The Jewish Talmud states Obadiah was not Jewish, but rather an Edomite proselyte God used to rebuke his own people. DATES It is very difficult to know when Obadiah was written because there is nothing in the heading or introduction of the book to pinpoint the date. Therefore, we must look in the text of the book for historical clues that point to the date. In addition to being the shortest book in the OT, Obadiah also "bears the distinction of being the most difficult of all the prophecies to date" (Gleason Archer). His work is ascribed to periods
He thinks that Aquinas had made an error in linking cause and effect – as have any other humans that have done the same. Cause and effect are two completely different things, linked incorrectly in the mind by induction. Hume argues that because of this error, there is no cause and effect chain and therefore, no first cause. He argues that we have no direct experience of the creation of the universe and so we cannot speak meaningfully about it. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) agrees with the idea that we cannot try to comprehend something outside of our reach – we can
One could argue that the logical positivists were unsuccessful in arguing that religious language is meaningless because the verification principle has many weaknesses. For example Strong verification is not possible to talk meaningfully about history as no self- observation can confirm historical events. Swinburne stated that strong verification excludes all types of universal statements as there may be a random event that occurs that may mean that this cannot be verified. However, A.J Ayer developed a solution for this which is the weak verification principle. This form of the principle allows for statements to have meaning if the means to which a statement can be verified are known.
Without knowing an intimate history of a particular culture, it is presumptuous of me (or anyone else for that matter) to categorize other people’s customs, practices, and beliefs in this way. The story depicted in the passage of the culture hero Notgnihsaw (Washington spelled backwards), in a way reminds me of certain Native American stories, and their iconic views of their own great leaders (and not just because of the wampum addition to the story). Being that I have no actual belief system based within these stories, I catch myself wondering “Why do these people have so much faith and conviction towards these stories and fables?” I have to assume that other cultures view our high
The story begins with Sapikini, a master navigator, who sailed away with a small group of people with special powers in search for freedom. They built their alter upon a submerged reef with the help of the gods and watched the alter spread; rise up to form an island. They named the island “Pohnpei” which literally means “upon the stone alter”. Secondly, the unit contemplates the different migration theories concerning the Pacific. According to anthropologists, the people of stone age China about 3000 years ago and settled in Vanuatu (Voices of Pohnpei, 1995).This movement is confirmed by Migual Marquez, a member of the Soulik en Pohn Awak, also featured in the documentary.
I'm not sure I believe it, so I've been exploring other possibilities for what may have happened. Here's what I've considered: 1. Dumbledore took the stone without Flamel's permission Given what we learned of Dumbledore in DH's, this doesn't seem totally unreasonable. However, I really doubt that Dumbledore would have been able to access the stone without Flamel's consent. Moreover, even if he was, he wouldn't have been able to get away with it for very long since its removal from Gringotts was announced in the Daily Prophet.
Truth is an elusive concept, one which relies less on fact than it does on individual perception; as such, it is evident to see that scientific criticisms of religious creation theories are without substance. These theories were simply perceived by the world of science to be physically impossible to support their own beliefs, whereas religious criticisms of the Big Bang theory are based on proven fact, rather than interpretation. In addition to this scientific bias, the Big Bang Theory is greatly flawed in its inability to explain proven scientific ideas about our universe which contradict the theory in its entirety. Yet still, the most conclusive proof of the supremacy of the idea of God as the creator is the singularity in the Big Bang theory that cannot be proven: everything with a beginning in time must have a beginner, one not accounted for in this scientific theory. Information pertaining to the creation of the universe, or lack thereof, suggests that the idea of a Divine Creator, as opposed to the Big Bang Theory, is the most reasonable premise regarding how our universe came to exist.
Overall, I believe that Aquinas’ 3 ways are not very convincing as a proof of the existence of God. The different ways in which Aquinas try to prove the existence of God just make it either impossible for there not to be a God, which rejects any other ideas or, they make misleading assumptions that are not justified. My first reason for believing that Aquinas’ 3 ways are not very convincing is the 2nd way – from Cause. David Hume argues that you cannot see, hear or use any of your senses to see a cause. You cannot see a cause only two things happening in conjunction with one another.
Company: Nike Brand: JORDAN Country: Brazil Cultural Analysis I. Introduction Nike, which is the Greek Goddess of Victory, was born in 1972 when BRS, Blue Ribbon Sports, launched its first branded shoe at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials. A former University of Oregon track team member Phil Knight created Blue Ribbon Sports. At Oregon, Knight was coached by the legendary Bill Bowerman and then went on to become and alumni of the Stanford School of Business. BRS was crafted in 1962 when Knight made a deal with Onitsuka Tiger Company, a Japanese shoe company, to import their shoe to the United States.
Christians could argue that they believe Jesus was still the Messiah and everything he stood for is what they believe in but maybe the authenticity of miracles today can be questioned as there is no Jesus around to prove them being performed by a Deity just as the definition says there should be. So believing in miracles would be hard to do because there is no proof because Christians just have to believe what the Bible says and can not question it even though there is no proof of miracles other than what the Bible says. It would be hard for Christians to believe in miracles because there is no evidence that supports them… (The Bible can’t be classed as evidence because it has no proof it’s real and could be a fictional book) But Christians would have to believe in them because if they disagree that would be sort of going against the belief of Jesus. I think Christians don’t have a choice and have to believe in miracles otherwise they’re going