Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network.

Why is why you have questions about Bible doctrine why Rimes is called responding to your questions and libeled and have a good time today is June 6 22 wherefore the logical argument. Call 877-207-2276 and if you're new to the show. Christian apologetics show what we do so discussed what the Bible secular things as well because it was touch on important topics within the Christian faith go live Charlie Mr. that's all right we got that going down to watch the show, you go to Carn.org/CRM.org on the homepage there. You can you can just on the right-hand side to see Mike my face. You can go click on stuff and see where everything has been all the links affected watch me sit here big deal, but people like to watch sometimes give you a heads up on that.

All right, so why don't we just jump right on the calls… Get some after Wisconsin met that you call back.

Yes I do. I so your memory of the got a call last week about God. Deuteronomy 22 zero and so you know your your current call back and I had originally planned on calling back to you further discuss that chapter not affected. But over the weekend, I started thinking and there was something else that came on that I thought of that. I kind of wanted to talk about instead. So I'd rather go back directions at the right so this talk about it.

There's the kind of this whole big picture. There's the three facets to it or three and I know the question that I'm to ask, you're probably going to want to have to be like you know whether or not I have a moral basis for this or what basis the judge that and I'm going to talk about that but I just kinda wanted to get into the over narrative.

I guess before… Question so I was wondering if you if you could reserve ethnic question until like coverall report that's on objects told how it goes because I generally don't like people to beautify too much stuff that response is on and on and on platform to speak against our Lord just depends very, so the first thing I wanted to get to the other like three-part. The first part involves a question with the story of Samson and so you know that story because you're like cut off his hair and his strength was weekend, and they thought that I and they had imprisoned and then you know he went to that Philistine Palliser tumbler for whatever life and there were 3 x 3000 Philistine standing on the man so Samson grants there and he was able to his hair grow back and he was able to get his strength back and he's pushed on the pillars and effect but self and social scene died in the process and yet so I need to need the idea of somebody here being nursery strength to control the length of their hair seems kind of silly, and then the fact that you know the Philistine yet, but the Philistines they knew his hair was a strength was the source of the strength yet when he was in prison didn't cut his hair because I just think like locking and then the fact that 3000 people could stand on a roof that was supported by two pillars and a theme 7017 to really make sense to me but all all all that, but this does this look at it okay yeah you raised objections and three things so he's a Nazirite which means not to cut his hair a certain law. Laws and requirements that work demonstrations of their sanctification before God and to to look at that here was a violation of a Nazirite vow. So this is why so God had called him to be what he was and said don't cut your hair as part of the Nazirite about when he did that. Okay then it was broken so as not resting his hair. It's has to do with the covenant and the Nazirite vow system okay was everything sold.

That's that's that's what's everything you were three things will tackle this 2000 people label. Mobile though things were just like that wasn't part of the overarching thing I thought about those are just like little tidbit but I kind of took issue with like nice that you don't don't don't raise him up. If you talk about okay so you will decide you raised. I don't forget the second one that the second the second thing I said about how you know the Philistines knew that you know they said that you know they cut his hair and you want to string but his hair when his hair grew back his strength return. You'd think they'd be smart enough to realize that, you know, maybe they should take a few minutes every once in while the got a tear slipped strength of a comeback think so easily ask you, why is it is as simple as that. You gotta be careful, so to speak. You're sitting in a lounge chair. You know you got a drink in your hand and you looking back at Scripture, nature, culture, and you're judging it so is it is it like that because you know if he's defeated and he's enslaved and imprisoned situation and they are at comfort in their resting. They don't believe in, and his his idiocy and stuff like that. Okay.

And it grows somewhat and therefore surprised he wavers legitimacy to it in a letter to like it is perfectly consistent with what happens with people for real in a behavior inconsistent.

He called Delilah that his strength came from his hair and then she told the bill and then they got it hair and then imprisoned them and they had imprisoned you think they would've you know like maybe week, maybe we should cut his hair just, you know, I just kind of seems like you got all the Philistines you thought one of them should've taken a moment to do that but they didn't which is no plot convenient. I got me the maybe one is or two or three or 20 didn't maybe the people in the official says not to worry about it. You don't know you don't know you can sit here in your lounge chair so to speak and to start judging you can say I thought maybe they thought it might've done that long and maybe there was other conditions to the just want recorded mentioned it's not a very good criticism now about the pillars it says Samson grasped the two middle pillars on which the house rest did say there were only two of the fact that that two pillars can bring on a building that can support 3000 people on a group. I know that Hannah had looked far-fetched to be mechanical to think of something I didn't do a mechanical design and course I had the advantage of foster support of a structural engineer was a mechanical draftsman and I could work with welds and bolts, stresses and things like that. So there's one part of it were to fall apart, it would not jeopardize the structure of the whole.

