Why is it Christians cannot agree to the point where they have condemned each other to hell and/or slaughtered each other because of doctrinal differences that other Christians don't think are essential for salvation? My answer is that Christianity is man made, and as such, doctrinal differences are due to different human ways of understanding the Bible. There is no divine mind behind the Bible, otherwise God should have communicated his will much better than he supposedly did. That's the major reason why there is no doctrinal Christian unity. These different doctrinal understandings continue to be used by denominational leaders to differentiate between Christianities for financial gain and power. Christian, what's your answer?That does it. I'm giving up Christianity. Brilliant objection, Mr. Loftus...just brilliant.
But wait. Everyone disagrees with each other's worldview...so i'll give up my worldview! Or maybe just the concept of "worldview" altogether, since no one can agree. But then again, many disagree with each other's view of reality. Perhaps reality isn't real? So i'll give up epistemology too! And logic, who knows anything about that?
Mr. Loftus, the universe just got a little bit more intelligent because of your objection, and I applaud you for bringing the universe such honor and glory. Praise science, and praise atheism.
Posts
42 comments:
I think John Loftus is merely venting frustration at the ubiquitousness of religion.
One can't help but agree that if there is a God of love and unity then should we not see evidence for this in the world?
As Richard Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion - what would we see if there was no God - maybe what we do see!
Hi Mike, I don't think you quite grasp the point but nevermind, the atheists do.
Anyway, I see that you're on Skype, would you be a guest on our podcast at some point ?
Thanks.
Anonymous,
If all God were is a God of love and unity, then perhaps you'd have a point of consideration. But this is a strawman of the God that I worship.
Paul,
Nice to hear from you. I appreciate the invite but I respectfully decline for a whole host of reasons. Just to name a few:
1. There is little to nothing that I could add to the discussion that have no already been exhausted by men like Sye, Dustin, and Chris Bolt (who you declined to debate, right?).
2. Time and time again, you express that you are "done" with PA; yet you keep coming back.
3. Discussion about PA are "boring" (you've used other words too i'm sure) to you.
4. I'd prefer something more like a moderated debate, rather than a 3 on 1 free form discussion. But again, I don't think i'd have much to add, so it wouldn't be that useful.
Mike, you misunderstand. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Loftus. I am very aware of his writings and podcasts, much of which I do not disagree with.
This emotional reasoning is common among non-believers and is VERY understandable.
"Listen: if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children got to do with it? It’s quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer, and why they should buy harmony with their suffering."
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
Tell me, why do you think God has sufficient moral reasons to permit suffering for 6,000 years, especially of the innocent?
@anonymous,
In order to understand what you mean by "moral reasons," you'll need to establish which moral standard you're referring to: naturalistic/anti-theistic morality or Christian morality that reflects the mind and character of God?
By the "character of God" do you include the curse on the Amelekites and their ongoing offspring, the taking of virgins as breeding stock, the executing of children for the religion of their parents?
Of course, these Biblical stories are not "Christian morality" as you call it, but they grew from these actions - today called crimes against humanity.
What we have to remember too is that, historically, there are baths of blood on the hands of well-established 'Christian' churches from their past. And not to be forgotten is the curse on apostates who teach unofficial doctrine.
To have sufficient moral reason for such a history is a hard problem for modern ethicists 9especially those who claim to be Christian) to solve and cannot be covered with religious rhetoric.
@anonymous,
Yes, i'm referring to the God of Christianity who bears his wrath on sinners, but chooses to have mercy on some. And this is Christian morality, because it reflects the mind and character of God.
As far as what "Christians" have done in the name of Christianity, that is absolutely irrelevant to me and is little more than a red herring.
You still didn't answer my question, so i'll ask it again:
In order to understand what you mean by "moral reasons," you'll need to establish which moral standard you're referring to: naturalistic/anti-theistic morality or Christian morality that reflects the mind and character of God?
Mike, I didn't answer your 'question' because merely placing a question mark at the end of a paragraph does not make it a question.
Was I not clear? My answer is that in order to establish the moral character of God, all these Biblical stories must be included.
Tell me, do you think it was ethical and moral for God to punish countless generations of people merely because he was having trouble with one of his children (Satan)?
