Dennis, you’re unbelief is it’s religion for which you clearly have need to proselytize. You hold many misconceptions about biblical texts.
Now that you’ve seemed to master the brilliance of Hitchens, I suggest you take on Aquinas for an opposing viewpoint.
Summa Theologiae
“We purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners. We have considered that students in this doctrine have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written by other authors, partly on account of the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments, partly also because those things that are needful for them to know are not taught according to the order of the subject matter, but according as the plan of the book might require, or the occasion of the argument offer, partly, too, because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the minds of readers.”
If you can walk away from the Summa thinking Aquinas a person lacking in the use of “critical thinking” for “willful ignorance,” you might want to see a professional for treatment of delusions of grandeur, my friend…
"Don't try to debate me; I'm an expert Christian..."
Surely there's Bible scripture about arrogance that you're breaching oh mighty expert with YOUR delusions of grandeur.
It's the all-loving omnibenevolent Gods desire to save sick babies.
Baby lives ~ God is amazing, and prayer works.
Baby dies ~ it was God's will and we aren't meant to know or understand the reasons these things happen.
It's in accordance with his plan you see. The baby was meant to die.
So, what purpose does prayer have?
This surely and precisely sums up the Christianity hoax, doesn't it?
GOD CAN'T LOSE!
A philosophical argument for God and a ham sandwich combined are worth slightly less than a ham sandwich, Granny. You and Aquinas can have as many philosophical arguments for “God” as you like, it doesn't change the fact that there's no evidence that there is one.
Dennis, you’re unbelief is it’s religion for which you clearly have need to proselytize. You hold many misconceptions about biblical texts.
Now that you’ve seemed to master the brilliance of Hitchens, I suggest you take on Aquinas for an opposing viewpoint.
Summa Theologiae
“We purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners. We have considered that students in this doctrine have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written by other authors, partly on account of the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments, partly also because those things that are needful for them to know are not taught according to the order of the subject matter, but according as the plan of the book might require, or the occasion of the argument offer, partly, too, because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the minds of readers.”
PS to Dennis:
If you can walk away from the Summa thinking Aquinas a person lacking in the use of “critical thinking” for “willful ignorance,” you might want to see a professional for treatment of delusions of grandeur, my friend…
"Don't try to debate me; I'm an expert Christian..."
Surely there's Bible scripture about arrogance that you're breaching oh mighty expert with YOUR delusions of grandeur.
It's the all-loving omnibenevolent Gods desire to save sick babies.
Baby lives ~ God is amazing, and prayer works.
Baby dies ~ it was God's will and we aren't meant to know or understand the reasons these things happen.
It's in accordance with his plan you see. The baby was meant to die.
So, what purpose does prayer have?
This surely and precisely sums up the Christianity hoax, doesn't it?
GOD CAN'T LOSE!
A philosophical argument for God and a ham sandwich combined are worth slightly less than a ham sandwich, Granny. You and Aquinas can have as many philosophical arguments for “God” as you like, it doesn't change the fact that there's no evidence that there is one.
Take care my dear