If you want to say that God doesn't exist and we're just chemical reactions, neurons firing randomly, or mindless matter...
then back up your argument that way.
Not exact matches
By that
argument, shouldn't you
then practice all religions as «
back up plans».
On the other hand, if your religion tells you things that can't be
backed up with good secular
arguments (like putting to death or shunning certain «undesirables»)
then those religious aspects should be kept out of the larger secular world.
I'm sorry but you're not making an
argument to counter his, you have no references or citations to
back up such a claim and so you revert to attacking this man by calling him gay??? really, you think your the world authority on the bible when
then you start casting stones left and right and attacking your fellow man?
So the
argument then seems to be cut social spending to stimulate the economy while claiming that the money cut from social spending will somehow end
up back into welfare by donations from money they already claimed was being spent to buy «things» in helping stimulate our economy.
You need to stop being so vindictive towards others, maybe read a book, go have sex, whatever you need to calm down,
then come
back and realize that no one is attacking you, im sure people are laughing at this conversation, but not because of what it in but just because its pointless, you bring
up the same things OVER and OVER again and
then accuse me of having spuratic
arguments?
Well, FAITH, there's the problem... that gibberish in the bible was just made
up by «some guy» to keep the peasants behaving in a manner that whomever wrote it thought was a good way to behave... some of those guys were wise, yes, and there are benefits to following some of the «guidelines» set forth in the Bible... but it's a circular
argument to use the Bible as a reason to have faith, because you have to first BELIEVE in the deity,
THEN believe that the deity inspired the writings,
THEN you can take the writings as «truth»... I'm two steps
back, not believing in the deity at all (Yay, Atheists!
Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my
argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us
then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look
back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz
When in 1999 I wrote and warned him that his approach was disintegrative, his Chief - of - Staff, Jonathan Powell, called
back, summed
up my
argument saying «After us the deluge» and asked me to meet
then Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine, who agreed the «The genie is out the bottle».
«There are five - minute sequences where Tatum and Ryan are going
back and forth so quickly between an
argument and
then making
up,
then they argue again and laugh at the end,» Ronan said.
If you find your
arguments are properly
backed up using the Qualitative Analysis,
then you can write my thesis without Quantitative Analysis.
Basically, my thoughts after reading recent comments are - if the images genuinely do «represent major proponents of the genre» (and I'm happy to defer to your superior knowledge here - my knowledge of the history of art extends to winning pub quizzes and
backing up my
arguments in General Studies lessons)
then why are the subgenres not discussed in the prose of the article?
Some
arguments of the «well OK we might be wrong, but
then something else would be too» (which is a pretty silly attitude... you ought to have ideas that you think are correct in your science papers, not blog debating points that you can't even
back up on their own).
Until
then, I prefer the evidence based
arguments backed up by the research.
And
then comes the astonishingly dramatic Cell Block Tango from the movie Chicago, in which all the potential aggression in an
argument between lovers is emphasized to the ultimate (and which, in a nifty sort of wrap -
up to this fillip, brings us
back to law again).
After all, if the law and the facts are firmly on your side, and you have the evidence and briefs of law and reasoned
argument to
back it
up,
then why would you have to resort to rudeness?
we get into a lot of
arguments and yes after the cheating incident i have asked for a divorce but i didn't mean it i was very upset we have gotten in multiple physical fights and we have made
up from them but recently we have gotten in a really bad one to the point where my husband has told me that he no longer wants to be with me and wants to divorce me i need advice on what i should do like he still tells me he loves me and is nice and loving toward me every so often but
then he goes
back to the whole he doesn't want me and tells me not to touch him but
then a few hours later or a day later he wants to be close again.