User Tag List

Page 1 of 42 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 621

Thread: ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1707

    ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

    Bob Enyart Debates As If The Bible Were False: The Biblical Explanation of Bob Enyart's Defeat (or, "How Bob Enyart Lost The Debate With His Very First Post" or, "Who is right, Bob Enyart? Or the Bible?")

    As a believer in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, I take its words seriously and apply them to everyday life as much as possible. However, in reading the debate between Bob Enyart and Zakath, I am once again confronted with the question: "Could the Bible be wrong about this?" Or, "Who is right, Bob Enyart? Or the Bible?"

    About what, you ask? Namely, could the Bible be wrong about what it says of those who reject the existence of God? First, here is what the Bible say of those who reject the existence of God:
    • They already know the truth, but they hold (suppress) it in unrighteousness; [Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;]
    • They innately know God, for He has sufficiently revealed Himself to them; [Ro 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.]
    • They already see and are confronted with the knowledge of God's existence via the creation; [Ro 1:20a For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;]
    • They have no defense. [Ro 1:20b ... so that they are without excuse:. ]


    If these things are true, then Mr. Enyart has implicitly undermined every one of them.
    • The Bible says Zakath already knows the truth, but is suppressing it in unrighteousness. That is to say, Zakath already believes in God's existence, but he aggressively denies it in his unrighteousness. By not confronting Zakath with the falsity of his atheistic claim, Mr. Enyart has implicitly supported an unbiblical claim. He has tacitly granted to Zakath his claim of atheism, which the Bible says is false.
    • The Bible says Zakath not only knows the truth, but that God has sufficiently revealed Himself to Zakath. By trying to convince Zakath of what Zakath already knows to be true (i.e. God's existence), Mr. Enyart implies that God has not sufficiently done the job, and that God now needs Mr. Enyart's help to further convince Zakath.
    • The Bible says Zakath has already seen sufficient evidence from God's creation, that he has sufficiently understood them to the point of grasping the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator. However, Mr. Enyart proceeds as if this verse isn't in the Bible, as if further evidence is needed, thus affirming Zakath's unbiblical claim (lie) that he has not seen sufficient evidence to convince him of God's existence.
    • The Bible says Zakath is "anapologetous," that is "without a defense." How is it then that Mr. Enyart is asking Zakath to present a defense? To offer Zakath the opportunity to present evidence is itself unbiblical. How is it even possible when the Bible says that Zakath has none. One might argue that it has not been a good one. I would agree. However, there are atheists reading the debate who think he's doing pretty well. By actually entertaining and addressing the "defenses" Zakath presents, Mr. Enyart is again undermining the claims of scripture. Zakath should not be able to say a word without first justifying the grounds upon which he says it, which he cannot do on an atheistic worldview. Rather than challenging Zakath to present scientific evidence for his atheism, a biblical approach would be to show how Zakath is a fool for denying his belief in God and to show Zakath that he cannot even make a sentence, let alone present scientific evidence, or use science himself, outside of a Biblical worldview.
    By pretending that Zakath is truly an atheist (really there is no such thing), by pretending that God has not already sufficiently revealed Himself to Zakath, by pretending that Zakath has not seen enough evidence to ascertain God's existence, and by pretending that Zakath can actually present a defense of his godless beliefs, Mr. Enyart has answered the fool according to his folly, thus becoming like him (Prov 26:4,5). He should, instead, be answering the fool NOT according to his folly, that is, biblically, or else the fool will become wiser in his own conceit. Prov. 26:4,5 may appear to comprise two contradictory statements, but they actually describe a two-fold tack for answering the fool. Answering the fool "not according to his folly" is the positive presentation of the truth. We ought to properly presuppose the biblical worldview (after all, the so-called atheist is actually a defiant believer -- not in the "saved" sense of the word -- but in the rational sense of it) and demonstrate to the gainsayer its internal coherence. Answering the fool "according to his folly" is the negative critique of the gainsayer's position. That is, we ought to apply the gainsayer's presuppositions to his own arguments in order to demonstrate that the fool's worldview leads to incoherence and ultimately, on his worldview, the destruction of all knowledge.

    My last point (for now) is this: Instead of showing the sufficiency of scripture that anyone could use to refute Zakath, Mr. Enyart appeals to the technical jargon and details of various claims of science and fields of discipline outside of scripture, furthering the misconception that one needs to know a lot about science in order to debate a so-called atheist.

    In summary:

    Ps 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God ..."

    Why is it the fool who says there is no God? Because, as scriptures state, they already know the existence of God, and of His eternal power and Godhead, because God has, both innately and through the creation, sufficiently revealed Himself to them. This is why the self-professed atheist is a fool and without a defense. He already knows, but chooses to suppress the truth of God in his unrighteousness. By pursuing the line of questioning he has chosen, Mr. Enyart reinforces the lies Zakath has come to convince himself, and thus becomes like him.

    Pr 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

    Jim

  2. #2
    Who is the stooge now? novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Ordained to be here
    Posts
    459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    224
    Hilston are you kidding?

    You state:
    The Bible says Zakath is "anapologetous," that is "without a defense." How is it then that Mr. Enyart is asking Zakath to present a defense? To offer Zakath the opportunity to present evidence is itself unbiblical.
    Its a debate!!!

    I realize you have an axe to grind but it seems to me your having a tough time seeing the trees through your forest.
    Oh, wise guy eh?

  3. #3
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1707

    Grinding axes, chopping down trees ...

    Novice,

    The Bible says Zakath has no argument, no defense. That is, the self-professed atheist is not able to coherently engage a debate without hoisting himself on his own petard. This is the weakness of all atheistic arguments, and attacking this point is the approach the biblical apologist ought to take. Not the one Mr. Enyart is employing. No where in scripture do we find saints debating self-professing atheists to prove God's existence. Never once. They already know of His existence, but they go through life pretending they need more proof, more evidence. That's why the so-called atheist is a fool. But instead of challenging the professing atheist on that fundamental point, Mr. Enyart nullifies the Bible's method and instead uses his own, thereby perpetuating the myth of atheism by accommodating Zakath's request for evidence.

    What do you think Paul means when he says they are without a defense?

  4. #4
    Who is the stooge now? novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Ordained to be here
    Posts
    459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    224

    Thumbs down Re: Grinding axes, chopping down trees ...

    Originally posted by Hilston
    Novice,

    The Bible says Zakath has no argument, no defense.
    The Bible says Zakath will not have a excuse for himself to God!

    What would that have to do with debating a Christian here on earth? NOTHING!!!

    Furthermore... asking someone to provide a defense is not stating they HAVE a defense. Does that makes sense to you?

    In other words a sinful man may think he has a defense or an excuse. He may have convinced himself of his atheistic world-view. Asking him to present his defense might be the first step in showing him that HE DOESN'T have a defense (or more specifically an "excuse").

    But then again, Bob isn't God and this isn't judgment day so I think your point is about as silly as humanly possible.

  5. #5
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    44
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    you write:

    "Bob Enyart Debates As If The Bible Were False:"

    That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Have you ever heard Bob debate the existence of God before? You judge an entire debate from one post?

    Get the audio series "Bob Debates and Arkansas Atheist"

    He starts out the same way...

    First he shows that a supernatural being exists...

    He then shows what the attributes of this being are...

    He then shows that this supernatural being is indeed the God of the Bible...

    IF I were to judge the rest of your posts based on this one post of yours...as you have judged Bobs entire debate on his first post...then I can only come to the conclusion that your other posts will not be worth my time.

  6. #6
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1707

    Wait and see ...

    Novice writes:
    The Bible says Zakath will not have a excuse for himself to God!
    Where? The context is not being ashamed of the gospel. Paul goes on to describe those who oppose the truth, giving us a clear understanding of what makes their professed atheism tick. Do you agree with the Bible that says Zakath has already had sufficient proof of God's existence?

    Novice writes:
    What would that have to do with debating a Christian here on earth? NOTHING!!!
    Does "not being ashamed of the gospel" have anything to do with a Christian here on earth?

    Novice writes:
    Furthermore... asking someone to provide a defense is not stating they HAVE a defense. Does that makes sense to you?
    You already know they don't have one. Why perpetuate the myth? Why not go for the jugular and show them why they have no defense?

    Novice writes:
    In other words a sinful man may think he has a defense or an excuse. He may have convinced himself of his atheistic world-view. Asking him to present his defense might be the first step in showing him that HE DOESN'T have a defense (or more specifically an "excuse").
    The Bible disagrees with you. The Bible says this is the first step of enabling him to be wiser in his own conceit. Just watch. I predict this very thing -- so does the Bible (Pr 26:4,5). Zakath will indeed come away from this more full of himself and his atheistic worldview than he started. Just. Watch.

    Jim

  7. #7
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1707

    Thank you cheezwhizz!

    Cheezywheezy writes:
    You judge an entire debate from one post?
    That's all it takes, cheezywheeezy. The second post is further affirmation.

    Cheezywheezy writes:
    Get the audio series "Bob Debates and Arkansas Atheist"
    I've downloaded the series, cheezywheeezy. It only further solidified how unbiblical the whole approach is.

    Cheeezywheezy writes:
    He starts out the same way ...
    Yeah -- it's unbiblical, cheezywheeezy.

    CW writes:
    First he shows that a supernatural being exists...
    Oh -- now there's a method we see in scripture! Let's reduce God to some vague, nebulous intelligent designer thing or things. That really honors our Lord, doesn't it, cheezywheeezy?

    CW writes:
    He then shows what the attributes of this being are...
    This "being," cheezywheeezy? How about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cheezywheeezy, who will grind to powder everyone who foolishly rejects Him and His truth?

    cheezywheeezy writes:
    He then shows that this supernatural being is indeed the God of the Bible...
    By then, it's too late, cheeezywheeezy. The so-called atheist is already wiser in his own conceit. All previous arguments sufficiently crystallize the professing atheist's false worldview. We saw it happen with Douglas Krueger, we saw it happen with Michael Shermer (I used a segment of that debate with KGOV's permission to present the errors of unbiblical theistic reasoning to the Creation Science Fellowship of Pittsburgh.), and we'll see it again with Zakath. It's always the same result because it's an unbiblical method.

    cheeezywheezy writes:
    IF I were to judge the rest of your posts based on this one post of yours...as you have judged Bobs entire debate on his first post...then I can only come to the conclusion that your other posts will not be worth my time.
    Then spend it elsewhere, cheeezywheezy. Arrivederci.

    Jim

  8. #8
    Journeyman Scrimshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    206
    Hilston,

    Where in the Bible does it prohibit believers from discussing philosophy with atheists? You can't accuse Enyart of violating a commandment that isn't in the Bible. Also, your arguments are overlooking this scripture:

    1 Peter 3:15 - "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."

    Bob is giving Zakath the philosophical reasons for the hope that he has. Period. Get over it.

    Blessings,
    SCRIMSHAW

    "Passions act as winds to propel our vessel; our reason is the pilot that steers her, without the winds she would not move; and without the pilot she would be lost". - The French

  9. #9
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1707

    The reason for our hope ...

    Hi Scrimshaw,

    Scrimshaw writes:
    Where in the Bible does it prohibit believers from discussing philosophy with atheists?
    Nowhere. I do it all the time. But in so doing, they are put on notice that all arguments they might present for their particular philosophy are completely foundationless apart from God's revelation. It is pointed out to them that in order to make a sentence, the anti-theist borrows from the Christian Theistic worldview in order to make it; that is, they make the unwarranted assumptions that logic is constant, the human experience is intelligible, that the precepts of scientific inquiry are reliable. The anti-theist is unable to justify those assumptions. Only the Christian theist can do so.

    Scrimshaw writes:
    You can't accuse Enyart of violating a commandment that isn't in the Bible.
    I showed where the commandment is in the Bible. You also quote one below. Mr. Enyart violates it as well.

    Scrimshaw writes:
    ... Also, your arguments are overlooking this scripture:

    1 Peter 3:15 - "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
    Not at all. The reason for the hope that I have is Jesus Christ, the Head of the Body of Christ, and His shed blood on the cross for me. The reason for my hope is NOT some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things. The reason for my hope is NOT "a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever."

    Scrimshaw writes:
    Bob is giving Zakath the philosophical reasons for the hope that he has. Period. Get over it.
    Those reasons are false and unbiblical. If we're going to present the truth to the anti-theistic gainsayer, wouldn't it be prudent to see what God has to say about how we go about it? To ask, "What is the biblical method of evangelizing the God-hater?"

    Jim

  10. #10
    Journeyman Scrimshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    206

    Re: The reason for our hope ...

    I said:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Where in the Bible does it prohibit believers from discussing philosophy with atheists?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Originally posted by Hilston
    Nowhere. I do it all the time.
    Bob Enyart is discussing philosophy with an atheist. So I'm glad you agree that there is no biblical prohibition against him doing so.


    I said:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You can't accuse Enyart of violating a commandment that isn't in the Bible.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I showed where the commandment is in the Bible. You also quote one below. Mr. Enyart violates it as well.
    What Enyart is doing is discussing philosophy with an atheist, which is something that you just agreed was not prohibited by the Bible.


    I said:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ... Also, your arguments are overlooking this scripture:

    1 Peter 3:15 - "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not at all. The reason for the hope that I have is Jesus Christ, the Head of the Body of Christ, and His shed blood on the cross for me. The reason for my hope is NOT some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things.
    I don't follow your logic here at all. Are you saying that Jesus is NOT an intelligent designer? Do you think he is an UN-intelligent designer? Do you think he is NOT creator? The uncaused first cause of the universe?

    The reason for my hope is NOT "a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever."
    What an ill-considered comment. Nobody has stated that our hope in God exists because of the laws of physics. Bob only pointed to the laws of physics to show that the naturalistic origin theories *violate* them. You need to evaluate your comments more carefully and make sure you actually understand the purpose of the arguments Bob is using before you attack them.

    Blessings,
    Last edited by Scrimshaw; June 23rd, 2003 at 01:24 AM.
    SCRIMSHAW

    "Passions act as winds to propel our vessel; our reason is the pilot that steers her, without the winds she would not move; and without the pilot she would be lost". - The French

  11. #11
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1707

    Fire and rocks ...

    Scrimshaw writes:
    Bob Enyart is discussing philosophy with an atheist.
    Is that all this is? A philosophy discussion? Why then is it called the Battle Royale and a Debate: Does God Exist?? This is no mere "discussion," as evidenced by the hundreds of posts of specific discussion related to this battle/debate. Your bent toward minimizing the importance of the exchange is noteworthy.

    Scrimshaw writes:
    What Enyart is doing is discussing philosophy with an atheist, which is something that you just agreed was not prohibited by the Bible.
    Let me clear up your confusion. There is no prohibition against discussing philosophy with anti-theists in scripture. But there are prohibitions against discussing philosophy unbiblically, which is what Mr. Enyart is doing.

    Jim previously wrote: The reason for the hope that I have is Jesus Christ, the Head of the Body of Christ, and His shed blood on the cross for me. The reason for my hope is NOT some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things.

    Scrimshaw writes:
    I don't follow your logic here at all. Are you saying that Jesus is NOT an intelligent designer? Do you think he is an UN-intelligent designer? Do you think he is NOT creator? The uncaused first cause of the universe?
    I didn't say any of those things. It's puzzling you would even ask those questions. The last time someone asked you, "What do you think will happen to you when you die?," did you begin your reply: "Well, my hope is in heaven, and here's why: According to the evidence I've amassed, it appears there must have been some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things ..."?

    Jim previously wrote: The reason for my hope is NOT "a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever."

    Scrimshaw writes:
    What an ill-considered comment. Nobody has stated that our hope in God exists because of the laws of physics.
    Mr. Enyart has plainly stated on more than one occasion that the reason he believes in God is because of evidence from the laws of physics. Ask him.

    Scrimshaw writes:
    Bob only pointed to the laws of physics to show that the naturalistic origin theories *violate* them.
    Michael Shermer asked Mr. Enyart (paraphrasing), "Why do you believe in God?" Mr. Enyart's answer was, "A rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Dr. Shermer replied, "Your faith is based on fire and rocks?" Mr. Enyart rejoined: "Yeah, what's YOUR faith based on?" Dr. Shermer replied, "I don't have faith." But instead of dismantling that false claim ("I don't have faith") as he should have, Mr. Enyart proceeded with his god-of-the-gaps argument. It was awful.

    Jim

  12. #12
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    201
    Hillston, I think I mostly agree with you.

  13. #13
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    202
    Well I agree. Each of person has the seed of faith within them. So most atheist are not really atheist at heart. Otherwise they would lead a completely miserable life filled with doubt and worry. However the only way to convince an atheist is to help them understand "his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity". Unfortunately Zakath has eaten the fruit of knowledge and has opened his eyes to see his nakedness without God. It will be difficult to cloth someone like that in Christ.

    Michael Shermer asked Mr. Enyart (paraphrasing), "Why do you believe in God?" Mr. Enyart's answer was, "A rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Dr. Shermer replied, "Your faith is based on fire and rocks?" Mr. Enyart rejoined: "Yeah, what's YOUR faith based on?" Dr. Shermer replied, "I don't have faith." But instead of dismantling that false claim ("I don't have faith") as he should have, Mr. Enyart proceeded with his god-of-the-gaps argument. It was awful.
    This is bibically ok. "My Rock is my Savior and Lord" and the light of God is forever lasting.

  14. #14
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1707

    Is God a created rock? A temporary fire?

    okinrus writes:
    However the only way to convince an atheist is to help them understand "his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity".
    The Bible says Zakath doesn't need help understanding this. Paul says that Zakath has already sufficiently understood this. By putting further effort toward this aim, you implicitly undermine the truth of scripture and you become an enabler by further affirming Zakath's mythical claim that he has somehow not seen enough to be convinced of the truth. Is Zakath somehow exempt from the statements of Romans 1 cited above?

    okinrus writes:
    This is biblically ok. "My Rock is my Savior and Lord" and the light of God is forever lasting.
    What are you saying is "ok"?

    Are you suggesting that Mr. Enyart was referring to God the rock? He was referring to created rocks. God is definitely not a created rock. Do you suggest that Mr. Enyart was referring to the everlasting light of God? God "fire" will definitely burn forever. Please explain what you mean.

    Jim

  15. #15
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1707

    Which is it?

    Scrimshaw -- you done a bad thing, bloke. I just noticed something you wrote in the Battle Royale discussion. You wrote:
    I am not a theist because I claim to "know" that there is a Creator. I am a theist because theism is the origin model that has the most evidential and logical soundness, based on the evidence we observe in biological life and the universe.
    But didn't you also write the following?
    Nobody has stated that our hope in God exists because of the laws of physics.
    Which is it? Are you a theist because of scientific evidence or not?

    By the way, anyone interested in seeing the latest research in creation science should consider attending the International Conference on Creationism, Aug 4-9, 2003. Visit the website here: www.icc03.org

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us