Another child of a major evangelical Christian pastor/evangelist has become an atheist, and this one (Abraham Piper) is talking trash about Christianity on Tik Tok. Christian apologists are not happy. These self-appointed guardians of eternal truth are making the usual statements about those of us who were once evangelical and are now atheists (exvangelicals): “You were never a true believer!” “If you had understood the true teachings of true Christianity, you would never have left!
(Translation: No real evangelical Christian EVER leaves the faith because that would mean that our doctrine of eternal security is a false teaching! It CANNOT happen!) “
They are so ignorant and full of themselves (brain-washed, superstitious fools). It’s really pitiful to watch them. Check out this evangelical apologist’s take on John Piper’s prodigal son:
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Lots of youtubers read off a teleprompter, and that’s what this guy needs to do. Watching him sputter out half sentences and exclamations in an attempt say what’s wrong with Piper’s son’s view made him look like a buffoon.
I like how he goes on a rant about how nobody believes the Bible is inerrant and takes it literally, etc., but then he has to back track when he starts thinking about it while talking, and realizes there are groups that do believe those things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Moderate Christians such as this apologist snicker at “fundamentalists” for their belief in a literal six day creation and a literal worldwide flood, but suddenly become indignant when someone questions the rationality of belief in virgin births and resurrecting corpses. What are they smoking??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh dear, that was embarrassing to watch. That poor lad looks like he’s on something. I need to look up now exactly what John Piper’s son has been saying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You were never a true believer!” “If you had understood the true teachings of true Christianity, you would never have left!“
You say on this site you want truth. Please allow me to address some things truthfully.
The first sentence I have quoted back to you is a biblical teaching. It is a biblical teaching that true apostates were never true believers. One needn’t be a Christian to recognize that the Bible distinguishes between false and true professions of faith.
1 John 2:9 states: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”
Therefore, your disagreement shouldn’t be with “These self-appointed guardians of eternal truth (who are making the usual statements about those of us who were once evangelical and are now atheists…” Rather, your disagreement is with the Bible’s teaching that some professions of faith are false. Being an “atheist” doesn’t preclude one from comprehending the teaching of eternal security.
Your second statement doesn’t represent true evangelical doctrine. From an evangelical perspective there are three elements of saving faith. One of those elements of saving fairy is understanding the meaning of the gospel. However, it’s an evangelical tenet that merry understanding the Christian message is not sufficient to save someone. Systematic theologies in the evangelical tradition all deny this portrayal: “If you had understood the true teachings of true Christianity, you would never have left.”
That’s simply not true. Understanding the gospel meets the condition of what is called notitia. What is lacking is that which is called assensus and fiducia, which is Latin for assenting to the truth (or believing what is understood), and then trusting in what is understood and believed. In other words, whether one agrees with the Bible or not, we may not deny that this is not a biblical teaching: “If you had understood the true teachings of true Christianity, you would never have left.” The classic proof text that denies that understanding and mere belief can save is James 2:9: “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!”
You obviously don’t believe the gospel and rely upon the Christ alone as he offered in the gospel, but I would hope that you would at least recognize that the Bible (a) distinguishes between true and false professions of faith, and (b) teaches that one who has “understood” might not have true faith that relies solely upon Christ alone.
LikeLike
Cleaned up typos
“You were never a true believer!” “If you had understood the true teachings of true Christianity, you would never have left!“
You say on this site you want truth. Please allow me to address some things truthfully.
The first sentence I have quoted back to you is a biblical teaching. It is a biblical teaching that true apostates were never true believers. One needn’t be a Christian to recognize that the Bible distinguishes between false and true professions of faith.
1 John 2:9 states: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”
Therefore, your disagreement shouldn’t be with “These self-appointed guardians of eternal truth (who are making the usual statements about those of us who were once evangelical and are now atheists…”
Rather, your disagreement is with the Bible’s teaching that some professions of faith are false. Being an “atheist” doesn’t preclude one from comprehending the teaching of eternal security.
Your second statement doesn’t represent true evangelical doctrine. From an evangelical perspective there are three elements of saving faith. One of those elements of saving faith is understanding the meaning of the gospel. However, it’s an evangelical tenet that merely understanding the Christian message is not sufficient to save someone. Systematic theologies in the evangelical tradition all deny this portrayal: “If you had understood the true teachings of true Christianity, you would never have left.”
