Eric Metaxas on the unlikelihood of our existence

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 9, 2014

Fine tuning, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to: Anything to get rid of fine tuning:

“Reason and science compels us to see what previous generations could not: that our existence is an outrageous and astonishing miracle, one so startlingly and perhaps so disturbingly miraculous that it makes any miracle like the parting of the Red Sea pale in such insignificance that it almost becomes unworthy of our consideration, as though it were something done easily by a child, half-asleep. It is something to which the most truly human response is some combination of terror and wonder, of ancient awe, and childhood joy.” Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 55-56

See also:Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

keith s Evil could only exist if there IS a God, otherwise, evil is just another creation of the imagination, and is meaningless. Indeed, God is terrible by his own admission, and believers therefore fear him. Acts of kindness are manifested by God from people, to people, as God appears to generally act by natural processes, rather than intervene in our daily lives. IMO, life would not be very interesting if the Almighty had to wipe our butts, or set our table, and so forth. The faithful should expect nothing more in this life except to suffer and die (follow Christ to the cross), and it is our duty to share what we have with the less fortunate. These points are a few of the many life lessons found in Luke 18. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (I Corinthians 15:19)littlejohn_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ keith!
. God is supposedly perfectly loving and omnipotent. 2. We, who are quite imperfect, nevertheless willingly fetch rolls of toilet paper for our loved ones, even when it is inconvenient. It’s the decent thing to do.
What people don't keep the toilet paper in their bathroom? Why does keith think that God should rescue someone from their own stupidity? Why does keith think it's OK for people to shirk responsibility? And why does keith think that God should forced to do mundane chores?
No, because I don’t have any particular “personal” idea of God.
All evidence to the contrary, of course.Joe_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

vividbleau:
You know I am hopeful that we might have a productive dialogue on this subject. I think it is an important one. I can only speak for myself but I find that the subject matter you are alluding to is an important topic, a topic that to often receives highly unsatisfactory answers for the one asking the question. At least the answers given to me are un satisfying.
It's a question that many believers try to avoid, because they have no good answer to it. Witness the evasions in this thread.
Besides evil and suffering there is the question of the existence of evil in the first place. I mean how did evil penetrate an all good creation. I have never found the free will defense to be compelling as an answer to the appearance of evil springing forth from a perfectly good creation.
Yes, the free will defense just doesn't work.
All this to say that I think this is an important topic and indeed every serious thinking theist needs to not downplay the gravity of this objection to the existence of an all powerful,!good, loving being.
Well, I'm glad to hear that you acknowledge the seriousness of the problem.
I warn you in advance that my replies may be spotty since I have a very time consuming business to run but because I think you deserve honest answers to what I think is a legitimate objection regarding the existence of an all powerful loving being I will do my best to respond in a timely manner.
Don't worry about it. We all have lives outside of UD. Whenever you have the time and inclination to comment, that's fine.
The first thing I think we need to define is what is evil? Here are my thoughts. First evil is not a thing. Secondly evil is a deprivation of good. Within good there is potential evil.without good there can be no evil.
That's the Augustinian view, but I find it to be problematic for a number of reasons. 1. It's subject to the same kind of inversion I mentioned above. That is, you could choose to think of evil as the absence of good, but you could also choose to think of good as the absence of evil. I see no principled reason for favoring the former interpretation. 2. It fails to capture something essential about evil. For example, there is something actively malevolent about a sadistic killer who seeks out victims for the pleasure of torturing and killing them. Evil isn't merely the absence of good. 3. It doesn't work as a defense of God. Even if evil really were just the absence of good, that wouldn't excuse an omnipotent God for failing to minimize it. There are sins of omission as well as commission, after all.keith s_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

