Barry Concedes a Point to TSZ, Well, Sorta

_{Barry Arrington

May 31, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

My thanks go to KF for pointing out the dustup over at TSZ over my last post. I found this little gem at TSZ particularly amusing.

Allan Miller quotes me and responds:

Barry: “Materialists are obliged to believe …”

Miller: … absolutely nothing. There is no obligation.

Well Allan, I suppose it depends on what one means by “obliged.”

My dictionary defines it in two ways:

“to require or constrain as by law or command”

“to require or constrain as by conscience”

Perhaps our difference lies in the different ways we have used the word. You are certainly correct that no one is going to require or constrain materialists by law or command to accept the conclusions that are logically compelled by their premises. There is no law against being irrational. You’ve got me there. I concede your point.

I was, however, using the word in the second sense. I assume (perhaps incorrectly, but I am always willing to give the benefit of the doubt) that materialists are honest. Honestly mistaken, but honest nevertheless. My conscience compels me to accept the conclusions that are logically compelled by my premises. For example, I believe the truth claims made in the ancient Christian creeds. From this premise I am “obliged” to further believe that there is one and only one God, and this means I am not free to believe there are 50 gods.

I assume that, just as with myself, materialists’ consciences compel them to accept the conclusions that are compelled by their premises. That is how I was using the word “obliged.” Now back to my original point to which you took umbrage. I wrote:

“Materialists are obliged to believe that every aspect of human behavior is determined – that it was selected for by evolutionary processes. Materialists are, therefore, obliged to believe that humor conferred on humans some reproductive advantage that was selected for by natural selection.”

Now, it seems to me that given their premises materialists are in fact “obliged” to believe these things. If you disagree you must show me where I am wrong. If I have stated correctly materialist premises and the argument I have constructed from those premises is valid, then the conclusions I have reached follow as a matter of logic. If you believe I am wrong you must show me where I have misstated materialist premises or where my argument is invalid or both. Your “neener neener neener I’m not obligated to believe anything” response is, to say the least, not particularly compelling.

Comments

Neil Rickert @19 May 31, 2013 at 4:06 pm Oops. I forgot to close a blockquote.
Mung: You forgot to enclose an argument. No response from Neil Am I the only one not surprised?Mung_{June 15, 2013
June
06
Jun
15
15
2013
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

@Charlie
You're stupid for believing in your own personal god who loves you no matter what as long as you go to confession before you die.
Funny. He tells us we are stupid for believing in the God who revealed Himself in the Bible, yet he wants to believe in a god who sits on a cloud somewhere who may or may not judge us. He has absolutely no evidence for this god and yet he tells us we are stupid. We have eyewitness testimony. We have personal testimony of lives changed by the power and love of Jesus all around the world. And we could go on. I guess we all have trouble seeing the holes in our own worldview. One more point. If nihilism is the truth, what is wrong with making up your own reality and including a make believe God in it to make you feel better? There can be no right or wrong in Nihilism - just likes and dislikes or opinions about what is good and bad. I think Charlie said that we all have to make meaning for our lives. In his worldview, yes that would be true and yet he chides us for doing just that. ???? I guess he didn't like the meaning we created. Sorry Charlie. You can't demand that our meaning that we create meets your approval. My meaning is every bit as good as your meaning. If I'm happy, why are you so concerned about it? Why do you want to break my bubble of happiness? Just curious.tjguy_{June 6, 2013
June
06
Jun
6
06
2013
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

If you need someone to tell you how to live a good life then maybe this world is worse off than I originally thought. Use your f-----g brains. CharlieD was warned not to use vulgarities (far less obscenities) while posting as a guest in our house. He ignored those warnings. He is no longer with us.CharlieD_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

CharlieD:
Youre stupid for believing in your own personal god who loves you no matter what as long as you go to confession before you die.
Yet still another ad hominem. You should realize that the tradition of confession of one's sins is primarily a Catholic tradition. I am a Christian but I don't go to confession. You also bring up an interesting point about God "who loves you no matter what." Could someone eventually lose God's favor? The Bible indicates that God is merciful and "ready to forgive" but this is dependent on the person's showing genuine repentance for their acts, and not repeating them.
No religion out there is any better than any of the others no matter how deep you stick your nose into that bible. In the end as long as you live a good life, you shouldnt have anything to worry about. Thats how i live.
The question to consider, then, is what is "good"? What is the objective standard of "a good life"? Remember that God's standards are higher than that of humans. Your idea of good may not be God's idea of good.
I believe there may be a god. I believe he sits on some cloud and just watches shit or something. Hes not jesus, hes not allah, or bhudda, or any of those. Hes just god.
Your God is impotent.
If he really does exist and does judge us, then he will judge us by how we lived our life, not if we went to church every sunday.
Which brings us back to the question above: what is the objective standard of "good" that we should aspire to?Barb_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

On morality and the Law of Nature, C.S. Lewis had this to say in Mere Christianity:
I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong— in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else? It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left: I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money—the one you have almost forgotten—came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done—well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it—and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much—we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so— that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves. These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.
Chance Ratcliff_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

The atheists of old knew this.
Yes indeed! And one of them was Bertrand Russell who's writings, ironically kept me in the Christian faith. Russell writes
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. Bertrand Russell http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/archives/a%20free%20man's%20worship.htm
And toward the end of his life Russell wrote at the beginning of his autobiography:
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a great ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair. I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy - ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness--that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what--at last--I have found. With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved. Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer. This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.
scordova_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

JLA: Pardon embarrassment, but I think it necessary to headline your remarks above and my observations on them, here. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

F/N: Sadly, it looks like JLA really means it (and is blissfully unaware of the reductio he committed). Sad. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

"... then he will judge us by how we lived our lives, not by whether we went to Sunday School." Where did you come up with this idea? From the Bible? Picking and choosing what to believe? Interesting.tjguy_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

Or, even more likely, He might judge us according to the standards He revealed in His Word! See you have a problem, Charlie. You think a god MIGHT exist but you have no way of knowing. And you have no way of knowing if this god of yours requires anything from you. **** And, if he does judge you, you have no way of knowing what standard he will judge you by! **** This is a problem! If he did make you and has a purpose for your life, why wouldn't he tell you? Seems pretty unlikely that he would make you but tell you nothing about why he did and still expect you to fulfill his purposes! And if he will judge you, it seems pretty unlikely that he would give you no instructions about life or reveal the standards by which he will judge you! But if that's what you really honestly think, I guess that is up to you. Rather, sounds to me like you just made up your own little god in such a way as to escape any interaction with him. You chose a very convenient god - one whom you can't know and to whom you have no responsibility. Why bother believing in a god at all if it doesn't effect your life at all? Oh, perhaps that was your intention from the start. With such a bias, do you really think that your own personal ideas about god are trustworthy? Do you honestly think such a convenient yet wimpy god exists? I don't. tjguy_{June 1, 2013
June
06
Jun
1
01
2013
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

"then he will judge us by how we lived our life, not if we went to church every sunday" So what is the acceptable line on how we 'lived our life' to be accepted by this mysterious God? Can I boast I lived my life 'better' than you. And going to church has nothing do with it.. Justified by Faith Romans 3:23 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and on all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;wateron1_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

No shit? I believe there may be a god. I believe he sits on some cloud and just watches shit or something. Hes not jesus, hes not allah, or bhudda, or any of those. Hes just god. If he really does exist and does judge us, then he will judge us by how we lived our life, not if we went to church every sunday.CharlieD_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

But you're not a hardcore atheist.JLAfan2001_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

Youre stupid for believing in your own personal god who loves you no matter what as long as you go to confession before you die. No religion out there is any better than any of the others no matter how deep you stick your nose into that bible. In the end as long as you live a good life, you shouldnt have anything to worry about. Thats how i live.CharlieD_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

Why would we ask for your opinion when you came out and starting blasting everyone here for believing in God? Living in our fairytale worlds, remember. Now you are not a hardcore atheist but people are stupid for believing in God. Just stop, youre not making any sense.JLAfan2001_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

Ive always thought there may be a god, either you guys never bothered to ask my opinion or just assumed I was hardcore atheist.
Sorry. My bad. I guess I just assumed you took that position because of things you were saying. cheers!tjguy_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Charlie @60
“Your evolved monkey brain is nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions” blah blah blah wake up. yours is too.
Excellent. We continue to make good progress! Or, - is this really progress if we have just undermined all chance of every really finding truth????tjguy_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

Ive always thought there may be a god, either you guys never bothered to ask my opinion or just assumed I was hardcore atheist.CharlieD_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Charlie @ 56
In the end I think there may be a god, but I dont think god is the one in any religious book we currently know of.
Now we are really making progress! Now you think there might be a god. Does that also mean that you think that objective moral standards and absolute truth might exist? ++++++++++ This is still quite a safe view though because it allows you to live your life free of interference from this god of yours. In other words, it seems that you do not believe it is possible to know this god. If not, then we are talking about agnosticism which could also be called "practical atheism". It is a way of conceding God's existence while retaining one's own independence. In this view, we still have to make up our own moral standards which again makes them meaningless. Do you think we will we have to give an account to this god of yours in the future, Charlie? That's a pretty big and important question! If not, this god of yours might as well not exist. Did this god of yours create us and thus give us meaning? Or are we still meaningless products of some pointless evolutionary process that is taking place in this universe? If we are responsible for our actions, if we humans - as opposed to animals - all are concerned about meaning, morality, spirituality, God/god, etc., then wouldn't it make sense for the Creator to reveal Himself to us? It would hardly be right for Him to make us like that and then not reveal any answers to these great questions that haunt mankind! That is one reason that we accept the Bible as God's revelation to man.tjguy_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

How naive can you get? We already established that religion helps our minds get through life, if for the wrong reasons. Just stop, youre not making any sense.CharlieD_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

If my catholic school was biased, why would they teach world religion at all? If religion is evil and an invention of the human mind, it wouldn't have been selected for and it shows that the mind can't be trusted. Also, you can't pick anything because science says you have no free will. I as that same deceiving brain that picked it for you. And it could be lying again.JLAfan2001_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

"Your evolved monkey brain is nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions" blah blah blah wake the fuck up, yours is too.CharlieD_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

And Im sure your CATHOLIC high school wasnt biased or anything... Ok, so in the end religion is a necessary evil that fills a void left by our self-awareness. All Im getting here is that religion is an invention of the human mind, am i missing something? So I guess you can either fill your head with ideas of an afterlife to make yourself feel good inside, or you can live life to the fullest knowing that you will die one day. I pick living life to the fullest how i want to, not how a book tells me to.CharlieD_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

Are none of you capable of listening to what others say? Look, humans want their life to have meaning. So they can get it from two places lets say: church or they can explore life and find it for themselves. I say they should find it for themselves.
Now we're making progress! That is NOT what you had been saying. So you think that people should make up their own meaning for life as opposed to accepting the meaning that comes from believing in God. Fine. Big deal. It's a free world. You are free to think whatever you want to think. Why should we do what you think? What does it matter if we find our meaning in a different way than you do? In other words, what moral right do you have to tell us how we should or should not find meaning in life? Oh, it's only your OPINION? Fine. You are welcome to your opinion and we to ours, right? Besides, you can't help what you think anyway given the chemical reactions in your brain. If you think your brain is nothing more than an evolved monkey brain, why should I give any thought to what you are saying? In fact, why should you give any thought to what you are saying? Darwin himself struggled with that thought and really never came up with a satisfactory answer. He said this:
But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (Letter to William Graham, 3 July 1881, posted at the Darwin Correspondence Project.)
crev.info/2013/05/how-students-should-deal-with-evolution-evangelists/ The Darwinian story undermines all possibility of real knowledge and of finding truth.tjguy_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

