Even Qur'an says its the land of Childre of Israel (Jews). Muslims rarely know the Qur'an properly.
Why would Muslims know anything about the Qur'an?
Fortunately, you can explain it to them.
Even Qur'an says its the land of Childre of Israel (Jews). Muslims rarely know the Qur'an properly.
Why would Muslims know anything about the Qur'an?
Fortunately, you can explain it to them.
I am incel too. It is not a choice. thats why its called involuntary celibate.
You don't exhibit the characteristics of the incel subculture, you are weird in a completely different way :)
Yes, definitely a case of PDDNOS.
I can specify it, he's an incel.
What does the term ‘incel’ mean? | CNN
Needs monitoring.
Sure does; Law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies monitor incel culture by tracking individuals and forums for signs of radicalization and imminent violence.
Study Reveals How ‘Incels’ Become Violent Extremists | Rutgers University-Newark
A cape. Flap arms. Boring, and probably not evolutionary at all.
I figure human-powered flight will be achieved by thought, alone. Mind over matter, just as are most of humanity's advantages over other animals.
Everybody knows that mind over matter works better with a cape.
This might end up the longest shutdown in American history.
This is already the second longest shutdown in US history, Trump is shooting for the longest government shutdown since Trump.
You are the one nailed to the cross of flapping arms. So, you, first.
I'm saying, there may be other means available. If not now, there is a future, or is that a limited Sidewalker view? That's entirely on you, my friend.
When you figure it out, I think you should always wear a cape when you fly.
It's just the right thing to do.
"Grow up" Remy.
The trouble with boys like you, is that you tend to associate with girls like that.
Oh pulease, you know he doesn't "associate with girls", closest he gets to "associating" is when he's jerking off in his Mom's basement, and those are girls he imagines.
Bet he knows more about Elliot Rodger than he does about any or all women.
I don’t think such exclusivity of truth is a tenet of the Christian faith and I do not believe it is Biblically derived. The central commandment of Christianity is that “The Lord our God is one Lord” which expresses a divine unity, and we must “love our neighbors as we love ourselves”, there is no other commandment greater than these in Christianity. To love our neighbor as we love ourselves we must necessarily recognize that his religion is to him, what our religion is to us.
The basic Christian epistemological postulate is that God transcends human understanding, the limiting distinctions and categories of normal human thought just do not apply; human knowledge is "finite" knowledge and the way we "know" is a function of our limited capacity to know. The true reality is much more, perhaps infinitely more, than we think it is, much more than we are even capable of thinking. God is transcendent to human knowledge, we can never have perfect understanding of God; He is as “seen through a glass darkly” such that “no man knows as he ought to know”. I think you can broadly characterize religious cognition as such that there is a direction involved the journey, and characterize the associated epistemological development as an ascent of religious discernment.
If you stand the various religions side by side you can draw lines horizontally between them and find great differences, but these are the surface level differences, cultural differences of form rather than content, solely exoteric differences. But there is another way to draw the lines, you can draw them vertically along a graded scale of ascending religious discernment in esoteric recognition that every religion has, underlying their various and conflicting literal meanings, a transcendent dimension, which is essential, primordial and universal. Ontologically speaking, there is a transcendent Divine Unity, commonly referred to as God; and using the vertically graded scale of the Christian worldview it can be said that “above” the religions converge, and “below” they differ. I think it can also be said that epistemologically speaking, and on the same Christian vertical scale that I referred to as ascending religious discernment, that cognitively, religious discernment unites also. Each religion approaches the transcendent reality from different cultural directions or frames of references but they do essentially converge on this understanding of the epistemology of knowledge.
Man’s mind cannot imagine a Divine Unity that excludes nothing any more than it can visualize light that is simultaneously wave and particle, or an electron that moves from place to place without traveling the distance between those two points, but that is the way the authorities of physics tell us the underlying reality is. In much the same way, the Absolute Unity that is referred to with the word God defies visualization or even consistent description, and the Philosophia Perennis which is being imparted by those who wrote the Bible is in fact, represented in a variety of cultural contexts, it is one and the same Spirit that is presented in a variety of different forms in all of the great religions of Mankind. The Divine Unity in all its fullness cannot in any way be circumscribed or even exhaustively defined by any single tradition, to circumscribe is to bound and limit, and “the word of God is not bound”.
no, we will never
Well, you sure won't, will you? Who says flapping arms is the sum of our flight potential? Surely, that's your failure. So be it.
"I can't," said Luke Skywalker.
"That is why your fail," Yoda replied.
Go for it, flap away.
Foundational to Christianity is belief that Jesus made an atoning sacrifice to pay for our sins and through personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, our sins will be forgiven. All but one sin, there is a sin that Jesus said could not be forgiven, and that "unforgivable sin" is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, for which the penalty is eternal damnation. (Matthew 12:31-33, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10)
Considering Christ's uncompromising warning, I think it is important to examine just what the unforgivable sin is and perhaps remind Christians of it. I single out offending Christians here because in Hebrews 6:4-6 the unforgivable sin is associated with "falling away", it clearly states that only Christians can commit this sin, and it claims the offenders are crucifying Jesus again while putting Him to an open shame. When I see some Christians engaging in so much denominational strife and religious one-upmanship, which upon consideration of Scripture is in fact what Jesus referred to as "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", I can't imagine Jesus being anything but openly shamed by such a divided house.
In Matthew 12 Jesus says a divided house cannot stand, in his definition of the unforgivable sin he makes a clear distinction between blasphemies against Him (forgivable), and the Holy Spirit (unforgivable), and then immediately reminds us that you should only judge a tree by it's fruit.
Jesus said he came for ALL men, transcending the very notion of religious exclusion. In the context of the absolute laws of unity and compassion that He embodied and the utterly non-dual nature of his teachings, exemplified in the statement that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28 , Colossians 3:11) there can be little question about what the unforgivable sin is.
When asked to, Jesus summarized all of his teaching into the maxim that you should love your neighbor as you love yourself (Matthew 22:36-39 and Mark 12:28-31, also see Leviticus 19:18, Galatians 5:14 ,Matthew 22:39, Luke 10:27, James 2:8, John 1:5, John 13:34), something impossible to do without recognizing that your neighbor's faith is to him, what your faith is to you. Christ said that the true Kingdom of God was within, that his father's house had many mansions and that a Kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation and a divided house cannot stand.
The unforgivable sin then, is to have been to the mountaintop of the transcendent and non-dual love of Christ's understanding of God, and to again become dual minded and unstable (James 1:8), and to judge the Holy Spirit working in others by the external trappings of ritual and dogma rather than looking beyond those things to the Kingdom within (Luke 17:21), judging by something other than the fruit of the Holy Spirit, especially when the agenda of tribal denominationalism causes someone to totally deny His teachings and attribute the work of God's Spirit in others to demonic forces.
Along with almost every other major religion, Christianity maintains that God is transcendent to human understanding (Isaiah 55:8-9, 1 Corinthians 13:12 , Romans 11:33, and scads more) and Scripture is filled with supporting statements, explicitly telling us that no man knows as he ought to know (1 Corinthians 8:1-2 ), every man has his proper gift of God after different manners (1 Corinthians 7:7), with explicit consequential statements that therefore, we should not judge others (out of hundreds of references, Matthew 7:1 and 1 Corinthians 4:5 stand out).
When I see Christians engaging in all this religious one-upmanship and self righteous condemnation of other ways of understanding God it is hard not to see a direct parallel to the manner in which the Pharisees smugly proclaimed the fruits of Holy Spirit that dwelled in Jesus to be the works of Satan (Matthew 12).
When questioned about it, the Christians who engage in all this "puffing themselves up" (1 Corinthians 8:1-2) and "self exaltation" (Luke 14:11), typically justify it by claiming that they are only trying to save your eternal soul. Perhaps those offending individuals should forego their own egos and instead defer to their Scripture and consider what Jesus had to say about it all, and recognize that maybe it would be more appropriate to worry that it is your own soul that is facing eternal damnation.
Romans 2:1-2
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
No they really do not.
Luke 17:21
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
John 14:2
In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Two different paths; both lead to the same mountaintop.
No, I just disagree with the tech nomenclature and it's association with off-body mechanics likes pedals and gears, not to mention artificial wings, and such. To me, human-powered flight means the properties associated with man, himself, to have the ability of flight without a mechanism.
Wow, I can't believe you guys are actually debating whether humans can fly on their own, but hey, let me clear it up for you, no, we will never be able to flap our arms fast enough to fly.
Incredible.
They also rated Canadian Prime Ministers; it was a 23-way tie for worst prime minister.
Last year, a survey of more than 150 historians ranked Trump as the worst President in American history.
What does that say about the generation of Americans that follow Trump?
It follows that they are the worst Americans in American history.
I'm surprised to find out that you watch the view,
It's so "woke" of you
The law of identity is A=A, it is not A=B or B=C
Law of equation.
There is no such thing as the "Law of equation", you made it up.
The law of identity also says "A" does not equal "not A", but you are saying nothing = something, which violates the law of identity.
Nothing can become something, just as "Not A" can become "A". this isnt same as saying "nothing is something". Law of identity and law of non-contradiction talk specifically of same time and same place. I can both "walk" and "not walk". Just not at same time.
It is logically incoherent to assign a time and place to "nothing", if it is located in time and place it isn't "nothing".
It's day 22 of the shutdown.
A priori deductive reasoning is reasoning true before any observations are made. Such reasoning starts from basic definition and deduces from it by law of identity and law of equation (A = B, B = C, A = C).
The law of identity is A=A, it is not A=B or B=C. The law of identity establishes a thing's self-consistency; your premises violate the law of identity by denying the self-consistency of both terms.
P1. Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing will come into existence out of nothing even if such divine being didnt exist before.
P2. If such divine being will come into existence out of nothing, such being exists
C. Divine being exists.
Now, there is not much to disagree with any of these premises. P1 is just basic law of identity.
No it isn't, P1 and P2 violate the law of identity.
Coming into existence out of nothing means "nothing --> something".
The law of identity also says "A" does not equal "not A", but you are saying nothing = something, which violates the law of identity.
P2 is likewise just basic law of identity.
Nope, not even close.
And C logically follows.
No, it doesn't.
Divine being which comes into existence out of nothing is possible, as there is no any logical obstacle to it.
That is just the assertion of a conclusion without justification, you postulate the existence of "nothing" which is logically incoherent.
But another problem for atheists is that any obstacle put in place to prevent "nothing --> something" can likewise have some possible being capable of overcoming that obstacle.
Another unfounded assertion, your argument is circular reasoning from illogical premises.
Other than all that, it's a good proof.
Shouldn't maga actually be forming militias against trump? Isn't a centralized government terrorizing the states and people exactly what gun nuts say the purpose of the second amendment is?
MAGA is more afraid of diversity than dictatorship.
TBH I think Trump is probably using the guard to troll democrats or rage bait leftists in big cities.
Which is clearly illegal.
Yet again, you are demonstrating your complete ignorance of the US Constitution and associated federal laws. Maybe your simplistic MAGA audience will appreciate a simpleton three-word phrase (Commander in Chief) taken out of context as supporting the lawlessness of your MAGA movement, but the fact is, this isn’t the first time a lawless white supremacist movement needed to be legally suppressed in the country.
The last time was at the end of Reconstruction when white supremacists returned to political power in both southern states and Congress, in response to white supremacist efforts to the re-establish Jim Crow in the former Confederacy, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 to ensure the military could not be used to further that racist and unconstitutional agenda. There are no constitutional exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, nowhere does the Constitution expressly empower the president to use the military to execute the law, and it is willfully stupid to think that the title “Commander in Chief” found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants the President totalitarian control over use of the military.
The broader principle, forbidding the military to be allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian government was a core American value that was legally embodied in the Constitution’s division of power over the military between Congress and the president, and in the guarantees of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
It’s clear that your racist MAGA agenda is driven by people whose cognitive ability is too limited to grasp more than a three-word phrase, but for those of us with the intelligence to understand more, the law explicitly forbids the use of the military to enforce domestic laws.
There might be some sort of scheme behind this website.
Probably a vast left-wing conspiracy.
My boycott is very thorough, I've never even heard of twitch.
Hey.
Wouldn't it be fantastic if we all got along as a cohesive whole, wherein property wasn't a concept, and having somewhere warm and secure to live was.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...Isn't life wonderful.
Blimey, I was daydreaming there.
You should write a song, maybe call it "Imagine".
Sounds like a good read.
My wife will probably warn you off, according to her, when it comes to what I find interesting, it's only me. That's why I have permanently lost my book recommendation privileges.
Trouble is, I have a stack of good reads waiting on the bedside cabinet.
Bedside and toilet side for me, I do some of my best reading on the can.
And these days, sleep comes too easily.
I'm jealous, I never get easy sleep.
Nope. Fail. Race is declared non-extant by the Human Genome Project in 2003; a full generation ago.
Make sure you tell everybody at your next Klan meeting.
There's no fucking way that RemyBrown and SatanLucy are from this planet.
Case closed.
Would just be a way of repackaging and rebranding human inequality and selfishness.
It certainly wouldn't help; it would exacerbate the problem.
To create a utopian human society, you would firstly need to re-engineer the species.
I'm pretty sure all you really have to do is put me in charge.
Perhaps A.I. will merge to form a digital utopia, in interstellar space.
I read a book that said exactly that, it was "Equations of Eternity (Speculations on Consciousness, Meaning, and the Mathematical Rules that Orchestrate the Cosmos)" by David Darling, it's a better read than it sounds. I found it fascinating.