That’s simply not true. Understanding the gospel meets the condition of what is called notitia. What is lacking is that which is called assensus and fiducia, which is Latin for assenting to the truth (or believing what is understood), and trusting in what is understood and believed. In other words, whether one agrees with the Bible or not, we may not deny that this is not a biblical teaching: “If you had understood the true teachings of true Christianity, you would never have left.” The classic proof text that denies that understanding and mere belief can save is James 2:9: “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!”
You obviously don’t believe the gospel and rely upon the Christ alone as he offered in the gospel, but I would hope that you would at least recognize that the Bible (a) distinguishes between true and false professions of faith, and (b) teaches that one who has “understood” might not have true faith that relies solely upon Christ alone.
LikeLike
The first sentence I have quoted back to you is a biblical teaching. It is a biblical teaching that true apostates were never true believers. One needn’t be a Christian to recognize that the Bible distinguishes between false and true professions of faith.
The majority of the world’s Christians say that the evangelical interpretation of the Bible regarding “eternal security” is wrong. Therefore, your position on this issue is a minority view. Fundamentally, your faith is based upon the superstitions of a small group of first century peasants and one quite possibly mentally unstable Jewish rabbi (Paul), making your particular branch of this faith/belief system not only a superstition but a minority superstition at that. Not good evidence upon which to build an entire world view, my friend.
Understanding the gospel meets the condition of what is called notitia. What is lacking is that which is called assensus and fiducia, which is Latin for assenting to the truth (or believing what is understood), and trusting in what is understood and believed.
I am the son of a Baptist pastor. I am well aware that understanding the Gospel is not sufficient for salvation in evangelical teaching. After all, “the Devil understands, but he isn’t getting into heaven.” The really sick thing about your entire belief system is that eternal salvation or damnation is dependent on belief, or your thoughts. You can be the worst mass murderer in the world but if you sincerely repent and believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior on your death bed, you will get into heaven, while millions of kind, decent Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and atheists will suffer eternal torment in Hell.
Your belief system tortures people for all eternity for thought crimes. That is sick. Your belief system is a cult, my friend.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“The majority of the world’s Christians say that the evangelical interpretation of the Bible regarding “eternal security” is wrong.”
I’ll grant you either side. What’s the difference as far as you’re concerned? You disagree either way. Granting this understanding of yours, you now disagree with “the majority…” who believe you were actually converted but lost your salvation. You disagree with eternal security and you disagree that one can lose his salvation. That merely makes you an unbeliever.
“Therefore, your position on this issue is a minority view.”
Surely you’re not going to make a fallacious appeal to numbers to justify truth, are you? Actually, you just did. The “therefore” suggests you were trying to prove something. Even if I take the majority view, what’s your point?
“Fundamentally, your faith is based upon the superstitions of a small group…”
Would you like to try to prove, rather than merely assert, how my faith is based upon x and not y? What grounds my epistemology, metaphysic and ethical standards? More interestingly, what grounds yours?
“I am the son of a Baptist pastor. I am well aware that understanding the Gospel is not sufficient for salvation in evangelical teaching.”
Are you trying to suggest you shouldn’t have confused notitia with fiducia? Anyway, I can understand why you did since most Baptist pastors – those who embrace easy believism – don’t distinguish between notitia and fiducia, or maybe your dad did and you just forgot.
“The really sick thing about your entire belief system is that eternal salvation or damnation is dependent on belief, or your thoughts.”
Your disgust is based upon your belief that my beliefs are based upon my beliefs. Not only is your statement unintelligible, it contradicts your previous statement that suggests that my beliefs are based upon superstitions.
“You can be the worst mass murderer in the world but if you sincerely repent and believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior on your death bed, you will get into heaven, while millions of kind, decent Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and atheists will suffer eternal torment in Hell.”
I’d be curious to see your rational philosophical basis for your claims:
Why is murder wrong if all that exists is chance acting upon matter over time?