If that was a human father and a human son, would it be moral to make the rest of the family suffer?
The history of Christianity also must be factored in if one is to take history as context to answer your question.
Why do you think secular authority developed? Was it rebellion against religious sensibilities and a practical way to attempt to end religious violence?
For the most part, at least in Western countries this has been imperfectly accomplished.
By this I mean that if organised religion was still run on a religious judiciary then apostates would still be burned, strangled, quartered, beheaded, etc.
'Gentle Jesus meek and mild' works for some, not for others.
@anonymous,
It is very clearly a question whereby I am asking who's morality is the standard by which we can provide "moral reasons" for your original question.
Since you don't appear to be willing to answer this question, i'm not sure how I can answer your original question of, "Why do you think God have sufficient moral reasons to permit suffering for 6,000 years, especially of the innocent?"
I sense, Mike, that you are attempting to force me into a Christian philosophical corner by creating a tautological argument whereby you argue almost entirely on the basis of a book you consider sacred.
For me, the concept of morals is a rather silly one seeing that logical minds, even primitive ones, can formulate morality merely through experience. Let me illustrate.
If one Neanderthal community fights another Neanderthal community it's called war. One day, a particularly progressive Neanderthal member of either tribe works out that if they grunt-meet (apeman summit)maybe their differences could be solved. When this proves successful, trade, prosperity and even respect can follow.
What in this scenario requires me to decide 'whose morality' should be the basis for our discussion?
The fact that a wise man can come hundreds of thousands of years after such 'events' and tells us: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is not that impressive.
The fact remains that even if we blame all Earth's evil on humankind we're still left with why natural disasters happen. God made the Earth, so who's responsible for these events?
If you are able to use your logic apart from your sacred book we have the makings of a reasonable debate.
@anonymous,
You're doing exactly what my original question was meant to portray: stacking the deck according to your terms.
This is evident from your last statement:
"If you are able to use your logic apart from your sacred book we have the makings of a reasonable debate."
I see. So what you're asking me to do is abandon my presupposition by adopting an anti-theistic, naturalistic worldview, and then answer your question about God having "sufficient moral reasons to permit suffering?"
Far from it, Mike. I want you to do the opposite - expand your arguments beyond the book you consider sacred.
I listen to many many debates, and I have often wondered why Christians inhabit these hallowed chambers. Go back to Paul's soliloquy to the Greeks at the Areopagus. He reasoned with them on the basis of the sacred. When you step into a modern arena you must be prepared to use ALL arguments to defeat the ones you want.
Just have a look at how atheist books are selling. Even Darwin's treatise sold out its first printing in its first day! And this among the pious Victorians.
In the statement you quote I wasn't asking you to abandon what you believe as sacred, merely argue moral questions spiritually blindfolded and tackle these questions on all modern fronts.
Can you do that?
@anonymous,
Asking me to do that is like me asking you to "expand your arguments beyond your atheistic/naturalist framework."
In other words, my presuppositions are based upon a commitment to Christ and to reason according to Scripture. To "expand my arguments" beyond this is to abandon my commitment to Christ and adopt an anti-theistic worldview; something I will not do.
So I have no problem in defeating arguments; far from it. But I defeat arguments in light of my worldview and presuppositions, which is what Paul sought to do in 2 Corinthians 10:5,
“We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,”
But then never the twain shall meet. Presuppositions are what they are:
"to make something necessary if a particular thing is to be shown to be true or false. The sentence 'Fred loves his daughter' presupposes that Fred has a daughter." - Encarta Dictionary
In order to argue God's morality you must prove God's existence. If we take the morality itself as a presupposition, then you cannot prove it came from 'God' beyond your personal belief and quotation of Scripture - one sacred work among many.
Where's the debate?
Frankly, in university debates, beyond professional rhetoric, I'm usually embarrassed by the lack of scientific evidence for what Christians argue (Romans 1:20).
My feeling is that until we learn not to fear death we are stuck with religious paradigms and the consequences they bring.
You may be a man of peace with your beliefs, Mike, others are not. Many will kill or be killed for their beliefs.