keith:
Judging by his behavior, he also seems to hate many of his creatures
Are you talking about animals? IMO, animals don't have souls. So they are not conscious and they don't suffer even if they look like they do. They're just meat robots. :-D We will build robots that will show similar emotional behavior as animals. It is called "reinforcement learning" in AI. It is a purely mechanical thing. Humans must suffer because there is a time for everything, a time for suffering and a time for happiness. This is the way of our yin-yang reality. There is no escaping it. We are Gods in training and this is our initiation period. Soon, the time for happiness will come. We are not going through any suffering that God did not go through.
I congratulate you on that. Your beliefs are more rational in that particular respect than those of many of your fellow Christians, who insist on an omniGod.
Well, I am certainly not like the vast majority of Christians, that's for sure. In fact, I detest most of Christianity. Surprise. But I refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There are quite a few Bible verses that seem to conflict with your view. I take it that you are not an inerrantist.
Of course not. Worshipping the Bible as the inerrant of God is idolatry, IMO. There is a lot of crap in the Bible, especially since many Church leaders and other miscreants have had their filthy hands in it for centuries. But so what?Mapou_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

Mapou:
You only have a problem with your personal idea of God.
No, because I don't have any particular "personal" idea of God. That's why I was careful to specify the kind of God that my argument addresses: perfectly loving and omnipotent.
God can both hate and love. For example, he hates Satan but he loves us and died to pay for our sins.
Judging by his behavior, he also seems to hate many of his creatures, or is at the very least indifferent to their suffering (unless he isn't omnipotent, in which case he could be trying, but failing, to protect his creatures from suffering).
Furthermore, even though his power is immense, he is not omnipotent. I say this as a Christian. Omnipotence and omniscience are crackpottery handed down to us by various Church leaders who either do not know any better or are/were charlatans, IMO.
I congratulate you on that. Your beliefs are more rational in that particular respect than those of many of your fellow Christians, who insist on an omniGod.
The Christian God once regretted having created mankind. Also, he has to test us because that is the only way our spirits can be known. Think about it.
I have thought about it. Many stories in the Bible make no sense at all in terms of a God who is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
PS. God only creates physical matter. Souls/spirits can be neither created nor destroyed. So the idea that God can create a perfectly good moral being is nonsense.
There are quite a few Bible verses that seem to conflict with your view. I take it that you are not an inerrantist.keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

keith s:
1. God is supposedly perfectly loving and omnipotent.
You only have a problem with your personal idea of God. God can both hate and love. For example, he hates Satan but he loves us and died to pay for our sins. Furthermore, even though his power is immense, he is not omnipotent. I say this as a Christian. Omnipotence and omniscience are crackpottery handed down to us by various Church leaders who either do not know any better or are/were charlatans, IMO. The Christian God once regretted having created mankind. Also, he has to test us because that is the only way our spirits can be known. Think about it. PS. God only creates physical matter. Souls/spirits can be neither created nor destroyed. So the idea that God can create a perfectly good moral being is nonsense.Mapou_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Everything that can be used for good can also be used for evil. But how do we know what good and evil even is? "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has an idea of what a straight line is said CS Lewis" So perhaps Keith S can start by asking himself how is it that I know what is good and what is evil? Where does that come from?Andre_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

Keith You know I am hopeful that we might have a productive dialogue on this subject. I think it is an important one. I can only speak for myself but I find that the subject matter you are alluding to is an important topic, a topic that to often receives highly unsatisfactory answers for the one asking the question. At least the answers given to me are un satisfying. Forget about the toilet paper how about showing a little kindness to the 6 million Jews that were slaughtered in the death camps. Or showing kindness to the starving children in Sudan. And what kind of God creates beings knowing beforehand that they will my suffer a miserable existence, die and spend eternity in hell ( I am coming from the Christian perspective)? I mean what's the point? For all of my adult life I have grappled with questions like these. I have found that a lot of answers given are unsatisfactory to me. Often times I find that key pieces are never addressed at al or only superficially. Besides evil and suffering there is the question of the existence of evil in the first place. I mean how did evil penetrate an all good creation. I have never found the free will defense to be compelling as an answer to the appearance of evil springing forth from a perfectly good creation. All this to say that I think this is an important topic and indeed every serious thinking theist needs to not downplay the gravity of this objection to the existence of an all powerful,!good, loving being. So I hope we can have some constructive dialogue. I warn you in advance that my replies may be spotty since I have a very time consuming business to run but because I think you deserve honest answers to what I think is a legitimate objection regarding the existence of an all powerful loving being I will do my best to respond in a timely manner. The first thing I think we need to define is what is evil? Here are my thoughts. First evil is not a thing. Secondly evil is a deprivation of good. Within good there is potential evil.without good there can be no evil. Thoughts? Vividvividbleau_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

Mung:
keiths, if you cannot see the holes in your argument I cannot help you.
True, because you can't see any holes in it either. If you could, you would have pointed them out already.keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

I'm not disappointed, Moose Dr. I'm sure he did his best, but existence was beyond his abilities.keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

keiths, if you cannot see the holes in your argument I cannot help you. Here's another one: God does not exist, therefore ID must be false. Good luck.Mung_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

You guys are being awfully harsh with Keith. I don't know what caused Keith's deep disappointment with God, but I doubt that it has anything to do with the science. It rarely does.Moose Dr_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Read it again, Mung: 1. God is supposedly perfectly loving and omnipotent. 2. We, who are quite imperfect, nevertheless willingly fetch rolls of toilet paper for our loved ones, even when it is inconvenient. It’s the decent thing to do. 3. God could poof a roll of toilet paper into someone’s hands with far less effort that it would take one of us to lift an eyebrow. 4. God never does it. Ever. 5. No one can think of a plausible reason for this. 6. Where does the evidence lead? To the obvious conclusion: there is no perfectly loving, omnipotent God.keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Keith is a deeply religious man, a fanatical jihadist for Darwinism. And not a very smart one either. I'm glad to see him getting what he deserves.Mapou_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

This is the same keiths, we assume, who claimed that a book he was reading sounded the death knell for ID. This is the same keiths, we assume, who claimed that we would be hearing from him a great deal from this book that he was reading that sounded the death knell for ID. Not so much. Instead, keiths resorts to "the toilet paper argument against the existence of God." God ought to miraculously provide a roll of toilet paper to everyone who might need a roll of toilet paper. God does not miraculously provide a roll of toilet paper to everyone who might need a roll of toilet paper. Therefore, God does not exist.Mung_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

To no one's surprise, keiths has no case against ID. To no one's surprise, keiths has no case against God. To no one's surprise, keiths exists in a fantasy world where nothing he says is false or even can be false.Mung_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

To no one's surprise, Mung can't answer my question -- but what about the rest of you?keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

keiths:
Believing in an omniGod is a constant battle against the evidence. You have to do the believer’s two-step, as I explained to Moose Dr above.
keiths: God doesn't supply toilet paper on demand. The evidence supports this. keiths: If God exists, God would provide toilet paper upon demand. God does not provide toilet paper upon demand, therefore God does not exist. poor keiths.Mung_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

I guess the lesson keiths is trying to teach us is that even though his "toilet-paper argument against the existence of God" had no influence on his own rejection of God, if he had been confronted with it he would have immediately become a heathen. It's just that compelling.Mung_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Mung: Can you please explain for us poor rubes who still believe in God how your “toilet-paper argument against the existence of God” played a role in your own decision to deny the existence of God? keiths: It didn’t. Time to move on then.Mung_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

as to: "Believing in an omniGod is a constant battle against the evidence." Actually the scientific evidence for Theism is holding up quite well, whereas you pretty much have to deny everything that modern science has revealed to us to still be a materialistic atheist: "I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that the universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Anthony Flew - world's leading intellectual atheist for most of his adult life until a few years shortly before his death The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel (Nov. 25, 2012) - video http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/ee32d/ 1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale. As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity: General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin - (video) http://vimeo.com/34084462bornagain77_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Mung,
God should be like I think God should be like. God is not like I think God should be like. Therefore there is no God. QED.
No, it's more like this: 1. God is supposedly perfectly loving and omnipotent. 2. We, who are quite imperfect, nevertheless willingly fetch rolls of toilet paper for our loved ones, even when it is inconvenient. It's the decent thing to do. 3. God could poof a roll of toilet paper into someone's hands with far less effort that it would take one of us to lift an eyebrow. 4. God never does it. Ever. 5. No one can think of a plausible reason for this. 6. Where does the evidence lead? To the obvious conclusion: there is no perfectly loving, omnipotent God.
Can you please explain for us poor rubes who still believe in God how your “toilet-paper argument against the existence of God” played a role in your own decision to deny the existence of God?
It didn't. I like it because it highlights something that is under-appreciated: It isn't just instances of great evil and suffering, like the 2004 tsunami, that are evidence against the existence of an omniGod. Less dramatic ones also work. Believing in an omniGod is a constant battle against the evidence. You have to do the believer's two-step, as I explained to Moose Dr above.keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

keiths:
Belief in a perfectly loving, omnipotent God makes no sense in light of the evidence.
ok, so you ran out of toilet paper and no god was there to hand you one. Shame on God. Shame on you for not checking first. Frankly, a God who answered to my every whim would probably not qualify as God. You never did say what your point is. If you have one. God should be like I think God should be like. God is not like I think God should be like. Therefore there is no God. QED. Can you please explain for us poor rubes who still believe in God how your "toilet-paper argument against the existence of God" played a role in your own decision to deny the existence of God? To be honest, this is a new one to me. I'd never heard before the argument that God does not give everyone toilet paper upon demand, therefore there is no God. Was this argument the final nail in the coffin for you? The straw that broke the camel's back?Mung_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Moose Dr, You're performing the classic believer two-step: 1. Assume that a perfectly loving, omnipotent God exists. 2. Interpret/distort all evidence in a way that supports #1. When something good happens, credit it to God. When something bad happens, either a) blame someone other than God, or b) assume that it's somehow for the best. Who are we to judge God for apparent evil? The problem is that the opposite logic works equally "well": 1. Assume that a perfectly evil, omnipotent God exists. 2. Interpret/distort all evidence in a way that supports #1. When something bad happens, credit it to God. When something good happens, either a) blame someone other than God, or b) assume that it's somehow for the worst. Who are we to judge God for apparent good? Both stances are absurd in light of the evidence.keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Keith, you asked, "Why does a perfectly loving God ... refuse to do a small kindness" Your didn't ask about toilet paper, you asked about a small kindness. The dishwasher story was a small (or somewhat big, actually) kindness. Earlier you said, "You’d certainly be a jerk if your kids were at your house, stranded on the toilet, and you refused to fetch a roll." Though I have been in church bathrooms many times, I have no memory of ever being out of toilet paper in a church bathroom. I therefore cannot relate. What I do not know is if the pastor, or custodian felt the prompting of the Lord on 5 occasions correcting the problem just before I got there. Ga'ley, the toilet paper might have mysteriously appeared just before I got there for all I know. Finally: "Your story ... doesn't require a supernatural explanation." No it doesn't, does it. Of course not. That is the difference between you and me. God blesses you, as he blesses everybody, but you are too blind to notice.Moose Dr_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

keiths:
No, it’s a perfectly well-formed, intelligible question:
No, it isn't. Here's a perfectly well-formed, intelligible question for you: Why do rabbits with large floppy ears appear more often in acid trip hallucinations than small fluffy elephants? keiths:
It’s no surprise that you can’t answer it.
I answered it, so you must be hallucinating. In your hallucinations, which do you see more often?Mung_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

If it makes any of you feel better, I wouldn't have been able to answer the question either, back when I was still a Christian. Belief in a perfectly loving, omnipotent God makes no sense in light of the evidence.keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Moose Dr, Your story is a) about a dishwasher, not about toilet paper rolls; and b) doesn't require a supernatural explanation. Can you answer the actual question?
I’m genuinely interested, though — how do you explain this to yourself? Why does a perfectly loving God consistently, with no exceptions, refuse to do a small kindness that we, despite our imperfections, wouldn’t hesitate to do?
keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, You are making choice #4:
4) he has some other reason for never, ever, poofing a roll of toilet paper into the hands of the needy.
Why choose #4 when #1-3 make more sense (especially #1) and actually fit the evidence?
1) he’s not there; 2) he’s a jerk; 3) he isn’t powerful enough;
keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

littlejohn, Nothing in Luke 18:1-30 answers the question.keith s_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply