Saturday, January 15, 2011

Tossing his toys

Dominic Bnonn Tennant briefly sums up what's been happening with the Randal Rauser debate (which, BTW, includes a progression retrogression with Rauser's shifting the argument he's been having with us from content to tone, which in turn is ironic since Rauser himself calls for a higher standard in discourse but later alludes to a neo-Nazi skinhead movie character in reference to Pastor Dustin). Bnonn then refocuses the debate by asking Rauser to respond to three questions. Anyway, check out the post here.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Accessorizing atheism

Randal Rauser says:

A substance dualist might argue for their view that the human agent is a soul by arguing that we have free will and free will requires a non-physical agent to intervene in the chain of material causes.

This misses the point in two key respects:

i) The issue isn’t physicalism v. dualism, per se. The issue is what underwrites the end-result.

What does substance dualism amount to in atheism? A human being is still the byproduct of a mindless process.

To take a comparison, suppose I’m having a business lunch. In the middle of lunch the waiter passes me a note which says, “Call home.”

I will leave the table and call home.

Suppose I’m playing a game of scrabble, and on one throw the letters spell “Call home.”

I won’t call home. I attach no significance to that outcome.

What’s the difference? You have the same result, but the process makes all the difference. Although the sentences are identical and, in that respect, equally meaningful, the note is a message whereas the scrabble pattern is not. The scrabble sentence is accidentally or coincidentally meaningful. It’s not a genuine message or communication. In that respect, it’s no different than gibberish. The result of random chance.

Likewise, unless human beings are the product of a wise Creator, human life doesn’t have the same value. It has no inherent dignity.

ii) Randal also disregards the issue of the afterlife. If human beings don’t survive the grave, then that, too, radically affects the value of life.

Take one of those European villages that hasn’t changed very much in 800 years. Folks have been living in the same cottages and townhouses for 800 years. But while the buildings are the same, the residents are not. Every 100 years, give or take, you have a total replacement rate.

Not only does this apply to individuals, but to an entire set of relationships. Parents, grandparents, children, spouses, siblings, lifelong friends–and even their pets. When they all die, that entire cumulative network of mutual affections and shared memories dies with them. Lost forever. A total loss to all parties concerned. 

That’s the standard atheistic narrative. And it you take that to heart, it makes a huge difference to your outlook on life.

Rauser doesn’t begin to appreciate the unique and all-important value of the Christian vision. For him it’s just a nice accessory. A dispensable add-on which enhances the value of life, but isn’t fundamental to the value of life. 

Newcomb's Paradox, Particular Redemption, and Sincere Offers

James Anderson has a creative response to the common objection that there is an inconsistency between particular redemption and the sincere offer of the gospel.

The playactor

According to Randal Rauser’s latest post:

We can approach the many comments from the Triablogue Posse to my Dr. Z case in terms of tone or content. In this post I’m going to focus primarily on the tone.

Okay, so how does he set the tone?

I must say Dustin looks very angry in that photo. It is not the general impression I’d want to convey. (Indeed, it looks rather like Edward Norton in “American History X.”)

He sets the tone by comparing Pastor Dustin to a skinhead.

This is yet another instance in which Randal unwittingly illustrates the human capacity for self-deception. Randal entertains the self-image of kind, caring person.

Yet the acid test is how he treats people he dislikes. And in his exchanges with the “Triablogue posse” he never fails to flunk that elementary test. 

He's only loving to those with whom he's simpatico. He loves his own kind. He loves people like himself.

But the moment he has to deal with someone like Dustin or Bnonn, he proves himself to be a bigoted hatemonger.

Randal is not the person he thinks he is. He constantly indulges in self-congratulatory rhetoric. As a consequence, his spiritual pride blinds him to his true character

Progressive Christianity

Prof. R, a progressive Christian professor, was working with Christianity Without Borders in the rough and tumble jungles of academia. Prof. R had decided he simply had to go because he felt it was his calling as a progressive Christian to help alleviate some of the enormous suffering in Christianity. For months Prof. R labored tirelessly in a cozy university office suite, desperately attempting to help the young adults who had been mentally raped and mutilated by the interminably cold-hearted Reformed Christian beliefs and values of the region, beliefs and values fueled in part by these Christians' insatiable demands for biblical inerrancy, penal substitutionary atonement, and the like.

