Christianity Today Asks...
If the evidence for God is so abundant, then why are there atheists?
"A lot of ink has been spilled over whether God exists. Within this context, some theists like to point out that “God has made it plain” that he exists, that “God’s invisible qualities … have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20). They urge us to remember that the “heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Ps. 19:1). In a recent Christianity Today article, Jim Spiegel cites these passages and writes: “This naturally prompts the question: If the evidence for God is so abundant, then why are there atheists?”
Spiegel asserts that for many atheists, it’s not “cool, rational inquiry” that led to their atheism. Rather, in many cases it’s complex moral and psychological factors that produce atheism. For example, Spiegel points to research suggesting that some prominent atheists had broken, defective relationships with their fathers. Others live in perpetual disobedience and rebellion—resisting lifestyle changes required upon adopting theism. And still others confess that they just don’t want there to be a God. Spiegel contends that immorality has cognitive consequences—it impedes one’s ability to recognize that theism is true."
Bobby Thiel Knows Why...
"Now, actually one of the reasons that there are evolutionary atheists is, believe it or not, in the 19th century various male “intellectual” were looking for excuses to not have to abide by biblical standards of sexual morality. And back then, some of them even admitted that is why they embraced the concept that life randomly evolved without a creator God.
I would also add hypocrisy to the list. The fact that evangelicals, for one example, are more likely to be involved with fornication than the general public, despite biblical admonitions against it, turns people off. Most who claim Christianity, do not really live as a Christian
War is another factor. Many non-believers point to religions such as Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism as major causes of war, which turns many people off to the idea that there is a truly loving God. But of course, all scholars realize that early Christians would not participate in carnal warfare. And in my opinion, this is still true of faithful Christians today
.
There are also scholars, for example, like Bart Ehrman, who started out as Protestant but when they learned more about church history, realized that Protestantism simply did not fit with much of the Bible nor church history. And while he may be more of an agnostic than an atheist, the fact that most of what is considered by the world to be Christianity, is not Christianity, and this turns many off of religion (though it does not necessarily make them atheists).
But I would like to add that it is illogical to be an atheist. While there may be many reasons that people may doubt the existence of a personal God, such as the one that the Bible teaches about, the reality is that any that conclude that there cannot be a creator/god are being foolish:
The fool has said in his heart, ”There is no God.” (Psalms 14:1, NKJV)
One of the reasons that it is foolish to conclude that there is no God is because humans should realize that we are finite beings. No human has been to every place in the universe, no human has lived forever, no human has been to every possible dimension that may exist in the universe. Since no human has done that, for any human to conclude that there cannot be a god of any type is illogical. Why? Because no human has enough possible proof that God cannot exist. Doing so with limited “evidence” is foolish."
(Note: Here Bobby wanders off into other dimensions and strays from the Biblically Mountain God of an insignificant people, on an insignificant planet in one solar system of trillions and galaxies unending in our own Universe. This would imply that Bobby's God has this plan running in billions of other places and dimensions which because we can't figure that out , we are foolish.
Let's stick to the Mountain God of Israel who couldn't defeat the people of the valley because they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19 :)
Let's stick to the Mountain God of Israel who couldn't defeat the people of the valley because they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19 :)
Aron Addresses "You deny God 'cuz you just wanna sin"
“We are born atheist and we remain so until someone lies to us.”
―
―
36 comments:
Boob Thiel wrote:
No human has been to every place in the universe, no human has lived forever, no human has been to every possible dimension that may exist in the universe. Since no human has done that, for any human to conclude that there cannot be a god of any type is illogical.
Following Boob's argument to its logical conclusion, humans should not deny the possibility of infinite multiverses, including at least one universe in which all the inhabitants are unicorns that fart rainbows.
"The fact that evangelicals, for one example, are more likely to be involved with fornication than the general public,"
Would you mind proving that "fact"?
There's no doubt that christians aren't perfect, but "more likely than the general public"?
Who are the general public that you're referring to? All atheists?
According to Wikipedia 75% of U.S. citizens claim to be Christian.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States
If it's only evangelicals that you're picking on, then that leaves the acogs out, so your point?
It's one thing for Dennis to promote scientific theory, it's another for him to promote Deihl assumptions.
