A Skeptic’s Creation Museum Video Tour

Skeptics Among Us: Atheists Visit the Creation Museum

What follows is a video tour of the Creation Museum put together by a group of atheists (and an agnostic) that toured on the day of our visit as “Christians In Cognito.”  Some of what you may witness may make your hair stand on end, but just accept it as a chance to practice tolerance.  Overall, they ask some very important questions.

Please share your thoughts below.  I am definitely interested in whatever reaction you may have, good or bad. 

Advertisements

About Aaron Gardner

Aaron is a counselor and student of the Bible, passionate about sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. He lives in central Indiana with his wife, one-year-old son and their two dogs. View all posts by Aaron Gardner

30 responses to “A Skeptic’s Creation Museum Video Tour

  • Sabio Lantz

    I listened half-way through. You said,

    Some of what you may witness may make your hair stand on end, but just accept it as a chance to practice tolerance.

    Can you give us an example list what made your hair stand on end?

  • Aaron

    Well, I expected that many more Christians would be visiting than atheists… though I am thrilled that it is the opposite… so when I wrote that intro I expected that many would be upset about the evolutionist challenges.

    What made my hair stand up? Mainly the conversation with Dr. Lisle in the second video. His main point that knowledge is only possible because of the Bible makes absolutely no sense at all. He is so biased that he does not accept his own circular reasoning. Interesting that his argument was no more viable than the man in the first video that claimed that once you “asked Jesus into your heart” then “it will all make sense.”

    However, I loved the conversation in the last video with the older woman! She was so respectful and even though it seems that she needs to think through a few things she was at least very friendly, jovial, and lively. And along with that the part with the hug! Love the image of a Christian hugging an atheist. I long for the day that this is not such an unusual situation!

  • Melanie Jongsma

    I had technical difficulties with the videos — they would play for a few seconds, pause for a few seconds, start again, pause again, and finally stop. So I heard only about three minutes of conversation from all three videos. But what I heard and saw was really interesting! It seems that both Christians and atheists have some baggage, some underlying expectations of each other based on past hurts. That was interesting to me.

  • Aaron

    That has really been my experience… it is really amazing how many atheists are better theologians than many Christians! I wrote another post several months ago (https://lunchboxsw.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/ten-tips-for-christian-witness/) based on a post by an atheist who freely admitted that he used to be a Christian and that many Christians talk down to him as if he does not understand!

    Thanks for visiting, Melanie. I hope that my thoughts have not disappointed you.

  • Patrick

    Hi Aaron,
    I found your blog through StumbleUpon and I’m very much enjoying it. I appreciate your openness to challenges and discussions of your faith, as I’m of the opinion that if one’s faith can’t stand challenge then it can’t stand at all. I classify myself as an agnostic, and in the process of discovering this I looked into many religions. As such, I absolutely love discussing religion and religious philosophy with anyone, as long as they are open to opposing beliefs (this is for both theists and non-theists). For this reason, I think you might be what I’ve been looking for in a debate partner, haha. I’ve had a few thoughts about discussions like these for a long time, and was wondering what a devout theist’s opinions were.

    The fundamental difference between theists and non-theists in discussions like this is that non-theists prefer to follow a more populous based intellectualism, where theists prefer a more personal one. Because of these differences, never the two shall meet, as they say. Non-theists base their opinions significantly on their understanding of the intellectual work of others, and of other’s trust and confidence in that work. Theists (at least a significant portion) base their understanding on their own personal understanding of a single intellectual base, be it the Bible, Q’uran, Torah, whatever (which, one could argue, are all based upon the same principles and beliefs). Non-theists trust peer reviewed journals, scientific debate and arguments founded in a strict logical nature based on history. Theists prefer arguments based in interpretation of their chosen text, of personal beliefs and of how they feel about a topic. Despite my personal bias, I try to respect this difference and realize that how I consider issues is completely different from how a theist does. I realize that this is simplifying a very complex matter, and that there are definite outliers to both sets, but I feel like this explanation covers a large portion of each side. This fundamental difference explains much of our behavior around topics of religion.

    Whenever I hear most religious debate, I see that each side is arguing using a logic based on their style of thought. Theists try to convince non-theists using a personal connection to their God, with excerpts from the Bible/Qur’an or other’s interpretations of that text. What doesn’t seem to compute with most, though, is that the non-theist rejects the basis that a single source makes for a valid argument. This of course goes the other way, that when a non-theist argues with a theist, the theist rejects the non-theist’s argument because it’s basis is in others instead of the theist’s personal beliefs.

    I feel like this difference is most apparent in arguments of evolution vs. creationism. The theist believes that their own belief in the Bible is the essence of truth, and therefore sees external events through the filter of personal belief. This leads to the explanation of the discovery of dinosaur bones as either a trick to confuse us, as dinosaur/human cohabitation in the Garden of Eden, etc. The non-theist trusts in the peer-reviewed work of others, that the current scientific consensus rules, and this leads to support of Darwinian theory, carbon dating, and others. This difference, and each side’s inherent belief that everyone understands the world like they do, causes the type of discussions that happen in the video above. The only way to get past that type of discussion is to fundamentally alter one side’s belief structure, to convince them that the power of personally (in the case of theism) or publicly proven (non-theism) is correct.

    This difference also seems to explain the huge difference in reactions between the two groups to challenges of fundamental beliefs. Most theists tend to take challenges to faith personally, as the basis of truth on their faith is an integral part of their worldview and a very personal experience. This is why many religious people react so strongly to non-theists, as we are seen as a direct attack on personal values and beliefs. Non-theists tend to take challenges to their beliefs more as a challenge to the explanations of our current observations of the world (I can’t think of a better way to put that…), and wait for the peer review of that challenge. Some challenges (such as relativity, evolution, etc.) actually better explain our observations and are eventually accepted as valid, while some (creationism, intelligent design, young-earth theory) are seen as invalid challenges and are ignored.

    Now, as a non-theist, I’m firmly in the camp of the more sources, the better. I believe that the theist belief is far too constraining and not nearly adaptive enough for our modern times. The rate of increase in intelligence and technology, as a species, is mind blowing. We have furthered the fundamental scientific understanding of our world, and of ourselves, more in the last 200 years than in the entirety of prior human existence, and theism doesn’t seem to be able to keep up with that. If a scientist tomorrow found new proof that Darwin was wrong, that some completely different theory explains the birth of our species, and that theory stands up to the test of peer review, I like to think that we (non-theists) could accept that new information and modify our fundamental worldview to fit this new evidence. Through this method, given enough time, I feel like we will get closer to fully understanding our world. I don’t think we’ll ever actually fully understand our world, but by adapting to new information and knowledge we get closer. I don’t feel like most theists would be capable of that type of alteration in beliefs. In some cases, that can a very good thing. I don’t feel, however, that this is one of those times.

    This went a bit longer than I expected, and I hope it doesn’t seem too rambling (I’m a bit tired tonight, haha). I’m just wondering if you feel like this is an accurate portrayal of the debate, and what your opinions on the subject are.

    Thanks for your thoughts,
    Patrick

  • Melanie Jongsma

    Patrick, I think you might be on to something here. Your observation that a “typical” theist’s understanding of the world is based on personal experience and a “single source”, while a “typical” non-theist relies more on broad research and the accepted validity of a variety of sources is interesting to me. In fact, it’s ironic.

    You see, within many Christian churches today there is a recognition that as American culture becomes more individualized (think iPod, Tivo, MySpace, etc.) younger generations of Christians rely on personal experience as the measure of truth. What’s ironic to me is that it sounds like you are seeing this “personal experience” trait even in older Christians, the ones who preach against it in younger Christians!

    I guess it frightens me that you as a faith “outsider” would notice this reliance on personal experience. It seems that all our efforts to present ourselves not only as logical but as a community (rather than a collection of individuals) have fooled no one but ourselves.

    Aaron, thank you for posting these videos and starting these discussions. You have held up a mirror, and I’m embarrassed at what I see, but I thank you for giving me the opportunity to change it.

    Melanie

  • Patrick

    I’m basing my observations mostly on the speed at which each group can accept a major change in the tenets of their faith. Non-theists tend to accept a change faster, especially if it’s given wide support (such as string theory, big bang, relativity, etc.) where theists seem to temper things against their concept of their religion.

    I guess I’ve always thought of churches as more of a sack of BBs as opposed to a single block, where it’s more of a collection of similar thinking individuals who, at least slightly, differ from one to another in their own concepts of faith, morality, the important tenets of faith, etc. Though there is of course fracturing in the non-theistic world, the emphasis on the general consensus leads to less fractures, less variation in fundamental belief. Where in Christianity you can have everything from Mennonites to Jehovah’s Witnesses to Presbyterian and beyond (and that’s just looking at Christian sects), non-theists are somewhat less fractured on the fundamental belief.

    I’d almost argue that theists want to be portrayed as a solid mass of each religion (saying “Christian” instead of “Anglican” when asked by an outsider) but in fact rely more on personal approval than the approval of any church. This sense of internal approval seems to lead to people switching from denomination to denomination when there is something they disagree with (for example, the recent news about Jimmy Carter leaving the Southern Baptist sect).

    Non-theists tend to want to be portrayed as extremely individualistic, with each non-theist making up their own mind and describing themselves and their belief (or lack thereof) in a different way. While this is outwardly true, the basis of most atheist/agnostic principles (namely scientific principles) are dependent upon the “hive mind” mentality, one that believes that the most support and approval an idea has, the increased likelihood that it’s closer to the truth.

    Of course, everyone is an independent person, and to try to apply a single principle to any group, no matter the size, will always have outliers and problems.

    And to Melanie, I have a question about this line:
    What’s ironic to me is that it sounds like you are seeing this “personal experience” trait even in older Christians, the ones who preach against it in younger Christians!

    I’ve never noticed much preaching against this “personal experience” mentality, as nearly every instance of preaching I’ve come across that’s trying to convert or further instruct mentions your “personal connection to Christ”. Am I mistaken in this? What would some examples of preaching against personal experience be?
    Note: I’m not referring to the argument between good works vs. repentance, but more to how one should interpret “truth”, either primarily through an internal or external filter.

    P

  • Melanie Jongsma

    I was looking for an article I remember reading in a denominational magazine a while ago that got at the issue of “individualism” vs. “community.” I remember the author pointing out that contemporary praise songs have less depth than the old hymns because they often focus on “me” and “my feelings” and “my Jesus.” I couldn’t find the article, but here’s one that makes some similar points: http://www.thebanner.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=403

    In my own church and my own denomination, I’ve heard sermons reminding us that, yes, a relationship with Jesus needs to be personal, in the sense that you have to personally commit to following Him. At the same time, you can’t rely only on your own feelings, your own experiences, your own understanding of Scripture. Feelings come and go, but a real relationship will weather all those ups and downs.

    So, in the video clips that Aaron posted, I was particularly troubled by the Christian who told the atheist, “Once you accept Jesus in your heart, you’ll understand everything.” That’s simply not Biblical or true. Besides that, it’s pretty patronizing. I mean, this atheist was genuinely interested in getting some intelligent answers to his questions, and I felt like none of the Christians were giving him much respect.

    Mj

  • John Barbour

    1st video; It was interesting to me how they concentrated almost entirely on the Bible and theology. There was nothing about the science.

  • John Barbour

    2nd video: This was mainly about the argument from authority. This is why the woman had trouble with pronouncements that behavior like homosexuality is wrong. If you don’t believe in God or that the Bible is His authoritative word then you are not going to accept it as a moral authority either.

    It’s too bad that the part with Jason Lisle was garbled. Truly this is about world-view and philosophy. Again,not much on the science. Perhaps a visit to the Discovery Institute would be interesting. There they start with the science which this group would be a lot more comfortable with. I would be curious to find out what thy think about Intelligent Design and if they have seen the documentary Expelled.

    I hope they can see from this experience that there is a big difference beteeen the two groups even though Eugenia Scott and the NCSE seem to often equate them.

  • John Barbour

    3rd video: Again this was mainly about theology and philosophy. The man in the orange shirt had a lot of philosophical questions. I see the woman he was talking with as a sort of a mother figure and the man as the child asking all sorts of “Why?” questions. It’s like the older woman had made her choice and was willing to leave all her whys with God. The man is still questioning. That’s what youth is all about. Hopefully he’ll make the right choice.

    It was interesting to me to notice how they were interested in being accepted. How human! They are hoping that people will say “the atheists aren’t so bad afterall”. It’s like a PR campaign. I should get a t-shirt saying something about hugging a Christian.

    I think one of the reasons why people might think otherwise is because of the responses you often get on the internet from atheists. For example,I often get a lot of profanity, ad hominem arguments and not many reasoned arguments as to why atheism is superior. To me, it fails to answer the very questions they pose. It turns out to be a bankrupt system that has to continually borrow from theism for its language and moral pronouncements.

    Anyway, I’m glad to see the human side and see how likable all the atheists and agnostics can be. But then again I’m a sucker for young people who think and ask good questions.

  • Aaron

    Agreed, and that is the idea. My experience has been that atheists really just want to be respected. The fear that Christians have of them comes across as judgment, and it is that feeling that I express as a response to my visit there. If Christians take the time to listen instead of defend, it makes things like the Scopes trial a distant memory.

  • John Barbour

    Comments by Patrick and Melanie ( they wee the main commenters): Very interesting observations. One thing: Patrick says this,

    “If a scientist tomorrow found new proof that Darwin was wrong, that some completely different theory explains the birth of our species, and that theory stands up to the test of peer review, I like to think that we (non-theists) could accept that new information and modify our fundamental worldview to fit this new evidence.”

    I would hope the same thing but apparently it is not the case. Intelligent Design is a present challenge to Darwinian thinking but the American scientific community for the most part is digging in and not accepting this new information and they are not modifying their fundamental worldview to fit the new evidence.

    Instead they are using the courts and watch dog groups to maintain their Darwinian hegemony and deny jobs to anyone that questions their Darwinian orthodoxy.

    It turns out that they also have personal beliefs that they are having a hard time giving up. It’s not that easy. Both sides involve strong beliefs and authoritative texts and both sides respect peer reviews.

  • John Barbour

    Aaron: Don’t you think that fear is just a human condition – a response to the unknown and the thing that presents potential harm?

  • Aaron

    Yea, but I do not think that the unknown should remain unknown. If we fear other people based on worldview of belief, we have a responsibility to engage that fear and understand the other side. If fear is perceived as hatred, it is all the more reason to eliminate that fear with understanding.

    I think that the other issue is that as Christians many are fearful because they think that talking to atheists will cause them to deny their faith. On the contrary if a Christian has learned and been instructed in sound Christian doctrine, that fear is largely unfounded. I am sure that I will get a comment about this statement, but it is true that conversations with atheists has really shored up my own beliefs, rather than broken them down.

  • Boz

    Patrick said:


    The fundamental difference between theists and non-theists in discussions like this is that non-theists prefer to follow a more populous based intellectualism, where theists prefer a more personal one. Because of these differences, never the two shall meet, as they say. Non-theists base their opinions significantly on their understanding of the intellectual work of others, and of other’s trust and confidence in that work. Theists (at least a significant portion) base their understanding on their own personal understanding of a single intellectual base, be it the Bible, Q’uran, Torah, whatever

    I think this is very insightful – I hadn’t considered theist/atheist dialogue in this way. Thanks, Patrick.

  • Boz

    John, It is impossible for ID to challenge the theory of evolution because it is not testable (and therefore is not science). It is unfalsifiable, and therefore does not warrant serious consideration.

  • Patrick

    Quote from John:
    “If a scientist tomorrow found new proof that Darwin was wrong, that some completely different theory explains the birth of our species, and that theory stands up to the test of peer review, I like to think that we (non-theists) could accept that new information and modify our fundamental worldview to fit this new evidence.”

    I would hope the same thing but apparently it is not the case. Intelligent Design is a present challenge to Darwinian thinking but the American scientific community for the most part is digging in and not accepting this new information and they are not modifying their fundamental worldview to fit the new evidence.

    Instead they are using the courts and watch dog groups to maintain their Darwinian hegemony and deny jobs to anyone that questions their Darwinian orthodoxy.

    It turns out that they also have personal beliefs that they are having a hard time giving up. It’s not that easy. Both sides involve strong beliefs and authoritative texts and both sides respect peer reviews.

    End quote.

    John, you’ve ignored a key piece of my statement. Probably the most important part of that is the “that theory stands up to the test of peer review”, and you yourself say that many scientists don’t agree with Intelligent Design. Therefore, it fails at peer review. You may believe that it’s because of politics and fast-held beliefs, but a crucial point to make is that this isn’t the first time that ID has come up and been discredited. Varying theories of intelligent design has been around as long as science has (see the writings of Plato and Cicero, to name a few), and it has been corrected and rejected as a non-valid explanation for the workings of life. As Boz said, ID is an unfalsifiable set of beliefs, and as such cannot be empirically tested. As an ideology it’s fine, as ideology doesn’t need to be tested as it’s a matter of fitting with one’s beliefs. However, ID has been proposed as a scientific theory which must be tested and verified, and has quite efficiently been disproved.

    Intelligent Design focuses around the idea of a creator bringing an object into existence from nothingness in it’s present form (this being opposed to the “clock-maker” god of the Diests, such as Ben Franklin, which some proponents of ID tout). If ID were to say that God created the underlying laws and structure of the universe, then sat back and watched, I’d be pretty okay as that’s just as valid and provable as many of the pre-Big Bang theories. However, that isn’t what is typically being proposed.

    ID is posited as a counter explanation to and rejection of Darwinian selection. However, there are no scientifically provable (or disputable) points being made within ID, and therefore cannot be considered a valid scientific theory. One cannot, with 100% certainty, prove that God didn’t make something because, no matter what counter evidence is found, one can simply say that it, too, was created by an intelligent designer. If a new species was found, however, it’s lineage can be traced back through the ages using pathological bone and developmental markers. ID also doesn’t explain things within our life and time scale (for example, why an intelligent designer would give humans an appendix or how bacteria become resistant to anti-bacterial agents) which seem to exhibit evolutionary behavior.

    As to the comment about how non-theists are just looking for respect, it’s absolutely true. As a former Boy Scout, I was acutely aware that, if I mentioned that I didn’t believe in the Judeo-Christian god, I might be kicked out of the program simply because the leadership believe that one must believe in God to be an honorable person. You’re absolutely right I want respect. I wish to be respected as someone who has, of my own volition, decided to disagree with and reject religious doctrine and has made that decision happily. Some theists seem to believe that non-theists like me are incapable of love, compassion or respect of fellow man, that we’re more likely to steal or kill simply because we don’t have something to live for after this life. This is, as Aaron pointed out, a fear of the unknown, and is something we should all fight to rid ourselves of. As a non-theist, I believe that this life is all I’ve got and it could end at any time, permanently and without a “second try” through reincarnation, ghostly presence, “looking down from Heaven”, etc. Therefore, every second that goes by is one I can’t get back, so why waste it by belittling or mocking someone else and just concentrate of making my world and the world of those around me better. This belief gives me a sense of respect and care for all those around me, as I know that all that matters is what I do here and now. Many, though, just see me as, if not a heathen who’s going to burn in Hell, at least a troubled soul who needs help. That’s why I demand respect.

    In closing, to paraphrase a quote I like, we’re all atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. If you can understand why you reject Vishnu, Thor and FSM as gods, then hopefully you can understand why I’ve chosen to reject yours.

  • John Barbour

    Patrick: Re: ID That’s because they have been locked out of Peer Review.

  • John Barbour

    A Couple Observations (These are generalizations. I know they don’t apply universally)

    1. The Creation Museum is to Christian believers what Fox News was to the WWII generation conservatives. For many years WWII conservative types were tired of and complained about the “liberal media”. Now they have Fox – a neo-con station.

    a. In a similar way. Christians have for many years been stuck with hundreds of museums that present the evolution perspective. Now they finally have their own museum that presents the same facts but from a creationist perspective.
    b. Just like the atheists who visited the creation museum were ridiculing some of the exhibits, so for many years Christians were ridiculing the exhibits they found in the evolution/atheistic museums. For example, as a Christian who has studied a lot of science and watched my share of Nova, PBS, and other science documentaries and courses. I still find myself rolling my eyes every time they mention millions or billions of years. To me, it’s just a philosophical position that has been baptized and regurgitated a million times as science. It comes across as an attempt at brainwashing just like I’m sure the atheists felt about the Creation Museum. To them the message Ken Ham is trying to relate comes across as brainwashing. Both sides need to realize that they are just interpretations based upon an a priori commitment. It is this that must be settled.

    2. There is also a difference in perspective of those visiting the museum according to stage in life.
    a. Young adults are inquisitive (some more than others). They are questioning things and will decide how they live their lives. The questions of God vs. no-god are academic questions. They begin to line up according to confidence levels. Those who are confident in their faith are zealous evangelists for their position whether they are on the side of theism or atheism. They can be very critical of the other position to the point of laughing and mocking. They are stronger in a group.
    b. Married people with children have made their choices (for the most part). If they are Christians they are now concerned for their child’s education and want to protect them from ungodly influences and give them a Christian education. They now come across as set in their ways and sometimes appear hostile towards those who would lead their children astray. I would venture to say that these make up a majority of those who visit the Creation Museum.
    c. Empty nesters and older people now must live with the decisions they made when they were younger. For a Christian this means that they want to finish well and that they are looking forward to their reward in heaven and a legacy on earth. “If heaven’s not my home, Lord what will I do?” There has been by now a heavy investment. It’s the nature of commitment. Those who chose to not believe in God are also heavily invested. They have got to be right because the end is near (of their life that is). These people, (I’m one of them) have time to consider and re-think. It can be a time of doubt and uncertainty. No one escapes. Last time I looked, we all die in the end, some with faith in God and some not.

  • John Barbour

    Boz:This is how they do it. They redefine science to only include naturalistic explanations. ID is falsifiable and it is testable. But these are just all assertions from both of us. We could go round and round. That’s why it’s called a culture war.

  • John Barbour

    Aaron: Yes, I agree with you. If the blood of the martyrs are the seeds of the church then atheistic criticism is the water.

  • Boz

    how is ID falsifiable?

    for example ID proponents promote “Irreducuble Complexity”. This suggests that some physical systems contain many parts which work well together, and the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Such systems, being irreducably complex cannot have evolved gradually, and must have been put in place by an intelligent agent.

    .
    The examples suggested include the bacteial flagellum, the human eye, cilia, and the immune system.
    .
    All four of these example have been shown to be not irreducably complex, by the demonstration of a gradual evolutionary process which produces the current physical system.
    .

    ID proponents respond by saying “oh, those were bad examples – Irreducable complexity does exist, just not in these systems”

    .

    Therefore, Irreducible Complexity, one of the core ideas of ID, is unfalsifiable as the goalposts are continually moved.

  • Boz

    John said:

    “Patrick: Re: ID That’s because they have been locked out of Peer Review.”

    That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. How do you know this?

  • Boz

    John said: “I still find myself rolling my eyes every time they mention millions or billions of years.”

    Have you heard of the Andromeda Galaxy?

  • Aaron

    Oh, yeah… God must have created not only the stars and galaxies but the streams of light from each of them that would have normally taken millions of years to reach earth. Seriously, does that make any sense?

    In the Dark Ages (aptly named) they believed that in Genesis when God said to “fill the earth” he created the bones of the dinosaurs deep in the earth… I can only suppose to throw us off?

  • John Barbour

    Patrick: If ID is defined as not being science then it follows that those scientists who subscribe to ID are not scientists and therefore they are not peers. Ben Stein in his documentary Expelled catalogs the stories of a ssmpling of those who have been excluded.

  • John Barbour

    Boz; I see you are familiar with the arguments. There is no need for me to comment further. You have access to the sources. Jesus encountered similar things in his life with regards the Jews who possesed the scriptures but did not believe them. He told them on one occasion “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Luke 16:31

  • Boz

    One of the many flaws in the film Expelled is that is presents a false dichotomy – A person can either accept evolution and become an atheist, or discount atheism and stay christian. This is why the film avoided Collins, Miller, Polkinghorne, and their ilk. These Christian scientists have not been locked out of peer review.
    .
    The evidence for this claim is here:
    http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=999
    .
    .
    John, how do you know that ID supporters have been locked out of peer review?

  • Rob

    Although the creation musuem is a complete joke, the ‘atheist’ gang come across as ever so slightly smug and self-important. Easy to see why but the bloke in the orange t-shirt annoyed me with his very unsubtle ‘mocking’ approach. Loui Theroux he aint.

    Anyway, the comment that made me laugh was from the woman in the third video, who says “you cant break someones arm to make them believe in you, that’s wrong and that’ why he gave us free will”.

    Right, so as christians like to tell us, we have free will to reject him – just bear in mind that you will burn in hell forever. I think I prefer the broken arm tactic.

%d bloggers like this: