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 
Eventually, when all said and done, one surely has to ask why and for what purpose a reasonable, well-balanced ,educated adult individual would accept that a man from 2000 years in the past rose from the dead after allowing himself to be brutally put to death( ( apparently quite willingly instead of merely dying of old age) for the sole intent of demonstrating he could come back to life and thus prove he was divine.
This is the question that really needs to be answered. Everything else is just unimportant detail.
Anyone want to ask unkleE to explain why he believes it and what purpose did it serve?
LikeLike
Is anyone aware if UnkleE has written on the topic of “Evidence for the Existence of Yahweh” either here, on his blog, or elsewhere? If so, could you give me the link? I would like to read it. (Not a statement regarding evidence for a Creator God, but evidence specifically for the existence of the Hebrew/Canaanite god, Yahweh).
Thanks.
When I ask other Christians for the evidence for Yahweh, I am typically given a list of fulfilled prophecies in the OT. When I point out that skeptics can give very good evidence that NONE of the alleged prophecies in the OT are true prophecies or that they have been fulfilled, Christians usually then resort to their “ace in the hole” evidence, personal experience: subjective feelings of comfort, peace, and security, and, experiences of answered prayer.
The problem is, Muslims, Hindus, and Hare Krishnas have warm fuzzy feelings about their religious beliefs and gods, so subjective feelings do not prove the reality of Yahweh. And what about answered prayer? Most Christians pray about EVERYTHING. So the fact that occasionally one of these prayer requests is “answered” should surprise no one.
It’s called: a coincidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can check unkleE’s site. He has an “Is There a God?” series that talks about the reasons for and against the existence of God (and I definitely respect the fact that he acknowledges the problem of evil and suffering as evidence against God). As far as focusing in on Yahweh in particular, the closest segments would be part 1, where he discusses miracle claims, and part 4, where he talks about Jesus. I think those would primarily be his avenues into arguing for the existence of Yahweh specifically.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, Nate.
I am reading through UnkleE’s article on evidence for the Christian God. Here is a quote: “People get sick or are victims of accidents that cause trauma and distress, and so they cry out to God for help. Often, nothing obvious seems to happen (though we can’t say for sure that God has done nothing, for he may well have assisted in a ‘natural recovery’). But sometimes God appears to respond with an unusual healing. I have searched for credible miracle claims, and found the following:”
UnkleE goes on to give a list of remarkable, “unexplainable”, health recoveries with links. I personally have read the first volume of evangelical Christian scholar Craig Keener’s two volume work entitled “Miracles” and agree that there are many health recoveries that seem unexplainable. But just because we cannot explain a health recovery, does that mean that an invisible supernatural Being(s) is responsible for the recovery? Maybe there is a very natural cause for the recovery that humans have not yet discovered.
And none of this proves that YAHWEH exists. If amazing, unexplainable health recoveries only happened after prayer to Yahweh/Jesus, then Christians would have a strong argument for Yahweh’s existence. But Muslims, Hindus, Hare Krishna’s, Mormons and others all point to amazing, unexplainable health recoveries after prayer to THEIR gods. So amazing, unexplainable health recoveries in no way prove the existence of Yahweh. They may be evidence for the existence of one or more supernatural beings circling the globe, sporadically performing miracle healings, but none of this points to Yahweh’s existence. And think about this: If these sporadic miracle healings occur due to one or more supernatural beings using their supernatural powers to perform miracles, why is it that these same supernatural beings allow thousands of little children, everyday, to die miserable deaths from starvation, lack of water, disease, abuse, and war? How immoral! Doesn’t this fact alone strongly indicate that these “miracles” are nothing more than random coincidences?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Anyone want to ask unkleE to explain why he believes it and what purpose did it serve?”
I have asked unkleE several things on this post but have only heard crickets. I do see a similarity with unkleE and the Christian God. They choose who to answer and ignore. As the “Good Book” says Ark, our ways are not always his ways. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can appreciate the similarity, kc. 🙂 Though to be fair, it would be hard for him to respond to all these comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this is an extremely important point, Gary. In fact, I’d argue that if some god does perform miraculous healings, it makes the problem of evil/suffering that much worse!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ever the gentleman! Love you man! Unklee will not respond to me in particular, largely I suspect, because I do not respect his experts and the oft under-hand way in which he presents his arguments.
Furthermore, after being presented with/informed of evidence numerous times that demonstrates the Exodus etc is Historical Fiction he appears to refuse to draw the obvious conclusions regarding the character, Jesus of Nazareth, and claims the Old T. has little or no bearing on his belief in the character, Jesus Christ.
It is the most obvious area of his belief that cannot withstand serious scrutiny simply because of the overwhelming evidence.
And of course, if the Pentateuch is historical fiction why should any credence be given to the Gospels?
I think it is time Emperor UnkleE recognised he is in his birthday suit and we can all see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me expand on this point: If Christians always pray when someone is sick and/or dying, should we be surprised that some times these prayers are “answered”?
Answer: No.
Here’s why: Anyone like playing poker? I do, especially Texas Hold ‘Em. The best hand in Texas Hold “Em is being dealt two Ace cards, called “pocket aces”. The odds of being dealt pocket aces is about 1 in 220. It doesn’t happen very often.
So what if I were a Christian and I prayed for pocket aces every time I am dealt a hand of poker. Would it be a miracle if I occasionally am dealt pocket aces? No. It is a rare, but possible outcome of being dealt two cards from a poker deck. Now, if I never prayed before being dealt a hand of poker, but one day decided to pray and hit pocket aces, then maybe it is possible that my pocket aces are due to the intervention of a supernatural being, but if I have been praying every time I am dealt poker cards for pocket aces and I hit pocket aces, that is NOT an answered prayer. That is an example of random chance.
Now what about being dealt pocket aces in two consecutive hands dealt to you? The odds are I in 46,841. Well guess what! A couple of months ago I was dealt pocket aces two hands in a row!!!
Was it a miracle performed by an invisible deity wishing to shower me with blessings for sitting around with a bunch of guys playing cards??? No! It was simply a very rare, amazing, random draw of the cards: a rare, random event.
And I believe the same is true for Christian “miracle healings”. Since Christians ALWAYS pray for healing when someone is sick, the fact that once in a great while an amazing, rare, health recovery occurs after one of these many prayers is said is NOT proof of the existence of an invisible deity. It is only proof that random, rare events occur.
That’s it!
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s sort of odd that we’re discussing whether or not the most important being ever is even real. Not whether we should follow him or obey him, not how do we follow or obey him, but, “is he real?”
If we wanted to know if Ted was in our house, like, “hey Ted, are you there,” and Ted slaughtered some pigs and tossed their bodies into our view, or he banged on the walls, or caused earthquakes, we’d think Ted was stupid – like “why did you cause an earthquake, why didn’t you just let us know if you were here or not? A simple verbal response was all I needed.”
But we don’t know if God’s real, and we’re supposed to believe that this all powerful being wont talk to us or let us know he’s real, he instead heals some people, while letting many others die or suffer, he sends earthquakes and lighting, but can’t or won’t say hello? Even if using random events, that happen naturally on their own, were to somehow convince us that he’s real, it’s the dumbest way possible to convey that message. Like an all knowing God didn’t exoect that a lot of people would just assume the tree missed falling on my house during that hurricane as a coincidence, or that the earthquake just happened to kill that bad guy since it also killed that good guy…
And then the book, yeah, “these people aren’t sure I’m real, so I know, I’ll have these random guys write a book that has some very questionable things in it, that appears to contain many errors, but i’ll make sure that the authors let everyone know I’m telling only them to write these things down – that’ll convince them…”
what?
I mean, I feel like the problems go beyond that of evil, and are really pretty evident.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Love you too! 😉
I largely agree with you concerning unkleE. However, I’m convinced that he’s sincere. While he and I disagree about a number of things, there are still certain things about him that I really admire.
1) He doesn’t automatically side with any and all Christians. On my last post, while unkleE made sure to point out that he does think the Bible is inspired, he largely condoned the way I presented things to that Christian friend of mine, because she approaches things from an inerrancy position. I know plenty of Christians who wouldn’t make that distinction, but would quickly side with Christians against atheists automatically. UnkleE isn’t that sort.
