so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Yet more vicious nonsense. Here is the interview where Sadiq Khan used the phrase "uncle Toms".
I'm not sure exactly what he meant by using the phrase as it's not terribly clear. I guess he may have been trying to say that it's no use just talking to people who agree with you. Who could disagree with that? Whatever he meant by using the term, I think it's pretty clear he meant nothing like the implication that's been made: that somehow he opposes moderate Islam. That's just patent nonsense.
i have heard rumors and anecdotes of j.f.
rutherford calling women "a hank of hair and a stack of bones" but i never thought it was documented.
well thanks to jwfacts i finally found the quote in print.. this j.f.
What on earth did he mean? Was he talking about marrying non-believers who would die at Armageddon?
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
What a disgrace. This thread is depressing.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Many Christians, like Paul, worship a God who apparently acts in unjust ways, but they trust and worship him anyway, because they believe God is greater than their hearts or their minds.
You have not disproved the God of the Bible. You have simply proved you don't like the God of the Bible, which again, is not the same thing.
1. in bro sandersons latest video (in which he shows a very impressive skill with russian) he mentions two likely results of the imminent russian ban: the liquidation of the branch office and its assets, and the individual brothers capacity to worship freely.
no prizes for guessing which one gets mentioned first!.
2. why have the gb never attempted in the past, and are not interested in attempting now, such a letter writing campaign in other communist countries where the work is under similar restrictions, like china, or vietnam?
They used to do letter writing campaigns in the 1970s to Malawi and I think other countries too.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
What it doesn't disprove is the existence of a God whose actions sometimes cannot be understood or explained by humans. And this is precisely the kind of God that Paul writes about in Romans.
Therefore a God in whom we cannot reconcile goodness and complete power doesn't contradict scripture. In fact it's exactly how scripture describes God, whether we like it or not.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
You're still not getting the point.
The point is it's wrong to say that suffering disproves the God of the Bible, because the Bible itself says that God allows unjust things to happen. So the idea of an all powerful God who allows bad things is not alien to the Bible. It's in there in black and white.
You can say you find Paul's solution unsatisfactory. But it seems wrong to pretend it doesn't exist or the Bible doesn't include the teaching that God's actions cannot be questioned.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
My point is that there is something wrong with the assertion that suffering disproves the God of the Bible when the Bible itself talks about these very issues and includes it in its depiction of God. It seems to me the Bible at different points says three things about God:
1. He is all powerful.
2. He is perfect in love.
3. We can't always understand why God acts as he does.
Your argument that the God of the Bible doesn't exist relies on the first two points to the exclusion of the third. You may say Paul is stupid or you don't like the parts of the Bible that say God is inscrutable. But these parts of the Bible nevertheless exist. And they don't claim there are easy answers to God's righteousness, they say humans can't understand or it's not our place to question God.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
I think Nicholas Wolterstorff's answer was the most human.
You've not addressed the fact that the Bible itself acknowledges that God's actions may seem unjust, and that humans don't have satisfactory answers sometimes. Paul said bluntly:
"But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?" (And the rest of Romans 9)
Paul didn't pretend to know the answer. He said humans don't have the right to question God on his actions.
The Bible writers were apparently not ignorant of the problem of evil, nor did they ignore it. Their conception of God often included the idea that his qualities are difficult to reconcile and that we don't have good answers to why God acts in certain ways.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
I think Nicholas Wolterstorff's answer is the most human. He says he lives with the question without the answer. I think many thoughtful believers approach the problem this way.
