MandM
type: channel
description: Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, Theology and Jurisprudence
date: 2026-05-17T08:01:16Z
update period: hourly
update frequency: 1
update base: 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00
generator agent: https://wordpress.org/
items: New publication Online: “Can a Divine Command Theory Vindicate the Objectivity of Morality?”
items: Star of Wonder: Matthew’s Nativity Narrative and it’s Critics, Part three
items: Star of Wonder: Matthew’s Nativity Narrative and its Critics, part two
items: Star of Wonder: Matthew’s Nativity Narrative and its Critics, part one.
items: The Beatitudes: Part One
items: Some subversive thoughts about immigration part two: replies to objections
items: Should Christian’s follow the Torah?
items: Some subversive thoughts on immigration
items: Goodbye NCEA, Farewell, Get lost, Good Riddance
items: Sinnott-Armstrong on God, Secularism and “reasons” to be moral. Part Three: Can Religious theories answer the question, “Why be moral?”

New publication Online: “Can a Divine Command Theory Vindicate the Objectivity of Morality?”
type: item
creator: Matt
date: 2026-05-17T08:01:14Z
subject: Divine Command Theory
subject: Ethical Theory
subject: Ethics
subject: God and Morality
subject: Philosophy of Religion
subject: Professional
subject: Publications
subject: Theology
subject: Uncategorized
subject: David Brink
subject: Elizabeth Tropman
subject: Michael Huemer
subject: Objectivism
description: My paper, “Can a Divine Command Theory Vindicate the Objectivity of Morality?” was published in Philosophia Christi, vol 21. No 1 2025. A copy is now available online at my academia.edu page. The abstract is below. Abstract:Defenders of divine command metaethics (DCM) often argue that one of its key advantages is its ability to vindicate […]
encoded: My paper, “Can a Divine Command Theory Vindicate the Objectivity of Morality?” was published in Philosophia Christi, vol 21. No 1 2025. A copy is now available online at my academia.edu page. The abstract is below. Abstract: Defenders of divine command metaethics (DCM) often argue that one of its key advantages is its ability to vindicate the objectivity of moral judgments. Critics, however, contend that DCM is a subjectivist theory and therefore inherits the difficulties such theories face in accounting for the apparently objectivist features of moral thought. In this paper, I examine and critique three prominent versions of this objection: David Brink’s appeal to appraiser independence, Elizabeth Tropman’s appeal to stance independence, and Michael Huemer’s concept of observer independence. I argue that none of these criticisms succeeds.

Star of Wonder: Matthew’s Nativity Narrative and it’s Critics, Part three
type: item
creator: Matt
date: 2026-02-04T23:28:56Z
subject: Apologetics
subject: Christian History
subject: Theology
subject: Uncategorized
subject: Star of Bethlehem
description: I have been considering the hypothesis that the star referred to in Matthew’s Gospel was a comet recorded by Han-dynasty astronomers in 5 BC. In a previous post, I examined an objection to this view that rested on two claims: First, that in the late first century BC comets were universally interpreted as negative omens. […]
encoded: I have been considering the hypothesis that the star referred to in Matthew’s Gospel was a comet recorded by Han-dynasty astronomers in 5 BC. In a previous post, I examined an objection to this view that rested on two claims: First, that in the late first century BC comets were universally interpreted as negative omens. Second, that such a reading is inconsistent with the way the star functions in Matthew’s birth narrative. In that earlier discussion I challenged the first claim. I argued that ancient interpretations of comets were more nuanced than is often assumed. Comets were widely understood as portents of social and political upheaval, particularly the replacement of kings or dynasties. While this was indeed a negative omen for the ruler or dynasty about to be displaced, it could simultaneously be—and often was—understood as an endorsement of the incoming ruler. In what follows, I turn to the second claim: is this pattern of interpretation inconsistent with Matthew’s birth narrative? I suggest that it is not. The Star is a sign of Dynastic Change in Matthew In Matthew’s Gospel, the star is explicitly associated with a change of kings and dynasties. The second chapter opens as follows: Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east and have come to pay him homage.” At the time of the star’s appearance, the Hasmonaean dynasty—ruling since the Maccabean period—had already been displaced by Herod the Great. Herod’s designated heir in early 5 BC was Herod Antipater, then about forty years old, though this was changed later that year to Herod Antipas, who was only fourteen. Against this backdrop, the Magi’s claim that a star signified the birth of a new “King of the Jews” clearly implies dynastic upheaval: not merely the replacement of Herod himself, but the displacement of his entire line of success…

