Tuesday, February 28, 2006

'Fraid?

Why did I never hear of believers deconverting because of reasonable arguments? I am not strong into “conspiracy theories” and it seems over dramatic to speak of a conspiracy of silence, yet it is not discussed in a church setting.

Perhaps, simply because it happened to me, I am now more attuned to it, but it is not any more prevalent. Like when you find a certain colored car, but once you see one, you seem to find them everywhere. I know I have never met a deconvert in person, nor had I ever heard of one before me, so I figured it was rare.

I hadn’t really thought about it much. Having been on varying forums, I have met others that have deconverted, but I figured “birds of a feather” were just flocking together. We were oddities, sprinkled about the world, but not in real numbers.

Now I am out in blog-world, and I keep running across blogs of people that deconvert. Sure, it is what I am interested in, but I see more and more and more.

And I recall (at the time I thought nothing of it) that in conversations with leaders of churches, more than once it was mentioned that they had “friends” that had become atheists. I thought (like I would as a Christian) it was back-sliding, hard-drinking, sexual deviants that despised the moral requirements of Christianity.

Now I am not so sure…

Is it becoming more common? Is the internet allowing people to interact with others of different beliefs, causing us to question, in ‘net-universe, what we never interact with in life? My family is Christian. My friends are Christian. My social life was geared around a Church. In my work life, religion is never discussed. The only conversations I ever had about beliefs were with those that believe just like me.

And now I see that my friends and family would prefer to not discuss deconversion. Or what I learned. Or what I have argued, studied, investigated, and pursued. Is it that this is happening, and the Christians don’t want to talk about it? Has it become a forbidden topic?

And a nagging thought keeps pressing my brain. Why are theists not interested in acquiring knowledge? This is the belief system they are betting their entire life (and after life) on. I would think they couldn’t get enough. The nagging thought intensifies to a growing concern—is it fear of knowledge?

Learning One universal statement that is replete throughout every deconversion story I have read, is that it came from a desire to learn more. It is commonly stated that a person encounters a particular problem, and begins to investigate it. Traditionally, this leads to further difficulties, further investigation and eventually a full blown study of the very basic tenets of the belief.

For me, it started simply enough with some questions about how atheists could possibly have morality. Then to questions on the canon of the Bible, inspiration, and various troubling verses. At each turn, I was looking up articles on-line, buying and borrowing books, reviewing debates, reading debates, lurking, and thinking. I would read the Bible, pray, and wrestle with the concepts that were presented.

But I never stopped, to this day, learning.

Willingness to Learn At one point, I decided to abandon my entire study, as it was causing difficulty in my faith. It lasted for about a day. If there was a god, and it had given me a brain, and my brain was full of questions, why should I avoid them? Wasn’t I to use my intellect to research the questions on god(s) to determine the appropriateness of each belief?

I do not see a willingness to learn in many theists. Oh, they like to hear the general idea of the other side—but to study it? Understand it? Know it so well, they could actually, if called to, be able to argue the position? No thank you. This requires work, dedication, and more study than the Christian wants.

Besides, the Christian already knows they are right, why bother? It would be a waste of time. Yet I can’t help wondering—if it is such a waste of time, why be afraid? Put the skeptic’s criticisms to rest. Understand it, learn it, and then explain, using God-tapped power, how it is wrong. Or is it that there is just a twinge of fear that the Christian would be unable to do so? Even after requesting God’s help?

It is so freeing to be unattached to a particular dogma or doctrine! No, not in the ability to go out and rob a bank, but in the ability to review a particular statement or claim, and have the freedom to review every possible angle, without necessary adherence to one view. Studying the Bible is actually fun, when not caged in doctrine. Is it an interpolation? Redaction? Original to the author? Is it a story, a history, a polemic? What are the possible Greek/Hebrew interpretations or translations? When was it written, by whom and to whom?

No longer must the Gospels recount an actual historical Jesus. It is possible that some, or even all of it is myth. While I do not hold to a complete mythical Jesus, the possibility remains, as further study continues.

That is what I am talking about, in terms of a willingness to learn. A willingness to even abandon what I held true yesterday, upon learning new information today.

It is at this point, I find many Christians shut down. Run away. While they are willing to review the possibility of a slight modification upon overwhelming evidence, the idea of review basic beliefs is so foreign, they will not take the first step on the path.

