In the comment thread of my last post, some of us mentioned that it’s hard for us to understand the point of view of Christians who believe the Bible can be inspired by God, without holding to the doctrine of inerrancy. unkleE left the following comment:
How is it that in everything else in life – whether it be ethics, or politics, relationships, science, history, law, even disbelief – we are willing to make decisions based on non-inerrant evidence and reasoning, but when it is belief in God we require inerrant evidence? I reckon your first thought might be that the stakes are so much higher. But that logic applies to disbelief as well. If we applied that logic, no-one would be an atheist because they didn’t have inerrant knowledge for that conclusion. You would not have any belief either way until you gained inerrant knowledge.
He then suggested that I might want to do a post on this topic (you’re reading it!), but there were also a couple of other comments that I think are worth including here. nonsupernaturalist said this:
My answer would be that ethics, politics, relationships, science, history, and law do not involve supernatural claims. When someone makes a supernatural claim, the standard of evidence required by most educated people in the western world to believe that claim is much, much higher than a claim involving natural evidence.
Let’s look at “history”. If someone tells me that most historians believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or that Alexander the Great sacked the city of Tyre, I accept those claims without demanding a great deal of evidence. However, if someone claims that the Buddha caused a water buffalo to speak in a human language for over one half hour or that Mohammad rode on a winged horse to heaven, I am going to demand MASSIVE quantities of evidence to believe these claims.
I think that most Christians would agree with my thinking, here, until I make the same assertion regarding the bodily Resurrection of Jesus. Then Christians will shake their heads in disgust and accuse me of being biased and unreasonable.
No. I am not being biased and unreasonable. I am being consistent. It is the Christian who is being inconsistent: demanding more evidence to believe the supernatural claims of other religions than he or she demands of his own.
And it isn’t just supernatural claims. Most educated people in the western world would demand much more evidence for very rare natural claims than we would for non-rare natural claims.
Imagine if someone at work tells you that his sister just gave birth to twins. How much evidence would you demand to believe this claim? Probably not much. You would probably take the guy’s word for it. Now imagine if the same coworker tells you that, yesterday, in the local hospital, his sister gave birth to twelve babies! Would you take the guy’s word for it? I doubt it.
So it isn’t that we skeptics are biased against Christianity or even that we are biased against the supernatural. We are simply applying the same reason, logic, and skepticism to YOUR very extra-ordinary religious claim that we apply to ALL very rare, extra-ordinary claims, including very rare, extraordinary natural claims.
And Arkenaten said this:
I cannot fathom how you can disregard something like Noah’s Ark as nonsense and yet accept that a narrative construct called Jesus of Nazareth could come back from the dead.
Personally, I feel very much the same way that nonsupernaturalist does. The first part of unkleE’s question that I’d like to address is his statement about nonbelief:
If we applied that logic, no-one would be an atheist because they didn’t have inerrant knowledge for that conclusion.
I think this depends on what one means by “atheism.” I’m not really interested in trying to determine what the official definition of the term is; rather, I’d like to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing within the confines of this discussion. When I refer to myself as an atheist, I simply mean that I don’t believe any of the proposed god claims that I’ve encountered. I’m not necessarily saying that I think no gods exist, period. And if I were to say that, I’d give the caveat that I could easily be wrong about such a belief. This notion of atheism, the position that one hasn’t been convinced of any god claims, is often referred to as “weak atheism” or “soft atheism.” Personally, I think that should be everyone’s default position. No one should be a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Christian until he or she has been convinced that the god(s) of that particular religion exist(s). If we didn’t operate in this way, then we’d all immediately accept the proposition of every religion we encountered, until its claims could be disproven. This would make most of us Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, and atheists all at the same time. Obviously, that’s ridiculous. So on those grounds, I don’t agree with unkleE’s assertion that we would need inerrant information to not believe something.
Furthermore, when it comes to the claims of Christianity, I can accept or reject them completely independently of what I think about the existence of god(s). Many times, discussions about the evidence for and against Christianity slide into discussions about whether or not a god exists. People bring up the cosmological and teleological arguments. While those discussions can be important, I think they are really just distractions when we’re talking about a specific religion. I’m okay conceding that a god might exist, so I’d rather focus on the pros and cons of Christianity to see if it could possibly be true. After all, it could be the case that God is real, but Christianity is false.
unkleE’s comment started like this:
How is it that in everything else in life – whether it be ethics, or politics, relationships, science, history, law, even disbelief – we are willing to make decisions based on non-inerrant evidence and reasoning, but when it is belief in God we require inerrant evidence?
To piggy-back off the comments I just made, I don’t necessarily require inerrant evidence to believe in God. I think the necessity for inerrancy comes from the kind of god being argued for. The Abrahamic religions teach that there is one God who is supreme. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, completely just, etc. I know there are sometimes caveats placed on those labels. For instance, can God create a rock so large that he can’t lift it? Arguments like that illustrate that being all-powerful doesn’t mean he’s outside the laws of logic. And the same goes for all-knowing. It’s sometimes argued that he knows all that can be known… perhaps there are some things that can’t be known? The waters can get muddy pretty quickly, so I think it’s best to refer back to the religion’s source material (the Bible, in this case) to learn more about the characteristics of this god.
In the Bible, God seems to be big on proofs. When God wanted Noah to build an ark, he spoke to him directly. Noah didn’t have to decide between a handful of prophets each telling him different things — God made sure that Noah knew exactly what was required of him. The same was done for Abraham when God wanted him to move into the land of Canaan, and when God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac. When God called Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, he also spoke directly to Moses. And on top of that, he even offered additional proofs by performing signs for Moses. And when Moses appeared before Pharaoh, God again used signs to show Pharaoh that Moses did indeed speak on God’s behalf. Miraculous signs were used throughout the period of time that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness. And we can fast forward to the time of Gideon and see that God used signs as evidence then as well. Throughout the Old Testament, signs were given to people to show God’s involvement and desires. There are even examples where God punished those who listened to false prophets who hadn’t shown such signs, such as the man of God who listened to the instruction of an old prophet who was actually lying to him. God sent a lion to kill the man (I Kings 13:11-32).
The New Testament is no different. Jesus and his apostles perform all kinds of miracles as evidence of Jesus’s power. When the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, he pointed out how nonsensical that would be, showing that such miracles were intended as a display of God’s approval (Matt 12:24-28). And the Gospel of John also argues that these miracles were intended as evidence:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
— John 20:30-31
Not only did Jesus and his disciples use miracles to make their case, they also appealed to Scripture. Throughout the New Testament, you find references to the Old: “as it is written,” “as spoken by the prophet,” etc. That in itself doesn’t necessarily make the case for inerrancy, but it at least shows that they expected the scriptures to be accurate.
If God cared so much during the time periods talked about in the Bible, why wouldn’t he care just as much today? How can Jesus say that “not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away” if God’s not really all that concerned about how accurate the “jots” and “tittles” are? And yes, like unkleE said in his comment, I do think the fact that the stakes are tremendously high on this question makes it that much more necessary to have good evidence. While the Bible gives us countless examples of those who received direct communication from God or one of his representatives, we find ourselves living in a time when we’re surrounded by competing claims about which god is true, and which doctrines are the right ones. I used to believe that the one tool we had to cut through all that noise was the Bible. It was the one source we could go to to find what God wanted from us. And we could trust that it was his word because of the amazing prophecy fulfillments that it contained and that despite its length and antiquity, it was completely without error. In other words, I thought it was a final miracle to last throughout the ages. And because of its existence and availability, we no longer needed individuals who went around performing miracles and spreading the gospel.
That’s how I saw the world. Of course, since then, I’ve discovered that the Bible doesn’t live up to that high standard. I have many other posts that deal with its various problems, so I won’t try to detail them now. But I simply don’t see how the God portrayed in the Bible, a god who is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, etc, would inspire individuals to write down his incredibly important message to all of mankind, yet not make sure they relay it completely accurately. It doesn’t always agree with itself, it contains historical and scientific mistakes, and sometimes it advocates things that are outright immoral. It’s understandable why a number of people would fail to be convinced by such a book; therefore, it would be impossible for an all-loving and completely just God to punish people when they’re merely trying to avoid the same fate as the man of God who trusted the old (false) prophet.
Finding Truth 
@Nonsuperrnaturalist.
