Joe Holman on "God’s Entrapment and James’ Idiocy"

It's one of the worst blunders in the scriptures, and it comes from James, writer of the New Testament. He says:
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (James 1:13)
Link

31 comments:

Kyle said...

I don't understand, how is this an entrapment? Please explain further.

Kevin H said...

It's Joe, rather than James, who gets it wrong. James establishes that God tests us, but he does not tempt us to do evil, e.g. he does not send a stripper to our door, specifically create a situation to cheat at work, etc. Those things are attributed by James mostly to our own evil desires.

But I do see this misunderstanding a lot. Especially among Christians. There is a difference between God's promotion of a thing, and his permission of it.

Kevin

matt said...

Kevin: What would you call that special tree in the Garden of Eden? Looks like entrapment to me. God apparently singled it out from the rest and told them not to eat from it. How is that different from sending a stripper to the door? The tree served no purpose other than to tempt.

Kevin H said...

Kevin: What would you call that special tree in the Garden of Eden? Looks like entrapment to me. God apparently singled it out from the rest and told them not to eat from it. How is that different from sending a stripper to the door? The tree served no purpose other than to tempt.

KH> I don't think it was placed there to tempt. There is apparently some powerful dynamic in the tree/fruit that did present a temptation, but only in its misuse.

Much like sex, (and I don't think original sin or the fruit had a thing to do with sex specifically)something created good and powerful can be greatly misused. The greater the potential for good in something, the greater its misuse, perversion, and fall.

I don't know what the tree specifically was designed for, but it seems to be in a restored form in Revelation - serving a glorious purpose.

I'm often asked at this point, "So why did God create sex (or whatever)? Why did he create us with free will knowing the potential for evil it would bring"?

I think the answer is that God does not allow evil or the potential of it to have veto power over him. He is under no obligation to refrain from creating good things just because they have the potential for being screwed up.

matt said...

Kevin, you say "I don't know what the tree specifically was designed for, but it seems to be in a restored form in Revelation - serving a glorious purpose."

I'm not sure what tree you are referring to. I see a "tree of life" referred to several times in Revelation, also in Eden, but that is clearly a different tree. Have I've missed something?

Gandolf said...

"for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

In my opinion this saying is kinda like god talking about how he reckons he created us man in his own(god) image.So if he (god) "cannot" be tempted!,then supposedly man should some how be able to achieve that goal of "not" being tempted too!.

Which sounds great!.

Except for the fact,its obvious we cannot have been "created" perfect like him.

Had we been perfect,we would not be tempted.Like god is not tempted.

Kyle said...

Being created in God's image doesn't mean we have all the same qualities as him. I.e. Obviously we are not all powerful like God. Saying we were created in his image doesn't mean we were created perfect. God created us with free will and we chose sin because we can be tempted by the devil and by our desires.

Gandolf said...

Kyle said... "Being created in God's image doesn't mean we have all the same qualities as him. I.e. Obviously we are not all powerful like God. Saying we were created in his image doesn't mean we were created perfect. God created us with free will and we chose sin because we can be tempted by the devil and by our desires."

Oh kyle i agree. We sure cannot have been created perfect.But the problem with the bible is it will say one thing somewhere and something oposite somewhere else.

We supposedly have been created in Gods image yet not perfectly in gods image.In that we obviously dont have all the same qualities like you say.One bad quality we do obviously have,is that we can be tempted.

But this says"for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

Seems to be suggesting god cannot be tempted, neither tempteth he any man.

Suggesting we can choose to be just like him.And not be tempted

But we cant,we already no we havent been created perfect and just like he is.Because we have not been created perfect,we sometime choose to be tempted.

So if god knew he wasnt making us perfect like him,then he knew we going to end up as, "could be tempted" types.

So by knowledge of knowing it was possible or even likely we would/could be tempted,he tempted us even by just leaving the mere chance open by his obvious imperfect creation to be able to act imperfectly.

Gandolf said...

If willingly making us humans imperfect knowing full well we could be tempted,isnt some type of trap.

Well it sure seems mighty like some sort of trap to me.Its like creating a mouse and saying well you didnt have to choose to try and eat that cheese in the mouse trap.

I didnt entrap you.

Kyle said...

Very insightful Gandolf, I've never thought like that before. The verse in James is merely stating that God doesn't directly tempt us, but I see your point that it was a difficult situation (knowing our nature) that God put us in and thus a trap.

