Faith

Whenever we talk with people of other faiths (especially with people who are not Christians), we ought to take the attitude of Paul and invite them to “taste and see” whether the claims of Christianity are objectively true or whether they are simply fanciful wishes we’ve decided to codify and believe.

Christianity is the only faith that has any objective evidence to show that it’s clams are not just wishful thinking but something we can, and should, place our hopes in the future in through something called “faith”.

Everyone has faith in something, the only question is whether or not that something is worth having faith in.

Share

16 responses to “Faith

  1. I found this entry interesting because I have been a christian my entire life but just recently have come to have some serious doubts about the bible. I was raised in a christian home, where we attended our southern baptist church every week. I gave my life to Jesus as a teen and rededicated when I was 25. Up until four years ago, I was a lay youth pastor with a growing youth ministry at the church my wife and I attended. So, as you say in your post I have already lived out the “taste and see” aspect of christianity. For the most part, it was great. However, six months ago I began investigating the bible from a historical point of view. That’s when everything began to fall apart. It was like I pulled on one tiny string and now almost the entire ball of yarn has come unraveled. So, it’s ironic that you say in your post that non-christians need to taste and see if the claims of christianity are true or if they’re fanciful wishes we’ve decided to codify and believe. Until recently, I stood on the same principle, that the bible is reliable and true in every way. Sadly, that’s no longer true for me. You said that “Christianity is the only faith that has any objective evidence to show that it’s clams are not just wishful thinking but something we can…place our hopes in the future in through something called faith”.
    This belief just doesn’t hold water when placed against the overwhelming evidence that shows that the bible is not inerrant and is every bit as humanly inspired as any other piece of literature. I’ll tell you how it all began for me. I was sitting at work, listening to a reformed baptist pastor preach from genesis ch. 11. The preacher read the story on the tower of babel. After he read the passage, it struck me quite unexpectedly, that the whole story sounds like a children’s tale. People build a tower to reach the heavens, God gets angry and causes them to speak different languages and then they scatter across the world. It just struck me, for the first time in my life, how childish that story is. Is this how we are to explain the different languages on earth? Is this how we are to explain how people migrated to different lands? I have a six year old son and the way this story is told is the same way I might explain a difficult concept to him that he may not understand just yet because of his age. So the suspiciousness of this story is what began my investigation into the historicity of, first, the hebrew scriptures and then into the new testament cannon. Like I said, if you pull on one string, the whole ball will come unraveled. So, I have to disagree with the statements of your post. Thusfar, I can’t find any evidence that christianity has objective evidence for its truth claims. I wish there were so I could go back to the faith I once knew. But I can’t and I know that. So my journey continues.

  2. How is christianity the only faith that has any evidence that shows its claims aren’t wishful thinking and that we can place our hopes in it? I am currently going through a period in my life where I am questioning everything I ever believed in as a christian. I’ve only just begun my journey in fact. I grew up in a christian home, accepted jesus as my savior while a teen, rededicated my life to him when I was in my 20s and became a lay youth pastor with a growing ministry. However, I am in a stage right now where I am in doubt of everything I placed my hopes and beliefs in. As a person who has “tasted and seen” how do you explain my situation? The bible has so many errancies and contraditions in it that I simply cannot turn a blind eye to them. You see, I had faith. Until six months ago, I was a conservative baptist who was happy with my christianity. But my faith has waned in the light of so much overwhelming evidence that the bible is not inerrant and is every bit as human as any piece of literature. I can give example upon example of this evidence. But truthfully, I don’t want to ruin any one else’s belief system – even if I no longer believe in it myself. please clairify your statements in your blog entry because I don’t see any evidence that the claims of christianity are true any longer.

  3. I’d like to say that I find your story of de-salvation to be unique but I’ve sadly heard of many such cases and they all seem to stem from some very poor arguments that are somehow still being used by leaders in the church even today. A favorite quote of mine from a notable atheist, Friedrich Nietzsche goes “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” and I think that’s exactly what you’ve run into.

