"BOTH PARENTS WORKING" Do you really believe the rabble that commit these crimes have both parents working or even two parents at all. Thanks for the laugh
Speaking of, I need to buy a decoy owl to scare off some birds.
This one showed several cases of Japanese discrimination to anyone not Japanese, especially to Chinese.
Funny you mention Mike Licona. Have you seen his debate with Matt Dillahunty on the resurrection? He tries to use anecdotes of paranormal events as evidence for the resurrection. He assumes if the supernatural is real then the resurrection is real. That's not good evidence.
Assuming I followed that correctly, I agree. But I allow for others to legitimately believe otherwise.
If Christians and/or Muslims did not try to impose their reality-tunnels on everyone else in education and/or legislation I would never say much except mildly question why or do they really believe stories in their holy books like I do with all faiths. As far as I'm concerned
So you can't prove that fire alarms work.
BZZZ. Maybe, maybe not. Who knows?
What do abusive men or women have to do with mass shootings?
Next time you pray, ask one.
I fat shamed (not to his face) a roommate when he criticized my meals - he was absolutely obese, and when I'd for example make a soup packet and a sandwich for lunch, he'd make comments like, "Heh, typical American lunch....." The closest thing to shaming him I ever got was saying in response, "Well, it works for me..." and indicated my body. I also shamed him when he was too fat to fit in the toilet room and missed the toilet on several occasions (and didn't notice or wipe it up).
#2. Why does it matter? Just curious.
This is a fun topic but religion and culture are so tightly intertwined and complex that it's essentially impossible to extrapolate how things might have turned out differently.
If there is nothing to argue, and they are secure in their beliefs, why the need to tell others their beliefs are wrong and they are going to some bad place because of it?
2. Umm. Reagan single handedly destroyed the air traffic controller union which opened the door to corporations picking away at the others.
How's wifey? Bleeding stop?
Gods are subjective, so that is tosh.
I had a year of Greek in high school and 3 in college. We read all of these people in those classes. Over and over and over and over again and again. We also read a guy named Herodotus who was really the world's first historian and you can clearly see the difference between what he wrote and the stories about Socrates. Herodotus did not write dramas with a moral to the story. Herodotus also noted that he'd never read a manuscript or narrative he thought was an accurate reflection of the past. The stories about Socrates are dramas placed in a historical setting. Historical narratives do not contain dialog, people all speaking to each other in complete sentences. Nobody talks like that anyway in real life. Historical narratives do not contain long-winded speeches like the supposed sermons from Jesus or say Jeremiah. These are the hallmarks of fiction, not history writing. History writers are not interested in moral philosophical or religious teachings and story telling.
Don?t forget the early Church had the Apostles who were disciples of Jesus and continued to teach about Jesus Christ right up until their deaths. Disciples authored the Gospels and wrote letters to the churches, quoting the O.T. (Torah) about prophetic scripture as proof that Jesus fulfilled God?s promises and prophecies about the Messiah. Many of the early churches copied those Apostles letters, the very same ones that are part of the new testament today. So, the early church did have scripture about Jesus written by His own disciples, including His teachings. Also, and most importantly, believers were receiving the promised Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8, 2:33, 2:38, John 7:37-39, Gal. 4:6) who continues to work in believer?s hearts and minds today.
I have not. It's interesting but I think this is part of the issue when men understanding why women don't come forward. Men are used to being believed when they speak. Women speak, no matter what the topic and their credibility must be earned
My main point is, why not reach a conclusion based on what the available evidence indicates. That's all. With history, we're never going to reach a conclusion with absolute certainty. Historiography doesn't ever *try* to do that. All we can ever do is establish levels of probability, try to establish an explanation that A) Fits the evidence B) Doesn't depend on any un-evidenced speculation (as best we can, at least).
The GOP had the point to win at any cost.
No, we do not have an inkling of the definition of infinite.