Is there any scientific ground on this verse?
@Thecollector, You have committed circular logic fallacy in saying that the old verse cannot talk about a modern concept. You have committed the appeal to authority fallacy by saying the tafsirs by them has to stay that way forever. You said: "At the most it is talking about Allah taking different ppl/nations/races etc as his chosen/elect/enlightened/preferred" -Yes that is exactly what he is talking about! But not nations/races. Verse 130 is confronting all of Jinn and mankind! Also, the Quran used the word 'ma' rather than 'men' to describe 'whatever he wills' rather than 'whoever he wills'. By your logic, the Quran should have used 'min' instead it was referring to a certain tribe. The successors to us (mankind) will be from us just as Allah has done to us with the before people. And yes, you are very close minded, and the only one being embarrassed here is you. I say that without any intention of personal insult.
What are the weakest commonly used arguments in favor of same-sex marriage? What are the problems with them?
I'm suprised no one actually gave an answer to the question and decided to attack the question itself. There are commonly used weak arguments for homosexual marriages. These usually appear when one tries to debate arguments against gay marriage and fall into “enemy argument territory”. For example:The Bible has verses #X and #Y which says that same-sex relations are sinful.Yes, but in verses #M and #N it says that one should accept that sinfulness is a part of human nature and as long as they at least try to deal with it and accept Jesus as savior you should let them be. Also, in verse #P a lesbian couple's love is shown as pure and not sinful.This is a weak argument for non-traditional marriages because it assumes that the Biblic scriptures should be the foundation of today's morality and/or laws.It is unnatural!Actually, male-only sex occurs in most mammal species and in some Bird species as well.This is a weak argument because it uses the naturalistic fallacy, which assumes that natural = good, unnatural = bad.As soon as you try to counter some stupid argument, you risk making the same mistakes the argument itself has. This leads to the appearance of weak arguments even when superior arguments for the same topic are plentiful.
Where is written in the Bible "let the weak say I am strong"...?
Dear Flaua, these verses are not in the Bible. They are just beautiful composition by Don Moen. God bless you.
Can any Christian explain this verse from the Bible?
I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. [1 Timothy, chapter 2]
Should you take the mean things your partner says to you during arguments seriously, or should we see them as things that are said when someones mad that have no true meaning?
Hi, Emain’. Should we take the mean things said in arguments seriously? Or should we assume that the people have a weird mental problem - that presents as blurting out totally unrelated comments - that just seem to have a ring - a sting - of truth? Hmm… I guess it matters a lot what was said…“I am disconcerted! You are a purple-headed velveteen representation! … OMG! I am SO sorry! I really didn’t mean to say that!”“I HATE you! You are a pig-headed foul-mouthed sleazy slutty ASS! … OMG! I am SO sorry! I really didn’t mean to say that!”I do not ‘excuse’ words spoken in anger. Never have. Not when I was 5. Not when I was 20. Not today. When you are ‘calm’ you have safeguards & filters in place - They keep you from saying what you ‘REALLY’ feel. When you are angry, or drunk, or on drugs, those safeguards and filters often ‘fail’ - and your TRUE thoughts just come flying out - bathing your adversary in caustic vitriol. … And later - after-the-fact - you try to ‘save’ the situation… by blurting out, “I didn’t MEAN any of that! I was angry! And drunk! And I had a troubled childhood!” … Half-truths dressed as whole truth. True - You did NOT mean to say that… out loud. You only BELIEVED it. But you never meant to ‘say’ it… at least, not until you KNEW that was NO HOPE of saving this train-wreck of a relation. … I do not excuse words spoken in anger. Never have. Those vile words came from ‘somewhere’ - And the ‘somewhere’ is your mind.If you discount words spoken in anger - or alcohol - then YOU are a fool.
What is the meaning of Samuel Johnson's "We know the will is free and there's an end 'ont?
I think the complete sentence is: "Why, sir, we know the will is free; and there's an end to it." ("on't" i think is the same as "to it", from my understanding) I think the meaning behind this is the idea of common sense. Adding emphasis on the "know" it's like assumed knowledge. "We KNOW the will is free", it's common sense so why talk as though it's a new discovery when it's a fact of life. I believe he used it to dismiss the idea of free will being absent or just an illusion as some people like to argue. Of course, though that may have been the case if you look at arguments that follow they do have a good standing to why it may not be the case. Though I suppose its our intuition that leads the "resonable man" to believe that we do have free will and not having our actions are pre-determined even though it does go in conflict with beliefs of pre-destiny. (I'm assuming your piece is on free will/determinism?) For the "there's an end to it" I'm not quite clear but I think it may be again intuitive in that using "cause and effect" as an argument for free will it isn't possible to imagine that there is no end to our free will. This is my assumption btw please don't quote me here. I think if you fins the source he said this and see what was said for him to argue this it may be clearer. He does argue a lot for experience ("All theory is against the freedom of the will; all experience for it") but I think he does in saying that recognise the weakness of arguments for free will but believes that you should trust your commen sense not what is claimed to be the truth ("When speculation has done its worst, two and two still make four") But no matter what is argued unless you're an enthusiastic intellect I think most people follow their heart and go with what they intuitively believe. I mean if it was declared there is no free will how many people will actually accept it? Personally I believe in destiny but believe we choice our own route to get to our destiny, and though I may be rushed at this point with arguments of why I am wrong, I don't mind but that's my belief and that's what my heart tells me, regardless of the proof presented of what may be the truth. But then we could argue about the nature of truth, is it objective or subjective, but that's going of the point, I'll shut up now :p Hope that helped! ~Ruj x
Jehovah's Witnesses: What do you find to be among the weaker arguments for a Trinity?
Informed Trinitarians admit that the Trinity doctrine is nowhere explicitly stated in Scripture, but that there's supposedly a ton of evidence that points to a Trinity. I'm trying to compile a list of some of the weaker, easily disputable Trinitarian arguments and would appreciate some input. I want easily disputable Trinitarian arguments like these: 1) God in Hebrew is "Elohim," which is plural, indicating that God is a plural being. 2) Jesus is God because he is called "Emmanuel" in Matthew 1:23, meaning "God with us." 3) Matthew 28:19 indicates a Trinity. 4) The Jews tried to stone Jesus in John 8:59 because he claimed to be God.