Debating an Atheist
-
TrumanSmith
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:46 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Re: Debating an Atheist
I'll get to it... I'm also now doing some light vacationing...
..........
Truman Smith, author of "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology"
Truman Smith, author of "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology"
Re: Debating an Atheist
.) So why do you say the trinity isn't important when you believe that Jesus must be God, God the Father is a different person, and there is only one God?
This question was not directed to me but nowhere in the bible does it require a belief in the trinity for salvation, the main thrust is that Jesus is your Lord.
For whatever it's worth my understanding of the trinity (tri-unity) is that the Father is the source and the Word or breath of God (Jesus) and the Spirit of God originated from Father God so they are GOD in that they have GOD material because of their Father. So they are DIVINE in certain ways not separate Gods.
This question was not directed to me but nowhere in the bible does it require a belief in the trinity for salvation, the main thrust is that Jesus is your Lord.
For whatever it's worth my understanding of the trinity (tri-unity) is that the Father is the source and the Word or breath of God (Jesus) and the Spirit of God originated from Father God so they are GOD in that they have GOD material because of their Father. So they are DIVINE in certain ways not separate Gods.
Debating an Atheist
"In over fifty years of knowing God, I have received communications from him in various forms (none of them emotional or intuitive). I have made specific requests by the thousands, and received the things requested. He has actually been my benefactor for over forty years. He sends me everything I need on a daily basis, so that, without my ever having made my needs known to any man, my bills have always been paid on time. I have raised and educated five children, avoided all debt, never had health insurance (nor needed for myself or any family member to seek medical treatment—with one remarkable exception, in which the money for a procedure came in the mail a day before I knew the procedure would be required). God has been a Father and Friend to me for half a century, and if you think I have no genuine relationship with Him, you only display your own lamentable ignorance, my Friend. My relationship with God has had little to do with feelings or intuition, but it does have quite a bit to do with loyalty and trust (two essential relational dynamics which your faux relationship with Him clearly lacked)."
I'm new here, but I need to understand what you're saying here. I've been a Christian since I was saved at four and I'll be fifty soon. My experience in life hasn't been like what you describe.
My husband of thirty years stopped using meth in 2002. I prayed from 1984 to 2002. A few years after stopping the meth, he became a very hostile, violent (only with the house-punching walls and such) alcoholic. He is still drinking. I don't pray about it much anymore.
My husband was a believer when I met him, although he was using. During a period of sobriety we even started a Christian drug rehab.
I don't mean to give my life story, but what am I doing wrong? My husband's faith is down to believing that God made the world and then took off. It's very hard to maintain my faith at this point
A relationship? I don't know. If that means that he answers my prayers and makes sure I don't get sick, then no I guess I don't have that. If my life is full of really hard stuff can I still be saved or do I have a faux relationship?
I'm very sincere. Is there something I'm supposed to be doing that I'm not? Can I get there from here?
I'm new here, but I need to understand what you're saying here. I've been a Christian since I was saved at four and I'll be fifty soon. My experience in life hasn't been like what you describe.
My husband of thirty years stopped using meth in 2002. I prayed from 1984 to 2002. A few years after stopping the meth, he became a very hostile, violent (only with the house-punching walls and such) alcoholic. He is still drinking. I don't pray about it much anymore.
My husband was a believer when I met him, although he was using. During a period of sobriety we even started a Christian drug rehab.
I don't mean to give my life story, but what am I doing wrong? My husband's faith is down to believing that God made the world and then took off. It's very hard to maintain my faith at this point
A relationship? I don't know. If that means that he answers my prayers and makes sure I don't get sick, then no I guess I don't have that. If my life is full of really hard stuff can I still be saved or do I have a faux relationship?
I'm very sincere. Is there something I'm supposed to be doing that I'm not? Can I get there from here?
Re: Debating an Atheist
Hello Lyn63,
I am very sorry to hear of the trials you have had to endure in your marriage.
My life has also been full of really hard stuff—including at least one abusive spouse. The presence or absence of hard things in life is not a measure of one's relationship with God. Likewise, my relationship with my parents and siblings has remained the same through good times and bad. To be in a relationship with someone does not mean they are obligated to make your life easy, or to do everything you wish for them to do. There are different kinds of relationships, and they involve different kinds of interaction and responsibilities.