The scientific method to prove the existence of anything employs the five senses. If there is evidence sensed by one, some or all of the five senses then it is safe to say that a person or thing actually exists. There is no evidence using the scientific method to indicate that God exists. Creationists use the argument that the creation (universe) is the proof that God exists. This is not direct evidence. No one has seen, heard or been touched by a God. There is no direct evidence that God exists. Could the existence of the universe have a different explanation?
So let me get this straight....if I join Boob’s cult, the the idea of me being an atheist is impossible. Seriously? With all the crap that Boob says it is enough to make one deny a God exists. Next to David Pack there is no bigger liar in the church than than Booby.
I'm a believer who hasn't got a
problem with Atheists. Everbody is entitled to freedom of choice.
What i despise are closet athiests who pretend outwardly to be Christians whilst aquiring powerful positions within Christian churches.
It is a modern day plague and it is very relevant within the Churches of God movement in 2019.
All glory and praise to the Great White Savior of Africa! I read his teachings and was saved from utter destruction and a life of fornication. Praise Bob!
513 noted: Would you mind proving that "fact"?
There's no doubt that christians aren't perfect, but "more likely than the general public"?
Who are the general public that you're referring to? All atheists?
According to Wikipedia 75% of U.S. citizens claim to be Christian.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States
If it's only evangelicals that you're picking on, then that leaves the acogs out, so your point?
It's one thing for Dennis to promote scientific theory, it's another for him to promote Deihl assumptions."
Those are Bob Thiel's comments, not mine. Ask him. I wrote only the Blog Post Title and some transitional comments between quotes of others. And it's D-I-E-H-L
Aron at the second half of his video addresses the "moreness" of Christianity in terms of morality issues violated. He quotes the studies by others on such issues. You can choose to believe the studies or not but they exist and they also are my experience in ministry both WCG and growing up Presbyterian with many Catholic friends.
The fact is, and in my experience, religious people are no more moral than the non-religious and there is a pull on human nature that if you forbid it, I want itI saw this many times living in the Bible Belt and in "Dry Counties" in very religious Kentucky. The alcoholism was out the roof as well as all the other associated vices of human beings. Living again just down the street from Bob Jones University, the most radical and right wing Baptist College you could imagine making WCG look like a picnic, I know they have just as many moral problems and issues among faculty and students as anywhere else. It's just being human. Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists are also very moral without Christianity or the fear of the gods being displeased because they are not being worshipped properly by the people.
The point is that Bob's and many other apologists insist that without God's law one can't be moral and the only reason to not want to believe in God is to be immoral. This is classic Fundamentalist bullshit and has NO basis in reality. If one must have a god to make them moral then something is wrong with them to begin with.
Anon 613 noted: "What i despise are closet athiests who pretend outwardly to be Christians whilst aquiring powerful positions within Christian churches.
It is a modern day plague and it is very relevant within the Churches of God movement in 2019"
I agree and this is true of all churches. Don't despise them. I imagine they either were born into their faith and it takes time to outgrow it or they went in very very very sincerely so and as they got older and if they have both a curiosity about that which they aren't told in church and a critically thinking mind, it is inevitable they will move on and find their own perspectives and beliefs or lack of them. It's quite a normal process.
Those who went into religion with deeply sincere convictions often express the same degree of conviction in newly understood realities when they come out of the experience.
I have known a number of both WCG ministers and members, past and present in the splinters as well as highly trained Episcopal and Catholic priests and pastors who grew to doubt. It takes time. Without doubters, scoffers according to the Bible, but I say doubters and noticers, there can be little progress in one's maturity into reality which is far different than most beliefs.
Anyway, don't despise them. You might have the experience of outgrowing your own faith someday and then you'll be one.
"The fact is, and in my experience, religious people are no more moral than the non-religious"
I agree, but that wasn't the point of my question.
You said that it's a "fact" that evangelicals are "more" likely to be involved with fornication than the general public.
You didn't say just as likely, you said "more" likely.
You also said: "I know they have just as many moral problems and issues among faculty and students as anywhere else. It's just being human."
now which is it Dennis? More likely or "just" as likely?
I have no doubts about them being just as likely, but that's not what you originally said.
Also, I'm not defending Bob's ignorant claims. I have no doubt that non christians can be just as "moral" (all depends on ones definition of morals are of course) as christians. Sure there are a lot of self righteous christians, but many acknowledge that we're sinners and no better than others.
