If the cake maker doesn’t want to write something on a cake they shouldn’t have to. Period. Write it yourself. It’s easy. Or find a baker that will.
I can’t believe the amount of time and effort and cost involved litigating such a no brainer.
story in the guardian: .
"--freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the european convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, hale added.
“this court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe,” she said.--".
If the cake maker doesn’t want to write something on a cake they shouldn’t have to. Period. Write it yourself. It’s easy. Or find a baker that will.
I can’t believe the amount of time and effort and cost involved litigating such a no brainer.
how the heavenly kingdom of jesus differs from the earthly kingdom of david.
had you ever wondered if there was a difference between the rulership of jesus in heaven and the promised davidic kingdom that was to come upon earth?
this earthly kingdom was to be ruled by a descendant of adam and eve as the davidic heir of this kingdom.
“Truly I tell you, some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power” (Mark 9:1)
As you likely believe, Jesus wasn’t talking about a kingdom that would come when people died and went to “heaven”. It was a literal earthly kingdom.
You also are familiar with Mark 13:30, “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place”.
This kingdom would come while some of the disciples were still living to see it.
Most Christians agree this did not happen. The core of Jesus’ message was his claim that the kingdom was to arrive soon. He was wrong.
So why do Christians still follow him?
Because they use apologetics. “The kingdom refers to heaven”.
Or,
“That generation refers to those who saw 1914”
but that generation passed away, so now what?
”Well, there must be overlapping generations!”
Wrong. It is simply making cover and excuses for what happened. Or more precisely, what did not happen.
Jesus said that earthly kingdom was coming “soon”, within the lifetime of those standing in front of him, and it didn’t happen.
Jehovah does not get the last word at Armageddon either. Because he does not exist.
Good will not necessarily triumph over evil. Pain and suffering and injustice are going to be with us for a very long long time. “The poor you will always have with you”, and death is the end of the whole story. Period.
So then what hope is there with such a bleak outlook?
Knowing that there is no Jehovah/god to destroy evil allows us to look at ourselves!
We can make meaning for ourselves in a world full of the meaningless. We can make sense out of the senselessness.
We can pursue and live a happy life. We can be fulfilled right now. We can be productive and successful. We can live life with the volume all the way up and we can help others achieve all these things too.
Jesus was wrong with his apocalyptic kingdom message but he was right about fighting the forces of evil. Those forces of evil were not supernatural or demonic. They were natural and human. Today right now we can fight for good.
Don’t become a marshmallow waiting for a god that does not exist to make everything right. Do it yourself now.
from bbc news "five jw's from the kirov region detained with about $ 7,500 accused of funding and organizing meetings....they found literature...and two hand granades and a landmine".
the russians are such idiots planting evidence....and quarrelling with the neutral and sheepish jw land...and of course inflamating their persecution complex.
.
The corner market.
must the testimony of two witnesses of child abuse be them witnessing the abuse as it happens (seeing or hear it), or can it be two witnesses of strong circumstantial evidence as described on the back page of the july study edition watchtower?.
if the two witnesses must have actually witnessed the abuse take place, how would that work in the two scenarios below?.
scenario 1.. pioneer johnny has been privately counseled by the elders in the past not to be so “touchy” with kids in the hall, always given them big hugs and the like.
If Suzy was in her early teens, the elders would call her a whore and claim that she seduced Johnny by her sexuality, immodest dress and blatant flirtation. She would be disfellowshipped if baptized, declared no longer a publisher of the good news if not baptized. Johnny would get some private reproof and be running the microphones again in no time.
when did you guys start to doubt your faith in god?'.
what made you doubt your faith in god?.
thanks !.
Arguments are welcome and a key function on this forum. There is no fault by you whatsoever. In fact, it was a great OP. Never be afraid to say what is on your mind and keep asking questions. :)
when did you guys start to doubt your faith in god?'.
what made you doubt your faith in god?.
thanks !.
