Doubt is not denial

To begin with, Rauser's a bully. He attacks soft targets. He routinely picks on Christian laymen who lack his sophistication.

In addition, he's duplicitous. Rauser's problem isn't doubt. Rauser is very dogmatic. He's convinced the Bible teaches moral and factual falsehood–including Jesus. Doubt isn't the same thing as denial. Rauser is pulling a bait-switch scam. Randal Rauser openly denies biblical teaching. And he's made it his mission in life to destroy faith in Scripture so that he can replace it with his progressive substitute for Christianity.

I have little sympathy for Christian college profs. or seminary profs. who suffer from an intellectual crisis of faith. At that stage in their education and intellectual development, they should have worked through the stock intellectual objections to Christianity. I'm more sympathetic to emotional doubt if their crisis is due to personal tragedy. Even then, they need some theodicies to fall back on.

Progressive theology

I'll venture a few comments on apostate Randal Rauser's video:

https://randalrauser.com/2020/05/is-progressive-christianity-worse-than-atheism-my-response-to-alisa-childers/

BTW, I often pick on Rauser because he's a good foil. A good representative of the opposing position (progressive theology).

All Christians range somewhere along a progressive>conservative continuum

That's not a Christian continuum. There's a variety of positions among theologically conservative Christian positions. Progressive theology is out of bounds. 

Sometimes liberals were on the right side of the issue while conservatives were on the wrong side (e.g. Antebellum slavery, segregation).

True, but:

i) People can be right for the wrong reasons.

ii) Deceptively equivocal. Supporters of Antebellum slavery and Jim Crow misinterpreted the Bible due to social conditioning and economic incentives. By contrast, we can see the issue with greater critical detachment because we don't have a personal stake in the issue.

Rauser might say that conservative Christians are too invested to see certain issues with clarity. That may be the case, but it cuts both ways. Progressives are subject to social conditioning, too, with blind spots that are conspicuous to conserve Christian observers.

iii) Rauser's comparison is a bait-n-switch because he doesn't think Southern white supremacists misinterpreted the Bible. Rather, he thinks the Bible condones slavery and the Bible is wrong. For him, experience and his moral intuitions override the Bible.

otherizing…marginalization…just label people so that we don't have to listen them anymore.

i) Everybody has a plausibility structure. Some are good and some are bad. Some elements of our plausibility should be revisable. But we use our plausibly to evaluate claims. Indeed, Rauser is very dogmatic about his appeal to moral intuition. To what is morally intuitive to Rauser. He treats his imagined moral intuitions as nonnegotiable. 

ii) Apropos (i), not every position has two sides. Technically, conspiracy theories about the lunar landings represent one  side of the issue, but my point is that there's nothing wrong with refusing to take that seriously.

iii) Apropos  (ii), there's a difference between not listening in the first place and ceasing to listen. How much do you need to know about a position? It only has to have one or more disqualifying tenets. 

Ironically, Rauser's own appeal to experience and moral intuition to automatically eliminate certain positions from further consideration is an example of doing what he faults in others. 

Paul was open to considering evidence for the falsity of Christianity (1 Cpr 15:14).

i) A misreading of Paul. To begin with, how plausible is it to suppose Paul thought Christianity was false given his personal experience with Christian miracles? Both miracles he witnessed (e.g. the Damascus Road Christophany) as well as miracles he personally performed? It's too late for Paul to entrain the possibility that Christianity might be false. He has too much direct experience to the contrary.

ii) Rather, 1 Cor 1 15:14,17 are cases of per impossible counterfactual reasoning, which proceeds from a patently impossible premise:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/#H7

In responding to the Corinthians, Paul working back from what cannot be the case. 

Can a Christian be demon-possessed?

1. If you're a freewill theist, then that commits you to the proposition that a Christian can be demon-possessed. And that's because a freewill theism believes a Christian can lose his salvation. If, a fortiori, a Christian can lose his salvation, then he can be demonically possessed. It's an argument from the greater to the lesser. If loss of salvation is possible, that's a greater case than possession. If something is possible in the greater case, then that includes the possibility of lesser cases.

