Monday, June 05, 2006


Aaron Kinney of has recently visited my blog on occasion and has decided to respond to some of my beliefs. He has taken what I have said to him very well and has not become offended at me personally. I commend him for this. I did not hesitate to give him the gospel and to warn him to repent. I even warned him of God's wrath.

I am glad to say that Aaron Kinney has been respectful toward me and my blogsite. He enjoys a good cordial debate, as do I. He recently wrote a post responding to some comments I have made on my blog entries as well as some comments I made elsewhere. His recent post on his website is entitled "Josh Brisby and the Master-Slave Morality of Christianity." I am happy to now respond to it.


Aaron holds to the fundamental axiom of self-interest, which is to say that it is clear that everyone tries to live on this fundamental principle. He then argues that the main reason Christians become Christians is to simply avoid hell--that is, for their own self-interest, because everyone lives for his or her own self-interest.

I called him out on this. I claimed that when God regenerates a sinner, He opens our eyes to see that His ways are right and just. Kinney responded:

"Josh says what I've heard a thousand times before: that Christians are diametrically opposed to self-interest! I've heard similar sentiments . . . ."

and he also said,

"That, my friends, is a classic master-slave scenario. God is the master, humans are the slaves, and the only entity who's interest is valid is God's interest. Disgusting."

Of course Kinney thinks this is disgusting. He fails to see that God's ways are beautiful. He fails to see that only God's ways make sense. He is living for himself. He is his own god, and he does not want King Jesus to reign over him. It takes a miracle of sovereign grace to break our sinful stubborn rebellion.

I likened Kinney to an illegal immigrant who lives within the borders of a country, biting the hand that feeds him. Kinney lives in God's Kingdom, but he bites the Hand that feeds him. Kinney thought I was saying that God writes the immigration laws of the U.S., but of course I was merely giving an analogy. Perhaps he was being comical. I'm not sure. If he was, I can only say that it was interesting comic relief.


Kinney continues on. He says that for him to repent, I must first "prove" to him that God exists. He asks how I can account for the fact that the matter/energy in the universe was never created nor destroyed. What Kinney fails to recognize here is that this law in science is not dealing with origins, nor can it. Can science really explain our origins? Science entails the use of inductive principles for the scientific method. I am turning the tables on Kinney here and asking the following question: Aaron, how can you begin to talk about science given the claims of your worldview?

Kinney recognizes the problems of relativism and tries to place a "fact-based" system in place of it (as if there were such a thing as a "fact" outside of the interpretation our various worldviews assign to it), but he is unable to show me from where he derives his ethics. I am still waiting for him (or any other atheist) to tell me what "good" and "evil" is. He still hasn't told me.


I would like to close off this response to Mr. Kinney by pointing out that he has once again demonstrated that what God's Word says about him is true. Romans 1 and 2 says that God has written His Law on the heart of every man, yet people kick against this and set up idols in God's place.

Kinney is appalled at the notion of original sin. He finds it hard to understand why we would be punished for something that someone else did. I am not going to go deep into this, but I am just simply going to ask,

Why is this a problem for you, Aaron, given your worldview? By what standard do you have a problem here? Who cares who gets punished?

He asks me why I should follow God's rules. The answer is that I owe God my obedience. He made me. He saved me. He redeemed me. As Dr. Bahnsen has well pointed out, if a watchmaker makes a watch, but it doesn't do what it is supposed to do (namely, tell time), then you throw it out. Furthermore, you don't reward the watch if it does what it is supposed to do.

Likewise, as question and answer 1 of the Shorter Catechism correctly says, man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. I owe God my allegiance because He is my Creator. He has done so much for me. He even had mercy on me, even though I was once like Aaron Kinney. And, in many ways, I am still like Aaron Kinney. I still retain my sin nature. But God has had mercy on me-- on ME, a big, walking bag of sin. Atheists think that to admit that we are sinful is such a mean thing. But they fail to see the standard here.

Were Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler or other men similar to them sinful? Surely they would have said, "How dare you call me sinful! I am basically good!" This is mankind's problem. We always try to make ourselves out to be better than we really are. But the FACT is, Bundy and Hitler were wretchedly sinful. And when we compare ourselves to God's standard, that is still the fact. We are wretchedly sinful.

Aaron Kinney is no worse than me. I am the chief of sinners. I am sin, from head to toe.

Aaron, it is reasonable and fair for you to bow the knee to the lordship of Christ. He is patient with you. Today is the day of salvation. Turn to Christ and live.


I wanted to make a quick comment regarding something that went down in the comments section of my blog. This is really mainly for Aaron Kinney, so other readers do not need to feel the need to read this, but of course they may if they wish.

Aaron, you mentioned that you think I am a nice guy, and I am glad you think so. I hope you still think so after I mention the following.

You recently posted a blog entry against B.J. Toward the end, you had some rather harsh words to say about B.J. My guess is that you took offense to when he asked you how many "pounds of meat your mother lost" in her miscarriages. I wanted to give a word here, if I may.

As I mentioned before, I usually do not accept disrespectful remarks on my website. It is quite possible that B.J. may have gone too far by this remark. However, I decided to make an exception by keeping it in the comments section for good reason. There was a reason that I did not delete B.J.'s remark, which indeed may have gone too far:

I wanted you to see the utter foolishness of atheism. Worldviews are more than just abstract ideas. They are personal applications of our beliefs.

Of course you were offended. Do you know why? Because you have been created in the image of God. In fact, the very fact you were offended once again shows inconsistency with the worldview you claim. You are once again demonstrating that you truly do believe what our worldview has always said, namely, that at conception, babies are human beings.

Indeed, your mother did NOT lose just "pounds of meat." Your mother lost human souls. When B.J. called them "pounds of meat," he was merely doing what your worldview, *if it were consistent,* should have done.

But you were not consistent.

Stop kicking against the God who made you. You need to turn to Christ not only to be saved from God's wrath, but to avoid intellectual futility, to which you now hold.

Atheists try to pretend that they have a rational worldview, and they continue to pretend, even though Reformed Christian presuppositionalists have demonstrated time and again that the atheist worldview is pathetically absurd. It has been demonstrated time and again that only Reformed Christian theism is rational and makes sense.

In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Turn to Him and be renewed.


Aaron Kinney said...

Hey Josh,

Thank you for the response. Sorry for the delay, but I didn't see your most recent post until just now. I'm going to have a response soon and will let you know when its posted.


Aaron Kinney said...

Oh yes one thing regarding BJ:

I hope my outburst at BJ didnt upset you too much. I normally make a big point to be respectful to individuals regardless of worldview and instead attack the worldviews themselves. Ad hominem directed at people I am communicating with are rather rarre. But BJ has been acting like a troll and an antagonist and said some nasty things to me.

It wasnt the "meat" comment in particular, but the sum of his statements and his blog post.

I considered BJ's foul attitude towards me and his intellectual sloth to be very ugly, and I accordingly lost all respect for him. I then decided to take a few mean shots at him. Notice though that even my ad-hominem attacks still reference his actual conduct and are not totally arbitrary.

You, Josh, on the other hand, have been a pleasure to talk to. I appreciate your courteous conduct (and hope I am returning the favor), I respect you, and I hope that you and I can continue our constructive dialogue.

Josh Brisby said...

Thank you Aaron. You have been enjoyable to talk to as well. I appreciate your respect and dialogue.


Aaron Kinney said...

Hi Josh!

I got a response for you. Looking forward to hearing what you think of it.

Paul Manata said...


Heres some good stuff on Kinney,

I have a lot more on my blog as well.

Some thoughts on his response to you,

1. He's confusing *reasons* vs. *the cause* of belief in God.

2. He brings up euthyphro, you know the refutation of that I assume? It's a false dichotomy.

3. He confuses fatelism with compatibalism, showing an embarrassing ignorance on basic philosophical positions.

4. His conservation law assumes

[a] a realist view of science, this has been unargued for by Kinney.

[b] that our limited experience can produce said law, it's a theoretical construct of the mind.

[c] that matter and energy cannot create or destroy *itself* as the comeback. The law says *nothing* about an all-poweful being being able to create and destroy matter. Thus he beggs the question.

[d] it's a metaphysical assumption.

[e] not all non-Christian scientists agree with Kinney here.

5. He defines faith the way he wants to and then dismisses it. In fact, the Bible tells us that faith is not "lack of evidence" but that it *is* evidence of things unseen!

6. Ask him to define science so that it can be demarkated from non-science, it's not so easy a thing to do, as all Christian and non-Christian philosophers of science will tell you.

Ask him to empirically verify the verifiabilty hypothesis.

Find out how empirical observations of particular facts can ever lead to universals.

7. He brings up the "God of the gaps" argument but frequently uses the "Nature of the gaps argument." Read and see,

8. He says "perception" while you said "interpretation." Most non-Christian scientists do not hold that there are any theory-independant data. He just shows his ignorance here.

9. Eating food is moral! lol

my neighbor is food.

Therefore eating my neighbor is moral.

10. Different people get different values from "reality."

The physical world is decriptive. We only see how things are, not how they *ought* to be.

11. The only thing immoral is coercion, according to AK. he says, "lying, stealing, physical force, etc." is immoral.

[a] I don't know why stealing is considered "coercion" but, anyway...

[b] So, if I "force" someone to stop raping a girl then I'm immoral, on Kinney's terms!

[c] Dateline NBC is "immoral" for setting up sting operations to catch child molesters, since they "lied."

[d] Telling a brutal and vicious enemy that you plan to attack on place, and then surpirse him in by another attack is "immoral."

[e] A girls virginity belongs to her future hsuband, therefore Kinney is for no sex before marriage or marrying the girl you first have sex with, elst you "steal" what was someone elses. Now, Kinney may not say this is "stealing." Some peopel think it is, though. Who's right? What objective standard do we have to go to?

[f] AK's position is ludicris.

11. Not forcing your interest onto another is moral, according to AK. My interest is that criminals get punished. Our society should force that interest upon criminals. hence AK's position cannot deal with the real world.

12. He says we "choose" God. Is this in a libertarian sense?

13. He says "the facts of reality are written on his heart." But he probably also holds to the tabula rasa theory of minds, thus he's inconsistent.

14. He's a materialist and holds that people do whatever the laws of physics operating on their body determine they will do, yet he calls people "responsible."

15. He says "the sovereignty of the individual is in the highest regaqrd" yest he says its immoral if an individual envokes his soverignty to coerce someone.

16. Since our sins were imputed to Christ then the guilty did get punished, in this sense.

Furthermore, he doesn;t allow God to invoke" his sovereignty and "choose" to punish Christ in the place of the elect. Thus we have presuppositional tension.

17. Josh wants to obey God because that is what he was made to do. God changes Josh's nature and restores him to act how he was made to act.

18. He takes the radical and minority opinion that Jesus never existed. The burden of proof would be on him here. Why believe any historical person existed, then?

Anyway, its the same ole sophmoric attempts at arguments, coupled with the ignorant lauditory comments of his peers, that drive AK. The more things change the more they stay the same.