Attack of the 50 Foot Straw Man!

Why do otherwise sharp-minded professionals become bush league hacks when they attack Calvinism? Big leaguers playing Wiffle Ball. Why do scholars who push and promote charitable readings of others, proper representation of the other side, avoiding of fallacies of relevance, etc., turn into Stalinist propagandists when broaching the subject of Calvinism? Many Christian philosophers will defend atheists against the arguments of Christian philosophers (e.g., Naturalism Defeated, ed. Beilby; Victor Reppert's arguments against Calvinistic interpretations of the natural knowledge of God shared by all men as found in Romans 1, etc.,), but when an attack on Calvinism is made, integrity is thrown to the wind and a kind of fallacy feeding frenzy ensues. Care for proper representation seems to be a will-o-the-wisps when it comes time for us (Calvinists) to get a fair hearing.

For an example of the above, let's look at an attempt to parody the Calvinist position by Thomas Talbott. I learned of this parody from Victor Reppert's blog, Dangerous Idea. (As an aside, I can't say enough about Reppert's work in the philosophy of mind (mainly his Argument from Reason). I would recommend his blog and book (C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea) to anyone.) The reason I looked at the link Reppert provided was because Dr. Reppert had said that Talbott's parody "should be challenging to Calvinists." Since I respect Dr. Reppert, I thought I'd take a look at what was so "challenging to Calvinists." It wasn't that it was written by Dr. Talbott that provoked me since Steve Hays already made mince meat out of his position:

Here

And Here

Nevertheless, I thought I would check out what Victor Reppert thought was so challenging. I found a make believe story which attempted to parody a conception of Calvinism that many non-Calvinists have. Since anti-Calvinists can't seem to win the exegetical war, I guess they've decided to make the same refuted points in the context of a make believe story. This way no one can challenge their exegesis. To see what I mean let's look at Talbott's refutation vis-à-vis his imaginative make believe story; his refutation of a theological position sans the exegesis required to do so. Refutation via bed time story.

**********

"Long ago in ancient Atlantis, a series of prophets appeared among the Atlantans and spoke in the name of Morg, whom they proclaimed as the one true God of the universe. In the name of Morg, these prophets performed many mighty deeds: They healed the sick, brought sight to the blind, and even raised a few men and women from the dead. They spoke with great power and authority, preaching absolute obedience to Morg, whose holy and just character, they said, could not tolerate wicked disobedience. They called for economic justice, for peaceful relationships between the states, for children to obey their parents and parents to love their children, and for the people to engage in certain prescribed forms of worship. They also produced many writings: letters, sermons, historical accounts, and the like; and in later centuries, these were collected into a set of sacred scriptures called, The Book of Morg. Though the scriptures included a rich variety of religious writings, not all of which were easy to harmonize, converts to Morgism nonetheless came to regard them all as the inerrant word of Morg."

**********

So here's how the story is set up. Not much objectionable material here. The exception being the proposition that "not all the writing were easy to harmonize." This is vague. If it's meant to be a critique, it should be spelled out better. Surely problems with harmonization isn't necessarily a problem. All sorts of academic disciplines have problems harmonizing the various findings within their field, and when put into the bigger picture of all fields. Surely all one needs to do is read a book on, say, the philosophy of logic to appreciate that even logicians - guardians of that objective and truth preserving system - have a hard time "harmonizing" all of their findings. "This reverence for logic is deeply mistaken," says Stephen Read in Thinking About Logic, and Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic (p.2). Almost every philosophy of logic book pokes fun at the venerated and unquestioning dogmatism the student of formal logic comes to the study of the philosophy of logic with. Needless to say, the idolization of logic quickly fades away after a short time studying the problems logicians have encountered and the troubles they have harmonizing the data of their field. This is not to promote relativism, though. Indeed, if we do not do away with logic simply because there are problems harmonizing all our knowledge, we likewise to not, ipso facto, do away with other beliefs, systems, doctrine, because their are problems harmonizing the data. So, if Talbott's claim about harmonization is meant to be an attack against inerrancy, it is weak indeed. If it is not, then this opening paragraph is relatively unproblematic as it stands.

**********

"Now the Atlantans were generally a dark-skinned people, but it so happened that about one in five was albino, totally devoid of any skin pigmentation. There was no discernible pattern to this phenomenon. An albino parent was no more likely than a dark-skinned parent to have an albino child; and though approximately 20% of the population was albino, no one could predict when an albino child would be born. But the Book of Morg had some important things to say about this phenomenon; certain texts seemed to imply that white skin was an abomination in the sight of Morg. To be sure, the interpretation of these texts, sometimes classified among the "hard sayings," was controversial, in part because they seemed incompatible with other texts. But Azeb 8:22 explicitly used the term "abomination," and many other texts seemed to imply that albinos would have no place in the Kingdom of Morg. According to Morgist fundamentalists, therefore, there was no salvation for albinos; and so the fundamentalists excluded albinos from the holy temples, and they supported laws against intermarriage between albinos and the dark-skinned majority."

**********

Now the problems start rolling in...

1) Notice the tension here with what he says in his first section I quoted. Above "Morg" (the Calvinist conception of God) is said to hate sin: "They spoke with great power and authority, preaching absolute obedience to Morg, whose holy and just character, they said, could not tolerate wicked disobedience." This was unproblematic. In fact, this is not a "challenge" to the Calvinist: "I hate all who work iniquity" (Ps. 5:5). But this unproblematic proposition has now changed into a straw man by Talbott's claim that God also hates people because of skin color - something hardly morally blameworthy: "...certain texts seemed to imply that white skin was an abomination in the sight of Morg." But of course the Calvinist believes no such thing! Talbott stages the debate as if the Calvinist's theology stated that God punishes people irrespective of any moral deficiency. Indeed, for amoral reasons.

2) Notice argument uses a made up book, with made up texts, as a base from which critiques are launched. Of course that there may be inconsistencies between texts in a made up religion doesn't mean that there are any inconsistencies in the text from which the Calvinist draws his conclusions. This story doesn't present a "challenge" for Calvinists, contra Reppert, it simply reloads anti-Calvinist blanks and fires them from the safety of a screen play, where it looks like real damage is inflicted that otherwise would be harmless in the real world. The blood Reppert sees is from squibs, and the "challenges" are fabricated on a blue screen. Talbott is offering Universal Studios argumentation. Wizard of Oz fabrications. If you are distracted by the fantasy, then you'll pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

3) Of course we don't know the non-elect are. Talbott implies that if one knew who the non-elect were, then they'd be excluded from the party. One the one hand this is true:

Matt. 25:31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

But of course we are told that this attitude is improper for the citizen of the kingdom to have in the hear and now:

Matt 13: 24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

Notice again a distinction between people. Some are goats, some are sheep. Some are wheat, some are tares. Some were known, some were never known.

Not only is Talbott attacking straw men, his made up story disanalogous with the Bible. Calvinists hold to the Bible, not the teachings of a book that exists only in Talbott's mind. Concocted for the purpose of beating an imaginary opponent. Talbott has a wild imagination. Not only does his story not represent the Bible, his "Calvinists" don't represent Calvinists.

4) Not only that, but Talbott's argument isn't solely against Calvinists. It is the apostle Paul who says that believers are not to marry unbelievers:

2 Cor. 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."
18"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."

Why did Reppert say that Talbott's facade was "challenging to Calvinists?" Are "Calvinists" the only ones who believe that the Bible is God's revelation to man? Do only Calvinists take serious the prescriptives of Paul? Furthermore, if one wants to deny the authority of the Bible, then one can't use it to argue for universalism, Arminianism, etc. Perhaps that's why Talbott had to use a make believe religious book?

Do Reppert and Talbott actually think it is even practically wise for a committed believer in Jesus Christ to marry a committed unbeliever? Perhaps they don't see the problems because of their humanistic and floofy view of "love." But that's not "love," it's "Wuv." God isn't smart enough to tell us how to live, we should go to John Lennon and Yoko Ono. In fact, I'd say that the one who understands the serious cost of discipleship, the preeminence of Christ over all areas of life, knows Talbott's claim is ridiculous. Sure, if Jesus is just an after thought, and interesting object of study, a source for bumper sticker doctrine, cute catch phrases, then who cares if you're married to someone who hates Jesus. After all, he's not a REAL person. He's not the KING. He makes no DEMANDS. He requires no serious commitment. He "wuvs" us. Believers and unbelievers can have a happy marriage. Why? BECAUSE JESUS DOESN'T MATTER.

5) Talbott has actually stolen his argument from Michael Jackson.

I Took My Baby
On A Saturday Bang
Boy Is That Girl With You
Yes We're One And The Same

Now I Believe In Miracles
And A Miracle
Has Happened Tonight

But, If
You're Thinkin'
About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're
Black Or White

They Print My Message
In The Saturday Sun
I Had To Tell Them
I Ain't Second To None

And I Told About Equality
An It's True
Either You're Wrong
Or You're Right

But, If
You're Thinkin'
About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're
Black Or White

I Am Tired Of This Devil
I Am Tired Of This Stuff
I Am Tired Of This Business
Sew When The
Going Gets Rough
I Ain't Scared Of
Your Brother
I Ain't Scared Of No Sheets
I Ain't Scare Of Nobody
Girl When The
Goin' Gets Mean

[L. T. B. Rap Performance]
Protection
For Gangs, Clubs
And Nations
Causing Grief In
Human Relations
It's A Turf War
On A Global Scale
I'd Rather Hear Both Sides
Of The Tale
See, It's Not About Races
Just Places
Faces
Where Your Blood
Comes From
Is Where Your Space Is
I've Seen The Bright
Get Duller
I'm Not Going To Spend
My Life Being A Color

[Michael]
Don't Tell Me You Agree With Me
When I Saw You Kicking Dirt In My Eye

But, If
You're Thinkin' About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White

I Said If
You're Thinkin' Of
Being My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White

I Said If
You're Thinkin' Of
Being My Brother
It Don't Matter If You're
Black Or White

Ooh, Ooh
Yea, Yea, Yea Now
Ooh, Ooh
Yea, Yea, Yea Now

It's Black, It's White
It's Tough For You
To Get By
It's Black , It's White, Whoo

It's Black, It's White
It's Tough For You
To Get By
It's Black , It's White, Whoo

6) Talbott's use of white vs. black skinned peoples serves to poison the well against the Calvinist. To stack the deck against them. Perhaps Reppert is right. It is "challenging" to have to deal with straw men and arguments that attempt to poison the well against you. Calvinists are like racists. Is this really the scholarly way to approach this subject?


**********

"As you might expect, however, these practices produced some great theological controversies. Those whom the fundamentalists castigated as liberals pointed to other texts in the book of Morg that seemed to declare Morg's love for all Atlantans; they even pointed out that, according to Epaga 13:5, there are no color distinctions at all in the Kingdom of Morg. And philosophers among the more liberal party supplemented these exegetical considerations with the following philosophical argument: If Morg is truly holy and just, they contended--and if his very essence is perfect love--then he could not possibly hate the albinos and exclude them from his Kingdom simply on account of their white skin. But the fundamentalists had a whole arsenal of arguments against such considerations as these. They found some fifty texts in the Book of Morg in which the word "all" did not literally mean all, and they therefore argued that the more universalistic-sounding texts imply only that Morg loves all Atlantans of color. After all, one must harmonize one text with another. If there are no color distinctions in the Kingdom of Morg, for example, that is only because the albinos have already been excluded. The fundamentalists also responded with great anger towards the more philosophical arguments: The liberals, they claimed, had elevated human reason above the Book of Morg, which should be the ultimate standard of truth. But the liberals had no right to judge Morg; it was Morg who would eventually judge them."

**********

1) Notice, again, the "book of Morg" is appealed to, rather than the Bible.

2) Notice the simplistic interaction with Calvinism. That you can find a text that says God loves all men does not imply that he loves them all in the same way. I can point to texts that say I should love my neighbor? Does this mean I love them like I love my wife? Is Talbott advancing a homosexual agenda? Does he wish his neighbor, Larry, would "love him" the same way that Talbott loves his wife?

3) There are no color distinctions, correct. For Talbott to properly advance this argument from analogy he must be saying that there are no moral distinctions. Is this what he wants to say? If not, then his case is all wet. Calvinists do not believe that God judges man for amoral considerations.

4) That a holy, just, and loving God could not hold people morally blameworthy for an amoral reason - such as skin color - does not logically imply that he could not do so for moral reasons. In fact, his character would seem to demand it. Is it "loving" to let the child molester go free? Is Talbott going to be demonstrating for the release of Christopher Paul Neil? No punishment for Neil. Wouldn't be the loving thing to do. Excuse me, the wuving thing to do. Does love and justice and holiness demand the punishment of crime (sin)? The restoration of good?

5) Talbott acts as if "love" is opposed to "hate." Romans 12:9 "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." We are told to have a genuine love, and them immediately told to hate! Talbott is arguing for "wuv," not love. "Wuv" allows child molesters to get off Scott free. "Wuv" doesn't punish evil. But of course the Calvinist doesn't believe in "Wuv." He doesn't hold to "Morg's revelation." What, then, is "challenging" for the Calvinist here?

6) Where's the argument and exegesis refuting the texts Calvinists point to which demonstrate that all does not always mean all? Indeed, non-Christians philosophers grant this point, Talbott. Just because it uses a word that is universal, does not mean that is how it is being used in this passage. There is such a thing, which philosophers of language recognize, as restricted quantification. Philosopher of language William Lycan, speaking on restricted quantification, writes that, "What logicians call the domains over which quantifiers range need not be universal, but are often particular cases roughly presupposed in context" (Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction, p.24). Above he appeals to the "liberal philosophers" but now he'll sweep that aside and play the part of the aww shucks Appalachian mountain fundy. "Guh-huh, iet sayes awl, so's iet must main awl."

7) If "human reason" is what Talbott wants, here's an argument for limited atonement: If Jesus died for you, then he is your high priest. If he is your high priest, then he makes intercession for you. Therefore if Jesus died for you, he makes intercession for you. Jesus does not intercede for all people. Therefore, Jesus did not die for all people. QED.

**********

"And so the controversies raged among the Morgists until Nivlac, the greatest exegete and theologian of Atlantis, put an end to all such controversies by the power of the sword--which, he claimed, Morg had placed in his hand. According to Nivlac, Morg did not hate the albinos on account of anything they had done, good or bad; he did not even hate them on account of their white skin. To the contrary, their white skin was but a visible sign that Morg had already hated them from the foundation of the world. Against the liberal party--"venomous dogs who spew out more than one kind of venom against Morg,"

**********

1) Here Talbott just misunderstands the order of the decrees.

2) It's not as if the subject of God's hate was a neutral agent. God's mercy does not depend upon what we do. He chose to have mercy on some people apart from any good they did. Indeed, Romans 9 is talking about election. God elects some sinners. So, both Jacob and Esau were guilty, but one was elected out of sin instead of the other, on no other basis than God's good pleasure. This does not imply that God hated neutral, or righteous agents apart from any moral considerations.

3) Talbott shifts the straw man. He tries to cover the fact that he had been arguing from a straw man - God's decision to punish people for an amoral reason, skin color - with another straw man. God still has no moral basis by which he determines who will receive His wrath on Talbott's cover-story. Talbott still has God hating morally neutral agents. So, this is no different than his skin color straw man.

**********

"Nivlac went on to make two additional points: first, that Morg's will is the highest rule of righteousness, and second, that nothing in Morg's nature prevents him from hating the albinos. Accordingly, Morg's hatred "has its own justice--unknown, indeed to us but very sure." Nivlac thus concluded that any argument from a human conception of justice is fundamentally misconceived: "We deny that Morg is liable to render an account; we also deny that we are competent judges to pronounce judgment in this cause according to our own understanding."

**********

1) How is this a challenge to Calvinists? This isn't a "challenge" but a restatement of the proposition: "I don't like Calvinism."

2) Many Arminians believe the above, albeit in a weaker sense.

3) God doesn't have "his own" justice as if there was a "real" justice that was not God's own. He is the paradigm of justice. This is a bunch of question begging assertions. Did Reppert even read this piece? If so, why think that the re-statement of anti-Calvinist rhetoric was "challenging?"

4) What is "a human conception of justice?" Would that be Hitler's or Talbott's? What argument does he have for his conception as a normative, non-arbitrary standard by which he can judge God's actions?

5) Why is God "liable to render an account?" Where is the supporting argument? Is it that, say, a human judge should render an account for his actions, therefore God must? Is God "another one of us?" Talbott leaves Michael Jackson theology, and now promulgates Joan Osborn theology:

If God had a name, what would it be
And would you call it to his face
If you were faced with him in all his glory
What would you ask if you had just one question

And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home

If God had a face what would it look like
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that you would have to believe
In things like heaven and in jesus and the saints and all the prophets

And yeah yeah god is great yeah yeah god is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
He's trying to make his way home
Back up to heaven all alone
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome

And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if god was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
Just trying to make his way home
Like a holy rolling stone
Back up to heaven all alone
Just trying to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome

Excuse me for not feeling "challenged" by pop music theology.

6) There have been thousands of pages written arguing for God's justice. Talbott doesn't interact, he simply levels assertions. Hardly "challenging" for the Calvinist.

7) Can I challenge "our understanding?" Why is "our understanding" afforded a free pass when God's isn't? God can be challenged, man cannot. All Talbott has done is to trade anthropocentrism for theocentrism.

**********

"And so ends our parable. A question many might have about it is this: If certain texts in the Book of Morg really did contain such a horrendous doctrine about the albinos, why did so many Morgists regard the book as an infallible revelation nonetheless?"

**********

1) First, let's note the fallacious nature of his comment. I'm now forced to stick up for the Morgist. Why think a "horrendous doctrine" implies the falsity of a position? Bertrand Russell argued for what could be considered a horrendous doctirne in A Free man's Worship. Does Talbott think this ipso facto implies the falsity of atheism? Bad consequences do not necessitate the negation of the position which led to those consequences.

2) We've already shown this is a straw man, and so this isn't something for the Calvinist to be "challenged" by.

**********

"Why did they not just throw out the objectionable parts? One answer might be that most of them had learned about Morg in the first place by reading the Book of Morg, and they did not feel it right simply to pick and choose what they would, and would not, believe. They regarded the entire book as the holy Word of Morg, and they denied themselves any authority to stand in judgment upon the veracity of this text or that. As we hinted when telling the story, alternative interpretations of the crucial texts were indeed possible. But what could a simple peasant, who knew little of the book's historical background and nothing of the languages in which it was originally written, have to say on that score? How could a simple peasant controvert the opinion of so great a scholar as Nivlac on the meaning of a specific text? So long as the less learned considered it impious to question the authority of scripture, therefore, Nivlac could employ his greater learning as a club to beat them into submission. His superior knowledge of history and the languages of scripture and his more sophisticated exegetical arguments made him, for all practical purposes, the final arbiter of all truth--not just the truth in the area of his own specialty, but of all truth."

**********

1) The cash value, for the Arminian, if he's reading, is that you must deny the authority of Scripture to deny Calvinism.

2) Note that Talbott thinks he's right and we're wrong. His "reasoning" led him to the truth. To question it gets you mocked. Gets you called a Muslim extremist. Question Talbott, he'll make fun of your position by means of bad parody. How can a layman Calvinist stand up to this? Who wants to get made fun of? Who wants to be the butt of jokes? Best to stay silent, just like lord Talbott wants.

3) Notice the scholarly work of engaging in exegesis must be put aside. Talbott has lost that war. So, move the goal posts, and then declare no one can score.

**********

"There is, of course, a way in which even a simple peasant could have undermined all of Nivlac's pretensions. Suppose that a peasant woman should have approached him and have said something like this: "Look, Nivlac, I love Morg with all my heart, and I believe that the Book of Morg is indeed his holy Word. And I don't know what to say about your fancy arguments that seem to imply such awful things about Morg."

**********

1) But how can this woman say this to a Calvinist? Which Calvinist implies that God hates people for no reason? No morally sufficient reason, at least.

2) What is so awful about hating, with a perfect, non-sinful, holy hatred, those who are opposed to you. The worst of criminals?

3) This is simply the continuation of Talbott's straw man argument.

**********

"But I do know this. No holy or just or loving Creator like Morg, no Creator of the kind that I worship, could possibly hate this little albino child of mine that I love so much. Indeed, if he loves me, as you say he does, then he must also love my baby. So if you are right about the meaning of these verses--mind you, I'm not saying you are right--but IF you are right, then these verses are just wrong; they are not a true revelation from Morg." By her simple willingness to hold onto certain convictions even on the assumption that they contradict the Book of Morg, or contradict certain texts in the Book of Morg, such a peasant woman would have nullified every advantage that Nivlac's superior knowledge of history and language might otherwise have given him. All of his railing about wicked disobedience, about substituting her own human judgment for Morg's, about making accusations against Morg would then simply pass her by. For as even a simple peasant woman could see, there is no question here of making accusations against Morg. Her bone of contention, as we have imagined it, was with Nivlac, not with Morg."