Isn't subjection to demons a less radical condition than reversion to an unsaved condition? For a Christian to be possessed would be a horrific degree of subjection, yet lack or loss of salvation isn't a matter of degree but having nothing to counterbalance possession. If a believer can be possessed, that generates enormous tension between two opposing forces, but in the case of lack or loss of salvation, there is no tension because there's nothing on the other side (the Holy Spirit) to counteract the evil. 

Indeed, to be unsaved makes unbelievers liable to demonic possession. Conversion is sometimes an exorcism which liberates unbelievers from possession. So a reversal in your spiritual status, by losing you salvation, would render you vulnerable to the possession all over again. 

Now a freewill theist might object by saying that's not a case of  believer being possessed, but a former believer. But that takes us back to the a fortiori argument. 

2. So the upshot is that I think we have a clearcut answer to the question where freewill theism is concern. The answer is less clear in the case of Calvinism due to ambiguities in the concept of possession, including degrees of sin. Christians are sinners. What degree of sin is compatible with being a sinner? That's one of those sorites paradox questions. 

Does Evolution disprove Christianity?

One of those Bambi meets Godzilla debates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idyy8p4lShc&t=4616s

In addition to Jonathan's performance, a few observations of my own:

1. Jonathan McLatchie is well-qualified to discuss the issue. That said, the title is ambiguous. It could mean does evolution, if true, disprove Christianity. Or it could mean evolution fails to disprove Christianity because evolution is false.

2. A couple of issues:

i) Lim thinks disease is incompatible with God's existence, but diseases perform a necessary function in maintaining that balance of nature. In addition, most organisms were never designed to be immortal. 

ii) Lim fails to understand that there are constraints on what an omnipotent God can do by natural means. In many cases, God can bypass natural processes to produce a result directly, but if God is creating a cause/effect world, and God is using a physical medium, then that's a self-imposed limitation on God's field of action.

3. We also need to distinguish between Christianity and generic theism or perfect being theology. Even if we posit that disease is incompatible with an abstract concept of God that's a philosophical construct, the existence of disease in no way disproves the existence of the Biblical God. In Scripture, God coexists with disease. So disease in no way counts as evidence against the existence of Christian theism, but is entirely consistent with the God of the Bible.

4. Lim acts like the Genesis creation account indicates that God made all the species from the outset. But Gen 1 doesn't detail the species. Gen 1 doesn't preclude adaptation. Gen 1 refers to a few general taxonomies based on their natural habitat (land animals, freshwater or marine organisms).

5.  Since the issue of how best to interpret Genesis came up, here's a free, recent book: https://frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/PoythressVernInterpretingEdenAGuideToFaithfullyReadingAndUnderstandingGenesis1-3.pdf 

6. Lim constantly raises hypothetical objections to Christianity, but ignores al the evidence. He mentions prayer, but there are countless examples of answered prayer. The fact that many prayers go unanswered doesn't cancel out the evidence for the prayer requests that God does grant.

7. Lim then trots out Sai Babba, but from what I've read, there's lots of evidence that he's a fraud.

8. There are multiple problems with Lim's appeal to alleged pagan parallels between Jesus and hero archetypes:

i) You can't legitimately compare a well-documented historical figure with fictional characters in pagan mythology. Jesus is a historical figure. We have 1C historical sources documenting his life. 1C sources about a 1C individual. 

ii) You also have to take into account the chronological gap between a historical figure like, say, Buddha, and the dates of our earliest sources. 

iii) In addition, you have to take into account the Jewish worldview of the NT, which precludes pagan syncretism.

iv) Did the NT writers even have access to the pagan sources? 

v) How specific are the alleged parallels?

Jesus sighted

Tim Sledge

@Goodbye_Jesus

Christians assert Jesus was crucified, rose from the dead 3 days later, appeared to some of his followers over a 40-day period, then disappeared in the clouds.

That was 2,000 years ago & Jesus hasn't been seen or heard from since.