After you try to reconcile your worldview with itself as it relates to moral judgment, explain to me the logical or moral contradiction of pardoning some whose transgressions have been justly paid for by another? To simply dismiss the cross as a foolish fable is not sufficient to deny the intelligibility of penal substitution. You might try refuting the gospel by showing its internal inconsistencies rather than merely announcing that it disgusts you. Your diatribes, although they might give you some sort of temporary psychological relief, don’t advance your position.
How can there be any kind Muslims, Jews… and “Atheists” in a worldview that cannot account for kindness in any consistent way that does not contradict the axioms of that worldview?
”Your belief system tortures people for all eternity for thought crimes. That is sick. Your belief system is a cult, my friend.”
Surely you appreciate that all punishment is not torture. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon you to prove that the penalties depicted in Scripture meet the conditions for torture and should not be deemed as just punishment? (I’ll even give you a pass on trying to prove that your worldview can even make sense of unjust penalty or torture.)
LikeLike
Can we agree that both our positions are possibly true: Your belief that a true believer cannot lose his eternal salvation (deconvert) and my belief that your belief in the existence of any form of eternal security is a delusion? If you are correct, I was never a true believer and will suffer eternal punishment for my refusal to accept the truth. If I am correct, your entire world view is a superstitious delusion.
How should we go about evaluating who is correct using critical thinking skills?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The old, tiresome, idiotic, and WRONG refrain … “If you had understood the true teachings of true Christianity, you would never have left”
No … our departure was based on just the opposite. It was because THERE ARE NO “true teachings of Christianity.” There are gobs and gobs of “teachings,” but none of them are true.
Further, Christianity is entirely based on myths and legends put forth by a deluded individual who saw “visions” of spectral beings and convinced himself they were real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You were never a true believer!” “If you had understood the true teachings of true Christianity, you would never have left!“
Nan,
What is being missed is that those who affirm and deny eternal security typically would not say that for two reasons.
There is general agreement from both camps that understanding is necessary but not sufficient for saving faith.
Moreover, if one didn’t truly “understand” Christianity, then she could not have ever “left” Christianity – for it’s impossible to depart from something that was never understood in the first place! That basic premise is compatible with either side of the eternal security issue and, therefore, may not be used against either side.
What is often said by those who affirm eternal security is that “they went out from us because they were not truly of us.” But that’s just the plain teaching of Scripture taken almost verbatim from 1 John. The departure from the faith as depicted in Scripture is never indexed to a lack of understanding but rather a lack of true faith that takes root per the parable of the sower.
Lastly, the departure from the faith as depicted by those who think one can lose her salvation is never indexed to a lack of understanding but rather to an alleged loss of true saving faith.
This, however, is not a tenet nor implication of either side:
“You were never a true believer!” “If you had understood the true teachings of true Christianity, you would never have left!“
LikeLike
sigh
Christians are so adept at “filling in the blanks” with their rhetoric …
As I said before, any person who left Christianity did so because they recognized the pure fallacies behind its teachings. Period.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bring it on, Nan. I won’t even defend a Christian perspective. I’ll simply exam the fallacies you think you’ve spotted. Are they formal or informal fallacies?
Are these alleged fallacies due to invalid forms of argumentation, like asserting the consequent and denying the antecedent, or are these fallacies a function of equivocation and the misuse of language?
LikeLike
A fallacy is defined as: “A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.”
‘Nuf said.
LikeLike
Going to Wikipedia for your philosophical taxonomy? 😂
Again:
Bring it on, Nan. I won’t even defend a Christian perspective. I’ll simply exam the fallacies you think you’ve spotted. Are they formal or informal fallacies?
Are these alleged fallacies due to invalid forms of argumentation, like asserting the consequent and denying the antecedent, or are these fallacies a function of equivocation and the misuse of language?
LikeLike
From your site:
“Contrary to what one might think, the many discoveries I made did not turn me into an atheist. However, I definitely do not believe in a supernatural being who lives somewhere “up there,” who can be manipulated by prayer, or who has a “will.” Rather, my image of “God” is far more encompassing and has nothing to do with religious belief. In fact, I’m extremely reluctant to even use the word “god” because of all its connotations.”
Ooh, Nan, “all its connotations.” Your god sounds really deep. How did you discover this god? Is she available to me too? Must I pray to the non-willed god to reveal herself to me? But that would require she change her will toward me, wouldn’t it? But she doesn’t have a will. But I want some! Sounds really deep. Can you help me find her?