That's not stone and wood in an ancient culture where they would have vertical things necessarily trellises and things like that and they could have two humongous pillars that were of them. The middle on display where he was put on display there with representations of the power of that whole thing and then just to chronicle one area that could cause a cascading effect and I have noticed that is possible. So it is small, yet they are uniquely more substantial.

If you want to find something wrong.

The Bible you need something better than that. That's so far it kinda swing it in little things that weren't really part of the big picture, but getting something big okay so the first think of it that there were three big parts of the thing I want to talk about the first thing with the question I want to ask you was you personally do you think that what Samson did their was good you think that his action there was justified, and if so, could you explain your reasoning. Thus, the why she hears a thing allotted space is trying to say Matt what your personal opinion then they try set the personal opinion against Scripture and the Knicks trying create a problem when I can tell you is this, that God allowed what you allowed to happen for you to say was it good doesn't mean you have a describe what goodness is about which you can then justify a standard of goodness in which you can even ask the question you say is a good eye because Québec is a first define what goodness they will answer it because you're presupposing a certain value in it. You have a define what the value is in the finance record to an undefined value then you try and use it against me is a technique that the atheists often do so. My response generally is okay, first of all, before I can answer the question you thing to find what goodness sake. Is it good, I'll tell you what good is first before we know we have a standard so what's good for the whole morality question from a different point gossip later but I get design would give your brain a thought.

Now you okay I I know you had a debate with Scott Clifton for correct baseless people that I believe today with a gentleman by the name Scott Clifton and he was able to key was able to come up with I think is quite a good definition of morality that is in you know, contingent on any kind of religion, which is definition definition is not something that made him like with both morality and immorality that a particular action is moral or right if it somehow increases happiness, health and well-being and poorly on how minimize the minimize this unnecessary pain harm and suffering are both in a particular action is immoral if it somehow decreases having a felt well-being and somehow increases on the hard stuff in your pain at the thought that you know is horrible to have to Help and I think that you know happiness, health, well-being, pain and suffering. These are things that we can show actually think that you know we all experience pain and suffering.

We all experience help joining.

These are things that are just, you know, you know, subject to got a gang that action dictate. They are there things that actually happened because he what it really boils down to is Mark because you know, if you look through history and you will personal life and can you look throughout society. What with what we concede is that decreasing harm increases the quality of life and is better for society and that increase will hold on hold on him like an older I've heard this effort is a thousand times, so it it so what you're saying is what reduces harm as good. In a nutshell right now. I know I know that there are like no certain can you just did make it where when you hung a letter and on hold on hold on is my show, not yours. You are right you what you're saying is what reduces harm is good is a nutshell version right right you yeah and so what is good is what reduces harm itself. What's what reduces harm, and what's good is what reduces harm so it's completely circular is meaningless.

It's it's a meaningless statement.

I was learning because it defines itself by its own definition, that which reduces harm as good and good is what reduces harm hold on the right. That definitely had the title devotion right back after these messages, you know, I fell right back at mass Y call 770776 pairs nicely artist Québec on with Mattie Stiller and Matt right so before the break, to define something by its term and the term is its own definition safe. But what reduces harm is good and what is good is what reduces harm is completely circular and non-definitive.

It's useless. You have to mow something other than go itself at me to tell you it's useless. Furthermore, saying that reducing harm is what is the standard of goodness.

Well then you have to be able to establish that that is the universally valid position hold that I don't agree with you, for you to say that's what reduces harm as good will then let us work with, so reducing harm is good also.

Then what you said on ask this question so someone lies to reduce harm is that lie morally good. Yet okay so then I could.

This is a lack of alien hold on, that the hold on so then I would expect you to lie to me in our conversation here so that you can theoretically reduce harm by not promoting Christianity which you think is bad so that you should be lying. In our conversation, shouldn't you know I've said that there are significant is that, of course, you could debate now is unity, good wine mission. I don't description to get do I think are good you Europe you might direct my thing.

