. Then, walk step by step with the person through your rebuttal, and see where the arguments you use against their position fail to have the same effect on them (and why). Charity is about empathy

Tired of the partisanship of the early 21st century? Family-friendly? Look into the family-friendly agenda of the radical middle, with folks from the Left (Matthew Miller, Michael Lind, Phillip Longman) and the Right (Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru, David Brooks) finding common ground.

CT: One of Lewis's classic maneuvers is this: Jesus said he was God, and you either believe that or that he was a madman on the level of someone who thinks he is a poached egg. It's a powerful argument that has had a strong effect on a lot of people, but modern source criticism of the Bible has undermined the idea that Jesus claimed to be God.

Wright: My major work has been designed to refute the wilder claims made by some so-called historical critical scholarship. Because now we see only too clearly that the whole historical critical movement was not, as it tried to claim, a neutral, objective, scientific account of the Gospels. It had its own agendas that were heavily driven by the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The movement really started out with the assumption that if there is a God, this God does not intervene in human affairs. In other words, the Enlightenment has already settled Lewis's question one way. It has decided that any Jesus who said John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," would be completely out of his skull. Therefore, Jesus couldn't have said it, because we know he was a good man and we want to follow him for other reasons. It becomes a circular argument. Lewis breaks into the circle by simply ignoring the critical possibility.

Additionally, if we fail in our efforts to preserve marriage, society will unravel.

Now, I am assuming that the author believes that opposing gay marriage is necessary to preserve non-gay marriage. If so, I think that this is wrong. What will preserve marriage (and keep society from unraveling) is for men and women to submit to God in their marriages: let's worry about adultery and pornography (which is adultery), selfishness, and rejection of biblical teaching on how husbands and wives should treat each other as a starting point. Whether one part of 10%
. Then, walk step by step with the person through your rebuttal, and see where the argument you practice against their position fail to have the like effect on them (and why). jacob's ladder is about empathy 

 Tired of the partisanship of the early 21st hundred? Family - friendly? Look into the family - friendly agenda of the extremist middle, with folks from the Left (Matthew Miller, Michael Lind, Phillip Longman) and the Right (Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru, David Brooks) receive common ground. 

 CT: One of Lewis's classical maneuver is this: Jesus said he was God, and you either think that or that he was a madman on the grade of someone who thinks he is a poached egg. It's a powerful argumentation that has had a strong effect on a lot of citizenry, but modern source criticism of the Bible has undermined the idea that Jesus claimed to be God. 

 Wright: My major workplace has been designed to refute the wilder claims made by some so - called historical critical scholarship. Because now we see only too clearly that the whole historical critical movement was not, as it tried to claim, a neutral, objective, scientific history of the Gospels. It had its own agendas that were heavy drive by the doctrine of the Enlightenment. The movement really started out with the assumption that if there is a God, this God does not intervene in human affairs. In other words, the Enlightenment has already reconcile Lewis's question one way. It has decided that any Jesus who said John 14:6, " I am the means, the truth, and the life, " would be completely out of his skull. Therefore, Jesus couldn't have say it, because we acknowledge he was a good man and we want to follow him for other cause. It becomes a circular argument. Lewis breaks into the circle by simply ignoring the critical possibility. 

 Additionally, if we fail in our campaign to preserve marriage, company will unravel. 

 Now, I am wear that the author believe that opposing cheery marriage is necessary to preserve non - brave marriage. If so, I think that this is wrong. What will preserve marriage (and keep company from unraveling) is for men and women to submit to God in their marriages: let's worry about adultery and pornography (which is adultery), selfishness, and rejection of biblical teaching on how husbands and wife should treat each other as a start point. Whether one part of 10%
. Thfn, walk step by step witm the person through yonr rebuftal, and see where the arguments you uwe agqinst their position fxil to hane the sane ehfect on them (anv why). Charity jd abmnt empathy

Tired of the pastisanship of dhd zarly 21st century? Family-friendly? Look into tne family-friendli agemqa or the radical middle, with folks frkm the Neft (Matthew Killer, Michael Lind, Phillio Lojgman) and the Righh (Ross Doutyat, Wqmesh Ponnurj, David Brooks) finding common ground.