LikeLike
Buy my book.
LikeLike
You won’t show me one fallacy for free?
LikeLike
Based on the definition I provided for fallacy … the existence of “Satan” is a fallacy.
And that’s it. I’m done with this discussion. As I think I’ve already indicated, I left Christianity MANY years ago and quite frankly, I am bored playing word ping-pong with you.
LikeLike
Prove the existence of Satan is a fallacy? What fallacy does it commit?
LikeLike
Absolutely right, Nan. Your final paragraph is Christianity in a nutshell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just to state the obvious, other religions like Islam and Judaism would say the same thing about people who left those religions – they never really understood true Islam, etc.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Poor old Ron, stuck in his bubble and arguing in circles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil,
Would you like to debate the existence of God?
LikeLike
I’m not Neil, but my response to your question would be this: Since the consensus of the world’s top scientists is still undecided on the origin of the universe, let’s not pretend that you and I, two non-experts, can answer this question. Why don’t we focus on the evidence for the existence of your god, Lord Jesus, the resurrected Christ.
LikeLike
Gary, it’s simply fallacious to appeal to scientists to deny God, especially when inductive inference presupposes that which atheism cannot account for, like the uniformity of nature and the universal, abstract laws of logic, which are invariant in nature. But aside from the obvious, we don’t need to begin with creation. We can begin with the concepts of necessity and contingency as they relate to the possibility of God and possible world semantics. Or, if you prefer, we can instead begin with propositional truth bearers and try to see how atheism can give an account of them. But since you mentioned creation, I’ll play along.
If time isn’t created, then it’s eternal.
If time is eternal, then to arrive at any point in time would require an infinite amount of time to transpire.
An infinite amount of time cannot transpire.
Therefore, either time is created or else you don’t exist at any point in time.
Gary, I’m not your fundamentalist dad.
LikeLike
Who said anything about scientists denying God? What I said was that no consensus exists among scientists as to the origin of the universe.
I have never denied the existence of a Creator God. I have seen good arguments both for and against the existence of an intelligent designer, but since the experts are undecided, I remain undecided.
Now, would you kindly present good evidence for the existence, at this very moment, of your god, Lord Jesus, the resurrected Christ?
LikeLike
”I have never denied the existence of a Creator God.”.
Actually you have. You claim to be agnostic. The professing agnostic’s claim is not that God does not exist but that God’s existence is unknown or unknowable. Therefore, as a professing agnostic you presuppose a god who has at best concealed himself, which is an outright denial of the God who has revealed himself (and must be known if anything is to be known), making the professing agnostic a non-confessing “atheist.”
LikeLike
Questioning the existence of a Creator God and denying his/her/their existence are not the same.
Now, would you kindly present good evidence for the existence, at this very moment, of your god, Lord Jesus, the resurrected Christ?
LikeLike
” We can begin with the concepts of necessity and contingency as they relate to the possibility of God and possible world semantics”
Depending on how you define God I’m going to stop you because I think most definitions of God are simply incoherent, or too vague to be useful. Incoherent gods are not possible.
“If time isn’t created, then it’s eternal”
Given what you’ve written later, I take it by eternal you mean something along the lines of “an infinite past.” Be careful not to equivocate on meanings of eternal, because even if there is no infinite past I see no problem with taking the view that time is eternal because there was never a time when time didn’t exist. I don’t think it’s even meaningful to talk about time being “created” unless you have some external time reference to use, which we don’t. The whole line of reasoning tends to become incoherent quickly.
“If time is eternal, then to arrive at any point in time would require an infinite amount of time to transpire.”
Given that you’re basically appealing to our naive intuitions, I don’t give much credit to this premise. It basically assumes some kind of A-theory of time, and that there is a definite “now”, but I’m not sure this is correct, at least if special relativity is correct. Time is still a bit mysterious to us, and we don’t entirely understand it, let alone why we perceive it the way we do.
As for an the existence of the infinite past, there are most definitely cosmological models that allow for an infinite past (Penrose’s CCC is one such example), and the scientific community doesn’t hold that they are false simply because our intuitions say that infinite sequences cannot be traversed. Reality doesn’t owe us any favors and our intuitions don’t always hold true. The exact nature of time is probably much more complicated than what our intuitions tell us.
