William Lane Craig revisits the "Slaughter" of the Canaanites. Isn't it obvious what Craig is doing? This is a problem for his faith so he seeks to reduce his cognitive dissonance by doing almost anything he can with the text in order to keep the faith. It's just obvious. Then Randal Rauser claims he is offering a skeptical review of The End of Christianity. Say that again? He's doing a skeptical review of the book? This is clearly Orwellian Doublespeak where the word "skeptical" now replaces the word "believing". It is a believing review of my book! And can you or not clearly see that his criticisms miss the mark? I tire of this shit, big time. I'll not even offer a critique since it's so lame. You either see it or you are blind, bat shit blind. Sorry, but that's what I think. That Christian scholars make these kind of arguments only reinforces my claim that defending the faith makes otherwise brilliant people look dumb. Enjoy discussing these things below.