Where does the Bible say that?

Sometimes, when I'm defending the Bible, my opponent will challenge me: "Where's that in the Bible?" Here's a recent example:

Hays

Regarding Gen 7:20, the text doesn't say the waters rose to a depth of 15 cubits above the mountains. The Hebrew text simply says the waters rose 15 cubits above, and the mountains were covered.

So "15 cubits above" may well have reference to ground level, which was sufficient to wash over the surrounding hillside. Think of a flood plain or river basin skirted by hills. Keep in mind that "mountain" isn't a technical term in Hebrew, but a synonym for "hill".

Kenton

Okay, if I accept that dubious definition then how come there weren’t survivors? Surely people could have headed toward higher ground that wasn’t covered or, more importantly, use their own boats? Pretty sure boats were a common thing back then.

Hays

Heading for higher ground may save you from drowning, but with contaminated drinking water, how long will you survive?

Kenton

I missed that part of the Bible. Which verse was that in? 

Hays

The account doesn't say they all died by drowning. It just says they all died in the flood. You do realize, do you not, that there's more than one way people may die as a result of flooding? Having a boat might prevent you from drowning, but it doesn't prevent you from death by starvation, exposure, or cholera.

1. Kenton's objection represents a misunderstanding of sola scriptura. When we interpret the Bible, we combine what the Bible says with extrabiblical background knowledge. To take a comparison, if I read a news report about a passenger plane crashing, I can mentally fill out certain details not included in the report. Indeed, the reporter expects me to know what airplanes are. 

At one level, my knowledge of the event is dependent on the report. Absent the report, I wouldn't know that a passenger plane crashed on that day in that place. However, I can mentally supplement the report with my general knowledge of airplanes and airplane crashes. 

So there's the direct information supplied by the report. It tells me that a particular kind of event occurred. But over and above the report, the nature of the event in itself is an additional source of information. It would be silly for someone to object: "Where did the report say that?"–if I'm making common sense assumptions or drawing reasonable inferences from the nature of the event. The report doesn't have to say that. Once the report says it happened, then the nature of the event is an implicit source of information, in addition to what the report explicitly mentions. An event of that kind may raise a number of possibilities. More than one possible explanation or reconstruction. 

If the Bible says King David was a man, we can infer certain things from that identification. He had hands and feet, fives senses, and male anatomy. To ask, "Where does the Bible say that?" is confused. For certain things follow from what the Bible says. That's understood. The reader is responsible for filling the gaps. If the Bible says King David was a man, that's both a direct source of information about David as well as an indirect source of information about David. There's what it specifically says. But based on what it says, we justifiable draw further conclusions. And the reader is supposed to do that.

If the Bible says people died in the flood, it needn't specify how, exactly, they died, as if they all had to die the same way. While it's possible that they all died the same way, that's not an implication of death by flooding. Death by drowning is a direct result of death by flooding, but that doesn't rule out death by "complications" caused by flooding. A massive deluge may well generate different causes of death. Some more immediate while others are more drawn out and roundabout. To take modern examples, consider people stranded on the roof of their house, waiting to be rescued. Although they survived death by drowning, that doesn't mean they survived death by flooding. Some of them still perish as they wait in vain to be rescued. 

You needn't agree with that interpretation of the flood account. I'm just using it to illustrate a hermeneutical principle. 

2. Of course, that's a question we frequently press against Catholics: "Where does the Bible say that?" But there's a difference. 

i) We wouldn't object to Catholic dogmas if those were implied by what Scripture does say. The problem with Catholicism isn't simply that they believe things we can't find in the Bible. Rather, they believe things when there's no good evidence anywhere! No good evidence in Scripture. No good evidence outside of Scripture. Indeed, they believe some things that run contrary to extrabiblical evidence (not to mention things contrary to the witness of Scripture). 

ii) In addition, they insist on a duty to believe or firmness of belief that goes beyond what the evidence warrants. Suppose there's some evidence that Peter ministered in Rome. Fine. But they turn that into a dogma. They make that belief obligatory. A sacred duty. Yet our late, spotty, even contradictory records of Peter's stay in Rome might be mistaken. We should be able to make allowance for the possibility of error. 

Transgenderism, Human Ontology, and the Metaphysics of Properties

https://www.epsociety.org/userfiles/Arbour%20and%20Gilhooly_Transgenderism%20(Final2019-1).pdf

Problems in the Amillennial Interpretation of the Binding of Satan

The following problems that J. Webb Mealy raise are never dealt adequately—or at all—in Amillennial literature.

“[Amillennialism believes since] Satan’s release from prison and destruction (Rev. 20:7–10) is connected with the parousia, then the time of his imprisonment “so that he should deceive the nations no longer” (20:3) seems to be coterminous with the career of the beast (which also ends at the parousia). But this is impossible, since the beast’s career is portrayed in Revelation as the time of Satan’s greatest success ever in deceiving the human race (fn. In Rev. 12:9, Satan is characterized as the one who “deceives the whole world.” In context, the events of ch. 13 graphically picture the full outworking of this deception, and by no means its limitation).

Further, it does no good for this view to over-interpret the report of Satan’s release from the abyss in Rev. 20:8 to mean that the only sense in which Satan had previous been bound was that he could not then deceive the nations in such a way as to “gather them together for the war.” For to do this is not only to ignore the explicit cosmological import of such passages as Rev. 12:9–17, but it is also to forget the fact that “Har-Magedon” is but the last episode in Satan’s “war”  with the saints. In Rev. 13:7 it was the beast himself who was given authority throughout his career and who was, in concert with Satan, to “make war with the saints and to overcome them.” The beast’s career, in other words, far from being the time of Satan’s binding in this regard, is undeniably the time of his power par excellence to deceive the nations into making war on the “camp” of the saints.” It is thus only at the parousia that the power to practice even this particular kind of deception is taken away from Satan.

What is taken away for the first time at the parousia is however, given back a thousand years later, when Satan is released from the abyss, and is permitted once again to instigate an attack on the people of God (Rev. 20:7–10). Thus a completely lucid and coherent sequence is established between Rev. 19:11—20:3 on the one hand, and 20:7–10 on the other: the power to deceive is first removed from Satan, and then subsequently restored. This means that the battle described in 20:7–10 can in no way be identified with the battle of Har-Margedon, since in spite of any similarities between the two scenes, what happens to Satan in the one manifestly precedes what happens to him in the other” (Mealy, After the Thousand Years, 20–21).

Grave of the fireflies

(Source)

Some people object to the U.S. dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war with Imperial Japan:

1. If the U.S. hadn't dropped the atomic bomb, then arguably the U.S. would have continued firebombing Japan. This evidently would have been much worse for Japan than the two atomic bombs. Victor Davis Hanson explains in The Second World Wars:

The March 9–10, 1945, napalm firebombing of Tokyo remains the most destructive single twenty-four-hour period in military history, an event made even more eerie because even the architects of the raid were initially not sure whether the new B-29 tactics would have much effect on a previously resistant Tokyo. The postwar United States Strategic Bombing Survey—a huge project consisting of more than three hundred volumes compiled by a thousand military and civilian analysts—summed up the lethality of the raid in clinical terms: "Probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man." Over one hundred thousand civilians likely died (far more than the number who perished in Hamburg and Dresden combined). Perhaps an equal number were wounded or missing. Sixteen square miles of the city were reduced to ashes. My father, who flew on that mission, recalled that the smell of burning human flesh and wood was detectable by his departing bombing crew. A half century later, he still related that the fireball was visible for nearly fifty miles at ten thousand feet and shuddered at what his squadron had unleashed...

Both atomic bombs were dropped from B-29s, the only American bomber capable of carrying the ten-thousand-pound weapons and reaching the Japanese mainland from the Mariana bases. Most controversy over the use of the two bombs centers on the moral question of whether lives were saved by avoiding an invasion of the mainland. The recent Okinawa campaign cost the Americans about twelve thousand immediate dead ground, naval, and air troops, and many more of the fifty thousand wounded who later succumbed, with another two hundred thousand Japanese and Okinawans likely lost. But after the bloodbaths on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, those daunting casualties might well have seemed minor in comparison to the cost of an American invasion of the Japanese mainland.

The ethical issues were far more complex and frightening than even these tragic numbers suggest. With the conquest of Okinawa, LeMay now would have had sites for additional bases far closer to the mainland, at a time when thousands of B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers, along with B-25 and B-26 medium bombers, were idled and available after the end of the European war. Dozens of new B-29s were arriving monthly—nearly four thousand were to be built by war’s end. The British were eager to commit Lancaster heavy bombers of a so-called envisioned Tiger Force (which might even in scaled-down plans have encompassed 22 bomber squadrons of over 260 Lancasters). In sum, the Allies could have been able to muster in aggregate a frightening number of over five thousand multi-engine bombers to the air war against Japan. Such a force would have been able to launch daily raids from the Mariana Islands as well as even more frequently from additional and more proximate Okinawa bases against a Japan whose major cities were already more than 50 percent obliterated.

A critical consequence of dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been not just precluding a costly American invasion of Japan, but also ending a nightmarish incineration of Japanese civilization. Otherwise, by 1946 American and British Commonwealth medium and heavy bombers might have been able to mass in numbers of at least two to three thousand planes per raid. Just two or three such huge operations could have dropped more tons of TNT-equivalent explosives than the two atomic bombs. Within a month, such an Allied air force might easily have dropped destructive tonnage equivalent to ten atomic bombs, following the precedent of the 334-plane March 9–10 fire raid of Tokyo that killed more Japanese than either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki nightmares.