Unklee’s apparent rationale smacks of so many things I couldn’t even begin to list them all.
But disingenuous would be a good start.
Hypocrite would also feature in the mix somewhere as well.
And cognitive dissonance would be a dead cert.
LikeLike
As long as UnkleE (and other Christians) believe that an invisible friend with supernatural powers lives inside his body, no amount of natural evidence is going to convince him that his friend has been dead for two thousand years.
The same is true for a child who has an imaginary friend.
So how do we help UnkleE see that his invisible friend does not exist? Answer: The same way we prove to a child that HIS imaginary friend does not exist.
If you ask a child to ask his (imaginary) friend “Tommy” to prove to YOU his existence, the child will probably tell you that “Tommy” won’t appear to you because you don’t believe in him or some other similar excuse. But ask the child to do this: Tell the child to ask “Tommy”, when he is alone, to prove to HIM that he (Tommy) exists. Ask “Tommy” to do something that is magical (supernatural). Ask “Tommy” to lift something off of the ground, keep it hanging in space for a minute, then slowly lower it back down to the floor. If “Tommy” does that, then he is real. If “Tommy” doesn’t do that, then “Tommy” is not real. He is just your imagination, and if he is just your imagination, you don’t need him.
I challenge UnkleE and every Christian to do the same.
You may believe that Jesus speaks to you, performs miracles for you, and that you can feel his presence within you, but I believe that your experiences with “Jesus” are no different than the above child’s experiences with “Tommy”. Ask “Jesus” to prove his existence. Ask Jesus to perform a true miracle (supernatural act) than cannot be a rare, natural, random event. Don’t ask “Jesus” to cure Aunt Bessie’s sinus infection. Ask “Jesus” to levitate a lamp. Just for thirty seconds.
If “Jesus” refuses to levitate the lamp. He is not real. He is only your imagination. The voice you hear is YOU. The presence you feel is YOU. The “miracles” you have experienced are nothing other than rare but very natural, random events.
LikeLiked by 1 person
unkleE wrote: If Jesus was divine and he began the kingdom of God on earth, was resurrected, etc, as the NT says and as I believe, how does it matter whether the religion he was brought up in began with some myths?
The question that most of us continue to ponder is WHY, if you believe the OT contains myths, is the NT myth-free?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think UnkleE’s position is that myths are used as teaching tools in the bible, to help lead one to the truth, I guess like a parable.
And I can kind of get that on the surface. It’s just all the other mounds of stuff I can’t get around.
LikeLike
Now, we all know that telling Christians to test the reality of Jesus’ presence “in their heart” by asking him to levitate a lamp is not going to convince most of them that Jesus is not real. How are they going to respond to their many excuses?
“Jesus doesn’t like to be tested.”
So how do we handle this excuse? I suggest that we handle it as we would handle a child and his imaginary friend who also does not like being tested.
“Ok. But explain to “Tommy” how important it is to you to know for sure that he exists. Not being sure if he exists causes you a lot of anxiety and stress. If “Tommy” really cares about you he will prove he exists by doing a magical act just for you.”
“But Tommy wants me to believe in him without magic tricks.”
Well, without doing a magic trick, you will never be sure that “Tommy” is not just your own imagination; that you are simply talking to yourself. So again, if “Tommy” really cares about you, he will prove that he exists.
“Tommy says not to listen to you; that if I stop believing in him and doing what he says, he will torture me in a dark pit!”
“Tell “Tommy” that if he doesn’t raise/levitate the damn lamp, then he is not real, and if he is not real, he cannot hurt you.”
Etc…
🙂
LikeLike
I don’t usually perform for people either, so I can see where the invisible Lord of Lords might not either. If he doesn’t perform an action at my request, that doesn’t prove he’s not real, just that he’s not very concerned in obeying me or performing for me.
But I do agree that the invisible very much resembles the imaginary.
I think people need to test and evaluate their own methodology, right? Like, if you feel like you have a personal relationship with Jesus, define what you mean by that – does he literally hangout with you, talk to you, hug you, or is it much more nebulous, much more like thoughts and… imaginations? Could you just as easily have a similar personal relationship with Anne Frank or Plato? Would Anne Frank or Plato respond to your prayers any less? these two at least wrote their own stuff.
Do people who pray to Allah recover from sickness and injury just as rapidly as someone who prays to Jesus’ God, or from someone who doesn’t pray at all?
Is the way we defend the Bible consistent with the way we reject the other religions or philosophies?
People have to open their eyes, honestly review the facts, honestly assess themselves and then strive to be honest, consistent and fair.
Could the defenses I use for Christianity just as easily be applied to and used for other religions?
If we look at God and see a story like God killing David’s baby for a crime David committed, and defend that action, but then despise a drug lord on tv when he kills the child of someone who crossed him and then call him evil – maybe that’s an indication we’re extremely biased.
If we look at the Israelite conquest of Canaan, and defend their actions because the Canaanites were “wicked,” but we condemn ISIS for the same actions, then maybe that shows an extreme bias.
If we toss out all the bad parts of our religion and only highlight the good parts in order to maintain our faith, but then discard all other religions because of their bad parts, despite their good parts, then this also likely points toward an extreme bias.
I think UnkleE and others like him will fall back on scholars. But what do the scholars actually agree on? As it turns out, nothing supernatural, and a very natural narrative can be easily constructed to coincide what the scholars agree on, regarding scholarly things.
some might fall back on faith, but then we’re back to consistency, because if it boils down to faith and not reason, then any religion can do the same.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I understand that you do not like being questioned or tested, William, but if you are making extra-ordinary, supernatural, claims about yourself, we have the right to demand you prove that you actually have those powers, whether you like it or not.
And the same for “Jesus”. The Creator, whoever he/she/they/or it is, gave us a brain. Let’s use it and demand that “Jesus” put up or shut up.
LikeLike
oh, well, yes, I agree.
But when I was a believer, I wouldn’t have thought to run a test like this and would have dismissed it immediately if it had been suggested to me.
the notions of logic, consistency and fairness, along with the problems in the bible (historical, logical, consistency, & scientific) are what woke me up.
But yes, now I can see where a test like you suggest is very warranted.
LikeLike
Once from the pulpit I heard a preacher say,
“Jesus will never let you down. Now, your friends will, at some point, let you down. If you get a flat tire, JimBob might come to help you change it 9 out of 10 times, but at some point, Jim Bob will let you down.”
I was sitting there thinking that if Jesus helped me change my tire once, I’d be impressed, and still probably a believer.
But you can ask Jesus to help you change your tire a million times, and he wont wont show up once. Is it really fair to say that Jim Bob is the one who let you down in that illustration?
You can ask Jesus to heal a dying child, and I don’t even mean through an instant miracle, but just through doctors and medicine, and even then, Jesus disappoints plenty.
LikeLiked by 4 people
You know I am being facetious, William, but my point is that we should respond to Christian excuses about their invisible friend’s alleged unwillingness to prove his existence with a magic trick as we would with a child and his invisible/imaginary friend.
If Jesus was able to perform magic tricks for thousands of people during his lifetime for the purpose of proving his divinity, then if he is still alive and is God, he can levitate a lamp for you or me. The excuse that he doesn’t like being tested is nothing but spin.
Put up or shut up, Invisible Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not disagree with you at all. I’m right there with you.
LikeLike
“WHY, if you believe the OT contains myths, is the NT myth-free?”
Hi Nan. They say self learning is the best form of learning, so let me ask you two questions please.
Suppose you come to my house and you see three books on my coffee table – (1) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by JK Rowling, (2) A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking and (3) Auto Repair for Dummies by Deanna Sclar.
Q1. How would you determine which books were fiction and which were non-fiction?
Q2. If you wanted to know how accurately each non-fiction book presented facts, how would you decide?
LikeLike
I’m not Nan, but I’ll take a stab at answering the questions:
1. “How would you determine which books were fiction and which were non-fiction?”
Answer: Any book that describes beings, powers, and events unknown in the natural world is almost certainly fiction. Only the presentation of very extra-ordinary evidence should induce us to consider the possibility of such very extra-ordinary claims.
2. “If you wanted to know how accurately each non-fiction book presented facts, how would you decide?”
Answer: Consult the experts in the field in question. If there is an overwhelming consensus expert opinion on the issue in question, accept it. If there is not a consensus expert opinion, you will need to research the subject and become an expert yourself.
FYI: A New Testament scholar is an expert in early Christian writings and possibly an expert of the cultures in which early Christianity developed. New Testament scholars are NOT experts in the supernatural or of the reanimation of dead human tissue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A classic hand wave reply from the king of disingenuiity.
The god-inspired ”experts” (for any given value for god inspired) who originally compiled all the documents for the bible obviously intended that each book, letter, epistle, frontispiece etc bear relevance to each other.
And also that they were compiled in the order we find today.
Which is why, even though ”Paul” wrote after the gospel writers, to ensure a modicum of continuity, god inspired the compilers to place the four god-inspired gospels, before Acts and the Pauline epistles, including the god-inspired
fraudulentpseudepigraphic ones.This took the god-inspired ”experts” a considerable length of time to achieve, which included a fair amount of ”How’s Your Father” , such as a few wars , the odd attempted liquidation, persecutions and numerous other spats along the way, all overseen by the Christian god, no doubt, who was inspiring each and every little Sunbeam for Jesus to Do The Right Thing.
Isn’t Free Will wonderful?
Such sterling work on behalf of the well-known philanthropist and suspected psychopath, your friend and mine, Emperor Constantine, ensured he was made a saint by the Church of the day – no doubt inspired by god to do so.
This is how we have been able to put our trust in such wonderful stories as the Herodian genocide of babies and a star that led three supposed wise men to a scruffy cow shed in the middle of the night (although this doesn’t seem very wise to me).
How we read such charming tales as meek and mild Jesus of Nazareth flinging a demon into a herd of pigs who rushed headlong over a cliff. Granted, the pigs had to run around six miles before they reached said cliff but they were no doubt very fit pigs in those days not having to worry about air pollution and global warming and stuff. And no doubt Meek and Mild Jesus slipped the pig farmer a few shekels after ruining his livelihood and promised to stand the first round when they met up in the afterlife.
It is also because of god-inspired trustworthiness we can assure ourselves that although the disciples were asleep they were also telepathic while Jesus ( all on his ownself) prayed til his eyes bled and were able to understand Jesus’ exact words to his dad in heaven and thus able to render an exact transcript for the god-inspired bible.
It is because of such god-inspired trustworthiness that when the likes of unkleE decided to have a family he forewent common sense and instinct and rather placed his trust in a few books written by experts who told him which bits went where and what happened if you did this or that.
It is open to debate if such authors were also god-inspired but it would make sense in light of the above.
So, this is why we know that the story of the god-inspired Resurrection is absolutely 100% trustworthy and the not quite sure if the tales of the talking snake, talking donkey or The Exodus are, in fact, god-inspired, but rather a load of camel Jak – not domesticated camels either – and those that claim otherwise are just damn liars.
Selected extracts from the (god inspired) book:
Build your own god in a weekend and you too can become an Indoctrinated Dipshit.
(includes Free CD of the Monkees classic hit ”I’m a Believer.”
Used by permission.
LikeLike
Typo
* ‘….even though ”Paul” wrote after ..”
before , obviously.
* not god-inspired
LikeLike
unkleE, why don’t you answer my question first? Then maybe I’ll answer yours (altho’ I doubt I could add much to what NS said).
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Nan
He won’t answer it honestly simply because to do will expose him as a fraud and a hypocrite.
LikeLike
“unkleE, why don’t you answer my question first?”
Hi Nan, as I said before, answering my questions, giving your own ideas, not someone else’s, will help you answer yours. If you want an answer, why not give it a go and see if it works? If you don’t really want an answer, let’s neither of us bother any more.
LikeLike
unkleE, you are hedging. There is absolutely NO reason that I should have to answer your questions before you answer mine. As the kids would say … I asked first. If you continue to play this cat and mouse game, I will assume you are unable to give me a straight answer.
LikeLike
Hi Nan, there is absolutely no reason why you “SHOULD” answer my questions, just as there is absolutely no reason why I “SHOULD” answer your question. It is just a conversation.
And there is absolutely no reason why you should assume I am unable to give you a “straight answer” just as there is absolutely no reason why I should assume that you are equally unable to give me a “straight answer”.
But at the start of this discussion, I said I would be pleased to put aside any old “issues” and discuss in a friendly manner. I still think the same. As I said, I think it would help you understand my answer if you answered my questions first, so why not try it? What have you got to lose?
But if you don’t want to, I’m OK with that too.
LikeLike
The perfect answer to suit any requirement can be derived for you , unkleE, by simply playing Apologetic Semantics.
This little game involves either:
a) accepting the player is subtly indoctrinated (that’s you)
and/ or
b) erroneously believing that you are being objective while at the same time having a presuppositional regard toward the religion of their choice. ie. Yahweh is real/Jesus is Yahweh.
based on no factual evidence whatsoever
This allows the player – that’s you, unkleE – to fool yourself that you are being intellectual, objective and honest.
It looks quite clever and involves placing the larger onus on to so-called experts regarding the so-called facts – (eg Resurrection, Empty Tomb) while at the same time keeping your faith somewhat obscured from view. Although you do, on occasion bring it out, wave it around a bit then stick it behind your back once again, like someone in a grubby raincoat standing at a bus-stop trying to scare passers-by.
By relying on this method of so-called objectivity you are tacitly, and sometimes almost overtly, telling every christian deconvert (on this site) that they are wrong and one way or another in one form of another are doomed to ”Gehenna”.
You cannot believe otherwise, and yet, oddly enough, you undermine the value of your god as he has allowed his ”children” to turn their back on their belief after doing exactly as he commanded – ask bloody questions.
You, on the other hand are not doing what he commanded – defending the faith with any degree of honesty.
Your modus operandi is almost as bad at times as a YEC.
LikeLike
unkleE, I will not be answering your questions as I have neither the time nor the desire to play cat and mouse games with you. I asked a straightforward question and you have declined to give me a straightforward response.
You indicate my answers to your questions will help me understand your answer to mine. To me, that’s nonsense. You either have an answer or you don’t. Nothing I say or believe should influence that response.
Anyway, I’m done. I refuse to add to Nate’s bandwidth with this nonsensical dialogue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate I speak about inerrancy in my “Do not be deceived” posts briefly. I would recommend that you visit godsaidmansaid.com and look through their posts concerning archaeology. Also follow for follow to stay up to date with my political and theological posts! Have a great day!
LikeLike
Unklee
Ok.
Sure, and if Brigham Young was a prophet of God, then it doesn’t matter that Joseph Smith was a fraud.
Regarding the Exodus, you say, “I am uncommitted to any view…” Fair enough. If you don’t have an opinion, there isn’t much to argue about. We can agree that, if there is any historical basis for the Exodus story, it would necessarily have very small and dissimilar to the biblical story. However, I don’t think “scholars disagree” does much more than muddy up the waters. Scholarly disagreement is only about whether there is some historical memory within the Exodus story, not whether the story is remotely accurate.
Can you demonstrate that? I mean, I know you can cite some scholars who were skeptical of things that some (or many) scholars now accept, but “Bultmann and the German critics” and their views don’t equal “biblical scholarship” for that period. Many things have been confirmed, revised or discarded by archaeology, textual criticism and other developments in the field. The Jesus and Acts Seminars were certainly more liberal than much of the field would have been earlier.
LikeLike
@UnkleE
Herein we see the root of the problem for the majority of skeptics here and elsewhere. and especially of trying to engage in any sort of meaningful dialogue where you insist you are largely following the lead of ”experts” and their evidence to bolster your faith.
I feel reasonably confident in saying that, what most skeptics on this thread are trying to understand is what specific criteria you use to differentiate what is now almost universally regarded as Old Testament Myth and what you flatly dispute as New Testament Myth?
And how do the Old Testament experts differ to the New Testament experts in their( and your) approach to what, on the face of it, seems to be a classic case of blatant evidentiary bias.
As you will not likely respond directly to my request, perhaps you would like to write a post to Nate and other skeptics that specifically addresses this issue; without any form of ambiguity; but simply a straightforward honest response?
I assure you, it would go a very long way in alleviating the frustration and hostility that have become somewhat Hallmarks of Engagement over the years.
This is all skeptics (on this thread in particular) are asking.
Best
Ark
LikeLiked by 1 person