Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Debate With Dan

For the past couple of days, I have been engaged in a debate with Dan, the author of a Blog entitled "The Truth".

Until now this debate has taken place in the comments section of his blog and in the comments sections of three of my previous posts: here, here, and here. Since the debate is not fully contained in any one place, and my most recent reply is not only long, but, I think, useful to others, I have decided to simplify things, and use posts here to continue our discussion.

The following is Dan's most recent statement, and came to me by way of e-mail. It was later published on his blog. My previous reply can be found here:

RE: This was my response to what you wrote
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:30:59 -0800
I can prove there is a God. If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator

I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise. I have experienced God and he reviled himself to me so no man on this earth can tell me otherwise. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

I live by “I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.”

If you take the law of averages which scientist loves then you have to admit that Christianity is ranked number one at 2-3 billion Christians. So if 30 people tell you your drunk then fall down. Well 3 billion people base there various and different experiences and intellects and cultures on ONE faith not to mention entire countries basing there dating system on Jesus i.e. the year is 2006 after our lord Jesus rose from the dead. You must conclude in a scientific hypothesis that Christ did exist and even Islam admits to that and that makes over 70% of the entire world believes in Jesus. But you are here to tell me he doesn’t and that makes you a foolish person in denial. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

You may be spending eternity in the lake of fire. If you are wrong are you willing to base your salvation on what you believe? If I am right I will spend eternity in Heaven and if I am wrong I just turn into worm meat. IF you are right you become worm meat but if you are wrong you will spend eternity in Hell. Have you done the research like us Christians? Google and go to “Hell’s best kept secret”

God bless you on your journey


My retort follows: (I have broken Dan's comment into pieces to ensure an understandable context for my answers)

Paragraph One:
"I can prove there is a God. If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator"
I already covered this with a prior comment.

Paragraph Two:
"I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise. I have experienced God and he reviled himself to me so no man on this earth can tell me otherwise. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."
Since this paragraph is something of a run-on, I will break it into pieces and address the pieces separately.

First piece:

"I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise."
First--a bit of confusion on my part--Are you saying that the child/iron parable is your experience? If so, a parable hardly qualifies as experience. If not then OK.

As for the example/parable: If the child believes the iron to be hot, he would not touch it. What is more likely going on is that he doesn't trust his father (perhaps because his father had lied in the past), and then proves to himself, by way of a simplified form of the scientific method, that his father was right. The child will now believe that all irons are hot; at least until further scientific study shows that he is wrong, and that, in fact, only "some" Irons are hot.

The lad has engaged in an activity that will prove invaluable throughout his life: he has formed a hypothesis--the iron's not hot, an experiment--touching the iron, and then based upon his experiment, formed a theory--all irons are hot. He will no doubt perform another experiment or series of them and discover that his initial theory is flawed and form a modified theory based on his new findings such as--not all irons are hot.

Eventually, through many repetitions of his experiment, and with the same findings coming from others who perform the same exact experiments our lad will formulate a law such as--some, but not all irons are hot.

Then he, or maybe someone following in his footsteps will pursue the question--why are some irons hot and others not.

But, the young man will always know that some irons are hot, in the same way that he knows that the initial iron is hot when the second, and I might say abusive, adult comes along and says that the iron isn't hot, because he has proof that it is; proof that he can easily share by showing the second adult (the non-believer if you will) the burn on his hand, thereby supplying empirical evidence for his position.

You have yet to show me your burn.

As for the piece where you discuss God making himself hated by you I am confused. Unless, of course you mean revealed and not reviled. In which case, I would counter with my own experience with the Baggins. [see previous retort]

The BagginsI would be considered insane if I went up and down the street shouting that I had seen the Baggins, and I dare say that few if any would come to me for some divine knowledge. But, many people have claimed to have seen God--Jim Jones, and David Koresh come immediately to mind as does Joseph Smith. Despite their claims I have not decided to drink poison kool-aid, not burnt myself alive at a compound in Texas, and have not become a Mormon. This is because I don't have a habit of blindly accepting anything I am told.

In fact Muhammad also had God reveal himself to him. Should I believe that?

Then we have your philosophy on life:
"I live by 'I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.'"
If this is how you decide to live, then that is your decision, but for me this is an old argument which was once thrown at me by my late-wife's priest. He and I had regular philosophical debates. I like talking with Catholic Priests about such things because they are generally better educated than most clergy, and don't hold to the antiquated notion that the Bible is literal truth. But, I digress.