    I address in my latest post the unfortunate state of affairs in most Churches whereby we place more emphasis on individual feelings and faulty philosophies (“of men” even) as a foundation for our faith/trust in Christ rather than the evidence (of which I assure you there is plenty).

    However, before we get to the nuts and bolts of your doubts and questions by addressing specific passages or systems of thought I’d like you to clarify your statement “if you pull on one string, the whole ball will come unraveled”. What specifically has come unraveled for you regarding Christianity?

  4. What I meant by the statement “if you pull on one string, the whole ball will come unraveled” is that if you question or have doubts about one passage in the bible, then you’ll discover many more instances that throw doubt on the reliability and infallibility of it as well. One issue leads to another and so on.

    For instance, YHWH (Lord) and El (God) seem to be two different dieties in the Hebrew Bible. There are two different creation accounts. There are two flood accounts. There are numerous references to mythical creatures, referring to them as if they were real: leviathan in psalms and job; satyr in isaiah; cockatrice in jeremiah; unicorn in isaiah; behemoth in job. There’s the story of the tower of babel and it’s ultra-simplistic explanation on how the different races and languages were created. The story of the Nephilim giants in Genesis seems to be a familiar cultural tale, which can be found in many extra-biblical sources like the Book of enoch and the Book of Jubilees. The strong indication that the writer of Matthew shouldn’t have used Is 7:14 to prove Jesus’ virgin birth. The word normally translated “virgin” in that passage is almah, which means young woman, not virgin. The last twelve verses of Mark was an interpoliation. The probable interpoliation of 1 John 5:7-8, which is used as proof for the trinity.

    I could go on and on. One question leads to another and it snowballs from there. There are too many unanswerable questions, too many passages that don’t make sense anymore for me to believe. I wish it weren’t true, but it is.

  5. Qualifying these questions with their being “unanswerable” kind-of presupposes your original presupposition and negates any evidence or arguments to the contrary.

    Most of your problems, like the mythical being mentioned in the Bible (to which I would also add all the ‘gods’ such as Baal and Asherah) can be cleared up with a proper hermenutic of the text.

    However, the reason I asked about your definition of the unraveling is really to figure out whether you think that there is an objective answer that we can discover or if you’ve resigned to thinking that there are no objective answers which would negate any effort put into answering your questions since your presupposition of there being no answers to your questions would preclude any answer that were given.

    If I’m wrong, and you really do think there are objective answers to the questions you ask I implore you to take a minute and pick the one topic or question you have that is the most crucial.

    The question of inerrancy requires we take a look at each apparent contradiction individually lest we make the logical fallacy that what is true of the whole is true of the parts (which would mean that everything in the Bible were false) and that would turn ancient studies on their head since the Bible has been used as a “gold standard” to ancient writings and is where we get much of our knowledge about ancient practices and offices.

  6. First of all, let me say I’m not here to debate. I certainly am not versed in the methods of apologetics, as you are. I am a very recent de-convert from Christianity, who desperately wishes to be back in the faith.

    However, since you asked, I submit to you a crucial issue in the bible that I have never understood. Why did Jesus not return when he and his followers believed he would? Jesus taught on several occasions that he would return within his followers lifetime. However, that never happened. Even as a believer for over 20 years these passages always bothered me.

    Some of the verses I’m referring to are:

    Mt 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

    Mt 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

    Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.

    Mark 13:24-30 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
    From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

    Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.

    If you read these passages at face value, as I’m sure the first century believers did, then they had every expectation that Jesus would return in their lifetime. I know I would have. I can only suppose that Jesus meant exactly what he said. Nevertheless, it didn’t happen. He didn’t return within a generation after his death. So where does that leave us? Are we left with a divine savior, who is also a false prophet? No matter how hard I try, I can’t explain Jesus’ predictions of his soon return, but having the knowledge that it never happened the way he predicted. Maybe you have an explanation. I don’t.