For some reason, it was the eight year old that did it. When she was brought in a specific segment of her mind had been lobotomized and somebody had embedded in its place a mind-controlling cortical microchip. As Prof. R cradled her head in his knees it was clear that they could do nothing for her but deliver her a dose of anti-sedative and anti-cataleptic medication to help alleviate the high amplitude, low frequency electroencephalogram (EEG) wave patterns in her trance-like state. Perhaps it was because she was eight, the same age as his own daughter. Perhaps it was the blank automaton look in her eyes. Perhaps it was the unforgettable screams of her desperate mother. But through it all he felt his progressive faith splintering.

Later that night he sat up with a colleague sipping a cup of orange mocha frappuccino. Suddenly the tears started rolling down his cheeks. He turned to the other man, an academic dean and fellow progressive Christian. And with his face wet with tears he whispered hoarsely, "I don't know if Peter Singer, Noam Chomsky, Peter Unger, and Norman Finkelstein demonstrate more moral integrity on a whole plethora of issues than most Christians I meet anymore!"

In that moment Prof. R did not believe the progressive Christian proposition, "Peter Singer, Noam Chomsky, Peter Unger, and Norman Finkelstein demonstrate more moral integrity on a whole plethora of issues than most Christians I meet." According to some people, the mere existence of charities like Oxfam and UNICEF is sufficient to say that Prof. R is, in that moment, wickedly suppressing the progressive beliefs, values, and agenda that call out to him. From where exactly? The high and mighty ivory tower of academia?

(Original here.)

Dubious doubts

But one’s understanding of God may be mistaken.

Of course, we can turn that around. For I may mistakenly believe I’m mistaken. Therefore, the hypothetical risk of being mistaken must be counterbalanced by the corollary risk of mistaking a mistake. I can erroneously think I’m right, or I can erroneously think I’m wrong. The abstract possibility of error is a two-edged sword.

Doubting falsehood is commendable, but a fixed attitude of doubt ends up doubting truth and falsehood equally. For fear of being wrong, you lose the only truth. 

It's Never Been This Bad Before?

We're often told that the political atmosphere is more hostile today than ever before. Michael Brown recently linked to a good video on this subject.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Christina Green

Many pundits have seized on the murder of Christina Green as the most tragic event in the tragic Arizona massacre. For many, the death of the young hits hardest because they had so much to lose. They had a whole life ahead of them, until that was cruelly taken from them. The wasted potential.

But by the same token, where is the same lament for a life cut short by abortion?

ANNOUNCEMENT: Worldview Night 1-27-2011

Thursday night, 1-27-2011 Shepherd's Fellowship will have its second "Worldview Night" by viewing a debate at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. And no, Dusman will not be participating in this one. I'm too busy with ministry right now.

Theme: Ratio Christi of UNCG and the UNCG Atheists Agnostics and Skeptics will be offering a panel discussion exploring the different concepts for grounding morality. Does the Christian or Atheistic worldview better account for morality, and which offers a better understanding of how morality works in our world? What are the problems and benefits of the different worldviews? These just some of the areas to be explored.

Location: The event will be held in the Elliot University Center (EUC) in the EUC auditorium from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. The auditorium is on the middle floor of the EUC to the left of the information desk, if you are facing the information desk. Here is a map of the location and parking for those traveling onto campus for it.

Format: This is being called a panel discussion but will be structured like a debate, with each panelist giving an opening statement then each side having time to question and lead discussion with the other. After that there will be time available for each side to give a closing statement. Finally at the end there will be time for audience questions and answers.

Representing Ratio Christi will be:

Adam Tucker: Is the UNCG campus director of Ratio Christi and a student at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

Bill Pratt: Christian apologist who blogs at and is working on his apologetics degree at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

Representing the UNCG Atheists Agnostics and Skeptics will be:

Joshua Deaton: Got his first degree in political science from UNCG and is currently working on a second degree in biology. He studied to be in the ministry and his studies lead him to be an atheist.

Robert Eldredge: Current President of the UNCG Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics Robert got undergraduate degrees in Philosophy and Political Science from Guilford College and is currently working on a Masters of Public Affairs degree from UNCG.

