Apologies. Indeed TFCC. You I usually agree with. ??
There is only one Almighty, Father, Jehovah. He has appointed Jesus to be King of the Kingdom.
An intelligent person uses rational arguments if disagrees with someone. Your behaviour demonstrates that you are not one. But I presume it doesn't bother you.
Which is indeed important for my future, you must decide for your benefit.
Are you asserting that all the many millions of undetected and undetectable gods and goddesses actually do exist?
How do you claim to know that?
Im not talking about the first Amendment.
///Your entire post is unfounded. You are making a claim that Jesus could choose where to be born - what is this claim based on?
I do hope they?re not counting on that? That?s actually putting them on
You're not my master.
"How does that compare with gun ownership? Do you even know what youre(sic) talking about?"
Yes, NT relayed to me what was said to Angie. That might have been a marginally acceptable comment coming from one of her friends, but not from a complete stranger. She was right to delete it.
Cherry picking is a lazy argument. If you have a cold you can go to any hospital and get treated. If you don't/can't pay and have a cold the next month they will treat you. The U.S. has had universal healthcare, in practice, for 75 years.
Maybe you should read the OP before commenting. Especially the next to last paragraph. I would also classify it as relating my personal experiences (as related to said paragraph) rather than simply an opinion.
Correction, if you work or employ someone who wants you to use these...YOU WILL...end of.
Why yes, Jesus is back and I run into him at the local taco stand when he runs it during the summer.
So what?s your point? It?s credible research. I fact checked it myself. In fact if you go back to main page, you can find a PowerPoint on the ?Existence of the soul? which provides 6 PEER-REVIEWED studies in that presentation. It?s all legit science and mainstream science actually. It just consolidates all of the studies into easy to read and learn reviews of the actual studies. However, I encourage you to pick apart any study referenced in the slides and fact check any of them yourselves. The dude didn?t name the site CREDIBLE Catholic for nothin?. Don?t be a biggot against Catholics...
She and her husband didn't continue on to dinner...the rest of the dinner party did.
Ohhh yeah untrained pits... I do love trained pits. But my friend's mother (who is an awful lot like your BIL from how you've described him here) showed up at his place with her pit after being told not to bring it (condo rules). My dog was unfortunately there when it happened and it was a disaster too.
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head.
Yes. By definition. In other words, it is objectively correct. Whereas you just have your own biased opinion.
How many theists?
That's it. Trollery reported.
If "god" is commonly taken to entail a particular sort of thing, then disproving the existence of that sort of thing disproves "god". Epicurus would not have over-extended his logic the way some contemporary atheists do, and you're mistaking their error for his.
I'm sorry, exactly what "felon" did this officer shoot in the back?
So you lost your faith in seminary? What year was that and are you open to new evidence?
He did not "object" exactly. He simply did not want to participate in it. In other words, he simply wanted to remove himself from what he considered a sinful action.
It's going to take a lot of brainstorming on this project.
Never said that all books are "bias free." I buy good, well-reviewed, books. I sometimes check references, of course, and if they are faulty, I stop reading the book. I assure you I buy excellent books.
There. Don't say Tex never gave y'all anything.
You want them open? Interesting. I have to have mine closed.