Wait... so the end result is that your brother-in-law is dead and your 401(k) is underfunded, and you call this a blessing?
He had no insurance! Yes, if things had not been so some in the family would have had financial problems.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wait... so the end result is that your brother-in-law is dead and your 401(k) is underfunded, and you call this a blessing?
This is a cop out.
You believe in god yet know absolutely nothing about the god you supposedly believe in?
Seems you have been busted in a lie.
If he doesn't know anything about his god, he can hardly be said to believe in a god at all, can he? He just believes in some vague, indefinable "something" about which he knows nothing.This is a cop out.
You believe in god yet know absolutely nothing about the god you supposedly believe in?
Seems you have been busted in a lie.
Bible is there for all to see
"aforementioned" :biglaugh:You claim it's nonsence without referencing the posts in question or offering any reason, any evidence, or anything of consequence save for the aforementioned insults.
"aforementioned" :biglaugh:
That is simply untrue on the face of it, and its rather sad that this fact fact somehow eludes you. There is nothing illogical, irrational, or trivial about apophatic theology. One can believe (rightly or wrongly) in preternatural agency while also believing that such agency is inherently unknowable.If he doesn't know anything about his god, he can hardly be said to believe in a god at all, can he?
We have not reached the level of apophatic theology in this thread, and it's rather sad that this simple fact eludes you.That is simply untrue on the face of it, and its rather sad that this fact fact somehow eludes you. There is nothing illogical, irrational, or trivial about apophatic theology. One can believe (rightly or wrongly) in preternatural agency while also believing that such agency is inherently unknowable.
"aforementioned" :biglaugh:
I'm there are others who have no clue as well, but the confusion seems far more natural coming from someone who hyphenates 'de facto' ... :yes:I'm hoping I'm not the only one who has no clue what is so funny about the word "aforementioned" in Humanisheart's response.
We have not reached the level of apophatic theology in this thread, ...
Perhaps you think apophaticism is quite a bit more trivial and irrational than you let on, then.
Sounds unfortunate, and I do sympathize.He had no insurance! Yes, if things had not been so some in the family would have had financial problems.
And for all to interpret in a wide variety of ways. Which way do you interpret it?Bible is there for all to see
If a person believes that God is inherently unknowable, then he believes in at least one characteristic of God.That is simply untrue on the face of it, and its rather sad that this fact fact somehow eludes you. There is nothing illogical, irrational, or trivial about apophatic theology. One can believe (rightly or wrongly) in preternatural agency while also believing that such agency is inherently unknowable.
And for all to interpret in a wide variety of ways. Which way do you interpret it?
If a person believes that God is inherently unknowable, then he believes in at least one characteristic of God.
What does it prove, though?The Bible is all the proof I need.
Interpret what you like The Bible is all the proof I need.
Interpret what you like The Bible is all the proof I need.
I'm hoping I'm not the only one who has no clue what is so funny about the word "aforementioned" in Humanisheart's response.
Wow.
Now you are unable to form complete sentences...