  7. Debate and argument are how beliefs are primarily formed. If you don’t wish to debate then I’m not sure what we are doing. Since Paul and Peter reasoned and persuaded (Acts 18:4) with both the Jews and Greeks , I think it is more than appropriate to call what we are doing a debate and as long as our goal is the truth, I don’t see why either of us should shrink away from the challenge of rigorously testing the facts and arguments we both have for our positions.

    Having said that, the issue you bring up is a good one and one that is pretty puzzling if our view of “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” is the same as the second coming mentioned in Revelation, Daniel, and the passage in Mark:24-30 wherein Jesus will come and judge the world and make right all that is wrong. Remember, Jesus himself said that he didn’t come the first time in final judgment of the world, but rather to bring the kingdom of God to men (John 3:11-21).

    To understand the meaning of “the kingdom” and what is being talked about in the verses you mentioned we need to first understand why Jesus is said to have had a kingdom and what that kingdom is because we tend to think along with the disciples that “the kingdom” is the same as a “kingdom” we know of here on earth (such as the United Kingdom).

    Jesus is the one who continues the kingdom of David (Luke 1:32-33, Rom. 1:3, Rev. 22:16) which was an extension of the promise of Abraham (Gen 12:2) through with the whole world was to be blessed (Gen 12:3). This kingdom, as Jesus said in John 18:36, is not of this world. Since we are accustomed to “kingdoms” being of this world, how should we think about this kingdom that Jesus is Lord over?

    Jesus gives us several hints in Matthew 13 of what this kingdom is like but many times we forget that the kingdom of heaven was once contained in a garden and characterized by people who walked and talked and enjoyed perfect communuion with God (Gen 3:8).

    Therein lies the heart of why Jesus told his disciples in most of the verses you mentioned that some will not perish before they saw the kingdom of God and the Son of Man (which is a reference to Jesus being the second, and last, Adam) coming in his kingdom. Since only some accepted him as the promised messiah, only some saw him for who he is.

    In Mark 14:58 Jesus also mentiones the “dwelling place” of God (which is synonymous with the kingdom, tabernacle, and arc of the covenant)

    As for your deconversion, I don’t know what to tell you since aside from Jesus there is nothing else which offers (or has reliable credibility of being) hope to us for salvation (Hebrews 10:26, Acts 4:12) since nothing else lines up with reality (the definition of truth) like what we’ve been told according to Scripture.

    BTW: What church were you in for so long before now? I would like to talk with your former pastor and ask him how he managed to fail you for so long to properly teach the truth (sound doctrine). (1 Timothy)

  8. There is some doubt among scholars if Jesus is of the lineage of David. Joseph was a lineage of King David (Matthew & Luke). Since Jesus was supposed to be of a virgin conception, then Jesus is not a blood lineage of Joseph and, therefore, not of King David either.

    Some would say that Mary the mother of Jesus was also a lineage of King David. Was she?

    Three passages are cited in support of the claim that Mary was of Davidic lineage:

    1. “The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it. Of the fruit of thy body will I sit upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne forevermore” (Ps. 132:11, 12).

    2. “He shall be great, and shall be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1: 32).

    3. “Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1: 3).

    The second and third passages do not refer to Mary. The first passage refers neither to Jesus nor Mary. There is no evidence to prove that Mary was descended from David. On the contrary, there is evidence to prove that she was not descended from him.

    1. “The angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city in Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke 1: 27). Joseph, and not Mary, is declared to be of the house of David.

    2. It is stated that Joseph went to Bethlehem “to be taxed with Mary,” not because both of them, but “because he (Joseph) was of the house and lineage of David” (Luke 2: 4, 5).

    3. Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth (Luke 1: 3), and Elizabeth “was of the daughters of Aaron” (1: 5), i.e., descended from Levi, while the house of David was descended from Judah.

    The Luke 3 genealogy never mentions Mary anywhere in it or in the surrounding text.
    There is no scriptural support for the claim that Mary was “of the House of David”.
    There is no genealogy of Mary, or of any woman, identified anywhere in the Bible.
    Even if someone wants to claim that the Luke 3 genealogy is of Mary, kingships and titles were passed exclusively through males and tribal affiliation is assigned by paternal genealogy(Num 1:18), not through maternal genealogy. Therefore, how can Jesus be of the house or kingdom of David?

  9. Following up further on your “kingdom of God” point. That would not apply to two of the examples I gave in Matthew 10:23 and Mark 13:24-30.
    Let’s look at the entire passage in Mt. 10:16-23 in order to get the proper context:
    “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues,and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles.When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour.For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death,and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

    What is Jesus talking about in this passage? He’s talking about persecution that will happen to his followers (the ones that are standing right in front of him as he says these things). He instructs them to flee from one town to the next when they are persecuted. Why? Because they “will have not gone through all the towns of Isreal” before Jesus returns. And the implication is that he will save them from this persecution. Did Jesus return to those followers back in the 1st century while they were enduring persecution? Did he return to them while they were fleeing from town to town in Isreal? No, he did not. Does this make Jesus a false prophet?

    The second example is Mark 13:24-30.
    “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
    From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”

    Jesus clearly states that “after these things take place” during the tribulation that he “will be near, at the very gates”. In the very next verse Jesus states “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”.

    Did those things take place? If Jesus was “at the very gates” during the 1st century, shouldn’t he have come through the gates by now? Shouldn’t he have returned to those first century followers who went through that tribulation? He should have, but he didn’t.

  10. It’s kind-of funny that you mention Mark 13 since that whole chapter is setting up for the following chapters 14-16 which describe the trial, death, and resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus were talking exclusively about his second coming, why would he also state in Mark 13:32-37 that “no one knows the day or the hour” and therefore we should remain watchful; a sentiment echoed throughout Jesus’s ministry when referring to the final judgement.

    Now on to Mary; You rather enjoy arguing from a position of silence (Luke 1: 27, Luke 1: 27) and I even though you are right in that inheritances were passed down through males, I don’t think you understand the importance of Jesus’s favorite title “Son of Man”.

    Way back in Genesis 3, after the fall of Adam and Eve, God makes a promise to the woman in verse 15 that salvation will come from one of her offspring. She inferred (as you apparently do) that all promises are fulfilled completely within the lifetime of the person they were proclaimed to when she exclaimed in the following chapter after Cain was borne “I have aquired a man from the Lord”.

    For centuries, this “promised one” who would fulfill the promise God had given was looked and hoped for until one day Mary conceived a son who was given the throne of David in Luke 1:31-33, named Jesus, and who was later referred to as “the last Adam” in 1 Cor 15:45. Jesus also chides the Pharisees in Mark 12:36 when he asked a question similar to the one you are asking about the Christ (which is a title) being of the lineage of David.

    Jesus used the term “Son of Man” to remind people of the “promised child” they had been looking for ever since leaving the garden. Rev 22:16 tells us that Jesus is the root and the offspring of David, which helps us further understand that the whole purpose behind the “throne of David” is to reveal to us who the “promised child” mentioned in Genesis is.

    The promised child has arrived, and the only thing to look forward to is when he will return and defeat the last enemy, death as per 1 Cor 15. Until then we are told to abide, endure, and fight against the effects of the fall along with everyone since (and including) Adam and Eve.

    I’m curious since you mentioned it in your last posts; Do you think Jesus was merely a prophet, and a false one at that? Since you’ve de-converted, where do you place your hope and trust?

