Biola university jacket Videos

where?

if you are wondering why the Catholic church killed Jews its for the same reason they killed the protestants,,,they wanted a one world religion to take over the whole world and they are doing the same today,,,Jesus is a tool they use to deceive people into thinking they are sheep so they can get their foot in the door of other nations and take them over,,,the Catholics dont use the bible as their sole authority of faith,,,the bible is secondary to the authority of the pope and all their lies and pagan tradition,,,their doctrine is so far from what the bible says that they are considered a cult and a mafia more than a church,,,the Romans co-opted the christian movement bc they couldn't defeat it,,,for 1200 years Christians and Jews were murdered by the Roman Catholic church bc they refused to participate in their pagan traditions,,the Roman so called church is who Christians call the great whore of Babylon the abominations of the earth and the anti christ.  Roman Catholicism is NOT Christianity ITS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RELIGION,,, this is why most Jews are confused,,,they think they are the same thing,,, they think Romanism is Christianity when it has nothing to do with it,,,Christians are pro israel and very pro jew,,,you my friend are confused

really site one passage that says anything ab killing Jews,,,//biblehub.com/esv/matthew/1.htm <----starting with the book of mathew all the way thru the book of revelation,,,please show one passage that says anything ab killing Jews for not believing in Jesus,,,you wont be able to site any passage that says to kill anyone for any reason,,,youre a goof,,,the book doesnt say anything bad ab any Jew but the religious authorities at the time who were traitors in cahoots with the romans ,,,it says they have been given over to the gentiles,,,they were extorting the people and making the temple into a den of thieves,,,you are either a liar or you have confused the new test with the quran

+koyunbaba73 By secular I intend human without the abstract levels of thought.  I speak of the basic levels of human awareness of one another.  This predates abstract ideology. It arrives the mind before the consideration of metaphor and meaning. The thought that another shares my pain and joys is primal not learned.  If I were to dare to formulate patterns of anothers interaction with those feelings I would  begin trespass into the abstract theories of notion. And then and only then our discussion begins about the meanings of feelings.I am quite confused as to how to love thyself.  Thyself is origin in which love moves from and not to.  It seems this concept could use some updating. Focus on the attention to others feelings at the expense of your own from time to time. But for if you expend all of your energy to the gardens of others your own garden will seise to supply that very energy.  This layout properly allocates credit where it is most deserved. That is to no one way of thinking but to the foundation of experiencing this world through the human mind. Shun those who attempt to take ownership of this for it is to strip humanity of its own definition.  

+hawkeyd3 "The secularist viewpoint on morals is that we share a solidarity that compels us [to] imagine others lives feel similar to ours."That is an admirable outlook, but it is a CHRISTIAN premise that you happen to agree with, and in so doing, you are imposing it as a value of secularism. Many non-believers make that mistake. You claim it as a secular value though there is no rational (and more importantly) no historical reason for doing so.Your premise actually comes from Luke 10:25-27: "On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher" he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"He answered "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and all your mind'; and 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'"Secularists like to say that the second half of this premise ('Love your neighbour as yourself') is a rational idea, but it isn't. It is just as rational to say that I will take advantage of those who attempt to love me as they do themselves, for my own benefit. But don't take my word on this. Kei Neilson, a well respected atheist journalist, wrote these words:“We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me… Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”1- Kai Nielsen (1926 – Present)Ultimately, (and this goes to the heart of the dispute between secularists and believers when it comes to building a moral framework) there is no rational reason to love your neighbour as yourself unless you also take it on faith to hold the first half of that principle (to love God with all your heart, etc.).In sum, your claim to deal with others ethically (which I'm sure you do; you seem like a very decent person), can only be attributable philosophically and historically to the Holy Scriptures. Kai Neilson understood that we must give credit (to treat others as we wish to be treated), where it is due; not to solidarity with others (which is YOUR idea), but to a standard set by a SUPRA-natural source that is imposed upon us from above, namely God.I learned this perspective first by listening to Dennis Prager and then to Ravi Zacharias, neither of which originated this viewpoint.I would very much like to know what you think about all of this.-Danny

+koyunbaba73 The secularist viewpoint on morals is that we share a solidarity that compels us imagine others lives feel similar to ours. I would rather not experience sorrow if I could prevent the feeling. So I feel encouraged to alleviate these pains by the idea that another experiences both the same triumphs and shortcomings of life as I do.  They are of my experience as I have come to know.  The difficulty I have with relating to a god concept of life is that god does not share my experiences of reflection and uncertainty. To discuss one of the world wars it is important to pay attention to the political and economical climate of Germany from 1930-1939. When ever there is overwhelming poverty and distress people seek for something to hope for.  In this case hope arrived in the form of strong germanic nationalism that drew conclusions from aryan blood myths. The reality of scarce resources to survive in which tribes unite by somehow drawing from a common experince and fight for this solidarity by mobilizing there people with strong convictions of this common experience does a lot more to explain the climate necessary for World War II.  As for Prager, this seems to be a blatant misunderstanding of his rivals point of view.  He truly does not care to understand because he thrives not by communicating but by delivering a narrative to those of similar lines of thought. 

I don't agree with you that Dennis misrepresent secular thinking. I am curious about your take on secularism and even more curious about why you believe that to blame the wars of the twentieth century on secular regimes is a mistake. If we can discuss this with civility, then I would be happy to read your responses to my questions.

Tim is the man!

มึงมากันทำไม ไม่เห็นมีประโยชน์ ที่สุดแล้วเป็นได้แค่เครื่องมือไห้คนอื่น แต่ต่างกันเดี๋ยวนี้วัดไม่มีคนเข้า

I hear ya catt13, the red shirt leaders have resolved to violent and terrorist strategies, and are successful in influencing the people...we are seeing the true colors of the red shirt leaders-it's sad.

Thank you for this video. It's important to be able to hear the voice of the people without it being altered by biased international media. Please make more!

The red shirt need war ok so get lost