@Anonymous,
"In order to argue God's morality you must prove God's existence."
I'd be happy to. Now you're beginning to see that presuppositions from both sides need to be examined when we talk about issues such as morality.
"If we take morality itself as a presupposition..."
But what kind of morality? Are you a moral realist? Does morality exist objectively in the universe somewhere?
Now, you're acting as if you somehow don't have presuppositions; that you're the "objective" one in this discussion.
Perhaps you've too often encountered Christians who allow you to stack the deck and set the terms of the debate; in which case you become "embarrassed" by their responses. Could this be because they abandon their presuppositions for the sake of debate, adopt your anti-theistic, metaphysical worldview, and then try to "disprove" your claims?
In that regard, I don't argue like many Christians argue, as you can probably tell :-)
We all know that atheists are smarter than theists by virtue of being atheists (yawn, another genetic fallacy used in their favor). Those of us who do not fall for that nonsense know that some of the greatest minds, past and present, have been Christians (or at least, Theists).
But to go after the silliness of the Loftus position, atheism self-destructs because atheists cannot agree on their worldview (for that matter, they cannot agree on the revisionist definition of the word "atheist" itself). Nor, for that matter, can evolutionists get along; it is not a unified front.
I should give up my computer because there are so many operating systems available.
Everybody give everything up.
It's funny that Stormbringer says:
"...atheism self-destructs because atheists cannot agree on their worldview (for that matter, they cannot agree on the revisionist definition of the word "atheist" itself)."
Both historically and in modern times, Christianity's many flavours refuse to coalesce.
Why are atheists "silly" because they make the obvious observations we all make about the world? To say this is pretentious and frankly, hypocritical.
As to morality, Mike, the question you ask is William Lane Craig's question often asked of his opponents. Personally, I think the question is a delaying tactic and infers complex and futile Christian philosophy; Craig even describes himself as a philosopher.
It's sad that until I answer in a way that will be acceptable to you we can't even get off the starter's block. I repeat: morality as a concept can be decided experientially, it doesn't require the intrusion of philosophy of any description.
"Morality as a concept can be decide experientially, it doesn't require the intrusion of philosophy of any description."
So you've decided to answer my question, I appreciate that.
Apparently, I am to abandon my commitment to Christ and accept an anti-Christian moral framework that puts man as the ultimate means by which morality can be determined.
But even then, if morality is what is decided experientially, then why can't I decide on accepting Christian morality and then answering your original question based upon this acceptance? Would I be doing something "immoral" in doing so?
Sadly you seem to be taking this personally, Mike. My wider view of this topic in no way threatens your right to your own beliefs.
My personal view is that it doesn't necessarily require a law-giver to make law. This is the same anthropic argument that originated with William Paley, namely: all design must have a designer (rocks were created so bears would have something to scratch their backs on).
We now know though Natural Selection that the "designer" can be nature and this is today demonstrated by various natural 'upgrades' that are "designed," driven, by environmental necessity.
Morality is the same. Expediency is just as likely as the origin of ethics and morality by this reasoning.
If you limit yourself to "proving" your point my quoting the writings of unknown writers without feeling the need to demonstrate this in the accepted world around us, then I can only wonder where the debate is.
Celestial teapots come to mind.
Loftus: "There is no divine mind behind the Bible, otherwise God should have communicated his will much better than he supposedly did."
Judging by your sarcasm at Loftus' analysis I'm assuming you feel threatened also.
I regret that my cold logic irritates you. If you want a Bible discussion I can do that too.
@anonymous,
I assure you that I take no offense to anything you have said. However, I am very open about my presuppositions, but you don't seem to be about yours; which is why I am challenging your anti-theistic, naturalistic, worldview.
Therefore, when you ask questions in challenging the moral integrity of YHWH, I can only as by which moral standard we are to compare this to? But you're answers don't seem to indicate that you are willing to have an open dialogue about your presuppositions.
I never said I was anti-theistic. As an agnostic, I am open-minded and subsequently hold few, if any, presuppositions.
This discussion started with my sympathising with John Loftus' viewpoint given what we observe in the world. That is actually how science works - observe, theorise, and deliberate to prove or disprove that theory.
