Comments on THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: From the brilliant atheistic mind of Mr. Loftus

FYI, I am unofficially beginning a new comment pol...

2012-01-30T18:23:35.980-05:00

FYI, I am unofficially beginning a new comment policy whereby all commenters will need to have a user name of some kind.

Otherwise, I have no way of knowing if the most recent "anonymous" is the same person who I previously advised that I will no longer have discussions with.

Matthew 18:21,22 Is this one of your moral standa...

2012-01-30T18:08:17.623-05:00

Matthew 18:21,22

Is this one of your moral standards, Mike?

Dr. William Lane Craig: “I think that a good star...

2012-01-30T16:06:15.949-05:00

Dr. William Lane Craig:

“I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.”

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

Tell me, Mike, do you agree with this statement?

Me thinks he doth protest too much.

2012-01-28T15:49:17.504-05:00

Me thinks he doth protest too much.

I have no idea who you are, but i've completel...

2012-01-28T15:09:00.306-05:00

I have no idea who you are, but i've completely lost all respect for you and will have no future interest in discussing with you about anything.

A mature person would say, "That's cool Mike, I understand you've got a lot going on and look forward to interacting with you in the future on these matter."

I'm totally done with this. Feel free to leave your pathetic and inconsiderate responses all you want. But it is highly doubtful that i'll respond.

Plus, why should I care what some "anonymous" internet "agnostic" says anyway? Especially when he knows absolutely nothing about my life. Seriously, grow up.

Immature? Refusing to face one's fears is imma...

2012-01-28T14:54:49.584-05:00

Immature? Refusing to face one's fears is immature. Remaining an intellectual child certainly is.

You seem to be losing your Christian humility and modesty by your answer.

If you will not answer, even briefly, ONE of my specific questions, why should anyone take you or what you say seriously?

If supporting Biblical morality is important to you MAKE time for it.

Oh, and one final thing. By stating that 'lyin...

2012-01-28T14:50:29.020-05:00

Oh, and one final thing. By stating that 'lying and deceit are situational' you have fallen into your own trap by demonstrating that there are no moral absolutes. Perhaps murder, genocide, rape and robbery are also 'situational.'

Hence why should I follow the Bible's moral standards.

Thanks for your time.

@Anonymous, That is a completely pathetic, immatu...

2012-01-28T14:47:33.008-05:00

@Anonymous,

That is a completely pathetic, immature, and inconsiderate response. Some people have a lot going on in life and have many things they have to prioritize over others.

Its unfortunate that you think you know so much about me and what's going on with my life that you can call this "excuses...for your lack of evidence...and fear" rather than be mature enough to respect some else's priorities in life.

Grow up.

It's sad that you make excuses rather than arg...

2012-01-28T14:35:58.340-05:00

It's sad that you make excuses rather than arguments for your lack of evidence, which simply means you wish to avoid difficult questions, Mike. This is sad as you state that your site is for Christian defence purposes.

The questions will continue to stand despite your obvious fear of facing them.

One thing I do admire you for is that you at least publish your 'opponent's' arguments.

So, to date, I have to agree with the atheist viewpoint:

Lions 1/Christians 0

@Anonymous (next time, actually use that nick for ...

2012-01-28T14:09:45.037-05:00

@Anonymous (next time, actually use that nick for your user name),

As I have stated several times, such a discussion will venture into areas that I simply do not have time to develop in a comment section of a blog that was pretty much meant for comedic and sarcastic purposes.

While I appreciate your willingness to discuss, i'll leave you with the last word on this exchange. Perhaps when I write a blog or make a video whereby I can develop these ideas further could we have a profitable exchange. And as you may have figured out, its difficult to discuss such topics without laying a proper foundation.

Thanks for your time and I hope you'll stop by again.

You can call me Zealous for Truth. I would have ...

2012-01-28T13:59:59.463-05:00

You can call me Zealous for Truth.

I would have thought it would be your pleasure to see Dawkins and others "bite the dust" with your Christian defence site. Oh well, all his supporters will say is, "Lions 1/Christians 0."

Your statement that the Bible is YOUR standard of moral values is well and good, but for others to put faith in that statement you must show them WHY when they ask you questions - even ones you are reluctant to answer. I have done what you asked and stepped into your arena to debate you. Do me the honour of specifics of legitimate questions I ask you.

'Lying and deceit are not absolutes."

This is most revealing. So, despite my being brought up (as a Christian) to believe that ALL lying was wrong, you are now changing the terms of my contract - apparently it's now 'situational.' Are you serious? Could you give me a couple of examples where deceit and lying are acceptable for the Christian?

One of the recurring themes in the Bible when this happens are times when 'godly' people do so in place of God's direct act of salvation - Abraham and David are just two examples.

Tell me, Mike. Do you teach your children (if you are a father) what you are telling me? Will you tell them that at times lies and deceit can be necessary when any direct action from God is absent? Do you tell them that lies come in colours and shades and that as long as their motive is right (by the Bible's standards)it is desirable to deceive and lie?

Of course, devoting themselves to prayer would infuse this wisdom into them - is that what you mean by your defence of deceit and lying?

Don't you think that your defence of these actions actually FOGS what righteousness is? Does your defence actually, in fact, not defend sin? If not, why not?

@anonymous about the "debate" question: ...

2012-01-28T09:59:14.383-05:00

@anonymous about the "debate" question: what are you talking about?

@anonymous i've been discussing with (please start using a nick. This gets kind of annoying):

Yes, the Bible (which reflects the mind of God) is my standard of moral values. As to why I believe so, such a forum would be extremely inadequate for me to explain. But the nutshell version is that without the truth of Scripture, one cannot have an objective basis for morality at all. And I also posit this for things like the laws of logic as well among other things.

Honestly, i've written very little about morality and would like to more in the future so as to clarify and defend what I believe. As you can see from my blogs, i'm very distracted by other topics.

I'm very hesitant to answer one of your questions because it will venture into things that I have very little time for. But my basic answer is that lying and deceit are not absolutes; but situational. But I will also submit that, at the same time, its not always correct to use descriptive examples in the Bible as a prescription for some sort of "absolute" that can work in any given situation. For the Christian who seeks to obey Christ, they must devote themselves to prayer, wisdom, and wise counsel in making such moral decisions.

For Dawkins, on the contrary, i'll say that quoting his book on evolution to support a point is just as meaningless to me as my quoting Jonathan Sarfati's rebuttal book, "The Greatest Hoax on Earth" as a refutation of Dawkins.

I don't have time for specifics here, but i've written about Dawkins a number of times on this blog, which can be found on the sidebar topics. Hopefully that can suffice for why I don't take Dawkins seriously, and why atheists shouldn't either (even if their worldview were true).

Then let's make this simple. Everything you ha...

2012-01-28T03:40:01.501-05:00

Then let's make this simple. Everything you have written above places the Bible as your pinnacle of moral values, is that right, Mike?

Then before you and I can discuss the origin of these values you must defend, by answering the questions I have posed, WHY the Bible is that pinnacle, otherwise there is no discussion.

I realise you're a busy man, but answer one of the questions I pose for now. Take your pick.

If you need to concede the argument by stating that I lack "faith" and that God will correct all things eventually, why not just say so.

Laughing at Dawkins does not make him wrong. Give me an argument that makes him wrong or I will have to talk straw men.

Are we still on for the debate, Mike?

2012-01-28T01:08:44.483-05:00

Are we still on for the debate, Mike?

@Anonymous, Why should I care about an "acce...

2012-01-27T22:43:46.549-05:00

@Anonymous,

Why should I care about an "acceptable moral standard today?" What is this "standard" that you speak of?

As far as "punishment has to fit the crime," what are you basing this on? Is there a moral standard by which you can make such a statement? What if person's were punished in ways that don't fit the crime? On what grounds could you object?

But to answer this question, our sins are against a Holy and Righteous God; who is our Creator. He decides what our punishment can be; regardless as to whether we like the punishment or not.

In addition, you don't take into account original sin when you say, "Condemning to death even before the crime is committed is the same as prejudging guilt in a court."

The crime was committed in Adam; through whom we are all sons of. Therefore, all of us inherit only that which Adam can give us; sinful flesh.

As to your other points; i'm happy to engage such questions but they go far beyond what I have time for in this context.

Bringing up Richard Dawkins is almost laughable to me; and no offense to you. Given his complete and utter faceplant in "The God Delusion," why should I take anything he says seriously?

You'll notice here, Mike, that I have set asid...

2012-01-26T21:22:51.733-05:00

You'll notice here, Mike, that I have set aside my scientific 'presuppositions' in favour of a debate on your home turf.

Maybe after we have settled these ethical paradoxes we might extend the arguments beyond our comfort-zones.

"In my worldview, "agnostic" is not...

2012-01-24T23:16:39.050-05:00

"In my worldview, "agnostic" is not true, since Scripture teaches that all men know God, but suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-22). But i'm not here to get into semantics."

This is tough then for those with doubts, especially in this Scientific Age where a far higher level of proof for any claim is required.

"How do you know that this is how morality should be determined? This is where we part ways on our presuppositions."

Notice I said they "can" not that they "are." Therefore this is not a presupposition on my part.

"Because "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) If God didn't have mercy on me, I would be just as much deserving of suffering as anyone else. This is why God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering."

Is this seen as an acceptable moral standard today? For this to be moral, surely, the punishment has to fit the crime, but here we have humans put into a position where they (abandonment by God in almost all aspects other than sacred books)are almost foreordained to commit sin. Condemning to death even before the crime is committed is the same as prejudging guilt in a court. Is this what you mean by moral superiority, Mike?

Adam and Eve: "Yes"

Richard Dawkins in his The Greatest Show on Earth tells us that the immune system must have evolved.

When did Adam and Eve get their immune system?

If they got it before the Fall then - as the immune system protects the human organism against the environment, Adam and Eve's environment could not be perfect (thus experimental).

Lie: "Blantantly communicating something that is not true."

Actually, the Encarta Dictionary adds that it is the deliberate attempt to mislead a person.

Would Rahab's, Abraham's, and King David's (faking madness) lies fall under this definition?

Another question:

Was Lot's decision to sacrifice his daughters' virginity and lives to the violent inhabitants of Sodom consistent with God's moral standards? (Remember later that Lot is called "righteous" [2 Peter 2:7 NIV]).

@Anonymous, In my worldview, "agnostic"...

2012-01-24T22:25:06.563-05:00

@Anonymous,

In my worldview, "agnostic" is not true, since Scripture teaches that all men know God, but suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-22). But i'm not here to get into semantics.

"Moral standards can be grown from the fertile soil of experience."

How do you know that this is how morality should be determined? This is where we part ways on our presuppositions.

But since you're open to having a Scriptural discussion, i'll be happy to answer your original question:

"why do you think God has sufficient moral reasons to permit suffering for 6,000 years, especially of the innocent?"

Because "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) If God didn't have mercy on me, I would be just as much deserving of suffering as anyone else. This is why God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering.

To answer your questions at the end:

1. Yes

2. Blatantly communicating something that is not true.

You seem not to have seen the word 'agnostic&#...

2012-01-24T03:06:40.016-05:00

You seem not to have seen the word 'agnostic' in my previous comment, so you'll need to explain to me what my presuppositions are, Mike. Is the theist, the atheist or the agnostic the most open-minded?

The answer to your first question is tied up in my thought-experiment about the Neanderthal communities. Moral standards can be grown from the fertile soil of experience. I'm assuming that you want a Scriptural discussion (which I can do, no problem)as this seems to be the source of all moral standards to you; fine.

The answer specifically is that if you want a wider audience to accept your findings then you must debate on a wider canvas, one which others can join in, or at least explain why your Biblical standards are at least superior to those held by the less or non religious.

Again, I have not argued that YHWH's (how do you pronounce that, Mike?)moral integrity is questionable. I merely pointed out that events portrayed in the Bible are unethical by today's 'more enlightened' standards. If you believe those ancient morals are superior, you need to explain why.

Why have you said I don't 'believe' in the Scriptures? I have told you twice that I am quite capable of holding a Biblical discussion/debate with you any time. Aren't you assuming a lot here?

A couple of questions for you, Mike:

1 Do you accept as historical the physical existence of Adam and Eve, Earth's first parents?

2 How would you define lying?

@anonymous, Sorry about my delayed response as i&...

2012-01-23T18:59:38.217-05:00

@anonymous,

Sorry about my delayed response as i'm not as available on weekdays.

Anyway, the problem is not with your question per se; its the presuppositions which you bring along with the question. Calling your presuppositions (which you somehow deny having) "anti-theistic" is not my being pejorative or demeaning; its calling them what they are.

So let's just get back to the original question. Otherwise, we will meet an impasse.

If I am to answer your question about God having a sufficient moral reason for doing what He has done in Scripture, then I assume that I am to answer this question according to your moral framework, correct?

If this is what I am to do, can you please answer the following:

1. Why should I answer according to your naturalistic/evolutionary/anti-theistic moral standard?

2. Could you please prove to me that your moral standard is the correct one that I should abide by in answering such questions about YHWH's moral integrity?

Your original question to me would be like my asking you to provide Scriptural moral justification for how you lived your life last week. Obviously, you could care less about "Scriptural moral justification" because you don't believe Scripture in the first place.

Have we met an impasse, Mike?

2012-01-23T18:29:12.399-05:00

Have we met an impasse, Mike?

I never said I was anti-theistic. As an agnostic, ...

2012-01-22T23:04:40.448-05:00

I never said I was anti-theistic. As an agnostic, I am open-minded and subsequently hold few, if any, presuppositions.

This discussion started with my sympathising with John Loftus' viewpoint given what we observe in the world. That is actually how science works - observe, theorise, and deliberate to prove or disprove that theory.

To comment honestly on what we see against the claims made cultural groups is part of scientific discovery and its psychology particularly interesting.

My 'anti-theistic' remarks were pointed mainly at questioning the ethical value (particularly modern ethics)of what we today would call ethnic-cleansing, fatwas, and child abuse of certain incidents recorded in the Bible. Why am I 'anti-theistic' by asking a legitimate question? Sound like a pejorative to me.

Is this how you take control of all your debates, Mike?

Also, I am not questioning YHWH as you quaintly call him. I can only question the record which places God as the one responsible for these situations. Is this how we understand enlightenment today? Either way, those more extreme among us have, at times, adopted these sensibilities and absorbed them into their own belief-system.

But rather than accuse you of an argument you have not raised, I would like to ask you a question in the form of a conundrum. Would that be all right?

@anonymous, I assure you that I take no offense t...

2012-01-22T21:44:41.320-05:00

@anonymous,

I assure you that I take no offense to anything you have said. However, I am very open about my presuppositions, but you don't seem to be about yours; which is why I am challenging your anti-theistic, naturalistic, worldview.

Therefore, when you ask questions in challenging the moral integrity of YHWH, I can only as by which moral standard we are to compare this to? But you're answers don't seem to indicate that you are willing to have an open dialogue about your presuppositions.

Sadly you seem to be taking this personally, Mike....

2012-01-22T18:19:50.540-05:00

Sadly you seem to be taking this personally, Mike. My wider view of this topic in no way threatens your right to your own beliefs.

My personal view is that it doesn't necessarily require a law-giver to make law. This is the same anthropic argument that originated with William Paley, namely: all design must have a designer (rocks were created so bears would have something to scratch their backs on).

We now know though Natural Selection that the "designer" can be nature and this is today demonstrated by various natural 'upgrades' that are "designed," driven, by environmental necessity.

Morality is the same. Expediency is just as likely as the origin of ethics and morality by this reasoning.

If you limit yourself to "proving" your point my quoting the writings of unknown writers without feeling the need to demonstrate this in the accepted world around us, then I can only wonder where the debate is.

Celestial teapots come to mind.

Loftus: "There is no divine mind behind the Bible, otherwise God should have communicated his will much better than he supposedly did."

Judging by your sarcasm at Loftus' analysis I'm assuming you feel threatened also.

I regret that my cold logic irritates you. If you want a Bible discussion I can do that too.

"Morality as a concept can be decide experien...

2012-01-22T17:31:16.191-05:00

"Morality as a concept can be decide experientially, it doesn't require the intrusion of philosophy of any description."

So you've decided to answer my question, I appreciate that.

Apparently, I am to abandon my commitment to Christ and accept an anti-Christian moral framework that puts man as the ultimate means by which morality can be determined.

But even then, if morality is what is decided experientially, then why can't I decide on accepting Christian morality and then answering your original question based upon this acceptance? Would I be doing something "immoral" in doing so?