Christian Site Thinks Christian Wins Debate. Film at 11.


There was a debate recently between Christian apologist William Lane Craig and atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg at Purdue University and the Christian Post, unsurprisingly, thinks Craig won. No one wins such debates, of course, but they seem to think that this statement from Rosenberg was a big opening:

“In all honesty, if Dr. Craig could provide me with any kind of a logical, coherent account that could reconcile the evident fact of the horrors of human and infer human life on this planet over the last 3.5 billion years with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent agent then I will turn Christian,” Rosenberg said at the conclusion of his first allotted rebuttal.

Rosenberg prefaced his promise by saying that evil and suffering “needs to be desperately explained.” He asked why a benevolent, omnipotent God would allow such human tragedies as the Holocaust, World War I, and the bubonic plague. He said he found the question perplexing.

“Nobody has been able to provide a satisfactory explanation,” Rosenberg said.

Craig, of course, thought he had Rosenberg right where he wanted him and offered this reply:

Craig opened his next timed debate rebuttal by saying, “I’m really excited about that last statement that Dr. Rosenberg made.” To which a seemingly large part of the audience responded with loud applause.

“The problem here is that we are assuming that God’s purpose is just to make us happy in this life, but on the Christian view that’s false,” Craig went on to say. “The purpose of life is not worldly happiness as such, but rather the knowledge of God. There may be many evils that occur in this lifetime that are utterly pointless with respect to producing worldly happiness, but they may not be pointless with respect to producing the knowledge of God and salvation and eternal life.

“It’s possible that only in a world that is suffused with natural and moral evil that the optimal number of people would come to know God freely, find salvation, and eternal life,” he continued. “So, the atheist would have to prove that there is another possible world that has this much knowledge of God and His salvation in it, but which is produced with less evils. How could He possibly prove that? It’s pure conjecture. It’s impossible to prove those things.”

Seriously? He thinks that’s the answer? I can think of a possible world that has even more knowledge of God in it, a world in which, if God exists, he simply appears to every human being, proves who he is, convinces them of his existence and tells them what he expects from them. And to reply that it’s “impossible to prove” that such a world is possible is fatuous nonsense. If God is omnipotent, he can create any world he likes and he can implant the knowledge of God on all of us if he chooses. According to Christianity, he chooses not to do so.

Naturally, Craig’s fellow apologists thought he did a bang-up job:

Renowned author and apologist Lee Strobel told The Christian Post via email after the debate that he viewed Craig as the clear winner.

“By any fair assessment, Bill Craig decisively won this debate – and he did so with characteristic gentleness and respect, as First Peter 3:15 instructs. The result wasn’t even close,” Strobel stated. “Alex Rosenberg had only shallow and unconvincing responses to Craig’s eight affirmative points, and Craig was able to effectively defuse the argument from pain and suffering that Rosenberg raised.

“Once again, this debate reminded me that Christians have an unfair advantage in the marketplace of ideas – we have truth on our side. I’m thankful for scholars like Bill Craig who responsibly and powerfully wield the evidence that shows persuasively that God exists and that Christianity is true.”

Well there you go. How can you argue with that?

Comments

  1. A Hermit says

    Clearly a win for Craig…if you actually think that incoherent mess of suppositions and wishful thinking he coughed up in response to Rosenberg’s challenge constitutes a “logical, coherent account…”

  2. Jeremy Shaffer says

    From Lee Strobel:

    Once again, this debate reminded me that Christians have an unfair advantage in the marketplace of ideas – we have truth on our side we are not bound by reality and can make shit up to suit outr needs while our opponents have constrained themselves to what is real.

    Fixed it for ya, Lee.

  3. Randomfactor says

    So, basically he believes in his particular god because he thinks the god is an incomprehensible shit?

    The cruelest thing we can do to Christians is take what they claim about their god at face value. They worship what they describe as the most vile being ever to walk the earth, and claim moral superiority for doing so.

  4. Sastra says

    I haven’t seen or read the debate, but there are atheists who think Craig won it. Being right isn’t enough; you also have to know how to present good arguments and Rosenberg may not be very good at that.

    Craig’s “solution” to the Problem of Evil is still inadequate, though. It’s an unfalsifiable mess. WHAT IF all the pain and suffering we see is the best possible way to get people into heaven? And … WHAT IF it isn’t? And WHAT IF God had just started out with everybody who is going to end up in heaven already in heaven to start with? God finding the best solution given the difficult circumstances is only acceptable if you forget that the difficult circumstances were all created in the first place by the very Guy who is going to come up with the solution.

    Besides, the Soul-building Theodicy falls apart when you try to apply it to every possible case — which you have to do if you want to take it seriously. We can understand the analogy of a child having to learn a lesson the hard way, sure. But we can’t make this work when we’re dealing with hardcore examples of pointless death and suffering of the innocent. Those cases would have to be seen as side casualties necessary for the Greater Good of the privileged — and now you have individual lives used as tools. Moral no-no.

    If Craig is going to take the view that the purpose of pain and suffering is to allow as many people as possible to know God exists, then the Argument from Nonbelief (that this world does not look like it was set up so that a maximum number of people come to believe in the Christian God) is devastating. As Ed says, why the hell is there a try-and-find-me game at all? Are children unable to choose to obey their parents when the parents are well-known, visible, and clear in their directives? Does True Obedience necessarily involve some sort of ESP?

  5. glodson says

    Of course Craig won. Divine Command Theory. God said he won, so despite all the evidence that Craig has shitty ideas, Craig won.

  6. Reginald Selkirk says

    “It’s possible that only in a world that is suffused with natural and moral evil that the optimal number of people would come to know God freely, find salvation, and eternal life,” he continued. “So, the atheist would have to prove that there is another possible world that has this much knowledge of God and His salvation in it, but which is produced with less evils. How could He possibly prove that? It’s pure conjecture. It’s impossible to prove those things.”

    Translation: I am going to pull something out of my ass and call it “possible.” Meanwhile, if the atheist wants to counter with something he calls “possible,” I’m going to insist that he prove it is actually true. And if he can’t, I’m going to dismiss his ass-product as “conjecture.” Please don’t ask why my own ass-product is not dismissed as conjecture.

  7. says

    Randomfactor,

    The cruelest thing we can do to Christians is take what they claim about their god at face value.

    Yes that really gets us upset. Just thinking about how cruel that is makes my heart race and my blood-pressure rise to an unsafe level. When an atheist tells me that my god is evil–well, I’d just like to curl up and die! How could you! It’s unspeakable if not unfathomable cruelty! You are so right!

    Gosh how some of you have delusions of grandeur.

  8. says

    If I’m reading Craig’s argument correctly, God is an omnipotent being who loves us. In fact, he loves us so much that he created a world in which the only way we can truly come to know him, and thus avoid an eternity of torture, is to have really awful things happen in this life. This omnipotent being couldn’t come up with any other way to communicate his love to us.

    Did I get anything wrong?

  9. tomh says

    heddle:

    Gosh how some of you have delusions of grandeur.

    Christians know all about God, he even speaks personally to most of them, but atheists have delusions of grandeur. That is hilarious.

  10. says

    I’m not a big Rosenberg fan – he’s a pretty orthodox materialist IIRC, so I can well believe that this “debate” didn’t exactly advance the conversation any. In fact I bet this wasn’t even the most depressing exchange of the evening. YMMV.

    Note that even here, where Craig is supposedly excited about the idea that he can score a victory, he does the standard debater’s two-step by pouncing on the opportunity to prove a point, and then retreating to “you can’t prove it’s false.” Lame. (As I now see Reginald @8 has already pointed out more colorfully …)

  11. says

    If this debate was about “the existence of God,” then NEITHER side even addressed the question. Rosenberg blew it by inviting Craig to change the subject (to the “problem of evil,” which has bugger-all to do with whether any god’s existence can be proven), and Craig won by doing just that. This whole exercise was utterly meaningless, like a game of football without a football.

    “I’ll agree you’ve won the game if you can explain why the nonexistent football isn’t where I think it should be.”

    “That’s easy — the nonexistent football is where WE say it is, not where YOU say it is, therefore we win. QED.”

    So once again, the Christians make themselves look smart by debating the most incompetent atheist they can find.

  12. says

    The cruelest thing we can do to Christians is take what they claim about their god at face value.

    Actually, no, the cruellest thing you can do is NOT take any of their empty-to-bogus delusional premises at any value. Keep them off their precious script, and they run back to their bubble-verse in sheer terror.

  13. says

    So, the atheist would have to prove that there is another possible world that has this much knowledge of God and His salvation in it, but which is produced with less evils.