But he's coming back any day now. #HeIsNotRisen

https://twitter.com/Goodbye_Jesus/status/1250068066790236161

I don't normally comment on Sledge. I only became aware of him when Jeff Lowder began retweeting him. Sledge is an apostate Baptist minister who's laboring to parlay his apostasy into a career. He repeats all the canned objections to Christianity. 

Unfortunately for him, the market niche for apostates is very tight. Bart Ehrman is the star attraction. Other wannabes are fighting for crumbs.

What I'd point out is that there are many reported Christophanies throughout church history right up to the present. That includes a collection published by Oxford University Press:

https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/visions-of-jesus/

In addition, the Muslim world is undergoing a quiet Christian revival due to reported dreams and visions of Jesus. This has been documented in books by Tom Doyle and David Garrison, among others. 

My point is not to vouch for every reported Christophany. But there's lots of prima facie evidence that Jesus has been seen and heard in the intervening 2000 years. And we'd expect Christophanies to be underreported since it's not like there's a team of researchers in every generation going door-to-door to interview people.  

One-sided doubt

@RandalRauser

Christians need to understand that the willingness to question and doubt is a sign of piety and intimacy, not the opposite.

https://twitter.com/RandalRauser/status/1247901121097547777

But for apostate Randal Rauser, doubt is only a sign of piety when questioning (indeed, denying) the Bible and traditional evangelical theology. He exhibits no doubts about his own moral intuitions. When he extols the value of doubt, it's entirely one-sided on his part. 

There is also a basic difference between a Christian who finds himself doubting the faith or certain tenets thereof and actively, aggressively cultivating doubt, as if doubting for the sake of doubt is a spiritual and intellectual virtue. 

Keeping the faith

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/keeping-faith-while-growing-up-evangelical-part-1.html

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/keeping-faith-while-growing-up-evangelical-part-2.html

Itchy ear biscuits

Rhett (from Rhett & Link) responds to his critics. I want to comment on these paragraphs:

However, being misrepresented and having your motives not only questioned but confidently assumed, does. Link and I have been accused of walking away from the faith in pursuit of cultural acceptance, never truly grasping the undeserved grace of God through Christ’s sacrifice, and never having had a sincere interest in seeking the truth. We’ve been reduced to convenient illustrations that can be nicely folded into twenty minute sermons, held up as examples of exactly what can go wrong with your children if they aren’t properly grounded in the faith, and cast as two more sad cases who followed the tired Hollywood script of putting fame and fortune before the pursuit of God...

I understand that neatly condensing me and Link down to theological footnotes is the easiest way to deal with us. If we simply fell victim to the seductive ways of the world and our doubts were based on misunderstandings and false information, then the youth group faith-grounding curriculum pretty much writes itself. But if you take our stories at face value or recognize the sincere nature of our journeys, things get complicated and cumbersome. We become significantly more inconvenient if we went from having a rich and personal faith, and then, after a long and painful grappling with legitimate questions, made the excruciating decision to depart.

1. From the perspective of progressives, I think one of the worst sins someone can commit against them is if people "reduce" their life-stories into convenient labels. If we don't "understand" them. If we can't entirely grasp or appreciate their "rich and personal" stories. However, at the end of the day, what unique stories do Rhett & Link have to tell about their leaving Christianity? How do their stories depart in significant ways from the stories of other apostates from the same or similar background as them? I don't see any fundamental differences, only differences at the eye level, so to speak. Think about it this way. If their story (including "deconstruction") was made into a movie, what would be all that unique about it? That's not to say it wouldn't be a good movie, just like how there are many good Marvel superhero movies, but Marvel superhero movies are formulaic too.

2. On the one hand, it sounds like Rhett wishes to build a bridge so he can have a conversation with people. His words appear to be kind and gracious to some degree. On the other hand, he's actually erecting a wall with this kind of attitude. That's because it sounds to me like Rhett is using this kind of rationale as a reason not to have to engage with the actual reasons and evidences for Christianity - which is what the actual issue should be. It's as if we first have to better "understand" his "story" as the "rich" individual that he is before he'll hear us. Otherwise, he acts like we're just "reducing" him to a label and that's not fair!