2) He is not afraid to acknowledge when his position has a weakness, as evidenced by his consistent appraisal of the problem of evil.
3) I don’t feel that he misconstrues the evidence about the Bible, Christianity, etc. He comes to different conclusions about what it means than I do, but we almost always agree on what the evidence actually is. Compared to the Christians who live around me, it’s a breath of fresh air! 🙂
4) He stays pretty polite. I know that he can come off a little condescending at times. I think that’s usually accidental. And even when it’s not, I can overlook it. I mean, as much time as we all spend on here discussing religion (which you’re never supposed to discuss!), none of us is going to always remain composed. I have a reputation for being kind and considerate, but I’ve lost my temper in these comment threads before too.
5) His point of view is part of what makes these discussions so interesting — at least to me and Gary (as evidenced by his popcorn comment!). I think if we didn’t have dissenting views, we’d run the risk of creating an echo chamber. Even worse, a boring echo chamber. So I really appreciate his perspective.
I know that not everyone agrees with me on that assessment, and that’s cool — we all have our own opinions. But I like all of you guys, unkleE included. 🙂
Sorry for the interlude!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nate, “I can appreciate the similarity, kc.🙂 Though to be fair, it would be hard for him to respond to all these comments.”
unkleE doesn’t usually dismiss my comments. I have noticed a pattern over the years however that he will ignore a comment he may not wish to answer. 🙂
LikeLike
… health recovery occurs after one of these many prayers is said is NOT proof of the existence of an invisible deity. It is only proof that random, rare events occur.
NS, it’s also proof that medical doctors have used their knowledge and talents to bring about a cure. Even though believers desperately want to believe a supernatural entity has stepped in and performed a miracle, the odds are much more in favor of medical science.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Touché, kc. You may have a point there. 🙂
Gary, I love the poker analogy! And since your receiving 2 back-to-back hands with pocket aces is still within the realm of possibility, I’m willing to believe you with no extra evidence. 🙂
William, I couldn’t agree more! Your examples were very vivid… I hope you don’t have personal experience with someone killing pigs and throwing their carcasses around your home…
LikeLike
nate, I had better not share too much… BUT, I suppose, though not an exact similarity, I was thinking about Jesus casting a demon into a heard of pigs, and then all the other gruesome things God is the bible for one reason or another.
It’s just overkill… often literally. Just, i don’t know, show up, say “here I am,” or something. That may be more convincing and certainly better received than giving someone’s kid cancer as a sign or a punishment, even if you prefer to work in mysterious ways.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do wonder what UnkleE thinks about God’s test for the prophets of Baal, where the prophets of baal built an alter and then Elijah built and alter and filled his with water, and whichever God sent fire to consume their own sacrifice won.
1) Did that actually happen, or this also one of those events in the OT that happens to be bogus?
2) would god pass his own test today?
3) if god worked that way then but doesn’t now, then couldn’t Baal have not worked that way back then, unwilling to lower himself to such tests and baiting?
LikeLike
@William
That incident is obviously fiction and even Sanders is wont to be suspect about any of the details, not least that the nearest cliff is around 6 miles away so those were some damn fit pigs!
The relevance is that UnkleE cites Sanders as one of his experts.
One truly has to wonder just how many incidents one needs to show as patently absurd for someone like UnkleE to accept that the Resurrection too is absurd.
LikeLike
Agreed. I believed fervently for a long time, and it still hits me how quickly it all went away after i allowed myself to take one step back and look at it all again. This castle made of sand fell into the sea quickly – jimi almost had it right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I strongly suspect that Unklee is in fact terrified of admitting he has staked his entire adult life on a lie.
Seriously, as much as he irks the Hell out of me, I really can appreciate that to let go of what he has considered to be the major defining characteristic of his life must be scary as Gehenna.
But as those who have deconverted will attest, as Poop-in-Your-Pants scared it might seem, once you have shrugged it off the relief ( based on testimonies) is the sweetest thing imaginable.
Am I right?
None of us are Spring Chickens and UnkleE is more an ”Old Cockeral’ than many of us, but you lot should tell him how much better it is on the Other Side of Delusion.
The man has put up a damn good fight for Yahweh, but it’s time to throw in the towel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is the next piece of evidence for (the Christian) god on UnkleE’s website:
“When people say God has spoken to them, or they have had a vision of Jesus, we will reasonably want to question them. But there are cases where the person appears to be quite sensible, and tangible outcomes result.”
Yes, along with thousands of other very sincere people, my uncle and my cousin both claim to have seen Jesus and heard him speak to them during a medical crisis. Problem is, Hindus and people of other religions “see” and “hear” their gods too. Again, claims of visions do not prove the existence of Yahweh, only that many people in many different religions have claimed to see god/gods, demons, ghosts, and…Elvis.
Where is the proof for Yahweh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah Ark, I think that might apply to a lot of people. I think it’s one of the primary things going on with my in-laws right now. We’ve been meeting once every week or two for the last couple of months, and that’s the impression I get from them. But you’re right — for me, things made so much more sense when I stopped trying to fit Christianity into the world I see around me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The last piece of evidence in this particular post on UnkleE’s blog is: “Dramatic change in people’s lives.”
Once again, Muslims and Mormons can provide long lists of converts to their religion who were former drug abusers, gang members, thieves, etc.. Now they are law-abiding, very “moral” members of “the true Faith”. So a change in behavior is NOT proof of the existence of Yahweh.
Still waiting for evidence for Yahweh.
LikeLike
UnkleE’s series on the evidence for God has five parts. Here is UnkleE’s summary at the end of Part Five (I hope Nate doesn’t mind me copying and pasting so much material!) but I think it is important to know where UnkleE is coming from (and where he is so wrong):
Putting it all together
We have seen that there are a number of arguments which seem to point to God’s existence, and a number that seem to point the other way. And there are counter arguments, and replies to those counters, and so on.
Here is a listing to remind you of the ones we have considered:
Pointing to God;
◦How can we explain the millions of people who say they have experienced miraculous healing?
◦What caused the universe to appear?
◦Why is the universe “fine-tuned” for life?
◦How did conscious, rational human beings with free will and a sense of right and wrong evolve?
◦How do we explain the historical Jesus who acted as if he was God’s unique son?
Suggesting there is no God:
◦How could a good God have created a world with so much suffering and evil?
◦If God is there, why does he keep himself so hidden?
◦Some attributes claimed for God seem incoherent.
What can we learn?
There are no easy answers.
It is clear that there are good (and perhaps not so good) arguments either way. Good reasons to believe, good reasons to doubt. We cannot easily write off either view.
Those who experience God cannot be easily dismissed.
Millions of people believe they have experienced God in some way – via healing, or comfort during trouble, or a word of guidance, or a vision. Their experience is sufficiently supported by the objective arguments to make it difficult to say they are all mistaken.
Gary: And there you have it! UnkleE’s Christian worldview is ultimately not based on evidence for Yahweh/the Christian Trinity, but based on evidence for a generic Creator, and, his subjective feelings and personal experiences involving his belief in the Christian god. So regardless of how good a job any skeptic does of demonstrating how very weak the evidence for the Resurrection (or any other supernatural claim in the Bible) really is, UnkleE will discount that evidence, because in his heart he KNOWS Yahweh/Lord Jesus are real because his feelings and his occasional answered prayers tell him so!
I believe that this is where we skeptics should go every time we debate Christians on the validity of Christianity. Skip the evidence for the Resurrection. Skip the debate over evolution and the probability of Noah’s Flood. Ask Christians these three questions:
1. Can you prove that Yahweh (not a generic Creator god) exists?
2. Can you prove that your warm, fuzzy feelings about your god are proof that he exists?
3. If you regularly and repeatedly pray to God for blessings and health healings, isn’t it very possible that the few times that your prayers are “answered” that these answered prayers and simply coincidences/random chance?
LikeLike
It’s okay Gary, Jesus believes in you.
LikeLike
…these answered prayers “are” simply coincidence/random chance?
I hate typos.
LikeLike