While that wasn't the case in the WCG, again my question to you wasn't in regards to that, it was in regards to the "fact" as you said tgat evangelicals are "more" likely to be involved in fornication.
Your final argument is bullshit Dennis because none of us are perfectly moral, christian or non christian. If that is Bob's claim that it takes a god to be moral then he's wrong, but if God defines morality, then no matter how good a non christian is, he's not moral.
The difference is that if the bible is true, christians aren't moral either, but once they accept Jesus God sees us through Jesus, so although we're just as immoral as the non christian, in God's eyes we're perfectly moral because he sees Jesus.
I know, fairy tale to you and Aron, but twisting the arguments, especially when you go from "more" likely to "just" as likely isn't going to win the debate.
None are perfect no not one.
Bob Thiel writes:
"The fact that evangelicals, for one example, are more likely to be involved with fornication than the general public,"
This little sad-sack would be shocked to read the stories on Facebook groups of ex-members who said they lost their virginity at the Feast of Tabernacles. Given the huge number of stories that have been told over the years about sex at the Feast, I can verify that Chruch of God members fornicate more than Evangelicals.
The more Bob Thiel writes the dumber he looks.
"I can verify that Chruch of God members fornicate more than Evangelicals. "
You do realize that the only way that you can "verify" that is if it's personal first hand knowledge don't you? You've been there done that?
Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like Dennis wrote:
"The fact that evangelicals, for one example, are more likely to be involved with fornication than the general public,"
Since he quoted Bob in red, then went to regular black text (making it seem like it was Dennis' thoughts on what Thiel just said, then he quoted Bob again at the end.
8:37
"You do realize that the only way that you can "verify" that is if it's personal first hand knowledge don't you? You've been there done that?"
In my dreams. I was too much of a goody-two-shoes to do anything like that. I can no more verify it than Bob Thiel can about Evangelicals.. He pulls things out of the thin air trying to smear Christians. It always fascinates me that Thiel despises the "so-called "Christianity" Today magazine as fake and yet he loves to quote them extensively if they publish something that supports his personal biases.
Add to that the stories of Imperial Students and those that went to SEP camps when they tell how they lost their virginity there and it shows the COG was no more a bastion of upright morality than the Thielites are. UCG's "college" has had numerous premarital sex issues with its students. PCG has the same issues. And then there is LCG's "university" and their bed-hopping students. Armstrongites have no business judging others when they are just as promiscuous as the world around them, from their top leaders down to the members.
"You said that it's a "fact" that evangelicals are "more" likely to be involved with fornication than the general public. "
This is Bob Thiel's quote in HIS article.
Continuing with 807
"You also said: "I know they have just as many moral problems and issues among faculty and students as anywhere else. It's just being human."
now which is it Dennis? More likely or "just" as likely?
I have no doubts about them being just as likely, but that's not what you originally said."
THE ANSWER: I said 'just as many..." in MY actual quote . Bob said that evangelicals "are MORE likely" in his.
Take a reading comprehension course.
JUST AS LIKELY say I MORE LIKELY says BOB in the QUOTE
Mr No2HWA
Not once did a camper lose their virginity when I was on security duty.
Of course I only served once a week for half a night.
We did chase hormone charged campers after sing a long. Usually the obvious pastors son of a preacher man. Only in good fun.
Only once in my six years did a worker get send home. (no campers involved) Now he is a citizen of good standing.
Nck
Yes 844, I did quote part of Bob's article in red to highlight the part about people just wanting to be immoral as the reason not to believe in God. That is the main thrust of the posting answering this oft told tale. It is imbedded in Bob's entire quote both before and after that. There are quotation marks around the entire block of Bob's article
Leave it to the ACOGs to come up with a simplistic one-size fits all answer or label which can be repeated as a mantra because it supports their agenda. Do some people become atheists because they want to sin? Perhaps some would be so shallow that they could do that. However, there are many different reasons why people do things. These issues have considerable depth and complexity. I once knew an individual who began making investments with what had been his tithes, rather then sending them in to PO Box 111, Pasadena, CA. The boil-down rumor which swept the church was that so and so had quit tithing so that he could "play the stock market". This individual eventually told me that he would never need to work again for the rest of his life. Now, he did hold a regular job. It's just that he didn't need to for financial reasons. In spite of his two college degrees, he preferred to do manual labor. He said he found it relaxing and therapeutic.