Remembering Roger Nicole

Here are John Frame's reflections on the passing of Roger Nicole (posted with permission):

Remembering Roger Nicole

This morning, the email announcement came that Roger Nicole had passed away, yesterday, Dec. 11, one day after his 95th birthday. He was a great man. A Swiss Baptist, he studied at Gordon-Conwell (I think before they added Conwell) and doctored at Harvard. He taught at GCTS for many years, leaving there maybe twenty years ago to teach at RTS. He was unhappy with the administration of GCTS. When I met him in 2000, he greeted me very warmly, said that his years at RTS were the best years of his career. I would say the same about my ten years here.

            He taught and wrote about all theological topics. The atonement and biblical inerrancy were his particular specializations. He also had some neat lectures on the five points of Calvinism. He always thought of great ways of illustrating theological topics. Some years ago he spoke at CPC, comparing the fall of man to the fall of the two towers of the World Trade Center.

After I arrived at RTS, when he was in his eighties, he fought one more battle, to rid the ETS of Open Theists. He liked my work on that and visited my office often to share his thoughts and writings on the subject.

            Annette, his wife, died maybe five years ago. He lived at an assisted living place in Altamonte. This past year he recovered from a fall and surgery. His mind was often sharp even in his last week, but he went in and out of mental coherence. Dan Wright, our former reference librarian, was Roger’s best friend, stayed with him constantly at times.

            Roger loved the Lord, was uncommonly gracious to all. Everyone was his “dear brother.” We loved him dearly and will miss his kind presence. 

My statement on Roger Nicole’s Passing

December 16, 2010
I am so thankful for Roger's ministry. For many years I had read his works and heard of his great teaching, but I did not meet him until 2000, when I became his colleague. He greeted me warmly on my arrival at RTS, said that his years at RTS were the happiest of his professional life, a sentiment that is now mine as well. Though he was well into his 80s when I met him, he was engaged in a full-scale project, the elimination of open theism from the Evangelical Theological Society, a project I supported. He came by often during those years, and we had many discussions of his writings and mine on the subject. Though this was indeed a theological battle, both his friends and opponents commended his graciousness and kindness. Roger always listened, tried to find common ground, tried to express love and respect to his opponents. Though I was in my sixties, I looked to him as a father in the faith and as a model for my own spiritual walk. We did not always agree, but Roger was always my chief example of how to disagree without being disagreeable.

May God comfort his family, all our colleagues and friends with the sure hope of the resurrection. Indeed, Jesus lives, and so shall we.
John Frame,
Oviedo, Florida 

Do as I say, not as I do

Randal Rauser has done another post defending the innocence of atheism. A few comments:

1. In his methodology, experience trumps Scripture. Of course, that doesn’t surprise me. That’s what I’d expect from Randal.

2. But at the risk of stating the obvious, God is the world authority on human nature. There is nothing illegitimate about my interpreting human behavior in light of God’s interpretation. To the contrary, that is far and away the wisest course of action.

Of course, if you don’t believe the Bible is God’s word, then that changes the presumption. And at that point you’re groping in the dark.

3. At the same time, it’s terribly gullible to merely judge men’s motives by their self-witness. Men have a vast capacity for self-deception. Indeed, the Bible has a word for that: hypocrisy.

The hypocrite is nota calculating conman. To the contrary, the hypocrite may be utterly convinced of his stainless rectitude. There’s a total disconnect between his self-image and reality.

I’m reminded of a book by Peter Schweizer entitled Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

In fact, Randal is, himself, a textbook case of self-deception. He fancies himself a tolerant, empathetic individual Yet he unconsciously stereotypes those who disagree with him. He can’t resist drawing invidious comparisons between his own enlightenment and those benighted Christians on the right who just don’t know any better. They must be “angry” or “indoctrinated.” He prides himself on “critical introspection,” but he only applies that analysis to his theological opponents.

Many men are poor judges of their own character. And, ironically, some folks with the lowest morals have the highest self-esteem.

4. The question of whether a true Christian can suffer a crisis of faith is a red herring.

5. He says “I begin the book with an amazing scene from Woody Allen’s ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’ in which the uncle of the protagonist, a pious Jewish man, says he would choose God over truth. Yikes. No thinking Christian could (or should) ever say such a thing. No thinking person of any stripe should. If I’m wrong I want to know about it.

Of course, that’s a false antithesis. At the same time, it betrays the superficiality of his outlook.

Truth only matters if God is real. Apart from God, truth is not a virtue. Indeed, when you lose God, you lose truth. For truth is grounded in the mind of God.

"Developing a Frame work for the doctrine of Scripture"

In case some people aren't already aware, there's an interview with Prof. John Frame about his recently published book The Doctrine of the Word of God in the Jan. 3, 2011 issue of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's "Towers."

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Moral clarity



Close to forty years ago Singer wrote a powerful paper in ethics on the culpability of rich people in allowing the poor of the world to die. And yet rather than read that paper and Singer's other work on the plight of the world's poor, self-righteous suburban evangelicals continue to drive their big fat SUVs, tithe 4% of their income (on average) and stand in judgment of his views on abortion. What damnable hypocrisy. Before you call Peter Singer evil try reading the parable of the sheep and goats half a dozen times whilst setting aside your self-righteous certainty that you're a sheep and Singer is a goat.
1/11/2011 7:07 PM

Et non:

randal says:
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 11:21pm

Years ago Tony Campolo asked whether a Christian should drive a BMW. It’s a decent rhetorical starting point but surely any attempt to answer that question seriously would be bound to fall into a damnable legalism.

TurretinFan interviews Trueman

TurretinFan interviews Carl Trueman on Roman Catholicism.

Out here, due process is a bullet

I’ll venture a few more observations about Randal Rauser and his faux concern for the plight of the poor. My basic problem with Randal’s “recommendations” is that he’s just a poseur. It’s not about doing good, but feeling good. Feeling swell about ourselves. Feel-good measures that flatter the radical chic showboaters, but don’t solve any problems. Indeed, “solutions” that worsen old problems and make new problems.

1.Why don’t I look to Peter Singer or Peter Unger for advice on how to alleviate global poverty?

i) I wouldn’t look to them for moral advice for the obvious reason that is, by definition, ethics is a value-laden enterprise, and guys like Unger and Singer are the wrong place to look for moral guidance. Evangelical ethicists and Bible scholars are the first resort.

ii) Moreover, the causes and “solutions” to poverty are largely tied to economics, and I don’t expect philosophers like Unger and Singer to be competent on the economic factors which contribute to, or ameliorate, poverty.

Some philosophers like the late Ronald Nash are more conversant with basic economic principles, but that’s rare. And even if you have a solid grasp of economic principles, it also takes a lot of topical knowledge about the world economy, as well as specific localities, to address poverty.

2. Furthermore, while poverty is often solvable in principle, it’s often unsolvable in practice if there’s a lack of will on the ground to do what’s necessary.

There are many parts of the world where poverty is due to entrenched dysfunctional cultures: “Out here, due process is a bullet.

What’s the realistic solution to endemic poverty in Somalia? UNICEF? I don’t think so.

3. There are, of course, Christian charities and parachurch ministries that are doing good work. You also have individuals who do their part. I think that David Alan Black makes yearly trips to Ethiopia, to volunteer his services. Allen Yeh does that sort of thing as well.

You also have Bible scholars like R. T. France and O. P. Robertson who have devoted years to teaching fulltime at African seminaries. And, of course, there are many foreign missionaries who labor in faithful obscurity. 

Parable of the "Good" Atheist

Robert Fisher says:
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 5:59pm
Your [Rauser's] parable seems to have a few inaccuracies in it. I’m no fan of Rick Warren, the archetypal “Megachurch pastor”, but he does reverse tithe. Do you? Does Singer or any other of the people whose writings you mention? Do you even know what he’s done to alleviate global poverty and AIDS?
And you distort the way that atheists and those of liberal political bent go about their politics. To correct this, you’d have the atheist interfere with a conservative Christian trying to stop the carjackers in the first place, since the carjackers probably came from an underprivileged background.
Then the atheist would pass by the victim who was robbed and beaten, but since he felt bad for him, would enlist government thugs to steal from the Reformed pastor and the megachurch pastor in order fund a bureaucractic committee to aid “people who are beaten and robbed by carjackers”. Then, after skimming most of the money off the top of what they had taken, in order to pay salaries and “raise awareness” for those “beaten and robbed”, they have enough to buy the victim a few bandaids, by which time he has died of exposure. And yet the atheist, though regretting it, could not remove his blinders and see any other way of addressing the issue than the way he had.
You seem to take a very simpleminded view of the issue. Have you ever thought critically about any aspects of the left’s way of going about things? You seem like someone who has bought completely into the party line. Would you consider re-examining whether or not the left’s way of doing things is the most effective way?
To quote an atheist you omit, whose theological learning most likely exceeds yours, “Liberal politics is by and large rationalized survivor guilt.”
(Robert M. Price)