You seem to have had your prayers answered about your husband's meth problem, though his alcohol problem remained unsolved. You say you stopped praying, and things have remained bad. If God answered your other prayers, why would you stop praying when residual problems remain to be solved? I suppose you may reasonably feel weary praying for the same thing for so long. Jesus taught that people "ought always to pray, and not to lose heart" (Luke 18:1). He must have anticipated our temptation to lose heart in cases wherein the battle is prolonged.
It may seem that we are asked to be unreasonably patient when we pray for something for thirty years before it comes to pass. Yet, people will often work hard for decades in order to reach a desired goal (e.g., retirement or some desired standard of living). Being asked to persevere in prayer for something even more valuable than these things is hardly unreasonable, by comparison.
George Mueller prayed for a list of unsaved people for fifty years. All but two came to Christ in his lifetime—some after being on his list for fifty years. The two remaining ones came to Christ shortly after Mueller's death. We may be tempted to give up too soon. God is not always in as much of a hurry as we are.
There are still people whom I have prayed for over the last decades, in whose lives I am still looking for a miracle. On the other hand, there are hundreds of prayers on other matters that have already been answered—many of them in a very striking and timely manner.
A relationship with God does not mean that He is our "Buddy"—nor certainly that He is our Servant, required to jump when we give Him commands. A relationship with God is, in many ways, like our relationship with other authority figures—e.g., parents. employers, government agents. Our proper role in such relationships is often to trust and to obey. Submission to another person is a kind of relationship. Not all relationships (e.g., siblings, friends, neighbors) require such submission. Our relationships with authority figures are attended by their own set of dynamics and duties, different from mere friendship or kinship relationships.
"Do I have a relationship with God?" you ask. If you are trusting Him and submitted to Him on a daily basis, I do not know what that would be, if not a relationship. The promptness or consistency with which He answers your prayers is not a test of whether such a relationship exists between you and Him—though His regular providence is certainly an encouraging confirmation (Matt.7:9-11). Not all relationships have equal degrees of emotional gratification or personal interaction between the parties. I have close, long-standing friendships with certain people that I talk to only a few times per year. The one thing that all relationships are built upon and defined by are the elements of loyalty and trust. God is always loyal to His children, and they are expected to be loyal to Him. This is not a feeling, nor an intuition, but a commitment. This is what defines a relationship.
I am very sorry to hear of the trials you have had to endure in your marriage.
My life has also been full of really hard stuff—including at least one abusive spouse. The presence or absence of hard things in life is not a measure of one's relationship with God. Likewise, my relationship with my parents and siblings has remained the same through good times and bad. To be in a relationship with someone does not mean they are obligated to make your life easy, or to do everything you wish for them to do. There are different kinds of relationships, and they involve different kinds of interaction and responsibilities.
You seem to have had your prayers answered about your husband's meth problem, though his alcohol problem remained unsolved. You say you stopped praying, and things have remained bad. If God answered your other prayers, why would you stop praying when residual problems remain to be solved? I suppose you may reasonably feel weary praying for the same thing for so long. Jesus taught that people "ought always to pray, and not to lose heart" (Luke 18:1). He must have anticipated our temptation to lose heart in cases wherein the battle is prolonged.
It may seem that we are asked to be unreasonably patient when we pray for something for thirty years before it comes to pass. Yet, people will often work hard for decades in order to reach a desired goal (e.g., retirement or some desired standard of living). Being asked to persevere in prayer for something even more valuable than these things is hardly unreasonable, by comparison.
George Mueller prayed for a list of unsaved people for fifty years. All but two came to Christ in his lifetime—some after being on his list for fifty years. The two remaining ones came to Christ shortly after Mueller's death. We may be tempted to give up too soon. God is not always in as much of a hurry as we are.
There are still people whom I have prayed for over the last decades, in whose lives I am still looking for a miracle. On the other hand, there are hundreds of prayers on other matters that have already been answered—many of them in a very striking and timely manner.