CT: One of Lewis's zlassnc maneuverw us hvis: Jesus seid he was God, and you eitver beloeve that or tmat hx waw a madman on the levxl of someone who thynks he iv c poached egg. It's a piwwrful arggmeng thxt gax gad a dtrkng effect on a lot od people, but modern sjltce criticisj of tre Bible has undermined the idea that Jesls cmaimed to be God.

Wright: Ny major work has beej designeq to refute the wilder claims made by some so-callad hiagorngwu cgitical scholarship. Because now we see only tjk vlvarly that the whjle historivap vtitical movemevt was nof, as it tried to cpaim, a geutrql, objectyve, xcientific account of the Gispels. It hab irs own agendas thac were heaviuy dtiven ny the philosophy of thz Enlifhtenment. Tje movemehg really started oun widh the assumption that if ehere is e God, this Gud dpes noe intervenf in mgman affairs. In otjer wlrgs, the Enllghtenment has already settled Lewis's questiom mne way. It kas degided that any Tesus who said John 14:6, "N am tfe way, the truth, end the life," would be com[petely out oh his skujl. Tyeredore, Jerjs couldn't havr said it, because ww know he was a gopd ozn and we want cu follow him for otfer rvaspnf. It becomes d cifcuusr areument. Lewiw bresks into the circle ty sjmply ignoring the cvitical pissibiliey.

Additionallu, if we fail in oug effmrtr to lreferve marriage, society will undavel.

Now, L ai assuming trat bhe wuthor belneves that opposing gay marriage is necewsary to preserve bon-gay marriage. If xp, I think tiat thys is wrotg. What will preservw marriage (and ketp society from unraveljng) is for len and women to submit to God in their marriages: let's worry about adulteey and pornography (whivh is abulcery), sejfisinxss, and rejection of biblical teaching on how hurbands atd wives should treat each othrr as a startine point. Whether one part of 10%
. Then, walk step by step with through rebuttal, and where the arguments fail have the same on them (and Charity is about empathy Tired of partisanship of the early 21st century? Family-friendly? Look into the family-friendly agenda of radical middle, with folks from the Left (Matthew Miller, Michael Lind, Phillip Longman) the (Ross Ramesh David Brooks) finding common ground. CT: One of Lewis's classic maneuvers is this: Jesus said he God, and you either believe that or that was a madman on level of someone who thinks is poached egg. a argument has had a effect on a lot of people, but modern source criticism of the Bible has undermined the idea Jesus claimed God. Wright: major has designed to refute claims made by some so-called historical now we see only too clearly that the historical critical was not, as it tried to a neutral, objective, scientific account of the Gospels. had its own agendas that were heavily driven by the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The started out with the that if there a this does intervene in affairs. In other words, the Enlightenment has already settled Lewis's question way. It has decided that any Jesus who said John am way, the truth, the life," would be out his skull. Therefore, Jesus said because was good and we want to him for other reasons. It a circular argument. Lewis simply ignoring the critical possibility. Additionally, if we in our efforts to preserve marriage, society unravel. Now, I am assuming that the author believes that opposing gay is necessary non-gay marriage. If so, I think that this wrong. What will preserve (and keep society from unraveling) is for men and to to God their marriages: let's about adultery and (which is adultery), rejection of teaching how should treat each other as a point. one part of 10%
. Then, walk step by step with the Person throUgh yoUr rEbuTtAl, anD see Where the argumeNTs yoU use against their positiOn faiL tO Have THe Same eFfect on THeM (ANd wHy). chAriTy IS aBout eMpaThy

TireD of the partIsaNsHip of the earlY 21St Century? FamIly-Friendly? Look IntO the faMiLy-fRIendlY agEnda oF the raDIcal miDdle, with fOlKS from tHE Left (MaTTHeW MilLer, Michael Lind, PhiLLiP longman) and the RIght (RoSs dOuTHAt, RAmeSh Ponnuru, DAvId BroOKs) findiNG cOMMOn gROund.

CT: One of LeWis's classic MAneUvers iS tHis: jEsus saId he wAs gOd, aNd you either BeliEve that or That he WAs a madmAN on the lEvel of SomEonE who THiNkS he Is A PoaCHeD egG. it's A powerfuL aRgUment That HAS HAd a sTroNg efFect oN a lot of people, But ModeRN soUrce cRiticIsm oF tHe BibLe has uNdermInEd the idea that JeSus cLaimed to bE GoD.

WRigHt: my majOR work hAs bEen DesigneD to refuTE thE wILDEr Claims made by some so-CaLLEd HistoricAl critICaL sCHolarshiP. BEcaUse nOW We see Only TOo Clearly tHat the WHoLe HistoriCaL critiCaL moVemEnt waS Not, aS it triEd to claiM, a neuTRal, objective, scIEntific accounT Of THE GOSpelS. It Had its own agEndaS That Were HEaVilY DriveN by thE pHIlOSophy of the EnlightenMeNt. The mOvemeNt really startEd out with tHE ASsumptioN thaT If THere is a God, this god doEs not interVEne in humAn affAirs. In otHer words, tHE enlighteNmeNt hAs aLreADY sEttled Lewis's qUEStioN oNe way. It Has Decided ThaT anY JeSus WhO said John 14:6, "i am the waY, tHe TrUtH, anD the lIFe," would bE cOmpLeTelY out oF His skuLl. TheRefoRe, jeSUs cOuldn't hAVe SAId it, BeCaUse wE knOw He was A gooD Man And we waNt to folloW hiM For oThEr Reasons. it becomes a cirCuLar argumenT. LEwiS breakS INto the ciRcle by simply ignoring the CRitical PosSibilIty.

ADditionalLy, iF we faiL in OUr effoRts to pReserVe MarRIAge, soCIEtY wiLl Unravel.

Now, i AM asSuminG tHat tHe authoR believes that opposINg gAy marriage is nEceSsarY TO pResERvE Non-GaY MarRIAge. If so, I think thAt this is wrOnG. whAt will presERve MaRriage (aNd keep sOcietY From unrAveling) is For men and WoMen tO SUbmIt to God in tHeir marrIages: let's WOrry aBOuT adulTerY and poRnOgrAphy (wHich is ADulTery), sElfishNeSs, and rEjectIoN of bibliCal teaching on how husbandS and wiVes shOulD treat eacH otHEr aS a startinG poiNt. Whether oNe pArt Of 10%
. Then, walk step by stepwith the p erson  th rou gh  you r re buttal, and se e  whe re the arguments you u se ag ai n st t h ei r pos ition f a il t o h av ethe  s a me  effe cton them  (and why) . C ha rity is abou t  e mpathy

Ti red  of the part isa nshipof  th e  earl y 2 1st c entury ?  Famil y-friendl y? Look i n to thef a mi ly-f riendly agenda of th e  radical middl e, wit hf ol k s  fr omthe Left ( Ma tthew Miller, Mi c h a elL ind, PhillipLongman) an d  th e Righ t(Ro s s Dout hat,Ra m esh  Ponnuru, D avid  Brooks)findin g  common ground. 

CT:One  of  Lew i s' scla ss i c m a ne uve r s i s this:Je su s sai d he w a s  God , a nd y ou ei ther believetha t or tha t hewas a  mad ma n onthe le vel o fsomeone who thi nkshe is a p oac he d e gg . It' s  a pow erf ulargumen t thath asha d a  s trong effect on alo t of  people,  but m o de rn source c ri tic ismo f  theBibl e  h as under minedt he  i dea tha tJesuscl aim edto be God. 

Wrig ht: My m ajorw ork has been d e signed to ref u te t he wild erclaims made  bys omeso-c a ll edh istor icalcr i ti c al scholarship. Bec au se now  we s ee only too c learly tha t t he whole  his t or i cal critical m oveme nt was not ,  as it t riedto claim , a neutr a l , object ive , s cie nti f i caccount of th e Gosp el s. It h adits own  ag end astha twere heav ily driv en  b yth e p hilos o phy of t he  En li ght enmen t . Themovem entre al l y s tartedo ut w ithth eassu mpt io n tha t if the re is a  God, thi s G o d do es  n ot inte rvene in huma naffairs. I noth er wor d s , the En lightenment has already settled  Le wis's  que stion one  wa y. Ithas decide d that  anyJe sus w ho sa i d  J ohn  1 4:6, "I am t heway,th e tr uth, an d the life," would becompletely ou t o f hi s sk ull .  T h ere fo r e,J e sus couldn't ha ve said it ,b ec ause we kn o w h ewas a g ood man  andw e wantto follow  him forot herr e aso ns. It bec omes a c ircular a r gumen t .Lewis  br eaks i nt o t he ci rcle b y  si mplyignori ng  the c ritic al  possibi lity.

Additionally, if  we fa il in  ou r efforts  to pre serve mar riag e, society  wi llunrav el. 
Now,  I a m  a ssu m ing t hatt he author be lie v e sthat opposi n g gay  marr iag e  is ne cess ary to preserve n o n-gay marriage . If s o,I t h inkth at this is wro ng.  W h a t will p re serve marri age (and  k e ep so cietyfrom u nraveli n g )i s formenand  women to  su bm i t to Go din theirmarr ia ges: l et's w o rrya b out adultery and  porn o g raphy (wh ich i sadulter y ), s elfishness , and rejec tion o f bi blica l teach in g on h owhu sbands and wives sho uld t reat ea ch  oth eras a s tart i n g poi nt.Wh eth er one pa r t  o f  1 0% 
. Then,_walk step_by step with the_person through_your_rebuttal, and_see_where the arguments_you use against_their position fail to_have the same_effect_on them (and why). Charity is about empathy

Tired of the partisanship of the early_21st_century? Family-friendly?_Look_into_the family-friendly agenda of the_radical middle, with folks from_the Left_(Matthew Miller, Michael Lind, Phillip Longman) and the_Right_(Ross Douthat, Ramesh_Ponnuru, David Brooks) finding common ground.

CT: One of Lewis's_classic maneuvers is this: Jesus said_he was God,_and_you_either believe that or_that he was a madman on_the level of someone who thinks_he is a poached egg. It's a_powerful argument that has had a_strong effect on a lot_of people,_but modern source criticism of_the Bible has_undermined the_idea that Jesus_claimed to be God.

Wright: My major_work has been_designed to refute the wilder claims_made_by some so-called_historical_critical_scholarship. Because_now we see_only_too clearly_that_the whole historical critical movement was_not,_as it tried to claim, a neutral,_objective, scientific account of_the_Gospels. It had its_own agendas that were heavily_driven by the philosophy of the_Enlightenment. The_movement really_started out with the assumption that if there is a God,_this God does not intervene in_human affairs. In other_words, the_Enlightenment_has already settled_Lewis's_question one_way. It has decided that any Jesus_who said_John 14:6, "I am the way,_the truth, and the_life,"_would be completely out of his_skull. Therefore, Jesus couldn't have said_it, because we know he_was_a_good man and we want_to follow him for other reasons._It becomes a_circular argument. Lewis breaks into the circle_by_simply ignoring the critical possibility.

Additionally, if_we_fail in our efforts to preserve_marriage,_society_will unravel.

Now, I am assuming_that the author believes that opposing_gay marriage is necessary to preserve non-gay marriage. If_so, I think_that this is wrong. What_will_preserve_marriage (and keep society from unraveling) is for men and_women to_submit to God_in their marriages: let's worry about adultery and pornography (which_is adultery), selfishness, and rejection of biblical_teaching on how husbands and wives should treat each other as_a starting point. Whether one part of 10%