Could the Bible be cancel culture's next victim?

The ancient Israelites were Aryans... as were the ancient Arameans, Medes, Persians, Indians, etc...





.

 

Where was this logical argument, exactly? You make that claim, but I have no idea what logical argument you're talking about.

 

1) you have not made any Aquinas argument to me - and your 117 post relates not to anything we are discussing.
2) none of this changes the fact that did not claim to have met God Personally ... sfar as I know .. did you have something to contribute since you know him so well ? Is this what Aquinas claimed ?

 

I'm sorry, the cameo was in #107, not #117.

Please reread my post. Knowing something of the nature of a thing is not knowing the thing. I cannot speak for Aquinas, but I do not claim to know everything about God or that I even know him well.

I will say that Aquinas' arguments were compelling to me. And atheism has no logical arguments that can compete.

Aquinas claimed, building on Aristotle, to arrive at the conclusion that there is a God from simple observation of our own world around us. Things change, and have potentials. A duck is not potentially a chicken, but it is potentially a duck dinner. A red ball is potentially a gooey mess if you melt it, but it is not potentially a stack of gold bars or a pigeon. These potentials are properties of things that are real. And something can only move from it's actual state to actualize one of its potential states by something else that is actual. For example, an ice cube is potentially melted, but can only be melted by something actual that actually has a temperature sufficient to melt it. This chain of events cannot be indefinite in reverse, and eventually you must arrive at something which is purely actual and has no potentials at all.

That's a flavor of Aquinas' first way. We call that purely actual thing, God, because it contains within it all possible good attributes, without the ability for change or potentiality. As such, there can only be one God (monotheism), because two Gods would imply that each has some potential that wasn't instantiated in the other, meaning it isn't purely actual, and therefore not god.

We can go on, but suffice to say it's a decent argument on its face, has stood the test of time, and there is nothing like this type of argument from atheists.

Even our nuclear founding fathers, like Heisenberg, admitted that quantum physics was an eerily strange quantification of Aristotle's concept of act and potency.

 

I heard the LEFT has already cancelled the Bible by inserting the LEFT's new version of it by calling it the 2nd version of The Communist Manifesto where it's mortal sin-filled God is seen as being the face of the democrap party.

 

Thats all good ... and very cool .. a road I have traversed myself but, you seem stuck on this idea that we can prove god is immaterial - and we can not... but so what ? .. we didn't know dark matter existed ... some for of energy .. who knows .. perhaps the universe itself is one big mind.. all kinds of ideas - by many a great thinker throughout the ages .. but one thing you can't do - and none of these great thinkers did - was claim to know defacto that you are correct ..
That would be a violation of the rules of the universe

 

and I heard republican are worshiping the golden cow

 

Because churches have no profit, offer far more in the way of charity than they spend on themselves, and any taxation of churches is driven by punitive agendas than actually doing something for good.

 

Simply not true, at least not what they spend their money on. Upwards of 75% of the money brought in goes to the church.

https://www.pnwumc.org/news/how-churches-spend-their-money/

On average 47% of a local church budget goes toward paying pastors and staff.

Property expenditures, which may include mortgage payments or rent, consistently account for 7% of the budget regardless of church size. When utilities (7%), maintenance and janitorial (5%), property/liability insurance (3%) are tallied together, it totals 22%.

Program expenses constitute 10% of the surveyed church budgets


I spent many years as an active member of churches including being on budget and finance committees. I always argued that we should not accept the non-profit status the government offers as it comes with strings attached, which is rather unbiblical. But greed always won out...what is the old saying from Matthew...You cannot serve God and money.

 

I'm only assuming that you think it was justified for the US to go to war in the First and Second World War.

 

Being able to prove something or not does not necessarily speak to whether or not it exists. Black holes existed in 1200BC but they couldn’t be proven.

 

Who said otherwise - One can not say for certain "God is X" unless he sat down with you for tea and said "I really chocolate" you can't say for sure .. nor can you say God doesn't like chocolate.

 

I am no american hater, I very much admire your free speech and constitution, that is why so many Europeans are interested in what is going on in the states, we do not want to see your democracy destroyed by religious fundamentalists.

 

Actually the taxpayers pay for the Church's good works today via faith base initiatives, the church just keeps how much they get secret

the question is, are we getting out moneys worth

this is just one church (1.5 million in 5 years taxpayers gave to one church, how much to all of them)

"Bush's Faith-Based Initiative Gave Obama's Former Church $1.5 Million" 2008

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...itiative-gave-obamas-former-church-15-million

"Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Ill. – where Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama worshipped for two decades – has received more than $1.5 million in federal tax money since 2003 through the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives"

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
- Benjamin Franklin: in letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780"

 

Well?

 

You're 100% correct my friend. The Bible has indeed been misinterpreted which has led to a eat many things, some of which you mention.

 

We had no good reason to be in WWI but we did for WWII.

 

"a deed for which a Hun would blush, a Turk be ashamed, and a Barbary pirate apologize"

 

No need to worry.

 

So you're justifying war!

 

I assume that this is in disagreement to @Darth Gravus saying that the US had no good reason to be in WWI. I guess the argument is that it wasn't an American ship.

 

If that makes you happy, then sure.

 

Or that a single ship is not worth going to war over.

 

It had American citizens on it though.
The quote is from an American newspaper and the sinking of the Lusitania was used as justification for going to war.