A relationship with God does not mean that He is our "Buddy"—nor certainly that He is our Servant, required to jump when we give Him commands. A relationship with God is, in many ways, like our relationship with other authority figures—e.g., parents. employers, government agents. Our proper role in such relationships is often to trust and to obey. Submission to another person is a kind of relationship. Not all relationships (e.g., siblings, friends, neighbors) require such submission. Our relationships with authority figures are attended by their own set of dynamics and duties, different from mere friendship or kinship relationships.
"Do I have a relationship with God?" you ask. If you are trusting Him and submitted to Him on a daily basis, I do not know what that would be, if not a relationship. The promptness or consistency with which He answers your prayers is not a test of whether such a relationship exists between you and Him—though His regular providence is certainly an encouraging confirmation (Matt.7:9-11). Not all relationships have equal degrees of emotional gratification or personal interaction between the parties. I have close, long-standing friendships with certain people that I talk to only a few times per year. The one thing that all relationships are built upon and defined by are the elements of loyalty and trust. God is always loyal to His children, and they are expected to be loyal to Him. This is not a feeling, nor an intuition, but a commitment. This is what defines a relationship.
Debating an Atheist
Thank you Steve for your reply. I was worried I was going too far off topic, but it touched so close to home for me.
-
TrumanSmith
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:46 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Re: Debating an Atheist
Steve Gregg wrote:
""In over fifty years of knowing God, I have received communications from him in various forms (none of them emotional or intuitive). I have made specific requests by the thousands, and received the things requested. He has actually been my benefactor for over forty years. He sends me everything I need on a daily basis, so that, without my ever having made my needs known to any man, my bills have always been paid on time. I have raised and educated five children, avoided all debt, never had health insurance (nor needed for myself or any family member to seek medical treatment—with one remarkable exception, in which the money for a procedure came in the mail a day before I knew the procedure would be required). God has been a Father and Friend to me for half a century, and if you think I have no genuine relationship with Him, you only display your own lamentable ignorance, my Friend. My relationship with God has had little to do with feelings or intuition, but it does have quite a bit to do with loyalty and trust (two essential relational dynamics which your faux relationship with Him clearly lacked).""
This is really easy to refute as nonsense.
Apparently Steve is saying that his answered requests mean he has a real relationship with God. If that it is true, then it would mean that anyone with a real relationship with god, as he has, would never be disappointed in this life. However, anyone who studies the history of missions, knows that there are tons of missionaries who have gone overseas in full devotion to Christ, only to QUICKLY get slaughtered or die of disease. Of course, Steve would say that an early death doesn't mean that they weren't in a true relationship with Christ. If so, he's saying both that an early death means nothing (as an indicator of a relationship with God), but his materially and socially blessed life is an indication of a true relationship. It is self-contradicting. I think Steve wrote it because he is unaware of the vast numbers of missionaries who have died so young. I learned that in one of my seminary classes on the topic of missions. If you don't know the big picture, you think that the small number of success stories are indicative of something, when in reality the stories are outliers (outside the norm).
I left the faith about 4 years ago, after being really devoted to Christ (my God-delusion). My finances and health are still very good. Is that because I have a great relationship with God (who I now think is imaginary) or is it the Devil (also an imaginary character) now blessing me?
Furthermore, Steve Gregg can think God is blessing him and his ministry, but isn't it a coincidence he's living in America? Could he do this living in Haiti or Africa, those "God-forsaken" lands? Do the "true" believers there also get their needs met (of course not)? Seems to me that Steve has never even considered this. Or maybe he thinks no one in Haiti can be provided for, by God, as he is, because none of them know the spiritual secrets that he learned from Mueller.
Steve Gregg said: "In over fifty years of knowing God, I have received communications from him in various forms (none of them emotional or intuitive). "
Please share specifically how God communicates with you. Voices in the head? "Signs" that you interpret? How does God guide you, specifically? I think usually people explain this similar to intuition.. a feeling... but apparently Steve Gregg gets something more concrete???
