I wasn't attacking you, I was just stating my personal opinion.I never stated that either more government or no government were bad or good,
I invite you to tally all the contradictions that arise from these all being accepted - not to speak of how they can apply to an existing being!
then perhaps you can give us some indication of both his powers and his limitations. You, because there's no other source of that information.
you're affirming what cannot reasonably or rationally be confirmed. And that's why Christians, if that's what we're talking about, do not so affirm.
this God that you claim exists, in the sense that a brick or any other thing exists, and expressly not in the sense that an idea exists, are you quite sure you want that God to exist as you claim He does?
I am affirming.Are you affirming that God is a real thing in the world? Or an idea that you presuppose?
You believe that a real something is real? What, exactly, do you mean by "believe." It might help also if you make clear what you mean by "real."
Your answers matter because the how makes all the difference.
Strikethrough and bolding are my suggestions. Moral issues are often politicized to promote a particular party or ideology. Things like abortion and capital punishment are used by politicians to whip-up support for themselves or their party, without really caring about the moral issue. Unfortunately, it's typical for this to be more about gaining and maintaining wealth and power than it is for promoting human flourishing.
Trueand maybe some deities care about all life. Maybe their purpose is to nurture life, not to nurture humans at the expense of all other life? Wouldn't that make more sense?
You don't need a biblical definition, if the meaning of the world changes we will do our best to find the closest definition we can. That is why we have both the New King James and the New International Version. In fact if you want the exact definition from the bible you need to know Ancient Hebrew.That is not the biblical definition.
So when you say, for instance, that you love your dog, are you really putting your dog above yourself, or are you loving the dog as a possession, a pet and a loyal companion? If your dog suddenly turned on you, would you continue to love it - putting it above yourself - or would you determine that it no longer fulfilled your narrow view of its potential?
Some may, I don't. I make one assumption and it is that God exists. Then I follow it is its conclusion I haven't found any contradiction yet.The God debate is built upon a number of assumptions which seem to require inspection.
It works because we believe it works, it is literally as simple as that.But exactly how does the “social construction” of money work?
Your answer is yes. He does bothDoes Jesus/Yahweh love us or is he stalking us?
Ok correct me if I'm wrong but by money your refuing to the paper money, if we did away with it the only consequences is the economy would shrink.Could we do away with money?
I think our moral compass is set by what we regard as our community - we do things that are acceptable (=moral) as defined by our community.
We are taught that we need to continue our species’ existence - it is NOT inherent,
How can we say that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a factor in causing WW1?
Correct like I, said I, I believe we start with that then make our own. I consider into my thesis that we may reject " the need to continue our species existence." in the future.That we do, does not imply that we ought.
doesn't that mean each Pope is thinking of a different concept of God?
Pope is writing about a different God?
“entity” impossible to objectively define.
I don't need one, it came out of the dictionary.I see no chapter or verse.
The rest of what you put ignored Job 2;3 and god admitting to be an evil sinner. Why?