Misrepresentation of opposing views. This one surprised me. I see more and more apologetic books hitting the market, in an almost frenzied attempt to rationalize the validity of a belief based on faith. (Think about it.)

But what surprises me is the lack of honest inquiry. Rather than say, “Look, there are two sides to this issue” and fairly present both sides, with an argument as to why the author’s position is the better, I see, “There is the other side” which is then misrepresented.

“Evolution is just a theory.” No, that is a deliberate confusion of the word, “theory” as commonly used, as compared to how science uses it. “There are no absolutes” is confusion between a moral absolute and a logical absolute. “Atheists have just as much faith by sitting in a chair” a confusion between “faith in the unknown” and “trust based upon repeated experimentation.”

Over and over, I see apologetic books misrepresent the position of the opposing side, and then perform a beautiful job of destroying this false argument. Commonly called a “strawman.” If a God is based upon truth, what possible harm could come from fairly and adequately presenting BOTH sides, and then letting the truth shine out?

Almost every single deconvert (including me) has been informed at least once, “Have you read ____?” in the hope that one book would turn around a year of study. And if we dare reply, “No, but I will read it, if you read ____” we get rejected more times than not. We are to read Christian apologetics, but no Christian dares read skeptical books. They are forbidden.

Look, if you want to read what evidence a skeptic bases their claim upon—read the skeptic! Don’t read the theist that claims what the skeptic says—go to the source. It is very damning to say, “Skeptics once believed the Bible was not true because it mentioned Hittites,” when the research reveals the inaccuracy of this statement. Hard to re-establish credibility.

But as I have said before, one has to choose. If all you want to do is bolster the claim in the Sunday School class, go right ahead! Read only Christian apologetics. Make such statements. No one will call you on it. No one will research it. No one will investigate.

They are too afraid, I think.

12 comments:

  1. Is it fear of knowledge? I don't really think so because they (some) believe they have the knowledge, based on the Bible, the Word of God, who is the source of all knowledge. Even if they don't know, there is often not a need to know because "God knows & that is enough for me."

    I think in the case of fundamentalistic Christianity & possibly other Christian sects, it's a fear of losing one's salvation.

    If upon investigation they find, things are not as they seem & never were, what do they do with that information?...it threatens everything they have ever believed about God, His purposes for humanity, the need for the atoning death of His Son etc. If no salvation...then what? I think the possibilities left to them are overwhelming. "My God, then what?...no God?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dagoods,

    I've been a Christian for a long time, and I've heard of lots of people deconverting because of reasonable arguments. I don't know why you were oblivious to it when you were a Christian. Maybe you were more of a sheltered Christian than I am. I can't help getting the feeling from this post that you're really targetting the past you more than Christians in general. You assume other Christians are afraid of knowledge, but then you basically admit that you were afraid of knowledge. Could it be that you're projecting?

    One of the reasons you think Christians are afraid of knowledge is because they don't inform themselves enough of the opposition. Personally, I have noticed no difference between Christians and non-Christians on this issue or between theists and atheists. There are people on both sides who are quite informed of their opposition. There are people on both sides who misrepresent the opposing side. And there are people on both sides who fail to inform themselves of the opposing side. If the mere observation that somebody doesn't inform themselves of the opposing side is enough to assume fear as the motive, does that also work for atheists who fail to inform themselves?

    The primary reason people don't acquire knowledge, I think, is because they're lazy. I have noticed that most Christians aren't even all that interested in acquiring knowledge that supports their beliefs. It certainly isn't out of fear. If a person is so lazy or uninterested in educating themselves on subjects that would tend to support their beliefs, why would they exert the mental energy on things that would be against their beliefs? That would require even more mental energy.

    It think it is perfectly understandable that a person knows more about their own position than they know about somebody else's. If it's your own position, you should know more about it than other positions.

    Sam

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sam said: "The primary reason people don't acquire knowledge, I think, is because they're lazy. I have noticed that most Christians aren't even all that interested in acquiring knowledge that supports their beliefs. It certainly isn't out of fear. If a person is so lazy or uninterested in educating themselves on subjects that would tend to support their beliefs, why would they exert the mental energy on things that would be against their beliefs? That would require even more mental energy."

