Don't judge her just because she wrote a book that revolves around 'witchcraft and wizardry'. She wrote a fictional tale to entertain us. What her personal beliefs are is her own business.
I would also like to point out that fictional magic has nothing to do with actual witchcraft -- which is practiced by delusional people (this doesn't make it any less wrong, but still).
Tell that to my parents. I'd like to read Harry Potter, but they won't let me.
But now that I've started the Wheel of Time series, I probably won't be reading anything else for a long time.
1. He never says to eat the Lord's supper every week.
2. Nothing, obviously. The Lord's supper was a meal, where they happened to have bread and wine. Quite possibly they also had cheese, who knows?
But my point is we shouldn't be ridiculous, we should be reasonable. You act as if there are two extremes 1. Not do anything that isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible, or 2. Add whatever we want.
That's a false dilemma fallacy. What should we do? Be wise. Judging and weighing everything to see if it meets the Bibles standards. While we should do exactly what the Bible says, that doesn't mean not
doing anything it doesn't say to do. Why? Because there are so many things that aren't addressed! It would be ridiculous and impossible to do so. Obviously, the Bible doesn't deal with every single issue. It
physically can't, it's a book with a limited number of pages. You could come up with all sorts of issues the Bible doesn't mention doing while worshiping: Wearing modern clothes, wearing glasses, sneezing,
etc. It can't. The Bible is not a "Guide to every single issue no matter how inconsequential."
So, the Bible sets Moral standards against which we can weigh everything. So, even though it doesn't specifically deal with every issue, we can reach a decision.
So, bringing us back to music, what could possibly be wrong with musical instruments? Music is one of the most beautiful things in existence, and instruments greatly add to that beauty. And since we are supposed to praise God, and singing is clearly endorsed throughout the entire Bible, what could be wrong with musical instruments? They do not violate any moral standard in the Bible, but merely add to our praise.
Therefore, you are wrong.
Alright, it doesn't say every week, but that's what the Early Church did and its mentioned many times in Acts. So you're saying adding is good if you like it and the Bible is sufficient? Cause that's what i got out of it.
You twist my words. And I think you meant insufficient, but I'm not sure.
I did not say "if you like it." I said "If it meets the moral standards set by the Bible". My point was that the Bible IS sufficient, but not in the since of telling us about everything, (Which empirically it does not) but that it tells about about higher moral truths and standards by which we can judge everything.
And the Lord's Supper is a bad metaphor. Although, shouldn't you question the early church doing it every week(If they did, anyway) since the Bible doesn't say that? According to your line of logic, which is, however flawed. Clearly, there's nothing wrong with doing it every week, just like there's nothing wrong with musical instruments. Why? Because they do not violate anything the Bible says, but add to beauty and worship.
To restate the point(again) The Bible tells us many things to do and many things not to do. Nowhere does it say that we can't do anything it doesn't tell us to, even if it doesn't say not to do it.
That would be ridiculous. It never tells us to sit in chairs while eating, or to jump up and down on one foot, or to grill burgers or fry them, or read magazines, juggle, or close one eye and open the other, or clip our toenails, etc.
We should judge hings that are not exactly mentioned in the Bible against the standards it sets. if they do not violate the standards, and especially when they agree with those standards and help us accomplish the things the Bible tells us to do, then they are perfectly acceptable, and even extremely commendable.
1. He never says to eat the Lord's supper every week.
2. Nothing, obviously. The Lord's supper was a meal, where they happened to have bread and wine. Quite possibly they also had cheese, who knows?
But my point is we shouldn't be ridiculous, we should be reasonable. You act as if there are two extremes 1. Not do anything that isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible, or 2. Add whatever we want.
That's a false dilemma fallacy. What should we do? Be wise. Judging and weighing everything to see if it meets the Bibles standards. While we should do exactly what the Bible says, that doesn't mean not
doing anything it doesn't say to do. Why? Because there are so many things that aren't addressed! It would be ridiculous and impossible to do so. Obviously, the Bible doesn't deal with every single issue. It
physically can't, it's a book with a limited number of pages. You could come up with all sorts of issues the Bible doesn't mention doing while worshiping: Wearing modern clothes, wearing glasses, sneezing,
etc. It can't. The Bible is not a "Guide to every single issue no matter how inconsequential."
So, the Bible sets Moral standards against which we can weigh everything. So, even though it doesn't specifically deal with every issue, we can reach a decision.
So, bringing us back to music, what could possibly be wrong with musical instruments? Music is one of the most beautiful things in existence, and instruments greatly add to that beauty. And since we are supposed to praise God, and singing is clearly endorsed throughout the entire Bible, what could be wrong with musical instruments? They do not violate any moral standard in the Bible, but merely add to our praise.
Therefore, you are wrong.
That was an extremely effective and polite argument. Good job.
Well, the ending could have been a bit more polite, though.
We helped put in those anarchies, we got rid of Dilma Rouseff, the president of Argentina andtried to get rid of Ecuadors leader. Africa is kind of a racist view, they won't go becuase their not white and that's pretty much the truth.
Asia, we want the oil and are fighting for it.
What do you want us to do in Africa, intervene? That's sort of illegal and it's why people are so angry at us about South America. It's not because "they're not white."
It's not a good thing to be fighting for another country's oil. Just saying.
Have you ever noticed that one second people accuse America of being Imperialist and getting into other people's business, and then the next moment they want America to intervene and and help them and say we should help everyone out.
...I'm so tempted to state my opinion on these religoius matters, but seeing as I'm probably the only Catholic posting on this thread, I think I'd be responding to literally everyone else and restating the same points over and over again. xD I'm tempted, but I won't. Frankly I'm surprised how this thread has been allowed, I could see a lot of arguments blowing up here.
Lets go 1 by 1 through all 12 countries of South America Bolivia - Super poor, but environmentally friendly Venezuela- massive oil reserves, super broke, people have no food. Paraguay- Bolivia 2.0 but more envioromental Guyana- super poor, but the fond oil they will probs become Venezuela 2.0 Argentina- corruption, too much debt Uruguay- only thing I know is there president is super cheap, he lives in a shack (no joke)
Colombia- 2 decade civil war Ecuador- I know nothing about it except Assange is hiding in their embassy Chille- Us overthrew the democratic goernement here put Pinochet in power. Now it has one of the worlds worst income inequalitys. Peru- I know they are becoming rich. Brazil- Oh boy where do we start, from 2nd largest brics economy to bankruptcy. Massive corruption. Huge government wastage in the Olympics and fifa world cup. There economy shrunk by 800 billion dollars over 4 years, the only country that tops them by this massive economy destruction is Russia. (Atleast we are no.1 in something )
I'm curious. You keep referring to Russians as "we," but earlier I thought you said you lived in Cyprus. Am I just going crazy, or is that true?
You do know people from other nations can live in other countries. Not all brits live in the uk. Not all americans live in the us. Not all Russians live in Russia, I live in Cyprus.
Me personally -- I am opposed to US intervention. Like it or not -- other countries have sovereighnty.
I mean, Venezuela might be experiencing a famine -- but the government is literally dysfunctional, and is only concerned with the issue of whether or not Maduro finishes his term, an annoying tug-of-war which has left the government doing nothing for its people.
Mexico is doing the best it can considering it is faced with not only gang violence: but also with a broken economy brought on by trade of cheap corn from the US, which ran Mexico's corn farmers out of business just in time for the US to suddenly switch to trading corn oil with Mexico, instead of corn. Thusly: the price of corn has gone up to absurd levels.
Cuba at the moment is an oppressive regime. However -- Diplomacy with the US will probably change the country for the better (I wouldn't call that intervention).
I'm... PRETTY sure Argentina is decent
I mean -- the best thing to do with these countries is to just talk to them, and give them politics lessons most of them are either suffering from dysfunctional government, a brutalized economy, or an overly-functional government.
The thing is, we care about the welfare of everyone on Earth. So, we make sure there's no evil regimes stopping people from having freedom.
, wait are you serious? I made a list a while back of about 40 countries which the us overthrew or tried to overthrow. Most were democratically elected.
What do you want us to do in Africa, intervene? That's sort of illegal and it's why people are so angry at us about South America. It's not because "they're not white."
It's not a good thing to be fighting for another country's oil. Just saying.
No hut there is huge wars, better no one gets involved, he could have gone in the Rwandan Genocide and saved a lot of People, again At least we keep are head out of it.
You know the party that outraged the world by doing nothing about Rwanda?
The Democrats.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
Peter Pevensie, of course. Or possibly the Apostle Peter. Or Peter Piper. There are a lot of Peters.
How about Peter Dinklage? :tounge: Or Peter Jackson? :tounge: or? Peter the Great? Or Peter Rabbit? Or Peter Cushing? Or Peter pan? or Peter Capaldi? or Peter Davison? or Peter Quill? or Peter O'toole? or Peter Benjamin Parker? :tounge:
Peter Pevensie, of course. Or possibly the Apostle Peter. Or Peter Piper. There are a lot of Peters.
How about Peter Dinklage? :tounge: Or Peter Jackson? :tounge: or? Peter the Great? Or Peter Rabbit? Or Peter Cushing? Or Peter pan? or Peter Capaldi? or Peter Davison? or Peter Quill? or Peter O'toole? or Peter Benjamin Parker? :tounge:
I really should have remembered PJ and Peter Rabbit. The former is practically an LOTR demigod, and the latter was my childhood.
![[y]](http://storage.proboards.com/6672327/images/WYWPH2VRo26pOFDid7QZ.png)