    Why would the atheist have the burden of disproving Craig’s conjecture that this is the best of all possible worlds, much less his assertion without evidence that the “purpose of life is not worldly happiness” and that evil “may not be pointless”?

    In my non-Xian view, god wants Graig dressed in pinafores to be spanked by a sugar daddy. So Craig would have to prove that there is another possible world that has this much knowledge of God and His salvation in it, but which is produced without Craig wearing petticoats and Mary Janes. How could he possibly prove that? It’s pure conjecture. It’s impossible to prove those things.

  14. raven says

    “The purpose of life is not worldly happiness as such, but rather the knowledge of God.

    Meaningless babble from Craig as usual.

    1. If god existed, he would have his own TV channel, website, radio show, and would frequently appear on talk shows. The gods would be as obvious and noncontroversial as trees or water.

    All this is within the grasp of an intelligent third grader. If god isn’t as powerful as a school kid, why call it god?

    2. God would leave us a concise instruction manual, clearly written in modern languages. Instead we have the magic Rorschach Inkblot bible kludge, written in old languages that few read any more. Again, this is within the grasp of an intelligent third grader and some adult technical writers.

    3. Knowledge of god historically results in huge piles of dead bodies, a fact that continues today rarely in the USA and often elsewhere in the world. At least I can say that none of my students ever ended up dead because of my class.

  15. Sastra says

    heddle #9 wrote:

    When an atheist tells me that my god is evil–well, I’d just like to curl up and die!

    But does it feel uncomfortable when you yourself consider the possibility? Or has that never been a possibility that you have ever seriously considered?

  16. raven says

    Why would the atheist have the burden of disproving Craig’s conjecture that this is the best of all possible worlds, …

    If the xians are making positive truth claims, it is up to them to prove them.

    Not up to us to disprove them. They’ve never been able to do it. The only way they have is to fight wars and kill a few dozen or few million people.

    And that is why there are thousands of gods, who knows how many religions, and 42,000 xian sects in an ever expanding cloud of silliness.

  17. baal says

    “Bill Craig decisively won this debate – and he did so with characteristic gentleness and respect”

    “Respect” isn’t a word I’d use to describe WLC’s debating style. WLC does too many rhetorical tricks* to be considered respectful.

    *(gish gallops, “if even one thing I say sounds the least bit plausable, then I’ve met my burden and you have to agree that I won”)

  18. glodson says

    If I’m reading Craig’s argument correctly, God is an omnipotent being who loves us. In fact, he loves us so much that he created a world in which the only way we can truly come to know him, and thus avoid an eternity of torture, is to have really awful things happen in this life. This omnipotent being couldn’t come up with any other way to communicate his love to us.

    Did I get anything wrong?

    That sounds completely insane and stupid. So I would hazard the guess you got it right.

  19. voidhawk says

    It wouldn’t surprise me if WLC ‘won’ the debate – that’s what he’s paid to do. He’s been having the same discussions for the last 20 years and he’s slick with it. if you’re not prepared for where he’s prepared to go to exonorate his giod then it can catch most atheists off-guard. When most Christians face the ‘evil’ argument they hem and haw about “He’s suffering with us” or “The devil causes evil” or “Our sin brought evil into the world” we don’t usually get WLC’s atrocities and it’s thrown a number of prominent atheists in debates.

  20. says

    Actually, John, Calvinball is more honest than what I described, because in Calvinball it’s admitted that the rules change, and there’s no a priori pretense that the nonexistent football is a necessary part of the game.

    Also, in Calvinball it’s understood that the game and its outcome have no meaning anywhere else; so there’s no possibility of tyranny or bloodshed if one side doesn’t like how it ended.

  21. kenbo says

    “The purpose of life is not worldly happiness as such, but rather the knowledge of God. There may be many evils that occur in this lifetime that are utterly pointless with respect to producing worldly happiness, but they may not be pointless with respect to producing the knowledge of God and salvation and eternal life.” WLC

    I am sure that this is a comfort to suffering children around the world…they are suffering so christians can “know” their god. Seriously, I would have asked the Mr. Craig why he then thwarts god’s will by attempting to alleviate other peoples’ suffering. By his own words, his intercession could keep them from “knowing god” and potentially condemn them to hell. Not very neighborly at all.

  22. says

    Sastra,

    But does it feel uncomfortable when you yourself consider the possibility?

    Yes of course–I was an atheist for the majority of my life. But even now I struggle greatly with, say, Joshua’s genocide.

    kenbo,

    Seriously, I would have asked the Mr. Craig why he then thwarts god’s will by attempting to alleviate other peoples’ suffering. By his own words, his intercession could keep them from “knowing god” and potentially condemn them to hell. Not very neighborly at all.

    I’m sure that would have stumped him. I mean, the clear message of the bible is “don’t help the needy, for you may thwart the will of god.” You know that, I know that, but I’m pretty sure he hasn’t read that.

  23. says

    I am sure that this is a comfort to suffering children around the world…

    Yeah, actually it is, whether or not you see the sense in it — the people who suffer most and have the least material means, are the ones who grasp the non-material comforts most tightly. Sometimes that’s good for the suffering people, most times it’s not.

    Seriously, I would have asked the Mr. Craig why he then…

    Seriously? You’d be working from Craig’s chosen premises, so Craig could come up with any weasel-words or rationalizations he needed to turn your game-winning question into his shining moment of brilliance. _I_ can give you plenty of sensible-sounding theological speculation, in answer to any question you care to pose, and I’m not even a believer, or on their payroll.

  24. says

    Shorter heddle: “You can refute Craig’s stupid Christian bullshit, but MY stupid Christian bullshit is still standing, so neener!”

    (You “struggle greatly with Joshua’s genocide?” Really? What’s to “struggle” with? A brutish ruler massacred a shitload of innocent people for some worldly goal, then used a religious belief to justify it after the fact. Sounds pretty unambiguously evil and bogus to me. What part of your belief makes that harder, rather than easier, to understand?)

  25. says

    heddle said:

    I was an atheist for the majority of my life.

    I won’t ask you to explain what changed your mind. I’ll just ask– did arguments along the lines of WLC’s do it?

    Because if so, that would be the first time I’ve heard of such a thing.

  26. says

    heddle “Gosh how some of you have delusions of grandeur.”
    Would I be wearing a shirt this puffy if they were delusions? I think not!
     
    d.c.wilson “Did I get anything wrong?”
    You forgot to mention that He’s already picked the Saved (and the damned), before they were even here, making this whole play, including the soul building within it, moot. Moot!
     
    raven “If god isn’t as powerful as a school kid…”
    Best episode of Mythbusters ever.

  27. Sastra says

    heddle #25 wrote:

    But even now I struggle greatly with, say, Joshua’s genocide.

    Randomfactor had written “The cruelest thing we can do to Christians is take what they claim about their god at face value.” Your response was sarcastic and to the effect that no, you don’t get upset, your heart doesn’t race, etc. etc. when an atheist makes the Argument from Evil. You’re not scared of us. It doesn’t bother you.

    But it does. Your concern is expressed in your own admission that you “struggle greatly” over the moral implications of a God of the Bible who is taken at “face value.” Secular humanists are only giving voice to your own human conscience, pointing out your own cautious reservations. That’s what’s scary. Not us.

    I would be cruel to you if I didn’t assume you struggled greatly.

  28. Owlmirror says

    @heddle:

    Some years back, I linked to the story “Hell is the Absence of God”, by Ted Chiang, where God gives fairly constant evidence of his existence, and of salvation and damnation. I thought the author was trying to take theism as seriously as he could. Would you disagree?

    One of the things you wrote about the story was that you found it “pretty darn depressing”. I’m just curious why you had that reaction. Can you expand?

  29. raven says

    Renowned author and apologist Lee Strobel told The Christian Post via email after the debate that he viewed Craig as the clear winner.

    I wouldn’t believe anything Lee Strobel said.

    He, Josh McDowell, and WL Craig are clones of each other.

    They just lie a lot, put forth tired old rationalizations from centuries ago, and then state they won.

  30. DaveL says

    The purpose of life is not worldly happiness as such, but rather the knowledge of God.

    In that case, he should have just started with “Hello, my name is Yahweh, and I’m an alcoholic…”

  31. roundguy says

    Of course if we assume the accuracy of their book (I know, but hypothethically) wouldn’t there have been a much better way of gaining knowledge of god in the garden before some dumb fuck planted that one damned tree in the middle of it, knowing, of course, what the humans would do?

  32. raven says

    better way of gaining knowledge of god in the garden before some dumb fuck planted that one damned tree in the middle of it, knowing, of course, what the humans would do?

    With a talking snake to give helpful directions about what to do with the tree.

  33. Michael Heath says

    I’ve yet to see any Christian who believes in eternal punishment confront the assertion of eternal punishment against humans and rationalize it in regards to that god being anything but near-infinitely evil. Including you heddle. So I find your ridicule of randomfactor’s point standard-issue avoidance and denial; which is an attribute of Christians who believe in Hell. randomfactor’s point stands, your ridicule of it while avoiding it is understandable, but not credible.

  34. Nepenthe says

    I was under the impression that the fact that the Calvinist god is infinitely evil was a plus. It makes the chosen feel so much better about themselves.

    You remember elementary school. The main bully always had a bunch of hangers on, gleefully watching him or her torture the other children and feeling so lucky that he or she wasn’t doing it to them.

  35. says

    Gretchen,

    I won’t ask you to explain what changed your mind. I’ll just ask– did arguments along the lines of WLC’s do it?

    No. I am not a fan of this kind of apologetics. I have always said that apologetics is for believers, not unbelievers.

  36. says

    Michael Heath,

    So he (RandomFactor) is being cruel–even though when he does what he says is cruel (take our god at face value) –it causes no discomfort whatsoever? That is a peculiar type of cruelty indeed.

  37. kenbo says

    The question was not a stumper, by any stretch of the imagination. It was to point out that Mr. Craig’s response to the question of evil and suffering in the world was not really an answer, because christian actions don’t support that answer. And yes, most christians have the ability to ignore the cognitive dissonance produced by the incongruity of their beliefs versus their actions…those that can’t are called “atheists”, I believe.

  38. says

    There’s not much to struggle over with Joshua. People had land he wanted, he took it, and then he proclaimed, “My god beat up your god.” Happened a thousand times before and after. Still happens today. I remember as a child singing songs about in Sunday school, because genocide is such an adorable kids story.

    Kind of like Noah, where God directly commits global genocide because people apparently didn’t know him enough. But it has animals in it, which is why it’s a favorite in Christian coloring books.

  39. a miasma of incandescent plasma says

    WLC responds to the purpose of evil question with:

    The purpose of life is not worldly happiness as such, but rather the knowledge of God. There may be many evils that occur in this lifetime that are utterly pointless with respect to producing worldly happiness, but they may not be pointless with respect to producing the knowledge of God and salvation and eternal life.

    “It’s possible that only in a world that is suffused with natural and moral evil that the optimal number of people would come to know God freely, find salvation, and eternal life,”

    Kenbo in response says:

    Seriously, I would have asked the Mr. Craig why he then thwarts god’s will by attempting to alleviate other peoples’ suffering. By his own words, his intercession could keep them from “knowing god” and potentially condemn them to hell. Not very neighborly at all.

    So Heddle responds to Kenbo with:

    I’m sure that would have stumped him. I mean, the clear message of the bible is “don’t help the needy, for you may thwart the will of god.” You know that, I know that, but I’m pretty sure he hasn’t read that.

    Let’s follow god’s recipe:

    1. Create a world FULL of evil and suffering, and let simmer for 4.5 billion years
    2. That evil and suffering is good! it makes you know god and stuff! and is the best way to get to know him!
    3. Give “instructions” of how to live a good and godly life – centralized around reducing other’s suffering (I’ll just assume that’s the bible’s premise even though I strongly disagree)
    4. Reducing evil is also good then! it is the best way to get to know him!

    So if god makes you suffer with no relief, that’s so you can know god the best you possibly can.
    And if god leads people to help relieve your suffering, that should make you know god the best you possibly can.

    So if you’re a believer, you HAVE to buy in to WLC’s initial premise, because otherwise the 99.9999999% of suffering that DOESN’T get relieved by other humans would be completely pointless and would not be consistent with an all-powerful and loving deity.

  40. says

    Heath: yeah, that Hell thing was a sticking-point for me, ever since my (Roman Catholic) father halfassedly tried to drill (or rather tentatively pat) it into my head. It went completely against all of the other values my dad espoused (and I think he knew that at the time), and it pretty much broke my ability to believe in any theology that included it.

    With reincarnation, at least you have the possibility of retrying until you get it right, which is more in line with how a good parent treats his kids.

  41. naturalcynic says

    @ kenbo 24:,blockquote>I am sure that this is a comfort to suffering children around the world…they are suffering so christians can “know” their god. Seriously, I would have asked the Mr. Craig why he then thwarts god’s will by attempting to alleviate other peoples’ suffering. By his own words, his intercession could keep them from “knowing god” and potentially condemn them to hell. Not very neighborly at all. Maybe Craig has a simple mathematical model, with an inverted parabola. On the x-axis is suffering and the y-axis is souls saved. We are at the vertex of the parabola, or the optimal solution. With either more or less suffering, fewer souls are saved. Simple minds, simple solutions.
    But, then again, God gets to draw reality as Euclidian space. How convenient.

  42. naturalcynic says

    And I need to draw things in proper blockquote space.
    @ kenbo 24:

    I am sure that this is a comfort to suffering children around the world…they are suffering so christians can “know” their god. Seriously, I would have asked the Mr. Craig why he then thwarts god’s will by attempting to alleviate other peoples’ suffering. By his own words, his intercession could keep them from “knowing god” and potentially condemn them to hell. Not very neighborly at all.

    Maybe Craig has a simple mathematical model, with an inverted parabola. On the x-axis is suffering and the y-axis is souls saved. We are at the vertex of the parabola, or the optimal solution. With either more or less suffering, fewer souls are saved. Simple minds, simple solutions.
    But, then again, God gets to draw reality as Euclidian space. How convenient.

  43. Sastra says

    Owlmirror #31 wrote:

    Some years back, I linked to the story “Hell is the Absence of God”, by Ted Chiang, where God gives fairly constant evidence of his existence, and of salvation and damnation.

    I’m glad you linked to this story again, as I missed it the first time around. It’s a very thought-provoking thought experiment — an interesting combination of our world-as-we-all-see-it and the world-as-theists-see it. In the story, the most important goal of life is not to come to know that God exists (that’s clear enough), but to come to love God unconditionally in a universe of obvious miracles, salvation, and damnation which seem as every bit as arbitrary and confusing as they do in a universe in which they are not obvious. I think some of the problems with the theist hypothesis become clearer. That was worth reading.

  44. Taz says

    It’s possible that only in a world that is suffused with natural and moral evil that the optimal number of people would come to know God freely, find salvation, and eternal life

    Are you kidding me? This is such obvious rationalization (read: bullshit) it’s hard to believe anyone takes it seriously. And of course it doesn’t explain why animals suffer.
    But that’s no problem for Craig.
    He just claims that animals don’t really feel pain.
    The man is truly vile.

  45. martinc says

    “The result wasn’t even close,” Strobel stated.

    I have a book by Strobel. It was given to me by well-meaning Christian friends alarmed that I could be such a clever chap while suffering from a total absence of belief in God. They felt that they should give me a book by another ‘clever chap’ who could demonstrate the existence of God. Of course they hadn’t actually read it. In the book Strobel goes through the evidence for evolution, and enquires about it. He does this by asking ‘scientists’ about it. The ‘scientists’ are Meyer, Behe etc. At no point does he let on to his audience that these scientists are not representative of mainstream scientific belief and that he has in fact only got his evidence from the 1-in-1000 scientists who are fully-paid-up members of the Discovery Institute.

    Sorry for being long-winded. My point is that intellectual dishonesty and Lee Strobel are no strangers to each other.

  46. Sastra says

    @Owlmirror:

    Thanks for the additional link. I found the author’s comments on Job (that the ending negated the theme) provocative. I wonder how many theists would be willing to give up the idea that God’s purpose is to make everything ultimately ‘fair’ — and this is why we love God. God is perfect for us.

    Years ago I came across an evangelical booth in a fairground which had a box on which a question was written:”What is it that God cannot do?” The answer inside was “Lie.” I asked them about that — how could they be sure? The answer of course was circular: God had promised that He would not lie and always being truthful was part of His nature. The reason why I could trust that that last part was true was because they said it to me, multiple times, as if speaking to a very slow child.

  47. Michael Heath says

    cortez14,

    Why the email request? Are your factual premises incapable of public scrutiny? Are you hoping to promote your faith and belief your ideas in a way that depends on logical fallacies?

    There’s not many dupes in this forum, and those few who are bow down to non-Christian political ideology like liberalism, which is also not fertile ground for a patriarchal belief system that demands blind, sheepish, childish (your Bible’s words) submission to authority.

Leave a Reply