Try again, this time with a view towards intelligibility.
I've been busy and I haven't posted much lately and I don't see some of the "regular" names that I used to, but frankly people on here change their name a lot, so who knows.
No Gillette. That's just a variant of the "selling pork in a Jewish bakery" defence and it is completely invalid.
Did you ever stop and think that might be what this province needs? He promises nobody will lose their job(for what its worth) but everyone opposing him says the opposite. Who does one believe?
Face it, you?ve got more than a few feathers! LOL!
If a student asks the teacher in a physics class whether it is possible to turn water into wine or to walk on water, should the teacher say "no" or should he say "I think you need to discuss that with your preacher" or should he say "Yes, if you follow a proper fermentation process" or " Yes, if you freeze the water first?" ;)
Actually, my personal friend was there, and saw everything! He also created it all. So I am confident that what He says is correct.
The fuzz is about what TFCC chose for arguments mostly, only mostly incomplete quotes and thus doesn't create the most interesting environment for discussion IMO.
Ultimately no one believes in God... everyone believes in claims made about God and books that have been promoted as inspired by God.
I don't wish I know for a fact....
I can accept "act". Sure.
So he can?t bust folks so he runs away. If I didn?t know any better I?d swear you were atheist. You act like one
If you look at what the passage you posted is saying, it is pointing to the building that is built being tried in the fire. It says that their work will be brought to light by the day.
Of course you did.
The defensive hands are the players' job; calling fouls is the refs' job.
I mean I view it mostly the same as consensual. But now there is more emphasis on consenting and power dynamics
It also gives them both time and space to re visit the idea once the negative feelings subside
I believe it is time we step up and stop "supposing" arguments and discus the actual one.
The bible literally tells you who and for how long to keep slaves. How is that a death sentence for slavery?
And Americans like you who will not even concede Israel's right to exist. You are responsible for people like Trump.
That depends. I think everyone should have to sell a cake to anyone who wants to buy one, regardless of what they're going to do with it. Use it at a gay wedding, a white-supremacist get-together, or stay home and pig out on the whole thing by yourself, that's all fine and dandy.
The attacks on McCain regarding Forestall & POW camp ARE political smear but they are truth, inconvenient truth. This nation would have been better off if he hadn't come home from that war.
Lol. Way to prove my point, once again.
I admit when I am wrong all the time. Its just in your case, you have as of yet to prove me wrong. Your arguments have entirely failed and that is why you get mad and resort to insults.
It's not really an opinion; it's basic logic. Nowhere does the Bible say "Follow these parts, ignore these parts, teach 50% of this part, and this part is optional." The Bible is not a diverse collection of disparate stories; it's a tightly written, highly cohesive narrative from beginning ("Genesis") to end "Revelation.") One cannot pick and choose what parts to believe, or in terms of the New Testament, which of Jesus's words to obey, and still consider one's self a true Christian. Sure, there are many groups that consider themselves under the rubric of Christianity, but that's besides the point.
It seems like nothing more than fairy tales passed down from primitive people that simply did not have knowledge about life, the earth, or the cosmos. Of course some people will think they know absolutely, 0% or 100%, but no one can actually know absolutely. No one can prove that unicorns do not exist either, so I cannot honestly say 0%.
Far from being fact. ?most physicists do not interpret their findings and inferences as evidence of a creator.? The evidence Isn?t limited to physics, but you also cannot define what ?most scientists? do or don?t believe in terms of a creator. In fact, ?most scientist? believe in God so that ought to show you that scientific findings and interferences typically do not say anything about a creator one way or another. The theories in the PP are speciafically related to science that does suggest a creator and the even addresses the theories that suggest ?no god? as not plausible. The ?problem of a beginning? must be confronted by science. And ?God? is a very rational and reasonble explaination for that beginning.
Actually, with the right equipment you can see the wind. Further, we can FEEL the wind and HEAR the wind. Wind can be directly measured and quantified.
And how is it relevant to changing Koran's message?
that includes everyone in Christ!!! We are in the world but no longer of the world...
I'm glad SOMEONE was able to read that OP.