@Rhology for example, you seize upon his question regarding the existence of sin and, instead of answering it directly, you first take shots at the tired old chestnut of atheism lacking an objective morality and then answer with a verbose equivalent of "we see as through a clear glass darkly," which is hilarious since the provable existence of sin must be of utmost import to all Christians, given that your faith is meaningless unless original sin was a demonstrably provable thing that mankind had to be cleansed of in order to be "saved." Arguing against the specifics of your opponents framed issues is the worst form of intellectual laze, especially if you can't answer the issues in any meaningful way.

Reply · Report Post