as brooklyn is undergoing a major renaissance, i could never understand why wts sold at far less than the optimum real estate peak.. thank you seth meyers for clarity.. http://observer.com/2015/06//.
Vidiot: Hold Me, you almost sound like you want them to straighten up and fly right.
Yes, I do. How great indeed it would be if JWs could be set free from their oppressive leadership and live their lives as free Christians within a JW-like model, if they should so chose, or to leave religion all together if that be their choice.
from 2 samuel 24. i am so mad at myself for not making a comment how could anyone explain this away?
then after he slaughters 70,000 he then feels regret?
Morpheus,
Satan can only act against Israel if God allows it. Thus both accounts put together give the whole story. Satan acts against David, God is given the responsibility for it. This is how they viewed their relationship with God.
In a way, it's not too dissimilar from what some, though not believing in God, nonetheless blame God for earthquakes and disease because if God exists he is allowing these things to occur.
from 2 samuel 24. i am so mad at myself for not making a comment how could anyone explain this away?
then after he slaughters 70,000 he then feels regret?
Morpheus, what I'm saying is that the writers of that account wrote it believing that, with regard to Israel, God was the originator of everything good or bad. In other words, in their view the buck stopped with God.
from 2 samuel 24. i am so mad at myself for not making a comment how could anyone explain this away?
then after he slaughters 70,000 he then feels regret?
This account was religiously viewed, and understood, by the writers in hindsight. The writers believing God was responsible for every battle won or lost and all plagues etc.
In their view, what God allowed, he permitted, and what he permitted, he granted license to, and what he granted license to, he set his word toward it.
Meaning that God was the de facto port of call in their journey making him responsible for the slaughter. This is a common understanding throughout the Bible. Nothing new about it.
The Faithful and Discreet Slave has failed to properly teach the domestics how to understand and read the Bible.
i want as many minds put into this as possible.. there is a new argument among the extreme jw apologists, saying that even the disciples promoted mistakes.
they base themselves on john 21:23. keep in mind, i am not a believer but i want the answer from a believer's standpoint, please.. .
nwt:.
My reply to JWs would be:
According to Br. Splane's recent Morning Worship comments the Slave did not exist 1900 years ago in the first century. It is only in the last century that the Faithful and Discreet Slave came into being and therefore first century misunderstandings which occurred then should not occur now when Christ's Faithful and Discreet Slave is at last among us.
this is a crappy letter from the watchtower.
i'm only posting it to show how micro-managers these fools are.
and at the end, they say: "we should avoid making specific rules about somewhat technical matters".
Listen Robot, Listen.
Jump Robot, Jump.
Give Robot, Give.
last night a young man in a bar struck up a conversation with me.
our town is having our pride parade soon and he brought it up, the bible and how it's against the bible.
me being me, i said that i couldn't care less that it was against the bible and that it was a horrible guide for morality anyway.
the reason i entitled this "problems with common atheist arguments" instead of "the case against atheism" is that many atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system, makes no claims, and has no requirements to follow, so there's no way to argue against atheism itself.
i will go along with this idea, and argue against the most frequently used arguments of atheists instead of atheism itself.disclaimer # 1: this is not an argument against atheism or all atheists.
no, rather this is an argument against the most frequently used claims and arguments made by the atheists i speak to on twitter.
the reason i entitled this "problems with common atheist arguments" instead of "the case against atheism" is that many atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system, makes no claims, and has no requirements to follow, so there's no way to argue against atheism itself.
i will go along with this idea, and argue against the most frequently used arguments of atheists instead of atheism itself.disclaimer # 1: this is not an argument against atheism or all atheists.
no, rather this is an argument against the most frequently used claims and arguments made by the atheists i speak to on twitter.
the reason i entitled this "problems with common atheist arguments" instead of "the case against atheism" is that many atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system, makes no claims, and has no requirements to follow, so there's no way to argue against atheism itself.
i will go along with this idea, and argue against the most frequently used arguments of atheists instead of atheism itself.disclaimer # 1: this is not an argument against atheism or all atheists.
no, rather this is an argument against the most frequently used claims and arguments made by the atheists i speak to on twitter.