Is Christianity good. I'm asking you. It can provide benefits, but overall I do not think it good okay so you think is bad so then it works with, therefore, is harmful. So then right now you should be lying to me to reduce the effect of Christianity's desk because you said, lying on to reduce harm is morally good so you want to reduce the harm to Christianity. Shouldn't you then be lying right now to be consistent with your assertion out because living there and still is your assertion. If you then your invasive your I hold. I figure in Connecticut on hold on your inconsistent you say no, you shouldn't lie only ask you why shouldn't you live in the situation where you said Christianity is causes harm and lying to reduce harm is good. So why is it you should not lie to me right now in our conversation nor to reduce harm wiring in this specific infant is not going to do good by different lot like well I might not when we quickly like light hold in this specific instance. So can you give me an instance on radio where lying would be the right thing for you to do about Christianity on radio. I can't think of something that necessarily have that effect, but soon infant David like what they look like they left they can likely fire in which it might get a little bit singed here. This is why you trek over speak what now you are sometimes trying something else. If you say that an action is good ontologically same. An action is good. Action is good or bad. That's a problem because morality is not an action when values of attitude. It's an abstract entity. It's a concept that occurs in the mind around his experience but nevertheless to say that an action is good as the state is a necessary moral quality to an an action and that's the that's the case then at the same action occurs in different places at different times and it obtains a transcendent, immutable quality right I get okay so then how do you was an atheist, defend the idea of universal moral absolutes which require mines bad something I like. Are you not I'm not saying I'm the smartest guy in the world of the big loss so that the mere thought about things that I got you, you been doing this for a long time so you can you know a lot more than idea is how I got clinically. It's how I'm quickly able to get to the heart of the issue and undermine your position with simple logic using what you say and what logic requires. If you say an action is moral in particular action is moral action then what you're saying is the action itself has a moral quality quality assigned to it or part that is in its physical action, a rock rolling down a hill is a physical action of one man slapping another man's a physical action slips use the idea of a slap that you think under the direct current conditions of slap would be moral or immoral, just the action, will, and that means that when the exact same action occurs, someplace else.

It has a moral value what you're saying is it's now transcendent.

See the problem is more don't exist under rocks. They exist in the heart and the mind, but you're saying there's a universal moral quality to an action because this transcendent goodwill exact same action occurs elsewhere.

It has a moral value, but you can't have that in your atheistic worldview. It refutes itself.

Your position makes no sense in front help you and I get to the other point to get triggered by God but given out a jump of higher now because of that I could her legs off is to be harder to reach the higher levels of argumentation. But go ahead, try though the first question of the big three that I had wide wide you note from your Christian perspective.

From your perspective you think you personally think that what in big bear look good you think that it action meritless… Just fine. Good.

I'm asking you good this time that he was like we were on the character of God is what good. It's a universal quality that emanates out of God and is reflected in certain circumstances. So when people do things that God uses. It doesn't mean the action itself is in concert with his holiness.

But God can certainly use bad things non-good things for a greater good. So there you go, though you think that what he did there were good into I didn't say good and justify. Did I not listening not only tell you I do a lot of discussions with atheists and I'm not try to be insulting her okay but I'm telling you that a lot of times atheists just display a lack of of critical thought seat you miss read what I said to be very specific as it God's goodness is what corresponds to the character of God, but God can use an action that someone does.

That may not be good and he can use it for a greater good x-ray center. Kind of like how you want, kind of like that lying is bad, but you can use something like that infant we can use your design. You can use your sin and rebellion as an atheist for something greater.

If for example you here is an atheist discussing things with me and I'm very easily undermining your whole position and so your rebellion against God, and your sin is being used by him for a greater good. So why couldn't the lying usually something that's not good, but why can I use something why usually bad to do something that's good like Natalie and Frank were in my attic and Anne Frank were in my attic and she were not a knock on my door like that in your attic and I said no and update your life. Your think that that's not a good thing I didn't say was, or was it think it's best not to get out about goodness your thing. I thought I could tell. Are you looking out should you lie to me right now about your position as truth is what good is headlined to be good talking both truth and good and lying both the good you have contradiction right cause weight collection are okay about tomorrow is a better sentence is a better argument tomorrow called when direct that Kathy's message that I call 770776 is Matt's hi Matt, I am a seminarian I go to Regent College in Vancouver and a I'm really troubled me. I took a course on the Old Testament and the textbook W is published by Harvard University prep the textbook basically taught almost as stock that the Bible that knocked Old Testament has been redacted and edited the so-called documentary hypothesis and I've never encountered this Gary before seminarian is just been challenging me intellectually and I met Prof. he is new to me. I'm disturbed by the documentary hypothesis. Could you please give me an evangelical critique of the documentary hypothesis and she said that she doesn't have an doesn't have critique. In other words, she she had an Old Testament scholar the reputable scholar in the field, that that she doesn't have her critique and so I was going to have any true sense to help me grapple with the idea of the documentary hypothesis that teacher needs to be fired if the if that teacher she promotes the document hypothesis, which is also called a graphical housing theory or the GDP theory. Then she proposes that as being legit or having any legitimacy. She's be fired as incompetent if I was in a class I would raise objections and I would I would say how you know and you dig it to so still the GDP for short trochanter documentary hypothesis graphical housing what it means is the first five books of for those who don't know the first five books of the Bible, Moses were written by at least four different authors, the Yahwist and Ella hist in the and patriarch list and agronomist, and so the 3 to 4 have different different under different authors is for the Pentateuch was put together and assembled maybe by Moses by looking at different supplements. With all due. Is this they will say, for example, let's get this that J will go to see where is Genesis 1 is Genesis chapter 5 verses 1 to 3 versus 28, 328 2930 K to 28 is from P and Lamech lived 182 years became the father of a son, and it jumps over to Jay know he called his name Noah, saying, this is the one to give rest of our work and was back in verse 30 and Lamech lived 500 years. This test to authors write their notes were in those verses, so that would limit with 182 years became the father of a son Noah called his name Noah think this is one to give us rest from our work of the 12. Her handwriting from the ground with the Lord is cursed then Levaquin €500 and 9995 years, so they just said was 28 was P, circa 29 was J and 30 is back to P again. I just read it to you in there saying in those three versus two different authors say you with me so far. It's the home is known about this is, 11, 12 and 13 in the 600th year of Noah's life the second month of the 17th day of the month the same day of all the sounds of the great deep burst open the floodgates of the sky were opened and the rain fell upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights, and those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God commanded. So you see those two different authors note verses with their coherent is called a graphical housing theory and its arbitrary what they did these so-called scholars a go and look at the Hebrew, and then they say hey we see differences in patterns in the writings and so were going to tell you that there's different authors that you do. That's the whole thing is they perceive different authors are there different authors will know because Jesus he equated all of the areas GDP. He quote quitted them all to Moses I got an article written on this okay. Furthermore, I'm never doing this back in 1999. This is when I wrote two articles on this 1999 and was a Sunday have been studying GDP underwriter for the escort website and so okay something about it for a few days researching and writing. I got up for church and I wrote. I wrote what the graphical housing document hypothesis was.

I wrote it and then I went to church and it came back and I wrote a response to it the same person wrote two different articles on the same day on the same topic with me so far. You so I wrote it in WordPerfect back in that day.

It had what's called a grammar analyzer and so I ran both articles there that the same author wrote on the same day on the same subject, and one was explaining what it was.

Another was refuting it. And so the flesh Kincaid grade level of explaining it was 13.64 and answering. It was 10.35 so the first was written on college level and Noah was a space of your software high school. The passive voice is both were 9% so writing passive voice a lot sentence complexity explain the GDP was 60/100, but it answering it was 43 vocabulary complexity explaining it was 38 and answering. It was 22.

Obviously, two different people wrote it right that's GDP regular doing okay. I'm really appreciative, yet you published an article on the website and gets out of the car matter. Just look at documentary hypothesis worked look up GDP. You will see the articles once answering once explaining simple okay okay and the way I write is very quick and I get to the points let's move on. That's what I do and I wrote this back in 1999 right mouse down I'm I'm 65 would do this for long time so he can go through the dark. Let me tell you these guys, I would take.

I've been in college classes with professors in a secular environment and they would break stuff like this and other things I did write ask questions you have submitted GDP. The five theories and this is what if the Fort authors. It's a how do you know that well because a scholar said so what scholars and is it true that my scholar can beat up your scholar because Jesus acquitted all of them to Moses, so is Jesus wrong in seminary was wrong for Prof. sheet was Iraq well now I got it it distantly.

So Jesus and no one is talking about Dr. Singh. I asked these questions I asked difficult questions in class. Is it so I can stretch we can read seems like I haven't has information right here. Let's read through some of the verses and then you can see can try tell me how how you get JE or DE a J DEP out of them to me what little different about the what you don't know if you read any books that refute GDP because they're out there and they do a great job of refuting the read any books now so you're only presenting the one side in that attacks the word of God, you're going to a liberal. I really, really yeah I was reading college in an evangelical seminary.