"It seemed to me," Japanese prime minister Kantaro Suzuki remarked after the war, "unavoidable that, in the long run, Japan would be almost destroyed by air attack, so that, merely on the basis of the B-29s alone, I was convinced that Japan should sue for peace. On top of the B-29 raids came the atomic bomb, which was just one additional reason for giving in...I myself, on the basis of the B-29 raids, felt that the cause was hopeless."

2. In addition, the historian Gerhard Weinberg writes the following in his paper "Some Myths of World War II":

The other myth in need of another look is the controversy over the anticipated American and Allied casualties in the two planned invasions of the home islands of Japan of which Truman authorized the first in mid-June 1945. Invariably the likely casualties of the Chinese, Russians, British, and others are omitted from this discussion. Similarly the planned Japanese killing of all the prisoners of war they held is ignored.

Perhaps into the discussion one should also enter the anticipated casualties on the Japanese side about which there was no controversy within the Japanese leadership. It was accepted that there would be 20 million such casualties. This figure those in charge in Tokyo unanimously deemed acceptable until the second atomic bomb suggested to some of them that the Americans could drop an indefinite number and hence not have to invade at all.

In this connection, it may be worth noting that both the British government and Stalin had agreed to the use of the atomic bomb before Washington had asked them.

Now that the focus has turned to Japan, this may be an appropriate point to touch on Japanese war aims. These are all too often described as limited to resource-rich parts of Southeast Asia. The Japanese certainly wanted them, but the inclusion of India, Alaska, New Zealand, and Cuba in Japanese planning—to mention merely a few—hardly points to a modest program of annexations. One cannot help wondering what Fidel Castro would think of the inclusion of Cuba in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere—and of being rescued from this prospect by the Yankees.

We need the 2nd amendment

1. The photo is from a recent protest in Hong Kong.

1. Sadly, it's too late for Hongkongers to have a 2nd amendment.

   Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist their own toady government, which was effectively handpicked by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

   Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist their own lackey police force.

   Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist the triads and other hired guns (not to mention communist spies across Hong Kong) who are in collusion with the CCP.

2. I'm not even necessarily suggesting Hongkongers should use firearms, though that's an option. Just possessing firearms may be a deterrence in and of itself. At least it'd make bullies think twice.

"Race-traitors"

I thought about doing a post on this epithet before the mass shootings over the weekend, so the timing is coincidental. The "race-traitor" epithet is used both by (some) whites and blacks. Is that ever a legitimate category?

1. According to the Urban Dictionary, it's sometimes used for sexual "race mixing". That's an illegitimate use of the designation.

2. In addition, it's applied to individuals accused of selling out the interests of their own race. That's more complicated:

i) I think there are cases where that designation is legitimate. For instance, there are black politicians who support policies detrimental to the black community. Because, historically, the Democrat party is majority white, you have black Democrats who kowtow to liberal white policies in order to be players in the Democrat party.

To take another example, Mainland China is assimilating Hong Kong. It has stooges in the Hong Kong government who betray the interests of the Hong Kong people. The same may be said for the Hong Kong police. Likewise, there are white Democrats who promote policies that discriminate against whites.

ii) That said, in my anecdotal experience, it's my impression that white racists have a white first ethic. You put your own race first. You should have greater solidarity with members of your own (white) race than other races or ethnicities. But that's absurd. By that logic, I have greater solidarity with Elizabeth Warren than Russell Wilson, Mayor Pete Buttboy than Sen. Tim Scott, "Caitlyn" Jenner than Bobby Jindal, Rosie O'Donnell than Francis Chan, Boy George than Izzy Folau, Elton John than Michael Nazir Ali, Richard Dawkins than Voddie Baucham–to name a few.

iii) Perhaps a less extreme version of (ii) would claim that all things being equal, you should have greater solidarity with members of your own race. That's the default position, but it can be overridden.

However, that's too abstract to be meaningful. Race is always one factor among many, and some factors are much more important to individual and social identity than biological race, such as religion, common interests, biological sex, and sexual orientation.

iv) Finally, race is fluid. Many individuals can't be classified as members of one biological race. Biological race is a spectrum, easier to sort out at the ends of the spectrum than in the blended middle. That's why racial purists abhor "miscegenation". They understand that racial categories are often rather arbitrary and unstable.

