i was thinking about the constant attacks on langan, because lately i was asking myself, when do you recognize a lie? and i am coming to the conclusion that most lies are over the top and ham-fisted, for example: a good "lie" against langan would be to say he is just an autodidact with his own system of theology, that is difficult to understand for most people and doesn't really fit with modern academia therefor he is irrelevant. in staid we just get people claiming he is a moron, a fraud or what ever. now i have been researching the guy and he clearly has a bright head on his shoulders, so the conclusion must be, that people who attack langan lie and have an agenda.
Netherlands