jws are known to have an obsession and preoccupation with demons.. this obsession and preoccupation is not without merit given that jesus, his disciples/apostles, and the general public of 1st century ce judea and galilee are reported as believing in the existence of demonic spirits and in the possibility of demon possession of an individual.. exorcism formed a large part of jesus' ministry on earth.
the gospels and the book of acts describe many exorcisms where jesus and his disciples release people from demonic possession.. ___ .
but how do demons get inside a person's brain or body?
It was a joke because many of your posts begin saying, "just to let everyone know here that I am a Jew". I thought there was a joke to made somewhere, but I had trouble identifying the exact location of the comedy.
Incidentally I have a Jewish name but I don't think I'm actually a Jew. How can I tell?
the nut-left got a dilemma with islamic terrorism: on one hand their natural instinct is to defend muslims from any (perceived) attack on islam and on the other hand radical islam is shock full of values that are 100% opposed to everything they believe: the nut-left would simply be stoned to death in a country which properly followed sharia law.. how do you fix the cognitive dissonance?
well, the standard script includes the following items:.
first, you don't really defend sharia, at least not in its entirety, but spend time talking about the evils of the west, in particular, israel.
No they are both wrong I didn't read it carefully, plus there's some sort of sophisticated parody going on in the text that may have escaped me.
I have noticed that whenever anyone uses the phrase "social justice warrior", which is a fairly new one on me, as if it's a real thing, the accompanying argument is invariably garbage.
jws are known to have an obsession and preoccupation with demons.. this obsession and preoccupation is not without merit given that jesus, his disciples/apostles, and the general public of 1st century ce judea and galilee are reported as believing in the existence of demonic spirits and in the possibility of demon possession of an individual.. exorcism formed a large part of jesus' ministry on earth.
the gospels and the book of acts describe many exorcisms where jesus and his disciples release people from demonic possession.. ___ .
but how do demons get inside a person's brain or body?
I'd prefer to say ironic, because I didn't mean to be unfriendly. ;-)
jws are known to have an obsession and preoccupation with demons.. this obsession and preoccupation is not without merit given that jesus, his disciples/apostles, and the general public of 1st century ce judea and galilee are reported as believing in the existence of demonic spirits and in the possibility of demon possession of an individual.. exorcism formed a large part of jesus' ministry on earth.
the gospels and the book of acts describe many exorcisms where jesus and his disciples release people from demonic possession.. ___ .
but how do demons get inside a person's brain or body?
David are you a Jew by any chance? I had no idea. I guess it's just something you haven't felt bothered to mention in discussions.
the nut-left got a dilemma with islamic terrorism: on one hand their natural instinct is to defend muslims from any (perceived) attack on islam and on the other hand radical islam is shock full of values that are 100% opposed to everything they believe: the nut-left would simply be stoned to death in a country which properly followed sharia law.. how do you fix the cognitive dissonance?
well, the standard script includes the following items:.
first, you don't really defend sharia, at least not in its entirety, but spend time talking about the evils of the west, in particular, israel.
The first one is nonsense. The second one is obvious. Overall I gave it a like.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
A detailed study of embryology shows conclusively that a new unique person does not exist the moment a sperm penetrates an egg.
How does that prove life isn't sacred from conception?
well, very little, to be honest.
the structure and commitment of the ministry provided discipline necessary to my life.
therefore, i did it, as required, and felt some sense of fulfillment at the bible study stage.. i do like talking to people.
What I liked was to see the look of appreciation on the householder's face when I explained kingdom truths straight from the Bible.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
As I understand it, Catholics hold that life is sacred from conception. How do you disprove that objectively? Or do you describe their opposition differently?
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Can you give an example of a difficult moral question (as in a question that has significant support on either side) that can be settled objectively without ultimate reference to authority, whether that be God or prevailing public opinion?
is it just me who doesnt see the point of this ?
from time to time we see some individual who takes up page after page arguing his or her point of view and it usually ends up with only 2 or 3 individuals who keep the talkfest going with a particular individual and nobodys getting anything out of it .. why bother ?
why get sucked in to such a pointless dialogue ?
Should people debate stupid stuff endlessly back and forward? I don't know. Clearly the only way to settle this is to start a debate on the issue.