However, let's look at it a different way looking at the bigger picture. God wanted a relationship of mutual love with us his people. The only way for us to truly love him is for us to be able to choose him...or to not choose him. If he simply forced us to obey him or stripped us of free will that wouldn't be love at all. He also knew that given our horrible yet beautiful condition of free will we would eventually choose to give in to our nature and be tempted by the devil.

But, God has a back up plan in store. He still wants to be with us in a Heaven like the one he set up in the garden so He sends His own son to become one of us and show us the way because God demands perfection to enter Heaven and since, like you said, none of us are when we die God can look at us and not see our sins, but only see Jesus' sacrifice in those who accepted it.

AJ said...

Guys, James was just clearly denying that Jesus was God. We all know that Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert: Matthew 4:1-11.

God can't be tempted. Jesus was tempted. Jesus is not God, QED.

Kevin H said...

Satan in the desert: Matthew 4:1-11.

God can't be tempted. Jesus was tempted. Jesus is not God, QED.


KH> Total misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ.

Kyle said...

just to expound on what Kevin said, Jesus is 100% God 100% man and man can be tempted. The important thing is that Jesus didn't give in to temptation.

Gandolf said...

Kyle said... "God wanted a relationship of mutual love with us his people. The only way for us to truly love him is for us to be able to choose him...or to not choose him. If he simply forced us to obey him or stripped us of free will that wouldn't be love at all."

Hi Kyle.

Yes i understand what you say.

But i have two sons myself,of course i hope they will choose to do good rather than bad things.Because i love them and want life to go well.

But in my heart i will always love them,because even though they do bad things i understand how tough it can be in life to always make the right choices.


Im imperfect by far...But no matter what i will love my sons.Even if they do bad things i still love them.If i dont like the things they do,i try to be different and show a differnt better way they can choose.Im imperfect,so dont expect them to be perfect.But..even if i was perfect,i still wouldnt hate my children! specially if i knew full well (i) had been the one who had gone and actually (created imperfect!.)humans.

After all it was only for matters of (my own pride and wants),that i had gone and choosen to create them imperfect with free will.

That sounds stupid to me.It sounds backward.It sounds harsh and unthoughtful.

Sounds like a farmer who stuffs up himself and plants a bad crop,then looks around for somebody to lay blame on.What for?.What does it even achieve?.


Now admitted unlike me ,God is perfect allknowing omni supreme being.

So why can i understand and learn to forgive and always still love my son,but yet supposedly god has a place called hell for some folks he dont like?...He himself is perfect,and even knows unluckily im not perfect! because he created me!.

Something seems wrong in the bible.Seems its tough and lacking in understanding,even worse! its alot about punishing others for (your own) mistake of creating the imperfection!!.

Seems a lots for only the (pride) of matters, of having that imperfection you created have free will, yet choose you if hopefully it happen to choose best.

Dont half want/expect much hmmmm?

My (opinion) is early humans (naturally) thought far to much about life and death,Wondering where we came from or where we go. They had so much time on their hands,and imagined all manner of things.They naturally thought a lot about such things,because they didnt have all the wonderful (technology and knowledge) we have today which helps us understand life better.

They saw how these things "they imagined", could also "effect other" humans when other human were told about what they had imgined.

So people imagined and retold and if possible recorded such things.They thought there was a good use for it such as wealth, power and control.The god of the bible like all other gods have been,was a pure figment of mans mind and imagination.

Thats why there is! also some words of wisdom written within the bible!.Mans imagination produces good and silly thoughts also.

So i dont believe there ever was any nasty God,who said these things.And so naturally i cannot feel dislike for something that i really honestly dont even think exists.

matt said...

Kevin: Still wondering about that tree in Revelation ... (see above, 7:15 PM, November 09, 2009).

John said...

Kevin H writes: "James establishes that God tests us, but he does not tempt us to do evil, e.g. he does not send a stripper to our door, specifically create a situation to cheat at work, etc. "

You're obviously not a Triablogger.

According to them, God "decrees all". There is no real free will. He WANTS people to commit murder because this way He has a reason to torture them for all eternity. It makes the "elect" more happy about their winning lottery tickets into Heaven and God looks more impressive when He can fry people in an oven the size of Texas. God is "glorified" this way.

Sez Steve about the damned:
i) They are created to reveal the justice of God.
ii) They are also created for the benefit of the elect, viz. reprobate fathers of elect sons.

You're one of those heretical Arminians, aren't you? :-D

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-injustice-of-supralapsarian.html

I wouldn't argue with them, if I were you. They'll bite your head off.

Kyle said...

Matt, I don't understand why you think it's a different tree. It's clearly a supernatural tree and is called the tree of life in Rev. 2:7 and 22:2

John, I hope you don't judge Jesus based on a few radical sects of Christianity because obviously mankind's religion (Christianity included) can be very bad and there's no Biblical support of God wanting people to commit murder so that He can torture them.

Hey Gandolf, I'm not a father so I won't pretend to fully understand your feelings, but let me try to explain this anyway, although I recommend the sections on Hell in Timothy Keller's book "The Reason for God" and Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" because they explain it a lot better than I can in a blog post.

First, let me say that God doesn't have the same responsibilities to us that we have towards our children. God created us out of nothing with our purpose being to glorify Him, we're not just automatically His children because He created us. On the contrary our children's purpose is to live their own lives and we have the responsibility to look after our children and forgive them. God doesn't have that though, we aren't sons, we would just be like shrubs in His garden or ants in an ant farm. Since He created us He holds sovereign power over us to do with what He wants.

There is a huge difference between God and us, much bigger than between us and our children, both intellectually and especially morally. I would argue that there is practically no difference morally between you, your son, or Mother Theresa when we are compared to God's ridiculous perfectness (Romans 3:23 says - "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". An illustration would be comparing the height of a trash can to the height of a water tower. On the ground it seems like a ton of difference, but from an airplane you can't tell any difference at all. In fact it is said in the Bible that we can't even look at God in all His glory or we would die. Since God can't let sin into Heaven even though He loves us He won't pollute Heaven with sin. Since we are all sinful that is what puts Him in this difficult situation.

So, if we accept that God can't take away our sin without stripping us of free will and thus destroying love, and we accept that God won't let any sin into Heaven. Then there would've been no way that any of us could have come if God hadn't sent His true Son to suffer horribly and die so that He could adopt us also as sons. And how strange it is that God would love ants so much that He would turn His own Son into an ant to save the ants because the only way ants can understand is if another ant tells them.

Gandolf said...

Kyle said... "First, let me say that God doesn't have the same responsibilities to us that we have towards our children. God created us out of nothing with our purpose being to glorify Him, we're not just automatically His children because He created us."

Hi Kyle well personally i think i will give the Timothy Keller's book a big miss.Not because its Timothy Keller's book, but because i know it will bore me to death.I do know though that if folks read enough of these books they will become so confused they can be made to believe almost anything.

You say ..."God doesn't have the same responsibilities to us that we have towards our children."

What proof do you have that this is true?,because i dont think its logical or reasonable.

Im not interested if you just read it some where or some other indoctrinated religiously controlled mind happened to tell you it was true.

The thing is god/s can be made to be what ever men dream up and wish by the mind of men,and this has happened very often....That is a big clue for us to think about and keep in mind!

You say god created us for his glory,why not just cut the crap! and simply say he was a bloody proud prick,his pride meant more to him than lots of other matters even mattered.Unlike us his freaking PRIDE obviously meant more to him than even his own dear children did!.

This is the problem,we can throw in sweetner words like glory then waffle on through pages pages of dribble like the bible often does,and bingo by then readers are so confused they will see it as glory rather than pride.

kyle you are welcome to continue trying to make the god of the bible fit somehow,people have been doing it for years.They are quite happy to preform intellectual gymnastics if need be,what ever it takes to make it seem so.

Ive seen it time and time again...Look at the religious cults,they do the most crazy stuff out,but it seems quite intelligent and well thought through by those who have been indoctrinated..They will even go as far as believing they should commit suicide.


If the bible very often doesnt sound so reasonable or logical or very likely to be true etc,then id say there is a much better chance that thats simply because it just isnt.

The thing is Kyle like ive said you can be led to believe almost anything,by following and listening to such people...The many johnstowns and chuches of madness of this world, are the reasoning and logic which is there to remind us how bloody true it is !



All folks have to go by is religion and (written word of man),men who you even have good evidence and proof to remind you these men often bullshit...Specially when about religion and faith!....Religion and faith even to this very day is riddled with lies and bull....Yet you have such faith in religious books and teachings? ...So much so you feel religious books and religious men etc should be listened to over and above anything else, even if logic and reasoning and common sense etc need to be first cast aside to make any sense of it?

Thats what indoctrination is all about Kyle....Its the very same type of thing that led folks in johnstown ..Its the same thing today leading folks in many churches of madness ...The god hates you church clan? ,yep even there its indoctrination and listening to religious men ...They are obviously stupid,but they have had enough religious crap and religious excuses rammed down their throats they now think what they believe and do is quite fine.

Kyle said...

Hey Gandolf, I completely agree that a certain amount of indoctrination goes on and that it's no reason to believe something and that everyone needs to question what they believe whether it be in many, 1, or 0 gods. I agree with Dawkins that religion needs to be taken down off of its shelf and dusted off and explored.

As far as reading books on the philosophy or archaelogy or history or science of religion, I'm not sure why you think that more information would make a person more liable to believe anything but just speaking from personal experience getting both sides of the story really helped me to separate truth from my preconceived perceptions.

So, since indoctrination isn't a good reason to believe in the Christian god I would suggest that a good reason would be if somebody believes the Bible. If you were to ask some people why they believe the Bible they would probably say because it's true. Haha, this is circular reasoning if I've ever heard it. Somebody should believe the Bible if they think that it is historically accurate, reliably preserved, and a good code of morals to live by.

Gandolf said...

I think you are on to it Kyle.

Hey reading books is fine for sure,but its just another way of humans discussing and another way some people can become indoctrinated (if they are not careful).I might honestly no see or believe evidence of gods exist,yet if i PURPOSELY go and read enough books of people who believe the evidence exists.I or anyone can easily be talked into believing it.

Take this previous statement you wrote..."First, let me say that God doesn't have the same responsibilities to us that we have towards our children."

Says who?.By whos judgement is this (supposed fact) decided?.What factual evidence proves this?.Is it said to be so, simply because the mojority of religious folks happen to think so too?

If people read enough books written by christians who believe it,soon enough the person reading will have also agreed himself.They may agree ..Quote: "God doesn't have the same responsibilities ".... but why?? ..because folks told em so ! ..Folks asserted, look Jack, this is just how it got to be.

Yet just because they agree is it become anymore actual fact?.

No i dont think so.

Its become agreed upon thought is about all its become.

And by use of what actual logic and reasoning is it thought and agreed upon?

In my opinion i often cant see that any decent reasoning or logic is actually used.Its more about a game of follow the leader.

But i can see plenty of religion and indoctrination though.I can see a belief agreed upon,but then people will also get together and soon enough start believing in ghosts ... Or men from outer space

But does this prove ghosts and men from outer space exist?...No it simply proves how people can easily be LED to believe almost anything.

I see little/none real evidence of god/s myself...I (personally) dont feel i need to read a whole heap of guru`s books to help myself realize i see no evidence.

Folks will then try mention stuff we cannot see but is still there, like gravity for instance.

But in doing so they forget the very very big difference between gravity and the supposed "being" of God/s...It logical stuff like yes gravity doesnt tell us its around! but we dont expect it,its not a "being" with a "mind".

In my opinion at present the quality of evidence for gods, is not much better than evidence of aliens.

Kyle said...

Sure thing, I looked back at my post and realized I didn't explain my position well enough. my logic is a simple deduction. Since we are not God's literal children and He just created us because He's "a bloody proud prick" as you said earlier (although I would argue for something a little less blasphemous like He was bored or wanted companionship, I personally don't mind why I'm just thankful that He did). Also, God's intelligence and morality is so much greater than our own, even more so than the example that I used of a person buying an ant farm or shrubbery.

So this part is the logic I used, because of that gap in intelligence and morality He has no more responsibility toward us than we have toward our shrubbery or ant farms. For example, I can plant my shrub wherever I want and cut it down whenever I want.

The great thing is though for whatever reason God does show compassion toward us, He lets us live our lives and doesn't force us to do anything and He even loves us so much that His main desire is that we would just put our trust in Him and let Him adopt us as sons alongside Jesus

Of course, none of this matters if there is no God. Because as Paul said, if Christ did not rise from the grave "we are to be pitied above all men" - 1 Corinthians 15:19. So I'll present 2 quick arguments for God and 2 quick arguments for the resurrection that I haven't found satisfactory counter arguments for yet in my next post.

Kyle said...

1)Cosmological - We know by extrapolating the rate of expansion of the Universe backwards that the Universe had a beginning (the big bang). I do not think that the Universe could've spontaneously exploded from nothing without a cause.

2)Teleological - The Universe was created on a razor's edge. The odds of a Universe surviving and being able to sustain life are absolutely insurmountable. For example, "Stephen Hawking calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball" - The case for Faith. There are easily fifty other statistics just like this stating the absurd improbability of the universe just like this. Dawkins describes six of them in "The God Delusion" calling them the Goldilocks constants. I don't see any way the Universe could have been formed hospitable to life without massive fine tuning.

3)Apostles' faith - Why would the apostles who were scared to death of being grouped together with Jesus even to the point of huddling in a house together with all the doors locked all of a sudden have a massive change in heart that for some reason made them declare Jesus' resurrection and divinity even though it led 10 of the 11 to gruesome deaths.

4)Explain the ridiculous growth of the Christian faith after the religious leader was publicly humiliated and put to a gruesome death. There's no other reason for the spread of Christianity in a hostile environment that punished anyone of the faith with torture and death other than the resurrection and post-mortem appearances of their leader (Jesus).

matt said...

Kyle and Kevin:
"Matt, I don't understand why you think it's a different tree. It's clearly a supernatural tree and is called the tree of life in Rev. 2:7 and 22:2".

Gen 2:9 explicitly names two different trees.

Gen 3:22 says God didn't want them to "take also" from the tree of life implying that they had taken from another tree. Wonder which tree that was?

Some scholars argue for one tree but not for your reasons. They say the tree of life was a later addition to the story. I don't think that's an option for you.

It's pretty disappointing to read blogs and comments by people who claim to be apologists and regularly make big claims (see e.g. Kevin's above) but they seem so reluctant to actually discuss the details. The devil really is in the details.

Back to the point: it looks like we have God tempting humans, the first humans no less. Many view the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory for every human. They say that the point is not that Adam gave in to temptation but that we all do (i.e. Adam is a stand-in for each person). I don't think you will like this interpretation though because now we have God tempting every person without exception, not just Adam.

Kevin H said...

I'm not sure what tree you are referring to. I see a "tree of life" referred to several times in Revelation, also in Eden, but that is clearly a different tree. Have I've missed something?

KH> I've always agreed with commentators (e.g. Walvoord) who think the tree in The Revelation is the same tree in Eden. It makes sense of the Lost/Restored motif found in Genesis and Revelation. I'll have to research it some more.

matt said...

Kevin: I'm not sure, but I think you may be misunderstanding me. There are two trees in the Garden of Eden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (call it TK) and the tree of life (call it TL). Call the tree in Revelation TR.

We may have TR = TL. They have identical names so why not? However, Genesis pretty clearly differentiates between TL and TK (see Gen 2:9 and 3:22). If so, then we could have TR=TK but not TL. That really would be strange considering their names and the different effects (life/death). Furthmore, what evidence is there for this? None that I know of. Thus, TK is not TR, so TK has no redemptive purpose but to tempt, implying that James was wrong (and for the 'first' humans no less).

Walvoord at least agrees that TL and TK are different trees. Does he think that TK = TR but TL not = TR?

Kevin H said...

Walvoord at least agrees that TL and TK are different trees. Does he think that TK = TR but TL not = TR?

KH> I don't know and it's not a point I care to chase down right now. But I certainly don't think one can make stick the contention that God put TK specifically to tempt and entrap man. The temptation was secondary, incidental, accidental, etc. to a profound principle and property of the tree. There are plenty of commentaries on it.

I'm job hunting right now (very stressful) but probably have more time to interact if you want to comment on some of my blogs at ablogogetics.blogspot.com

K

Kevin H said...

I wouldn't argue with them, if I were you. They'll bite your head off.

KH> I don't know what it is with these young male Calvos. I call it "testosterone theology". Hyper-Calvinism is insidious and horrible.

But these twenty- and thirty-somethings find something appealing about it. It is "hardcore". And one is supposed to be "hardcore".

I guess it's manly to wield the doctrines like a hammer, and empowering in the midst of frustration with the loose culture.

I avoid them like the swine flu!

K

(BTW, I'm a Moderate Calvinist. I think Geisler has it right).

matt said...

Kevin said: "I don't know and it's not a point I care to chase down right now. But I certainly don't think one can make stick the contention that God put TK specifically to tempt and entrap man."