    Sam I got to thinking on a different rabbit trail here that maybe the reasons we "believe" in the first place comes from laziness too.

    Let me try to explain...emphasis on "try." I don't mean to imply purposeful/conscious laziness...but maybe an unconscious laziness.

    For some who come to Christ, perhaps there has been an intellectual search that led to conversion, like McDowell or Hugh Ross?

    But, in my experience, the majority of Christians were born into the faith & many became born-again as children & teens. I don't recall when being evangelized ever taking the time to examine what I was being told. It just wasn't done. You heard, you followed & you believed.

    Why would you study to hold up your belief, you believed in the first place without the study. Anyone see my point?

    Later as an adult who was the one in leadership & training the young, I studied Christian apologetics until they were coming out my ears. Actually, that's how I finally started to "really" question...because various Christian apologetics only agreed on the broader sense in "God" but after that they varied in their own interpretations, their own denominations, their own theologies.

    Now perhaps it is true & atheists as a rule are unconsciously lazy too in not considering information outside their own box. So far, those who I have met & read know more about the Bible then most of the Christians I know.

    Bunny stops now to consider another rabbit trail.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zoe, dare I disagree with you? :)

    I was born, bred and raised Calvinist. After a certain age I think it become forbidden to question one’s salvation. Nobody does, at least not out loud. I know, after a few “where’s mom, did the rapture hit?” moments when I was young, I never did. I was predestined, perfected, pompous and pleased.

    Even going through my deconversion, Hell was a pretty scary concept, but didn’t ever cause me to hesitate. It was kinda an “all-or-nothing” prospect, and I knew it. If theism somehow managed to maintain a hold, I would not have to worry about going to “the bad place.”

    I guess, a great deal of what I said comes from what others have told me. Outright that they refuse to read my e-mails, refuse to read my letters, refuse to read books, but then are more than willing to share the same. A one-way street.

    You may be right, at the heart of the fear of knowledge, is the fear of knowing. And the possibility that one “guessed wrong” on the knowing is so terrifying that they do not want to even venture down that path.

    My experience, like yours, is that most were born into Christianity. If not actual, but also by locale. If one is going to have a “salvific” moment in America, 9 times out of 10, there is a local Christian church nearby in which to have one! We heard, followed and believed, too.

    Besides, those telling us believed it, they were looking out for our well-being, why shouldn’t we believe it? Like having your own doctor prescribe a medicine. You presume they are looking out for your best interest.

    Funny that I, too, read Christian apologetics, and bought into it deeper, not found my way out. Always said you were brighter than I!

    So far, those who I have met & read know more about the Bible then most of the Christians I know. Well, that Vorkosigan blows the bell curve!

    ReplyDelete
  5. ephphatha, I am sure I was sheltered. No question about it. But I also attended a variety of churches, with 1000’s in memberships and never heard a peep about “Bob deconverted and these are the reasons why.” Very hush-hush.

    Am I projecting? I don’t recall being afraid of knowledge. Never really thought to seek it out, frankly. Once I did, I never looked back. Hard to read my own motivations, of course. But my history would tell me I tended to LOVE knowledge, not fear it.

    One of the reasons you think Christians are afraid of knowledge is because they don't inform themselves enough of the opposition. Personally, I have noticed no difference between Christians and non-Christians on this issue or between theists and atheists. Do you know how many people that I know are atheists in real life? None. Zip. So all I can talk about, with any degree of expertise, are those on-line. And in the circles I tend to travel (iidb.org) atheists far and away outstrip most Christians as to the knowledge of the opposition.

    Now I also have found most Christians on-line are steps above those I know in real life. Part of even interacting with me shows a taste to debating and learning the opposition.

    I guess, as I said, I get this from what they told me. They don’t want to know. Not from any “gut-feeling” as to the why.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, I don't see any disagreement, do you? (Be very careful, I'm hormonal.) *Big plastered on I dare you grin.* ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Am I projecting? I don’t recall being afraid of knowledge. Never really thought to seek it out, frankly. Once I did, I never looked back.

    Of course you did. Read your own post. You said, "At one point, I decided to abandon my entire study, as it was causing difficulty in my faith." Curiosity drove you, but obviously not without hesitation. You certainly did look back, even if only for a day.

