No, I see the claim, not reason.
It's not going to be my last word. I know what you are. But as long as I'm educating other readers of these blogs...
I don't care what YOU think about my comments. You are not that important.
Those ones aren't Christians, they are christianists :)
If you're a consumer of the MSM propoganda you would be. Not surprised that you're surprised.
Well, I left Twitter because I got tired of repeating myself. The same issues, the same position, and the same lack of comprehension among the "good folks" on how badly f'ed this is going to get. Invariably someone confuses my observations for desires and like sheltom they ask me to take a hike. Do not need that aggravation, so I instead focus on playing a game: how far can I go without getting banned at
You really are addicted to weak, irrelevant analogies, aren't you.
Finally you have said something right.
That's the counterargument, yes. That said, you'll never know which it is unless you give them the chance to become that.
"A person can call themselves "christian" and not be."
"the US policy on illegals where men get separated from their women and children and locked up in detention facilities and how that is, according to NGO?s, a violation of human rights."
That can be painful. I fought with it a few years ago and my podiatrist had me wear a boot designed to stretch the fascia and calf...it worked. Hopefully, your doctor can prescribe an effective treatment for you.
I see nothing wrong with either definitions. So, what's the problem with faith and pilgrimage?
Yeah, I know what you mean. I think of my grandma every time I watch Fox & the Hound.
He is so full of pride ( and himself) he?s bursting at the seams...
It didn't take much to bring you out of the woodwork OU
Not me, not ever.
She wasn't a domestic terrorist, so Obama left her to rot.
you kinda moved the goal post there Billy by changing the wording. no one said we should reject the unknown. this is about rejecting unsupported positive claims... we wouldn't be where we are today if science simply accepted every unsupported claim.
We live, do we not?
fine you and me are different beings XD
The question in a nutshell is "Given all the evidence that nature is the result of a blind natural process rather than deliberate, forward-looking design why attribute that to the direct handiwork of an intelligent designer?".
I think I sometimes confuse absolute with objective, as well