Is this what apologetics has become? Kevin started of with a lot of bluster "It's Joe, rather than James, who gets it wrong" but in the end he can only say "I don't know". Kevin, I know you're busy looking for a job (all the best with that, really), but this is what I what I'm coming to expect from Christians: lots of big claims complete with amusing one-liners but a serious lack of evidence.

Kevin this is not personal (I don't even know you). I witnessed the same thing in the most recent debate between Dan Barker and Dinesh D'Souza. Dinesh was all entertainment with little substance. It's like he's decided that crowds are easier to win over with humour and bold statements than evidence. I could summarize his side of the hour-long exchange with "there's a gap so it must be God". How long before we collectively realize that a gap is not positive evidence, it's just plain laziness?

Gandolf said...

K->" little less blasphemous"

Hi Kyle..Sorry,just trying to "make the point" that if thats the way it really was,then it was about pride.Ie...Glory = pride ..

We call it glory mostly!,simply because it sounds better than "pride" or being called "proud".Glory is connected to SPECIAL people of honor!,but surely we (must not forget) glory when reasoned about is logically earned through doing good deeds!...Not by being thoughtless and uncaring or for punishing people for imperfections.Specially if you are the one who created the imperfections.


k->" Since we are not God's literal children"

But we in the least! are made in gods image.And he is talked about as being our heavenly "father".

K->" because of that gap in intelligence and morality He has no more responsibility toward us than we have toward our shrubbery or ant farms. For example, I can plant my shrub wherever I want and cut it down whenever I want."

But humans are "beings" (not just plants or shrubs).Whats more we are created in the image of god/s who are also supposedly our "heavenly father",making us like blood kindred of some type.

Surely that makes us much much more than some cabbage or shrub etc

K->.."Of course, none of this matters if there is no God."

Well i think its quite possible god is a mere figment of mans mind.Put it this way Kyle the last paragraph of yours above that quote i posted above,would you agree its mostly all about supposing?...Supposing maybe god was like this and so he would likely done that....And besides ..we have already basically been demoted to plant statice ...So its not likely going to worry him

Kyle i do understand its often good to check out every possible angle ..its best...But still (to me) demoting (the heavenly fathers children)made in his image!,to plant statice...Seem more like trying to bend things to SEEM to maybe fit what somebody "wants" it to fit...Rather than seeing where the evidence leads...Thats just my opinion!!!.

Gandolf said...

K-> .."1)Cosmological "

Not knowing whats for sure what happened,is not evidence of any god neither is it any evidence that any religious book on earth is devine knowledge...It only prove we dont know many things yet.

K->.."2)Teleological "

I feel the same about this as i did for question one.
And even after thinking about all the .."absurd improbability of the universe just like this" ..Im still left with no real evidence of and god...And even if god/s do exist, i still dont have evidence in any of this "absurdity" to suggest and prove the bible or any other faith book is of any relavance to any god/s there may or may not be.

K ->.."3)Apostles' faith"

Kyle even if i accept there is most likely history to maybe help back some of the claims up as having some truth to them.I still feel im left relying on lots of tribal story telling and cultural myth and conclusions of others, just as even cults today also have plenty of stories of their prophets and priests marvelous escapades and perils and persecutions or miracles etc etc....It makes for good listening! or reading! material,it sounds great.It fits what people want to be hearing.

But we still honestly cant tell whats truely fact, from fiction.We are STILL left to guess and suppose they tell truth etc....

K->.."4)Explain the ridiculous "

Kyle look i feel Jesus sounds like a real great guy,so please dont take my comparence the wrong way.
But it also seems ridiculous to me too that the taliban and Al-Qaeda still survive and grow and their members even start appearing in others countries and spreading around the world etc.It seems to me countries like the U.S.A were either ridiculous themselves for underestimating , or it actually is more about that its simply (ridiculous!) the way these things happen like they do seem to do sometimes...But we do know often if somebody comes out looking a bit like the under dog,if marketed right it can draw strong on peoples emotions! which can rally people.

Kevin H said...

Is this what apologetics has become?

KH> No, but it's what this apologist has apparently become.

I have been unable to respond well to anything due to my unemployment status. I turned down a live debate with Dan Barker and a radio debate with Luke from Common Sense Atheism. I'm just not in any condition right now and should stay off the web for awhile! My apologies.

Kevin