Citation Error

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 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. And now with today's topic here is James White.

A Citation Error and the Difference Between Mistakes and Spurious Sources

And welcome to the dividing line music just sort of disappeared they're not sure what that was all about This and then that and there's just a professional the Union tell you do that. It's a right-to-work state.

Well, welcome to the dividing line before we get back to the Barker Wilson debate This afternoon on the program. I Wanted to talk about further evidence that yes, I am a human being and I make errors.

Turretin fan drew my attention to one such error this morning and He would the man's a machine. I don't I don't know how he cranks out the amount of material that he does. He must not sleep. Russians are like that, but anyway You didn't know he was a Russian.

I think he's a Russian. We sometimes argue about you know, cuz he's you know the unknown mystery dude, so but I've got him pegged he's definitely Russian and Probably former KGB in hiding or something like that.

But anyway, you know, even Russians can make good Calvinist Lord can take anybody but anyhow, I pointed out to me that I Have made a mistake. In a citation of Basil of Caesarea, I have cited Philip Schaaf Summarizing what Basil said it's almost in the exact same words, but it is Philip Schaaf and not Basil Caesarea and specifically it is the following words got carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is Conformable to scripture and if not to reject it.

Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God all that is outside scripture is not of faith. But is sin now that's Schaaf and he is in essence Restating what is found in a This particular reference.

This is from the Aesthetical Works the Morals Rule 8 chapter 22. Specifically what is the mark of a Christian faith working by charity? What is the mark of faith a sure conviction of the truth the inspired words?

Not to be shaken by a process of reasoning nor by the alleging of natural requirements nor by the pretences of false piety. What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in those dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture not venturing to reject anything nor making additions.

For if all that is not of faith is sin as the Apostle says and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God everything outside Holy Scripture not being of faith is sin. Likewise his Commentary rule 72 Concerning the hearers that those hearers who are instructed in the scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers receiving what is conformity with the scriptures and Rejecting what is opposed to them and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided now I don't know how I got Schaaf mixed up with Basel.

It's there's a number of different possibilities. If you're using electronic copies, sometimes it's difficult to see which is which whatever it might be. It's an error and I note the error and admit the error.

However, I want to use this to draw a distinction between How people handle things like this first of all, there is no question that Schaaf is appropriately and accurately Paraphrasing and summarizing what Basel said.

There's no question about that. Anyone who reads Basel knows that he made that that kind of argumentation not in just these citations but in others as well. I remember having a debate with a Roman Catholic apologist and scholar in Austin, Texas back in the early 1990s and it wasn't this part wasn't recorded because it was between the two debates, but he made a comment about Basel to me and and I said have you read the context of that and We looked into the context of it and it was pointing out that that this current this quote he had used from Basel to try to refute mine Wasn't actually in a context.

It wasn't talking about dogmas talking about practices. He he as a teaching scholar had not actually looked at the context of Basel so maybe I thought that what I had there was just a different translation of the earlier citation doesn't matter.

It was an error but it does not in any way impact anything that we have said concerning Basel's view of the sufficiency of Scripture and how far out of conformity with modern Roman Catholicism his sentiments are and Unlike the history of the Roman Church.

Where not only was it a matter of someone making a mistake in a citation? It was a matter of people making up not only citations, but making up entire works. Do I need to say much more than the donation of Constantine?

Do I need to make reference to the pseudo is a Dorian decretals? The fact that the large portion large portion a small portion not a few little isolated quotes. But a large portion literature upon which the entire Pretensions of the papal see were based during medieval times were completely spurious.

They were made up it wasn't oh I I quoted from the introduction rather these were completely made up and The ideas in them were not to be found in the original writers. Now look at the modern situation.

Look at for example the recent situation where turrets and fan has pointed out That modern Roman Catholic apologists will throw everything, but the kitchen sink at you, and they just don't care whether it's truthful or not.

You know we look at pseudo apologists like Steve Ray and there is nothing too low for Steve Ray to do or to say to promote Romanism there just isn't and He will not defend himself when he is demonstrated to be an error.

He just simply mocks those who have demonstrated his error and then runs off to Israel or Greece or wherever else. He's dragging little old ladies around and getting their money from them While showing them around saying this is where this happened.

That's what happened. So we documented for example the 33 ,000 denominations myth or fable. Do you think that's gonna stop Roman Catholic apologists from using it? No of course not even though the documentations right there.

It is simply a lie a bold-faced lie to accuse sola scriptura With producing Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses or any of these others. It they'll they'll continue doing it and and without any shame turds a fan pointed out the abuse of Pseudo-athanasius in regards to promoting the idea of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant and Is there any recognition on their part of this?

No, there's wide wild-eyed Defense of these things. Well, it's possible. It might have been this and it's possible. It might have been that and you know We just really don't know I am truly reminded of The lengths to which Roman Catholics especially will go To find anything that is amenable to the dogmatic positions of later Roman Catholicism.

The the the early church is just putty in their hands. There's there's no attempt whatsoever To honestly and accurately represent the context of any of these writers at all. Any source is good. I mean they're forced into this because let's face it the especially the Marian dogmas such as Those being defended by the citation of pseudo-athanasius the Marian dogmas came from Gnosticism.

They're Gnostic in origin. They're not Christian in origin and so just I think the weekend before last someone in my church dropped me a line and somebody had thrown this quotation from a 13th or 14th century Coptic reference source that some people believe goes back to the third or fourth century about the Dormition of Mary and You know, you've got all these questions about this and then you read all the stuff into it and you ignore the fact.

It's a heretical doc document Angel Christology and Gnosticism and all the rest of the stuff, but oh look there's something about Mary here. We can push the assumption of Mary back even farther now. Oh, isn't that wonderful?

Yeah, it's from heretics, but who cares? It's there. Oh, yeah, you know and you just sit there and and you're you're in utter shock at what these people are willing to utilize as sources of information and so you compare the you know, I think of a The Envoy magazine situation where They did the anonymous hit piece on me that we've discussed a number of times and even then they used extremely questionable resources.

I've if you look at the Roman Catholic section on our website You'll see that I've written numerous articles where I've interacted with published materials from Karl Keating and others Where they will use the most highly questionable sources To find anything that is amenable with their allegedly universal tradition.

Why do you have to use such questionable sources when you claim to be the infallible church in the first place? Never quite figured that out. But Anyways, there you go. So I think it's instructive that at least in this situation where I have made an error I've made an error citing someone who was summarizing Exactly what Basil of Caesarea did say in regards to the sufficiency of Scripture.

It does not change any bit of argumentation whatsoever. It's still a mistake, but it's a mistake that does not change the argument. But when you have people who are willing to use Spurious materials when you have a church that built its power on the basis of forged Documents where you had to write into the early church citations and quotations that they never themselves said Inserting beliefs that they never themselves held.

I remember, this is a name I haven't used a long time, Scott Butler, the man who continues to hold the APACWA debates hostage. He's the one who has the videotapes of the first two APACWA debates we did and Has hidden them away in a dark corner someplace.

Maybe he's taped Seinfeld episodes over it by now or something like that. Who knows but I still call upon Scott Butler to release those tapes to the world and let everybody else see them. Of course, he admitted that the Roman Catholic side didn't win those debates.

So I guess that's what you do is you just suppress those videos and that happens. But anyways, I remember Scott Butler throwing out in the Boston College stuff Some an Arabic version as I recall the cannons of Nicaea.

That had stuff added to it to try to make a point. It is just that there is no stopping point as to how far people will go Once they have wedded themselves to the authority of Rome. They just they're just There's nothing to stop anybody along those lines.

It is Truly an amazing thing to observe. So there you go further evidence of my humanity and fallibility. But once again, I think it's it is indicative and instructive to note that what I mistakenly ascribed to Basil of Caesarea is actually a very accurate summary of Exactly what Basil of Caesarea said in those that those citations which are in no way Questioned as being a representative of his position.

Unlike people like Steve Ray and others who just throw anything out there Hope it sticks and when challenged just simply insult the people who have exposed them and Like I said run off to Greece or Israel or whatever and we're just too busy to deal with things like that.

We have documented these things many many times. I remember the the videos I posted on YouTube. Hopefully they're still there and haven't been removed for copyright violations. Demonstrating that Steve Ray had grossly misused Athanasius.

Steve Ray just uses secondary materials source materials anyways. And and so when his understanding of those secondary materials is not overly good then he ends up blundering but that's just what happens with people like Steve Ray, so there's there is a public recommendation and Acknowledgement of an error that doesn't change absolutely anything that we were saying about Basil in fact, it just gave us the opportunity of reemphasizing once again the fact that the view of modern Roman Catholicism While it can be read back into anything if you want to engage in anachronism if you want to ignore what is really there was not in fact the viewpoint of the early church and that to those of us who believe in the perspicuity and authority of Scripture and Reject the later innovations of the Roman Catholic system as a perversion of the gospel Have a sound basis for so doing so with that said let's get back to the Barker Wilson debate we were in the cross-examination period and Doug Wilson was Had just said well.

Thank you for not answering that question, and he was right and then we heard Dan Barker say that he had answered the question perfectly. Well, he hadn't actually he was Dancing around a bit, but now Doug is going to press that advantage.

Let's continue on.

The Moral Basis of Atheism and the Problem of Evil

The same situation to Oklahoma City, which you brought up. Why? Given given the fact that there is no God and no objective morality. You've just told us that morality is relative to the situation, but there is objective basis.

I said for morality I didn't say there's no objective morality. Okay. What is that basis? It's it's nature. It's human nature and pain. We we evolved to require water for example. What if we get evolved to require?

Something else like arsenic then this might be evil. But relative to our human nature to what helps us and what's what either enhances our life or what causes harm for our life We can say relative to our human nature.

This is something that's good. There is no we all make objective good. I mean, we also evolved we also evolved a mechanism whereby we blow up our enemies. So why was doing that in Oklahoma City wrong.

Because that hurts it causes pain to your now again.

I think most people are really left stuttering when they hear Dan Barker With with such a a paper-thin basis upon which to make his assertions. It causes pain. So, I mean here is a evolutionary naturalist all of nature causes pain.

Natural selection is based upon causing pain. So, how can you say that's the basis of morality I mean from a naturalistic evolutionary perspective who cares if You're causing pain to somebody else means that your genotype will predominate over their genotype in the gene pool, then you win and if that's the only goal of Evolution is that your genotype?

Predominates over someone else's genotype then that makes it good, right? I mean if that's all there is and So you have this inconsistent atheism where well I don't like pain and so that becomes my my ultimate standard and.

Yeah that doesn't really flow from my view of the universe at all because pain is actually a part of you know natural selection and and the survival of the fittest actually it's the promotion of the genotype of the fittest but He who has the most kids wins in essence.

And Pains are relevant to any of that, but you know, I just want to just say that I'm a very caring person that's that's in essence what I'm hearing and Of course Doug Wilson isn't letting him get away with it.

If you don't grasp the simple idea that morality is an issue of avoiding pain. Blowing up people in Oklahoma City was painful. It was tragic. It was hurtful. Given you ought to know that there's something wrong with it.

Oh, I know there's something wrong with it. But I only know it because there's a God the triune God for scripture. You mean you would not it would not have dawned on you without the Bible that there's something wrong with killing.

I mean, you're so dumb that you couldn't have fought it through for yourself. Let me think about it. We really need. But do we really need these tablets from Mount Sinai to tell us there's something wrong with causing harm.

But what happened in Oklahoma City given your principles was nothing but the scattering of protoplasm. Now he's exactly right and.

Barker's cheap debating point that he just got there by saying you're so stupid. You couldn't figure that out again is based upon his borrowing our worldview long enough to define the words to make the point and Doug was not Sidetracked by that.

I think most people would have been but he wasn't a stayed on on point stayed on the topic and again said okay, but what happened there was nothing but the scattering of protoplasm and If the people who did that he didn't have time to develop this but if the people who did that Thought they were causing the greater good that they were fighting a repressive government and That's these people were the loss of the life of these people would eventually lead to Betterment of life then couldn't they use that argument.

