Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is accurate. I was adding the rest of the story not mentioned often.And it is also accurate that Christians in the Confederacy cited Divine Providence as their justification FOR
How the "source material" is handled is the very evidence of the inner person. Meaning what we do speaks volumes for what we believe.Yes, the abolitionists were good people, yet the same source material was used to justify slavery in the first place. At best, it is a wash, and to ignore the other side of the coin is dishonest, in my opinion.
Doesn't it make sense that the God who is the embodiment of those virtues would be involved in our development, that the source of those virtues would be God himself. It makes no sense that he would just sit by and watch, the testimony of Scripture is that God is involved.
so Mormons aren't followers of Christ? Are you telling me that they aren't the "Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints"?Were you previously Mormon?
Mormons have very little in common with Christianity.
If you are truly curious open a thread on World Relgions forum. There's loads on Mormons there already.
What's your exegesis of the chapter, passage and verse?Hosea 13:16
Such virtue to emulate....
Functions are however.Sorry, but metaphorical language and analogies are not evidence or an indication of anything.
Check the CF statement of faith. The definition of Christian is one who holds to the rule of faith and creeds.so Mormons aren't followers of Christ? Are you telling me that they aren't the "Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints"?
In fact, they're quite confident they're restoring Jesus Christ's original Church. By definition, that makes them Christians, no?
The TaNaKh (OT) and B'rit HaChadashah (NT) are the written words of YHWHs revelation to humankind His creation. The words were spoken first to Moses and the prophets, then Jesus Christ as Truly God and truly human, then inspired in His apostles.I'm not really sure what you're asking. I don't have a serious problem with the idea that God is the embodiment of those virtues or that Scripture is an accurate representation of reality (or at least, no problem worth bringing up here), but that doesn't mean we'd only know about the virtues in the first place because of Scripture. If God is involved, it should be at a level more universal than the contents of a book.
Of course God can't be limited to the sacred texts of Scripture, even though it is redemptive history spanning thousands of years. God was somehow reaching out to people outside of Judaism and his efforts to reach his creatures with revelation is much broader then sacred literature. The New Testament makes clear that it's God's will they we receive a new nature that embodies the virtues that come from his essential and eternal nature.I'm not really sure what you're asking. I don't have a serious problem with the idea that God is the embodiment of those virtues or that Scripture is an accurate representation of reality (or at least, no problem worth bringing up here), but that doesn't mean we'd only know about the virtues in the first place because of Scripture. If God is involved, it should be at a level more universal than the contents of a book.
Your not much for reading in context are you:Hosea 13:16
Such virtue to emulate....
There are others that are forgotten in the movement to end slavery, Dr. Stanley Livingston, William Wilberforce and last time I checked Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, who also happened to write the emancipation proclamation. He was an unwavering Abolitionist, so much so South Carolina decided if he was elected they would secede from the Union.This is accurate. I was adding the rest of the story not mentioned often.
Which is fairly handled in the following article:
The Abolitionists
There are wheat and tares in the visible church.
Right. Have you studied the specific beliefs that Mormon's actually have? If and when you do, you'll find that they have very little in common with traditional Christian theology, other than that they use the same words as Christians, but they instead pour different meanings into them.so Mormons aren't followers of Christ? Are you telling me that they aren't the "Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints"?
No. It does not.In fact, they're quite confident they're restoring Jesus Christ's original Church. By definition, that makes them Christians, no?
Small summary here:Right. Have you studied the specific beliefs Mormon's that actually have? If and when you do, you find that they have very little in common with traditional Christian theology, other than that they use the same words, but pour different meanings into them.
There are others that are forgotten in the movement to end slavery, Dr. Stanley Livingston, William Wilberforce and last time I checked Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, who also happened to write the emancipation proclamation. He was an unwavering Abolitionist, so much so South Carolina decided if he was elected they would secede from the Union.
There is ample evidence, although you'll dispute that. The universe, the wonder of the human body....-_- no one has claimed that it's impossible, only that there isn't much, if any, evidence supporting that conclusion.
It's the water in the pothole situation again. The water so perfectly fits the shape of the pothole that one might conclude that the pothole was made for the water. However, water, being a liquid, adapts the shape of its container, regardless as to what shape that container is. Living organisms are likewise shaped by the environment in which they live rather than the environment being tailored to their needs. Heck, the fact that environments change all the time means that organisms MUST change in response to them, or end up going extinct as they fall behind.
-_- also, even if the seeds of the plants end up in areas where they aren't native, they obviously won't be able to grow in environments that would kill them.
Oh what do you know, there's no corn on the moon, and it is inhospitable to corn. Who'd have thought? Seriously, it'd be miraculous for plants to grow in an environment that should kill them. However, it's not necessarily the case that the native environment of an organism is the IDEAL environment. Dandelions seem to love North America, for example. Rabbits are doing great in Australia. Organisms very clearly don't usually occupy every ecosystem in which they can thrive.
Birds go where the food is. No more and no less.
-_- you say that as if math isn't a human invention.
Astrology is known woo, dude. Plus, the NT was written long after Jesus died, so who knows what was added in post.
Unscientific. Identity not required. Does not have to be defined. Only deduced over nonintelligence.
For the universe and life?
It would need to be shown where nonintelligent processes alone is efficient cause for both over intelligent intervention.
That has not been done.
Actually Gen.1:1 does and we just go along with it as the best explanation given the alternative.
Then falsify it.
Otherwise, all is offered is opinion which does not falsify anything scientifically.
Those are the claims that I am asking evidential support for. Got any?Hitch cuts both ways. I would say Gen.1:1 is evidence in the form of testimony.
It is either true or it is not
If true then Honor (not love) your mother and father is by the finger of God, not men. If that is true then it has universal objective application. It applies to all of us. If primitive men then it really does not mean much. Atheists assert they are right and the Bible is wrong. We assert the Bible is right then we are wrong. Since Mothers day is approaching.
How much weight it is given is another matter. The claim is not without evidence. What is without evidence is life from exclusive nonlife. All sexual reproduction for asexual reproduction. So evidence is not your issue in the first place. It is your excuse. If you rationally have two competing and contradictory models for given phenomena then one needs to be eliminated. Atheism is in deep water from the get-go because it explains absolutely zero.
This is what interests me the most. There is no purpose in the metaphysical design of Darwin and the imported views of the neo-Darwinist.
Where we can easily see in our universe there is information we usually assign there is an intelligence behind it.
On the metaphysical level, they need an event or study which can actually prove their various hypotheses. Something like what happened for Judaism and Christianity with the Qumran discoveries.
It's an accurate statement. The American Abolitionist movement was started and run by early Evangelical Christians of multiple denominations.
Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter-gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."
In an autopsy a damaged heart would beat out intelligent intervention as cause of death. The cause was natural, not intelligent. Science rules out intelligent intervention all the time.Huh? Was there a purpose to these seemingly random sentences?
For whatever you wish to claim there was "intelligent intervention".
Digital code in DNA for one. Take it back to a start and deduce two possible causes. Intelligence or nonintelligence and intelligence wins out. The problem here is not with the evidence.That would be an argument from ignorance.
I didn't ask you how "non-intelligence" could be established. I asked you how "intelligence" could be established.
Ignorance does not falsify. It is not our problem atheists do not like the answers.So?
Not having knowledge or an explanation of some natural phenomena, does not mean, imply or justify the claim that "gods-dun-it".
You do not know there is nothing there to falsify. You just assume it based on your dogmatic atheism. It blinds you.I already told you that I can't- because there is nothing there to falsify.
Intelligent intervention can be falsified scientifically. All that is just excuse making on your part.I asked you in my post to give me something that actually can be falsified. As it stands, all you got are unfalsifiable faith-based assertions.
Not really and neither is the opinion of a dead atheist. At least not scientifically. The asserted without evidence (Hitch) is not a science standard in the first place. It is the standard of a dead atheist attempting to validate his atheism.What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.
My "opinion" is more then enough to counter your "opinion".
Give you? What makes you think i am here to spoon feed you?If you wish an evidence based rebutal, you're going to have to give me an evidence based claim, instead of faith based assertions.
Right atheism explains nothing and does not require brains if defined as lack belief. Most atheists believe that man is natural and being natural is amoral. Big-brained apes and inequality which naturally leads to slavery. Why not enslave humans if they are animals?Atheism is not an explanation or a claim.
It explains both the origin of the universe and life here. So it is a valid model even if you don't like it. Not liking does not falsify it.Also, there are no "2 models". Your religion is not a model. It is a faith based assertion that doesn't have any value or merrit, at all, in trying to understand reality.
Plane presupposes intelligent design, not natural processes. Why use ID to argue against ID?If you build a plane based on science, it will fly.
How bout a plane happening naturally? Absent intelligence? Both prayers and planes require intelligence, not nonintelligence.If you try to build a plane by prayer, nothing at all will happen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?