It Is Very Cruel of God....

by AllTimeJeff 46 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  tijkmo

  as a jw my beliefs were that the allowing of suffering was not cruelty but based on the issue of divine sovereignty.

  as a public speaker i had loads of illustrations to explain the whole process from racehorses to surgical procedures etc etc.

  one of my talks dealt with why armageddon hasn't come yet..and after discussing the universal issue (time needed to prove) and the side issues of allowing all kinds of government to be tried, scientific progress to be unsuccessful, humans only serving god out of selfishness and so on and so forth, i then made the point that all of these issues have been addressed, have been answered time and time again and so they are no longer the reason that god has not stepped in.

  so what is the only reason left as to why he hasn't...well according to a scripture in peter it is because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentence. so the longer he allows the system to continue the more people can become jws and get everlasting life.

  but....

  in recent years there has been practically zero increase...those that have become jws are merely offsetting those that leave or are expelled. which means that those in line for everlasting life are not neccesarily long time servers but newly associated or children. those that have left have become inactive due to depression, illness, and disillusionment having sacraficed things that they were promised would be satisfied long ago..( Expectation postponed is making the heart sick) and those that have been df-ed have primarily succombed to the basic human desires that way back in the garden of eden they were told they would have no control over. very few if any could be said to be wicked wanton wrongdoers who deserve everlasting destruction.

  and if god does not desire any to be destroyed then why is he considering it in the first place. especially when a much better solution is possible. based on jw beliefs why not get rid of satan and the demons...get rid of those humans that definately do not deserve to live (a heart- reading god should easily be able to locate those) and then give everyone alive and all ressurected ones a new start in perfect conditions. no mass destruction, no more waiting, no more preaching, just get on with it already.

  But does God owe you a damned thing?

  on the basis of him being almighty and we being his creation then i guess we have no right to make demands but this is reasoning most specious imho. we were for a good part of our early lives reliant on parents who if they applied this thinking could treat us anyway they wished arguing that we have no right to question it since without them we wouldn't exist..or how about an employer who provides us with work that allows us to make a wage on which we depend to live. does our dependance on him allow him to treat us unfairly or even cruelly because we have nowhere else to go.

  surely god should be held to an even higher standard than imperfect humans...and since he does not lie surely he 'owes' it to us to fulfill his promises

  YOU SAID YOU’D CATCH ME WHEN NOT IF I FELL
  YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO PROMISE THAT
  BUT NOW TO PROVE YOUR WORDS ARE TRUE
  THE OBLIGATION LIES WITH YOU - liars and fools...the irony

  the conclusion i have come to is that if jws are wrong then obviously i don't want to know them

  and if they are right then i don't want to know god.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I have enjoyed this discussion. I like to start posts like this for readers of JWD to come on and compare the logic, the criteria of evidence that is used in the arguements between thiests and those who for a variety of reasons do not believe that god exists.

  Frankly, I got busy with work today, and so to revisit every single statement of BurnTheShips isn't very tenable for me right now. I just want to say that I hope you know Burn, as well as to all other thiests, that I only debate the ideas. I have no doubt that many of us would get along. I can speak for myself that I am more then willing to get along in person!

  But putting that aside, I think these are serious issues. If god exists has been a polarizing conversation for the last 200 years or more. Please allow me to point out some indisputable facts, facts that all sides must consider:

  The more scientific inquiry and study lights the way, the less superstitious fear grips us. The more freedoms and rights are given (and rightly so) to women and those who choose alternative lifestyles, the more religious pretensions of judging fall by the wayside.

  I started this thread to prove a point, not to say that god exists but is cruel, but that god doesn't exist. This wasn't meant to be a scientific conversation, it was meant to debate the anecdotal evidence that both sides have. Isn't it funny that at the end of this conversation (or the middle of it if you want to keep this going) that this is all we have... anecdotal evidence. Certainly there are better kinds of anecdotal evidence to be had. Some of it can even be verified.

  Thiests, like Burn did, frequently demand that when god's existence is challenged, that athiests prove that god doesn't exist. Such circular reasoning is self defeating, for it doesn't prove anything. When we devolve into the maybe/metaphysical world of thiestic arguements, thiests give themselves permission to lower their standards of evidence in this area to a standard lower then they would be willing to accept in any other part of their life. Thiests wouldn't buy a car sight unseen, or a boat, a house. No one (except some mail order perverts) would marry sight unseen. But thiests are willing to believe in a personage, a "god" that no one has ever seen, no one has ever heard, no one has ever verified exists. In so many areas of life, thiests are smart to verify before they believe, but in the thiestic world, they are willing to suspend their standards of evidence. Why?

  This is something I hope all will think about as they read the debate that has happened above. Consider who is being honest and logical, and who is arguing using truly untenable ideas.

  I do not pretend to change anyone's minds. My goal is to keep this discussion at the forefront on JWD in as respectful yet direct way as I know how. Let the reader decide where truth and honesty lie.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I just want to say that I hope you know Burn, as well as to all other thiests, that I only debate the ideas. I have no doubt that many of us would get along. I can speak for myself that I am more then willing to get along in person!
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  ....but I will reply to a couple of things

  *(The very fact that you can maintain that God is cruel based on an objective external standard exposes the weakness of your position. Indeed in your world "good" becomes merely a social convention, or an evolutionary process, or the opinion of the majority, or what those in charge declare it to be. There can be no absolute, eternal value such as "good". In one set of circumstances good might be the eating of one's enemies. In another one it may be the loving instead. "Good" as a purely evolutionary process could include killing off unproductive, less than optimal humans like the physically and mentally handicapped. If you want to borrow the Christian definition of Good as something absolute and eternal, something which you are using even to judge God, then you can't reject the Christian explanation of suffering which is consistent with such ideas.)