I Mean it's all just relative, isn't it? That's what that's Dan Barker's, but it's all relative. So if you can make the stronger argument that you can sacrifice a few for the better of the many Then why not do that?

Well because it causes pain well. But if you don't do it, you're gonna be causing more pain over time to other people under a repressive government. So you can always there's always some way around this.

There is no way of making this system that Barker tries to present stick. It just doesn't work.

He caused harm to protoplasm. It caused harm to human beings who don't want harm caused to them. Okay, so any human being who doesn't want harm caused to him Should not have harm caused to him. Now why why are these other people these different nerve centers these different nervous systems, why is their word authoritative?

Their word. Yeah, why do I have to leave them alone? Because we're part of the same human race with the same organism. We relate to each other. We're part. We're the same organism. What?

This is me the same guy who's gonna sit there and say that evolution is an established fact. He doesn't know much about evolution. If that's what he thinks. We are not the same organism. We may be part of the same life zone and and Biosphere but we're not the same organism and.

Look at the law of the wild folks. It does not follow that. That this type of argumentation makes any sense. Because there are lots of gazelles in Africa that don't want to be eaten by lions. But they get eaten by lions and the system works that way.

Is that immoral because it causes pain? The whole the whole idea just makes no sense.

Who care about human suffering. And I think there's a lot of us in this world. Those of us who care empathize. We recognize that other human beings are part of us and we're part of the community. I understand that you care.

I'm trying to figure out why. Because I'm a human being I don't like pain. And so I project that to other human beings and I know they don't like pain either. So I care about them by extension. Do you think that the history of the human race reveals that one of the things that the human race likes to do besides?

Avoiding pain is that the human race likes to Give it. Yeah, it's in the name of a god non sequitur.

Cheap debating trick. You know, etc, etc. What does that matter? Because Doug Wilson would believe that in 99 That's a name of a false God or falsely claimed by that God or whatever else it might be.

As as he will demonstrate but total non-second.

Would you like this. Would you like a comparative body count between the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades and the secularist crusades in this century. Now.

It's gonna sound for a moment like Barker's got a good comeback for this. He gets nailed. This is this. Listen to this.

Well a few millions, but what's the point? I mean, are you trying to say that if a Political regime that's based on some kind of religious or non-religious philosophy commits immoral acts. Therefore we should completely discredit the entire regime.

Most Christians would say don't blame Jesus for the Inquisition, right? I don't blame Jesus for the Crusades, right? Most Christians are eager to blame atheists for Stalinism. The reason for this. The reason for this and I'd like to ask you to respond to it is When the Grand Inquisitor did what he did in the name of Jesus Christ.

He was saying one thing and he was standing on something else. His premise was inconsistent with what he was doing. I have been able to find no inconsistency in the worldview of Stalin. Could you please tell me how he was inconsistent?

Exactly exactamundo what the atheist regimes did in Murdering millions and millions of people was consistent with the worldview that they were following and Anything the Inquisition did or anything any atrocities of the crusade was inconsistent with the foundation upon which they were standing.

That's a given but Noticed that Barker missed it and now now listen to the this response. It is an example of incoherence.

Well, he claimed to be seeking the common good and yet he caused pain he caused harm. For the common good. Well, that may cause harm. It may be a mistake. That's inconsistent to be claiming to be seeking the common good, but yet to be doing something.

Was Stalin mistaken or immoral both? He was mistaken and he was immoral. Okay, and he was Immoral because he took human life, which you have absolute eyes. I haven't advertised it. No. That's a relative.

I said it's relative to us the way we evolve all the natures that we have it could have been different. Things could have been different. We didn't even have to evolve. Okay. Now is the process of evolution whatever happens is that is that what you're appealing to we do it happens that we have.

What they avoid pain this also it happens that we inflict it. I. Why why do you choose the avoidance of pain as the standard of morality and not the inflicting of pain? Because we don't like pain. I mean, it's pretty simple, but we like inflicting it.

Well, I don't think why do you choose one over? The other I don't like inflicting pain. Well, you know, I don't but there's lots of people most of us don't. There was a chappy in Oklahoma City that did and what we do then is we there's a man.

We have laws and we have a system of justice and we have self-defense and we have jails. Those of us in society who do care about morality and stopping pain try to protect ourselves from the others who don't.

Have you ever seen a greater example of the utter blindness of atheism? We we do these things and the whole point is but why do you do these things? Because you were made in the image of God. That's why you're doing these things.

That's why we had that sign. We carried out the atheist convention atheist creatures denying their creator. It's Seen very clearly there.

Behaviors of human beings. One is the avoidance of pain. The other is the inflicting of it and you have arbitrarily ranked one over the other and I would like to know why. That's called morality. By definition, that's what morality is.

You don't have to have a why if you're gonna be a moral person. That's what morality is according according to according to me. I'm a human being according to motion according to me.

There you go. It's all subjective. It's just me. And so if another me comes along with a bigger gun Then that's what becomes moral. It's just me. That was a non-answer obviously. Anybody who would accuse Hitler of Christianity is just engaging in absurdity on incredible level.

I was a non-answer and. The point again is if if it's me or the majority of me's Then upon what objective basis do you say that what Nazi Germany did or any of the others did was wrong? And you just can't come up with anything from an atheistic worldview.

God, Evil, and the Meaning of John 5 and John 8

I want to ask you then why did God create evil? He wanted to. So if God is responsible for evil, absolutely. Okay, then if God is responsible evil, he's not a good guy. Absolutely, not. Well, how can you be evil and good at the same time?

I didn't say he was evil. I said he determined to create evil. He created evil. Yes, then a person who creates evil is a good person. God freely and unalterably ordained whatsoever comes to pass. So when something happens in the world, that's evil.

God is Responsible for it. He created he made it. He didn't create it directly. When he created the world the world was good and man rebelled. But when man rebelled against God that didn't surprise God, he wasn't scrambling around yelling plan B.

He knew it was going to happen. But then why did he say he created evil? Why did he say it in specific words in are you referring to the book of Amos? I'm referring to the book of Isaiah God the God. And Isaiah said I created he said Bara which is the word for creating which is in Genesis and wrong.

I create evil and that's the moral evil. He's talking about not calamity.

Well, now let me stop right there. Isaiah 45 7 Numerous, I don't think even translates at calamity. I Don't know why Dan Barker thinks that he is a Bible scholar or he can just sort of throw out definitions.

He's going to be doing that here for the next few minutes on other topics but and I certainly don't have any problem reading Isaiah 45 7 as including Moral evil now in the context he is talking about the difference between Shalom and Ra.

It's talking about within the city and so on so forth and God is talking about the fact that he he is behind The destruction of cities and the calamity that comes with it and so on so forth. Now I think that would include as we see in Isaiah chapter 10 and the Assyrians All sorts of evil that goes along with that.

There is no such thing as purposeless evil. But he just threw out this it doesn't mean calamity thing. No, it does. It's just bigger than the definition. He wants to use of that particular text. And when did it become an argument for Dan Barker to announce his rebellion against God.

All that does is prove Doug's point doesn't it? I refuse to respect that. Well, yeah, in fact, the Bible says that unless God has mercy upon your soul. That's exactly what your response is going to be you just proved proved our point that you are a creature and rebellion against your creator and That you don't mind standing up on your hind legs and spitting in your creators face.

Okay, is that an argument? No, it's not an argument. It's Just you know, just making a statement we will continue with the Doug Wilson Dan Barker debate here on the dividing line right after this break.

BibleWorks 8, The Forgotten Trinity, and Alpha and Omega Ministries

Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools. Users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text and morphology databases 29 lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources.

Pastors you will appreciate the phrase matching tool which will allow you to find all of the verses containing phrases Similar to your search verse giving you greater depth and keener insight during sermon preparation.

Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way Bible works 8 shows the most common words in the pericope Book or chapter plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences.

Scholars. Your research just got easier with the army external resources manager a handy tool to collect organize and display resource files From your computer as well as the internet. Dr. James White says Bible works is the best Bible software available.

