THIS BLOG IS NOW IN STASIS.


PLEASE VISIT MY NEW WEBSITES:


My other projects include:


TrueFreethinker.com


My side projects are:


Worldview and Science Examiner


Fitness Trends Examiner (wherein I review individual exercises and workout routines, diet and nutrition, supplements and healthy snacks)


My YouTube channel

4/21/08

Bill Maher’s Cinematic Endeavor

“…we interview God…”

Thus states Larry Charles about his new documentary starring Bill Maher.

Let us face the facts, now is the time for any and all atheists who are so inclined to join the ranks of the Neo sect of atheism and let it all hang out. This sect is rude, crude, belligerent, belittling and let us not forget illogically fallacious, historically ignorant, committed to the “science” de jour and as good old fashioned wrong as ever. Seriously, if you are an atheist of this sect and you have not made at least a few million denarius ranting against “religion” then you are doing something wrong.

If you are an atheist who is not an adherent of this sect then I am sorry to break it to you but another very, very poor example of “atheism” is on its way.

Show+/-Hide



DISCLAIMER: I have not viewed the documentary that I am about to mention. Thus, I will only be commenting on the actual contents in as much as they have been revealed by the director and star.

Bill Maher is the star of a new documentary entitled “Religulous,” which was due to be released on Easter for maximum controversy. Mr. Maher and Mr. Charles have teamed up in order to travel the world and answer questions such as:

“What do you believe, why do you believe it, and why do you need to believe it? Can we be good without God? Is religion a calling or a mental illness? Were Jesus, Moses and Mohammed prophets and visionaries, or crackpot nut cases who today would be put away? Is religion an obsessive-compulsive disorder?”[1]
Mr. Charles refers to the documentary as, surprise I know,

“…a raunchy, rude, irreverent, outrageous, and shocking nonfiction film about the greatest fiction ever told. Set to the rhythms of ‘Sympathy for the Devil’…”[2]

The New York Post referred to Religulous as “…the most sacrilegious movie ever made.”[3] And one which “…is poised to void on every faith. Any faith.”[4] Of course, one can only wonder, although a good guess may suffice, if Mr. Maher will tackle his own religion, atheism. This would have been most interesting when you consider that, for instance, the documentary intends on besmirching the concept of a virgin birth. I freely admit to taking some license here since I do not know Mr. Maher’s particular views on the origins of life and so I will attribute to him a view that is likely to be accurate of a generic atheist view. Picture this if you will: Mr. Maher will belittle the concept of a virgin birth while, at the same time, believing that all life on earth was uncaused by spontaneous abiogenesis. How is the concept of a virgin birth any more preposterous than the concept of life coming from a swamp being struck by lightning? At least with a virgin birth you have a woman, an egg and a womb involved, this is half of the equation. Mr. Maher could choose any of the utterly failed materialistic theories regarding life’s origins and the conclusion is the same (see here for a variety of examples). On the one hand you have the claim of a divine miracle and on the other, the claim of a materialistic miracle, which Prof. Richard Dawkins prefers to term “luck.”
Prof. Dawkins has written:

“Chance, luck, coincidence, miracle…events that we commonly call miracles are not supernatural, but are part of a spectrum of more-or-less improbable natural events. A miracle, in other words, if it occurs at all, is a tremendous stoke of luck.”[5]
And what of his view of origins?:

“It is as though, in our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck.”[6]
See my essay The Gap Filler where I provide examples of how atheist, scientists and atheist scientists fill the gaps in our knowledge with time, chance, matter and even imagination, luck and yes, even faith.

Well, there is something to be said about pandering to the tastes and intellectual capacity of your audience. I wonder if he is aware that Mick Jagger, of the Rolling Stones who wrote the song “Sympathy for the Devil,” has stated that whenever they play that song something odd always happens. Such was the case when the Rolling Stones hired the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang to do security for their Altamont Speedway concert in 1969 where a Hell’s Angels stabbed a young African American to death. In fact, while the original song was being recorded a lamp in the studio caught fire.

But this is a mere aside. Mr. Charles refers to the God of the Bible as living “in space” and “in the sky” and states that after Jesus dies, “…he rises from the dead and flies into space to be with his father (who is also him.)”[7] Of course, such stunning ignorance of the very subject about which he will be releasing a documentary may not be at all surprising. The neo-atheist sect is not concerned with accuracy but with detonation of emotionally charged grenades. After all what is one to expect from “raunchy, rude, irreverent, outrageous, and shocking”? Absolutely nothing but millions of dollars for him, laughs from the neos and retorts from the “religious.”

I was not at all surprised that Mr. Charles directed the documentary since he is most recently known for the movie “Borat.” “Religulous” is really Borat part II since Borat was a movie about a man pretending to be interested in learning new things about other cultures (the USA in this case) but was really only interested in pure mockery.


Mr. Maher has stated:

“Since starting on Politically Incorrect in 1993, it has been my pleasure over the last decade and a half to make organized religion one of my favorite targets. I often explained to people, ‘I don’t need to make fun of religion, it makes fun of itself.’ And, then I go ahead and make fun of it too, just for laughs.”[8]
Mr. Maher refers to himself as an apatheist in that he is apathetic about God’s existence. Although how apathetic can he be? He devotes comedy routines, portions of his show, interviews and a documentary about God and religion. Perhaps God is only important enough to mock. Well Mr. Maher, it’s been done, done to death in fact, to death.

It is interesting to note that he commits an utterly typical fallacy. For example, he states that he does not know what happens after we die and then extrapolates from himself to everyone of the 8 billion people on earth. He fallaciously reasons thusly: I do not know and since I do not know no one knows and anyone who claims to know is somehow in error.


This will certainly be an interesting project. The difficulty will be to take this documentary seriously. I realize that it is meant to be “funny” and that is precisely what is so neo-atheist about it. They want to score points against religion while being funny. Therefore, on the one hand they can claim to have scored point yet, on the other hand they can get away with fallacies by stating that they set out to be funny. This reminds me of Dan Brown who claimed that “The Da Vinci Code” was historically accurate but then decided to leave it to the scholars when people came out of the woodworks proving him inaccurate in every conceivable way. Hit and run…all the way to the bank.

I could also see people committing the ad hominen based on the fact that even if we grant that religious faith is fallacious, if the alternative is to be like Mr. Maher then, “No thanks.”
Let us imagine that it is proved beyond doubt that any and all belief in God and the supernatural is nothing but a consoling delusion. If the alternative is to take of the worldview that characterizes the neo-atheists then I think that I would choose the consoling delusion. Why would I give up my perfectly good morals and love for my neighbor to become a belligerent, belittling and arrogant bully who makes a living by besmirching people?

Let us face it, he is certainly not the best, or even mediocre, example of anything that could even be imagined to be decent. He thinks that incestuous pedophilia is hilarious (see here), he rejoices when people such as Jerry Falwell die (as did Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens), he likens public breast feeing to public masturbation, etc., etc., etc.
My heart truly does go out to Mr. Maher because he is obviously a very, very troubled man. He is an example of a person who is so twisted and perverse that everything that he sees, hears or thinks about becomes mangled. The reality of what he is seeing, hearing or thinking about becomes distorted when it is filtered through the darkness of his worldview. This is evidenced by the fact that when he considers fathers who are so concerned about their own little daughter’s purity, mental and physical wellbeing that they take them to purity balls, father daughter dances, etc. he perverts it and claims that “then dad has sex with her in the car” (this is followed by roaring laughter and applause from his audience). He sees a woman nourishing her beautiful little baby and he thinks about people manipulating their very own genitalia public-wise. How sad it must be to be so blinded and consumed by such darkness.

There are three interesting videos that I would recommend you watch in the order that I place them here:

Maher Making New Documentary Movie, “Religulous”



Bill Maher - APATHEIST - on Scarborough Country - 1 of 2



Bill Maher - APATHEIST - on Scarborough Country - 2 of 2



The reason that I recommend this order is that it makes a point, it shows Mr. Maher going from a confident and witty man who knows what he it talking about to a child who falls apart upon being asked the most basic question. The first link is an interview with Larry King where Mr. Maher has his say, a virtual monologue. However, when being interviewed by Joe Scarborough Mr. Maher is asked questions which stop him dead in his tracks and causes him to spout out clearly fallacious statements which only go to demonstrate his ignorance of Christian theology and the contents and purpose of the New Testament.

I must say that I was reminded of watching Ben Stein’s “Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed” (which I reviewed here) because various interviewees are seen expounding their materialistic-Darwinian theories very confidently and authoritatively only to stop dead in their tracks when simply asked how they actually know that what they are saying is accurate. Likewise, Mr. Maher comes across as pretty bright and sharp when he is on script in front of an audience that is there to adore him. Yet, when simply asked, “How do you know?” he falls apart and grasps at straws and only succeeds in discrediting himself further.

Maher has two difficult mountains to climb:
He is a clown trying to make a serious yet funny point while wearing his big nose and floppy shoes. Everything that he states could be perfectly accurate but you are just thinking, “I just know that at any moment water is going to come squirting out of that plastic flower on his lapel.” Thus, Mr. Maher does a disservice by not giving himself an opportunity for a substantive contribution. Although, this is my take while Mr. Maher’s take is to be abusive, laugh and bank on it “just for laughs.”
Secondly, he is sadly of very, very poor character even while trying to belittle others.

What is one to do about such outpourings of raunch, rudeness, etc. the same as ever: give it a fair hearing/viewing and make informed decisions at that time and criticize the content if need be.


ANNOUCEMENT: To our atheist readership,

I am calling upon you to assist me in getting the scoop on this Mr. Maher’s endeavor.

I want to know who is funding the documentary.
I want to know who is funding the advertising.
I want to know what music they used and whether they violated copyright laws.
I want to know under what pretenses people were interviewed.
I want to know if any of the interviewees have complained about being mislead.
I want to know if the documentary was creatively edited.
I want to know everything that can possibly be known, dirt and all.

Thank you so very much for your cooperation.


[1] Bill Maher’s Religulous, The Nonfiction Film About the Greatest Fiction Ever Told
[2] Bill Maher’s Religulous, The Nonfiction Film About the Greatest Fiction Ever Told
[3] New York Post, He of No Faith Makes Most Ungodly Movie (April 9, 2007)
[4] New York Post, He of No Faith Makes Most Ungodly Movie (April 9, 2007)
[5] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker—Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), p. 139
[6] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker—Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), p. 145
[7] Bill Maher’s Religulous, The Nonfiction Film About the Greatest Fiction Ever Told
[8] Bill Maher’s Religulous, The Nonfiction Film About the Greatest Fiction Ever Told

13 comments:

  1. So, I think I can sum up your reaction to what you know of "Religulous" fairly simply:

    "Bill Maher is being a jerk."

    No disagreement there.

    I've never been able to understand how mockery and derision are sensible actions to take in support of your beliefs or lack thereof. Perhaps my mind is insufficiently advanced.

    I haven't seen the film either, and I don't intend to. I certainly hope that you don't think that the world has two types of atheists, but I admit that most public displays of atheism (PDAs?) are less than fully civil.

    I think part of the issue is the fact that atheism is still unacceptable to the public at large, and atheists tend to either 1. Keep their views to themselves, 2. Share their views with other atheists, 3. Make public but non-pushy statements in support of their views, or 4. Be as flamboyantly nontheistic as possible.

    Hopefully, things will change IF and when America starts treating atheists like humans, but, until then, the only atheists you're likely to hear from are commenters on this and other blogs and rather boorish public figures.

    I'd offer apologies if I could, but I can't really speak on behalf of anyone. Eh?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am calling upon you to assist me in getting the scoop on this Mr. Maher’s endeavor.

    Sorry, I couldn't care less about Maher, you'll have to research that one on your own ;)

    About your rant on abiogenesis, I wish you had read the Kauffman article that I linked for you in the other topic, before writing this post. There's also the lipid models and metabolism models that you don't seem to be aware of, but most importantly: self-reproduction of polymers has been achieved experimentally in the lab already. So calling it "utterly failed materialistic theories" was perhaps a bit premature (or wishful thinking?)

    But that's how theists always operate, isn't it - something that science can't explain or demonstrate today, well they'll never be able to do that, so therefore [insert explanation from religious belief]. Over and over we see this pattern repeating itself..

