Intro:
Critics tend to be uncritical of one thing, their critique.
If critics genuinely wanted an answer, they wouldn't wait until they were in an argument with a Christian to raise it. But in their defense, they don't actually think there are answers because Christians themselves don't have them. Defending Christianity intellectually unfortunately seems to be a tiny niche.
Like the destruction of a building or a China shop, tearing down is much quicker than building/cleaning up. You can raise an objection with one sentence that requires a response of paragraphs. Genuine searching requires patience and effort if you want the full answer.
Most don’t want the full answer. They want to stump a Christian and run away. Or if the Christian can answer it then they'll change the subject. They don’t want any of what they’re criticizing to be true. It’s a way of attacking the faith without thinking too hard for too long
People are more interested in inflammatory claims than boring truths. The issues raised carry far more emotional weight than intellectual strength. Remember, humans are story telling creatures we are persuaded by emotion far more than rationality. The atheists who claim to purely follow the evidence are so deluded and arrogant it's sad. Have the humility to say you TRY to follow the evidence.
It’s interesting that these objections are almost never raised in actual academia, they seemingly come from people who parrot their favorite atheist comedian. Ladies and gentlemen, Comedians are entertainers, not trained philosophers. When Ricky Gervais says Christians are atheists as well but he just believes in one less god, he is not saying something intelligent like you think he is. When he appeals to maths and implies religious people are ignorant to think only their god is real, he is not saying something clever. These are philosophically bankrupt statements. When Richard Dawkins asks 'well then who created God?' he steps outside of his domain (evolutionary biology) and steps into philosophy where other atheists like Michael Ruse have mocked him. While many accuse Christians of blindly following, atheists will in the same breath parrot slogans they have heard. Be honest, have you ever said one of the following objections?
“Why do you force it down people’s throat?”
Even the famous atheist magician Penn Jillette knows the answer to this one “I’ve always said I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize.” “How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
The most frustrating thing about this slogan is when people have their say about religion and then literally anyone that attempts to respond is "forcing their beliefs"
The only time I see this as being a fair critique is when Christians tell people to believe in Jesus and the bible with no decent justification, just the threat of Hell. Which...is unfortunately quite common. But in any other situation, it's probably the atheist saying their favorite quote to shut people up.
And of course, people would want to shut Christians up. The gospel is convicting, I'm sure people who smoke find it annoying when people tell them it's not good for them!
2. "All religions are basically the same"
Just one of many slogans that go completely unexamined by those who use them.
People who say this are just shouting out how ignorant they are on the topic. Maybe all religions are superficially the same because they probably disagree with naturalism, but Christianity is fundamentally different. For example, every other religion requires you to do something to get to heaven whereas Christianity says there is nothing you can do.
Which means the good deeds of Christians are out of gratitude and love and not merely fear of Hell or seeking rewards in Heaven. This motivator may explain the profound Jesus' impact has had on the world see article 'Influence of the Bible'.
3. “Religion causes all wars.”
7% actually, and half of that was Islam (Encyclopedia of Wars). Notice that would mean the other 93% were secular. This logic would imply secularism causes more wars and is therefore false?
This slogan tends to operate under the assumption that every religion is monotheistic and exclusive and everyone fights over which god is better. The truth is that hard monotheism for most of history was very rare. Today it is most common but only in 3 prevalent beliefs. 2 and a half really as Judaism is just Christianity's older brother.
4. “All the bad things done in the name of religion!”
More self-refuting logic. What about all the bad things done in the name of science? Eugenics, chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction. All the mass shootings done in the name of atheism and nihilism and anti-natalism and environmentalism? Lack of religion has easily been responsible for more destruction to the world (more on that below). Who is out there saying "the same Jesus who told me to love my enemies, wants me to harm them." Atheists love whipping out the 'no true Scotsmen' fallacy but surely under any reasonable definition of a Christian, Christians are not doing these 'bad things'. Parents abandon their gay child? That is unloving and violates many scriptures.
It’s wise to separate ideas from people who use the ideas in their own way.
It would be silly to judge a religion by it's followers, you know why? Because you get contradictory results? Are you going to focus on all the crazies that religion produces while ignoring all the mother Theresa's and Francis of Assis's? Are you going to ignore the clear and overwhelming literature that religion is good for mental health and that religious people are statistically the most charitable? Where do you think schools, hospitals and charities came from?
Was it bad when zealous Jesus followers stopped practices like infanticide and gladiator games?
Why don't you try criticizing the religion by its founder? Doesn't that make more sense? Oh that's right because you can't fault Jesus! What is the point in criticizing religiously motivated actions that Jesus would agree with you on? He condemns the same things as you and praises the same thing you praise-you just don't want Him.
But let's stick with the logic of judging ideas by their adherents! Even though atheists want to excuse themselves of the burden that is history’s atheist regimes, we can hopefully appease them and just point out that religion was nowhere to be seen during the most horrific and deadliest times in history. The atheist/communist regimes of China (65 million deaths), Soviet Union (20 million) and Cambodia (2 million) all completely rejected organized religion and belief in God, in fact they institutionalized atheism kind of like what we see in North Korea and China right now.
It seems the highest body count doesn't come from those zealous for God but from those who think there's no God to answer to.
5. “Religion was created to control people.”
The Catholic church definitely used the bible to control people but they didn’t write it. It’s interesting that they could only control people by adding and taking away from the bible’s message not actually just using the bible.
What about all the indigenes of different lands, all throughout the world and all throughout history, they all believe in the supernatural too, do they only believe it because someone was controlling them? Every SINGLE belief system in the world was made up to deceive? Lol, the things people are willing to believe to stay in their bubble.
I think I will listen to the scientists instead as they say faith and religion are in our genes.
Imagine actually reading the whole bible and coming away with such a conclusion. How could Christianity fit this bill? It is the only belief that teaches there is nothing you can do to receive salvation. It is the only one that says good works are evidence of your salvation not the means by which you get it.
Seems to ignore the fact the Bible has been an accurately reported history book for thousands of years…
Also seems to fly in the face of the fact that New Testament authors were willing to suffer torture and death for their claims about Jesus and what they saw.
The concept of Hell predates Christianity by 1000 years so everyone that fell for the viral video of "retired bishop explains why the church invented hell" should be wildly embarrassed.
"It's all man-made". Christianity is only man-made if it is false. But you don't get to start off assuming that. You can't argue that Christianity is false because it's man-made because that is circular logic or begging the question. You have to demonstrate it was completely man-made first. Not just assert it.
6. “But Christians are hypocrites.”
Bit of a generalization. Doesn’t affect the truth of the bible.
If you hated vegans would you stop eating vegies?
This objection likely stems from the perception that Christians are meant to be perfect all the time, for example you’ve probably heard “that’s not very Christian of you!” and "you call yaself a Christian!" This is just more ignorance and/or strawmanning because Christianity isn’t about being good it’s about admitting how bad and in need of redemption you are.
7. “It’s for people scared of death/a crutch”
This is as legitimate as a Christian saying “you’re only an atheist because you don’t want to think about a God that holds people accountable.”
Plus, this doesn’t seem to be the driving factor in thousands of intellectuals of all persuasions who became convinced by evidence.
Wouldn’t it be funny if the same people who said this were the same who say things like “fly high grandma” or “she’s in a better place now.” Now THAT'S hypocritical.
Everyone fears death, they might not think so but if someone put a gun to their head, they wouldn’t start obeying the madman out of courtesy or politeness. It would be silly to deny this fact, even from an evolutionary standpoint, we are wired for survival and we do not want to die.
8. “If the bible and God were true, there wouldn’t be so many religions and denominations”
Where does this logic come from? Let me try-if God was real, you would expect to see most Christian groups agree on the fundamentals… they do. Most denominations agree on the saving grace of Jesus and whenever they don’t (Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses) they are rightly outed as deceptive cults.
There are two primary motivators to twisting the bible’s teaching: Money and confusion. The bible is constantly warning of these. There are some very rich “Christian” televangelists.
We have brains to discern what the bible does and doesn’t say. It was written for us, not to us. It requires study in some areas but the most important messages of Jesus and the cross are always made clear and simple in the text and ultimately that’s all you need.