BB
Then I apologize Dennis. From 8:07 and 8:44
Boob Thiel's accusation only thinly masks what's going on in his heart.
Christians believe that living sinlessly produces happiness that living sinfully cannot produce. ACOG literature is filled with examples of non-believers living happier lives simply because as non-believers they practice some of the Ten Commandments. The ACOGs teach that people choose sin because Satan has (with God's permission) blinded them until the Judgment, but that when they happen to practice some part of God's Way, they recognize the benefit and continue in it, because righteousness produces happier and better results.
Boob is saying instead that, were it not for the prospect of divine punishment, sin would be more attractive than righteousness. Boob thus believes that God is putting burdens on His people by forcing them to obey His laws. Yes, Boob is admitting that he would sin if God would allow him to sin, and that the Ten Commandments are burdens rather than blessings.
That's not the attitude of a mature Christian.
That's not the attitude of a mature Christian.
And calling someone Boob is?
I'm sure people abandon religious observance for a whole spectrum of reasons, but you'd never know it if you just listened to the ones left behind at church. According to them, there's only one reason why people abandon christianity. So when you leave, they don't have to ask you why, because they already "know." Sometimes, they'll even Jesusplain it to YOU why you're leaving!
I think they do this because it's way too scary for them to tolerate the thought that there could be legitimate reasons for anyone to abandon christianity. So when they do see someone abandoning it, that's a threat, and they defuse it by assigning illegitimate reasons for it. They don't want to know any more, because that will probably just re-light the fuse.
On the other hand, I guess living in a world that's so simple, so black-and-white, has it's benefits. It makes everything so much easier, right? At least, in a manner of speaking.
A guy named Josh Harris is suddenly in the news. He came to prominence at the tender age of 21 within evangelical circles as an advocate of "purity culture" by writing a book of christian advice for how to marry correctly, have the perfect marriage, and never divorce. 20 years later, he's in the news because, as you may have guessed, he's separating from his wife.
One reason why his book was so popular among christians was that it sounded so good. It advocated a standard of purity that was higher than anyone else's. If you Jesus this hard, you can't fail, right? At least according to evangelicals, if anyone was in a position to have the perfect marriage it was him. But now he's publicly disavowing all his premature advice, saying that even if you do Jesus that hard, it's still no guarantee.
I'm sure Armstrongists will pooh-pooh evangelical Jesus Theory. After all, they keep christmas and easter, so the one true god can't possibly have any respect for them, so of course their Jesus Theories won't work. But we had our own Armstrongist versions of such "practical" guides for how to implement REAL Jesus Theory, and none of those worked either.
The trouble with christianity and other religions like it, is that it's all theory. It's based on a textbook. Since people assume that this textbook was written by Jesus, they think it that means its not like other theories, in that Jesus must have proven it already, otherwise he wouldn't have written it.
So no matter how much real-world results contradict Jesus—it's still Jesus we're talking about here—so it doesn't count. He's always right, and doubly so when he's flat wrong! No amount of bad results flowing from Jesus Theory can possibly disprove it. Hence all the science denying that christians engage in. If you contradict Jesus, you can't possibly be right, regardless of how exhaustively or systematically it may already have been observed that Jesus theory does not explain or work in the messy, messy world we have to live in.
It was when I began to notice this in my own christian walk that I began my journey out of christianity. Soon after that, I began to look more closely at where the Jesus Theory we have came from, and found out, not unlike Bart Ehrman, that it wasn't what the ministers and my parents told me. Which explained the failure of Jesus Theory I had observed in my own life.
Despite all the brainwashing, that's how I came to understand that the bible is really just theories of men. The fact they're so old doesn't make them more likely to reliable, but less. It's no wonder they don't work.
Anonymous said...
Then I apologize Dennis. From 8:07 and 8:44
NO PROBLEM! :) I just don't want anything Bob says to be attributed to me. lol. I can see where the red highlight could throw one off as to what quote ended and I began. Also, Bob shifts the topic to other things that are more promoting his own church ideas than staying on topic such as military service for "real Christians", or people like Bart Ehrman opting for agnosticism because he has experienced not "real Christianity" in his Protestant background. Pretty damn shallow of Bob.