3. However, if I'm mistaken, then here's a way forward. Why don't Rhett & Link interview Christian intellectuals on their show? Not popularizers, but intellectuals. Talk to them for however long they want and ask them whatever questions they want. After all, Rhett & Link have invited scores of celebrities onto their show. Why not invite Christian intellectuals too? I'd recommend Rhett & Link consider asking people like: James Anderson, Greg Welty, John Frame, Vern Poythress, Jeremy Pierce, Paul Manata, Tim Hsiao, Tim McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Jonathan McLatchie, Esther O'Reilly, John Lennox, Neil Shenvi, David Wood, Rebecca MacLaughlin, Amy Orr-Ewing, Doug Groothuis, Bill Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Luke Barnes, Sarah Salviander, Richard Klaus.

Deconstruction

My comments on this Facebook thread: Unbelievable? March 3 at 5:40 PM 

"If y'all had been listening to Ear Biscuits, you would know that Rhett and Linc's desire is a search for truth, and that my dears is what Christianity is all about, so get off your high horses and actually pay attention."

Christianity is not about a search for truth that terminates in rejecting Christianity. And truth is worthless without an ultimate good.

Rhett & Link's buddy system

I realize the irony in my doing another post on Rhett & Link given what I say below and what I've said in the past about them. The context is I was responding to another Christian's analysis of Rhett & Link.

I think we as Christians are spilling way too much ink over Rhett & Link's apostasy. For one thing, their objections to Christianity are (largely) jejune.

More to the point, Rhett & Link could have gotten answers if they really wanted to since they are well poised to get answers from others. Certainly more so than most other people. For example, why don't Rhett & Link reach out to someone like Jonathan McLatchie or any number of Christian apologists and put them on their show so they can ask whatever questions they wish? Indeed, Rhett & Link have had tons of guests (celebrities) on their show, so why not a Christian intellectual too?

Of course, I suspect one reason they don't do this is because that might cause Rhett & Link to lose credibility with their largely secular audience if they were to host a Christian apologist on their show. However, if they really want to know the truth, why not do it? If they're not play-acting or somesuch, but really want to know the truth, then why don't they care far more about asking questions of potentially eternal significance than they care about how many YouTube subscribers or Twitter followers they have? Besides, as far as this objection goes, even if they lose one audience, who knows? They might gain another.

Instead, it appears Rhett & Link have done several videos (like 5 or 6 hours' worth) featuring themselves talking about themselves, agonizing about how it might affect them in this or that way, wringing their hands over their apostasy, etc. That's what it looks like when I watch clips, but I have no desire to sit through all their videos. Anyway I think it'd be much better if they used that time to interview people who could answer their questions. For example, Ben Shapiro has invited Christian apologists and intellectuals onto his show to ask them why they believe and otherwise ask them a bunch of questions. Rhett & Link could do the same if they really wanted to know.

If, as Christians, we don't care for Rhett & Link, per se, but we want to help others like them, then even within Rhett & Link's own hipster demographic it's not as if they all have the same kinds of questions as Rhett & Link do. Not all of them were raised in fundy environments in rural areas or small towns where everyone was told to be a YEC. If anything, I suspect most come from a far more secular background where ideas like atheism or agnosticism and neo-Darwinism predominate.

Apostate of the month

Certain quarters of evangelicalism have developed an apostate of the month syndrome. Attention is lavished on celebrity apostates who recycle schoolboy objections to Christianity on their way out the church door. In the meantime are hundreds of millions of nameless unreached people around the globe, not to mention countless nameless Christians who persevere despite severe hardship and persecution. They should be the focus of our attention, and not charismatic, photogenic apostates. This is just a personality cult. 

Forsaking Christianity

For anyone who still cares about what's happening with Rhett & Link, here is a post which looks like a fairly comprehensive overview and discussion of their background and apostasy. I haven't read it, just skimmed it.