I think theological liberalism has creeped into seminary and later I get said Mike my old professor she said she didn't have an evangelical critique and that she is a credible scholar in this field. She did, she has to subscribe to a lot of new theory but yeah I just really, really didn't have to subscribe to think she can make up your own mind either. She can do her own thinking I was in I was in college. I'll tell you I had a reputation, and it wasn't that I was trying to be mean reputation among this to the secular 1 to 2 years a secular college two years of Christian college that I reputation among the staff and it wasn't like was me you know I just shout out his raise my hand. I got questions about we just said and I get a rise would role-play which and it would have been different classes because I started thinking presently how do you know this is true, too many students just believe that they said you can learn how to answer the asked request. What evidence is there for GDP and you can do some research, but you're in seminary so starkly fair because you're just drowning and homework.

I know what it is I think you got my M.Div. and in 1991 I remember so go there tickle tickle. If you have any questions that come up because of the seminary you call me up right you call me up. Thank you so much Patrick.

I'm okay got left you all liberals. I think sellers are good but liberal Mike from Winston-Salem welcoming running or okay you are on failure off because there's a break you right back to you. They voted right back after these messages, please see Matt's Y call 770727 charismatic slave 72276 with Québec on the Mike from Winston-Salem back on your back on the air of a capital request here.

I'm having a hard time finding an understandable definition not met. It was 1900+ years ago and then what it might look like in today's world maybe might be an example in today's world and I'm going to hang up and let you stay on if you think up. You better understand better what about coming up, listen to the radio Gliadel how hang out okay so Gnosticism is an ancient heresy that taught that salvation was through gnosis or knowledge, gnosis, Gnosticism, and that the only way to God, the true God was not to Christ, but was through special revelation will knowledge that the Gnostics possessed part of the theological perspective that they had was that matter was bad matter was evil, but God was so good that he could not touch evil.

Therefore, could be no incarnation. Furthermore, in order for him to work in the material world. He had to have demiurge is, we had to have go-betweens you created lesser divinities that would then act upon the physical world and carry out his wishes.

And so there was a disparity. There was through the lesser created beings was good and evil that manifested but you can understand. Matter is evil, and that truth is by knowledge and what are some modern Gnostic leaning kind of things in Christian thought, we have Gnostic ideas in the name it and claim it.

People who say you have the knowledge of God written in the word and your words have spiritual power and you can proclaim with the truth is, and in that you can be safe from material problems.

It's a Gnostic kind of thing. It's also occurring in the New Age movement is heavy in the New Age and it a little bit of it is in the new apostolic Reformation movement as well. Okay that matter, people, and automotive second part of excitement matter go matter is evil and so therefore in Gnosticism so therefore God could not become incarnate because he's not evil matters evil to be no incarnation of the divine. Okay. All right. Okay alright well I am okay thank you PS that's very true bike very true. Okay everybody – it okay alright let's go there with Nelson from Bakersfield Nelson welcome here. Doubly met yet being I will go and allow you could, would it mean I will look but don't know which one I do not invert between verse 1212 and 11 or start origin of the holy father. Can you read John 17. At that section there the end of verse 11 will 11 Joseph 11 says that no longer in the world and yet they themselves are in the world I come to you. Holy father keep them in your name. The name which you've given me, that they may be one even as we are made of them. The name your name your name as thick as you've given me the truth, you name it. So the thing that name is name of his name is wonderful, counselor, miter ID, God, eternal Father, Prince of peace name in the culture just wasn't a name like Bob or Frank. It was like the Indians wears running bear, like Methuselah meant when he dies it will come okay.

So Matthew I just have my name on the gift of God and give Nathan which comes from the Hebrew to give so genealogy of Genesis 5 is a bunch of names like Adam man and no one means rest or piece. So when he dies it will come is Methuselah. And when he died at the year of the rain came instantly. So it is was going on.

Okay, so his name. The not given the name is more than just Bob's name is is is Yahweh. That's his name.

He identifies himself with an accessory 14 but it's the I am the being one Jesus said in John 824. Unless you believe that I am healed diner. Since Johnny, 58, he says, before Abraham was, I am because I'm no longer the world if they themselves are in the world and I've come to you. Holy father keep them in your name and what you are you representation the truth of all that you are the name you've given me, that they may be one even as we are one. Okay one that all the oneness heresy yeah and yeah is once heresy when asked her. She thought about what the printed letter that about the glimmers of problem but he got blessed all right is good agenda from Raleigh, North Carolina looking on here. Thank you Matt, I did have a quick comment.