LikeLike
Thx for sharing your opinions and doubts (both self-doubts and skepticism about my posts). If you’d like to actually argue something or interact with an argument maybe we might have something to talk about.
LikeLike
I really have yet to see much of anything from you that tells me I should even bother to engage more with you, and plenty to suggest that further engagement will only be a waste of my time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another one for the record runs without argumentation.
LikeLike
Whatever helps you sleep at night, but I don’t like playing chess with pigeons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No. What’s to debate? There’s no evidence of a god, much less your God, all dressed up in clever dick terminology as he is. A debate about this particular imaginary being would be as useful as one about the tooth fairy or Pegasus. Go practice being a pseudo- intellectual some place else.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Take note of Nan’s posts. She asserts that the existence of Satan is a fallacy. Yet she hasn’t put forth the fallacy she has in mind. Instead, she runs away in a huff:
”And that’s it. I’m done with this discussion. As I think I’ve already indicated, I left Christianity MANY years ago and quite frankly, I am bored playing word ping-pong with you.”
An interesting thing about professing atheists is that they rarely if ever call each other out for irrationality and untruthfulness. Perhaps that’s because truth doesn’t comport with an atheistic worldview. Or maybe it’s because professing atheists are more dependent upon having each other than they are concerned about the intellectual integrity of their position(s).
LikeLike
Why are you avoiding answering my question, Ron? Why are you so eager to go after Nan regarding her non-belief in devils, yet you are unwilling to provide evidence for your god, Lord Jesus, the resurrected Christ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll address both your comments here. First your remark about Nan. I’m not “going after” her disbelief of Satan. I’m going after her claim that Satan’s existence entails fallacy. She has yet to show the fallacy.
From above you asserted:
“Questioning the existence of a Creator God and denying his/her/their existence are not the same.”
You’re now operating under an esoteric definition of agnostic. It’s called special pleading. Agnostic doesn’t merely mean questioning God’s existence. But I’ll play along just the same because even questioning the existence of God cashes out as an outright denial of his existence if God has plainly revealed himself as a necessary precondition for rational inquiry. Think on that. You see, Gary, in your alleged pursuit of God you deny the existence of a God who makes intellectual pursuit possible. That’s atheism. It’s a denial of God.
As I’ve blogged: “By the nature of the case, the unbeliever imagines that if God exists, he must be discovered through autonomous reason that is capable of functioning apart from God. In doing so, the unbeliever not only rejects a God who must make reason possible – she actually is not even seeking such a God at all! The unbeliever is seeking a god who does not make knowledge possible and has not plainly revealed himself in creation, providence and grace. The unbeliever is seeking an idol of her own making.”
So, you’re a functional atheist. Yet in reality you do know God, though you suppress your knowledge of him in unrighteousness. You live on borrowed capital, Gary. Your worldview cannot account for this discussion. How do other minds, linguistic tokens, truth and rational interchange comport with the presuppositions of atheism?
“Now, would you kindly present good evidence for the existence, at this very moment, of your god, Lord Jesus, the resurrected Christ?”
If Jesus is the Son of God – one substance with the Father, equal in power, honor and glory, then any sound proof of God’s existence proves the substance of Christ. That’s simple transitive logic. What I suspect you’re after is proof of the resurrection of Christ, not proof for God. However, until you admit to yourself God’s existence, which too is provable, you’ll never receive proof for the resurrection. After all, apart from the existence of God the miracle of the resurrection is unintelligible (but so is ordinary providence apart from God!). The problem is not proof but rather what you’ll accept as authoritative. (See my blog tag on evidence. https://philosophical-theology.com/2020/06/23/evidence/)
Can I prove to a philosophical skeptic there is a tree outside the window or is proof dependent upon what one will accept as authoritative, like sensory experience? Can I prove to you that Dover is the capital of Delaware or the Phillies won the 1980 World Series? Well, that would depend on what you’ll accept as authoritative. But when the skeptic denies such things, the proofs are no less sound. If one doesn’t submit to the self-attesting Word of God, that doesn’t make it any less authoritative, clear or true.
