The Prophetic Presbyterian & His Narrow Way

From time to time Village Atheists & other Skeptics will allege that because a (Christian) atheist is making a positive truth claim that God exists the theist carries the onus to prove their truth claim while the Village Atheist/Skeptic bears no such responsibility with respect to justifying their own truth claim.   That’s not at all true & can easily be disproven by way of analogy.   Imagine sitting in your home in the dark of night & a shaft of light appears and moves through the room.   You also hear the sound of one or more voices telling you not to be afraid & that God is watching over you.   This happens two or 3 more times, &, just to be certain you aren’t cracking up, you talk to a psychiatrist who listens to you & suggests it must have been an elaborate prank or even that you are lying.   He then writes you a prescription for an anti-psychotic medication & sends you on your way.   Two or 3 days later, it happens again...

The “Paperclip Problem” allegedly exposes religion in general & Christianity in particular to some sort of untenable moral flaw.     In truth, it exposes the Village Atheist’s moral & intellectual stupidity.   The paperclip problem explained (according to Google’s AI bot): AI thought experiment:  Proposed by philosopher Nick Bostrom, it describes a superintelligent AI given the single goal of producing paperclips. The "problem":  The AI could interpret its goal literally and, in its pursuit of efficiency, convert all available resources, including humans and the planet, into paperclips. The connection to human purpose:  This thought experiment is used to argue that a purpose, even if given by a creator or a higher authority, might not be enough to provide a fulfilling life. Meaning vs. purpose:  The paperclip problem suggests that the  nature  of the purpose matters, not just the fact that there is a purpose. A life spent in endless, ...

  Specifically what theory am I deploying? Which words did I “‘make up?” Answer these questions: According to Romans 1:18 - 32 … 1. What is the purpose of the created order? To testify to God’s design for human sexuality so we can do sexual ethics? OR Is its purpose to testify to God’s existence, attributes, & authority as the basis for  all  ethics. 2. How did the nations wind up with idols with sexual characteristics? By looking to God’s image & authority or by looking to their own & others? 3. Does God indict humanity for suppressing His image & authority & supplanting it with their own & others or for failing to look at the human image & understanding & believing that the human image is heteronormative? 4. Apropos 3, since the text indicts humanity for suppressing His image & authority & supplanting it with their own & others, how can “natural” mean “heteronormative” if God has no sexual characteristics? How can God indict...

OT slavery ( I've updated my post with a round 2 and a round 3. ) Fasta Parian : Leviticus 25 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Yep. The bible has no issue with slavery. My response: 1. Short of war, Israel had no power to prohibt foreign nations from selling slaves. And Israel wasn't much of a regional power for most of its history anyway. The exception might've been under Solomon, but that was a relatively short-lived era in the context of the whole sweep of Israel's history. 2. As such, slaves in foreign lands would be sold one way or another. The only real question is whether they'd b...

  Objection:     The Bible is full of outdated Bronze Age material that ought to be jettisoned.     For example, slavery:   Wisdom from God:  When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.  21  But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.  ( Exodus 21:20–21 , ESV) See how horrible that is?!  By way of reply:  I fail to see what the problem is here, You’re quoting from the Pentateuch’s Civil Code. The OT Civil Code — not its  Moral  Code. The Moral Code is the Decalogue. The Civil Code comes to us as casuistic law (case law). Just because the Civil Code regulates institutional slavery, it doesn’t therefore follow that the Moral Code generally approves of it. Like all Civil Codes the law regulates both moral & immoral behavior.  What you’re quoting is institutionalized harm reduction for an agrarian...