I've come to the conclusion that all "one hit wonders" wouldn't drink the blood.
Almost, if not THE, #1 industry in the world.
Vaxx me harder!
There is no objective "truth".
Is this Objectively true?
But when it comes to moral questions, Truth depends on your moral perspective.
I think the idea that truth depends on your moral perspective is interesting, but I'm not sure I completely agree. Take the universal condemnation of cruelty, for example. Across cultures, people generally agree that cruelty is wrong.
Even societies that are often cruel themselves tend to react strongly when cruelty is directed at them. This suggests that there's a deeper, objective moral standard that goes beyond just personal or cultural opinions.
So, while our moral perspectives might differ, there seems to be a broader, objective truth when it comes to certain moral principles.
“Run away, run awayyyyy”
Very concise and well thought out response, bud. Thanks for your input.
Cheers
Every word in the Bible "can also mean..." so that argument is no good.
It's true that words in the Bible can have various meanings depending on the context, and translators must carefully consider the context and the range of meanings a word can have. In the case of Isaiah 45:7, while the Hebrew word "רָעָה" (ra'ah) can be translated as "evil," it can also mean "calamity" or "disaster," as seen in various translations. This highlights the complexity of translation and the need to consider the broader theological and textual context.
Regarding the assertion that God called bad times, calamity, and disaster "good," it's important to distinguish between the goodness of God's original creation and the presence of negative events or circumstances in the world. In the creation narrative, God declares everything He has made to be "good," indicating the inherent goodness of His creation. However, this does not mean that God creates moral evil or intends harm. The presence of calamity and disaster in the world is often understood within the context of the fallen nature of the world due to sin, as well as God's sovereign ability to use even negative events for His ultimate purposes, such as discipline, correction, or the fulfillment of His plan for redemption.
Ultimately, the idea that nothing exists that God didn't create does not necessarily imply that God is the author of moral evil or that He directly causes calamity and disaster. It reflects the theological concept of God's sovereignty over all creation, including the ability to allow or permit certain events while still holding humanity responsible for their choices.
"...choices made during their lives"
"Choices" regarding the person of Jesus Christ. Wasn't meant to imply works based salvation.
If you want to see a libtards head explode, then ask them if we should require a Vax ID in order to vote.
...then take one step backwards, slowly.
The Hebrew word translated as "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 is "רָעָה" (ra'ah), which can indeed be translated as "evil," but it has a broader range of meanings. In the context of this verse, "רָעָה" (ra'ah) can be understood more generally as "calamity," "distress," or "disaster." It doesn't necessarily imply moral evil, but rather a negative or harmful event or circumstance.
Some translations render Isaiah 45:7 without using the word "evil." Here are a few examples:
-
New International Version (NIV): "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."
-
New Living Translation (NLT): "I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things."
-
English Standard Version (ESV): "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things."
These translations use terms like "disaster," "bad times," or "calamity" instead of "evil" to convey the idea of negative or adverse circumstances rather than moral evil.
Furthermore, in the creation narrative, God declares everything He has made to be "good" (Genesis 1:31), which would seem contradictory if God were to create moral evil and then call it good.
Understanding the word in Isaiah 45:7 as "calamity" or "disaster" (as the Hebrew word allows) harmonizes with the idea that God's original creation was good and that any negative aspects are the result of the brokenness introduced by sin or as part of God's larger plan and purposes.
How did Satan lose the divine love of God? If evil is the result of the absence of Divine love in the “human heart”, how did angels that fell lose divine love if they don’t have a human heart?
Excellent question!
Thomas Aquinas addressed this very question in his Summa Theologica.
In Aquinas' view, angels were created with intellect and will, enabling them to choose good or evil. When Satan and other angels rebelled, it was due to their misuse of free will, particularly through pride. Unlike humans, angels' decision to reject God was immediate and final, without the possibility of redemption. This separation from God is seen as the absence of divine love in their spiritual beings.
Angels, being purely spiritual beings, make a single, irrevocable choice either for or against God at the moment of their creation. This choice is believed to be final and eternal, without the possibility of redemption or change.
Humans, on the other hand, are seen as having a lifetime during which they can make choices that either align them with God or lead them away from Him. This process of decision-making is seen as ongoing, with the ultimate consequences of these choices being finalized at death. At death, it's believed that humans' eternal destinies are fixed based on their choices made during their lives.
If you're interested in reading more about Aquinas' discussions on the nature of angels, their intellect and will, and the hierarchy of angels, then def check out his Summa Theologica. He also explores the question of evil in relation to angels and humans, including the concept of fallen angels and their irrevocable choice against God.
Hope this helps!
Wonder what they "bounce" the RF waves off of up there??
Rand Paul = Police officer on the curb yelling "Stop speeding! Or else I'll yell 'Stop Speeding' again!!"
swamp-adjacent
KEK!
Exactly, if there were an infinite number of days before today, today would never be reached. Since today has been reached, it suggests that the past is not infinite, supporting the idea that the universe had a beginning.
If you stood on one bank of a river with an infinite number of stones between you and the other side, how long would it take to reach the opposite bank?
More time = more chaos.
Time does not have any creative power at all. If you simply add more time you’re going to get more chaos, not order. Random events tend toward disorder (entropy). This is observable (2nd law of Thermodynamics).
Furthermore, It is impossible to traverse an infinite. If there existed an infinite number of days before today, then we would’ve never arrived at today. But we HAVE arrived at today, therefore the past is not infinite. The universe had a beginning.
It is impossible to traverse an infinite. If there existed an infinite number of days before today, then we would’ve never arrived at today. But we HAVE arrived at today, therefore the past is not infinite. The universe had a beginning.
I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist.
Truth in the Movies; Fiction in the News.
Correct:
Synergy Marine, the Singapore company that operates the Dali, said it was being controlled by two Baltimore port pilots at the time of the collision.