Reminds me of this video question from a 6th grader, which Hovind can't answer (for some reason, a teacher-of-adults can't answer a child's question):
http://youtu.be/oVbSltfpKX0
""In over fifty years of knowing God, I have received communications from him in various forms (none of them emotional or intuitive). I have made specific requests by the thousands, and received the things requested. He has actually been my benefactor for over forty years. He sends me everything I need on a daily basis, so that, without my ever having made my needs known to any man, my bills have always been paid on time. I have raised and educated five children, avoided all debt, never had health insurance (nor needed for myself or any family member to seek medical treatment—with one remarkable exception, in which the money for a procedure came in the mail a day before I knew the procedure would be required). God has been a Father and Friend to me for half a century, and if you think I have no genuine relationship with Him, you only display your own lamentable ignorance, my Friend. My relationship with God has had little to do with feelings or intuition, but it does have quite a bit to do with loyalty and trust (two essential relational dynamics which your faux relationship with Him clearly lacked).""
This is really easy to refute as nonsense.
Apparently Steve is saying that his answered requests mean he has a real relationship with God. If that it is true, then it would mean that anyone with a real relationship with god, as he has, would never be disappointed in this life. However, anyone who studies the history of missions, knows that there are tons of missionaries who have gone overseas in full devotion to Christ, only to QUICKLY get slaughtered or die of disease. Of course, Steve would say that an early death doesn't mean that they weren't in a true relationship with Christ. If so, he's saying both that an early death means nothing (as an indicator of a relationship with God), but his materially and socially blessed life is an indication of a true relationship. It is self-contradicting. I think Steve wrote it because he is unaware of the vast numbers of missionaries who have died so young. I learned that in one of my seminary classes on the topic of missions. If you don't know the big picture, you think that the small number of success stories are indicative of something, when in reality the stories are outliers (outside the norm).
I left the faith about 4 years ago, after being really devoted to Christ (my God-delusion). My finances and health are still very good. Is that because I have a great relationship with God (who I now think is imaginary) or is it the Devil (also an imaginary character) now blessing me?
Furthermore, Steve Gregg can think God is blessing him and his ministry, but isn't it a coincidence he's living in America? Could he do this living in Haiti or Africa, those "God-forsaken" lands? Do the "true" believers there also get their needs met (of course not)? Seems to me that Steve has never even considered this. Or maybe he thinks no one in Haiti can be provided for, by God, as he is, because none of them know the spiritual secrets that he learned from Mueller.
Steve Gregg said: "In over fifty years of knowing God, I have received communications from him in various forms (none of them emotional or intuitive). "
Please share specifically how God communicates with you. Voices in the head? "Signs" that you interpret? How does God guide you, specifically? I think usually people explain this similar to intuition.. a feeling... but apparently Steve Gregg gets something more concrete???
Reminds me of this video question from a 6th grader, which Hovind can't answer (for some reason, a teacher-of-adults can't answer a child's question):
http://youtu.be/oVbSltfpKX0
..........
Truman Smith, author of "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology"
Truman Smith, author of "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology"
Re: Debating an Atheist
Considerably more concrete, yes. However, you have shown yourself either unable to hear or unwilling to listen, so there is no reason for me to communicate with you any further. You clearly love being ignorant. Why should I try to rain on your parade. I wish you a happy life. It may be all you will have.Please share specifically how God communicates with you. Voices in the head? "Signs" that you interpret? How does God guide you, specifically? I think usually people explain this similar to intuition.. a feeling... but apparently Steve Gregg gets something more concrete???
-
TrumanSmith
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:46 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Re: Debating an Atheist
Steve Gregg wrote:
"This is Mr. Gregg (the other Steve). This thread is moving so fast that, in the time it takes to write a response, it has turned several new directions. This post is responding to two of your earlier posts.
The first is your claim that things that lead to a peaceful society are obviously the things that define morality. You say punching someone in the face is bad because it causes pain. In saying this, you are assuming that causing pain is bad. Yet nature, as you say, is "red in tooth and claw." Doesn't this involve a lot of pain? Would you describe nature as "immoral" for causing or allowing this pain? In fact, in evolution by natural selection, it is the extinction of weaker species (probably involving pain in many of their respective specimens) that propels progress. At what point in history did the strong preying upon the weak become a bad thing? Why is it bad for people to do this today?
The only non-theistic answer would seem to be: "Causing pain is bad because we don't like to feel pain, so people should not inflict it upon us." But why should a universal morality be based upon what we like or don't like. The antelope does not like being killed by lions, but this arrangement seems to suit the tastes of lions admirably. We take no pleasure in being victimized, but some criminals seem to take a twisted pleasure in victimizing weaker folks. Why shouldn't morality be based upon the preferences of the predator, rather on those of the prey? Doesn't nature and evolution favor the former? Why embrace the creation myth of evolutionism, and then ditch that system when it comes to discerning moral values?