So, I’m happy to strive with you on God’s existence. Once you confess the creator you already do know, then we can discuss the nature of proof as it relates to what one will accept as authoritative and how proof must be distinguished from persuasion. But I can promise you, you’ll never believe in the resurrection of Christ on God’s authority until you are truthful with yourself about God’s existence and that you deserve his just wrath.
Truth and logic presuppose God. Need I prove that?
LikeLike
“Whatever helps you sleep at night, but I don’t like playing chess with pigeons”
Oh gee, Herald, to what philosophical prowess must I attain in order to become worthy of your engagement? Cut me a break. You’ve engaged with a lot less formidable debaters than I.
LikeLike
Nice dodge.
Do you or do you not have good evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is alive and well today?
It is very clear that you would prefer to discuss philosophical theory and metaphysics, but I prefer to discuss Jesus of Nazareth. How about it, Ron?
LikeLike
Greg,
I suggest you re-read my posts. Or, you can consider them throughout the eternity you deny.
Goodbye
LikeLike
Yes, when backed into a corner, conservative Christians will almost always pull out their ace card (their last line of defense): the Hell card.
Your statement is the best evidence that your belief system is a cult. Cults lure gullible people into the cult with “love bombing”: Jesus loves you, loves you, loves you! But if you refuse to join the cult or think about leaving the cult once you are in, you will be threatened with horrific repercussions/retaliation.
Conservative Christianity = cult
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greg, feel free to drop me a note through my blog when you have a response to God’s mind being the necessary precondition for the laws of logic.
If propositions exist, they exist in minds
The laws of logic are propositions
Therefore, the laws of logic exist in minds
True propositions exist
Necessarily, the laws of logic are true propositions.
Therefore, the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds
Not all possible worlds have human minds
Therefore, a necessary mind exists
Obviously, the form of the argument is valid. The argument is sound if none of the premises are false. If none of the premises are false, then God is the necessary precondition for logic:
No God, then no logic. Logic, therefore, God.
LikeLike
Yes, Ron, I realize that you would very much prefer to discuss philosophy, metaphysics, logic, or any other topic—except the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is alive and well at this very moment.
Dear Readers, Ron’s repeated dodge of this topic should tell us all something about the strength of the evidence for Ron’s belief that the hemorrhaged blood of an executed first century peasant grants him life after death in a fantastical Never Neverland located at the edge of the cosmos.
Ron’s very sincere but delusional belief is irrational and silly to anyone not raised in a Christian culture. Ron knows how ridiculous his core beliefs are to educated non-Christians, so to avoid discussing virgin births, water walking, and corpse reanimation, Ron repeatedly attempts to redirect the conversation away from these preposterous superstitious claims by creating elaborate smoke screens made of sophisticated sounding philosophical/logical/metaphysical arguments. But these arguments are nothing more than desperate, pathetic attempts to make his ancient superstitions more respectable to modern, educated people.
A sophisticated superstition is still a superstition, Ron. No philosophical or logic-based argument is going to convince us that virgins can birth man-gods or that brain-dead corpses can levitate into the clouds.
Your beliefs are silly and preposterous, Ron. Open your eyes. Embrace reason, science, and rational thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is not logical to believe in virgin births, water walking, or corpse reanimation, Ron. Since you believe in the reality of these preposterous concepts, it is obvious that you have no grasp of what is and what is not logical.
Please provide good evidence to support your belief that your god, Jesus of Nazareth, is alive and well at this very moment or please admit that your belief in this fantastical claim is NOT based on logic but on wishful thinking (faith).
LikeLike
Your argument can be boiled down to “we have these tautologies, therefore God.” Please don’t waste our time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ron: Do you acknowledge that the biblical account of Noah’s ark and the global flood is simply a work of fiction quite possibly adapted from an earlier tale such as the Epic of Gilgamesh?
A simple, straightforward answer would be appreciated.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t hold your breath on that last request …
LikeLiked by 1 person
I notice comments on his blog are closed or he doesn’t appear to ‘allow’ them?
Tells its own story I guess.
LikeLiked by 2 people
From one of his posts: Christianity has true answers to all things answerable.
‘Nuf said?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serious? SMH
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wouldn’t allow someone like this to comment on my blog unless they reciprocated on theirs.
I moderated Colorstorm because he moderated me and only lifted this ”ban” once he stopped moderating my comments.
LikeLiked by 2 people