I disagree. I don't think the state should really intervene in the church mainly because symbolically the church is the mind. The church dictates what the state does not vice versa

Straying from the church has proven to be disasterous.

The state should subject itself to the church. All will kneel before Christ, this doesn't stop because you are a politician.

Good post above

@Sentient23 I’m not saying necessarily direct intervention. But rather that they shouldn’t be separated.

Trust me, I’d prefer not have Kings appointing bishops or anything. But the church should definitely play a role in the government and should aid the state if the state represents the interest of the church in a proper manner.

You can have pseudo democratic republics that operate with religious oversight

Iran’s modern history shows potential with the fusing of contemporary political philosophy with religion

Fuck Christianity

Cringe

Stfu christard

Okay r/atheism

@Maksim mute

>being an atheist

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***mofth#3574 was muted*** | Read Rules. <#587029563863990282> is a serious channel

@$fly debate me on religion if you want

he left

lol

Could Science be God's way of language?

Science is a tool of God for the purpose of better understanding his creation and how infinitely complex it is

So is it possible for Him to have made the Big Bang?

@Florida Man Yes

The reason why I asked is because I'm in a religion discord, and I said that the Big Bang and God's "Let there be light" are similar

http://symboldictionary.net/?p=2301
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Bacchus
http://opsopaus.com/OM/BA/PT/M0.html

nihil novum sub sole

Any Christmas here want to explain the crucifix with bachhus on it in the temple of Baalbek that has hexagrams on it

Bacchus is symbolically the pearl before swine, much like Jesus

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/roman-god-bacchus-christian-icon-002237

https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Dionysos.html

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/richard-dawkins-debunked.shtml

That moment when one of the most leading figures in atheism gets called out on logical fallacies

Atheism is hardly a logical conclusion to the question of God

Exactly, it's impossible to disprove God's existence

His critique of Aquinas was no better than 13 year olds I've seen online. He should stick to science.

Good takes by Florida man that's surprising

Well furthermore it's impossible to find a different conclusion to existence besides god

Reading Feser made me realize that not a single atheist author has understood the cosmological proof

They just hold negative beliefs, they never had proof

They haven't even understood the different between chronological and hierarchical causality, much less such concepts as the four causes, necessity and contingency, or actuality and potential

You're saying the Amazing Atheist can't debunk Aquinas with a muffin!