Unfortunately, the Christian in this discussion was not well suited to the environment. His body language did not convey confidence - slumped shoulders, sitting in a tense position, wringing hands. Saying "Umm" or "Uhh" in every sentence. Just presentationally not very good. Also, his arguments lacked insight and did not address some of the salient issues at hand. In the question of evil, the first one offered, the standard for "good" and "evil" must be addressed. The Secularist who went before the Christian said that it was silly to say that the tsunami in December 2004 had some greater purpose to it. Then the Christian goes ahead and says that there was some greater purpose which was not yet known. While this may be true, such a statement falls very short in the contemporary mind. It shows a lack of understanding of the issues that people wrestle with, or at least a lack of understanding in how to communicate those ideas. Non-theists must be pressed on where they even get the idea of evil. If you want to talk about the dying of children in various cultures, this is a definate point, against the buddhist especially, where the reason many of these children die is because of kharma. The secularist must be pressed as to why survival of the fittest doesn't work in these situations. This was not done. And some of Mr. Kuruvilla's conclusions are false. For example, he states that some virtues come out of evil: patience, courage, forgiveness. This would mean that God was not patient, courageous or forgiving until the Fall or the angelic rebellion (however your theology works out). And obviously, that is false. And even if you want to say that these are attirbutes are for man alone, then you are saying that they are not things which God gave to Adam and Eve, but something that they discovered after the Fall. Also false. I have not read the book that the Mr. Kuruvilla wrote, and I am sure that it is a fine book. But public discourse/ debate is a different beast and requires a different skill set. This discussion at Columbia should provide a case study in what to avoid in your advocate for such a large forum.

I thought that Professor Thurman was quite random and did not stick to the questions that he was asked. He also went on too long. In contrast, Professor Kitcher and Dr. Kuruvilla did a good job in sticking to the questions they were asked. Towards the end of the debate, I thought that Professors Kitcher and Thurman were too antagonistic while only Dr. Kuruvilla kept a sense of charity and kindness. I diagree with Robert Casteline's comments. His choice of pronouns indicates that he is not a Christian, which reflected strongly on his statements. He attacks Kuruvilla while totally overlooking the other two panelists. Quite unfair. For example, how was the logic of an excellent alphabet helpful in advocating for Buddhism? Casteline does not address this. I thought that Kuruvilla and Kitcher far exceeded Thurman in terms of content. And yes, God did not exhibit forgiveness before the fall because there was not sin. Why is that a flaw in logic? In my view, Kuruvilla does the best job, with Kitcher coming in second. Thurman would be last. I also disagree with his critique of Kuruvilla's presentation style. He was engaging, sitting forward, and animated. It was different from the other two and not as polished, but not bad.

I very much appreciated watching this forum. I do not wish to comment primarily on style or apparent logical inconsistencies, except to say that to characterize Prof. Thurman's statements as simply "random" is to display an inflexible mind indeed. I'd also might have wished the forum to have gone on even 5 more minutes because the sermon/testimony that Kuruvilla ended with needed to be responded to - the direct implication that anyone with a "open mind" engaged in an honest examination of conscience as it was traditionally called, would come by necessity to the same conclusions and faith comittment as the speaker, speaks to the very heart of the dangerous problem posed by the strong exclusivist position (of whatever orthodoxy). For me the most terrible irony is that it is presicely the subtlest form of pride (needing to be "crushed" according to Kuruvilla) to insist that one's own subjective religious experience must be understood, expressed and interpreted by the same conceptual formula by any and all other persons. This is not to shed any doubt on the authenticity and validity of his experience of grace and forgiveness (as I believe he would call it). But having myself encountered sophisticated Buddhists and Christians and their practices, I can honestly say that no one owns the superlative in crushing human pride and our persistent self-justifying delusions - a spiritual and moral reality to which Christianity (or the "encounter with Christ") can certainly be a successfully means of confronting, but not exclusively so. Without condemning Kuruvilla and other "apologists," I do find it sad that this is not recognized by him.

Prof. Thurman's statements were totally contradictory, which seems to fit with his worldview which allows for no meaning, even though he made statements that attempted to present "meaning". I disagree with Robert Casteline when he states the Christian didn't present himself well. He didn't present as well as I would've liked, but he did well. He pointed out "strawman" arguments presented by the other two, which I hope made their arguments clearer to the audience in seeing how empty they really are. I really appreciated the fact that he is from India. He seemed to refute Prof. Thurman's by his mere presence. If Buddhism is so great, why would someone so established in education turn away from it. The huminist contradicted himself as well. Both the humanist and the Buddhist contradicted themselves when they presented arguments against evil and yet have no basis for a foundation as to what "evil" is. Christian need to expose that fact more often. Lord bless you all!!!