Yes, I am an atheist and absolutely honest about it, and not pretending that this is only about code or not, as you have been trying to do. And as I said elsewhere, Yockey does not understand what an analogy is. They are not literal or he believes literally that life is a box of chocolates. But he certainly does accept evolution as fact, so it's odd that you are hanging your argument on him.
"What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."
That's why I said "in your dreams".
one year ago everyone in congress, the senate, plus throughout all media said he was the best person to perform this investigation.
Soooo... maybe we should put brown shirts on all our law enforcement.
Ok, then she lied when she said they didn't. She is still a liar. Why do people assume she was booked on Hannity to lie? Which story was she claiming at the time? Maybe Hannity booked her to say what she was claiming was the truth.
I already took care of your silly argument.
It better be. Or he will have some 'splainin to do.
I never changed what biblical means. I constantly said that it means Jewish texts of the Torah. I constantly said that the Greek Testament is not biblical because it contradicts the Torah. I constantly said that there is only one Bible, the Jewish Bible, and that the Christian Testament is a tack-on which, for Christians, created a new Bible that contains an old testament and a new testament. THAT is the connotation of "biblical" that I have been talking about, where "biblical" (mistakenly) means "one book constituted in two Testaments".
Did eunuchs marry? Just curious. Jesus' response is directly to a statement of the disciples where they say it might be better not to marry.
It's not in the KJV or the RSV, is it?
Did it equal 5?
Rabid atheists are, I agree, just as "off-turning" as the rabid theists. And you are very accommodating of both sides by allowing those kinds of OPs to be posted. Kudos for that.
Well so long as you accept that you have dogma too that'll dictate possibilities for you to acknowledge and avoid or study based on said beliefs; it's still like using the ocean to disprove Kansas.
>>"Jesus is irrelevant."<<
when you aren't looking for something, its amazing what you don't see or pick up on.
So basically....never hang out with your dad
In the New Testament we find repeated evidence of people whom we would call inspired who evidently believed ? and sometimes claimed ? that Jesus would come back soon, even during the writer?s own lifetime. Examples would be 1 Peter 4:7; Matthew 24:34; 26:64; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:15?17; and 1 Corinthians 15:51. How can we still consider them authoritative while discarding modern-day messengers whose prophecies don?t materialize?
Wrong, it was Ninkasi.
Many of the things you deem unworthy of criticism are very much worthy of it as far as others are concerned. Why? Because when you group them all together, they paint a more accurate picture of the politician in question. So while you may think that Justin's costumes and antics in India were a non-event, many Canadians were embarrassed by his lack of maturity and decorum. Ditto for many of the other things he's done since taking office. Likewise for Wynne. I think it's great that you recognize that her Hydro One decision was worthy of your criticism, but for countless other things she has inflicted upon the province, one might take your selective silence as tacit approval. Things like doubling Ontario's debt to make it the most indebted sub-sovereign borrower on the planet ? literally speaking. Things like rushing into renewable energy without a moment's thought about the financial burden she placed on rate payers. Things like $75 million wasted on her pet Ontario Pension Plan, which promptly got shelved when Justin took power in Ottawa. Things like the billion plus dollars wasted to cancel two generating plants, specifically to save two Liberal seats in an election. The list continues, on and on, while you toss in a token criticism every once in a while, trying to convince others that you're not completely biased in favour of Liberals. Meanwhile, the left eagerly joins the fray in decrying the horrors of Doug Ford based purely on innuendo and propaganda, not on his actions in an office he has yet to be elected to. Does that seem like a good methodology to you? To me, it sounds like petty vindictiveness by a bunch of soon-to-be sore losers.