Greg Almighty and Brumar Lover of God both argue the exact same way.
yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't,
yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't,
yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't,
yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't,
Not exactly Socratic dialectics.
en.wikipedia.org
Easy enough to make up things as you go along when you represent something that does not exist.
They demand strict proof on evolution but can't explain how or why someone would want to walk on water, part the sea or own a talking donkey.
When someone gives up useless attempts at dialogue they claim and declare they've worn them down in another victory for Jesus.
Both of them are grown up babies with deep insecurity about their chosen beliefs
Any negative sentiment about their statements they construe as an attack on GOD not them. |
