Introduction We would like for moral questions to be simple: X is bad, Y is good. There is something about clear-cut moral statements that is both refreshing and freeing…until it intersects with something that we like to do, then situations tend to get a little sticky. We don’t necessarily like the fact that there can be an exception to a rule, or that exceptions themselves can have rules. We tend to want to live in an all-or-nothing state: either something is all bad, or all good. Christians, especially, seem to live in this state of haze between moral poles of rigid objective morality or utter subjectivism. As I’ve written elsewhere , I don’t think that it’s necessarily possible to live a moral life with any consistency without both and to try to force the issue induces something of a fallacious dichotomy. Probably one of the clearest examples where this dichotomy seems to appear, biblically speaking, can be found in the law, where we have--principly--the apparently strict admonition...

  Introduction If one is going to talk about that which is sexist or misogynist , these categories need to be clarified. That is to say that if it was just the former—making a clear distinction between that which is male and female—it would be bad (begs the question) and if the latter—displaying a hatred for that which is female—then it would be worse. In almost every instance of these accusations, there is rarely, if ever, any reflection on where the person stands in time. That is they do not recognize where any of the ideas or values that they profess or promote originate, nor do they question the basis of them, rather they just spray them about in a thoughtless manner.  And while sexism is a component of misogyny, and sexism can be used unjustly, sexism is a foundational reality of Scripture. After all, Scripture begins with a sexual distinction being made: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them...

Always interesting to encounter a reformed take. From Triggermanblog : Back in 2018, I ran across  a brief paper  by philospher Stephen Maitzen titled, “Atheism and the Basis for Morality”. Upon reading it, I sat down and began analyzing various points raised in the paper and began formulation a response. For that response, I composed a  brief abstract , in that I noted, [W]hen one cruises the numerous ethical papers and texts, terms like “common morality” or “ordinary morality” litter the discourse. The matter at issue is not to be seen as one of nuance, or mere perspective, but of considerable foundational importance. In order to lodge a complaint, one is assuming a basis upon which such a complaint is even possible. Since it is always good to bring back up points for consideration, I am going to reach back into the blog and repost that analysis. In  the introduction  I noted that moral claims are, first and foremost, knowledge claims saying, “ in order to be ...

  Introduction   An argument that is gaining popularity among the more intellectual atheists is what is known as the Meager Moral Fruits Argument (MMFA). The general thrust of the argument is that a religion that is TRUE should have some empirical measure that generally establishes this as true, as Emerson Green has put it in terms of Christianity, If Christianity is the one true religion, its members should be relatively morally superior to those in other religions as well as non-believers. Indeed that seems to be a somewhat reasonable assumption. The argument has been developed by philosopher Paul Draper of UC-Irvine and has been picked up by a number of philosophically minded atheists, like Emerson. And, like I said, if we are going to consider whether or not its a meaningful argument against Christian theism there are some point that are due for examination. I am not overly impressed by moral arguments or arguments that deal with evil for a number of reasons....