Star of Wonder: Matthew’s Nativity Narrative and its Critics, part two
type: item
creator: Matt
date: 2026-01-02T09:34:34Z
subject: Apologetics
subject: Christian History
subject: Hermeneutics
subject: Science and Religion
subject: Theology
subject: Uncategorized
subject: Christmas
subject: Matthew's Gospel
subject: Nativity
subject: Star of Bethlehem
description: In a previous post, I addressed the claim that no star could exist that moves or behaves in the way described in Matthew’s Gospel. I argued that Matthew’s Gospel uses language found in Greco-Roman writings to describe comets, and that a comet could act in the way Matthew described. I also argued that we have good […]
encoded: In a previous post, I addressed the claim that no star could exist that moves or behaves in the way described in Matthew’s Gospel. I argued that Matthew’s Gospel uses language found in Greco-Roman writings to describe comets, and that a comet could act in the way Matthew described. I also argued that we have good evidence for the existence of a comet in 5 BC, the time Jesus was born. However, the idea that the star in Matthew’s Gospel was a comet faces an important challenge: At this time in history (and all the way into the Middle Ages), comets were regarded as omens of doom and destruction—the very opposite of good tidings. This was in part because of comet behavior. They were perceived in ancient times as breaking into the sky, ignoring the highly ordered and repetitive clockwork movement of the heavens. The Almighty could have chosen to use an ominous sign for the birth of Christ. Presumably, He can do whatever He likes. But if the purpose of the Star was to communicate something joyful to humankind, a comet seems an unlikely choice. There are two claims encapsulated in this objection: First, that at this time in history (the 1st century BC) comets were universally interpreted as negative omens. Second, that this is contrary to how the star is presented in Matthew’s Gospel. This post will address the first of these claims. The second will be addressed in a later post. Were Comets Universally Interpreted as Negative Omens? First, the claim that comets were universally interpreted as negative omens is misleading. In the first century BC, comets were almost universally seen as threats to the established political order. According to the 1st-century astrological poem Astronomica, they were harbingers of significant political upheaval affecting entire nations, and particularly kings—such things as the collapse of social order, civil wars, rebellion, death of kings, the arising of rivals to the throne, and the overthrow or replacement of kings.[1] The fact that comets…

Star of Wonder: Matthew’s Nativity Narrative and its Critics, part one.
type: item
creator: Matt
date: 2025-12-16T22:36:18Z
subject: Christian History
subject: Hermeneutics
subject: Science and Religion
subject: Theology
subject: Uncategorized
subject: Apologetics
subject: Bible
subject: Matthew's Gospel
subject: Star of Bethlehem
description: Recently, I have been thinking about Matthew’s birth narrative. In particular, I want to discuss three claims that are sometimes made by critics of the narrative’s historicity. First, it is claimed that no star could exist that moves or behaves in the way described in Matthew’s Gospel. According to this objection, Matthew depicts a star […]
encoded: Recently, I have been thinking about Matthew’s birth narrative. In particular, I want to discuss three claims that are sometimes made by critics of the narrative’s historicity. First, it is claimed that no star could exist that moves or behaves in the way described in Matthew’s Gospel. According to this objection, Matthew depicts a star acting in ways that we now know real stars cannot and do not act. Second, it is claimed that stars of the sort described by Matthew would not have been interpreted as signs of kingship. Instead, such phenomena are said to have been universally regarded as negative omens. Finally, it is claimed that the account of the massacre of the children is incompatible with what we know of Herod’s reign. Let us begin with the first issue. Matney observes. [I]t has long been recognised that Matthew 2:9 presents a particular challenge: the ‘going before’ and ‘stopping’ behaviour does not seem to conform to the motion of any known natural celestial object. Typical astronomical objects– stars, planets, comets – appear to rise in the east and set in the west, due to the diurnal rotation of the Earth. Such objects do not normally pause at a particular southerly azimuth for several hours, nor would they typically ‘stop’ overhead for any length of time.[1] Matney cites Adair who writes ” the key problem is that the description of the movements of the star is outside what is physically possible for any observable astronomical object” Matthew describes two features of the star’s behaviour. First, in verse 9, the star is said to have “stopped” over the place where Jesus was born. Second, the same verse says that the star “went ahead of them”. Let us examine each of these claims in turn. The NASB translates the relevant phrase as “until it stopped over the place where the child was”. The literal Greek, however, reads “until it stood over”. What does this phrase mean? When reading the Bible—or any ancient text produced in a culture very different from our ow…

The Beatitudes: Part One
type: item
creator: Matt
date: 2025-10-13T20:15:00Z
subject: Ethics
subject: Hermeneutics
subject: Preaching
subject: Talks
subject: Theology
subject: Bible
subject: Sermon on the Mount
subject: Sermons
description: Here is a talk I gave on the Beatitudes a few weeks ago.
encoded: Here is a talk I gave on the Beatitudes a few weeks ago.