I do admit, in part, I got dis-illusioned by not finding many true Christian Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and a few Deacons along the way. Loved the average WCG member who I found very sincere and dedicated best they knew how. . I'd love to see Bob go up against Bart on anything Biblical
But to be clear. I am atheist because of my love for paleontology, geology, cosmology and human origin studies etc. I also know a myth with meaning, or as I was brought up to think "an earthly story with a heavenly meaning" when I see one.
10:41AM, please show me where 10:24AM claimed to be a mature Christian. Surely you don't believe that only a mature Christian can detect B.S. spewing from a narcissist?
“We are born atheist and we remain so until someone lies to us.”--Aron Ra
Wow! Just wow!!
It never ceases to amaze me what great lengths some people will go to just so they can avoid getting a proper haircut!!!
"I do admit, in part, I got dis-illusioned by not finding many true Christian Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and a few Deacons"
Could that be because the WCG's definitions of those "jobs of service" became military "offices"?
The word apostle merely means sent. Pail when introducing himself wasn't declaring his office or position in the church he was merely saying, "Paul, sent (apostle) by Jesus Christ".
Evangelist is merely one who proclaims good news. Not the second "highest" physical "office" in the church.
Pastor is merely one who guides those who choose to follow him.
Deacon merely means to serve, Paul also deaconed or served.
One thing most every church gets wrong is a one man pastorate in a congregation. That is not biblical. The bible teaches a plurality of older men keeping the peace in the congregation. Not offices at all.
The WCG quenched the Spirit, is it no wonder no one saw true servants of God?
Kevin
"A lot of ink has been spilled over whether god exists. Within this context, some theists like to point out that 'god has made it plain' that he exists, that 'god’s invisible qualities … have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse' (Rom. 1:19-20). They urge us to remember that the 'heavens declare the glory of god; the skies proclaim the work of his hands' (Ps. 19:1)."
The heavens might declare the glory of some god...or they might not.
Do the sun and stars declare the glory of a supernatural agency, or do they declare the glory of the naturalistic force of gravity, which collapses clouds of interstellar dust and gas into stars? They used to declare the glory of god, but not anymore. As the perimeter of human ignorance has moved, we no longer have to invoke supernatural beings to explain them. So we don't. And nobody has a problem with that. Anymore.
Why must a universe be the result of an supernatural agency? Explain to me how to rule out that it could be the result of yet another naturalistic process, like gravity? Especially considering that naturalistic processes is all we've ever seen, and we've never observed anything supernatural? The process by which universes come into being is on the other side of that perimeter of ignorance, but that doesn't mean an argument from ignorance is sufficient to settle the matter. You can't say "We don't know...therefore god!"
Does it make sense to assume that something as complex as a supernatural conscious anthropomorphic agency is necessary to explain a far simpler universe? Doesn't that make the problem worse? If the existence of a relatively more simple universe is a problem that needs to be explained, then how do you explain the existence of a much more complex divine consciousness? Explain to me why one of these problems demands an explanation, but the other somehow doesn't?
Why does anything exist? Why is there "something" rather than "nothing"? What makes you assume that the default ground state is "nothing" rather "something"? What makes you assume that in order for "something" to exist, some sort of intervention is required? Maybe it's the other way around? We don't know. But again, you can't say "We don't know...therefore god!"
Now, for the purposes of argumentation, let's just assume that universes can't be the result of just more naturalistic processes, and that they can only arise by the intention of a supernatural agency. Which supernatural agency do the heavens declare the glory of? Last time I looked up at the sky, I didn't see יהווה spelled out in the stars. At best, the heavens declare the glory of an anonymous deistic god. The heavens do not declare the glory of any specific god, regardless of the bible's anonymous authors attempt to claim such glories. Other religion's holy books claim it too, but their claims can't be substantiated either.
"Because no human has enough possible proof that god cannot exist. Doing so with limited 'evidence' is foolish."
This is true. Anyone, of any religious faith, or of no religious faith should be willing to tell you this.
But that's not the end of the matter.
No human has enough possible proof that any gods do exist either. Concluding that they do based upon the information currently available to us humans is actually even more foolish.
Where does the burden of proof lie?
If I tell you I have a flying DeLorean that's also a nuclear-fusion-powered time machine, do you believe that I absolutely have such an item until such time that I disprove it? Of course not.