Speaking for myself, I admit it's hard to care a whole lot about Rhett & Link's apostasy except as a lesson for others. My thinking is there are many other people who never had the opportunities and never enjoyed the circumstances Rhett & Link enjoy who could benefit from our focus. But Rhett & Link do serve as good object lessons, I suppose. And I do hope they turn back to God someday.

And yet, and yet...

Greg Koukl:

I was reading the L.A. Times today in the letters to the editor section and there was a letter written by a gentleman in Newport Beach that was a response to a tragic story that the Times had carried a few days ago. Maybe some of you had seen that story or have read about it in the local papers about not just the rank and file tragedy in Bosnia-Hertzegovena, not about the general tragedy of war. The article was about the problems of the refugees and also a women being victimized by soldiers.

This respondent writes, "Glancing at your April 10 paper my eyes fell upon the tragic story 'Ordeals Put Off Bosnia Rape Victim's Healing.' My heart ached for Amira, the 35 year old Muslim woman, mother of two children, suffering the loss of her husband, wandering about the countryside begging to survive. Placed in a detention camp, raped repeatedly by Serb soldiers acting as animal pigs rather than humans, the woman became another tragic victim of human wickedness. Where is mankind headed? My thoughts turn to God and ask, 'Why, God? Why did you create such monsters? God, are you for real?' If this is God's way of teaching or testing my faith", he continues, " then my beliefs and faith are being shattered with contempt instead. Having just lost my wife to cancer, maybe my feelings are more prone and fragile to be torn apart and my feelings turn more intensely to those who are suffering also." It's signed Victor Jashinski in Newport Beach.

Let's deconstruct a deconversion story

"Let’s Deconstruct a Deconversion Story: The Case of Rhett and Link" (Alisa Childers).

Trophy converts

Stephen J. Graham

@sjggraham

Atheists: if you could convert one Christian philosopher to atheism, who would it be?

Christians: if you could convert a single atheist philosopher to the faith, who would it be?

1. This is a window into how atheists think. Imagine the damage to your cause if your best general defected to the enemy side. Or imagine the damage to the enemy side if their best general defected to our side. 

But from a Christian standpoint, that's not how it works. It's not like gifted Christians are doing God a favor. God can raise up new sons of Abraham from stones (Mt 3:9). Christianity is not elitist (1 Cor 1-3). The fortunes of Christianity don't depend on indispensable individuals. God can replace our generals with a new batch that's just as good or better. 

2. However, we could play along for the sake of argument. It's necessary to draw a distinguish between wholesale and retail thinkers. High-level thinkers and influential popularizes. In some cases, these overlap. 

On the Christian side, William Lane Craig and N. T. Wright would be trophy converts for atheism. At present, those are the biggest catches. They're both popularizers and intellectually influential. Lennox is a notch below. 

Then you have the also-rans. Popularizers like Zacharias, Turek, Strobel, and Licona. 

On the merits, you have the high-level thinkers and scholars like Keener, Bauckham, Pruss, van Inwagen, Plantinga, Rasmussen, Dembski, Swinburne. These cater to apologetic junkies and philosophy nerds. Ed Feser is a notch below. 

They'd be trophy converts for atheism, although at their age, if Swinburne or Plantinga switched sides, that might well be chalked up to losing their minds rather than changing their minds. Senility rather than seeing the light. 

On the atheist side, Bart Ehrman would be a trophy convert for Christianity. He's currently the most popular and influential atheist. A scholar by temperament and training, but 

nowadays he churns out potboilers. At present he's the leading popularizer.

Dawkins used to occupy that distinction, but his star has faded. Carrier is a social climber who used rival atheists as a ladder in his ruthless effort to reach the top rung, but he never achieved the following of a Dawkins, Hitchens, or Ehrman, and he suffered a precipitous downfall. A washed-up wannabe. 

There's also a rising generation of YouTube celebutantes who trade in starpower rather than brainpower. 

On the merits, Oppy would would be a trophy convert to Christianity, followed by guys like Shellenberg, Tooley, Wielenberg, and Sober. But they only cater to cerebral atheists, a fraction of the total fanbase. 

Again, though, this is judging the stage of play from a worldly, secular standpoint. The success of the Christian movement doesn't rise or fall on winning or losing trophy converts. Some have a larger role to play, some a smaller role to play, but everyone is expendable in the sense that God is never at a loss for the necessary resources. 

Sorry, bud, but your loss isn't my loss

Celebrity apostates are the flip side of celebrity converts. Recently there's been a spate of celebrity apostates. From what I can tell, these are fair-weather Christians who lost their faith (such as it was) when Christianity ceased to be hip and cool. As the power elite turns against Christianity, there's a natural winnowing process.

These most recent, publicized case is Rhett & Link, whom I've never heard of before. I don't have anything to say about them. I just don't care. You're just one of 7 billion people, many unreached, who never had the opportunities you squandered. 

I'm simply using it as an occasion to make a general observation: Christianity has some aspects of a team sport as well as an individual sport. The team aspect is the church. The corporate dimension of the Christian faith. The fellowship of believers. Ideally, we drawn strength from one another. Share our joys and sorrows. Pray for each other. Encourage one another. The church is meant to be a spiritual family. 

So that's true up to a point. There is, though, another sense in which Christianity is more like an individual sport. In a team sport, no particular player, even if he's the star player, wins or loses. The team wins or loses. 

That cuts both ways. On the one hand, weaker players lower the ceiling of what stronger players could achieve. On the other hand, stronger players raise the ceiling of what weaker players could achieve. If you have loads of athletic ability, there's a sense in which it takes a certain amount of humility to play a team sport because you could go farther on your own. Less able teammates slow you down. They fumble opportunities. 

In an individual sport, you win or lose on your own. When you lose, that's not a loss for the team.

I suspect many unbelievers are gleeful about celebrity apostates because they think this is demoralizing for Christians. As if the Christian team takes a hit every time a teammate walks away from the Christian faith. Especially a  high-profile figure.

But theologically speaking, that's not how it works. This isn't a competitive team sport. You cross the finish line individually or you drop out of the race individually. The "winners" and "losers" are ultimately independent of each other. 

Salvation and damnation are individual outcomes. Tragic for the individual, and sad for onlookers. The apostate will suffer as an individual. 

A passenger ship is a traditional metaphor for the church. If you jump overboard, the ship won't sink. The ship won't stop. It will keep right on going to its appointed destination. 

Publicly recanting the Christian faith can be exhilarating for celebrity apostates. Temporarily, they get lots of kudos from infidels. 

But as you're splashing around in the water, you watch the stern of the ship recede towards the horizon. You're alone. The sun is edging towards the horizon. Soon it will be night. You will splash around in the silence and darkness and isolation. 

Unbelievers can gloat all they like over celebrity apostates, but Christianity continues to sail full steam ahead. Christians aren't hostage to apostates. We each have our own pilgrimage. 

The ship doesn't wait for you and me. I must be on time or be left behind. 

Christians are there to help each other on the journey. But there's always been an attrition rate. Some travelers begin the journey as unbelievers and finish as believers. Others begin the journey as believers, then end up as unbelievers. Some travelers suffer a crisis of faith during the journey, but return to the faith. 

Good mythical morning

Apparently Rhett and Link became apostates.

Kenny Boyce offers some observations about their apostasy. I don't entirely agree with Boyce (e.g. I'm not a YEC but I think mature creation may be more defensible than he does, I'd want to unpack what he means by "a less theologically conservative view of the nature of Scripture"), but he does say a lot of useful things. It's worth a read.

Anyway, I highly doubt it's all intellectual for Rhett and Link. It's not just about fundy Christianity, YEC, do we take the Bible "literally", etc. I think it's also about the seductive draw of the world. Moving from rural North Carolina to Southern California. Finding fame and success in the entertainment industry. Meeting Hollywood execs. Gaining wealth and influence. Rubbing elbows with celebrities. Getting invited to attend film premieres and after-parties. It's hard to resist these pulls and temptations. Especially if one's Christian faith is already threadbare. If one doesn't already have deep roots in theology and apologetics.