I have used Bible works software for years and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program. This is the program that runs 24 -7 on my office computer and it is the one that's running on my laptop when I engage in Debates it is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious exegesis of the text.

For over 15 years Bible works has assisted all users in their study of the original languages and that enables you to Do one thing focus on the text and that translates to focusing on the truth. Order your copy of Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time You'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen debate.

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us. James White's book The Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.

It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a Christian and Amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.

The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org.

Hello everyone, this is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered self-help program The need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater.

I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha and Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses.

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior? We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well. Support Alpha and Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you.

I don't know if that's the best rejoin music for the middle of the debates. Especially during cross-examination, though. They might have wanted to play that and sort of slowed things down a little bit.

Welcome back to dividing line. We're listening to the cross-examination portion in the debate between Dan Barker Heather freedom from religion Foundation Madison, Wisconsin a former quote-unquote Christian and so on so forth and Doug Wilson on Does the triune God of Scripture live?

I like that. I like that particular title.

Let's see what. Get right back to it. There are two attributes that within a world without evil in a world without sin There would be two attributes of God that would go I'm glorified and those two attributes would be God's wrath and his justice poured out on those who do evil and God's mercy on those who Have done evil and without open world without evil There would have been no forgiveness for sinners and in a world without evil There would have been no judgment on sinners.

So that sounds like a nice world to me.

Sounds like a world. It sounds like a nice world to me.

Let's have butterflies and puppy dogs. The world with no evil sounds like a pretty nice world to me. Why couldn't a good God have created a world with that? Why do we why does. Why does his ego have to be gratified?

Why does he have to be thanked and cobbled as if he. Why does he need all this things in glory? I mean, what if I were to stand up here and to tell you I want you to worship.

Catch that you barely hear it because he's being talked over but Doug said yes, because you're a creature. And now he will make that even more explicit in the following statement.

Good yes, but no offense. I mean when we worship him he deserves it. Because you have just pulled. Because you're not supposed to judge whether God is good or not. Judge that God is good. You were appealing to a court of reason and if you appeal to a court of reason you You're just supposed to take God's word for it.

You're not supposed to judge. And how can you worship and admire somebody whom you do not judge to be good. You just have to take my things, right, right, but let me go on here with some more questions.

Is slavery a good moral idea? Slavery has described human slavery. Are you talking about Hebrew slavery or Roman slavery? Either way is slavery a good idea? And the slavery that Jesus endorsed was that a good idea?

The slavery of the Old Testament was a good idea and regulated by God's law according to his law and Roman slavery was a pagan system that had many abuses in it. But the New Testament does not condemn it as a sin in itself.

So you agree with Jesus when he was compassionate enough to say I don't feed you get the feeling that Dan was not expecting some of.

Doug's responses. Because obviously Doug does not respond the way that many evangelicals would respond. Who. Just you know, don't think about these things and go running off the cliff without thinking about what the scriptures actually teach on any particular subject and.

So he sort of had to go to plan B on a number of these particular.

That servant which did not do the Lord's will and did not commit things worthy of stripes Shall be beaten with few stripes. You agree that slaves should be beaten then according to Jesus. Yes. You do and you think that's good and moral.

Yes, I do. Okay. You're gonna have to judge people and this is making any sense. He's a good God who endorses slavery who endorses and says you should be happy to dash babies against the stone. God would miss creating evil who was glorified by people.

But let's just keep going now. That was of course an egregious.

Violation of the debate rules where you stop doing cross-examination start making a ad populum argument to the audience that just expresses your Lack of ability to respond to the things that are being said.

It's just like well I don't know how to respond to someone who's actually admitted all this stuff and is making a coherent argument so I'll just simply appeal the audience and that'll that'll be enough and you know on any Official debate type foundation.

He disqualified himself at that point. But when God created Eve, which you perfect.

Yes, and then Eve sinned, right? So there was a flaw in her right. But then it what is a sin she committed a sin, right? That's right. Well, then she did something wrong. God created her with the capacity to choose Sin right and she chose wrong.