I did want to say that I have never seen anybody talk is an atheist like you did with the confidence in the Scripture and all that back in unit at that beautiful thing to be bad as Christians we should be able to give an account for what we believe and refute somebody that's not an easy thing to do both at catalytic people admitted outside, cringing out, like how to get it went on and I was like oh my. Me help you to maybe my prayers right back. I just wait for my technique is way for atheist to talk because as they talk to give me rope to hang them with. That's it. It's all are doing. Look, here's the basics. They have no foundation by which they can make any truth statements. I say foundation there sent what is a principal I can write about this. I got a do a little video oneness to understand basic everything an atheist says or believes he does so for a reason. What's the reason can that read and be justified.

So he says, for example, if an atheist says will God killing all heaven.

There is, let's kill the connect is bad.

How does back because it's wrong. Just because you're saying is wrong doesn't mean it's wrong and we get into something more difficult will see so reducing the action is wrong because think about this. I didn't get this to up with them. So if I slap somebody is that right or is it wrong notes and action if I'm slapping somebody to stop that venomous spider beagle creature thing crawling into skilled :-( get me to point his finger in there and I utilize to save him. That's good.

But if I slap him because he's said that I was ugly, slap the thigh good reason I write is basic is truth, not a good reason. So I would get to the exact same action has a different result.

Based on the intention morality is intentional.

All okay now so if you want to say there's an action has a moral quality to it.

It's in the action of slapping the face is the same thing as an action of a rock rolling down the hill.

Why is there morality. It gives a rock is a personal got you so morality then requires personhood right yes so if I go to the other side of the world.

A year later and slap someone upside the head for the same reason.

Is it also wrong yes will then what they're saying is that the action has a transcendent quality is not dependent upon when or where it has it's a universal truth, wait a minute how you get a universal truth in atheism because truth occurs in the mind, you'll find your bag a truth under a rock.

A look at the truth of opening the truth will get out will lose it right this Verizon right right so if he's making a universal truth statement truth require mine.

So how do you justify a universal truth, moral truth from your atheist perspective, which doesn't have any universal mind.

How do you do that she didn't believe me. Oh, it's easy and so the thing is there if they don't realize Ernest a cracked cement canoe you're trying to paddle upstream and are getting nowhere to what you're saying we can make a man and they would change their thinking by thanking me to go on trying to jump you up.

You know, try to figure it out if you this Think Different that's right because they say all I can go on. They sink that with their thinking is correct. They think they have a point. But all I have to do is is you pretend a five-year-old, which isn't too hard to just a will. Why why why so when someone makes a claim is called JST justified GTS a to GTB justified true belief what's right ultimate foundation by which they then claim that something is true rebirth and you why Harry's yeah using the rest truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God the Trinitarian God. Okay, okay. And so when someone says will how you know God is good, because he tells me little like that answer will how do you know what standard of good Matt, do you have a what you can judge got it exactly right. And don't I don't have a universal standard of good outside of God. Because if you're organized imply that God somehow did something wrong. You're implying then that you have access to a universal standard of good that you then ride like to God I right right right so what justifies your universal standard of good questions like that I had atheist ways are doing this to the still sick on the talk about my view of what your view you're talking but I knew from your view because this was called external critique you're judging my view from something outside of my view, which means there judging it for their atheistic perspective, which means I have a right to examine this exception if they say no.

It's only from the internal perspective, then they can't win because from that because then I just think okay will that God reveals what's good at of his character. That's how we know what good is an internal critic Wilhite was good that external ethics or it's is it's easy stuff to remind the planet checking like they make a move and then you counter that motivated him every game but it's like you have a way of addressing them, I've never seen it before and it kind of amazing the knees out like I can't tell you that it's my thought that was amazing, like apologetic part of you know might be in the pit. So I made him a debate.talks like this. I know several colleges who do the same thing is just warded slightly different to do the same thing and we would carry to stop because arguments have no founding in actuality they can justify the causal chain by which all factual statements are then justified and get some more stuff for call back tomorrow you more about it. I already double. Okay, my faithful children enjoy that by his grace back on your tomorrow will talk to, then God bless have a good evening. Another program powered by the Truth Network