At the same time, it's not as if Rhett and Link can't reach out to Christians who can offer intelligent answers to their questions. They have more luxury to seek than many other people do. And it's not too late for them even now.

The no-true apostate fallacy

Moreover, we must differentiate from permanent apostates people who never had genuine saving faith in the first place but merely a counterfeit faith (like Judas). In cases of counterfeit faith apostasy does not truly enter the picture. So on this view, although it is possible to apostatize and forfeit salvation, no one ever actually does so. 

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/why-doesnt-god-terminate-would-be-apostates

An all-too-typical specimen of the desperate lengths that Calvinists will go to to salvage their a priori theological system. The No-True-Scotsman fallacy!

Wait, this wasn't written by a Calvinist, but by a high-profile freewill theist who denounces Calvinism. Fancy that! 

Mephistopheles at Taylor Seminary

@RandalRauser

I define a good argument as a valid argument that could persuade a rational person. By that definition, there are good arguments for Christianity. And there are good arguments against Christianity.

Sounds like the opening gambit of a conversation with Mephistopheles. He doesn't begin by attacking Christianity. That would put Christians on the defensive. Instead, he begins by saying something nice about Christianity. A throwaway line that lulls them into lowering their guard. 

After the softening up exercise, he then relativizes his apparent concession by casually saying there are also good arguments against Christianity. That aside has the further benefit of peeking their curiosity. "Oh really? I wonder what those are?"

Having hooked them with the bait, Mephistopheles proceeds to elaborate on all the supposedly good arguments against Christianity. The initial allusion to good arguments for Christianity recedes ever further into the background, never developed and quickly forgotten. That was just to gain an opening.

And Mephistopheles needn't even demonstrate that the arguments against Christianity are stronger than the arguments for it. For his purposes, a stalemate is as good as a win. Just leave the erstwhile Christian so intellectually divided that he's now too flummoxed to come down on any side. For Mephistopheles to win, they don't have to go all the way over to atheism. Agnosticism will suffice. His objective isn't to make them atheists but to talk them out of Christianity. What matters is not what they become, but what they cease to be. For his purposes, any alternative to Christianity is a win for the dark side. 

Rauser's tantrum

@RandalRauser

Steve Hays doesn't know for a fact that Mayor Pete is not promiscuous.

And I don't know for a fact that Steve Hays isn't a child molester.

See the problem with raising questions about the character of people in this manner? It's absolute *poison*.

Angry Calvinist Steve Hays offers the following response to my question: "Does Rauser know for a fact that Mayor Pete is not promiscuous?" 

Hey Steve, do you know otherwise? If not, then shut up. There's nothing worse than "Christians" slandering others.

i) It's amusing to see Rauser's duplicity on public display. Rauser is the one who stipulated that Mayor Pete is in a monogamous marriage to a man. He's the one, not me, who made this a character issue. He's the one who insinuated an invidious contrast between Buttigieg's character and Trump's. 

ii) BTW, many homosexuals have open "marriages". That's widely reported. That' admitted by homosexuals. They go into "marriage" with that caveat. Which doesn't mean Mayor Pete is necessarily promiscuous, but there's no presumption that he is, given gay male sexuality in general. 

Rauser made an assertion about Mayor Pete's monogamy. It's perfectly legitimate to ask what evidence he has to back up that assertion. Otherwise, he should just "shut up". After all, that's a key assumption of his comparison. 

iii) The allegation of "slander" is unwittingly revealing on Rauser's part. From the standpoint of biblical ethics, homosexual promiscuity isn't morally worse than (hypothetical)  homosexual monogamy–or fidelity to one catamite. To revert to my illustration, if a pederast only abuses one minor on a regular basis, that doesn't make it good–compared to abusing multiple minors.  

This is one of Rauser's blindspots. He acts like heterosexual and homosexual activity are morally analogous or even equivalent, so that if monogamy is a virtue in heterosexual relationships, then it's a virtue in homosexual relationships. 

iv) Then we're treated to Rauser's robotic "angry Calvinist" trope. What makes Rauser think I have to be angry to comment on his stuff? Does Rauser only critique a position or person when he's enraged?