"Then by all means go for it, but from what ive seen, the majority of the religious following are handed their religion. If it were up to me Id have them teaching a religion class in school where they taught kids the basics of every religion out there, its history, etc. In the end I think there may be a god, but I dont think god is the one in any religious book we currently know of." They do. It's called World Religions and it was mandatory in my CATHOLIC high school. Where do you think this desire for meaning came from? EVOLUTION because it shaped our brains. It made us aware of our own death so it evolved the idea of religion in our brain and it was selected for because it helped survival. I'm not making this up. This is what your fellow free thinkers say.JLAfan2001_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Then by all means go for it, but from what ive seen, the majority of the religious following are handed their religion. If it were up to me Id have them teaching a religion class in school where they taught kids the basics of every religion out there, its history, etc. In the end I think there may be a god, but I dont think god is the one in any religious book we currently know of.CharlieD_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Charlie,
I realize religion is a necessary evil, but its negative aspects have begun to outweigh the positives.
Charlie, I am afraid you have a bit of a bias when evaluating religion. I too, want to differentiate Christianity from all "religion". But that's a topic for another day. However, here are some of the benefits that derive from Christianity: The importance of love - Love God w/all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. This teaching has resulted in lots of good works done in Jesus' name around the world. Hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, care for & training of the poor, medical ministry to the rural poor, freedom, civil liberties, & human rights(as declaration of independence declares), origin of ethics and a foundation for government & laws, a positive impact on science, free enterprise and the work ethic, huge impact in the arts - (art, sculptures, music, etc), etc. Whether you want to admit it or not, you have greatly benefited from the teachings and influence of Jesus on this world. Have people misused his teachings to justify or commit wrong? Sure. But at least they knew they were breaking God's laws when they did so. They knew they were living inconsistent with Jesus' teachings when they did so. This is different from atheists who create havoc in the world. Why? Because atheists know that morality is just a figment of our imagination so when they act immorally, it really isn't immoral at all. Just immoral according to some people's made up standards. In reality, since there are no objective standards, when the do "wrong" they know that they are breaking no standards of any kind. Their actions are totally consistent with their worldview. (made up arbitrary standards don't count as standards because they are meaningless.)tjguy_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

The problem is, Charlie, you're falling victim to either/or thinking (another logical fallacy). Who's to say that people can't both explore life and search for meaning while also being religious, or finding religion?Barb_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

Are none of you capable of listening to what others say? Look, humans want their life to have meaning. So they can get it from two places lets say: church or they can explore life and find it for themselves. I say they should find it for themselves.CharlieD_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Charlie, I hate to break it to you, but JLA has a great point here. If Christianity, if Islam, and if all religions are simply attempts to create meaning out of life so we can live happy cozy lives in our make-believe world, then the same can be said for whatever meaning you try and create in your own life. Excellent point! Why is your make believe meaning any better than anyone else's make-believe meaning? What standard do you use to make that judgment? Where did that standard come from? Is it true? How could we ever know? Same can be said for whatever moral standards you make up. If they are all arbitrary, then they are really meaningless. Why are your moral standards better than anyone else's? Why should I follow your standards? What happens if you don't follow your own standards? Nothing, right, at least if you don't get caught. So why follow them when it is costly to you? This is quite an interesting passage from Romans 2:
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Basically, it states that atheists are sinners even when evaluated by their own standards! No one is able to follow his own standards perfectly. For an atheist, this is no big problem, because their standards have no meaning. They are responsible to no one for their actions. The arbitrarily made up moral standards are as meaningful as unenforced traffic laws? If laws are unenforced, what good are they? Can humans be trusted to live by their own made up standards? No. If we can get away with something, often times we will choose to do it. For atheists, there is no further consequence to worry about if they "sin" or break their own made up standards. Maybe just a guilty conscience, but even that is meaningless because there are really no objective morals in an atheist's world so they can just feel free to ignore their conscience. After a while, it will grow weaker and weaker and the guilt will subside, at least partially. But the fact that guilt never fully goes away is powerful testimony to the fact that deep down, we all know there are objective standards of right and wrong as the Bible teaches.tjguy_{May 31, 2013
May
05
May
31
31
2013
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply