Slick’s Apostasy: Various Angles of the Issue

I heard about this first via Alpha & Omega Ministries: Yesterday on the Dividing Line.  I have not yet heard what Dr. White had to say about it, but other people have chimed in in written format, which I can access more easily.

Analysis from the redoubtable Steve Hays: Triablogue: Born to fail.

 

Another from Glenn Peoples (HT: Jason Engwer): How to exploit a family falling out for the sake of ideology.

 

Personally, in my reflections on the whole matter I was thinking more about the specifics of the stated reason for abandoning Christianity.  Without daring to put myself in the company of those commentators I will post those thoughts below, FWIW and as a possible indication of what others might be thinking

 

**************

 

From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/:

This changed one day during a conversation with my friend Alex. I had a habit of bouncing theological questions off him, and one particular day, I asked him this: If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?

Four thoughts:

1) She was trained by Matt Slick.  Slick is cool, his ministry has stood the test of time, and he is probably one reason that I am a Calvinist today.  However, frankly his work has always been half-baked and over-reaching in some instances, and I fear that when it came to meta-ethics he may have trained his daughter poorly on account of possibly his own not having a solid grasp of certain issues.

2) Do the words “consequentialism” and “context” mean anything to either of the Slicks?  (Of course, I know that at least one of those matters to one of them.)  Or when did the Scriptures ever indicate that virtue ethics, or deontology, or divine command theory were the only possible correct paradigms by which to make sense of God’s law and God’s nature as revealed in the Scriptures?

Yes, Christians are sophisticated enough to reject divine command theory for reasons which are reflected in Euthyphro’s Dilemma.  Yet the Scriptures apparently never rule out consequentialism in toto and never rule out what we might call (gasp) situational ethics of a sort, and the whole of biblical ethics is best understood in considering both virtue ethics and these other ethical paradigms.

When and where is it appropriate in this country to walk around buck naked?  In a classroom at school?  No.  In worship services at church?  No.  At home?  Sure.

When and where is it appropriate to drive on the right side of the road?  In the U.S.?  Yes, but even then not if the driver is drunk and doing 100 mph on a crowded freeway.  In the U.K.?  No, unless suddenly it is good to cause needless head-on collisions with other vehicles.

Are circmstances or possible consequences relevant in the examples listed immediately above?  Yes, and that is exactly why there are exceptions to rules such as those to which we just alluded.

And is the range of permissible moral options dependent on the situation?  Yes, it is.  That is precisely how sex within the bond of marriage is permissible while your spouse’s cheating on you is not, or why harsh punishments are appropriate only for offenders who are culpable of the worst crimes, to cite two examples.

3) At some point the elder Slick may have got tripped up on issues of postmodern ethics or moral TAGs and passed a muddled, incomprehensible message down to his daughter--either that or the younger Slick just failed to grasp what she was being taught.  Similar language or similar terms appear in discussions of each, and this probably was a source of conflation or confusion at some point.

In any case, God is just (even essentially or transcendently so); in translation this means that God’s actions are just, for this is what the word “just” ultimately points to in terms of meaning and function.  Meanwhile, the words “just” and “moral” are more or less synonymous (though I  prefer “just” over the younger Slick’s “moral”), and those words ultimately mean either in accord with some ethical principle or in accord with what is good; and despite that the word “good” has many meanings--all of them dependent on what the metric or standard of measurement is--and despite anyone’s and everyone’s being capable of finding evil things to be favorable--i.e. “good”--or of prescribing evil conduct as though it were something just, God’s actions are just.

God has issued a body of ethical prescriptions and proscriptions of human behavior; each of these commandments are in accordance with both themselves and objective goodness: by definition, they are just.

Moreover, these commandments are “absolute” in the sense--and this is what people mean when they speak of moral rules which are “absolute”--that they are just regardless of whether Smith over here says, “Adultery?  Meh, that’s okay with me; there’s nothing wrong with it” or whether a society over there on the other side of the planet says, “Why not bow down before Baal?  Who else gives us rain for our crops or puts food on our table?”  That is the sense in which they are absolute.

However, this is not to be confused with the issues of divine command theory vs. rival meta-ethical theories.  There aren’t too many Christians who claim that if God suddenly decided one day to proscribe the consumption of turkey dinners then it would be evil to be turkey dinners in virtue of the proscription itself.  No, the claim would more or less be that if a divine proscription of turkey dinners came down the pike tomorrow then: a) it would be because the proscription did not have a favorable timing before then; and b) the proscription is done for a reason which is objectively good; c) rebellion against the Creator is not in accordance with what is objectively good; and d) guess what: God’s nature happens to be one of objective goodness, all such that it was never possible that an intuitively bad thing such as idolatry or sadistic torture or babies would have been prescribed at some point.

“...Why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?” she asks.  Answer: if you can find an instance of such things, then stop to reconsider the matter and to ask yourself whether such things promoted the well-being of someone or something at one point in the past but later outlived their ability to do so.  Why is it a sin to issue orders to a someone of the rank of Sergeant First Class in one year whereas ten years later it is not a sin to do so?  Hmm, could it be that someone there in the Army got promoted such that legal and moral privileges which formerly were not theirs later rightly became theirs?  This is one example off the top of my head; you should be capable of doing the same.

4) How old is Rachael Slick again?  Oh yeah, that makes sense.

The Word "Christian" Means Whatever You Want It to Mean

We’ve already seen this, but here is more proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

10 Questions: 1-5

The following is a response to “Anti-gag” (Chris Hill).

First, thanks for your interest. I decided to answer your questions in the hopes that you really are seeking God. If not, then I hope everyone else will appreciate my answers.

For everyone else, last night a link to an anti-christian video was posted in the comments section of my blog. Upon watching the video I was both disappointed and glad at the same time. I was disappointed because I couldn’t believe that someone actually thought this was logic, and glad because I had a chunk of meat to dig my teeth into. The video posed 10 questions in an attempt to prove that God is imaginary.

All right, my friends. I have an answer to every single one of those questions...

I would first like to point out that the video begins with a vain attempt to induce pride in the viewer by making the claim that, “You have all the answers. You have the ability to answer these questions because you have knowledge and power,” (sounds like they might believe in God after all.) The truth is that we are tiny human specks in the universe and to think that we might have the knowledge to understand and explain everything there is to know: 1) in the universe and 2) about God, is ludicrous... But on with the questions.

Question number 1) "Why won’t God heal amputees?"
Why won’t God heal the flu? Why won’t God heal warts? How about this: why should He heal anybody? Does God obey our whims? How dare you try to make the King of the Universe your personal vending machine! Just because someone has an amputation doesn’t mean that God won’t give them a better life in all eternity. To look at the momentary discomfort of any human being and say, “Therefore, that is proof that God doesn’t exist,” is ridiculous. This life is so infinitesimally short that to spend it complaining to God is a waste!

Question number 2) "Why are there so many starving people in our world?"
I suppose the author of this video would prefer that God to zap food into people’s mouths, once again betraying their ignorance of what God’s purpose is. While I would not disagree that there are some instances where there are individuals that are having very difficult times providing for themselves, most instances where there is mass starvation is caused by plague, natural disaster or an oppressive government, because we have plenty of land and plenty of food that we can get. Once again, since God is a god of eternity, to look at the temporary discomfort during the few years that we live on this earth and say, “Therefore, there is no God,” is sheer lunacy. The author would do better spending a little time learning about who God is and what He wants from us rather that assuming that He’s a magic genie that should jump up and dance every time we demand it.

Question number 3) "Why does God allow the death of so many innocent people?"
Once you show me someone who is truly innocent, then I will answer your question. No one on this earth is pure and innocent in the eyes of Almighty God. Every single person on the planet is fallen and sinful. The video puts up the points of:
Exodus 35:2, “For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy {day,} a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.”
God was making a point that He is to be obeyed. Anyone who disobeys this simple commandments should be put to death because since they cannot be trusted to do this simple thing how can they be trusted to obey a greater thing?
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Disobedient youth are to be put to death.
Once again, God understood that if a child is continually disobedient, then that child will be disobedient through adulthood and may entice others to be disobedient as well. This would quickly corrupt the society.
Leviticus 20:13, “If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood-guiltiness is upon them.”
Once again, as with the previous section, God is dealing with disobedience. Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible because it is an attack on the institution of the family and marriage. God knows that without these pillars to uphold society, society is doomed to collapse.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 Girls that are not found to be virgins when they marry are to be put to death.
Once again, harlotry corrupts a society, just open up your high-school history book an take a look! God does account for rape and incest (in which case the girl is not to be put to death). But God understands that once the people no longer sanctify virginity, the society is headed for disaster!

Question number 4) "Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?"
Once again, show me a verse in the Bible that is truly nonsense. The video firsts tries to create an assumption that God might be against technology -- which He is not! God gave humanity the ability to learn, improve and invent. The video then tries to put up “evidence” of unscientific verses:
“God did not create the world in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago.”
(I could devote an entire blog to proving this point, but I’ll try to keep it brief.) Any student of physics understands that matter, space, time and energy were all created at the same time and yes, they were CREATED. Our universe’s law of entropy demands that there had to have been a creation event some time in the past. How far in the past? Well, I could give hundreds of examples that would demonstrate irrefutable evidence for a young earth, but here are just two: first, we are loosing our moon (it used to be closer to us,) and second, the Earth is moving farther away from the sun (we also used to be closer.) These facts rule out that our solar system is billions of years old since as little as 100,000 years ago the radiation from the Sun would make the earth uninhabitable and the moon so close that land tides would destroy all life on earth.
“There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mount Everest.”
You are assuming there was a Mount Everest that needed to be covered. Let me first point out that students of geology agree that there had to have been a massive flood that covered the earth to create the observable evidence that we have today. Before the Flood, the earth was relatively flat, but when the crevasses in the ocean (check any ocean floor map) opened up, the pressure of the water caused the ocean floor to get lower and the mountains to get higher. Mount Everest didn’t exist until after he Flood.
“Jonah did not live inside a fishes stomach for 3 days.”
Once again, you are assuming that Jonah lived. No where in the Bible does it say that Jonah lived in the fish’s belly. Jonah died and was resurrected – an Old Testament foreshadowing of Jesus being buried and resurrected.
“God did not create Adam from a handful of dust.”
Prove he didn’t. Since it is so easy to check out so many facts presented in the Bible, and therefore demonstrate that God can be trusted, it is therefore logical to also trust Him in the areas that we cannot check out.

Question number 5) “Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible.”
I don’t know what Bible your reading, but simply because the Bible documents the existence of slavery in no way means that God approves of it. The Bible is a history book; that’d be like saying since Abraham Lincoln talked about slavery he was a proponent of it -- now do you see how this is ridiculous? Some people point out that since Paul regulated slavery (rather than abolishing it) he must therefore have approved of it; Let me say that in no way is Paul approving of slavery -- the Government at the time is the one that mandated slavery (once again an oppressive government.) So, Paul said “you know what, since you are a slave, why not make the best of it? Become a Christian and receive the gift of eternal life, and maybe along the way your master will become saved too, since your life is such a great example.” The Old Testament account of Joseph, who started out as a slave but then became the ruler of all Egypt and got the Pharaoh saved as well, would be a good example.

Faith: Atheists Sue President Over National Prayer Day

It has been said that if you don't believe in something, you will fall for anything. Also, the Bible says that the fool has said in his heart, there is no God. here is a good example of some of the foolish things that can happen.

MADISON, Wis. — The nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Friday in U.S. district court, arguing that the president's mandated proclamations calling on Americans to pray violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion.

The day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a "hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders," the lawsuit said.

The national proclamation issued this year asked God's blessings on our country and called for Americans to observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.

Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle is named in the suit because he is one of 50 governors who issued proclamations calling for the prayer day. The foundation is based in Madison.

Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, and White House press secretary Dana Perino also are named.

The foundation has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years, including one rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year that attacked President Bush's faith-based initiative.

The White House and Doyle spokesman Lee Sensenbrenner had no comment on the lawsuit. A message seeking comment from the task force was not returned Friday.