This argument attributes error to God for some reason when it should clearly be left with humans. Two humans can look at the same scientific study and come to different conclusions! Does that invalidate science? Or the studies findings? There's more than one theory of evolution, should we throw that out now?
9. “If you were born in another country, you’d just worship a different god.”
Yeah maybe, but that doesn’t have any bearing on the truthfulness of anything. That's why this is just a genetic fallacy. I could say an atheist is wrong for being born into an atheist family, or only believes in human rights because they weren’t born in Saudi Arabia.
Hopefully it is simple to understand that the way someone comes to a conclusion has no bearing on whether the conclusion happens to be true or not. If I went to a psychic to figure out who will win the 2020 election and she said Biden, that's a terrible way to find truth but it still would have been the right answer wouldn't it?
10. “Jesus was a copy of other gods” or “Jesus never existed”
Got some evidence for that? This is a cheap and easy tactic, throw out some half-baked theory that if true MIGHT weaken Christianity but make no actual effort to prove or defend it. What they have to do but won't: demonstrate there were dying and rising gods, demonstrate that Jesus was thought of as another version of this motif, demonstrate these myths influenced the gospels, and even then that CANNOT prove Jesus' resurrection was a myth. It was a common ancient practice to write actual historical events through the lense of prior stories whether fiction or not. And it was so clear that this is what New Testament authors did with the Old, so if they did it with other works it would have been obvious too. They took direct quotes and ideas and cited them from the OT but never pagan works.
Both of these are laughable in scholarly circles but surely we can trust the comedian Bill Maher who made the former idea popular! Agnostic historian Bart Erhman tears apart the latter any chance he gets. "There is no scholar in any college or university in the Western world who teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity, any related field who doubts that Jesus existed."
There are myths that are similar with dying and rising gods, and some may even claim to have happened before Jesus, but nothing is written down about them before the 2nd century AD. There are inscriptions and depictions of these gods that predate Jesus, but they don't depict resurrections and other supposed story archetypes that Christianity was meant to have copied from.
Bart Ehrman "The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions)."
Historian J. Z Smith in the Encyclopedia of Religion "The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts...There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity."
Even if the false assumptions are granted that there were similar stories of dying and rising gods and that the gospel authors knew about them, it doesn't prove Jesus' story was a myth. Christians can believe the gospels based on plenty of internal and external evidence for the gospels and NT. There is a novel called The Wreck of the Titan written in 1898, 14 years later the HISTORICAL titanic sank, with many similar features to those found in the novel prior. The existence of similarities is NOT ENOUGH to say the later events are fiction.
Plus it would make no sense for them to try and integrate their fictional story into history by citing historical names and places and time periods and making it very possible for the audience to try and verify it.
Jews and Christians were the most anti-pagan worshipers out there, despising their practices and beliefs, so why would they steal them?
11. What’s the difference between all the religions then? How do you know your right?
You could use the same logic on them and say of all the worldviews and beliefs in the world; how do you know yours is right?
Atheists act as if Christians have no reason to deny any other gods either. Very ignorant. This is where we get the stupid slogan popularized by Richard Dawkins “Christians are also atheists that just happen to believe in one more god than us.” That’s not actually how definitions work. Hey I’m collecting unemployment; you can too- you just have one more job than me. That’s not a circle, its just a square with no corners.
If a Christian comes to believe due to God being the best explanation for the origins of the universe (Cosmological argument), and the best explanation for the finely tuned nature of the universe (Teleological argument) and the universal instinct of objective morality and freewill, and the human soul/near death experiences, and the best explanation for not only the archaeological evidence and reliability for the bible but the historical facts surrounding the resurrection and the beginning of Christianity, detailed fulfilled prophecy unlike any other belief, and a changed personal life, then what other gods can account for all this data? Also, no other religion can adequately deal with human sin in a truly just universe. See the Gospel article.
Any pantheistic or other belief that says the universe and everything in it is god can be readily dismissed simply based on the fact that scientists know the universe had a beginning.
Most gods don’t even make the claim to have created the universe, so they can be cancelled too.
And as for beliefs with multiple gods, they violate Occam’s razor by multiplying postulates beyond necessity, you only need to posit one God.
And then you've got the fact that any good definition of God would be a maximally great being, perfect in every desirable way, you can't have more than of these entities! A maximally great being doesn’t need anything or anyone so if you have more than one 'god' it isn't a god at all!
12. IT IS NOT BLIND FAITH! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0tyRvSIEH4&t=67s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPIVsOl8sh4
13. “There’s no proof!”
Shows their anti-supernatural bias here. Do they only believe things that are proven? People believe hundreds of things everyday simply based on good reason, not proof. If your friend said he had weet-bix for brekky would you really doubt that until you saw proof? They would need to dismiss almost everything they know and believe if they applied this skepticism consistently.
But ultimately, God has shown his love by not giving us proof. Proof would be more forceful and cause many to worship him out of fear and self-seeking purposes. He has certainly given us good reason and evidence which leaves the free choice completely with us.
The spiritual realm must be obvious enough because as stated before, its a universal, intuitive truth that has been known for all of history. 99% of humans on earth have believed in a God or at least, the spiritual world being responsible for the material.
So why should God pander to such a tiny, hyper-sceptical and self-entitled minority of people who demand "proof". Maybe if they were consistent in their beliefs God might honor the request, but people are flawed and have countless biases, if we don't want to believe something we can just make excuses-this shouldn't be debatable.
Science couldn’t even begin to prove God, by definition it studies the material world. Its like asking a metal detector to find out who murdered someone. The methodology depends on the claim. That’s why Gods existence can be deduced from logic and philosophy, the historical method and appeal to universal truths.
14. “If God stops all the wars and evil in the world, then I’ll believe”
So, in other words, when everyone stops sinning?
Trying to make God jump through hoops is a heck of a lot lazier than examining the evidence already available. If you look carefully, that in itself is the decision to simply reject God.
This is similar to “God knows what evidence it would take to convince me so he mustn’t want me to believe”
You are not the decider of truth unfortunately; truth doesn’t depend on whether you yourself believe it. In other words, you think your unbelief proves you’re right. What stops a Christian from using this same logic? “God’s given me enough evidence so he is real.”
15. “Why would God allow…? How could a loving God…?
Unbelievers should keep in mind their worldview offers no justice at all and atheists can’t even account for a standard of good so their moral condemnation of God is meaningless.
The problem of evil is debunked philosophically but lingers due to its emotional weight. If there is any possible defense or theodicy then it breaks down. Freewill. God wanted a world with real love and that requires the real choice to be loving. In order for real choice, you need real freedom. Pretty simple. We can’t be good unless there’s an option to be bad.
God came down on the cross to sympathize with us and take the harsh reality of sin and suffering on to himself.
The only thing he is allowing, is us to see the ramifications of a world with sin. He wants its full effects to be felt and understood.
God has eternity in mind, if you want to do an internal critique and posit a God sitting by while atrocities occur, then you can’t exclude the fact that there is an eternity of comfort and peace to whoever chooses it. Do you think the benefits outweigh the suffering? After your 700 trillionth year in Heaven, you’d start to realize it may have been worth it.
And if you want God to get rid of all evil, then get your affairs in order because unless you think you’re perfect, he would be getting rid of you too.
The problem of evil still exists in the same sense-and for the same reasons- that there is still debate on the shape of the earth. Only those sorely lacking in perspective and information claim God and evil are incompatible.
16. “I wouldn’t worship such a God, I’d rather go to Hell!”
Well, that wish will probably be granted…Isn’t this a tad babyish…it is essentially “I won’t believe because I don’t want to. Forget about the evidence, I have a poor understanding of God’s character and I’m going to use that to ignore everything that doesn’t suit my beliefs”.
How arrogant would one need to be, to follow this logic to its conclusion? “God is real and yet me in my limited understanding am justified in criticizing this all-powerful, all knowing, perfect being.”
17. “The bible’s been written and rewritten and constantly evolved, you can’t trust it.”
Generally used by people who once again, have no idea what they are talking about. Credible historians and scholars are fine with a lot of its historical claims
Does the person raising this have any idea of how the manuscripts were transmitted? We can go straight back to the Greek and Hebrew texts and language it was written in and translate straight to english!
We have more manuscripts than any other document in history! And its the closest to the original compared with any other work as well! You have to throw out all of known history in order to stay consistent.
An easy refutation would be that in recent times, we’ve discovered the most recent manuscripts ever written and they added no new interpretation or reading of the bible.
18. “Written by idiots.”
This objection is made by idiots.
As for the New Testament, Matthew was a tax collector, he would have been trained in linguistics to keep track records in Greek for Rome and Aramaic to converse with the people.
Mark was a scribe and translator for Peter so he would also understand literacy in both languages.
Luke was a physician, educated.
And its undisputed that Paul was highly educated and well known for his intellectual reputation.
This objection is so stupid, if they knew anything about the bible it would be incredibly miraculous to have been written by simpletons.
19. “As if you’re going to find people named Mark, Matthew, Luke and John all those years ago in the middle east!”
Um…yes this is a real one. Names, like other words, are translated from their original language.
I'm sure this started out as a joke and then people just took it seriously.
20. “Why doesn’t the bible predict airplanes or the internet or something?”
Well, it could have but that probably wouldn’t have been much use to everyone that ever lived up until a few decades ago (in other words almost all of humanity).
The bible definitely failed if it’s job was to prove itself to arrogant people in the 21st century.
Jesus thanked the Father for hiding these things from the proud.
It’s already provided us with great prophecies that historians can agree on.
21. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
As false as this is, Christianity does have an extraordinary AMOUNT of evidence.
What even is an extraordinary piece of evidence? Atheists need to raise the bar to an unrealistic standard to remain comfortable in their belief. Can they even define or explain extraordinary evidence?
Hypothetically, if Jesus did rise from the dead, what evidence would you expect to find? What is already being offered! What if you saw a headless man walk up to you talking, and disappearing? It really happened but how would you convince anyone else, all you have is your eyewitness account? It is simply…sufficient. Sufficient evidence is required.
This statement alone is self-refuting because not only do many physicists agree the fine tuning of the universe is extraordinary but it is also an extraordinary claim that if true would establish the validity of all other claims yet has no extraordinary evidence to support itself. In fact it has none at all.
22. Atheism is just a lack of belief”
Well, dictionaries and philosophy sources have always defined it as ‘a belief there is no God’. Even Alex O'Connor of Cosmic Skeptic Points this out in one of his videos from his experience at college.
If this were the true definition, then you wouldn’t need to be very smart to be an atheist, a rock lacks a belief in God. A rock is an atheist, similarly, a roll of toilet paper, a toilet, poo. Atheism, by a false and self-made definition, requires no thought.
The definition has taken on a shift in the atheist community so they don’t have to defend their position.
This is pathetic though because they always end up exposing what they really believe when they make statements such as “when you’re dead, you’re dead!” and make comparisons of God to Santa and call religion a fictional story. Now how can they do that unless they already have a pre-supposition? An active belief.
Agnostics are the ones who claim they don’t know and are therefore the fence-sitters, so whoever is right they are guaranteed to be wrong. Some people in their pseudo-humility will say we just can't know anything about God or higher powers, but this is self-refuting because you are claiming to know something-the fact that you can't know anything about it!
Some self-proclaimed agnostics will also claim to not know and not have any answers, yet if you offer compelling arguments for God they'll completely fight and reject it and accept any natural explanation other than God, and still claim to be neutral and open to the best evidence and explanation. They will accept any backdoor explanation, however improbable thereby ultimately saying “I don’t know but I know its not God!”
23. “Babies are atheists!"
This is actually a real argument put forward.
Not sure whether they knew just how many truths are contained within. Babies are atheists just as atheists are babies! Just look at how sooky Matt Dillahunty gets when his rhetoric doesn't cut the mustard in a debate with David Wood.
If we pretend atheism is defined how new atheists use it, then babies do lack a belief in God but did you know babies also lack a belief in everything else too? If it were a natural state to be in then we wouldn’t have just about every group of people in the world believing in the spiritual being responsible for the physical. This argument is self-refuting and that’s without the added fact that research shows children tend to lean towards God and the spiritual. We are born with eternity planted in our hearts.
Thomas Edison said humans are incurably religious. History bears this out. Dawkins and Dennet say that theology is biology. Humans have a religious urge, and it draws us to supernatural explanations. If God exists, then that’s a great explanation for our religious fervor. Why would humans sacrifice everything voluntarily for an intangible realm.
Justin Barrett "Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another...Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution."
25. “God of the Gaps!!”
This is more often than not, circular reasoning. They have to assume God isn’t real in order to say any evidence for God is unexplained naturalism in other words a lack of understanding in science. This is shown in “Science will explain it one day” which if you look closely you’ll see this is science of the gaps!! It doesn’t offer anything and the Christian can just as easily say “Science will one day prove God exists!”
"Every event thought to be supernatural throughout history turned out to be natural." Association fallacy
24. “Arrogant to think we’re the only ones out there”
The closest planet that could possibly support carbon-based life would be 230 light-years away.
Even if you COULD travel at the speed of light, you would have to slow down because of space debris and radiation, it would take about 23,000 years to make the trip.
The alien sightings/spaceships, do things that defy laws of nature. This leads to the possibility of them being extra dimensional since they don’t conform to the laws of the universe. When coming through air at 25,000 miles an hour, no sonic boom or heat friction. So they seem to be real but not physical.
Of all the UFO encounters/testimonies, there is a 1% residual (ones that are most likely true) and they consistently defy laws of nature, you can go to hundreds of places where they have crashed.
26. Why did God create the world if he knew people were going to sin and go to hell?
Actually, He created the world knowing he would have to come down and set aside his glory to die a shameful and excruciating death for people who hate him and don’t care.
27. Why is God so hidden?
This is like a Christian saying “God is real because I actually HAVE experienced him."
He is not hidden; people just refuse to acknowledge the evidence.
People live life in escapisms never thinking about their existence.
Question 20 https://youtu.be/da1gBXLcZDk
27. Why doesn't God give everyone a fancy miraculous spiritual experience to confirm his existence?
God promises that those who seek him will find him. Jer 29:13, Ps 10:17-18, 34:17-18.
Some people say they want the evidence and the proof, while still having one foot in the world. Would they really repent and live fully for God? Because if they don't, if God reveals more and they still reject, they are even worse off than before, they will be judged harsher because they had more knowledge, they were rejecting even more revelation of God. It always comes down to human free will. People think they know what they want but they're not always right.
What are you doing to demonstrate your willingness to believe if God is real? He has already revealed himself through creation and human conscience.
Acts 22:18-22
Jesus wants people to be prepared to lose their lives for him. It isn't just as simple as propositional knowledge of God's existence. Knowing something and acting on that knowledge are 2 different things.
28. Can’t I live a good life without being a Christian?
Yes, you can live a great life without being a Christian. But what separates us from animals is our desire to know things and value truth. The person asking this clearly doesn’t.
Christianity isn’t just a medicine, its an accurate description of reality. If it is true then they need it more than food or water. https://youtu.be/X9fR1vSxNEQ
29. "I'm okay with not knowing all the answers, Christians just want to be certain about everything, so they make up answers."
A bit condescending. One should hope they are okay with not knowing the answers because their worldview doesn't provide any.
29. Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it (Omnipotence paradox) is only a paradox when people redefine all-powerful to mean the ability to do anything. Including logically contradictory things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOHQVSpwEH8&t=466s
Omniscience paradox https://youtu.be/lqpKKS9BilA
Mike Winger Playlists: Evidence for the Bible, Help for Atheists, Q&As
Whaddo You Meme, Capturing Christianity and Trinity Radio: Responses to Atheists and scholarly interviews. InspiringPhilosophy deals with archaeological evidence, quantum mechanics, philosophy, debates and supposed bible contradictions. The Fuel Project series “The Secret of Joy”-how science has caught up to the bible on fighting mental illness.
https://youtu.be/_Ii-bsrHB0o perfectly speaks to paul and how man represses the knowledge of God.
Comments