Paul Williams

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Paul Williams, Chris Green, and the Greek New Testament Toss

Good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday afternoon at the Thursday time. Yeah, we moved it again, but that doesn't that happens all the time and we are gonna take phone calls today at 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 but before we start doing that I Wanted to mention the fact and I appreciate that someone on Twitter remembered this this morning.

But I had already seen it myself on my RSS feeds. I have been hitting the MDI YouTube page fairly frequently over the weekend and this morning. First first thing this morning. I saw in my feeds that Abdullah al-Andalusi had posted the video of Green Williams, too, and I was looking forward to this because you may recall that on Paul Williams blog.

He had specifically made comments about this specific debate. In which he had said that he would not be debating Chris Green again because of his fundamentalist view of Scripture and Chris Green Does view the scripture well pretty much the same way that I do in fact, he even he even came close to saying the word inerrancy specifically regards to the original autographs of the of the scripture just like me and we all know of course that Paul Williams is doing his best to avoid debating there's truly and One of the reasons allegedly he wouldn't debate me is because I'm a fundamentalist and yet Chris Green turns out to be a fundamentalist, too.

Which obviously means that we should not be looking to Paul Williams to define the term fundamentalist. But as it may he also made the allegation on his blog that Chris Green threw a Greek New Testament at him.

He threw a Greek New Testament at him. Well The first thing that is absolutely amazing to me and I am very disappointed and I'm I was crying in my Wheaties this morning. I really was. It's the fact That once I got the video down and many thanks to Monty I was having problem with the my YouTube downloader.

It just it it just kept croaking on it. And then Monty pointed out that I was trying to download it at its highest quality and if I just dropped it down a little bit then the program was very happy and I just thought that had to do with what was good convert into not how it would actually download it, but it did make a difference and so I grabbed it and So I'm you know Moving through the video real quick because I know the format of their videos and let's do that stuff.

So anyways, um, I Get to the point where Chris Green is doing his first response and Well, you know why in why in the world Bother with this let's uh, let's listen I've got it all queued up here. So let's let's listen to Chris Green throwing a Greek New Testament at At Paul Williams this this should be very very interesting.

We're quite open about it because we list them as books that are worth reading. We're just not including them in script reading that they're names. However, I think and I I got into hot water when I did this last time but I will do it again.

Now by the way How did Chris Green get into hot water for doing this. Yours truly. I don't know anybody else that that criticized him for turning to his opponent during his rebuttal period and asking him a question that he doesn't know what he's gonna do the answer to and I have a feeling hi Chris.

Hey, brother. I'd love to be able to be of assistance to you. I've done a few of these you yourself say yeah, you're not I'm not a debater. Well Why Chris did you do this again? In fact folks if you listen to the very last dividing line the very last one I did.

We finally I mean I talked about this weeks ago I mean right after it happened I'd criticized him for that and said you don't do that. That's a that's not how you do debates besides that look how much time you lost in your rebuttal and blah blah blah blah blah.

Well, we finally got to it on the last program. We played it on the last program I said see first of all Paul Williams is acting childish. Oh by the way, you know, I figured out this morning Who Paul Williams reminds me of?

His his his attitude his Condescending attitude. I mean here's a guy who says that I have no standing in the academic community. This man has no academics. He's never written a book. He's never taught a class.

He's never Done anything, but he can you know who he reminds me of Richard Dawkins. Think about it Richard Dawkins Constant he gets to pick who he will condescend to debate, you know. It's it's a Richard Dawkins except he's a apostate to Islam.

So anyway, I Just thought it was wing. So What does he do? What does what is Chris Green do? He repeats the exact same error he turns to him and asks him the exact same question. But this time he thinks he thinks he's avoiding the pitfall and here's why I was crying in my Wheaties, by the way.

You're gonna hear him in just a moment announce what he has in his hand. It's something I've had on pre-order for months he's holding the Nestle all in 28th edition in his hand and That's what he Tosses on to Paul's desk he doesn't throw it at Paul Williams, but he does toss it onto his desk and Of course, I would say even turning to Paul Williams and asking him to respond during your rebuttal.

It's bad form mates, you know. But he did it. Anyways, let's go back. Here's here's I Just wanted to point out that when he starts he's gonna talk about how the ink's still wet on this thing and I'm just sitting going I Want one of those.

Yes, the New Testament there are 27 books in the New Testament. Every Catholic every Protestant every Orthodox. Everyone has exactly. Now this is the standard critical edition of the New Testament. It is present in every university library across the world.

This is the 28th edition the 2012. The ink is still wet. It only arrived from Amazon for our college library this week now. Every library the Vatican library King's College library the university library our library.

You can go to the seminaries in Moscow wherever you like. This will be on their shelves. Paul. Can you show me one book in there that the Pope does not agree with or one book in there?

There did you hear the thump? So he's standing there. He's not very far away and he just tosses the nestle on onto his desk. That's not having a Greek New Testament thrown at you. Mr. Williams. I would I would love I would like.

How would he respond if someone actually did throw one at him? Is the question that I that I would have because that was not a throw that was a toss onto the Onto the desk and nothing more than that but.

And clearly in context Chris thought that he had now established. That he was talking about the Pope in Rome. That he was talking about the You know the Big Papa. But when he finally makes the challenge, he just simply says Pope.

And. What what happened last time? Williams goes off with some Ethiopian Pope as if this is somehow relevant. I Mean, ah, well, I guess I started. We needed The 60. They say he even heard him say he did that the last time.

Yes, what did you expect him to do you opened the door? You're giving him your time. What did you expect you could make this point so much more clearly without depending upon without turning the microphone over to him?

To take your rebuttal time. To waste more time. I mean, it's it's just like come on Chris.

It's just a factual point. Joking aside, I think my good friend Reverend Caspian is in error and I'll demonstrate why. Let me just say what I said again. It might have been speech. I said that Christians disagree about which book should be in the Bible.

Catholics have 73 positive 66 most Orthodox Christian 78 books. However, I said the Ethiopian Orthodox Church believes the Bible contains 81 books the highest figure of all the Ethiopian Canon. The New Testament Canon has eight additional books the four books of the synagogues.

The two divisions of the Book of the Covenant the Ethiopic Clement and the Ethiopic Diocese area. I rest my case now.

Rest your case while I would I see why I don't think Paul Williams would make this point in in a debate with with me because Especially if we had meaningful cross-examination, which these debates tend not to have unfortunately but there it was and I was just I was absolutely flabbergasted that The Chris Green went here again and Now he made a number of good points in this debate there were a couple times during some of the audience questions, he made some really really good points and I was thankful for that and I was thankful that he affirmed what I mean.

It was pretty much the Chicago Statement of Merit scene for someone the Church of England. That's that's Wonderful and exciting and that's all great. But look Paul Williams seven arguments, which he himself admits in this debate are the essence of his position have been refuted fully and Chris just didn't do that.

I Mean it is so simple to refute So many of his arguments. I mean some take a little longer time, but but Jesus and the woman touching his I mean, I mean that's just that is Innocence of Muslims stupid and yet they're still using it and We just have to start knocking this stuff out of the park over and over and over again.

Of course, I unfortunately have to conclude That the audience that Paul Williams is well is is debating for is not Christians in other faith. He's simply seeking to rev up the home crowd and I have a hard time respecting that.

I really do that's criticized Christians who do that and I certainly have grounds to criticize Muslims who do the same thing much to say on that debate, but We could simply listen to the first debate or I could literally right now if I wanted to Transition into the rebuttal periods of the second debate.

It would make no difference because Williams's opening presentation was identical. He stood there and read the very same presentation. I Think it was word-for-word. I Think it was identical. Now you say what you've used presentations more than once.

Yeah slides, but Generally, that's not you're not just staying there reading the slides. The slides might have a text on them or you know, some bullet points isn't like that but and of course, I suppose it's quite probable in fact that Paul Williams has not listened to the rebuttal that we've done of his material because Just like Richard Dawkins.

He just doesn't he just doesn't care. He hasn't worry himself about you know people who have refuted his material even. But anyways, so we will continue our response and I think what we might do honestly is go ahead and transition into the rebuttals the second one.

Because you've already heard the presentation. Yeah, I mean we finished literally we finished Williams's presentation with the same quotes last week he just repeated everything in this debate so we could go right into the second debate the rebuttals which you just heard the beginnings of and Even the same problem.

Regarding the cannon it Starts the same way. It's it's just like why did you bother? I mean seriously, I Mean the other ones up on YouTube now. This ends up on YouTube and we can sit there with I suppose you could put them in two different screens and go wow Look at that.

That's it. It's the exact same thing. It's amazing it's a time where I don't know but it was. It was interesting, but I got through it all this morning. Thanks to my trusty iPod and a Bluetooth headset and even while doing errands I was Moving through and getting all that done just just to make sure that I got a chance to really understand.

Did Chris Green throw a Greek New Testament at Paul Williams? The answer is no he did not so there you go. That's that's how that works eight seven seven five three. I also listened to David Woods debate with Sammy's Atari and I've there's there are a number of statements.

You know, I'm sorry Sammy is Atari. There are a number of statements there especially since Sammy is now the head of MDI that are worthy of examination and and response and We we keep trying and hope eventually we will catch wind of some of these guys actually Retooling their arguments in light of meaningful objections offered to them when you don't Retool your arguments you're in essence saying the arguments being presented against mine are worthless and Sometimes that's true.

I Think I've had two people direct me now to a YouTube video that identifies me as a luciferian satanist from the King James. Only folks. You know, I don't really change my arguments on the basis of looney tunes.

You know, I you know, and and I but I I suppose they could say well, so are you you're just a looney tune? Well, I'll leave it to the audience to determine Whether that's the case or not. The fact matter is the Muslims who attend those debates.

No, that's not that's not the case. So we will leave it at that eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number. We're taking some phone calls and let's start with Robert. Hi Robert.

John 3:16 and Warning Passages in 2 Timothy

Hi, how are you? Good. We had a question in regard to John 3 16 as well as the warning passages that can be found in 2nd Timothy 12 and 13 and so I was wondering if you could uh with Of John 3 16 and how it's within reformed theology.

Well, I I'm not sure what the question is unless you're talking about the traditions that people have imported into John 3 16. John 3 16 specifically in regards to the work of salvation Says that as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness So must the Son of Man be lifted up and whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

And so you have even before verse 16 and whether this is and we don't know whether these are Jesus words or John's words or where John's words begin and Jesus end, but Probably between 15 and 16 really Makes makes best sense.

I would assume that that John's probably explaining The last portion of Jesus words in verse 15.

Okay, well because I was having a I'll have a dialogue with a friend of mine here at Cosmon. He was saying that either every person or it was referring to a particular people or just in in general just people and so well.

None of those are first of all, it's not the first word of John 3 16. Hutos is And I was it was explaining that because I'm pointing out that in John 3 15 Whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

There is the assertion on Jesus's part of the basis upon which a person has Salvation it is limited to those who believe in Jesus Christ. And so John 3 16 if especially if it is John commenting on and expanding upon what Jesus said to Nicodemus is Does not change that context and John 3 16 Specifically contains the same phrase whoever believes in him and that's pass happest.

You and everyone believing in him should not perish but have eternal life. And so the the question really that needs to be raised is First you have to follow contextual clues and contextual meaning when doing meaningful exegesis and If you have the same phrases in verse 15 and then the same context in verse 17 then skipping that or making that a Subsidiary idea in verse 16 is a bad idea.

And the problem is most people when they look at John 3 16 do not look at John 3 16 by reading John chapter 3. They look at John 3 16 because we all have it memorized and so it's been isolated. It's been taken out so that we don't have direct access to the context.

The point of John 3 16 is that there is a specific people and this people have eternal life they Will not perish. Why? Because of the key issue of faith in Jesus Christ whoever believes Every believing one is the literal rendering of pass happest you and in the Greek every believing one There be no one who believes Truly believes in Jesus the Messiah who will go into punishment.

Every one of them will receive eternal life now that's the overriding context. Unfortunately, the vast majority of discussion of John 3 16 ignores all of that and Instead goes well, you know cosmos can mean many different things and Here's an example where John uses cosmos in this way.

Here's an example and John uses cosmos that way and when you do that, you're left with between 10 and 15 Distinguishable appropriate interpretations of the term cosmos in John's writings. John himself loves To utilize the term in a wide variety of ways and in if you include the Revelation and the epistles.

Then it's a very wide range of meanings. So John says for example in first John to do not love the world nor the things of the world now obviously that's not the same world that we're talking about in John chapter 3 and Jesus came into the world.

Well, is that the exact same world? What there's so many different ways I do not pray for the world Jesus says in John chapter 17 so the problem is that that people get all focused on the the term cosmos and And They ignore what the actual emphasis of the text is by following it from verse 14 to verse 15 through verse 16 to verse 17 verse 18.

It's all about the fact that the person who truly believes Does not come into condemnation but has eternal life. There is a specific group in view here. So whatever you do with cosmos You cannot overthrow the specificity of the text now I would say that the extent of the term cosmos and there is an article It's still available on the website Under this URL.

It will eventually I'm not sure what's going on now. I'm getting feedback, but Anyway Right now at ailment org vintage dot ailment org, it's slash dho dh open letter dot html. It's the open letter to Dave hunt and This is from back in like 2001 and there is an extensive discussion of John 316 exegesis of the context meaning of the term cosmos.

There's there's a specific couple of paragraphs called the meaning and extent of cosmos it's available there on on the website but what eventually I came down to doing was pointing to a parallel passage to John 316 found in 1st John 4 7 through 10 that I think gives an excellent example of the fact that.

What John is talking about is not a discussion of how many people live in the world or People before Jesus or after Jesus or anything along those lines at all. He's talking about the demonstration of God's love in that anyone who believes in Christ can have forgiveness of sins and eternal life and to try to Press cosmos beyond that to any kind of universalism.

This means every single person. It's ridiculous how how was how was one of Nebuchadnezzar's foot soldiers Demonstrated the love of God by the coming of Christ Doesn't make it doesn't make a lick of sense.

And there were people after the time of Christ who likewise Never heard the name of Christ never knew anything about him and therefore the idea that Cosmos means every single human being who has ever lived or ever will live or even every single human being from the time of Jesus On who would ever live?

Not only has nothing to do with context, but it's completely untenable on any logical basis as well.

So so that in a simple in a simple discussion with for example an unbeliever who brings up this passage.

You know, why would a non-believer bring up this passage?

Well, because I mean it's popular I would say, you know, even you know. If you're sharing if you're sharing the gospel with someone one would this be a good passage to go to while witnessing to them and and to if.

Hypothetically speaking if they did bring it up, how would you explain it to them in layman's terms?

Well, I have no idea what the objection is. I don't know why an unbeliever would face this as an objection. God demonstrated his love and that he provides salvation in one person Jesus Christ. I the only Reason anyone struggles with this text is because of Arminian traditions, which I just demonstrated have no basis in the text at all.

So. So if someone starts going well, but what does world mean. Well that that means They you know, if they're if they're now raising that kind of objection. Okay, then you start talking to me about all the differences of cosmos by John in the Ohanian corpus and we'll take a look at Him and I'll take it first on for we could draw the parallel we can we can go there but you want something simple, but then you place into the mouths of an unbeliever a complex Arminian tradition, which.

Wouldn't be coming from an unbeliever in the first place. Sure. Take that long. But my next question was in regards to second tivity to 11 to 13 my professor this right here is actually a warning passage and He takes it as a I guess you would say a proof text that you can Lose your lose your salvation.

And I was wondering if you could help me. Because they've been quite the topic of debate in class. So I see. Well, you know.

I'm I feel for anyone who has a Savior who cannot save Jesus himself said he came down from heaven to do the will the Father will the father's he'd be a perfect Savior. John 639 of all that he gives me I lose none of them but raise him up on the last day.

So Sacrifice of Christ perfects those for whom it's made everyone for whom he intercedes he perfects and none of them will ever be lost. Hebrew 724 so the text that specifically address the issue Rather than just those texts that people try to go to to find.

Well, I imply this or I imply that the text that actually actually speak of Christ's ability to fulfill the purpose of the Father are unambiguous and are crystal clear. So the only the only logical basis to hold to that perspective is if you believe that Salvation is fundamentally something we do that Jesus makes salvation Available, but he is not actually the one who saves so I I just go there secondly.

It is a trustworthy saying if we have died with him We will also live with him if we endure we will also reign with him if we deny him. He also will deny us if we are faithless. He remains faithful. We cannot deny himself now this this is Pretty amazing that someone would use this as a proof text when it says if we are faithless He remains faithful where he cannot deny himself and who is the only one the only the only Line in the poem That you could even begin to to get to is if we deny him He also will deny us well who can deny Christ.

I mean, that's the sin unto death. That's that that's what that's what Hebrews 6 is about. That's what Hebrews 10 is about. And so if the idea is that there are apostates There are apostates but who commits apostasy.

Well those who have made as the book of Hebrews makes very very plain. That is a a work of apologetic to people who have made a profession of faith. They are in the visible church, but there are some of them who?

As Hebrews 6 describes it are Arid land that does not bring forth fruit or as he pretends Hebrews 10 describes it. They are those who shrink back. Hebrews 6 says that they do not have those things that accompany salvation and Hebrews Hebrews 10 contrasts those who shrink back to destruction with those of us who have faith under the preserving of the soul and.

So again, it goes back to well, do you believe faith is something that you muster up within yourself? Is it is it something that is is a temporary thing? What does the Bible teach about faith? Where does it come from?

Is it a gift of God? Is it the work of the Holy Spirit? There's a huge dividing line between a God-centered soteriology and a man-centered soteriology and sometimes people emphasize these things because they have Encountered the one saved always saved.

No lordship. No repentance folks Who come up with some pretty goofy? Explanations for the warning passages because they don't believe there is any such thing as false faith. They believe anyone who has just tipped their hat toward God got their ticket punched.

They're going to heaven.

Sometimes I'm sorry I said that that seems to be the case. Epistles classes what it is and thing to do it when we finally came across this passages We were working our way through these letters is he was saying, you know We have to deal with this issue and it seems to be the case that all the that within the verses 11 12 and 13 we have this we we if we if we if we if we and all these weeds are referring to Actual believers and I seem to be I think I hold to the position that well Some of these we are actual believers.

But some of these weeds are can't be referring to people who have made a profession of faith.

And I really wasn't quite sure if now this this this we this this we is the church but but There's a question about it. I mean if if someone You know, we've we've had people become apostates who are part of our church.

They had once You know just two weeks ago, I think yes to two to Sunday nights ago I Was the one that had the opportunity presiding at the Lord's Supper we debt we had baptism and the Lord's Supper in the same night and So my fellow elder did the baptism and I did the Lord's Supper and I don't get to do that very often.

I've done it a few times, but it's it's always a great privilege when I've gotten a chance to to do that and I look out over that gathered small group of people and I cannot see into hearts. I cannot that they all look To me like they're very serious about what they're doing like they are hearing what I'm saying that they are examining themselves that they are rejoicing in their salvation and in the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ and that they are doing remembrance of him until he comes but I Have also been in those Lord's Supper services Where there have been people who over the years have left the faith and so there is such a thing as apostasy and We are not given the ability to look into the hearts and minds of men and women in front of us to know Who is and who isn't so Hebrews Paul?

They all have warnings. But that cannot be taken to overthrow the plain didactic teachings of the perfection of the New Covenant And the perfection of Christ as Savior of his people. Just because we have to be able to function in the pastoral ministry and We don't have supernatural knowledge of who is who?

You've got to you know It's just not allowing scripture to speak as as a whole and recognizing that you have teaching portions that talk about what our ground Our standing is with with God. We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Okay, right and it's interesting that you point that out because I asked a very question to my uh to my professor. You know, I was just like, you know, if if you can't Know if you can't have assurance that pretty sure.

Yeah, you know it's just kind of like it's either you you have absolute peace or you don't and so, um. That I guess that was the issue that I had. So for him for my Professor this these weeds in 12 and verses 12 and 13 are referring to Actual believers.

But the text you're saying that the text of scripture is actually saying that that the weeds are referring to the church. But not everybody in the church is of the church. Well look. It just strikes me.

That When you have a when you have the next line Saying if we are faithless, he remains faithful. Who is who is who is that remains faithful here? Is it not Christ? All right, faithful to do what? Faithful to accomplish what because notice our denying of him Results in his denial of us, but our faithlessness Does not result in our rejection because he cannot deny himself.

So the real question is can a regenerate believer? Commit a sin unto death because that's what denying Christ is and I just I just simply state If you look at the rest of the discussions of this Hebrews chapter 6 Hebrews chapter 10 first John chapter 5 Yes, there is a sin unto death there is there is this this action.

But it is not something that the regenerate believer is going to be doing. But at the same time there are people who do it. And so what does that tell us? We have to see it backwards. We can't we can't look into people's hearts and minds.

God does know the heart and he does know the God. Gotcha well When you hear these kinds of sober words and Hebrews 3 Hebrews 6 Hebrews 10 2nd Timothy 2 Paul said that this is a faithful saying and That probably means that this was something that that preceded him in The church as far as a this is not something that he came up with and when you say Should I consider them to be important?

Given that the Apostle Paul says test yourself to see whether you're in the faith then obviously every believer should Consider every warning passage to be vitally important because if we do not Then we are being apathetic about the Word of God and apathetic about our relationship to Christ.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thanks Robert. Thank you. Bye. Bye eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one we still have about 20 minutes left in the program and Only one caller.

So now is your opportunity? Of course, this is what happens when you open up the phones. And you've changed the time of the program. Which is difficult, but anyways eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number.

You know if I really wanted to light up the phone the love lines I could do what I did yesterday morning and before we go to Robert Austin Robert I Was I had had to fly out early from st Louis. I was in st. Louis over the weekend to come to Grace Church had a great time with the folks.

They're wonderful time and in fact I'm gonna be posting the devotional that I did on Sunday evening from Hebrews. I'm sorry Isaiah chapter 9 sort of a seasonal study but I Forget what it was, but I was getting packed up.

It was For something in the morning. I'd leave at 515. My ride was gonna be there I left even before then because my ride picking up a 503. So anyway, it was before 5 a .m. St. Louis time and some atheists had seen I Think they saw the tweet where I responded to Steve camp.

Steve had Said something about young Calvinists Don't do exegesis and they're not sound and they're not strong and they hide behind computers. And I throw it back and said I know plenty of sound strong courageous Calvinist brother put away that broad brush is what I had said because I just felt that he had just that was just that one, right and So for some reason they're atheists who follow us.

Just waiting for you to say something. I guess I guess they just live their lives just waiting To jump in and we haven't come into channel all the time. I have a question. Yeah, right. You don't have a question.

You just want to get an argument started. It's called being a troll anyway, I Made a hashtag. No, no, I I responded to him by saying atheist colon creatures denying their creator. Now that was what we put on signs.

Back in oh goodness, when was that? 1980 something. When the American atheists had their convention here in Scottsdale and we stood outside the convention center with these signs and man Let me tell you something.

Oh I wasn't that long out of high school at that time so it hadn't been that long since I'd heard that kind of language in the locker room, but Let's just say atheists don't have to worry too much about their ethics and immorals.

We had a number of people come out to us from inside the resort and Thank us for being there. There had been people there that night. The atheists had dressed someone up Like Jesus at about 3 o 'clock in the morning and we're chasing him through the hallways with pillows beating him.

And I mean this is this is what this is what atheists do and they get together, you know. They weren't sitting around playing chess. They were they were acting like Complete buffoons. But anyway, we even had one car swerve toward us.

Just to try to scare us I mean enough Cramps of the middle finger to to to. I mean it was just it was amazing. So when you say atheist colon creatures denying their creator, huh? Well, it took two Responses from this guy before he became profane and I blocked him and never gave another thought because I mean that's one of the reasons that I don't have comments.

My youtube videos is because of atheists. They they cannot behave. They cannot control themselves. They there there's the fool has said in his heart. There is no God and they act foolishly it's just I've far too much experience with these folks to even begin to waste my time.

Arguing the point because all you gotta do is say something about atheism on YouTube or on Twitter and they will prove the point for you. Bunch of angry atheists were not angry, you know, and it's just like amazing so anyways, I Packed the computer up head to the airport.