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mariano "How is the concept of a virgin birth any more preposterous than the concept of life coming from a swamp being struck by lightning?"
    What? What cartoon version of abiogenesis is that? Even Wikipedia's not-great page on the various shaky hypotheses of it is more in-depth than that (and notice how it mentions "controversial" and "may" a lot). Anyone who posits any one of the many variants thereof as truth is either delusional or a liar.

    "On the one hand you have the claim of a divine miracle and on the other, the claim of a materialistic miracle, which Prof. Richard Dawkins prefers to term “luck.”"
    Look at the chain of events that lead to you. If any of the, by human standards, practically infinite number of steps that resulted in you changed you, in all likelyhood, would not be here. That's luck (for you, at least. It's unluck for the many other possible not-yous that don't exist. I'm sure we would hear no end to their bitching if they were here to do so).

    "atheist, scientists and atheist scientists fill the gaps in our knowledge with time, chance, matter and even imagination, luck and yes, even faith."
    Read The Making of the Fittest. It's an amusing and light book on how the study of genetics supports ToE. Plus, it's got pictures of monkeys. Everybody loves monkeys, right? If nothing else, the title of chapter two, "The Everyday Math of Evolution: Chance, Selection, and Time" will give you deja vu. No, I'm not going to tell you what it's about. Your Inner Fish is good, too. (I should note that I'm not finished either of them, yet). But those are both about ToE. Abiogenesis is on a far less-stable foundation.

    "Well, there is something to be said about pandering to the tastes and intellectual capacity of your audience."
    You know how well that fits Expelled as well, right?

    "“Religulous” is really Borat part II since Borat was a movie about a man pretending to be interested in learning new things about other cultures (the USA in this case) but was really only interested in pure mockery."
    Actually, if memory serves, there's a kernel of "smart" in that character. It's but a kernel, IMO, surrounded by slop, unfortunately. The "Throw the Jews down the well" bit is particularly illuminating. I don't know about you, but I know few people who would sing along...and those people I try to avoid, generally.

    "For example, he states that he does not know what happens after we die and then extrapolates from himself to everyone of the 8 billion people on earth. He fallaciously reasons thusly: I do not know and since I do not know no one knows and anyone who claims to know is somehow in error."
    But he's right. You don't know. You believe. I don't know, either. As with abiogenesis, anyone expressing an absolute truth about what happens after you die is either delusional or a liar. Since, as far as I'm aware, "I" am in some sense my brain, once my brain ceases its brainy brainening, "I" ceases as well. That's the conclusion I reach, based on a long an hard discussion with my brain. It would've been a longer talk, but it started to dry out, and I had to put it back in my head.

    "The difficulty will be to take this documentary seriously."
    Or, at all. I don't like Bill Maher.

    "If the alternative is to take of the worldview that characterizes the neo-atheists then I think that I would choose the consoling delusion."
    Luckily, it's not a false dichotomy. Most of us are just like most of you. When cut, do we both not bleed? When itched, do we both not scratch? When farted, do we both not blame the guy that didn't notice?
    Incidentally, if you knew it was a delusion, I doubt it would be very consoling. That's how it's been for me on occasions of that nature, anyway. The idea of Santa Claus turned out to be less consoling than the reality of my parents in the end, to pick one example. Atheism isn't nearly as comfortable (it does get better once you have an incident that drives home the inescapable fact that you will die. Mine was rappelling. Almost getting hit by a car works too). Plus it's not tax-exempt and the gift shop is depressingly lit and poorly organized.

    "Why would I give up my perfectly good morals and love for my neighbor to become a belligerent, belittling and arrogant bully who makes a living by besmirching people?"
    Sorry to disappoint you, but Jerry Falwell is already dead, and the Phelps family is full up. Also, Hagee is busy shilling for McCain and the many hydra-like heads of the Gospel of Prosperity are too busy stealing from the old, the desperate and the gullible to fit you in. There are jerks on both sides, remember.

    "He thinks that incestuous pedophilia is hilarious (see here)"
    Now read the comments for that page, if you haven't already. I can't help but feel that we're running around in circles.

    "he rejoices when people such as Jerry Falwell die"
    If the false dichotomy for that one would be to mourn his passing, I, for one, would mow my lawn. That said, the world is a fractionally better place without him.

    "My heart truly does go out to Mr. Maher because he is obviously a very, very troubled man."
    His ego exceeds than his talent. I've seen a couple of his standup shows, which generally go "valid point, foul, stupid, mean, valid point, ab hominem, etc". In short, he's no Stephen Colbert.

    "I want to know who is funding the documentary.
    I want to know who is funding the advertising."

    It's distributed by Lion's Gate. Does that help?

    "I want to know what music they used and whether they violated copyright laws."
    No idea. Does that help?

    "I want to know under what pretenses people were interviewed."
    Probably some true, some false, some people just like to hear themselves speak.

    "I want to know if any of the interviewees have complained about being mislead."
    I'm guessing yes, although being asked to be interviewed by Bill Maher is a lot like being asked to be interviewed on The O'Reilly Factor.

    "I want to know if the documentary was creatively edited."
    Oh, definitely. The "new-style" documentary is all about showing the other guy to be stupid, rather than showing evidence to support your own side.

    "I want to know everything that can possibly be known, dirt and all."
    One: Bill Maher is kind of a jerk.
    Two: He will raise some valid points.
    Three: In between those scattered bits of "smart" will be more "dumb" than you can shake a stick at. I saw you at the Olympics, by the way, and you can shake a lot of stick. You got screwed out of the Gold, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hold up. Wait a minute. Time out. First, I keep seeing this mistake over and over again. Bill Maher is not an atheist. Bill Maher is a theist. He just thinks religion is absurd. And can you really blame him? Talking snakes, the earth is 6000 years old, virgin birth, the ten commandments and so on. C'mon, surely you can see the humor there?

    Bill Maher in an interview with Peter Sciretta:

    “I’m not an atheist. There’s a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn’t believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don’t need. But I’m not an atheist, no.” I believe there’s some force. If you want to call it God… I don’t believe God is a single parent who writes books. I think that the people who think God wrote a book called The Bible are just childish. Religion is so childish. What they’re fighting about in the Middle East, it’s so childish. These myths, these silly little stories that they believe in fundamentally, that they take over this little space in Jerusalem where one guy flew up to heaven...no, no, this guy performed a sacrifice here a thousand million years ago. It’s like, “Who cares? What does that have to do with spirituality, where you’re really trying to get, as a human being and as a soul moving in the universe?” But I do believe in a God, yes.”

    So much for the christianist tactic of dismissing Maher because he is an atheist apologist. Not so fast my fundie friends. He's one of you. Ha! I love the smell of irony in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not so fast my fundie friends. He's one of you. Ha! I love the smell of irony in the morning.

    No, he's nothing like "us" at all. I hate the smell of moron in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Um, there's a significant difference between being a Christian fundamentalist and a Deist, which is what Maher seems to be.

    He believes in "God," but does not believe that any religions are at all accurate. Diggler, sir, you overreach and overassume.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Vigilante "No, he's nothing like "us" at all. I hate the smell of moron in the morning."

    feste "Um, there's a significant difference between being a Christian fundamentalist and a Deist, which is what Maher seems to be."

    So...deists are atheists now? Is this blog Deism Sucks or Deism is Dead? Are we going to see more pages asking "if Mr. Maher will tackle his own religion, atheism"? Whose overstepped the bounds, again?
    Is "Our goal is to promote intellectual responsibility and to counter the fallacious and manipulative attempts of atheist apologists to revive their failed belief system" meant to be ironic?
    If not, is it meant to be unintentionally so? Is this a question? And this?

    ReplyDelete
  8. When you hear "i just don't..." before an explanation then you must question it. "Life force" what is that?. Does he mean societal guilt if you goof up? Yeah, I feel that too when fearing getting fired from a job.

    Still so called strong willed Maher is playing into naysayers. With his own unique "atheism" he already messed that up. What else to do but to deny that you are one, claim that you are not one, or use a different term? After he goofs up that new term, what will he use next..."Humanitarian"?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Des,

    Why so obsessed with placing labels on people? What are you? What am I? Some people might call you something you disagree with, and I’m sure the same goes for me. We like placing things neatly into our own categorised system, labelling people as this or that. But we don’t like to be labelled by other ourselves do we?

    Is there one universal truth for all of mankind? I don’t think so, but that’s just my opinion (or my truth). You are entitled to yours and I’m not going to assert that I’m right and you’re wrong on a social level. However, on my personal level, I am right.

    ReplyDelete
  10. *Why so obsessed with placing labels on people? What are you? What am I? Some people might call you something you disagree with, and I’m sure the same goes for me.*
    __
    Some people will call me something that I do agree with. Labels are used to describe a description or characteristic of someone. A label isn't inherently bad. It is bad when you lie and label people falsely, and if you label a person who you have never met. I believe that atheist is a perfect label for Maher, if Maher isn't an atheist then I guess Dawkins is the Pope. As far as knowing Maher he puts himself out there for the public to judge him.

    * We like placing things neatly into our own categorised system, labelling people as this or that. But we don’t like to be labelled by other ourselves do we?*
    ___
    Psychologist label people all the time. People are who they are, denying your inherent label isn't going to change that.

    *Is there one universal truth for all of mankind? I don’t think so, but that’s just my opinion (or my truth). You are entitled to yours and I’m not going to assert that I’m right and you’re wrong on a social level. However, on my personal level, I am right.*
    _____
    Um excuse me if you are an atheist there is only one truth. Remember that atheism is suppose to based on facts, scientific facts. If you think that there is no God, then that means that there is no God for everyone, personal feelings need not apply. Personal feeling cannot apply when you are talking about science. Science makes no bearing on personal feelings.

    I bet you are?
    ______________________

    Maher is a poor representative for atheists, he has Dawkins for company. Don't blame christians for seeing them for the way that they present themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I suggest that Maher change his attitude. This can be done without being passive. Changing what he classifies himself as isn't going to help. He is being a jerk, because he doesn't care. He has no obligation to care what you or anyone thinks. He only has to please himself, friends, and family. Everybody else can just....well you know.

    ReplyDelete
  12. *A label isn't inherently bad. It is bad when you lie and label people falsely, and if you label a person who you have never met.*
    _____
    Have you met Bill Maher? Just felt like asking…

    *As far as knowing Maher he puts himself out there for the public to judge him.*
    _____
    Even so, I thought Jesus said ‘judge not’… Am I mistaken?

    *Psychologist label people all the time.*
    _____
    They most certainly do not! They diagnose people. Do I need to explain the difference?

    *People are who they are, denying your inherent label isn't going to change that.*
    _____
    I do not understand what you mean by “inherent label”. Is that something you’re born with, something ‘inherited’? The only inherent label I can think of that is still being widely used today, is the one used for Jews: Apparently, you’re a Jew if you’re born by a Jewish mother or have converted to the religion. It seems quite unfair to me. Never the less, I’m not sure if this is what you’re referring to here?

    *Um excuse me if you are an atheist there is only one truth. Remember that atheism is suppose to based on facts, scientific facts. If you think that there is no God, then that means that there is no God for everyone, personal feelings need not apply. Personal feeling cannot apply when you are talking about science. Science makes no bearing on personal feelings.*
    _____
    You’re missing my point here. What I’m arguing is that it does not matter for you whether I think there is a God or not (and vice versa). People have always, and will always, disagree one way or another. For example, why do you think we have so many different churches within Christianity? Some religious communities even assert that others are ‘false’, and people still kill each other over it in Northern Ireland.

    However, disagreement does not, in itself, constitute a conflict. The conflict arrives when we do not respect other opinions or are incapable to say ‘lets agree to disagree’. Seems quite simple but apparently it is not. I believe that righteousness should be handled with care. Do you?

    *I bet you are?* (An atheist)
    _____
    So now you want to judge me as well?

    *Maher is a poor representative for atheists, he has Dawkins for company. Don't blame christians for seeing them for the way that they present themselves.*
    _____
    OK, let me challenge you on this one instead of arguing against you. If Maher and Dawkins are poor representatives for atheists, then there must be others that are good representatives. Further, you must be aware of some better representatives since you can assert that these two are poor in comparison. I wonder who the good representative might be? Alister McGrath?

    ReplyDelete
  13. That is a great question. Well.....

    ReplyDelete