  11. You never addressed my examples in Mark 13 and Matt. 12. Who was Jesus’ audience? What do you think they understood from his speech? I’m trying to get you to realize that they had no concept of him coming in the far future as christians believe now. They had to have, logically, thought he meant exactly what he said: that he will return in their lifetime and within their generation. Isn’t one of the pricipals of hermeneutics to know who the primary audience is? Obviously, Jesus was speaking to a group of 1st century Jews. What should they think when Jesus uses phrases like “this generation will not pass away”. He was talking to them, to the 1st century Jews! Please answer the points I’ve raised. If you disagree, that’s fine. But at least tell me why. If the Jews of Jesus’ day weren’t his audience, then who was? Who was Jesus talking to if he wasn’t actually talking to who was in front of him when he made those speeches?

    You asked where do I place my hope and trust? My hope from what? Hell? Damnation? I don’t understand your point. If I doubt that Jesus is the savior then why do I need saving? Saving from what? From who?

  12. What someone understood (and I would agree that they probably were thinking about the final judgment) and what was intended (from Jesus) aren’t necessarily the same thing and it would take Jesus’s intentions to be false to make him out to be a false prophet. I also don’t think you understand that even though the disciples who heard him say these things before he was crucified probably took him to mean what you are implying, after they saw him resurrected their whole perception changed so that the early Christians most certainly _DIDN’T have a problem with their mortality and the second coming not having occurred yet. One of the rules in good hermeneutics is also taking into account ALL the Biblical evidence and that includes how they viewed Jesus’s teachings AFTER He died and rose from the grave.

    Since we are on the subject of hermeneutics, we must also take a closer look at the passage from Mat 10 you mentioned where Jesus tells his disciples that they won’t have gone through all the cities in Israel before the Son of Man comes. How do you read that talking about the end times when, in the beginning of Mat 10 we see Jesus giving them power to heal the sick and sending them out to preach repentance to anyone who would listen. The verse also continues by telling his disciples how they will be persecuted and that what has been hidden (namely the mystery of salvation and reconciliation with God) will be revealed (through Jesus’s resurrection).

    For another explanation of Mark, let’s consider the greek word used for ‘generation’ used in Mark 13:30 (which should be contrasted with verse 31) which is ‘genea’ (G1074) which is also used to denote an ‘age’ (Eph 3:5) or ‘time’ (Acts 14:16). Specifically its an unspecified period of time. Our english concept of a generation being a certain age group (which does fit under the general scope of the greek word) is really a rather narrow definition of what is being conveyed in this passage. Especially since the very next verse shows us by contrast how Heaven and Earth will pass away (along with the “current” generation of fallen men) but that God’s words won’t.

    When I ask what you put your faith and hope in, even if you believe that there is no God, you are still placing your faith in your ascertion that God doesn’t exist. In other words, you trust that the notion you have that there is no God (of which I’m assuming you believe) is true.

    I know that since you’ve rejected the whole savior, sin, damnation bit you probabally think you have been relieved of those burdons but I wonder if you’ve stopped to think what else you’ve given up by way of any sort of objective moral frame from which to judge good or evil.

    I also wonder if you’ve considered the inherent nihilism in a pointless existance lived out for a brief time which will be completely forgotten once you’ve ceaced to exist (in your view anyway).

    Finally, I wonder if you’ve stopped to lend any sort of thought to the problem of an infinite regress if there isn’t a beginning. And if there is one, but you restrict the possibilities to only purely naturalistic ones (as opposed to supernaturalistic ones such as God) then I wonder if you’ve thought about how nothing could have come to exist out of nothing.

    Faith, hope and trust are required for a LOT more than salvation. By design it is nescicary that we trust and have faith. My only question is what you’ve come up with that accuratly explains reality (the definition of truth again) _better_ than what Jesus and the Scriptures teach.

    They may be simple answers, but sometimes the simple answers are the best, especially when they are logically consistent and don’t create more problems than they supposedly solve.