From my favorite
Bart Ehrman:
QUESTION:
If you don’t think God exists, why do you refer to yourself as an agnostic? If this is your perspective, why not refer to yourself as an atheist? Could it be that you don’t believe the Christian God exists, but are open to the possibility that some kind of higher power exists (this is my perspective) and this is why you call yourself agnostic?
ANSWER:
The first thing to say is that I had no idea how militant both atheists and agnostics could be about their labels, until I became an agnostic myself!
Before that, when I was a believer, I pretty much thought atheism and agnosticism were two amicably related positions, one saying that there is no God and the other saying that s/he doesn’t know if there is a God. But when I became an agnostic, I started getting some very spirited emails from atheists who were incensed that I called myself an agnostic, as if I were being intellectually dishonest (that’s not the case with the person who asks the question above – he is good spirited about it and just curious).
What I came to see is that many agnostics and many atheists think they have a corner on the truth. And they think the other side just won’t come clean. In short, many atheists seem to think that agnostics are just wimpy atheists; and many agnostics seem to think that atheists are just arrogant agnostics. That is to say: atheists think that agnostics are afraid to follow the truth of their convictions; and agnostics think that atheists claim to know far more than they could possibly know.
I’m not sure that’s the best way to think about the terms. For years I thought that an atheist was someone who said there was no God, and an agnostic was someone who said they didn’t know. I’ve changed my mind about that in the past year or two. Now I think that “atheism” is a statement about faith and “agnosticism” is a statement about epistemology (the “science of knowledge”).
If someone has a better way of explaining the terms, I’m open to it. But for now, for me, the way it works like this. An “atheist” is literally one who does not believe in a divine being. That is, s/he does not believe in God and so is “without God” (the literal meaning of the term).. An “agnostic” is one who says s/he does “not know” if there is a God (the literal meaning of that term; it’s about knowledge, not faith). And so they are dealing with two incommensurate entities: faith (atheism) and knowledge (agnosticism).
When it comes to faith, I am an atheist. I don’t believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God (or in Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, Apollo, etc) (I sometimes believe in Dionysus/Bacchus, but that’s another story…). But as to whether there is some greater spiritual power/intelligence in the universe, I’m agnostic. I don’t know if any such being exists. And in my opinion, either does anyone else!
That means that I’m not sure what to call myself. I suppose I lean toward “agnostic” rather than “atheist” simply because as a scholar and professional thinker I am, at the end of the day, more interested in “knowledge” than “faith.” Moreover, the term does seem to me to convey a greater sense of humility in the face of an incredibly awesome universe, about which I know so little. I happen to think that humility is a good thing in these circumstances. At the same time, I can understand why others may want to emphasize what they do not believe rather than what they do not know, and so call themselves atheist. (Why they are so incensed that I don’t follow suit, however, continues to be a mystery to me.)
when did you guys start to doubt your faith in god?'.
what made you doubt your faith in god?.
thanks !.
Why not be a good person and do well for others while we have life of our own accord instead of for some reward from a sky daddy or out of fear of being destroyed by a sky daddy?
A billion sperm and each of us won the lottery by reaching the egg. Can’t that be your heaven and reward?
Why so narcissistic to believe we deserve more like “everlasting life” or “heaven”?
Why can’t death be a natural progression after a life well lived?
when did you guys start to doubt your faith in god?'.
what made you doubt your faith in god?.
thanks !.
Huh, I guess I’m Gnostic Atheist, (Partially) Closeted Atheist, Indifferent Atheist, etc.
Nah. Just keep it simple.
when did you guys start to doubt your faith in god?'.
what made you doubt your faith in god?.
thanks !.
At 7 when my Catholic mother became a JW and ruined a childhood that was going well.
Reading Bart Ehrman’s books.
Reading Cofty’s posts.
Atheist
I dropped the agnostic because I used to think I can’t know god doesn’t exist.
and que the flawed comparisons to the wt in 3...2....
Sears sold Craftsman to B&D last year. B&D now supplies Lowes stores with Craftsman tools and has eaten up a lot of sales that previously went to Sears. Sears brought in a billion a year on Craftsman tools.