In identifying antisocial behavior with evil, you are not following the lessons that nature teaches you. You are following your Western-Judeo-Christian heritage. If you were to visit tribal groups unreached by our culture, or were to live in Europe prior to the advent of Christianity, I do not believe that you would find "peace" and "empathy" to be recognized values there. Nature does not model or teach such values.
Unless there is a mind and a will above that of man, then there can be no moral standard incumbent on men to recognize. A peaceful society may benefit the largest number of people, but when did the preferences of the majority become the arbiter of right and wrong? If the majority in society felt that it was desirable to exterminate the few atheists that have emerged to make life obnoxious for decent, thinking folks, would this majority preference translate into a true moral value? Should atheists be exterminated because the vast majority of civilized people find them unpleasant?"
Morality has to do with pain and pleasure for a society, largely. But isn't evolution painful? Yes of course. But evolution is science. Morality is philosophy. Just because nature uses evolution to create new species doesn't mean it is a role-model for morality. It isn't.
You ask "Would I call nature immoral because of evolution? No, because nature is mindless. I wouldn't call a tiger 'immoral' for raping and killing, because it doesn't have the mental capability to understand moral principles like consequentialism. You ask "when did preying upon the weak become a bad thing?" The same time any moral philosophy became important: when humans had the capability to compute moral precepts. You ask "why is it bad today?" It depends on one's morality. For me, I use three main considerations for moral philosophy: consequentialism, reciprocity, and individual rights. Others may have a different moral philosophy that allows killing others, such as saying "God commanded it, so it is ok" (Old Testament examples, that moral philosophy is called "divine command theory").
You ask about antelope and lions. May as well ask about humans and cows (McDonalds). Animals eat each other for food. Being reasonable is required; overkill can be called immoral because of needless destruction to sentient animal life (note that we care more about sentient life like cows but not so much for dumb life like ants and spiders).
As for untouched tribes, yes likely they will act more like brute animals because they don't have the rich tradition of contemplative thinking that we've had in western philosophy. It isn't due to God or the bible, because God and the Bible can be shown to have immoral behavior (as I explained with examples in my booklet). We have risen above many of the immoral practices of the Bible, like child sacrifice. (Jesus is God the Father's child sacrifice to himself, I guess.)
God gives no moral standard. Clearly many OT practices are very immoral, as explained in my booklet.
Your example about exterminating atheists (or any religious sect for that matter) might be a good argument. This is why the early Christian governments killed the heretics (trying to clean the population of what they thought was bad thinking). With the ethic pillars I mentioned, this would be a serious no-no on all three levels: consequentialism, reciprocity, and free rights. Would the consequences result in a better society; or a more rigid, violent, intolerant one? Seems obviously like the latter to me (which would make it "bad" because of all the negative outcomes). Certainly that action would be a clear FAIL on 'reciprocity' and 'individual rights' analysis.
"This is Mr. Gregg (the other Steve). This thread is moving so fast that, in the time it takes to write a response, it has turned several new directions. This post is responding to two of your earlier posts.
The first is your claim that things that lead to a peaceful society are obviously the things that define morality. You say punching someone in the face is bad because it causes pain. In saying this, you are assuming that causing pain is bad. Yet nature, as you say, is "red in tooth and claw." Doesn't this involve a lot of pain? Would you describe nature as "immoral" for causing or allowing this pain? In fact, in evolution by natural selection, it is the extinction of weaker species (probably involving pain in many of their respective specimens) that propels progress. At what point in history did the strong preying upon the weak become a bad thing? Why is it bad for people to do this today?
The only non-theistic answer would seem to be: "Causing pain is bad because we don't like to feel pain, so people should not inflict it upon us." But why should a universal morality be based upon what we like or don't like. The antelope does not like being killed by lions, but this arrangement seems to suit the tastes of lions admirably. We take no pleasure in being victimized, but some criminals seem to take a twisted pleasure in victimizing weaker folks. Why shouldn't morality be based upon the preferences of the predator, rather on those of the prey? Doesn't nature and evolution favor the former? Why embrace the creation myth of evolutionism, and then ditch that system when it comes to discerning moral values?
