The Arrogance of Amy K Hall from Stand to Reason

Interaction continued from Twitter…

@amy_k_hall – Does not this analogy demand from you the conclusion you owe me a retraction and apology for your persistent claim I “constantly” claim your God is “evil”?

1: You tried to make my questions statements of opinion.

2: You are trying to tell me what I include in my ontology.

3: After clearly telling you I consider evil to be an empty concept, you absurdly suggested I needed to state God is wholly good before you would admit you misrepresented me.

4: You actually claimed, without asking for clarification, I intentionally conveyed the concept of evil in questions lacking the word evil.

Have you no shame?

Amy is presumably the person who reads through the #STRask questions. She evidently has a short memory, or is intentionally attempting to misrepresent my position. I regularly post #STRask questions on the existence of morality. You can’t have evil where there is no morality.

I initially thought she might have made a simple mistake, but now she is doubling down, refusing to admit she misrepresented my position, and refusing also to apologize. And this is an alleged Christian apologist we are talking about.

#STRask invites questions. I ask questions prodding for incoherencies. This is the very nature of philosophical discourse. Anyone with a sliver of philosophical acumen and honesty knows questions are not statements of opinion. Anyone honest does not claim their interlocutor believes in a concept such as evil based on questions that don’t include the term evil. Anyone actually wanting to promote truth will ask questions to confirm their interlocutor’s position. Anyone truly honest will not persist in telling their interlocutor what they believe in the face of their corrections.

This is a sorry performance by someone claiming to represent the author of morality.

But everyone deserves a second chance. And I’m more merciful that her alleged God. I’ll forgive her without bloodshed were she to clearly retract her statement and apologize. And if she refuses, still no bloodshed. Her self-inflicted shame, though she be currently oblivious to it, should eventually suffice.

Search for #philstilwell on Twitter to read my actual tweets. 




No unity, no divinity

I just heard an apologist on STR claim that the degree of unity we see among believers is the degree to which we can conclude that Jesus was divine.

He cited John 17:21-23.
…(21) that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. (22) I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one — (23) I in them and You in Me—that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent Me and have loved them just as You have loved Me.…

I completely agree. Kudos to this apologist for putting a popperian proposition out there.

The non-trivial disunity among believers is, in fact, substantial evidence against the divinity of Jesus, based on its own standards of evidence.