Declaring war on white nationalism

In the wake of the mass shootings over the weekend, some conservatives have said now's the time to declare a war on violent white supremacy/nationalism. That raises several issues:
i) I'd note in passing that pundits use "white racist," "white nationalist," and "white supremacist" as synonyms. It's possible that there are some conceptual distinctions here. Since, however, I think they're all bad, I won't bother to parse the usage. For simplicity, I'll say "racist".
ii) Warfare metaphors are just that–metaphors. So what does it actually mean to wage war on this phenomenon?
iii) White racist terrorism, like domestic terrorism generally, is a crime, and ought to be treated as such.
iv) However, white racist ideology or rhetoric is a different matter. Both liberal and conservative pundits denounce it, which is fine at one level. It merits denunciation.
However, that's not a way to "win a war". Indeed, that may harden white racists. I suspect many of them feel like a righteous remnant. To be reviled and marginalized by the "establishment" reinforces their victimology, their persecution complex. So while denouncing white racism is valid on the merits, if our only response is to hurl epithets at them, that's counterproductive. They expect that. To be hated by the "establishment" is a badge of honor.
v) There's the old strategy of fighting bad ideas with good ideas. Instead of just denouncing them, an effort should be made to engage their arguments (such as they were). Although rational persuasion won't change the minds of hardcore racists, you can reach some people by listening to them. If they are show enough respect to be listened to, it creates an opening to change minds.
For instance, I once wrote a critique of white nationalist Francis Nigel Lee.
I figured that he could make the best case for white nationalism, so he was a good foil.
vi) It's necessary to distinguish between perceived grievances and legitimate grievances. Likewise, it's necessary to distinguish between legitimate grievances and illegitimate outlets. Some are losers looking for an excuse–someone else to blame. Others may have real grievances, but if their grievances are demonized, that pushes them into fringe groups.
vii) Apropos (vi), how many white racists are primarily motivated by ideology? By contrast, how many white racists are motivated by something else, and the ideology is just a side-effect? Take a generation of alienated young men due to fatherlessness. That may put them at risk of falling into social media groups with young men who share the same experience, who look for scapegoats.
Take the crisis facing some rural or working-class communities, highlighted by Tucker Carlson. Likewise, I saw a presentation by Jordan Peterson about how, in a hitech society, there just aren't jobs for people below a certain IQ–whereas there used to be jobs for them.
viii) In addition, Democrats need to own up to the fact that the anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-straight, anti-rural, anti-working-class policies of the Obama administration made Trump a politically viable candidate.
ix) If the authorities crack down on white terrorism but turn a blind eye to other examples of domestic terrorism like Antifa, that will reinforce white racism. They will see that the authorities are singling out caucasians, which plays right into their narrative. And, indeed, it is racist to crack down on white terrorism while giving other domestic terrorist movements like Antifa a pass.
x) Moreover, the crackdown on violent white racism can easily provide cover for Democrats to go after their political opponents. In the wake of the shootings, we see Elizabeth Warren call Fox News a "hate-for-profit" machine.
Likewise, the NYT runs back-to-back stories smearing all conservatives as agents of white domestic terrorism:

So, we now have two separate NYT columnists arguing that all conservatives are basically violent white supremacists, but slightly more subtle. Let me put this gently: f*** yourselves. pic.twitter.com/aqJjZjfPra

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) August 5, 2019

So this is just a pretext to use the police powers of gov't to shut down political dissent. A Hunger Games scenario.
I just saw a tweet by homosexual pollster Nate Silver obliterating the distinction between domestic and international terrorism:

I don't see any good reason for the modifier "domestic" in "domestic terrorism".

Is it lesser than international terrorism, somehow? Is "domestic" meant to soften and make it sound less scary, like "racially charged" in lieu of racist?

Just call it terrorism if it's terrorism.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 5, 2019

But there's a crucial distinction. International terrorism properly falls under the laws of war. By contrast, domestic terrorism is a crime. The accused, especially citizens, enjoy full due process rights.
xi) Finally, there's the question of how seriously to take manifestos by contemporary domestic terrorists. As I recall, this custom goes back to the Unabomber. In the past you had domestic terrorists writing manifestoes to explain their intentions. These were like suicide notes.
But nowadays we need to be less credulous. It's possible for a domestic terrorist to cynically give reasons for his actions that are not his real reasons. From what I've read, some domestic terrorists want to spark a civil war. They bait the authorities into cracking down, in hopes that the oppressive measures will ignite a popular uprising.
They know how to push the buttons of the "news media" and the authorities. They are banking on the very predictable reaction of the establishment. So I don't think we can automatically take contemporary manifestos at face value. Some of them may be playing the establishment.

What happens when you disarm the public

But the real problem lies in the police, that vast body of men and women, largely absent from the streets we pay them to patrol. In the last week, I have not seen one police officer on foot, anywhere, and I have looked out for them.

They have become a closed society, quite Left-wing, pursuing their own politically correct agendas, uninterested in their main job of deterring crime by being present on the streets.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/07/peter-hitchens-dont-be-duped-by-cheery-boris-johnson-its-your-duty-to-be-glum.html

Let's ban everything!

https://armedacademic.org/2019/08/05/priorities/

Armed academic

Tim Hsiao's new website focuses on gun rights.

An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholicism

Unlike the stereotypical Catholic/Protestant debate, this attacks Catholicism from a different front:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zXs_cUSjQ

Ironically, it reveals how legalistic Eastern Orthodoxy is, with its thicket of man-made rules and duties. The encounter between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is a spectacle in mutual destruction. 