  13. Gosh, so many questions for me to answer…..

    You said: One of the rules in good hermeneutics is also taking into account ALL the Biblical evidence and that includes how they viewed Jesus’s teachings AFTER He died and rose from the grave.
    My answer: That’s a shaky hermeneutic because one can argue if Jesus rose from the dead. However, it’s much more difficult to argue who the audience is in a passage of text.

    You said: How do you read that talking about the end times when, in the beginning of Mat 10 we see Jesus giving them power to heal the sick and sending them out to preach repentance to anyone who would listen.
    My answer: I never said I read Matt 10 as talking about the end times. I assume Jesus was referring to the Jewish revolt in AD 70. The Jews definitely were under some heavy persecution during that time.

    You said: even if you believe that there is no God, you are still placing your faith in your ascertion that God doesn’t exist. In other words, you trust that the notion you have that there is no God (of which I’m assuming you believe) is true.
    My answer: I do believe in God. It may not be the God of the bible, but I certainly believe there is a sumpreme being and creator that exists. I’m still exploring and working out just what I believe now. After being a christian for so long, one can’t develop a theological belief system overnight. It takes time to wrestle with the deep subjects in life.

    You said: I wonder if you’ve stopped to think what else you’ve given up by way of any sort of objective moral frame from which to judge good or evil.
    My answer: It’s preposterous to say that someone who isn’t a christian has no moral frame. Do you really think someone has to believe in the biblical hell or in damnation in order to keep a solid moral and ethical compass? How do hindus, buddhists, atheists and agnostics keep an objective moral frame? How do they judge good and evil without biblical standards to go by? Most of them, just like most christians, are good, moral, upstanding people who know right from wrong inherently. The world hasn’t been thrown into chaos because these non-christians exist, has it? Of couse not. Thay are simply good, moral people like you and I.

  14. “Do you really think someone has to believe in the biblical hell or in damnation in order to keep a solid moral and ethical compass?”
    Not at all, but without Biblical precepts (or, more generally, an objective moral standard) by which to judge right and wrong, there is no basis for a judgement of whether something is right or wrong/good or evil. In other words, you may get it right, but you don’t have a basis for calling it so (right or wrong, that is).

    “How do hindus, buddhists, atheists and agnostics keep an objective moral frame? How do they judge good and evil without biblical standards to go by? Most of them, just like most christians, are good, moral, upstanding people who know right from wrong inherently.”
    Mostly, yes. Which is what Romans 1 tells us. However most people also _violate_ what they inherently _know_ to be right and wrong.

    “The world hasn’t been thrown into chaos because these non-christians exist, has it? Of couse not.”
    Of course not, the world was thrown into chaos long before non-christians existed. It all started with the first unbelievers, Adam and Eve who didn’t trust God really was perfect and, instead, thought they could do one better.

    “Thay are simply good, moral people like you and I.”
    Then I am simply imagining the policemen, soldiers, and entire legal and judicial system?

    BTW: As you wrestle with creating your own theological system, be careful not to create a system whose theos (god) looks like you. Not saying you intend to, but that has been the case with everyone who has decided to “pick and choose” their beliefs without, instead, basing them on an objective (outside ourselves) standard (such as what has been revealed to us in the Bible).

  15. Thanks for the advice. I’ll try not to invent a God that looks like me. Even though I have a hundred more issues that I want to talk about, I think it’s time to end our discussion. My intent was to have a friendly discussion, not a debate. I’m not a debater and this going back and forth is exhausting me. Plus, I think you’ll have to admit, we haven’t really ended up with any conclusions with one another. The whole thing feels like we’re arguing with each other on a never-ending merry-go-round. Thank you for engaging me on the issues we discussed. Best wishes in the future in all your endeavours. Adieu.

  16. Keep in mind before you go that Paul, Peter, and even Jesus argued and debated but managed to do so in a spirit of love and respect. Thanks for sticking to the issues and not wandering off course like too many other debates I’ve seen.

    Hopefully we’ll get a chance to talk again!

Leave a Reply