Some subversive thoughts about immigration part two: replies to objections
type: item
creator: Matt
date: 2025-10-08T01:58:00Z
subject: Christian History
subject: Justice
subject: Theology
subject: Uncategorized
subject: immigration
description: Recently, I shared some reflections on the issue of immigration. Drawing on Deuteronomy 23:15–16 and the way this passage was interpreted and applied by 18th-century abolitionists, I argued that our present situation is analogous to that of illegal overstayers fleeing certain forms of degradation in their home countries. Below are some of the responses I […]
encoded: Recently, I shared some reflections on the issue of immigration. Drawing on Deuteronomy 23:15–16 and the way this passage was interpreted and applied by 18th-century abolitionists, I argued that our present situation is analogous to that of illegal overstayers fleeing certain forms of degradation in their home countries. Below are some of the responses I received to this <img loading="lazy" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-12773" src="http://www.mandm.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/refugees-explainer-300x200.png" alt="" width="300" height="200" srcset="http://www.mandm.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/refugees-explainer-300x200.png 300w, http://www.mandm.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/refugees-explainer-1024x683.png 1024w, http://www.mandm.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/refugees-explainer-768x512.png 768w, http://www.mandm.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/refugees-explainer.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />argument, followed by my replies. Is this a Noahide Command? One response points out that the passage I cited is in the Torah. But the Torah is a covenant between God and ancient Israel; there are lots of commands in the Torah — the command to circumcise male children, to refrain from eating pork, not to wear mixed cloth — which contemporary Gentile Christians are not required to follow. In reply: while not all commandments in the Torah apply to Gentiles, some do. As early as the Book of Jubilees, Jewish commentators argued that interpreters had come to recognise that, while the Torah as a whole was given only to Israel, certain commands in the Torah applied to both Jews and Gentiles alike. These were commandments that express moral requirements binding on all people — Jew and Gentile — antecedent to the Sinai covenant. Historically these were called the Noahide commandments[1]. Is the command in Exodus 23 (or Deuteronomy 23:15–16) a Noahide command? It is plausible to say it is. The reason is that on at least one occasion God i…

Should Christian’s follow the Torah?
type: item
creator: Matt
date: 2025-10-04T10:26:00Z
subject: Uncategorized
description: Below is a sermon I gave at Crossroads Pokeno earlier in the year.
encoded: Below is a sermon I gave at Crossroads Pokeno earlier in the year.

Some subversive thoughts on immigration
type: item
creator: Matt
date: 2025-09-29T03:23:00Z
subject: Ethics
subject: Political Philosophy
subject: immigration
subject: Refugees
description: I’ve been thinking recently about the moral issues surrounding immigration. This is partly because it’s an issue I’ve never really studied in depth, and partly because it’s become a massive political football. Here’s a thought that came to me. As I understand it, the right of a refugee to seek asylum in international law has […]
encoded: I’ve been thinking recently about the moral issues surrounding immigration. This is partly because it’s an issue I’ve never really studied in depth, and partly because it’s become a massive political football. Here’s a thought that came to me. As I understand it, the right of a refugee to seek asylum in international law has Christian roots, which in turn draw <img loading="lazy" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-12773" src="http://www.mandm.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/refugees-explainer-300x200.png" alt="" width="300" height="200" srcset="http://www.mandm.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/refugees-explainer-300x200.png 300w, http://www.mandm.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/refugees-explainer-1024x683.png 1024w, http://www.mandm.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/refugees-explainer-768x512.png 768w, http://www.mandm.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/refugees-explainer.png 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />on certain passages in the Torah, such as this one: You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place that he chooses in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.(Deut 23:15-16) This law contrasts with common legal practice in the ancient Near East, where people were legally required to return any runaway slaves. Consider, for example, the Laws of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE): LH §16: If a man should harbor a fugitive slave or slave woman of either the palace or of a commoner in his house and not bring him out at the herald’s public proclamation, that householder shall be killed. Or a fifteenth-century BCE treaty between two Syrian kings: If a fugitive slave, male or female, of my land flees to your land, you must seize and return him to me; (or), if someone else seizes him and takes him to you, [you must keep him] in your prison, and whenever his owner comes forward, you must hand him over to [him].[1] Jefferey Tigay explains: The o…