***********

1) Steve offered a parody of this parody on Reppert's site:

"Look, Nivlac, I love Morg with all my heart, and I believe that the Book of Morg is indeed his holy Word. And I don't know what to say about your fancy arguments that seem to imply such awful things about Morg. But I do know this. No holy or just or loving Creator like Morg, no Creator of the kind that I worship, could possibly love and save the rapist and tormenter and killer of my little girl. Indeed, if he loves my little girl, as you say he does, then he cannot also love the rapist and tormenter and killer of my little girl. So if you are right about the meaning of these verses--mind you, I'm not saying you are right--but IF you are right, then these verses are just wrong; they are not a true revelation from Morg."

2) Look at Talbott's inference pattern: If He loves me, he must love my baby. That's a non-sequitur. God’s not like a dude dating a single mother. “Any man that loves me has got to love my baby.” Indeed, Jesus implied that one’s devotion toward God was to be so strong that it could be compared to hating your family members. Talbott’s theology leads people down a dangerous road. A road without a shepherd. Well, you have talbott to tell you what’s up. Sola Talbotta.

3) Notice the contradiction. The woman believes that the writings are Morg's word, but if they don't go the way she wants them to, so much for her belief that the writings are Morg's words. This is cheap discipleship. This is: "If I don't like X, X can't be true," type reasoning. Is the authority of Scripture denied, as well as good reasoning?

4) Talbott argues that one way to stop the Calvinist's arguments is to show your unwillingness to believe in the authority of Scripture. Good thing Jesus didn't do that, even when he didn't like the outcome he was facing. Good thing Abraham didn't do that. On Talbott's terms, you have to live contrary to the "people of faith" in Hebrews 11 in order to defeat the Calvinist. Far from representing a "challenge" to the Calvinist, Talbott's parody only strengthens our convictions!

5) How about this parody:

Some men tried to speak of moral absolutes - like thou shall not torture children for fun. They said that this was an obvious truth. It was known by intuition. How could those murderers have challenged these brilliant philosophers? Simple. They just denied those intuitions. Denied any authoritative moral laws. Doing this nullifies the philosophers arguments. "This went against sound reason," yelled the philosophers. "That's alright, we'll just deny the canons of reasoning," retorted the life-takers.

Stupid, huh?

6) Notice that Talbott’s argument requires one to “dump” much more than the so-called “hard passages.” God gave us a coherent package. Tinker with some of the parts, affect the rest of the engine.

7) Notice the ironic turn of events. Talbott praises "human understanding" and "human reason" as an authority which can judge what we read in the Bible. But in the dialogue between Nivlac and the Morgite, the Morgite comes face to face with superior reason. A better argument. Does Talbott say that the Morgite should follow the argument where ever it leads? No! Talbott says that emotion is ultimate. If a revelation from God contradicts your "feewings" about what "wuv" is, then deny the revelation. If reason and argumentation contradicts your "feewings" about what "wuv" is, then deny reason. Subjective feelings are the standard. For Talbott, one should never deny their gut. If something doesn't give you warm fuzzies, it's probably not true.

8) I'll close with another one of Steve's comments:

"Now normal men and women—unlike pedophiles, abortionists, and psychopaths—are naturally protective of young children. So this illustration plays upon the emotive connotations of a “little child” or “baby.”

But children ordinarily grow up to be adults. Suppose we compose a different parable.

Once upon a time there was a Jewish physician who had dreams. And, unlike most folks, his dreams came true.

One night he had a dream about a sick little German boy who visited his clinic. The little boy would grow up to commit genocide against the Jewish people.

The next day, a sick little boy by the name of Adolph Hitler was brought into the clinic to receive treatment for a life-threatening childhood illness. The doctor could cure him or he could let him die by administering a placebo. He knew that by healing this child, he would be condemning thousands of other innocent children to death—including his very own children.

Should he save this child, and thereby condemn thousands of other children to suffer an unjust and premature death, or should he let this child die, and thereby save the prospective victims? Who should he allow to live, and who should he allow to die?

I’ll let you decide how you wish to finish the story.

Point being: our moral intuitions are context-dependent. It all depends on the illustration. Change the illustration, and you may suddenly find yourself contradicting your previous intuition. You were very sure of yourself until

Tearjerkers cut both ways. For it’s easy to compose tearjerkers that illustrate opposing positions."