The epitome of Christian sleaze.

As a rule I would not dream of posting a video such as this, and it was only that, at first, I did not recognise Greg Koukl

This is a perfect example of what I usually call the Theological Two Step and it really is fascinating to listen how this slime ball wheedles and manipulates a conversation in order to lead the questioner to exactly the point where he can lay out the ‘Gotcha’!

Before you listen to Koukl though, let me write out the question that was posed to him by Deepak Chopra in a debate they had, I’m specifically doing this as, if you are like me, by the time you get to the end of the video – and I urge you to listen to all of it – you will have to think twice to remember what the actual question was.

Here it is: ”So you’re saying that anyone that doesn’t believe just like you is going to Hell.”

Got it?

Now watch and listen.


Oh, and it’s telling that comments are disabled on the video. But they’re most certainly not on my blog!


39 thoughts on “The epitome of Christian sleaze.

  1. that’s called setting someone up. He thinks he’s won, but he’s just making himself look bad. It doesn’t even compute, since they are coming at this from totally different angles.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. You must offer the same courtesy and not answer directly, but with another question. Catching non believers off guard is key to manipulation.
    Questions actually trigger a reflex in humans known as “instinctive elaboration,” that is when someone asks you a question, the question takes over the brain’s thought process and you feel compelled to answer. We should know better and it’s just another trick of the trade because the truth won’t work. Ray Comfort comes to mind.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. If you read someone like David Robertson he reacts in much the same way.
      There is an extended dialogue with Ron and he never once answers the question Ron asked.
      Eventually he ended the dialogue with his usual condescending vitriolic dribble.
      I realise now that this is a specific format that is so obviously schooled into fundamentalists.
      As you say , we should know better.
      Well, now I do!

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Avoiding answering simple questions by asking the questioning party misleading questions? Manipulation of others? Heaping on the guilt? Yup. Sounds like evangelism to me.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I thought you might appreciate this. Glad I didn’t need to post a trigger warning.
      I was shaking my head and almost spitting feathers after listening to this, but it is important, especially for me, to understand how these schlenters operate.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s rather disgusting how they do this while keeping a straight face and keeping their heads held high. They really see nothing wrong with this tactic.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Brilliant! Jesus solved a non-existent problem. The Christian concept of guilt is Kafkaesque in its absurdity: you stand condemned just by virtue of existing.

    Fiendishly clever, if you’re silly enough to agree to those terms. Equally, you can reject the basic premise, and all the clever apologetics in the world won’t cut any ice with those who perceive the fundamental scam this imbecilic hack is trying to pull.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, not necessarily illiterate …

      How come you’re back?
      You bailed with you tail between your legs last time.~
      Still wondering what branch of the medical profession you are part of. Are you going to tell me?


      1. At least there is one voice of reason who consistently presents reason to your site. Just look at how quickly your commenters devolve, (if you are honest) and I’m speaking of my harmless observation regarding the USA rout of Taiwan.

        Did you notice how perverse the regulars appeared- just couldn’t help themselves- and no, it is irrelevant as to the Caring field/ just thank God there are places of healing in the world.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. What the hell as your comment got to do with the despicable content of the video?
          Once more,and I am going to ask you politely for the final time. —- what branch of the medical field are you part of, CS?


          1. And what the hell do your other commenters have the right to assess me when I commented on ‘your post’ specifically regarding a woman’s sport as you were silent to condemn them?

            You may like to know, I am a very good chess player; and I already told u ‘thank God for hospitals,’ places of healing.

            What difference whether I am a cardiologist, EMT, X-ray tech, courier, dishwasher, nurse, or chief surgeon,


  5. Where you are hopelessly out of line in pouring vitriol on this type of rhetoric is where, as I feel sure in this case, the person really believes in what is behind the ‘logic’ he summonses up to justify it. Dishonest? Only if he actually doesn’t credit a word of it. He is comfortable where he is at; let him scrabble away like a beetle inside his glass bottle thinking that he is climbing the side.
    The part that is really ridiculous in any religion is to impose a compulsion to believe. Belief doesn’t work like that. You study the evidence, and then you decide for yourself whether or not it has any validity. If not, no threats or rewards can possibly make it happen. You are simply pretending. If so, you are comfortable in that mindset however absurd it may appear to others.


    1. Not out of line at all, as he states that to make a straightforward answer would make him and Christianity look bad – which of course is the truth of the matter.

      It is dishonest as he shifts the burden to the questioner in an effort place the blame on the person asking the question and includes himself in the guilt.
      Dishonest and despicable.


      1. Not at all. If I ask you questions as a means of supporting your view, is it being dishonest or despicable? Only if I am actually believing something while making out that I do not. He saw it as a valid strategy for making his point, so however mistaken one may believe him to be I can’t see how you justify those descriptors.


        1. As he stated up front, it was a strategy to avoid the Yes/No response.
          Had he done so, it would have made him and Christianity look bad.
          Well tough!
          This is the reality of his religion, and is a similar techniques used to indoctrinate children.
          Ask Ben or Jim, they’ll tell you from first hand experience.


          1. You must know that the classic question of a control freak, or alternatively what is known as the loaded question (do you still beat your wife), is one demanding a Yes/No answer. All kinds of questions cannot be answered adequately that briefly, and to deny the fact is being dishonest and despicable.


          2. The answer is straightforward within the Evangelical Christian doctrine/dogma – it is Yes.
            However, answering in this fashion leaves the Christian open to the kind of recourse Koukl wanted to avoid – hence the Theological Two Step which, as I pointed out, effectively shifts the burden of responsibility and or feelings of guilt to the one asking the question.
            If you doubt this, ask someone such as Ben or Jim. Both were once indoctrinated to think in this fashion.


          3. For the last time, that question does not lend itself to an unqualified ‘Yes’. It is badly framed for starters. To continue with, the response is far more effective if illustrated by reactions to what you call the Two Step. The vituperation is uncalled for, even from the Bens and Jims. It is you who are injecting the guilt supposedly engendered. None would be felt by the person in respect of the case or the means of arguing it, in which he sincerely believes. In the final analysis, don’t you all tend to go off half-cocked or at a tangent sometimes?


          4. Again. unlike certain other Christian sects that have adopted various, somewhat softer interpretations of the Hell Doctrine, Fundamental Evangelical Christianity
            ( which Koukl is most definitely part of) is emphatic that Hell exists, and is the destination for all non-believers where damnation and eternal torment await.
            It is not ”badly framed” as we can presume the interlocutor is fully aware of the doctrine in the first place – why would they ask the question otherwise?
            Remember, in this instance this was a debate, and the question/video was made to demonstrate to fellow Christians and would-be apologists how to deal with it with the express intent of avoiding the sticky situation so many find themselves in when faced with this challenge.
            In fact, it is a method of temporarily avoiding the feeling of self-guilt by utilizing a ‘let me ask you’ a question’ strategy thus roping in the questioner with a set of Gotcha questions.
            This is really no different to asking someone like Koukl whether the biblical account of the Exodus really happened and when the answer is ”Yes” – as it must be in his case – demanding evidence which they can never produce.


          5. Ah, I have internet back for a second. No, I do not imagine Kouki is masking any guilt. He is finding a way of making people understand his sincerely held view — he thinks. So this is another ATD (agree to disagree) for us, I’m afraid.


          6. Maybe you misunderstand the perspective of Hell as far as Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity goes?
            Heck, I was unaware there were such die hard strict sects of Christian belief until I entered the realm of Blogging.
            Remember,the way Chopra phrased the question asked his question was almost rhetorical>
            ”So you are saying ….”
            And to clarify , yes this is exactly how evangelical fundamentalist christian sects think.
            Hell is real, literal. is for ever and involves eternal torment.
            Then only side issue is that these Mad Hatters like to claim that, as you have a choice – accept Jesus etc etc or go to Hell – you are in effect sending yourself to hell.
            This is why Koukl wanted to avoid a direct answer as by obliging the interlocutor to acknowledge that he or she was obviously a sinner then any culpability lay with the individual.
            In other words, ‘God’ never sends anyone to Hell , they choose to go there themselves.


          7. You have it in a nutshell; that is what they believe, and no more deceit or dishonesty is involved than with any other parables.


          8. Of course there was a measure of dishonesty as his primary concern was not >/em> to allow the question to make him and ergo Christianity look bad. He even confessed to this in the video.
            So rather than simply be brutally honest and say, ‘Yes, all those who do not believe as I do are destined for Hell.” ( which he also acknowledged was going to happen) he manipulated the conversation.
            Again, read the comments from some of the others here who were once fundamentalists back in the day.
            They recognise the tactics Koukl employed and they concur he was being dishonest.


  6. Annnd once again CS answered a question with a totally irrelevant question, now where have we seen that before…
    I asked him once, how thick the earth was (he being a rabid flat earther) and he told me it was a stupid question.

    There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. No point arguing semantics, tactics … nuffink like that, Guv. The only tool you need is The Law, no?

    The Law of Contradiction. The LOC.
    They can run, they can scream, they can hide … but they can’t escape.

    Who gives a monkey’s who wrote/compiled/plagiarised the works we know as the Bible, Koran, or any of the many myriads of other unique “Holy Works”? Utterly irrelevant. Really. Honestly. They contradict everything: each other, science, common-sense, themselves. Pish~!

    So why waste time arguing over exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? It’s only worth discussing if we can be shown (a) an angel, and (b) a pin, and (c) some bugger dancing on the head of said pin. (Would my offering one of my pins add validity/credibility to said question? Think ‘holy relic’ …

    I think that if progress is to be made we need look not at personalities but at the actual fundamentals. (Bugger, I feel a song coming on—but rather than hijack your blog I’ll make my points in a new post myself. I may try again to create a new blog, and run with and in that—identical but totally different.)


  8. And then I explained in very simple terms about substitutionary atonement: that the judge took off his robe and got in the dock and took the punishment for us, so that we could be set free.

    Whether he realizes it or not, Mr Koukl’s proposition that a third party be punished in lieu of the wrongdoers violates the terms and conditions agreed to in his very first question (“Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?”) — as well our “intuition” of justice. So his “ask questions” strategy to circumvent answering directly fails on more than one level.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Plus, it ignores the reality that to a “We are as filthy rags to The Lawd” Christian, our moral crimes (violations of The Law) are so petty and trivial.

      It also ignores the reality that The Lawd MADE US THIS WAY. HE invented sin. HE knew at the beginning of time that the VAST majority of human beings would fall short of his tedious “glory”. He even knew which of us would “be saved”.

      So no, his Christianity not only does not appeal to my sense of “justice”… terribly, terribly offends it!


  9. in thinking this over, the question asked insisted for a yes or no answer, as you say, not unlike ‘is this the first time you beat your wife?”–either way, you’re in serious trouble.

    But this particular question really has no single definite answer: it depends on a lot of factors, since there are Morals and morals. Business, personal, private, age of the person involved, sex of the person involved, married, single, rich, all kinds of things that could effect what they do and why they do it. And all manner of religious strictures as well. What is moral in one religion or sect is often punishable by slow death in another.
    The only answer acceptable, would be, “it all depends.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s