To comment honestly on what we see against the claims made cultural groups is part of scientific discovery and its psychology particularly interesting.
My 'anti-theistic' remarks were pointed mainly at questioning the ethical value (particularly modern ethics)of what we today would call ethnic-cleansing, fatwas, and child abuse of certain incidents recorded in the Bible. Why am I 'anti-theistic' by asking a legitimate question? Sound like a pejorative to me.
Is this how you take control of all your debates, Mike?
Also, I am not questioning YHWH as you quaintly call him. I can only question the record which places God as the one responsible for these situations. Is this how we understand enlightenment today? Either way, those more extreme among us have, at times, adopted these sensibilities and absorbed them into their own belief-system.
But rather than accuse you of an argument you have not raised, I would like to ask you a question in the form of a conundrum. Would that be all right?
Have we met an impasse, Mike?
@anonymous,
Sorry about my delayed response as i'm not as available on weekdays.
Anyway, the problem is not with your question per se; its the presuppositions which you bring along with the question. Calling your presuppositions (which you somehow deny having) "anti-theistic" is not my being pejorative or demeaning; its calling them what they are.
So let's just get back to the original question. Otherwise, we will meet an impasse.
If I am to answer your question about God having a sufficient moral reason for doing what He has done in Scripture, then I assume that I am to answer this question according to your moral framework, correct?
If this is what I am to do, can you please answer the following:
1. Why should I answer according to your naturalistic/evolutionary/anti-theistic moral standard?
2. Could you please prove to me that your moral standard is the correct one that I should abide by in answering such questions about YHWH's moral integrity?
Your original question to me would be like my asking you to provide Scriptural moral justification for how you lived your life last week. Obviously, you could care less about "Scriptural moral justification" because you don't believe Scripture in the first place.
You seem not to have seen the word 'agnostic' in my previous comment, so you'll need to explain to me what my presuppositions are, Mike. Is the theist, the atheist or the agnostic the most open-minded?
The answer to your first question is tied up in my thought-experiment about the Neanderthal communities. Moral standards can be grown from the fertile soil of experience. I'm assuming that you want a Scriptural discussion (which I can do, no problem)as this seems to be the source of all moral standards to you; fine.
The answer specifically is that if you want a wider audience to accept your findings then you must debate on a wider canvas, one which others can join in, or at least explain why your Biblical standards are at least superior to those held by the less or non religious.
Again, I have not argued that YHWH's (how do you pronounce that, Mike?)moral integrity is questionable. I merely pointed out that events portrayed in the Bible are unethical by today's 'more enlightened' standards. If you believe those ancient morals are superior, you need to explain why.
Why have you said I don't 'believe' in the Scriptures? I have told you twice that I am quite capable of holding a Biblical discussion/debate with you any time. Aren't you assuming a lot here?
A couple of questions for you, Mike:
1 Do you accept as historical the physical existence of Adam and Eve, Earth's first parents?
2 How would you define lying?
@Anonymous,
In my worldview, "agnostic" is not true, since Scripture teaches that all men know God, but suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-22). But i'm not here to get into semantics.
"Moral standards can be grown from the fertile soil of experience."
How do you know that this is how morality should be determined? This is where we part ways on our presuppositions.
But since you're open to having a Scriptural discussion, i'll be happy to answer your original question:
"why do you think God has sufficient moral reasons to permit suffering for 6,000 years, especially of the innocent?"
Because "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) If God didn't have mercy on me, I would be just as much deserving of suffering as anyone else. This is why God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering.
To answer your questions at the end:
1. Yes
2. Blatantly communicating something that is not true.
"In my worldview, "agnostic" is not true, since Scripture teaches that all men know God, but suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-22). But i'm not here to get into semantics."
This is tough then for those with doubts, especially in this Scientific Age where a far higher level of proof for any claim is required.
"How do you know that this is how morality should be determined? This is where we part ways on our presuppositions."
Notice I said they "can" not that they "are." Therefore this is not a presupposition on my part.
"Because "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) If God didn't have mercy on me, I would be just as much deserving of suffering as anyone else. This is why God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering."
