It is the Bible, as it is being taken seriously, it actually controls people lives even if they don't believe it, allegory is not an option...ever.
Just as I've heard all the Christian platitudes. It doesn't make either of them any more or less relevant or meaningful to the ones who see it that way.
He made sure that all the fun things were sinful.
Notorious v.a.g. !!! I love this!
Are you discussing the Bible or the RCC rubbish?
Couple things. The term ?going to heaven? is up for a lot of contest, even among Christians. Some believe you go to heaven right after you die. Others believe you remain in your grave until the rapture and it is brought to earth.
So you're saying I can trust his platform? So you're going to recommend the candidate who is explicitly exploding spending and reducing revenue? You're saying we shouldn't be concerned about the debt and the deficit?
?I know it is symbolic? it?s not symbolic, see you know little or nothing about Catholicism and that?s ok just don?t judge until you do.
Actually, a large part of the reason there are so many homeless in SF is that there are many services for them.
Being born gay isn't "temptation" any more than having green eyes is "temptation".
What I mean by that is Rupert Murdoch is one of those bigoted Australians. There are lots of Australians of bigoted "personal philosophical convictions" and this man just happened to be in a business that gave him the opportunity to share his attitude w/like-minded demographics. More clear?
So you believe it to be innate, and instinctual?
We're speaking much the same language here, Franco. We agree far more than not in your post here. I certainly agree on the need for specificity, and this is one reason I wrote an OP here[ 1 ] regarding just what evidence is, logically if not connotatively. Where we don't agree, however, is here:
and yet later on they're told not to marry or intermingle with them. I guess they didn't kill every man woman and child.
He killed Canaanite children.
Not much of a coffee fan myself, however I will indulge from time to time.
I know who some people THINK he was.
One second?no excuse. A half second? Who am I to quibble over details?
If you hold to evidence, you will find things that you want to prove as true, but cannot. That isn't *cannot yet,* it is cannot ever. It's baked into the system. Science and reason are inherently incomplete. This may feel unsatisfying, but it's a feature, not a bug. Our system of reason, of thought, was also designed to be consistent. Anything that is supposed to be true but leads to a contradiction with previous know truth -- is false. (indirect proof.) It's also been proven that any system that models and maintains this internal consistency will indeed be incomplete, and further, that any other system that is complete -- as faith deems itself to be by edict -- is internally inconsistent. For every truth faith "proves," there is the accompanying opposite that it also "proves." So, by overreach, faith has no functionality within the real world, which is only apropos because faith inhabits a world outside reality, outside nature. Faith is surreal and praeternatural.
Not for you.
So, against a generic creator of the universe, you have a bit of certainty (being one side of 50) that there is no Creator. What gives that bit of certainty?
TG - I love Europe - so much history & I still have family there; but you could not drag me there today.
No....I wrote, " then show us where to see the paper, on the subject as well as tell us the author."
1 - neutral
Since you shouldn't make assumptions and it wasn't stated in iteration 3 that you would benefit in any way from choice 1 or 2, it is clear that you get the same pay either way. It is also stated that you are free from retribution in either case. No strings attached, just your moral decision.
First, I've never seen you even close to another subject. Maybe it's happened, maybe it hasn't, but if you ever put up a single post that wasn't about race, I missed it. Second, who says it was about race? You, and other race-baiters who think that if you say something negative about a black person that it's because of their skin color, that's who. This whole idea that racism is at the core of every criticism of non-whites is retarded bullshit. Third, he was well within his rights to doubt the verdict. You don't have to like it, either, and it doesn't make him racist.
Trudeau is doing a great job against President Lardass and company.