but not too far..
See what happened to Libanon, only 50 years ago a Christian country that let in many muslim refugees to help them.
Many reasons, I am not saying they did not hold us back, I gree they did. But I do not think we would be 1500 years more advanced, because they were not the only thing holding us back.
Mormons believe that Jesus was "a" son of god, just not "the" son of god. We are all "sons of god".
Christians fought to keep their slaves and founded the KKK too. ALso you keep spouting false info on SSM, Christians did not vote it in.
They didn't either. Apparently it was a myth lol
It would probably depend on the antidiscrimination statute, if any, in which the baker is located. Only state and local laws, not federal, specifically encompass sexual orientation as a protected class.
I agree, heck until 3 years ago this whole section of the state was dry.
Go chase your own tail.
I repeat, there are benefits to circumcision. There is a wealth of accredited medical journals that can back that up. If parents choose to do this for their boys there is nothing wrong with that. If they choose to let the child grow up and decide for himself theres also nothing wrong with that.
Stalin?s being an atheist in no way contradicts my point, and whatever internecine conflicts the ROC experienced at the time are beside the point, as there was a very clear movement to support Stalin in exchange for semi-official status. The reason Stalin turned to the church in the first place was to combat the influence of fascist Christian churches that the N4zis were establishing along the Eastern Front.
Sorry - not a Christian...but exactly how do you think shutting down the free tax break violates the First Amendment? It is not stopping anyone from practicing their religion freely at all.
No it was accurate.
It's a truly strange episode of Star Trek TAS where the Enterprise wanders into an area of space where magic is real and they run into a being claiming to be the devil who transports them to Salem during the witch trials and weird shit ensues. In the end, Captain Kirk saves the devil's life, so make what you will of that LOL.
it is done,, believe me.
True, and others are free to point out its flaws man.
The rule of law was narrow in scope, defending a President's authority to control borders based on national security.
Why do you think so many.more haven't?
I think asking this of "the Bible" is too much to ask and avoids necessary nuance. There are sections that are meant to be taken literally (or at least as literally as they can be, such as the Synoptics, Paul's letters, Exodus) and others that are meant not to be taken literal (Psalms, Song of Solomon). Others are much more disputed, such as the beginning of Genesis, Revelation and Job. So asking "should the Bible be taken literally or figuratively" is not the best question as it's too broad and general. Maybe the better question is how do we know what to take literally and what to take figuratively?
Then he must have been around 100 years old when he wrote the gospel. In fact all the gospels are anonymous. The names we know them by were attached in the 2nd century.
Hey dumbass, I was not talking to you so
You don't send science anywhere. And you don't because you don't have standing to make those decisions. You don't have the education, training, or experience to do so.
Said in the other thread. Unions would also be a good thing to reinvigorate.
That we appeal to an apparently objective or transcendent sense of morality points to an objective or transcendent moral standard...a Law...which points to a Law Giver.
This James guy seems quite the character..
Well, he is black. You got that fact right. The others are, as you know, are bullshit. Of course, the only FACT that matters to racist pricks like you was his skin color.
Wait...I thought you were trying to argue that crimes vs. dudes were investigated more seriously than crimes vs ladies. I honestly never considered you might be making the case that men were less likely to be investigated than women.
Your premise is wrong. It?s not that Christians don?t understand per se, but what difference does it make because it?s arbitrary. An atheists morals can change, and there is nothing to say that the change is any better or any worse. Atheists say they base their morals on what is best for humanity as a whole. That assumes that they know what?s best for society as a whole; however, their morals are completely arbitrary. An atheist could change their moral values, and there?s nothing to say that it?s objectively better or worse, because right and wrong/good and evil is just something made up in your head and isn?t actually real. You could murder somebody, and say it was for the better of society, and you would be morally fine if enough people agreed with you.