was it necessary for god to kill all innocent firstborn children?
no other way out for the almighty god?.
@ CS....
It's astounding how you cannot judge god's negative actions as despicable because you are 'unworthy'. Who are you to judge god afterall, right? Yet, in all other "positive" (in your view) aspects of god you have a veritable cornuccopia of opinions and apparently know the mind of god inside and out.
Typical theist fantasy used to avoid facing the hard questions which expose your god as a dick.
leave it in jehovah's hands.
is there a more disgusting phrase in jw land?.
the abuse, harms, thefts, suicides, family destruction - leave it in jehovah's hands.. why would anyone with a more than 2 neurons say, "oh that makes sense," we do not need to change or intervene in any way.. sooner or later, god will take of things.. .
@ Perry...it's so nice to know that god takes care of you while completely ignoring the other 8 billion+ people on this planet. Apparently your "profitable business" takes priority over starving children, genocides, and diseases. Or, is it that those starving children have not yet "made peace with god"?
.
To the OP- "leave it in Jehovah's hands" ploy is code for: "We [the elders; WT] don't have enough interest in correcting this ____ (fill in the blank) issue/problem. Therefore, we'll mask our apathy under the smokescreen of leaving it in the hands of our equally apathetic god".
"Leaving it in Jehovah's hands" with regard to fixing genuine injustices in the Org. frees up more time for WT to pursue its real estate business or strategizing a legal defense to protect the pedophile du jour.
recently someone asked me to define what core teachings have such a hold on jdubs that they have trouble breaking free.
trying to single out the driving force that keeps them in the borg, this is what popped into my head:.
obviously there are lots and lots of wacky things the jdubs teach/believe/pretend to believe.
What you say has been true in the past, but essentially all of the above has been replaced by one dictum:
"Listen [to the Governing Body], obey [the Governing Body] and be blessed [by the Governing Body]".
Amen.
was it necessary for god to kill all innocent firstborn children?
no other way out for the almighty god?.
You know deep down that things don't come from nothing. We came from God...
Anyone else see a problem with this? If something cannot come from nothing, then who made god? Theists answer: no one. He's always existed. Ah! So something CAN come from nothing!
If something can come from nothing then it is possible for our Universe to have come from nothing. No god is necessary.
http://www.minbcnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=1129875#.vh1mijhf_ng.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/12/01/supreme-court-religious-beliefs-appeal/19734249/.
"washington (ap) -- the supreme court won't hear an appeal from the estate of a michigan woman who died following a kidney transplant after turning down a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs.. the justices on monday let stand a state appeals court ruling that said the estate of gwendolyn rozier could not sue her doctors for negligence.. rozier received a kidney from her daughter in a 2007 surgery but doctors later found that her body was rejecting the organ.
Vidiot: The more fanatic ones probably think they're flipping the bird at "Satan's System".
Too bad "Satan" gets the last laugh when the JW dies.
It's the JW equivilent of cutting off their nose to spite their face. Lunacy at its best.
was it necessary for god to kill all innocent firstborn children?
no other way out for the almighty god?.
@ Legacy:
Your littany fails to answer the question in the OP.
If Pharoah's heart was hard, why did god then kill infants as a "justified" response?
Or do you find it acceptable when a thug abuses and kills innocent bystanders?
was it necessary for god to kill all innocent firstborn children?
no other way out for the almighty god?.
If God exists, then He is merciful, kind, just, all knowing, all powerful.
Counting myself as a believer in God, and in the scriptures, I never even ask myself these questions. And certainly God doesn’t need to justify His actions
So, you are able to determine that god is "kind" and "just" by use of your own faculties, yet when it comes to looking at god's actions critically suddenly those same faculties are not enough to call a spade a spade when god acts unjustly?
If your reasoning is not sufficient enough to condemn god's actions as unjust, how is that same reasoning able to praise god ? If it's too flawed to judge him, then it's too flawed to praise him too.
And don’t buy into that JW nonsense
Mormon nonsense is better?
i had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.
i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.
unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.
designs: I showed simple proof of Giuliani's arrest being the better way to deal with shoplifters.
Where's your Frisbee ?
Forest for the trees, designs, forest for the trees....
http://www.minbcnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=1129875#.vh1mijhf_ng.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/12/01/supreme-court-religious-beliefs-appeal/19734249/.
"washington (ap) -- the supreme court won't hear an appeal from the estate of a michigan woman who died following a kidney transplant after turning down a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs.. the justices on monday let stand a state appeals court ruling that said the estate of gwendolyn rozier could not sue her doctors for negligence.. rozier received a kidney from her daughter in a 2007 surgery but doctors later found that her body was rejecting the organ.
"The choice was hers to make, whether for reasons of religion, or for altogether different reasons entirely, or in fact for no reason at all. But as in any aspect of life, where choices result in consequences, Ms. Rozier’s choice resulted in a consequence for her. Sadly, that consequence was her death."
Realistically, the decision was NOT hers to make. WT made it for her, and not abiding by WT rules Re: refusing blood, carries heavy consequences for a JW, namely, expulsion from the group.
It is ironic that JWs will fight the court when it attempts to intervene and force a blood transfusion on a JW child to save its life, then JWs will turn to those same courts to sue the doctors who do the best they can with what is, essentially, one hand tied behind their backs, to accomodate the JWs choice to refuse blood.
"choices result in consequences".
this was inspired by terry's thread.... it is something that raises many questions about the jw belief system.. .
for one thing - the bible certainly explains all the details of the christ birth.
it certainly does not tell people to avoid celebrating it with feasts, customs, etc.
my mom explained it to me this way, its not in the bible.
Neither is JW.Org, so JWs shouldn't have a website either.
(isn't childish linear thinking great?)