    And in the circles I tend to travel (iidb.org) atheists far and away outstrip most Christians as to the knowledge of the opposition.

    This is quite irrelevent to the point I made. I made no statement whatsoever about the degree to which either side was informed or misinformed about the opposition. I only take issue with your imbalance and your bad habit of overgeneralizations--specifically with silly statements like, "no Christian dares read skeptical books. They are forbidden." There's no acknowledgement in your post of exceptions on the part of Christians or similar fault on the part of non-Christians. The closest you come to it is when you say "many Christians..." instead of "Christians" or "all Christians."

    ReplyDelete
  8. ephphatha, I’ll let you in on a little secret. I remember one specific day, because of one specific event, but throughout the course of my journey, there were numerous occasions where, for a moment, I would resolve to abandon all searching and rely solely on faith. It is the process of learning—with fits and starts.

    If you want to consider that the equivalent of “don’t ever talk to me again on this issue” I can’t help it.

    I only take issue with your imbalance and your bad habit of overgeneralizations--specifically with silly statements like, "no Christian dares read skeptical books. They are forbidden."

    Yeah, I over generalize. That’s why we get these wonderful comment sections to allow others the opportunity to point it out. Unfortunately, there are so many varying brands of theists, that if I started to carve out every exception, I wouldn’t say anything.

    If I could find a balance, where I see numerous books written by atheists that misquote Christians, or atheists that didn’t know the argument of Christians, then I would agree. All I can do, ephphatha (like all of us) is write from my experience. If it disagrees with yours, feel free to point it out. And what I see is imbalance. That’s why I blogged it. I think degree is important. I think viewing both camps and comparing can be done.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you want to consider that the equivalent of “don’t ever talk to me again on this issue” I can’t help it.

    I never said that or even implied it, Dagoods. Of course, as you well know, it's easier to beat up a straw man than to address the real issue, isn't it? My real point, which you ever so cryptically have conceded, is that in spite of your assertion that "you never looked back," in fact, you did look back. And this speaks to the possibility that you might be projecting. You accuse Christians of fearing and avoiding knowledge, but you clearly did the same thing.

    Unfortunately, there are so many varying brands of theists, that if I started to carve out every exception, I wouldn’t say anything.

    Oh, your task wasn't near as daunting as that. There's only one exception to "Christians who avoid knowledge out of fear," and that's "Christians who do not avoid knowledge out of fear."

    That’s why I blogged it. I think degree is important. I think viewing both camps and comparing can be done.

    I doubt that it came be done. Considering the vast literature between theist and atheist intellectuals, I don't see how it's possible for anybody to take a representative sample that would justify coming to any solid conclusions. Do you realize how much reading and studying that would require? But good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Believe it or not, ephphatha, all of my statements are not about you. I know that comes as a surprise. When I said, “don’t ever talk to me on this issue again,” I was referring to what my friends and family told me. Not what you ever said. (Since you never said it! :) )

    I had moments were I considered dropping my research, yes. But never I did I turn my back. Well, at least not for more than a day.

    Fine, if it makes your evening, say I am projecting. Think about it. I am “projecting” because at least one Christian (me) was afraid of knowledge. That’s your point, correct? If one is, it is certainly conceivable there would be more than one. Which means there ARE Christians that are afraid of knowledge.

    How would I find these Christians? Would they be the kind that avoid talking to people like me? I sure think so.

    Thus making my point. Thank you. Not sure how that helped ya, but whatever makes you happy, eh?

    Ah. You think I meant EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE avoids knowledge out of fear. Naw. I wonder why they do? I think some, and some of the reasons for others is that they do. It’s why I put it in questions.

    Just my observations, ephphatha. You don’t have to accept my words as inspired. *Wink*

    If I need to exempt some Christians for this, it would only be “balanced” for me to exempt Christians on other things, true? And, having debated with liberal Christians for a bit, and deists, and agnostics, and pantheists, and universalists, and liberal theists, it is too much. I can’t cover them all.

    Why are you avoiding degree? Are you saying that if one atheist on one occasion avoids knowledge, this is the same as 1000’s of Christians avoiding it all the time? (Note: That is hyperbole.) Degree IS important. And we can observe. You may choose to not, that’s cool.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Believe it or not, ephphatha, all of my statements are not about you. I know that comes as a surprise.

    Dagoods, be honest with me about something. Why is it that in almost everything you write, you litter them with all these little assumptions about other people? I know that ad hominem, poisoning the well, assuming facts not in evidence, red herrings, and a variety of fallacies are quite effective when used in front of a jury of ordinary people. But you must realize that people who are drawn to web pages like yours and the ones you frequent are usually a little more intelligent than average. These habits of yours are only annoying little asides we have to overlook to try to get to the root of your argument, but they are quite ineffective.

    Fine, if it makes your evening, say I am projecting.

    Oh, I'm not as confident as you when psychoanalyzing people I don't know. I would never firmly say that you are projecting. I only raise the possibility for your consideration.

    Why are you avoiding degree?

    We've discussed this already. First, because it's irrelevent to the topic. Second, because I think it's unrealistic. Imagine if both of us had both the time and the inclination to prove that our side did it less than the other side. You'd find about 50 examples of Christians misrepresenting non-Christians. Then I'd think, "Oh crap. Now I've got to find 60 non-Christians who have misrepresented Christians." Then you'd say, "Oh, nasty unscrupulous ephphatha! Now I've got to find 20 more so I can top him by 10." Back and forth it would go. And unless we exhausted the literature (which hardly seems possible), we could never arrive at any definitive conclusions. The winner would be the one with more time and inclination on his hands. But even if we could exhaust the literature, it would never be enough to tally numbers. We have to further debate whether each example is a legitimate case of misrepresentations. You see it all the time. Jim says, "Bob, you're misrepresenting what our group says." Bob says, "Jim, I quoted your own documents. I haven't misrepresented you." Do you see how fruitless it would be for you and I to debate degree?

    Are you saying that if one atheist on one occasion avoids knowledge, this is the same as 1000’s of Christians avoiding it all the time?

    Not at all. I am saying that your post gives the impression that dishonest misrepresentation is a problem peculiar to Christians. You've conceded that it's not, so I'm happy. :-)

    As a final thought, though, I want to relate to you my own personal experience. After that, I'll drop the subject.

    I've been interested in debate for a while now. I've read and listened to debates in a number of forums on a number of topics both relating to and not relating to religion. One common theme I see in all of them regardless of the issue or the participants is the accusation of misrepresentation. It flies in all directions. It's not just in debates either. It's whenever one person critiques another person's book, article, or speech. It is almost inevitable that at some point, the one being critiqued will accuse his critic of misrepresentation even if on some small point.

    This shouldn't surprised us. For every philosopher who had managed to become a classic, there are scholars surrounding that philospher who disagree with each other about what the philosopher was saying. For example, there's debate about whether Nietzsche was a nihilist or not. They can't all be right, so obviously, some of them are misunderstanding or misrepresenting Nietzsche.

    There have been times when I've been misrepresented. I remember debating with this one guy on homosexual marriage where he continually misrepresented me. I didn't accuse him of misrepresentation, though. At the time, I thought he was just having a hard time understanding what I was saying. I assumed I wasn't being clear or he just wasn't reading carefully. But since then, I'm inclined to think his misrepresentation was intentional. He was a smart (and rather smug) guy, and my arguments were pretty clear. There was no excuse for him. But do you know what his reaction was to me saying he misunderstood me? This is hilarious! He accused me of dishonesty! He thought I was playing some kind of game and only pretending to be misunderstood because I just couldn't handle his awesomely powerful refutations. Ironically, I now suspect dishonesty on his part, because I think my argument was pretty air tight, and given his smug and arrogant attitude, I suspect his pride would not allow him to admit defeat. The strawman allowed him to save face. I wanted to post a link to that debate in here so you could see it for yourself, but I can't find it. It's on Beliefnet in the Unitarian Universalist challenge and critique section, and it's called "A fundie on homosexuality."

    Since I'm always the one arguing on the Christian side, it's only natural that I notice more misrepresentation on the part of non-Christians than on the part of Christians. I wrote a blog a while back about some of the most common misrepresentations I hear titled "When arguments go awry." But even in that post, I didn't attribute the sinister motives you attribute to Christians. I characterized these misrepresentations as "misunderstandings" and left it a mystery as to their cause.

    These accusations seem perfectly pointless to me. They serve no purpose. We all ought to take it upon ourselves to be as clear as we can when articulating our views and willing to correct with gentleness and patience when we're misunderstood or misrepresented. We should also try our darndest to understand any position we're criticizing before we criticize it. As the proverb says, "He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him" (Proverbs 18:13). Then we should leave it at that. What more can we do?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why is it that in almost everything you write, you litter them with all these little assumptions about other people? I know that ad hominem, poisoning the well, assuming facts not in evidence, red herrings, and a variety of fallacies…

    Just my way of amusing myself, I guess. When you said, “I never said that..” I guessed you meant, well, that you never said that. I could have responded, “I never said you said that…” and, if you have been in the forums, you know how boring that can get. I just tried to make a funny (often amusing only myself, I am sure) rather than that tired charade.

    I, too, am aware that others may not be thinking like I am, or I may be wandering off into a tangent (I am human, see) so I may not have been as clear as I should have been.

    To be honest, back at ya, you seem very ready and willing to disagree with EVERYTHING I say, regardless of whether it helps or hurts your position. Like saying I was afraid of knowledge, supports the very contention I was making in my original blog—that Christians may avoid knowledge out of fear. See how you were so willing to disagree with me, yet proved my point?

    …are quite effective when used in front of a jury of ordinary people. But you must realize that people who are drawn to web pages like yours and the ones you frequent are usually a little more intelligent than average.

    Are you saying jurors are stupid? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Do you realize how many millions of people you just insulted? Although one person (me) is a rotten sampling, in my opinion, I see about the same levels of intelligence in a bar, a boardroom, forums and juries. I would agree that theists that actively engage with atheists, as a general rule, are a cut above most Christians as to knowledge about theism, but I already said that. More intelligent overall? Jury is still out on that. (See—that’s one of those things that would only amuse myself.)

    As to degree, I thought you “took issue” with my imbalance? If you read my original blog, I was talking about apologetic books. You broadened this out to every debate, every statement, every book ever written on the topic of philosophy, religion or science. On your blog, I gave you numerous sites, with dozens of quotes of Christians that misquote (not misrepresent, not misunderstand, out-right misquote to make a point). The only one I could find in the reverse, was a scientist CORRECTING a misquote on P. Johnson.

    While we are being honest, it appears to me that my “imbalance” is quite sound. It appears to me that you feel as long as I acknowledge “one,” than if you 1000 on your side, it is still balanced. I don’t. We disagree.

    Then you'd say, "Oh, nasty unscrupulous ephphatha!…

    Who exactly is making assumptions or ad homs? I noticed on your blog you directly implied I would call Christians “scum.” I wouldn’t. Why would I call you “nasty” or “unscrupulous”? Why are you doing that which you accuse me of? Are you, perhaps, projecting? (Another amusement for me. See?)

    Do you see how fruitless it would be for you and I to debate degree?

    Well, I do kinda see how it would be fruitless for you. Since it seems to be so imbalanced in my favor. I pointed out numerous sites. I can start dragging out books (although I borrowed Johnson and Strobel, and no longer have my McDowell) and showing the misquotes and misrepresentations. Would you like to do the same with atheist books? That misquote the opposition?

    All I talked about were apologetic books. You want to bring in the entire universe, say it is impossible and wash your hands of the affair. (Whoops. Should have started that out with “It appears…” Another amusement.)

    Sorry about your debate. Yes, atheists can be just as bad. As authors, I haven’t seen it (feel free to show me). But out on the forums, we all have seen this. Shows we are all human. Believe it or not, ephphatha, I don’t try and misrepresent you. I may question, or poke, to see where the holes are or where you are coming from, but I am completely convinced of your sincerity. I am certain that you believe what you argue.

    Thanks for the link on “When arguments go awry.” Read it. (O.K., I can’t help myself! How did the disciples die, when, and was it martyrdom? Good study. I don’t respond to “die for a lie.” I ask the Christian to show me how they died, and if they had an opportunity to recant. Otherwise, the argument is useless.)

    If Christian apologetic books are misquoting (deliberate or otherwise) or misrepresenting, it is most certain NOT useless. Re-read my blog. That is EXACTLY why I beg the Christian to go read it for themselves.

    ReplyDelete