The parable of the hip professor and the vulgar masses

9He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a hip yuppie seminary prof. and the other a middle-class Christian. 11The seminary prof., standing by himself, prayed thus:

‘God(-dess), I thank you that I’m not like the vulgar masses–damnable suburbanites who drive minivans and shop at strip-malls. 12 I alleviate world poverty by writing book reviews on recondite issues in religious epistemology. I know how to use all the right buzzwords. I own a mechanical back-patter. I minister to the downtrodden by buying overpriced books on poverty that tell other people to do something about poverty. I extol Ivy League infidels who defend abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, Stalinism, suicide-bombers, honor-killings, and the Khmer Rouge–cuz that does so much to raise the quality of life.’

Token radical chic charity


“In order to assess the plausibility of his claim we first have to identify what the worldview of biblical Christianity is. I presume it is, minimally, a set of metaphysical/theological claims. So what are those claims?”

That depends on how detailed an answer you’re looking for. Biblical theologies by Tom Schreiner, Bruce Waltke, Frank Thielman, and Gregory Beale (forthcoming) provide fairly detailed expositions.

“What is that set of claims the denial of which is sufficient to deem one irrational? You've talked in general terms about adopting the narrative and canonical perspective of scripture but like Dustin you have provided virtually no insight into what that set of claims is. So could you please get down to brass tacks? What is the set of claims about the nature of reality called ‘biblical Christianity’ the denial of which constitutes an irrationality?”

It doesn’t have to be a set of denied doctrines. There are a number of individual doctrines, the denial of which renders a belief-system irrational.

If the Biblical God exists, then he’s the source of all things actual, possible, and necessary. By denying the existence of God, the atheist can’t supply an ultimate explanation for anything.

If you deny the Biblical doctrine of creation, and punt to naturalistic evolution, then you sabotage the basis of human rationality–by attributing human rationality to a mindless process.

If you deny the Biblical doctrine of providence, you uproot the foundations of induction.

If you deny the Christian afterlife, you rob human existence of ultimate consequences. When we die, it’s as if we were never existed.

If you deny the efficacy of prayer, then your belief-system lacks the explanatory power to account for many events (large and small) in world history.

I could give other examples. And I could elaborate on the examples given.

“You said that I hold to a ‘low’ view of scripture. I wonder how you could know that since I didn't say anything about my view of scripture…”

You tipped your hand when you imputed contradictory diversity to Scripture. Likewise, your review of Babinski’s contribution to TCD betrays a low view of Scripture.

“…(or inerrancy, though I have been a member of ETS for 8 years in good standing, if it matters to you).”

That would mean something at the time the ETS was founded. It means preciously little today.

“I didn't say anything about my view of theological diversity in scripture. I only said that a reasonable person could believe such exists and thus come to a different set of beliefs about the claims that constitute a biblical Christian worldview than another person.”

Now you’re revising your original claim.


“Does this quote mean John Shelby Spong is evil?”

Yes, John Spong is evil.

However, I didn’t entitle my post “atheists are evil.” I entitled my post “atheism is evil."

Due to common grace, atheists range along a moral continuum. Some retain more residual decency than others.


“Let's say that atheism is constituted by the proposition "God does not exist." That can't be evil. It's just a proposition!”

There can be evil ideologies. Take Nazism. Or Satanism. And the thought is father to the deed (as the saying goes).

“So in fact we are talking about the evil of atheists and not the evil of a proposition that denies God's existence.”

False antithesis.

Human beings have an obligation to their Creator to acknowledge him and thank him. It’s like the obligation of children to parents–only higher. Atheism displays monumental ingratitude to God for the being and wellbeing of men. It also evinces a deep-seated hatred of the good. For God is the summum bonum, and the source of all mundane goods.

“Oh yeah, and you might want to take up Atheist Missionary's suggestion to read some Peter Singer. I'd suggest you also read some Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, atheists who demonstrate more moral integrity on a whole plethora of issues than most Christians I meet.”

i) That’s one of the most revealing statements which Randal has made thus far. Let’s see. Peter Singer. Fanatical lobbyist for abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

Chomsky, apologist for Stalinism, Red China, and the Khmer Rouge–among other things. Cf. R. Posner, Public Intellectuals, 85-89.

Finkelstein, the classic self-hating Jew, who identifies with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Such paragons of moral integrity!

ii) Given his view of human nature, why does Singer care about the poor (if we accept the propaganda at face value)? Wouldn’t social Darwinism make more sense given his presuppositions?

“But my concern is with people who can't find the good in somebody with whom they disagree strenuously on other matters. Close to forty years ago Singer wrote a powerful paper in ethics on the culpability of rich people in allowing the poor of the world to die.”

Randal is such a dupe for empty liberal symbolism. Affluent liberals have always made “poverty” a radical chic cause–to deflect attention away from their own standard of living and provide some cover for their abhorrent ideology. It’s like the Al Gores and John Edwardses–who live in McMansions and fly by private jet while they purchase carbon offsets to excuse their lavish lifestyle, then lecture middle-class Americans on minivans.

What’s the standard of living for the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University?

“And yet rather than read that paper and Singer's other work on the plight of the world's poor, self-righteous suburban evangelicals continue to drive their big fat SUVs, tithe 4% of their income (on average) and stand in judgment of his views on abortion. What damnable hypocrisy.”

Well, that’s another revealing statement. Is it the combination of these putative vices that renders one hellbound, or are they individually damnatory?

i) Is it damnable to live in a look-alike house and shop at a strip mall? How is living in a suburb damnatory, but living in residential Vancouver BC (Randall attended Regent College) pious by contrast?

Or does Randal think evangelicals should live in a cardboard box under a bridge, then use the money they saved on housing to purchase books by Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer, Norman Finkelstein, and Peter Unger?

ii) Aren’t SUVs the contemporary equivalent of station wagons? Is it damnatory to drive a Chevy  SUV, but pious to drive a Chevy station wagon?

iii) If evangelicals didn’t have to fork over so much of their earnings in federal, state, and local taxes, they’d have more disposable income to tithe.

What about evangelicals who also donate to Christian charities and parachurch ministries? Did Randal take that into account?

What about an evangelical couple with a stay-at-home mom who homeschools the kids? Because they squeeze by on a single income, there’s not much disposable income.

Or what about an evangelical couple where both parents work outside the home to send their kids private Christian schools? How much money do they have left over after tuition and textbooks?

Or what about evangelicals who financially support their aging, failing parents? Say, assisted care.

Or what about evangelical parents with a drug addicted son or daughter? Their disposable income goes to rehab.

Or what if a father spends money taking his young sons on a camping trip? Is that damnable?

Or what if he buys a pet dog for his 8-year-old boy. Is that damnable?

iv) There is also the unspoken assumption that if we just transferred money from middle-class wage-earners to Third World countries, that would eradicate global poverty.

Is that how it works? What about all the foreign aid to Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa. Has that eradicated poverty? What about welfare programs? Has that eradicated poverty?

What about our nation-building efforts in Afghanistan?

If we just diverted middle-class wages to Somalia, that would transform Somalia into Switzerland, right?

v) What, exactly, is Randal doing to eradicate global poverty? Did street kids in Calcutta go to bed well nourished because he wrote a review of James Beilby’s Epistemology as Theology for Ars Disputandi?

“Before you call Peter Singer evil try reading the parable of the sheep and goats half a dozen times whilst setting aside your self-righteous certainty that you're a sheep and Singer is a goat.”

In context, the parable of the sheep and goats concerns the obligation of Christians to care for fellow Christians in need.

“How sad that none of the theologically correct Calvinists at this blog thread seem particularly interested in what you, or Singer, or Unger, have to say about the world's poor and our moral obligations to them.”

I was planning to make a contribution to World Relief until I blew my spending money on a $120 book about global poverty at Randal’s recommendation. So the poor will have to go to bed hungry while I read Unger’s book on poverty–then pat myself on the back for what a kind, generous guy I am.

Overpriced books on global poverty


Atheist Missionary,

I have written on Unger's book here:

How sad that none of the theologically correct Calvinists at this blog thread seem particularly interested in what you, or Singer, or Unger, have to say about the world's poor and our moral obligations to them.

Living High and Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence [Hardcover]

Peter Unger (Author)