What if I told you an even more extraordinary tale, about a friend of mine, who just so happens to be an eternal, all-powerful supernatural being named Jesus, or maybe Zeus, or how about Quezalcoatl? If you didn't believe the former, you should find the latter even less credible, and you should demand proof on the same basis for both. You shouldn't believe it until it's disproven.
If you make the mistake of reversing the burden of proof like this for anything, that lack of intellectual discipline and integrity sets you up to get hoodwinked by other con-men selling other schemes to take your money for nothing. Like Bob Thiel and his homeopathic medicine, just for one example.
12:55~ What? You mean atheists can’t take out Nazirite vows???
BB
I do not deny God. I deny Dennis because he is a subversive. I deny Ra because of the goatee.
I also Jesus was the Messiah because he was from Galilee. All the Jews had been ethnically cleansed from Galilee before Jesus was born. That's why, when in agony on the cross, he reverted to shouting in his natural language, Aramaic, not Hebrew. Jesus was a gentile. Could he still be the Messiah?
5.29 AM
It's true that here is no direct evidence that God exists. But there is no direct evidence that the laws of physics and chemistry exist either. That is, the scientific method uses the five senses PLUS reason. It's evidence plus reason that proves the physical laws of the universe, and should likewise be used to discern the existence of God.
10.59 AM
Of course Jesus theory doesn't work. Christ made the same point when He criticised the Pharisees. Today's Christianity is significantly compromised by being partial towards the irresponsible, and social justice attitudes. Which is why Christians are instructed to daily study their bibles, rather than sub contract this responsibility to others.
Anon6:01PM wrote:
"Of course Jesus theory doesn't work. Christ made the same point when He criticised the Pharisees. Today's Christianity is significantly compromised by being partial towards the irresponsible, and social justice attitudes. Which is why Christians are instructed to daily study their bibles, rather than sub contract this responsibility to others."
The Jesus Theory I was really referring to is the Jesus Theory that was written up in the 1st century:
"The trouble with christianity and other religions like it, is that it's all theory. It's based on a textbook. Since people assume that this textbook was written by Jesus, they think it that means its not like other theories, in that Jesus must have proven it already, otherwise he wouldn't have written it."
To an atheistic evolutionist no amount of evidence will suffice as definitive proof that a Creator exists.
Well said Kevin. The WCG was particularly devastating to the faith of many because they were very diligent and cognizant regarding whether they were doing things “right” and thus believed they had taken great strides and efforts in their Christian walk, but the Holy Spirit was quenched in many ways and expressions toward Jesus were suspect. So when someone sees the falseness of wcg and hwa, what foundation do they have to build on.
Breaks my heart, but after all the diligence, too many disillusioned by wcg believe they must give up on Christianity when in fact they really hadn’t yet experienced it.
For an op ed called Adult something School, this was less than a lesson.
If someone wants to be taken seriously as a writer, at least in my experience, they must understand conventions that scientists had to learn.
Changing typeface (font) colors for one's 'lesson' is probably fun, but not helpful to readers used to grammar or publication stylebook, etc.
This may help: Quote marks around multiple paragraphs in a large block, aren't convention and may confuse educated readers.
(To be more specific, start with " before initial paragraph, ending that paragraph with no " mark.
Start each subsequent paragraph with a ", and go on til you reach the end of the block of quoted material.
Then end with one final quotation mark.)
Or as AP stylebook states more tersely and far better (and as an example):
"Running quotations:
"Don't use close-quote marks at the end of a paragraph if it is followed by another full paragraph of quoted text, but do put open-quote marks at the start of any succeeding paragraphs."
See, it didn't require a color change of typeface.
Sad to see an attempt to educate/express one's personal opinion, turned into a kerfuffle on all sides: confusion, anger, recrimination, remorse. Kind of a waste of some of our time. Possibly some enjoyed it.
Yet the discussion that followed is in many ways very educational.
I was out of the loop, as were most of my many friends on campus. Majority were hard-working, fun-loving innocent if deluded students. Predators were the minority, though they found positions of power, as best they could. Some were more virulently successful and dangerous.
The overall effect of promulgating misogyny and internalized misogyny (as COGs do) has a sad, pervasive legacy.
Anyway, conform to stylebook for the win.
Is it a lie when I believe you?
Nck
Bob believes in God because he loves to sin, and wants to sin, and believes he can be forgiven for sinning by believing in God. Fixed it for him!
Post a Comment