  No one said that the quest to understand what good and bad is worthless. Far from it! But frankly, it borders on arrogance to suggest that thiests have the market cornered. Good acts result in relief and feeling good. Evil and cruel acts result in pain and loss. If one was raised to be totally athiest, and lived in a world of athiests, yet someone cruelly hurt them by burning their hand, we would come up with some concept that said the perpetrator was "bad". (semnatics here, pick your word...)

  The idea of good and evil are not based on emotional states, but on the positive and negative acts that come forth from them. The fact that they exist in no way props up any thiestic arguement. I HAPPILY acknoweldge that goodness and kindness exist. I am drawn to such ones. Those who have the power to do good and actually do it are great. Those who do have the power and don't (can you guess who I am talking about?) are at best ambivilent, at worst cold and callous, perhaps maniacal and yes, cruel.

  And do what, accept your alternative? If God does not exist, then all of our existence, including our suffering and pain, has no value, no purpose and no goal.

  Really? You don't think trying to be a good citizen and trying to improve the life of you and those around you is purposeless and valueless? That a scientific and logical approach to understanding humanity, free of superstitous stories found in old scrolls, has no value? I will let the reader decide, but this is why those that have thought this through often say (im my estimation correctly so) that religion is a crutch used to make it through the day for many people.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I should have put my other arguement first, but knowing how polarized you and I are on this matter, it has been good to share in the discussion, and I hope we can continue to do so...
• 

  aniron

  So if there is no God, also lets us also say that there are no Gods - lets not leave Islam, Hindu, Sikhs etc out.

  Then all the suffering, all the "evil" , in this world

  Is our damn fault.

  Therefore until mankind removes the "evil" from within him.

  There will never be any peace in this world.
• 

  JWdaughter

  5go
  
  "You pretty much spelled out why I became a weak atheist. I want to believe there is a god but not the one the bible talks about. That guy is a sick mutha."
  
  I'm with you. I hate to say it, but there you go! Seeing as how I am missing fellowship--I wish there was a "weak atheists who want to believe in god" group, to help me get over my inclinations to say 'god bless you' and stuff.
• 

  JWdaughter

  5go
  
  "You pretty much spelled out why I became a weak atheist. I want to believe there is a god but not the one the bible talks about. That guy is a sick mutha."
  
  I'm with you. I hate to say it, but there you go! Seeing as how I am missing fellowship--I wish there was a "weak atheists who want to believe in god" group, to help me get over my inclinations to say 'god bless you' and stuff.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  God Bless you JWDaughter.

  I mean that.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  One more "one more thing"

  Burn said this

  *(The very fact that you can maintain that God is cruel based on an objective external standard exposes the weakness of your position. Indeed in your world "good" becomes merely a social convention, or an evolutionary process, or the opinion of the majority, or what those in charge declare it to be. There can be no absolute, eternal value such as "good". In one set of circumstances good might be the eating of one's enemies. In another one it may be the loving instead. "Good" as a purely evolutionary process could include killing off unproductive, less than optimal humans like the physically and mentally handicapped. If you want to borrow the Christian definition of Good as something absolute and eternal, something which you are using even to judge God, then you can't reject the Christian explanation of suffering which is consistent with such ideas.)

  A book I wish all honest minded thiests would read is "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. One of the biggest misconceptions about his book is that it is 100% athiest in the strictest sense. In actuality, Harris allows for things that for a lack of a better word, are often described as "spiritual." With this thought that "good" (or perhaps love) is the sole realm of the thiestic realm, Harris said this. I agree with this very much. He was talking about how religious moderates are selective as to which parts of their holy book they take literally and seriously. on pg 20 paragraph 1, he said the following;

  Most of what remains, -the "good parts" - has been spared the same winnowing because we do not yet have a truly modern understanding of our ethical intuitions and our capacity for spiritual experience. If we better understood the workings of the human brain, we would undoubtedly discover lawful modes of conduct, and the various ways we use our attention. What makes one person happier then another? Why is love more conducive to happiness then hate? Why do we generally prefer beauty to ugliness and order to chaos? Why does it feel good to smile and laugh, and why do these shared experiences generally bring people closer together? Is the ego an illusion, and if so, what implications does this have for human lfe? Is there life after death? These are ultimately questions for a mature science of the mind. If we ever develop such a science, most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics then they now are to astronomers. (Sam Harris - The End of Faith pg 20)

  I thought this observation, with it's openness to the possibilities of future discovery both reasonable and inclusive. It doesn't deny our spiritual side to be honest and call out what the evidence shows, that god isn't here. Our spiritual side, as worthy of praise and research as it is, does not by itself prove anything. It is not a bad place to be to say that the evidence at best isn't in yet. But who is looking to gather real evidence? Science? Or thiests? It seems clear that Science makes honest attempts at gathering data, while thiests see their role as merely to interpret any new data science comes up with to fit their pre-conceived notions of the nature of the universe.