notification is sent to you in the hope that you will start the Matthew 18 process of formally disassociating yourselves from a so-called Christian "brother" whose sins of slander and reviling have reached pathological heights and appear to know no bounds.

     15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

     16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

     17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.    (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)

If you think James Patrick Holding has the least bit of credibility or honesty, I'll have you know that he has a Patreon account wherein he asks others for money to create YouTube videos

    from   www.tektonics.org/support.php

    "If you're a fan of our TektonTV YouTube videos, you can sign up to support them via Patreon."

    At some point in the past, Mr. Holding obtained a video showing me falling during a bus accident, he photoshopped the video in various ways, he "looped" the part showing me falling, then he replaced the original audio track with a commercial soundtrack so that I get up and fall down about 500 times in the space of this 1-minute loop of video-tape, and I do so while reacting in sync to a childish sound bit of fast-paced music, and Holding deleted everything else in the video that happened about two seconds after I started falling, for no other reason than to cause me emotional distress.

   (link deleted)

    By the way, Holding agreed, when receiving this video via public records request, NOT to put the video to any commercial use.  So since Holding has a Patreon account and begs for money to produce his Tekton TV videos, and since at the time of uploading this video he did not have tax-exempt status, he clearly wanted his viewers to give him money, for profit, to produce or upload such video, even if he never formally asked them for any such thing. Circumstantial evidence is allowed in Court.  So Holding was also violating the law when photoshopping this public record to the delight of his typically retarded followers, in his effort to profit from my tragedy.

    Before that video was posted, I previously complained at another one of Holding's videos mocking that bus accident, that "Holding is gleefully mocking the fact that I was seriously injured on a local bus a while back"

    Holding intentionally overlaid those comments of mine onto the portion of the video that shows me getting up and falling 500 times during the tape "loop" he created.  That is, Holding is horrifically belligerent in his efforts to make fun of my painful accident.

What fool would say Jesus wants his modern-day apologists to engage in conduct like THAT?  Posting videos to YouTube that have been photoshopped and looped so as to make belligerent mockery of another's person's tremendously painful traffic accident? 

What he doesn't show you on the video is that I fell all the way forward to the front of the bus while it was screeching to a halt, I was in severe sciatica pain laying on the floor, I could not move, I had to be lifted by paramedics to an ambulance, Lawyers for the defense refused to answer the question of why the bus didn't stop moving until after it illegally went past the cross-walk, etc, etc.)

Must the ways of modern Christian apologists always be defended regardless of how plainly vicious and unbiblical they are?

Go ahead, ask Holding why it is that he didn't post that video until after I filed my third lawsuit against him.  It's perfectly obvious that he posted that video for no other reason than sheer spite, hatred, hostility, ill-will, and intent to harm me.  Not even the average atheist or unbeliever goes to such lengths to mock another person's tragedy.  A jury would be more than likely to believe Holding's primary motive in posting this video was to harm me in one way or another.  He even ends the video by showing a screenshot of the legal calendar showing I had filed this third lawsuit against him.

And lest you ask, let me answer:  No, Holding has not made the least bit of effort to respond to my settlement offers or otherwise communicate directly with me in the way the courts suggest to try and settle.

FYI:     Attached is my third lawsuit against Mr. Holding, for libel (it was filed before Holding posted aforesaid video) and one can only wonder how long you people will sit in the shadows hoping this Holding-scandal will just blow over, before you finally do what Christians are required to do, and publicly disassociate yourself from this unconscionable scoundrel:

     9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;

     10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.

     11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater,

    OR A REVILER, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.

     12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?

     13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.       (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)

     3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;

     4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.

     5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

     6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Eph. 5:3-6 NAU)

     6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,

     7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.

     8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.

     9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,       (Col. 3:6-9 NAU)

Do you think that if Holding continues to violate basic NT ethics until the year 2024, you might start thinking there's a sin problem that requires apologists to do something more than boast that skeptics cannot explain the empty tomb?

The third libel lawsuit is Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, Inc, 6:19-cv-76-Orl-37GJK, Florida Middle District Court.

you can keep track of the case here.   https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26884971/Doscher_v_Apologetics_Afield,_Inc

The "Complaint" is attached to this email, so that you discover why it is that Holding's choice to libel me through the use of dishonestly edited Court records, does not automatically shield him from defamation-liability.  The law imposes conditions on the "fair-report" privilege, and Holding violates every one of them with this video and with the vast majority of the photoshopped court records about me which he has posted elsewhere.

In my book, which I hope to have published before 2021, I'll be arguing that skeptics are reasonable to point to an alleged Christian person's complete apathy toward the NT ethics that require them to make difficult decisions (i.e, Matthew 18, 1st Cor. 5, disassociation from sinful remorseless "brothers") and conclude that such Christians are not genuinely born-again.  There's a reason why most apologists care for little more in Christianity than just making arguments and selling Jesus:  they are just naturally drawn to intellectual challenges.  If they were truly growing in the spirit, then they'd have far less tolerance for spiteful intentional sinners like James Patrick Holding.

At some point, you are reasonable to say that the lack of the fruit of the spirit in a Christian's life (love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness,  meekness, kindness, temperance, indifference) reasonably justifies concluding they aren't really saved to begin with.  You cannot just continue forever making excuses about how sanctification in the Christian is a lifetime process.  

Yes, Christians are sinners.

No, Paul and Jesus didn't forget that fact when they admonished the church to expel the remorseless immoral brother.

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher

-------endquote

I'm sorry, CRI, but Mr. Holding's sins of slander and libel have gone completely out of control BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO BUSY MARKETING YOUR APOLOGETICS BELLS AND WHISTLES TO THE WORLD AND OTHERWISE SELLING JESUS, TO ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN THE TOUGH DECISION MAKING THAT JESUS AND PAUL REQUIRED WHEN FACED WITH AN OBSTINATELY SINFUL "CHRISTIAN".

Yes, I will be discussing in my book how suspicious it is that the most popular apologetics organizations that allow Holding to be a "teacher", pretend to love Jesus, but do not obey Jesus.  I will be arguing that any naturalistic explanation for your alleged love for Christ is probably a better explanation for your sense of "salvation", than any excuse you can conjure up about how you aren't responsible to discipline Mr. Holding.       

You cannot deny that Holding's sin of slander is great and thus you need to stop allowing this unrepentant sinner, so blind he thinks sin is holy conduct, to continue using your organization to convince the world he is qualified for Christian ministry.  If you don't mind naming names, let's see you get objective and turn the guns on your own CRI journal authors. 

...unless of course CRI has gone liberal?

https://www.equip.org/contact/?__cf_waf_tk__=00002776530080000008838MgHiz5KeSYCp6RMw4YS9lqxINUk

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

 I obtained lots of information from CRI back in the early 1990's, and I've respected them even after I became an atheist, but they appear to be no less afflicted with the sin of apathy toward sinful remorseless brothers, than most other "apologetics" ministries.  Perhaps they will blame Holding's latest sins upon themselves (i.e., if they would have paid attention to the alarm bells I was sounding in 2015 and chastised or disfellowshipped Holding, he probably wouldn't have committed the latest sins of slander and libel that are now the subject of the present and third libel lawsuit against him).

Once again, Holding is apparently literate, but when advised that he has chosen the wrong victim to fuck with, he suddenly forgets how to communicate in English, and goes his merry way, utterly oblivious to the serious problems his slanders create for himself.    Holding is a stupid bastard; I like the idea of having friends follow me on the internet, but I would never seek so much approval from retards that I would descend to the immoral and unlawful depths that he has, just to make sure they keep sending money.

Cold Case Christianity: Morals cannot be "objective"

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Is God Real?
Common, Objective Moral Standards Are an Evidence of God’s Existence

Posted: 01 Feb 2019 03:00 AM PST

The Axiological Argument for the existence of God relies on the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths (i.e. “It’s never morally permissible or virtuous to torture babies for fun”). But not everyone agrees these truths exist in the first place, even though they often seem self-evident.

One person thinks their opinion on how America should be run is "self-evident", but such confidence is not a reliable criteria of truth.  Many men think the goodness of dying for one's country is self-evident, but others maintain that their personal commitment to family outweighs any obligation they have to die for other people.

Many who do accept the existence of transcendent moral truths still deny a transcendent moral truth Giver.

Some atheists think that way, and I say they are inconsistent.  If atheism is true, then no moral would have a basis any deeper than genetic predisposition flavored with environmental conditioning.  I am, of course, discounting the bare possibility that earth and humans were created by advanced space aliens.  Dan Barker often talks about objective morals with his "we recoil from pain" speech, but alas, since we also recoil from the pain at a doctor's office where the pain is part of what's necessary to heal, not even our recoiling from pain implies the existence of some objective moral standard.

Some skeptics believe these moral truths come from our evolutionary development as a species, are embedded in our DNA, or are simply a matter of social convention. If this is the case, moral truth is relative to the individual making the claim. Moral relativism is, however, difficult to actualize consistently. Those who argue against the existence of transcendent, objective moral values, typically advocate for such values when push comes to shove (especially when they’ve been victimized).

Yes, many atheists do, and I say they are inconsistent.  When I say my neighbor shouldn't slash my tires, I recognize that I can only appeal to his own morality and the threat of legal action to persuade him to comply.  But the truth is that if he doesn't share at least some of my general moral beliefs, then I will be deprived of any way to convince him to see things my way.  Indeed, you cannot do much with a person who does not respect the law, doesn't respect normative social conventions, and doesn't really care if they get put in jail.  For such people, ordering them even in the name of god to stop committing some act will prove futile.

We accept many values and mores as if they were transcendently true, even as we might deny the existence of such overarching truths.

Yes, we do often live as if our relative morals were absolute, and yes this is an inconsistency.  But the mistake of some atheists of living as if their personal moral outlooks are absolute transcendent truths, does not open the door to the possibility that such morality is indeed objective.

Is God real?

Only if you allow for the reality of objects whose description is incoherent.  God's non-physical nature is one problem, as you cannot even show that any "non-physical" thing even exists.  And apologists are mostly to blame for toying with words and pretending that "physical" is something that can have an opposite.

Our common acceptance of an objective moral standard is yet another evidence of God’s existence.

 Since you are preaching to the choir, I don't mind saying "Amen".  When you come up with anything that even remotely threatens something atheists believe, let me know.

If there are no objective, transcendent moral truths, we lose the ability to make many significant decisions and judgments.

No, you are assuming moral relativity saps importance from everything we might say or do.  Not true.  Going to the store to get something to eat would still maintain its inherent significance, relative to your own life, even if all morality was relative.  As mammals, I'm sure Christian mothers would likely continue caring for their children even if such moms became convinced there was no objective morality.   Indeed, purpose in life is quite "relative" anyway.  You don't need to believe that God gives a fuck about how many cookies you eat before dinner, in order to experience a sense of fulfillment of purpose in eating them or resisting the temptation.  But if you are a Christian, I can understand how you think moving around in the world without linking everything back to God's sovereign purpose implies nothing but utter chaos.  But it doesn't.  I don't put gas in my car because I think there's some higher intelligence who wills it.  Most Christians probably also lack this view when fueling up at the service station.  So you are wrong, significant and sufficient sense of fulfillment of purpose in life can easily be achieved without pretending that god exists or that morals are objective. Only those who are already Christians, cannot bear to think about living life in complete disregard for 'god'.  If you stopped praying at meals, you might overcome some of your brainwashing.  And if you wish to continue praying before meals, then just remember that because you think God is infinitely wonderful, no length of prayer would be too long.  Classical theist Christians cannot meaningfully object to the person at the dinner table who takes 5 hours to say grace.  Isn't god worth that much?

Without the existence of such truths, nothing can be considered objectively virtuous, vile, or benign.

 I don't see the problem.  There is no moral that is objectively virtuous, vile or benign.  The closest you can get is that it is no coincidence that we mammals just happen to agree with each other, for the most part, that conduct which threatens our ability to survive and thrive, should not be tolerated.

Greg Koukl, my ministry partner at Stand to Reason, has written an excellent book on this topic: Relativism; Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Greg makes several key observations, some of which are summarized here:

All True Praise Requires An Objective Moral Standard

Most of us recognize the importance of praise, particularly when someone has performed nobly or has behaved sacrificially to improve the world in some way. But it’s impossible to truly praise anyone for such behavior without the existence of a transcendent, objective moral standard. Our accolades for those who have acted sacrificially for the good of others are meant to be more than subjective compliments. When we praise someone, we are praising them for something we believe was objectively virtuous, and would be considered so by everyone and anyone, regardless of personal opinion.

 False. When we praise our military members, we are not claiming their defense of this corrupt nation, called America, was in conformity to objective moral values, we are only expressing gratitude toward them that they played a significant part in helping America remain free of military threats.  After all, many Christians believe God disapproves of America for the most part.  So then if we are praising those who defend this corrupt nation, we stand a very good chance of praising in total absence of any underlying objective moral truth.

When we praise a child for getting good grades, we are not presuming that conformity to modern social convention like public schooling is based on some objective moral standard, we are only praising them from within the relative standard of our society and century.

We seldom say, “We praise you for doing something we happen to value in this culture; something we personally think is good, even if it may not be good to anyone else.”

Yes, most people offering praise aren't that specific about its realities, but that is the more honest way to praise regardless. You are a fool if you think you can argue from the socially acceptable mistaken inaccurate way that people say things, over to objective moral truth.

True praise assumes an overarching standard of goodness transcending all of us as humans.

 No. Praising a toddler when she manifests an act of kindness, like sharing a toy or food, only signifies that the praisers think she conformed to modern social convention, nothing more.  They can be Christians and add "Jesus wants us to be kind to each other" to the mix, but that hardly transforms the relativity into objectivity.  Whether a toddler "should" be kind to another toddler is ultimately relative to the situation and the expectations of the parents, caregivers and society.  You lose.

Do you remember growing up as a teenager and hearing your mom tell you that you were handsome or pretty? We accept such compliments with a degree of hesitancy, don’t we? Was her statement true, or simply her biased, subjective opinion? We are left wondering if we are truly handsome or truly pretty. True praise requires an objective standard related to what is good or bad; ugly or beautiful.

No, there is no objective standard for teen beauty or handsomeness.  So if anybody remarks that you are pretty or ugly, it isn't like they can show your looks fail to match up to some objective standard.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And once again, yes, we often talk as if we are invoking objective standards, but that is mere convention, our doing this doesn't mean such objective standards actually exist.  If my grandpa curses at the ACLU because they fight so hard for gay-rights, he might be implying he relies on an objective standard, and maybe he wants the hearers to believe such standard is real, but in the final analysis, that standard is not objective. 

All True Condemnation Requires An Objective Moral Standard

In a similar way, it is also impossible to truly condemn anyone unless there is a transcendent, objective moral standard.

 So when we condemn a child for unwillingness to share a toy, we are necessarily proving there's an objective morality, somewhere out there, that says "all children must share their toys in this circumstance".  Wrong.

We often condemn those we think embody evil in our world (Hitler is a good example). When we say we believe someone (or something) is evil, we think we are expressing more than our personal opinion.

Correct, that is what we "think".   But it is also inaccurate.  Lots of people are belligerently dogmatic in their attempts to call somebody evil, stupid or criminal.  But in the final analysis, their invoking objective standards doesn't mean those standards exist, or are objective, anymore than the Mormon invoking the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon implies that book is historically accurate.

We think this person (or thing) is truly evil and worthy of everyone’s condemnation.

Because our genetics and environmental conditioning were very different from Hitler's.  Had we been born in Germany 1915, we would be just as likely to join the Nazis as today's high school boy is likely to join the US Army.   Nothing is more popular than a citizen thinking his country's specific ways are the "right" way.

But such transcendent condemnation requires an objective, transcendent moral standard defining both good and evil.

Correct.  But needing one to exist in order to justify reliance upon the standard, doesn't mean such standard exists.  It could just as easily be that the person is mistaking their dogmatic but relative opinion for objective moral truth.

If we reject such a standard, we must accept what one person might see as evil, another might see as good.

No, you are now telling us what morality "should" prevail if in fact none of it is "objective".  But if no morality is objective, then you are deprived of any objective basis to morally condemn anything...like bigots who condemn the moral acts of others.  If all morality is relative, then there is no objective moral basis for declaring  "you should allow the other person to do what they want".  No.  There are no objective morals, so there can be no objective moral criteria to decide what level of intolerance is "wrong".  In such a world, if two people meet and have exactly opposing moral intentions, often there is no way to resolve it except physical violence (fighting, or getting arrested for harassment, etc).

In a world like this, statements of condemnation are meaningless. They are nothing more than mere opinion,

Now you are just repeating Frank Turek's fallacy of immediately equating opinion with uselessness.  That is a factual falsehood.  I have an opinion that tomorrow I should work on my legal case instead of studying the bible.  That opinion is not meaningless.  A father has an opinion that the kids need to go to bed on school nights at 10 p.m.  That is not meaningless, useless or equal to the opinion that says just let the kids stay up 24 hours per day and constantly imbibe pepsi and pizza.  Some opinions are clearly more likely to result in achieving normative American societal goals, than others.   For that reason, not all opinions are equal.

and, in the end, they presume the condemner has some right to judge others who simply hold a differing opinion.

No, in a morally relative world, we do not condemn out of any sense of "right" to do so, we condemn because hatred of certain conduct is hard-wired into our mammalian brains.  We have become sophisticated enough to create a democracy whereby we seek to justify our personal morality by appeal to law and the Constitution which just happen to reflect our personal morality, but those sources are still equally as morally subjective as any moral opinion is.  Appeal to an external source of moral authority hardly implies that any such source is going to be "objective".

In this kind of world, firm condemnation is arrogant and self-righteous.

So?  You don't have an objective moral that says "thou shalt not be arrogant or self-righteous".

All Moral Activism Requires An Objective Moral Standard

We recognize the virtue of moral reformers like Martin Luther King Jr.

No, you are just blindly assuming that because he was successful in creating something America now views as normative and good, therefore, he must have been doing something that was an objective moral good.  Nope.  What he did was good for America, in my opinion, but the goodness of what he did does not reside in any "transcendent" moral truth.

There are times when an activist sees the need for improvement within a society and feels compelled to propose reform.

And he or she can attempt such reform for no other reason than that they get a personal thrill out of trying to convince others to forge society in their own personal view.  Nothing objective here. And once again, the reformer's invoking god or inherent human dignity or some such qualifier doesn't automatically require that objective morality exists.  Terrorists invoke their god Allah in the name of their brand of social change which we call "terrorism".  Are you convinced therefore that god's name is Allah?  Hardly.  Any fool can invoke non-existent authority.  It is better to skip their invocation and go directly to the alleged proofs that this authority exists or is objective.

But if moral truths are formed by cultural consensus, moral reform is illogical (and, indeed, immoral).

No, there is nothing illogical about a small group of people taking their subjective moral point of view and convincing others in the culture that adopting said view would constitute a change in conformity to the nation's higher goals.  Such naturalistic explanation is sufficient and therefore leaves no room to pretend that this state of affairs is best accounted for by a higher intelligent being who has objective morals..

When a society decides something is morally virtuous (and the vast majority of its members agree on this), on what basis can a lone reformer, disagreeing with the cultural consensus, make a call for change?

His own personal moral opinion, whereby he says the status quo needs to be changed.

To what standard is this moral reformer appealing?

His own, and if he campaigns, he will likely argue that the change he seeks is also in furtherance of the general goals his hearers likely have.  Nothing morally absolute here.

If moral truths come from the society, whatever the society believes is, by definition, morally right.

 But not in an absolute sense.  Therefore the subjectivity of the majority moral viewpoint is also subject to change.  And the world of humanity has done little more in 100,000 years, than continually change their views about the worth of human beings and what goals nations should pursue.

If the majority rules, this group is the source of moral truth.

The source of relative moral truth, yes, if you are going to use a watered-down version of "truth".

In a world like this, the minority position is immoral by definition.

But only subjectively so.

Moral reformers cannot argue for a moral truth unless they are agreeing with the society.

Indeed, the only way to be successful at moral reform is to convince the hold-outs that their voting in favor of the change will be an act furthering their own more general goals.  The fact that you convince somebody to join the Moral Majority doesn't imply the existence of a god, anymore than an atheist convincing his girlfriend to snort coke implies the existence of an invisible space alien who wants people to do drugs.

In short, anyone who advocates reform in this kind of world is morally mistaken.

Not in an absolute or objective sense.  There is no objective morality.  The moral majority might rule and have final say on moral matters in our society, but that doesn't make their views absolute or objective in the sense of implying that their standards are grounded in something "transcendent".

A moral reformer like a Martin Luther King Jr. simply could not exist (as a person holding a minority position) and argue for a transcendent moral truth, unless of course, such truth comes from something (or someone) other than the culture.

So the only way Muslim terrorists can argue for their "transcendent moral truth" that Americans deserve to be massacred, is if such "truth" comes from something (or someone) other than the culture.

Sorry, that's just stupid.  Those terrorists do what they do, often successfully, despite your own belief that their version of moral reform is contrary to the real objective moral truth.  Therefore terrorists who engage in moral reform are a proof that seeking more reform does not imply the existence of a transcendent moral truth.  They are just ruthless bigots who have lots of power.

All Tolerance Requires An Objective Moral Standard

Finally, let’s take a look at the much loved attribute of tolerance.

Then count me out.  I'm not one of those wishy-washy card-carrying ACLU radicals or newagers who think tolerance is always good.

Without an objective, transcendent moral standard, true tolerance is impossible.

So if a friend comes to your house which smells like "dog", but politely tolerates the revolting smell for the duration of their visit, this is supposed to imply the existence of an objective transcendent moral standard?  Sorry, try again.

When two people disagree, tolerance is the behavior employed to coexist in spite of their disagreement. When we agree with each other, there is nothing to tolerate. Tolerance is reserved for those with whom we disagree. But if we are living in a society in which all diversity is to be embraced with equal status and value (as equally true), there is nothing with which we can disagree. And without disagreement, there is no need for tolerance.

 That's a good rebuttal to the stupid liberals who embrace absolute tolerance.  You say nothing to refute my own views.

While some may continue to deny the existence of transcendent, objective moral truths, our common acceptance of such truths reveals a contradiction.

Not at all, our common acceptance of such truths would first imply we had either similar genetic predispositions, or similar environmental conditioning, or both.  Our both being "mammals" is also why we'd agree on some moral duty.  Unfortunately for you, these naturalistic explanations are reasonable and not sufficiently stupid or unlikely so as to make any room for you to pretend that any morals "necessitate" god's existence.

We typically accept the foundation of objective moral standards as we praise, condemn, reform and tolerate the behavior of others.

No,  we typically tell ourselves that we stand upon objective morals when we praise, condemn, reform or tolerate.  But we aren't really standing on any such thing, we simply have a nasty persistent habit of mistaking our personal views for objective moral truth.