If You are Going to Be a Christian, at Least be a Courageous Christian

This is a follow up OP to my previous two where I’d challenged some of the common Christian views, such as the immortally of the soul  and the origin of evil.

At UD, I also questioned the suppose holiness of Billy Graham-who recently passed away-and the comparison of him to apostle Paul as well as Graham’s confidence that he was going to go to heaven to be with the Lord here.

It looks like that pushed some of the true Christians over the edge  at UD and consequently I was challenged to admit as being a closet atheist or as Truth Will Set You Free called me a/mat (atheist/materialist)…

41 Truth Will Set You Free 

“J-mac @ 15: A/mats are cowards when they preach their a/mat faith as if it has some redeeming social value, which it doesn’t. Stop faking. You act and live as if life has ultimate meaning and value, but there are no such things in a/mat faith-based philosophy.

You are delusional, and you are the real coward. Stop lying to yourself. Embrace your a/mat nihllism.”

My response to this challenge was:

42 J-Mac 

“O’RLY?

Well, I think the only way out of this for you is that you are going to have to prove your claim…

I hope you live up to your name Truth Will Set You Free… Otherwise I’d suggest you change your name to Falsehood Will Set You Up…”

As expected, I never got a response with at least some proof why Truth Will Set You Free  and others would think I was a closet atheist…

Although this is not the first time I was accused of being an atheist, this time though it happened after I had taken some shots at the most cherished belief of the frequent contributors at UD, namely BA77, kairosfocus, Truth Will Set You Free, Barry, Dionisio and many others… namely the afterlife….

Here is my final comment on the challenge:

“So, it looks like the time has come for me to face the truth and make up my mind whether I should support the atheistic/materialistic views, like the view of material, soulless body, or the theistic views with the immortal soul that survives the death of the body and either inherited the heavenly realm or the fiery hell…

Ever since I have been challenged by Truth Will Set You Free and others I have been thinking about it for few days and it looks like I’m going to need help of all of you… Simply put, it is not an easy decision. So, please help me out to make the right one.

As you may remember that one of the reasons I question some theistic/ Christian believes is the teaching of the immortality of the soul.

In Gen 2:16 and 17 we read:

“16 God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

So, according to the bible scripture, in God’s own words, the penalty for eating the forbidden fruit, which meant disobedience and sin, was supposed to be death. There is no mention of the survival of anything, like a soul, that was going to continue living in a spiritual realm, either in heaven or hell…

God said: “…You will surely die…” No hell, no afterlife, no nothing is ever said

After Adam and Eve sinned, one would hope that God would surly tell them all the details about their future regarding the continuation of their life as immortal souls…

And yet, nothing again:ì

Gen 3:19

“By the sweat of your face, You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
God said: “…You will return do the ground… because from it you were taken…”
So again, no word about the immortal soul continuing to live on in the spirit realm as the theistic/Christian teachings claim…

Instead, God clearly tells them that they are going to return to where they were before…
So, as you can see, if I were to accept the theistic/Christian teaching of the immortality of the soul, which continues after death, I would have to go against God’s own statements that are clearly the opposite to the beliefs of many Christians, including the many at UD, like Truth Will Set You free, BA77, ET, and many, many others…

However, this is not the end of the story…

When Satan convinced Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, what did he tell them the effect of the eating of the fruit would be?
Well read it for yourself:

Gen 3:1-5

“1 Now the serpent (Satan) was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’? 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. 3 But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.’?”4 (Satan) “No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil.”

So, obviously you can see the real problem I would have if I were to accept the theistic/Christian teachings of the immortality of the soul that survives death.

I would not only be supporting Satan’s claim that the eating of the forbidden fruit doesn’t lead to death, but rather to being like God, I would also have to be forced to claim that God, yes the Christian God, is a liar… because he said if you sin, you will die…

So, if I decide to stick with theists and support the teachings of immortality of the soul, like the true Christians like, Truth Will Set You Free , BA77, KF and many others believe, I actually would have to claim that God is a liar and Satan’s claim when he said:

“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil.”

was actually true…

So, please help me to make the right decisions.
If I stick with the beliefs of Truth Will Set You Free, BA77, KF and many others at UD, I’m going to be a hypocrite, and accuse God of lying. But if I support God’s statements and expose Satan as slander and lair, the true Christians at UD are going to continue to claim that I hide my true beliefs and you will call me an atheist/materialist… What should I do?

Truth Will Set You Free, BA77, ET, KF and others; what would you do if you were in my situation?

I think, I have no choice and I’m going to support God’s claims and oppose Satan’s falsehood even though I’m going to risk to be abused by you and called names like a/mat…

After all, if I can’t be true to myself, why even bother to breath? We agree at least on one thing: God is righteous and truthful even when hypocrites accused Him of being a lair….He will repay everyone in full…We can be assured of that…

I’m just wondering: Who is it going to be?
Am I going straight to hell?”

What do you all think? Did I do the right thing despite the possible consequences of being accused of being delusional and closet atheist? Am I a closet atheist? What do atheists think? Do I belong with you? Do I belong with true Christians like BA77, Barry, Dr. Egnor ,TWSYF and others? Do I even belong with the ID crowd?

180 thoughts on “If You are Going to Be a Christian, at Least be a Courageous Christian

  1. Acartia: Why is converting people an important thing? And if it is important for a Christian preacher, it must be equally important for a Muslim emir.

    Its the important thing if its the truth about which faith I must have for heaven. so if Billy’s faith is the accurate one then he was great.
    it would not be important for a muslim if Islam is false.
    Islam is false. So a waste to convert people.

  2. Acartia: If he died, why are we still arguing about the existence of god?

    1) I’m not arguing about the existence of God and I have no idea why you are still arguing about it.

    2) God can die in my place and still exist because he is God.

    quote:

    When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.
    (Rev 1:17-18)

    end quote:

  3. Acartia: So, what is the “whole story” behind him ordering the Israelites to kill all of the women, children and infants of their defeated enemies? When Hitler did this, he was called evil.

    I’m going to assume you are writing in good faith and actually want to know the answer.

    What I would suggest you do in that case is ask him yourself and then look around for his answer.

    Here is a good place to start

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7B5jokJsqk

    peace

  4. Acartia: Why is converting people an important thing?

    If Christianity is true it would be evil not to tell you the good news.

    peace

  5. fifthmonarchyman:

    2) God can die in my place and still exist because he is God.

    Time to visit that dictionary again. I believe your favorite was Merriam-Webster:

    Definition of die
    died; dying play \ˈdī-iŋ\
    intransitive verb

    2 a : to pass out of existence : cease

  6. Corneel: Time to visit that dictionary again. I believe your favorite was Merriam-Webster:

    God is a Trinity. Three separate persons each fully God yet there is only one God.

    The Trinity did not die for me
    Christ who is God died for me.
    He literally passed out existence and was resurrected on the third day.

    Now I’m sure you know that Christians don’t think that physical death is necessarily the end of all existence forever. Christianity has a concept called resurrection. It’s kind of a big deal for us 😉

    peace

  7. fifthmonarchyman: The Trinity did not die for me
    Christ who is God died for me.
    He literally passed out existence and was resurrected on the third day.

    Now I’m sure you know that Christians don’t think that physical death is necessarily the end of all existence forever. Christianity has a concept called resurrection. It’s kind of a big deal for us 😉

    Fair enough. But if dying is only a temporary inconvenience, don’t you think that that severely diminishes this proof that God is not evil? Dying for you just doesn’t sound so dramatic anymore if he just pops into existence again a few days later.
    I mean: I appreciate that you trust God to be good, and that is good enough for me. But you seem to be ever compelled to rationalize these sentiments.

  8. John Harshman: Of course, God was lying, and the snake (which for some unknown reason people associate with Satan) was telling the truth. That much should be obvious from the story.

    There are good reasons for the use of the word Nachash in Genesis. From http://www.therain.org

    The Hebrew word rendered “serpent” in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.
    In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah 6:2, 6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Numbers 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.
    But when the LORD said unto Moses, “Make thee a fiery serpent” (Numbers 21:8), He said, “Make thee a Saraph”, and, in obeying this command, we read in verse 9, “Moses made a Nachash of brass”. Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph.
    Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?
    Indeed, a reference to the structure of Genesis 3 (on page 7 in The Companion Bible) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Genesis 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion).

    So IMO the tempter in Genesis is Lucifer, the light bearer. The Genesis story relates the time when the self-conscious ego first appeared in individual humans. Because of the Luciferic influence humans became self-conscious before they were quite ready. And for the first time the ego experienced physical death.

  9. fifthmonarchyman: The Trinity did not die for me
    Christ who is God died for me.
    He literally passed out existence and was resurrected on the third day.

    Did Jesus have a soul?

  10. Robin: If Calvin was correct, it doesn’t matter…

    Sure it does

    You are confusing Calvinism with occasionalism.

    God does the saving but that does not mean he does not work through secondary causes.

    peace

  11. newton: How much certainty does knowledge require, 50.1 %?

    none.
    Knowledge only requires justification and belief and truth

    peace

  12. newton: Did Jesus have a soul?

    For me soul is just a fancy way of saying self. So since Jesus was a conscious person and not a zombie or a robot he had (has) a soul.

    peace

  13. Corneel: But if dying is only a temporary inconvenience, don’t you think that that severely diminishes this proof that God is not evil?

    Dying is not a temporary inconvenience. It’s death.

    The death of the savior is the single largest sacrifice that God could possibly make for anyone. and he did it specifically for me.

    I’d love to discuss the profound condescension involved in the Atonement but I’m afraid that I could not continue to think well of you when you inevitably make light of something that is so important to me.

    Here is a tiny glimpse of the profound εκενωσεν (emptying) that Christ endured for me

    quote:
    So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
    (Php 2:1-8)
    end quote:

    On the cross that εκενωσεν was so profound that very second person of the Trinity would pray “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?”
    (Mar 15:34)

    I know that this is all foolishness to you but to those of us who have experienced his love it is the very heart of God and the essence of his being.

    So much so that the thought of God being anything but merciful and loving and kind is simply unthinkable

    peace

  14. Corneel: I appreciate that you trust God to be good, and that is good enough for me. But you seem to be ever compelled to rationalize these sentiments.

    It’s not about rationalization it’s about trying to share my personal knowledge of a person I love with someone who is not only unfamiliar with him but who seems to have an unfair bias against him.

    I’m convinced that any sane person would love him just like I do if they would just take the time to get to know him.

    peace

  15. fifthmonarchyman: I’d love to discuss the profound condescension involved in the Atonement but I’m afraid that I could not continue to think well of you when you inevitably make light of something that is so important to me.

    I did not mean to do that, so I apologise if you got that impression.

  16. fifthmonarchyman: Sure it does

    You are confusing Calvinism with occasionalism.

    God does the saving but that does not mean he does not work through secondary causes.

    peace

    Once again, you’re ignoring what Calvin said. God has already chosen who the elect are. Any action on the part of humans after the fact is totally irrelevant. Oh…and then there’s the whole “without merit” you keep ignoring too.

  17. Robin: Once again, you’re ignoring what Calvin said. God has already chosen who the elect are. Any action on the part of humans after the fact is totally irrelevant. Oh…and then there’s the whole “without merit” you keep ignoring too.

    How can this be reconciled with free will?

  18. J-Mac: How can this be reconciled with free will?

    It cannot be reconciled. Calvinists lean on “Divine” determinism: “God controls whatsoever comes to pass.” They still claim that “sinners” are too blame for the “sins” that “God” has built them to do and controlled them to perform. Go figure.

  19. Corneel to fifth: Time to visit that dictionary again. I believe your favorite was Merriam-Webster:

    Definition of die
    died; dying play \ˈdī-iŋ\
    intransitive verb

    2 a : to pass out of existence : cease

    Steiner from his book Riddles of Philosophy

    We do not consider a world conception in its full significance if we accept only its thought content. Its essential element lies in the mood it communicates to the soul, that is, in the vital force that grows out of it. One must realize how Heraclitus feels himself with his own soul in the stream of becoming. The world soul pulsates in his own human soul and communicates to it of its own life as long as the human soul knows itself as living in it. Out of such a feeling of union with the world soul, the thought originates in Heraclitus, “Whatever lives has death in itself through the stream of becoming that is running through everything, but death again has life in itself. Life and death are in our living and dying. Everything has everything else in itself; only thus can eternal becoming flow through everything.”

    In order for you to be as you now are, the zygote that you once were, the embryo, the baby, the toddler had to pass out of existence, to cease to be.

  20. Robin: Once again, you’re ignoring what Calvin said. God has already chosen who the elect are. Any action on the part of humans after the fact is totally irrelevant. Oh…and then there’s the whole “without merit” you keep ignoring too.

    Don’t lose track of the fact that any happiness felt in heaven is also an illusion created by the omniscient, omnipotent deity.

    It’s all a Sim.

  21. CharlieM: In order for you to be as you now are, the zygote that you once were, the embryo, the baby, the toddler had to pass out of existence, to cease to be.

    I am sorry to tell you that the person you addressed in your comment has died.

  22. Corneel: I am sorry to tell you that the person you addressed in your comment has died.

    So death is not a final termination but a change from one form to another, yes? The caterpillar dies to give life to the butterfly.

  23. CharlieM: So death is not a final termination but a change from one form to another, yes? The caterpillar dies to give life to the butterfly.

    You seem able to speak only in bad metaphors. It’s really easy to tell the difference between a live butterfly and a dead caterpillar. I’d be happy to show you some time.

  24. CharlieM: So death is not a final termination but a change from one form to another, yes? The caterpillar dies to give life to the butterfly.

    Yes, I got that. But I hope you will agree that there is also a sense in which the zygote that I once was, the embryo, the baby, and the toddler have not died and I happen to think that that distinction is important.

  25. John Harshman: You seem able to speak only in bad metaphors. It’s really easy to tell the difference between a live butterfly and a dead caterpillar. I’d be happy to show you some time.

    Yes some things are easy to see, others are more subtle.

  26. CharlieM:
    Steiner from his book Riddles of Philosophy

    In order for you to be as you now are, the zygote that you once were, the embryo, the baby, the toddler had to pass out of existence, to cease to be.

    Does the heart, and the hand, and the foot, of the embryo, the baby, the toddler, pass out of existence and cease to be?

    Yes, names change as development occurs. The ceasing to be, not so much.

    Glen Davidson

  27. Corneel: Yes, I got that. But I hope you will agree that there is also a sense in which the zygote that I once was, the embryo, the baby, and the toddler have not died and I happen to think that that distinction is important.

    Yes, and that is what Heraclitus was getting at. He saw everything as emanating from the element of fire, all is in a state of flux. The one is in the many.

  28. GlenDavidson: Does the heart, and the hand, and the foot, of the embryo, the baby, the toddler, pass out of existence and cease to be?

    Yes, names change as development occurs.The ceasing to be, not so much.

    Glen Davidson

    Tell me, which of your skin cells or blood cells when you were a baby have not ceased to exist in the course of your life?

  29. GlenDavidson: All of the ones that have undergone mitosis to produce the ones that I have now.

    Glen Davidson

    So let me get this right. You are saying that some of your skin or blood cells have a lifetime of several decades?

  30. CharlieM: Yes some things are easy to see, others are more subtle.

    Your smug assumption that you have secret profound knowledge is annoying. Just saying.

  31. John Harshman: Your smug assumption that you have secret profound knowledge is annoying. Just saying.

    Just look where that profound knowledge has got him though!

  32. CharlieM: You are saying that some of your skin or blood cells have a lifetime of several decades?

    Some cells from the visual cortex have been found to be exactly the same age as the individual possessing them, showing that new neurons are not generated after birth in this region of the cerebral cortex.

  33. John Harshman: Your smug assumption that you have secret profound knowledge is annoying. Just saying.

    Not sure where you are getting the idea of profundity from. Everyone knows that caterpillars turn into butterflies, it is easy to observe. The fact that our skin is constantly renewing itself is not so easy to see. It takes a bit more thought although I wouldn’t call it profound knowledge.

  34. CharlieM: Not sure where you are getting the idea of profundity from. Everyone knows that caterpillars turn into butterflies, it is easy to observe. The fact that our skin is constantly renewing itself is not so easy to see. It takes a bit more thought although I wouldn’t call it profound knowledge.

    I’m getting the idea from your smug statements, like “Yes some things are easy to see, others are more subtle”, regarding your conflation of metamorphosis with death. It’s not the turning into butterflies that’s the attempt at profundity, it’s the equation with death. Do you not possess knowledge far beyond that of the so-called scientists? Is it not your purpose to educate us all?

  35. From the op:

    So, obviously you can see the real problem I would have if I were to accept the theistic/Christian teachings of the immortality of the soul

    Steiner on Plato and the soul:

    For Plato, the human soul is living in the idea, but this life is so constituted that the soul is not a manifestation of its life in the ideas in all its utterances. Insofar as it is submerged in the life of ideas, it appears as the “rational soul” (thought-bearing soul), and as such, the soul appears to itself when it becomes aware of itself in thought perception. It must also manifest itself in such a way that it appears as the “non-rational soul” (not-thought-bearing soul), As such, it again appears in a twofold way as courage-developing, and as appetitive soul. Thus, Plato seems to distinguish three members or parts in the human soul: The rational soul, the courage-like (or will-exertive) soul and the appetitive soul. We shall, however, describe the spirit of his conceptional approach better if we express it in a different way. According to its nature, the soul is a member of the world of ideas, but it acts in such a way that it adds an activity to its life in reason through its courage life and its appetitive life. In this threefold mode of utterance it appears as earthbound soul. It descends as a rational soul through physical birth into a terrestrial existence, and with death again enters the world of ideas. Insofar as it is rational soul, it is immortal, for as such it shares with its life the eternal existence of the world of ideas.

    Plato’s doctrine of the soul emerges as a significant fact in the age of thought perception. The awakened thought directed man’s attention toward the soul. A perception of the soul develops in Plato that is entirely the result of thought perception. Thought in Plato has become bold enough not only to point toward the soul but to express what the soul is, as it were, to describe it. What thought has to say about the soul gives it the force to know itself in the eternal. Indeed, thought in the soul even sheds light on the nature of the temporal by expanding its own being beyond this temporal existence. The soul perceives thought. As the soul appears in its terrestrial life, it could not produce in itself the pure form of thought. Where does the thought experience come from if it cannot be developed in the life on earth? It represents a reminiscence of a pre-terrestrial, purely spiritual state of being. Thought has seized the soul in such a way that it is not satisfied by the soul’s terrestrial form of existence. It has been revealed to the soul in an earlier state of being (preexistence) in the spirit world (world of ideas) and the soul recalls it during its terrestrial existence through the reminiscence of the life it has spent in the spirit.

    You will not hear many Christians talking about pre-existence. What are your thoughts on this J-Mac?

  36. CharlieM,

    I very much hope that you are not taking Steiner as an authority on Plato. His reading of Plato is hopelessly confused.

  37. Robin: Any action on the part of humans after the fact is totally irrelevant.

    It’s not irrelevant at all often it’s the action of humans that God uses to bring to pass what he has decreed.

    Robin: Oh…and then there’s the whole “without merit” you keep ignoring too.

    I’m not ignoring anything. Salvation is a gift that is given to undeserving sinners not based on any merit on their part.

    quote:

    For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
    (Eph 2:8-10)

    end quote;

  38. fifthmonarchyman: It’s not irrelevant at all often it’s the action of humans that God uses to bring to pass what he has decreed.

    Good grief…so it’s bad enough that Calvin puts forth the notion that his god created some humans for death and torture; you’re claiming that humanity is merely a bunch of mindless robots put here to be empty vessels programmed to carry out some lazy god’s will? I can’t even put into words the level of silliness that ranks as to me…

    I’m not ignoring anything. Salvation is a gift that is given to undeserving sinners not based on any merit on their part.

    So is death and torture apparently…

  39. CharlieM: In what way?

    It is no part of Plato’s thought that the appetitive and assertive parts of the soul only come into existence when the soul “descends” to earth, or that the soul by itself is purely rational. That’s a much later Neoplatonist addition to what Plato said. It becomes a definitive doctrine in Plotinus, who lived and died 500 years after Plato.

  40. Kantian Naturalist: It is no part of Plato’s thought that the appetitive and assertive parts of the soul only come into existence when the soul “descends” to earth, or that the soul by itself is purely rational.That’s a much later Neoplatonist addition to what Plato said. It becomes a definitive doctrine in Plotinus, who lived and died 500 years after Plato.

    From Philosophy 101

    The appetites, which includes all our myriad desires for various pleasures, comforts, physical satisfactions, and bodily ease. There are so many of these appetites that Plato does not bother to enumerate them, but he does note that they can often be in conflict even with each other. This element of the soul is represented by the ugly black horse on the left.

    and Wikipedia says that the appetitive is that part of the soul concerned with

    carnal erotic love, hunger, thirst and… the love of money-making

    These desires can only occur when the soul is bound to the body and is in search of earthly pursuits. The whole point of the allegory of the charioteer is to demonstrate that this part of the soul must be mastered if is to rise to the divine.

    This part of the soul is made manifest only by being bound to a physical body.

    As Steiner writes in Christianity As Mystical Fact

    Plato makes use of the myth to show the path of the eternal soul through various stages.

  41. John Harshman: I’m getting the idea from your smug statements, like “Yes some things are easy to see, others are more subtle”, regarding your conflation of metamorphosis with death. It’s not the turning into butterflies that’s the attempt at profundity, it’s the equation with death. Do you not possess knowledge far beyond that of the so-called scientists? Is it not your purpose to educate us all?

    It is my purpose to educate myself. Any statement of mine that you say is an attempt at profundity I have no doubt picked up from reading others and agreeing with what they say. I’m afraid that there is not much that is original in what I write here. Just as when I wrote, The one is in the many.. After posting that I was reading Phaedrus because of KN’s more recent comments, and I came across this quote from Socrates:

    Soc. I am myself a great lover of these processes of division and generalization; they help me to speak and to think. And if I find any man who is able to see “a One and Many” in nature, him I follow, and “walk in his footsteps as if he were a god.”

    Now whether I had previously obtained this idea from Socrates or Zeno or Heraclitus I don’t remember. But I do know that it would probably have been one of the above who got me to think about this idea. It was not an original thought of mine. The internet is a mighty source of inspiration.

  42. CharlieM: The internet is a mighty source of inspiration.

    And a mighty source of nonsense, too. One needs the wisdom to tell the difference.

  43. CharlieM,

    Just so you know, blindly agreeing with every nonsensical Steiner utterance isn’t actually a good way of educating oneself. I mean, it’s amusing to others, but that’s neither here nor there.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.