No, I do not think the overwhelming majority of folks would let you define the "God" they supposedly believe in for them. Especially with that ragged definition you proposed.^ Doubt if almost anyone would claim that as representative of what they "believe". Especially with that word "God" being perhaps the most ambiguous word in all of language, with, just among folks calling themselves "Christian", like 40K denominations. Essentially the meaning of that "God" word is personal to each person. That too goes for the affirmatively atheist, who also defines him or herself by that ambiguous "God" word. Without they defining what that word they use means, there is no way to appraise what their meaning is. Both the atheist and the religious person are like walking ambiguities. At least it seems that way to us heathens.^
I've never discussed money on a first date, I would think those talks would come later on. I did just bail on my last relationship though, and money was a part of it. If you spend what you do not have, only for appearances sake, then I want no part of it. Then I'll have to deal with you attempting to spend my money, and that's a negative!
Believe what you want; facts and evidence won't cause you to rethink anything.
No, I don't believe anyone here is racist. So far as I know. All I suggested yesterday is that as a person of color (and I cringe using that term) I perhaps view the matter of presuming someone's innocence differently than perhaps many caucasian folks would, and suggested that those who didn't see my side of the debate, perhaps consider the lens through which I was viewing it. If I was going to accuse someone of racism, I would do it blatantly and succinctly. That said, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've done so. That's not a card I play very often...
If a holy book was written by or with an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, transcendental, idempotent and omnivoyant (omnivorus, oviparous?) God He would state clearly what he desired from all his creations in such a way that there would be no ambiguity because he would know what they would be able to understand completely throughout time. But if that book was man-made it would would be biased toward the people creating it. It would only be applicable in their locale at the time they wrote it and only contain knowledge or assumptions they had access to.
Another nutter advertises his ignorance.....??
If that?s what you consider thought, it isn?t difficult to conclude why you?re just another low intellect voter. ;)
Prove that assertion and the necessity of the government in today's society.
The lounge looks like a seniors residence.
Sorry my friend, if you?re really interested in knowing this, you will get for yourself. That makes it personal for you.
Not sure what you mean here really
How Christian of you. Throw in the women and children also?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. What if the sculptor is willing to build a cross for a local church but is commissioned by the KKK to build one for one of their rallies? In that case, he offers a product (a cross) to the general public, but under a narrow set of circumstances, he believes his product will convey a message of hate if he builds it for the rally.
I'm just going to step in here an put the kibosh on the insults. Deleting this comment and TUS's response. I know everybody is on edge with the election. Keep it civil, please.
I said put your name on the poster you send not like this ??
Get rid of the spinach and I'd join in a heartbeat.
Care to explain how a sense of hope and joy in death (assuming those to be the wishes of the about-to-be decedent) cannot be achieved through secular means? If you can't, you lose!
All I can say is praise be Ganesha or is it Xenu, so many to choose from.
It's the medical and battlefield practice of tending to the sick, injured and dying in a particular order. It is not always about what saves the most lives, uses the least amount of supplies or choosing one life over others. It gets rather debatable but the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few is not considered as it divorces the situation from prudence, hierarchy and personal ability.