Is this seen as an acceptable moral standard today? For this to be moral, surely, the punishment has to fit the crime, but here we have humans put into a position where they (abandonment by God in almost all aspects other than sacred books)are almost foreordained to commit sin. Condemning to death even before the crime is committed is the same as prejudging guilt in a court. Is this what you mean by moral superiority, Mike?
Adam and Eve: "Yes"
Richard Dawkins in his The Greatest Show on Earth tells us that the immune system must have evolved.
When did Adam and Eve get their immune system?
If they got it before the Fall then - as the immune system protects the human organism against the environment, Adam and Eve's environment could not be perfect (thus experimental).
Lie: "Blantantly communicating something that is not true."
Actually, the Encarta Dictionary adds that it is the deliberate attempt to mislead a person.
Would Rahab's, Abraham's, and King David's (faking madness) lies fall under this definition?
Another question:
Was Lot's decision to sacrifice his daughters' virginity and lives to the violent inhabitants of Sodom consistent with God's moral standards? (Remember later that Lot is called "righteous" [2 Peter 2:7 NIV]).
You'll notice here, Mike, that I have set aside my scientific 'presuppositions' in favour of a debate on your home turf.
Maybe after we have settled these ethical paradoxes we might extend the arguments beyond our comfort-zones.
@Anonymous,
Why should I care about an "acceptable moral standard today?" What is this "standard" that you speak of?
As far as "punishment has to fit the crime," what are you basing this on? Is there a moral standard by which you can make such a statement? What if person's were punished in ways that don't fit the crime? On what grounds could you object?
But to answer this question, our sins are against a Holy and Righteous God; who is our Creator. He decides what our punishment can be; regardless as to whether we like the punishment or not.
In addition, you don't take into account original sin when you say, "Condemning to death even before the crime is committed is the same as prejudging guilt in a court."
The crime was committed in Adam; through whom we are all sons of. Therefore, all of us inherit only that which Adam can give us; sinful flesh.
As to your other points; i'm happy to engage such questions but they go far beyond what I have time for in this context.
Bringing up Richard Dawkins is almost laughable to me; and no offense to you. Given his complete and utter faceplant in "The God Delusion," why should I take anything he says seriously?
Are we still on for the debate, Mike?
Then let's make this simple. Everything you have written above places the Bible as your pinnacle of moral values, is that right, Mike?
Then before you and I can discuss the origin of these values you must defend, by answering the questions I have posed, WHY the Bible is that pinnacle, otherwise there is no discussion.
I realise you're a busy man, but answer one of the questions I pose for now. Take your pick.
If you need to concede the argument by stating that I lack "faith" and that God will correct all things eventually, why not just say so.
Laughing at Dawkins does not make him wrong. Give me an argument that makes him wrong or I will have to talk straw men.
@anonymous about the "debate" question: what are you talking about?
@anonymous i've been discussing with (please start using a nick. This gets kind of annoying):
Yes, the Bible (which reflects the mind of God) is my standard of moral values. As to why I believe so, such a forum would be extremely inadequate for me to explain. But the nutshell version is that without the truth of Scripture, one cannot have an objective basis for morality at all. And I also posit this for things like the laws of logic as well among other things.
Honestly, i've written very little about morality and would like to more in the future so as to clarify and defend what I believe. As you can see from my blogs, i'm very distracted by other topics.
I'm very hesitant to answer one of your questions because it will venture into things that I have very little time for. But my basic answer is that lying and deceit are not absolutes; but situational. But I will also submit that, at the same time, its not always correct to use descriptive examples in the Bible as a prescription for some sort of "absolute" that can work in any given situation. For the Christian who seeks to obey Christ, they must devote themselves to prayer, wisdom, and wise counsel in making such moral decisions.
For Dawkins, on the contrary, i'll say that quoting his book on evolution to support a point is just as meaningless to me as my quoting Jonathan Sarfati's rebuttal book, "The Greatest Hoax on Earth" as a refutation of Dawkins.
I don't have time for specifics here, but i've written about Dawkins a number of times on this blog, which can be found on the sidebar topics. Hopefully that can suffice for why I don't take Dawkins seriously, and why atheists shouldn't either (even if their worldview were true).
You can call me Zealous for Truth.
I would have thought it would be your pleasure to see Dawkins and others "bite the dust" with your Christian defence site. Oh well, all his supporters will say is, "Lions 1/Christians 0."
Your statement that the Bible is YOUR standard of moral values is well and good, but for others to put faith in that statement you must show them WHY when they ask you questions - even ones you are reluctant to answer. I have done what you asked and stepped into your arena to debate you. Do me the honour of specifics of legitimate questions I ask you.
'Lying and deceit are not absolutes."
This is most revealing. So, despite my being brought up (as a Christian) to believe that ALL lying was wrong, you are now changing the terms of my contract - apparently it's now 'situational.' Are you serious? Could you give me a couple of examples where deceit and lying are acceptable for the Christian?
One of the recurring themes in the Bible when this happens are times when 'godly' people do so in place of God's direct act of salvation - Abraham and David are just two examples.
Tell me, Mike. Do you teach your children (if you are a father) what you are telling me? Will you tell them that at times lies and deceit can be necessary when any direct action from God is absent? Do you tell them that lies come in colours and shades and that as long as their motive is right (by the Bible's standards)it is desirable to deceive and lie?
Of course, devoting themselves to prayer would infuse this wisdom into them - is that what you mean by your defence of deceit and lying?
Don't you think that your defence of these actions actually FOGS what righteousness is? Does your defence actually, in fact, not defend sin? If not, why not?
@Anonymous (next time, actually use that nick for your user name),
As I have stated several times, such a discussion will venture into areas that I simply do not have time to develop in a comment section of a blog that was pretty much meant for comedic and sarcastic purposes.
While I appreciate your willingness to discuss, i'll leave you with the last word on this exchange. Perhaps when I write a blog or make a video whereby I can develop these ideas further could we have a profitable exchange. And as you may have figured out, its difficult to discuss such topics without laying a proper foundation.
Thanks for your time and I hope you'll stop by again.
It's sad that you make excuses rather than arguments for your lack of evidence, which simply means you wish to avoid difficult questions, Mike. This is sad as you state that your site is for Christian defence purposes.
The questions will continue to stand despite your obvious fear of facing them.
One thing I do admire you for is that you at least publish your 'opponent's' arguments.
So, to date, I have to agree with the atheist viewpoint:
Lions 1/Christians 0
@Anonymous,
That is a completely pathetic, immature, and inconsiderate response. Some people have a lot going on in life and have many things they have to prioritize over others.
Its unfortunate that you think you know so much about me and what's going on with my life that you can call this "excuses...for your lack of evidence...and fear" rather than be mature enough to respect some else's priorities in life.
Grow up.
Oh, and one final thing. By stating that 'lying and deceit are situational' you have fallen into your own trap by demonstrating that there are no moral absolutes. Perhaps murder, genocide, rape and robbery are also 'situational.'
Hence why should I follow the Bible's moral standards.
Thanks for your time.
Immature? Refusing to face one's fears is immature. Remaining an intellectual child certainly is.
You seem to be losing your Christian humility and modesty by your answer.
If you will not answer, even briefly, ONE of my specific questions, why should anyone take you or what you say seriously?
If supporting Biblical morality is important to you MAKE time for it.
I have no idea who you are, but i've completely lost all respect for you and will have no future interest in discussing with you about anything.
A mature person would say, "That's cool Mike, I understand you've got a lot going on and look forward to interacting with you in the future on these matter."
I'm totally done with this. Feel free to leave your pathetic and inconsiderate responses all you want. But it is highly doubtful that i'll respond.
Plus, why should I care what some "anonymous" internet "agnostic" says anyway? Especially when he knows absolutely nothing about my life. Seriously, grow up.
Me thinks he doth protest too much.
Dr. William Lane Craig:
“I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.”
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
Tell me, Mike, do you agree with this statement?
Matthew 18:21,22
Is this one of your moral standards, Mike?
FYI, I am unofficially beginning a new comment policy whereby all commenters will need to have a user name of some kind.
Otherwise, I have no way of knowing if the most recent "anonymous" is the same person who I previously advised that I will no longer have discussions with.
Post a Comment