Under this logic, shouldn't you believe in the Hindu afterlife, the Jewish after-life, the Buddhist, the ancient Greek, ancient Roman, Sumerian, Babylonian or any number of other beliefs that were written down long before the Christian one? What if I said that if you don't follow the teachings of Frodo Baggins and Gandolf you will go to Hell? You would naturally say that these beliefs were silly and had no basis in reality, and therefore wouldn't consider it a risk to not follow them.

The Source of All Wallabies and Other Marsupials--So Sayeth the BagginsTah Dah!!!Better yet what if my neighbor wrote two conflicting stories about my Frodo-given ability to create Wallabies out of muffins, then presented them to you as the only place in the universe that told that story, and said that it was the Frodo's honest truth. It would no doubt be easy for you to refute his claim because of the two conflicting stories. Without some kind of unbiased supporting document or a news story saying the same thing my neighbor's story would fall flat on it's own merits.

In the spirit of this parable read Genesis chapter one then go back later and read chapter two. Then answer the following question: If the Bible can't even get the creation story straight then how am I supposed to believe any of it? And since it is the only place there is an argument for the Christian god in the entire universe, why should I believe in such a god based on flawed evidence? (In case you don't see what I am talking about--I had already intended to post a blog about the conflict in the Genesis creation stories, so I will do so following this one for clarification)

For that matter explain the two versions of Judas' death I talked about in an earlier post. The Catholics have a good, albeit flawed, answer for these issues, but it involves accepting a lot of the Bible as fairy-tale, which I doubt you are ready to do.

So, I reverse the statement, and say that I would rather live my life, the only one I get. I know that I will eventually die and that will be the end of me, so I won't waste my life by expending time, money, or energy that could be spent with my children or in any number of other useful and/or enjoyable activities by following a religion based on Bronze Age myths.

Then we have a rather unwieldy Paragraph Four:

"If you take the law of averages which scientist loves then you have to admit that Christianity is ranked number one at 2-3 billion Christians. So if 30 people tell you your drunk then fall down. Well 3 billion people base there various and different experiences and intellects and cultures on ONE faith not to mention entire countries basing there dating system on Jesus i.e. the year is 2006 after our lord Jesus rose from the dead. You must conclude in a scientific hypothesis that Christ did exist and even Islam admits to that and that makes over 70% of the entire world believes in Jesus. But you are here to tell me he doesn’t and that makes you a foolish person in denial. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
First off, the law of averages does not apply here, a census does. And, as we are shown in in 2 Samuel chapter 24 God will kill at least 70,000 of his own people in payment for a king taking a census. As for a hypothesis based on the census... . A hypothesis is an educated guess that is put to experimentation in order to arrive at a theory. Due to my education, I would never arrive at a hypothesis as baseless as the existence of Christ.

So many things--so little space, so bear with me here.

First: If thirty people tell me I'm drunk, and I haven't been drinking then I will suspect that those thirty people are nuts or trying to fool me. If I am in fact drunk, then I will know that before they tell me.

Second: Actually it is the year 2006 after the year your lord was supposedly born--get your facts straight. It has nothing to do with death as many people believe. A.D. is an abbreviation for anno Domini and actually means "the year of our lord." It is also incorrect by several years.

As for using the B.C./A.D. system, the Chinese calender, and the Jewish calender predate ours which is only some five hundred years old. It was created by an Italian doctor, and decreed as official by Pope Gregory XIII (hence the name--Gregorian calender). We continue to use it and the B.C./A.D. system out of simplicity not out of a belief in Jesus. If the World's still using it could prove anything along the line of religion, it would be that the Catholics were, and thereby, are right because they conceived the whole idea. And, in fact, most scholarly material now uses B.C.E. and C.E. which stands for: "Before Christian (or Common) era", and "Christian (or Common) era", and acknowledges only the existence of Christians, not Christ.

Third: Not too many years ago, the entire population of the planet, save for a few smart people, believed that the Earth was flat, and that the Sun, stars, and all other things in the universe revolved around the Earth, both concepts found in the Bible. Did majority opinion make these things true?

Two-hundred years ago, the majority of Christian American citizens believed that slavery was morally acceptable. Is that true?

By your argument, anybody who believed that Christ was God in 20 a.c.e. was a fool, because the majority of the World's population had never heard of the guy. Does their ignorance of your savior exclude them from your logic? Just because a majority of people are ignorant of a fact the fact is still a fact, and just because a majority of people believe a lie--it is still a lie.

Fourth: If your god exists, and the Bible is his word then by calling me foolish, you have earned the wrath of your god and are looking at going to your own Hell
by violating the words of Jesus found in Matthew 5:22:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
If you are right about the whole Jesus thing then you may want to start begging for forgiveness.

A fool as defined by Websters can be a few things (including a dessert), but the two most commonly held definitions are:
1) "a person lacking in judgment or prudence"
2) "a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding"
Both definitions imply a lack of ability to understand things and see beyond what they are told to believe, i.e. one who can't think for ones self, as in "a fool and his money are soon parted." Only a fool believes something for which there is no proof, and much proof against.

As for my being in denial: that infers that I have all of the evidence laid out before me, yet continue to ignore it--it would seem that I am not the one in denial, because I am not the one disregarding evidence. I cannot be in denial about something unless there is some shadow of belief.

Fifth: As for the quote from John, I think I have already established that I have no more fear of his warnings than I do of Thor's.

Next you say:
"You may be spending eternity in the lake of fire. If you are wrong are you willing to base your salvation on what you believe? If I am right I will spend eternity in Heaven and if I am wrong I just turn into worm meat. IF you are right you become worm meat but if you are wrong you will spend eternity in Hell. Have you done the research like us Christians? Google and go to 'Hell’s best kept secret'"
Simple answers to the questions are: Yes and Yes. Both of which I think I have shown here. Can you answer both questions the same way?

As for the writings and teachings of Ray Comfort, I am way ahead of you, which is why it was so easy to refute your claims, many of which it would seem are plagiarised from Mr. Comfort.

I promise that his teachings will be covered by a future post, doing so here would get off of the subject and take up too much space.

So, stay tuned.

Finally we have:
"God bless you on your journey"
Thanks for the blessing. Frodo bless you.

Your Turn.

10 comments:

Michelle said...

I'm terribly surprised and just the slightest bit disappointed that no one's showing up to debate you. I expected more from God's army.

R Nicolas said...

Yeah, it would see that God's supporters and soldiers have had the fear of Ron put into them.

Most of their sort don't last too long once they have to actually start explaining thing, and answering questions.

Dan Marvin said...

Not much room to refute but here it goes: It appears you are basing your beliefs on other's failures or sins. Not your own. Have you lied Ron? It appears that you are a post modern and that would explain a lot of what you have written. If I believe the moon is made of green cookie dough would I be wrong? In Matthew and Mark two different people are describing the same things. They do not use the exact words because two different brains are interpreting the same occurrence like if you and I were to watch fireworks and you would describe the different colors and I would describe all the shapes. It was scientist who believed the earth was flat and in the bible Isaiah 40:22 some 2800 years ago it says the earth is round. Just 140 years ago scientist used to bleed people to cure them and 3000 years ago it was written in the bible in Leviticus 17:11 that blood is life now scientists believe that blood is in fact life. The bible is infallible. Please point something out so I can understand what you are talking about.

Dan Marvin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Marvin said...

There are two people that reject the bible and God. There are those that feel so guilty they have done something horribly wrong that they feel they would never be forgiven for it. Then there are those who like the lifestyle or (sin) so much that they don’t want to give it up for God or anyone. They think that they couldn’t live without that sin or lifestyle. What good is it for someone to gain the entire world only to loose his soul? I am here to tell you my friend that you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you. We must do in Hebrews 11:25 “Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season."

“Guilt disables spiritual growth and is a deceptive form of self-indulgence, creating an obsessive inward focus. A guilty conscience leads not to repentance but repetitive I’m sorry’s, not for God’s sake but our own—a desperate attempt to feel better and clear away the dark, sorrowful shroud surrounding the heart. Greatest of all, guilt separates us from God—naked, hiding behind the bushes of shame. The big, holy God and little, sinful man, Perfect Father and the inadequate, filthy-rags son. Down through the ages, Religion has reinforced guilt in a multitude of ways. Huge, monolithic sanctuaries fit for the presence of God, reducing man to awed ants.” We are to have a relationship with Jesus; it is not about religion at all. Conviction, yes—guilt, no!

R Nicolas said...

(I apologize ahead of time if any of my words look strange--my "m" key seems to be having problems)

Dan,

Plenty of room here to refute, but if you like, in the future you can send your comments by e-mail, or a post on your site, I am more than happy to provide a link for them here. But, since my last reply posted on your blog hasn't been published I felt it neccesary to present both sides here.

But, to your comment.

First--how does it appear that my beliefs are based on the failings of others? My beliefs are based upon the accomplishments of scientists, scholars, archeologists, and many others, including myself. The only failures that mark my beliefs are the failures of the Bible and its promoters to answer some simple questions. I actually read all of my posts and your comments--can you say the same?

As for lying, I used to tell my children that there was a Santa Clause, but they eventually figured out that it was a fairy tale despite all of the written and televised accounts of his existence. They are smart that way.

But, I haven't lied in my posts. Why, did you see something that looked like a lie? If so, please point it out, so I may clear my name. In return I can show you where God lied.

As I believe in Einstein's relativity, don't like Dadaism, do not blame economic or social conditions for any of my problems, and am not an anarchist I could hardly be called a post-modernist. (maybe post-darkageinist) However, I have read Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard who, though actually existentialists, are given a good deal of credit for the rise of the movement. I agree with Nietzsche's assertions about the idea of God being outdated, but don't agree with Kierkegaard's assertion that truth is subjective. So, once again, not exactly a post-modernist.

Oh, and, Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" is one of my favorite pieces of literature. He was the first author to use the phrase Postmodern, in case you didn't know.

Having actually studied both sides of what I write about, and vanity would better explain a lot of what I write about than would a flawed philosophy called post-modernism. As would my willingness to explain my ideas, or just a love of writing.

Then again you may not actually know what post-modernism is and could be talking about something totally different--if so, let me know.

Yes, you would be wrong to believe the moon is made of cookie dough, because there is proof to the contrary. Believing that, would be like believing that the Moon is only 7,000 years old.

The words, and thoughts of Matthew and Mark are supposedly guided by an infallible, and truthful god--and, they are not "interpreting" an event they are reporting said event.

If Matthew and Mark tell two different stories, like Matthew and Paul do then one of them is wrong, and that would place the whole "inspired word of God" in great peril.

To use your example:

If I describe red fireworks, and you describe squares we could still be seeing the same thing, but if I say there were only red circles and you say there were only red squares then one of us (maybe both) is wrong, and we are not in fact seeing the same thing, nor are our descriptions both divinely inspired truths. Therefore we can't both be telling the inspired word of an infllible, and truthful god.

Speaking of circles and squares:

Isaiah 40:22 calls the Earth a "circle." Circle describes a two dimensional, or flat object such as a drink coaster, not a globe such as the Earth. It was scientists who proved the flat round thing wrong, but it took several of them being executed and arrested for heresy before it was generally accepted.

Since the Universe is in a state of expansion and the Earth rotates nothing is in fact above or below the Earth, a term frequently used in the Bible.

Then there's Joshua 10:13 where the Sun "stood still." The Sun does not move relative to the Earth. The Earth moves relative to the Sun, so the phrase should be the "Earth stood still," (as in the classic Fifties sci-fi movie)unless of course you believe that the Sun goes around the Earth, which would be a provable inacuracy.

But, none of this would qualify as your answer to the question about majority opinion making a falacy the truth which was the question I asked.

The Egyptians believed that blood equaled life, as did all people that noticed that when you bled a lot you died. Does that mean that the Hindus, Chinese, Sumerians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. were correct in their religious beliefs because they figured out that a person can bleed to death?

Do you avoid touching your wife through her menstration and for seven days afterwards; then sacrifice two pigeons and two turtles before doing so? Leviticus 15 tells you to, because according to the scientists who wrote Leviticus, menstration is a sickness. The same chapter tells you that you own sperm will make you sick if left on your body.

I have never said that science has always been right. Scientific knowledge continues to evolve. And scientists are the ones that correct themselves, as in my parable contained in this post.

Religion claims to be the immutable truth, not science.

I do assert that science has proven many long held religious falacies, such as epilepsy, fevers, and leprosy being demonic possesion (a popular theme in Matthew and Mark) to be wrong.

As to pointing to something showing the fallibility of the Bible: I did so above, but if you need more: read the next post on this blog, or the post about Judas or just read the post you have responded to here, because you haven't addressed any of the questions I posed in this post. You have instead skirted them and moved on to other subjects.

As to helping you understand, I would say again to read all of what I write. Beyond that, I could simplify the language I use if you want, to make what I say easier to understand. I didn't do so before, because I didn't want you to feel that I was talking down to you, or doubted your abilities of comprehension.

(told you there was plenty of room here to refute)

your turn

R Nicolas said...

You sneaked a comment in while I was working on the first one.

As for the second one:

Using Biblical writtings by someone else does not refute my beliefs or answer my questions.

I would counter that I do not live what would be termed a sinful life, in fact I know for a fact that I live a less sinful life than the former president of the Evangelical Association, or Jimmy Swaggart, Or Jim Bakker, or any number of self-proclaimed Christians. I never cheated on my wife, do not steal, do not lie, do not abuse my children, do not covet my neighbor's wife (though Angelina Jolie does give me lust problems), do not use drugs (like Ted Haggard's meth), have not killed anyone except during my time as a soldier, etc.

I have never felt guilt about my beliefs. I went through a good deal of sorrow when I realized that what I had been taught was lies, but never guilt.

I would feel guilty though if I espoused a set of beliefs based upon what I see as fairy tales.

Given these facts, your faulty, and I might add offensive, assumptions about my character are obviously wrong, and in no way answer the questions that have been posed to you.

Editorial note: the removed comment was done by the person who placed it not me.

R Nicolas said...

Dan--I am hurt. It seems that your replies to my posts are form-letter style replies.

While cruising the web tis morning, I came across a Christian blog post about Hell on which you posted the same word-for-word comment as you used here. And, it made no more sense in context with that post than it did here.

And it appears that one of your other comments on the Hell-post was used on
another blog.

It makes your arguments appear less than sincere.

Dan Marvin said...

I thought there was a word limit so I said “not much room here to refute” but I was wrong I guess there is room so here is some more.
It was funny that you made the comment on dumbing it down for me. The bible says the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. So maybe I should dumb it down for you.
It makes me remember a verse I just read not too long ago what Moses said to God when he was chosen for the task of leading his people to the Promised Land. Moses said in Exodus 4:10-12 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my LORD, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.
You are a funny guy to say the least. Let’s go further with it shale we. I put what I wrote you and the other Christian site in quotes and if you Google it you will see that not even I wrote it and that is why the quotes are there. My original comment was for the other Christian site and I thought it was fitting to you so I copied you for your rant. My first priority is my wife and three kids and I talk to a lot people a day whether it’s one on one witnessing or online (as you can see) or even preaching in online games. I really don’t have that much time to spend with people that are hard of heart because God made you that way (remember 2 Thessalonians 2 comment in the past blogs) so I give most all of my attention to the humble at heart and sow the seeds for God to water.

If you tell your kids there is a Santa Clause then you have lied and you are a liar even though you claim not to be, you are too proud to see that. How many lies does it take before someone is called a liar 1, 3, 10, 400 if I lied to you once, you would call me a liar? If I stole $1.00 or $100.00 from you I am still a thief. How many murders before you are called a murderer? Jesus said if you hate someone you are a murderer of the heart. You lied when you said you have never committed adultery because Jesus said in Matthew that if you look at someone with lust you commit adultery of the heart. God knows our thought life and we will be judged by his law (The Ten Commandments). The fifth Commandment is Honor you Mother and Father, Have you done that every time even when you were a teenager? Come on who are you trying to convince here me or you? The first commandment is “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND” (copied from my blog). Have you broken that commandment? God said if you break one commandment you break them all. You are in serious trouble here on judgment day. If you die in your sins then you will be guilty of God’s laws and what do you think that will be, heaven or hell? Justice will be served be sure of that. What if someone raped you child and then died in his sleep the next day of a heart attack. Do you think justice would be served? Be sure God will punish the wicked and evil (you are 54% evil right? or is that just your site). You sure are a proud of that aren’t you? Go to http://home.comcast.net/~danmarvin/wotm_are_you_a_good_person.pps and click open for more.

I am man enough here to say I have broken every single commandment 10 times over and I am very grateful that God gave me a way to wash away my sins and avoid Hell (God’s jail) So I will follow him because I am grateful and humbled to his glory and kindness towards me.

“Matthew and Mark two different people are describing the same things.” Describing not interpreting. Do you need the definition for you to understand the analogy I was giving? It seemed to go over your head a little.

You crack me up because you said that you believe in Einstein’s relativity and you don’t even know that even one of the smartest men in the world ever, believes in God, here is some of his quotes: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Or "God is subtle but he is not malicious." Or "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically." So you are a very lost and sad and misinformed person.

You are the one that is not sincere because look at your bio you just love “Pissing people off and...Well that's the biggest one except maybe exposing stupidity for the World to see.”

I am not angry at you but I pity you. So you are a proud person, until that day when God changes your heart to help you with your conviction. (“an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence” in case you didn’t understand). So you are wrong I am sincere but I am not taking you seriously, how can I? You are trying to disprove a creator. I think everyone is worth a chance to help them understand “The truth” my blog at dmarvin811.blogspot.com.

R Nicolas said...

For response to the above see my post entitled Debate With Dan--Part 2.