Goodbye NCEA, Farewell, Get lost, Good Riddance
type: item
creator: Matt
date: 2025-09-21T09:55:23Z
subject: Current Events
subject: Education
subject: Personal
subject: Professional
subject: Social Commentary
subject: Uncategorized
subject: NCEA
description: Some readers of this blog will know that I work as a secondary school teacher. Recently, several people have asked my opinion on the government’s decision to ditch the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). My thoughts follow. When I was at teachers’ college, we were taught that New Zealand had the best curriculum in the […]
encoded: Some readers of this blog will know that I work as a secondary school teacher. Recently, several people have asked my opinion on the government’s decision to ditch the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). My thoughts follow. When I was at teachers’ college, we were taught that New Zealand had the best curriculum in the world. Unlike other curricula, which focused on subject content, New Zealand’s curriculum focused on certain kinds of skills—analysis, critical thinking, research, etc. A comparison between the NCEA standards for Religious Studies (my specialist subject) and Cambridge illustrates the contrast. For IGCSE World Religions, students study two major religions over the course of a year. The syllabus requires them to learn a huge amount of content—about the religion’s history, doctrines, modes of worship, and so on. The assessment is an examination in which any of these topics could be assessed. By contrast, Level 1 NCEA has standards such as: Demonstrate understanding of the development of a community that shares religious or spiritual beliefs. This is flexible—teachers can choose any religion. One gets an Achieved if they show understanding of the development of the religious community, a Merit if they can explain it, and an Excellence if they examine it. The focus is on analytical skills. Prima facie, this is a good idea. Education should not be about regurgitating facts; it should develop skills of understanding, explaining, and examining. This appearance, however, has not withstood my experience at the coalface, teaching Religious Studies to Year 11–13 boys. My first practical experience with NCEA was during my practicum in 2009. I was placed at a low-decile school in South Auckland. The school was almost entirely in Pasifika in its demographic. Despite being in a poor area and having a demographic that statistically underachieves, the school was getting good results—large numbers of students were getting Achieved. Here was the method…

Sinnott-Armstrong on God, Secularism and “reasons” to be moral. Part Three: Can Religious theories answer the question, “Why be moral?”
type: item
creator: Matt
date: 2025-09-13T02:32:00Z
subject: Atheists
subject: Divine Command Theory
subject: Eschatology
subject: Ethical Theory
subject: Ethics
subject: God and Morality
subject: Philosophy of Religion
subject: Theology
subject: Dualism of Practical Reason
subject: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
subject: Why be Moral?
description: In a previous post, I observed that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong concedes that secular accounts of moral obligation cannot vindicate the thesis that agents always have decisive (all-things-considered) reasons to avoid wrongdoing. To mitigate this problem, he argues: Is this limitation a problem for secular accounts of morality? I doubt that, too. If we demand this extreme […]
encoded: In a previous post, I observed that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong concedes that secular accounts of moral obligation cannot vindicate the thesis that agents always have decisive (all-things-considered) reasons to avoid wrongdoing. To mitigate this problem, he argues: Is this limitation a problem for secular accounts of morality? I doubt that, too. If we demand this extreme kind of reason to be moral, then we are bound to be disappointed. The solution to our disappointment is to give up this demand, not to imagine a higher power that we want to fulfill an illegitimate demand. Besides, this limit on secular theories would be a problem only if the alternative religious account could provide a better reason to be moral. It can’t. That is what I will show in the next section .[1] There are three ideas here. First is the claim that the failure to vindicate this assumption is a problem for secular theories only if religious theories can adequately vindicate it. Second is the claim that religious theories cannot vindicate this assumption. Third, he claims that the assumption itself cannot be adequately vindicated. I want to focus on the last two of these claims. Can religious theories adequately vindicate this assumption? Sinnott-Armstrong argues that religious theories cannot adequately vindicate the thesis that agents always have decisive reasons to avoid wrongdoing. His argument involves two steps. First, he argues that any adequate theory of moral requirements must not only vindicate the assumption that agents have reasons to do what is right, but that those reasons must be of the right kind—they cannot be arbitrary. He illustrates this point with two examples. Imagine that “the King of Curls threatens to kill all of his subjects who do not shave their heads on May 21, though there is nothing special about that date.”[2] Do we have a reason to shave our heads? Yes—the threat of death gives us a reason to comply. However, this reason is arbitrary; it is based on naked force a…