The purpose of the resurrection was not to prove that Christ was who He claimed to be rather it was necessary. A sign like raising Lazarus was not for any purpose except to help those who doubted as Thomas did to believe. [1]The apostle Paul went so far in emphasis as to argue that if there is no resurrection, there is no Gospel. All that we teach and preach today would be pointless if it had not been for the resurrection, unlike a “sign” that was not necessary for our salvation. I am not saying this because of the importance of Christianity, I am simply pointing out a fact of the difference in the two.
For example, “if the scene depicted a modern, secularized Gentile family or any family not Jewish?” 7. Perfectionist fallacy (false dilemma) 8. This is an example of slippery slope fallacy making good sense (A) “The counties of Michigan clearly need the ability to raise additional sources of revenue, not only to meet the demands of growth but also to maintain existing levels of service.” Leads to (B) “without the sources the demands will not be met, and it will be impossible to maintain services even at present levels.” Resulting in a very undesirable thing. 9. This is an example of genetic fallacy.
Many people believe that Jehovah’s Witness do not believe in god and is trying to convince them to not believe. • In what ways has the religious group you selected contributed to American culture? • Provide specific examples of prejudice or discrimination your selected religious group has experienced. • What were the sources of this prejudice or
Solomon 1 Angela Solomon Jane Riches Digital Citizenship 31 Oct 2012 Should Hate Speech Be Blocked or Censored? Should hate speech articles be blocked from viewing? “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. (George Washington - Brainy Quotes).” I think hate speech should only be blocked if it causes physical harm to a single person or an ethnic or religious group. Just because a person takes offense to something that someone said online and in the public, doesn’t mean the person who wrote it shouldn’t have the ability to say it.
Paul wrote this letter because of the hostility between the churches. The Christian jews wanted the gentiles to be circumcised and observed the torah before becoming saved. During this time there was great tension between jews and gentiles. Paul wanted the churches to know that they were battling desires of the flesh by this fighting. Paul also wanted the churches to know “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” Paul wanted Jews and Gentiles to know if they are “walking
In discussion of Pascal’s wager, one issue has been the persuasiveness of Pascal’s argument, as well as the holes in some of his reasoning. On the one hand, Simon Blackburn argues that we know nothing about this “God” we are supposed to believe in, so we do not know whether this is a jealous God who will send people to hell for not believing in Him, or if this “God” is the Christian God that Pascal presents. Blackburn eventually states that regardless of which type of God exists, “a God that punishes belief is just as likely, and a lot more reasonable, than one that punishes disbelief.” On the other hand, Linda Zagzebski contends that Pascal does have a compelling argument, yet his reasoning is flawed. Zagzebski states that it is wrong for people to believe in God because of their self-interest, based around the fact that if they do believe in God and if he does exist, they will be rewarded with infinite gain. Furthermore, Zagzebski employs an intriguing analogy by comparing one who chooses to believe in God just for infinite gain is similar to someone who chooses a mate with a high income, and then tries to love that person.
The author tries to discredit Andrea Keene’s opinions by making them seem inconsistent by comparing them to a different topic entirely. This makes it appear as if Andrea Keene does not have a thorough understanding on the topic matter. 3. This example seems to be a circumstantial ad hominem. The author of the letter is described as being a divorcee.
Begging the Question - Give a restated conclusion as a premise for the conclusion You want to know why I failed the test? I failed the test because I didn't pass it. Straw Man - Misrepresent an opponent's position to make it easier to attack them; thus making one's own position seem much stronger The conservatives seem to think that anyone who disagrees with president Bush must be a terrorist or a sympathizer for terrorists. Inconsistency - argue for contradictory premises or for contradictory conclusions It's not that you're stupid. It's just that you're dumb.
“We need Jesus to justify and glorify us, so we find the true meaning to ourselves.” In (Romans 2;15), Paul says that the Gentiles didn’t have the law while, the Jews did, meaning that humanity has the law or not. Such in (Romans 2:12) Paul says whether or not people have sinned against the law or not, all are condemned regardless as the Jews began teaching a stronger condemnation because they had the law all along. Where it all wraps up in (Romans 4:15) Paul asserts that knowledge of the law brings wrath, the Gentiles conversely didn’t have the law. Meaning that the Jews are held to higher standards then the Gentiles. When you look at the views today, many people are believing today that we don’t need God, and he’s not who everyone thought he was.
Although it recognizes that same-sex partners might be committed to one another and even love one another, they do not fit the definition of marriage. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "marriage is the lifelong partnership of mutual and exclusive fidelity between a man and a woman...to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children" (CITE) Because partners in a same-sex union are not able to create children, their relationship cannot be viewed as a marriage in the Church. The Conference of Catholic Bishops does not approve of the wording used in Marriage Equality Act because it changes the historic definition and understanding of the institution of marriage. They have said that, "Redefining marriage has nothing to do with civil rights" and "With respect for the dignity of every person, we proclaim this truth and we will be faithful to its meaning...in all that we say and do" (CITE