In identifying antisocial behavior with evil, you are not following the lessons that nature teaches you. You are following your Western-Judeo-Christian heritage. If you were to visit tribal groups unreached by our culture, or were to live in Europe prior to the advent of Christianity, I do not believe that you would find "peace" and "empathy" to be recognized values there. Nature does not model or teach such values.
Unless there is a mind and a will above that of man, then there can be no moral standard incumbent on men to recognize. A peaceful society may benefit the largest number of people, but when did the preferences of the majority become the arbiter of right and wrong? If the majority in society felt that it was desirable to exterminate the few atheists that have emerged to make life obnoxious for decent, thinking folks, would this majority preference translate into a true moral value? Should atheists be exterminated because the vast majority of civilized people find them unpleasant?"
Morality has to do with pain and pleasure for a society, largely. But isn't evolution painful? Yes of course. But evolution is science. Morality is philosophy. Just because nature uses evolution to create new species doesn't mean it is a role-model for morality. It isn't.
You ask "Would I call nature immoral because of evolution? No, because nature is mindless. I wouldn't call a tiger 'immoral' for raping and killing, because it doesn't have the mental capability to understand moral principles like consequentialism. You ask "when did preying upon the weak become a bad thing?" The same time any moral philosophy became important: when humans had the capability to compute moral precepts. You ask "why is it bad today?" It depends on one's morality. For me, I use three main considerations for moral philosophy: consequentialism, reciprocity, and individual rights. Others may have a different moral philosophy that allows killing others, such as saying "God commanded it, so it is ok" (Old Testament examples, that moral philosophy is called "divine command theory").
You ask about antelope and lions. May as well ask about humans and cows (McDonalds). Animals eat each other for food. Being reasonable is required; overkill can be called immoral because of needless destruction to sentient animal life (note that we care more about sentient life like cows but not so much for dumb life like ants and spiders).
As for untouched tribes, yes likely they will act more like brute animals because they don't have the rich tradition of contemplative thinking that we've had in western philosophy. It isn't due to God or the bible, because God and the Bible can be shown to have immoral behavior (as I explained with examples in my booklet). We have risen above many of the immoral practices of the Bible, like child sacrifice. (Jesus is God the Father's child sacrifice to himself, I guess.)
God gives no moral standard. Clearly many OT practices are very immoral, as explained in my booklet.
Your example about exterminating atheists (or any religious sect for that matter) might be a good argument. This is why the early Christian governments killed the heretics (trying to clean the population of what they thought was bad thinking). With the ethic pillars I mentioned, this would be a serious no-no on all three levels: consequentialism, reciprocity, and free rights. Would the consequences result in a better society; or a more rigid, violent, intolerant one? Seems obviously like the latter to me (which would make it "bad" because of all the negative outcomes). Certainly that action would be a clear FAIL on 'reciprocity' and 'individual rights' analysis.
..........
Truman Smith, author of "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology"
Truman Smith, author of "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology"
-
TrumanSmith
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:46 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Re: Debating an Atheist
Steve Gregg said:
"Considerably more concrete, yes. However, you have shown yourself either unable to hear or unwilling to listen, so there is no reason for me to communicate with you any further. You clearly love being ignorant. Why should I try to rain on your parade. I wish you a happ[y life. It may be all you will have."
I knew it: afraid to answer the question so you freeze-up. You are unwilling or unable to give explanation. Shut-down on the free-flow of ideas.
"Considerably more concrete, yes. However, you have shown yourself either unable to hear or unwilling to listen, so there is no reason for me to communicate with you any further. You clearly love being ignorant. Why should I try to rain on your parade. I wish you a happ[y life. It may be all you will have."
I knew it: afraid to answer the question so you freeze-up. You are unwilling or unable to give explanation. Shut-down on the free-flow of ideas.
..........
Truman Smith, author of "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology"
Truman Smith, author of "Modern Science and Philosophy Destroys Christian Theology"
Re: Debating an Atheist
Feel free to conclude whatever helps you sleep, my friend. I am under orders from the High Command (Matthew 7:6). I have not been impressed by your open-mindedness, by your reasoning skills, nor by your honesty. What can I say?