Woke Shooters

Just a couple of comments on the recent shooters.

i. This stresses the importance for law-abiding citizens to carry to protect themselves, families, and others.

ii. The El Paso Shooter's manifesto shows he subscribed to Democratic narratives (e.g. radical environmentalism, anti-corporate, zero-population-growth). He also carries the Democratic heritage of racism, in this case against Hispanics. The Ohio shooter was woke himself, a pro-Satanist leftist, hater of law enforcement, and a supporter of communist Elizabeth Warren, as it is being revealed.

iii. Those who blame "mental illness" are giving the shooters too much credit as it excuses their real impetus: evil.

Gott mit uns

I got into an impromptu debate with an apostate Christian who is now an atheist.

[How do you know drowning people is morally wrong?] I know drowning is a very unpleasant sensation and can lead to death. As I wouldn’t what it to happen to me I in turn don’t wish it on others. It’s called empathy.

1. So your morality is ultimately based on your intuition? Your sense or feelings? Such as feeling "a very unpleasant sensation". Such as feeling a sense of "empathy". However, you earlier condemned Hitler and the Holocaust. Yet Hitler felt no empathy for the Jewish people. Hence, by your logic, Hitler did not do anything morally wrong by killing Jews in the Holocaust, did he?

2. A person can also feel "a very unpleasant sensation" when they're undergoing euthanasia. Would you therefore argue euthanasia is morally illicit?

hitler was a Christian so....

1. Hitler came from a Catholic background, just like Stalin came from a Russian Orthodox background (Stalin became an atheist), but Hitler persecuted Christians and hated Christians. Philosophically speaking, one could argue Hitler often promoted the views of Friedrich Nietzsche who was an ardent atheist and nihilist.

2. In fact, Hitler considered Christianity weak. A religion only fit for "slaves". And even Joseph Goebbels, who knew Hitler closely, said: "The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed."

3. However you're missing the actual point. I'm responding to you on your own grounds. This isn't about Hitler, but about your argument. Hitler is simply one example among many. You argued for morality based on feelings like "empathy". Well, if morality is ultimately based on whether or not we have empathy toward another person, then someone who has no empathy toward a group of people - such as Hitler lacking empathy toward Jews, or such as ISIS lacking empathy toward non-Muslims including non-Sunni Muslims - then by your logic how have they wronged the other person?

Euthanasia is a complex issue that requires consent and extenuating circumstances. The right to die for example. Alleviate suffering as such.

1. Again, you missed the point. The point is, by your own logic, euthanasia would be wrong because the person would feel "a very unpleasant sensation and can lead to death".

2. You need to find a better argument if you want to ground objective moral values and duties on atheism. If you can't ground objective moral values and duties, then you have no basis by which to morally judge another person's morality. Such as by calling God a "sadistic jerk" as well as condemning ancient peoples like Israelites and early Christians. At best, it's just your own intuition or feelings or somesuch, but your own personal feelings aren't necessarily a reliable moral compass.

3. Given atheism, what happens to evil people who get away with their evil in this life? Hitler died the way he wanted to die, by suicide, without ever having to answer for his evils. Stalin and Mao got away in the end too. As Dawkins points out: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

Gott Mit Uns which is emblazoned on the SS emblem translates to God With Us. Strange thing for an atheist to attach to his death squads.

1. By that logic, we put "In God We Trust" on our money. Hence the United States is (or should be) a Christian nation. Is that what you're arguing?

2. Besides, as Goebbels points out, Hitler was "religious" but "anti-Christian" and anti-Jewish. So whatever "god" this was, it wasn't the God of the Bible.

3. Plus, the Nazis often co-opted religious symbols for their own propaganda. After all, the swastika was originally from Hinduism. Hence, by your logic, the Nazis were Hindu.

horrible people throughout history have co-opted religion to strengthen their power. It’s almost like political leaders understand that having a god around helps keep people in line. Any coincidence that ancient cultures often had church and government so closely entwined. Makes you think doesn’t it. Can’t get the peasants to listen, threaten them with a fate worse than death. A savvy political move.

1. Thanks for conceding my point. Yes, Hitler and the Nazis were "horrible people" who co-opted religion. They were not Christians like you've been ignorantly alleging.

2. If anything, Hitler was driven by a Nietzschean vision mixed with various myths and religious symbols. (This included Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, and related myths, which JRR Tolkien even criticized the Nazis for misunderstanding at the time.) If anything, Hitler was driven by an atheistic and nihilistic vision. God is dead. The will to power. The German and Aryan peoples are Übermensch. That's one reason why Hitler thought Germans could weather the freezing Russian winter wearing lighter and/or less clothing than the Russians since the Germans are Übermensch! That's one reason why Hitler refused to allow his troops to make strategic retreats to fight another day (such as at Stalingrad) since the Übermensch have the will to overcome their enemies and other obstacles. In short, if anything, Hitler was driven by atheistic and nihilistic philosophies.

3. How "kept in line" to Pharoah and the gods of Egypt were Moses and the Israelites? See John Currid's book Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament for a start.

4. Most importantly, given atheism, why isn't nihilism the logical conclusion to your atheism? That's what many atheist philosophers even argue (e.g. Alex Rosenberg). Hence, the question is, given your atheism, how would you ground moral realism? Given your atheism, how would you ground objective moral values and duties? So far, you haven't been able to.

Edit: I added more of the debate below.

The last days of John Allen Chau

"The Last Days of John Allen Chau"

The flood waters

John Walton makes the following remarks in The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis:

The main questions, however, concern what is demanded by the language of the text. Four textual issues contribute to the discussion and require investigation: universal scope of the language (7:21–23), covering the mountains (7:19), fifteen cubits above (7:20), and the tops of the mountains becoming visible (8:5). If an interpreter maintains the support of the authority of the text but does not believe in a global flood, how can these four issues be handled?

Universal language. It may sound strange to say, but the word "all" is not always absolute in biblical usage. Look, for instance, at Deuteronomy 2:25, where the Lord says, "This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven." This verse even uses "under heaven" in the same way that Genesis 7:19 does. Yet in context, few would contend that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan and perhaps a few others. In Genesis 41:57, Joseph opens the storehouses of Egypt and "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world." I do not know of anyone who contends that therefore the Eskimos must have been included.

Similar use of language can be seen in Akkadian texts. Most instructional is a text called the Sargon Geography, which names the lands of the known world one by one and concludes that "Sargon, King of the Universe, conquered the totality of the land under heaven."³⁴ Based on such examples, it becomes clear that it was perfectly acceptable, and not at all deceptive, to use the word "all" to encompass all those of a more regionally delineated area. Such usage does not violate biblical authority because the Bible does not intend to claim more than regional impact.

Covering the mountains. When 7:19 refers to the mountains being covered, it uses the Pual form of the verb ksh. This verb is used for a wide variety of "covering" possibilities. A people or weeds can be so vast that it covers the land (Num. 22:11; Prov. 24:31); a blanket or clothing covers someone (Ex. 28:42; 1 Kings 1:1). Something can be covered in the sense of being overshadowed (cherubim wings covering the ark, 2 Chron. 5:8; clouds covering the sky, Ps. 147:8).

What about being covered with water? Aside from the two occurrences in 7:19–20, thirteen references have water as the explicit or implicit subject of this verb. Of those thirteen, five refer to the Red Sea covering the Egyptian army at the time of the Exodus (Ex. 14:28; 15:5, 10; Ps. 78:53; 106:11); four refer to the waters in creation and nature (Ps. 104:6, 9; Isa. 11:9; Hab. 2:14); one is metaphorical for judgment (Job 22:11). It is the remaining three that are of most significance to this discussion: Job 38:34; Jeremiah 46:8; and Malachi 2:13. In these three passages it appears that water does not cover by submerging as much as by drenching. Even today when someone walks in from a downpour we might say, "You’re covered with water!"

If Genesis 7:19 is taken the same way, it suggests that the mountains were drenched with water or coursing with flash floods, but it does not demand that they were totally submerged under water. One can certainly argue that the context does not favor this latter usage, and I am not inclined to adopt it. The point is that it is not as easy as sometimes imagined to claim that the Bible demands that all the mountains were submerged.

Fifteen cubits above. In 7:20 this phrase is difficult to decipher, largely because of the word that the NIV renders "depth." The Hebrew text says, "Fifteen cubits from above [milma'la] rose the waters, and the mountains were covered." It is therefore not at all clear that it is suggesting the waters rose fifteen cubits higher than the mountains.³⁵

The word under discussion occurs twenty-three times in a number of different syntactical situations. Its most common use is to delineate the position of one object relative to another. In this kind of context the preposition al is consistently attached to the one noun with milma'la connected to the object that is being located.³⁶ It can also mean "above" when it is used as an adjective (Jer. 31:37, "heavens above"). When it is used as an adverb without a preposition to relate it to another noun, translations such as "upward" (Ezek. 1:11, "spread upward") or "upstream" (Josh. 3:13, 16) are better choices. It is this last category to which Genesis 7:20 belongs. As an adverb modifying the verb "rose," it suggests that the water reached fifteen cubits upward from the plain, covering at least some part of the mountains.

Tops of the mountains visible. This is the most difficult statement to explain for those arguing that the text does not require a global flood. In saying that the tops of the mountains became visible, this verse conveys that the tops, not just the flanks of the mountains, had been obscured. This still leaves two possibilities: They have been obscured by the horizon and this represented the sighting of land,³⁷ or they have been obscured by (i.e., submerged under) water. The latter appears to be the necessary conclusion in that the ark stops moving in verse 4 on the seventeenth day of the seventh month and that the tops of the mountains do not become visible until two and a half months later, the first day of the tenth month.

Most interpreters have inferred that the ark became lodged on the tops of one of these mountains that was still under water and that the mountains did not become visible for ten more weeks. If this were a proper inference, the observation in the text would be a matter of experience, not perception. Noah did not just assume that all the mountains were under water; he was in the mountains and they were under water.

30,000 denominations redux

I'd like to revisit a mindless but ever-popular Catholic trope about the Protestant faith. And that's the claim that sola scriptura spawned "30,000" denominations. The figures varies depending on the Catholic apologist. This is related to the Catholic objection that Protestants can't agree on anything. 

Here's why I say that's a mindless trope: if you think the Protestant movement is so disunited that it doesn't stand for anything, then why classify all these groups as Protestant? Put another way, if you can't say what the opposing position represents, then you have no target to aim at. 

If there's no such thing as a core Protestant theology, then there's nothing to critique. At best, a Catholic apologist could say the basic problem with the Protestant faith is that there is not Protestant faith. That would be catchy, and you could put it in one pithy sentence. 

But of course, Catholic apologists offer detailed critiques of Protestant theology. They write whole books on the subject. And Catholic attacks on the Protestant faith bear an uncanny family resemblance. 

In practice, a Catholic apologist takes one of two approaches. One line of attack is to critique generic Protestant theology. He attacks typical, representative Protestant doctrines. But that's a roundabout admission that Protestant faith does have a common, identifiable core theology.

The other line of attack is to pick a particular expression of the Protestant movement like Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Calvinists. Although these have distinctive positions that distinguish them from one another, they are representative Protestant schools of thought. 

So both in principle and practice, Catholic apologists think there are recognizable Protestant doctrines. If they didn't think that, they couldn't write entire books attacking the Protestant faith. 

Institutional infidelity

1. Hypothetically, what would the magisterium have to do for devout Catholics (or Catholic apologists) to conclude that the Roman Catholic church never was the one true church founded by Jesus Christ? Can the magisterium ever do anything, in principle or practice, to discredit Roman Catholicism? 

Put another way, how do we distinguish between a faithful church and a faithless church? What's the standard of fidelity? 

2. In my observation, Catholics take the position that the pope can't change dogma. The pope can't change the deposit of faith. The pope can't elevate a heresy to the status of dogma. The pope can't make a moral teaching that contradicts natural law de fide doctrine. However, the hierarchy can say or do anything short of that without discrediting Roman Catholicism. 

So in theory, if the pope, speaking ex cathedra, were to change doctrine, change the deposit of faith, dogmatize heresy, teach contrary to natural law, his action would show that the Roman Catholic church was never the church founded by Jesus Christ.

However, that's paradoxical, and a tenacious Catholic apologist might find a loophole by saying that if a pope were to do that, it wouldn't disprove Catholicism; rather, it would disprove the claim that he was speaking ex cathedra. But there are two related problems with that defense:

i) If a pope cannot change dogma even when he intends to speak ex cathedra, even when he uses ex cathedra formulas, then it's impossible to verify when or if a pope is speaking ex cathedra. If papal intent and ex cathedra formulas are insufficient criteria, then there's no way to verify an ex cathedra pronouncement.

ii) It renders Catholicism unfalsifiable, which means that even if Catholicism is actually wrong, Catholics are never be in a position to know it's wrong. In that event, they have an unshakable commitment to a false religion.  

3. In addition, this defines fidelity or infidelity in exclusively abstract, impersonal terms. Fidelity or infidelity is restricted to propositions. The members of the magisterium can say or to anything consistent with institutional fidelity so long as the dogmatic statements are faithful to the deposit of faith. It reduces fidelity to verbal formulas.  If every pope taught heresy, but not formally or officially (i.e. dogma, de fide, ex cathedra), the Catholic church would still be a faithful church. If every pope, cardinal, bishop, and priest was an active sodomite, the Catholic church would still be a faithful church. 

But a fundamental problem with that restrictive concept of fidelity is that, of necessity, fidelity has a personal dimension. It isn't just words on a page. To be faithful is to be obedient in thought word and deed. Fidelity in what we believe as well as fidelity in how we live. Fidelity to God. A living relationship of life and mind between Christians and their God. If members of a church are overwhelmingly faithless in what they believe and how they act, then that's a faithless church. 

For instance, a creed is at best a standard of fidelity, not a substitute for fidelity. A benchmark for what to believe and how to behave. 

Assuming a creed is true, if a denomination refuses to enforce the creed, constantly teaches contrary to the creed, constantly disregards the creed in practice, then the creed is insufficient to make that a faithful denomination. There must be a living connection between what's on paper and what's in the heart. Otherwise, it's like saying a church is faithful so long as it has an infallible creed in a safe, that no one has ever read. 

Sink your feet in concrete

Around the 4-6 min. mark: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVdrtgo7Xw

Reformed convert to Eastern Orthodoxy Josiah Trenham gives this reason (one of two) for switching to Eastern Orthodoxy:

A deep sense that my tradition in which I had been raised was unstable, that the winds of the secular culture were blowing very hard and the church was not standing firm…That sense–that the Protestant Reformed movement and even evangelicalism in general did not have a stake, an immovable stake for the faith that was competent to resist the blowing of the winds of unbelief in our own culture deeply–affected me, and I was very impressed by holy orthodoxy that has a 2000-year track record of resisting the opposition of the world…I remember telling my wife…I can't imagine investing my life in a church and raising my children in that church, knowing that my children will not have that church when they become adults. And in fact all of this investment will be for naught.  

1. Before getting to the main issue, is it true that EO has a track record of resisting the opposition of the world?

i) What about the alliance between the Russian Orthodox church and Tsarism? What about the alliance between the Russian Orthodox church and Vladimir Putin?

ii) What about socially liberal politicians like Michael Dukakis, John Podesta, and Paul Tslongas, or anchorman George Stephanopoulos? Have they been excommunicated by the Greek Orthodox church? 

iii) What about prayers to the dead? Isn't that baptized polytheism? Replacing patron gods with patron saints, who are functionally equivalent? 

iv) Historically, issues like the LGBT agenda weren't on the radar. It remains to be seen if the Orthodox church will hold out. And from what I've read, St. Vladimir's Seminary has already capitulated on theistic evolution and the historical-critical method.

2. Regarding the main issue, his objection reflects divergent theological paradigms:

i) He fails to distinguish between denominations and faith-traditions. Protestant faith-traditions (e.g. Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Baptists, &c.) are quite stable. Denominations exemplify faith-traditions. Denominations are temporary vehicles, but the faith-traditions they embody endure from one generation to the next. Protestant faith-traditions are self-renewing in that respect. 

ii) It's fine for an individual to put down stakes in a denomination if that's a solid denomination. But he should also be prepared to pull up stakes and move on if the denomination loses fidelity to biblical revelation. Christians are pilgrims. We should keep our bags packed and travel light. Like Abraham, we live in tents. 

iii) It's bad parenting for a Christian parent to cultivate loyalty to the denomination he belongs to. Christian children should be taught that what was a good denomination for their parents may become a bad denomination for the next generation. Many professing believers are too attached to a particular denomination, and hang on when they ought to let go. The torch Christian parents are supposed to hand off to their kids is not a denomination but the Christian faith. 

iv) This involves a different ecclesiology than Eastern Orthodoxy. Like Roman Catholics, Trenham views the church as a single, historically continuous denomination (of course, he doesn't call his own sect a denomination). For him, there's a one-to-one relation between Christianity and "the church". Trenham ecclesiology is like sinking your feet in concrete until it dries. 

This stands in contrast to an evangelical model, where there's a one-to-many relation between Christianity and "the church". The church is multiply-exemplified in time and space, in a variety of different denominations. Christian denominations and independent churches are samples of the one church. The Spirit is present in different denominations and independent churches because the Spirit is present in Christians. The Spirit is present wherever Christians are present.

To take a comparison, there's a one-to-many relation between the color red and red objects. Two different roses may both be red. Or they made be different shades of red, where one is redder than the other, although both roses recognizably belong to the reddish band of the spectrum. 

There are, of course, heretical or apostate denominations and independent churches. The Spirit may be present in a denomination at one time, but like the glory departing the temple (Ezk 10), be absent at a later date. Without the Shekinah, the inner sanctum was a hollow shell. 

To take another comparison from Scripture, the spiritual menorah may be present in a church at one time and place, but be removed at a later date (Rev 1-2). The Spirit isn't chained to any particular denomination or local church. 

Inside China's thought transformation camps

Starting at approximately 8 minutes, the logic is basically the same as the pre-crime division in the film Minority Report. If someone shows signs they're capable of committing crime (as judged by the Chinese Communist Party), then they should be prevented from committing crime by being interred in a "re-education" or "thought transformation" camp before they commit crime. That's supposed to be for their own good too. In short, thought-crimes are punishable, though "punishment" in communist China is described as rehabilitation. Basically it's George Orwell's 1984 come to life.

Genesis as CGI

On Facebook I got into a debate with Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy). The experience left me less than inspired about his competence. 

Hays

Why did Jonathan pick a YouTube starlet to address the historicity of Gen 1-11 rather than a scholar with real expertise on the topic like John Currid, Richard Hess, or Andrew Steinmann? What makes Michael Jones any different than Alex O'Connor (the "Cosmic Skeptic")?

Jones

"See how condescending this guy is. I think I’ll just block him so I don’t have to see he comments anymore. Not worth my time. One of the most judgmental and condescending people I talked to, judges based on titles not arguments."

Hays

Like whether a cancer patient should prefer an oncologist with bona fide medical degrees rather than a Chinese herbalist?