Q: CURT –“would you debate @paleochristcon Andrew Wilson?” I would have a discu

Q: CURT –“would you debate @paleochristcon Andrew Wilson?”

I would have a discussion to seek to undersetand. I tend not to enter into debates because they are predominantly intellectually dishonest.
Even then, I dunno what I would debate him about. I mean, I’m arguing the science of decidability. He’s making moral argument. I kind of doubt I’d disagree with him on much. If there was a disagreement, it would be over a pragmatism of either of our approaches. My view of course is that a christian is the best religion for those who need religion, and since it is consistent with natural law, and the constitution a document of natural law. And that I’m not in favor of immigration or expansion of any other religions at all – because they’re almost all (otehr than buddhism) hostile to christianity.
So then It’s just a matter of whether you see yourself as a ‘priestly’ man of the people that helps choose, or a ‘jurist’ for the people that must decide. Otherwise I suspect I would just agree with him.
FWIW: It’s fundamentalism that states theological claims are materially ‘true’ rather than metaphorically ‘wise and just’ I have a problem with. Even then I don’t care as long as it doesn’t interfere with the law.
Cheers
CD

Reply addressees: @ScottClaremonty @paleochristcon