In 1992 a ban on voting was lifted, and Jehovah’s Witnesses were allowed to vote, but many do not practice the option to vote for governors, mayors, or even the past monumental presidential election for that matter. Blood transfusions are another exception within the Jehovah’s Witnesses that is of discussion; some Witnesses have had blood transfusions with no consequences to them from other Jehovah’s Witnesses. Upon further research I found out Jehovah’s Witnesses do not partake in any type of blood transfusions. The Islam belief of not eating meat until all blood is drained, applies to all Jehovah’s Witnesses who follow the religion. Their refusal of blood transfusions is not a personal one, but an action they follow based on the Bible in Acts
Melchizedek is king and priest. His name means, king of righteousness. He dwells in Salem, place of peace. He did not go out to war, and had no part in the quarrel between Chedorlaomer and the king of Sodom. He had lost no relatives, and had no reason for fighting.
There are no official autopsy reports from American doctors claiming that victims were gassed. All autopsies showed that were no signs of being subjected to a gas chamber. (thorn 30) Thorn also claims that memoirs of Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower and many other political authorities, never mention genocide or mass killings by the Germans. The gas chambers were believed to be powered by gasoline or diesel fuel. Thorn points out that these fuels produce 7-12% carbon monoxide.
These arguments never get to any particular God. They have all established that the existence can be described by itself; none of this even implies a deity, or a universal consciousness. When you start by rejecting the presumption of a God, all the arguments fall flat on their face. What these three arguments are, are thesis trying to defend the indefensible. Although, these three arguments all agree in the way that they use unfound assumptions to prove what has yet to be proven; they do disagree on the studies of how to prove what really is God.
These scriptures can be found in 2King 9:30, Jeremiah 4:30, and Ezekiel 23:40. Makeup is a non-issue biblically and nothing has been said against it. God has made everything plain that he’s against so why wouldn’t he plainly make mention if makeup was a sin as well. Many religious people twist scripture to be convenient for manmade rules. There are so many other things that God is concerned with and makeup just isn’t one of them.
You bring up examples of freedom of speech but it has nothing to do with social media. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church picketing at dead soldier’s funerals is an obvious example of trying to reject these people their freedom of speech, even though what they are doing is completely wrong. I also think that you think that your audience does not know that much about online privacy as a whole and who controls it. For example, you talk about who is in charge of the privacies and their job, “…search engines are protected by the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes Internet service providers from being held liable for content posted by third parties.” I believe that the point you are trying to get to your audience is to inform them of the privacy issues with these examples and how one day there is a possibility they can be affected from either
And I interrupt this not only as just other gods, but also things that hinder our religion. We do need to accept other and love other’s but not to turn against God’s laws and plans for us. Also, with the Declaration of Independence says from the first amendment that the government will make no law about making a new religion. So, even the bible and the First Amendment says they should be separate.
God is so beyond our ability to understand that the only way of seeing the reality of God is to continue saying what God is not, God is more than anything we can say of him. Plotinus, Moses Maimonides, Pseudo-Dionysius and Meister Eckhart support this view – for these philosophers the real God is beyond whatever we speak of as God. Human language causes confusion when it is used to talk about God, as a result we must speak of God only by saying what God is not. Human language is inadequate in describing God – we cannot talk about God. Recognising this reaffirms that God is more than we can ever imagine – he is ineffable, can never be described so we cannot say what they are not.
He basically degrades the entire Bible by saying that there is no fact in the world and everything is an interpretation. He claims the truth is unnecessary to be spoken because it is only necessary to speak the truth when the untruth is so false that it can be detected. Nietzsche shares his belief that a human’s life is 100% controlled by the individual and all success should be credited to that individual. Then he disrespects all Christians by claiming they are a species of weak failures looking for pity that shall parish to the strong-willed all-powerful being. I strongly disagree with almost everything Fredrick Nietzsche writes about in this section of the reading.
I know most consider Pentecostal Christian religious people are outside the normal realms of sanity. I grew up Pentecostal and I have never used snakes in my services and nor would I ever use snakes. Most believe Pentecostal women wear dresses or skirts, don’t wear makeup, or even cut their hair when in fact I did all of those while still attending church. We were considered non-strict Pentecostal denominations. As I have learned though research there are different sects of the Jewish faith that have broken on from the Orthodox views and do believe Jesus is the messiah and they some also believe in eating all