Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

💥Wow! Rep. Tim Burchett just said the unreleased Epstein material is so evil it will haunt you for life. “Satanic. From the pits of hell.” Torture, cannibalism, removed kids teeth. They removed the children’s teeth to prevent them from biting during sexual assault and torture. Epstein even enrolled his...

1,154,886 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

So evil exists, God exists, God willed evil to exist. He didn’t create it, He couldn’t. He’s holy, holy, holy. But He didn’t prevent it The Problem of Evil — John MacArthur // March 17, 2007 You have to understand that this issue of the problem of evil is the big issue, the big one in even evangelical Christianity, as well as liberal Christianity – everybody trying to save God from this biblical definition. Let’s assume for a minute that God doesn’t have the power or willingly limited the power for a greater good, human freedom; or doesn’t have the knowledge. In any case, guess what; evil exists and God exists, and God has no power over evil, and evil dominates the world, and it is beyond His control. The universe is out of control; it’s out of control and the most crucial point. So just exactly how, may I ask you, is God all of a sudden going to get the knowledge of the future that He needs to bring this deal to an end, and how is He going to exercise the power to end it, and how is He going to overturn His immutable decision in the past to give the creature autonomy? How is God going to define the end of everything in the way the Bible says He defines it if He’s not even in control of it, because He will not or cannot exercise the power, or doesn’t have the knowledge? Maybe global warming has more power than God. So I ask you this: Which god would you like? Would you rather have a god trying to get control of evil or a God completely in control of it? It’s obvious. It’s heresy to say the world is full of evil apart from a predetermined plan and purpose by God far beyond the willy-nilly human choices. So evil exists, God exists, God willed evil to exist. He didn’t create it, He couldn’t. He’s holy, holy, holy. But He didn’t prevent it. It occurred in a rebellion against Him. But He willed and ordained that it occurred. In fact, if you study the Bible carefully, you can see many ways in which God designs to use evil things – natural evil, moral evil, supernatural evil – for His own purposes, even eternal evil, sometimes to bring fear and terror and conviction on the unregenerate, sometimes to bring chastisement and discipline on God’s people, sometimes to humble them. And in the case of Job, He turned Satan loose for horrendous evil in the life of Job. You remember that Jesus said to Peter one day, “Satan desires to have you that he may sift you like wheat”? Remember that, Luke 22? And if I’d had been Peter I’d have said, “Well, you told him no, right?” Jesus said, “Actually, I told him yes, have at him.” What? “So that when you’re converted, you can strengthen the brethren.” There’s a remedial purpose in this. “As you come through that difficulty and come out the other side, you’re going to be able to strengthen the brethren.”It was 2 Corinthians 12 where Paul says, “There was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan.” A lot of discussion about what that is. Pretty clear. Messenger is aggelos. A satanic messenger is a what; a demon. I don’t think Paul had a demon in his life, I think that’s the demon that was leading the false teachers who were ripping and shredding the Corinthian church, and Paul prayed three times that it might be removed, and the Lord didn’t remove it. Why? He says twice in 2 Corinthians 12, “to keep me from exalting myself, to keep me from exalting myself.” If God so designs He will use a demon-led false teacher association to rip up a church to humble the pastor. He’s in control of all of that, of all of it.

Terri Green

16,778 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

34,921 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen