Well then this argument is totally pointless.
And I'm sorry, I haven't seen you agree with anyone besides your fellow "Peace to you"ers. Can you show me where you have agreed with one non believer on this thread?
An Old Argument.... does it hold water?
by AK - Jeff 1495 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
N.drew
No, I'm a lazy SOB. But if I come across something while strolling along, I will let you know. I do remember somewhere I said; we can both be right, I don't know how, but it is possible.
-
N.drew
I said OTWO is right on with his sarcasm (I think it was sarcasm) because I am sarcastic. Is that what you mean "give an example".*
My butt is addicated to the chair in front of my computer, so I went for a little stroll.
*you didn't say that though, oh the troble with interpretation. Damn mind! I agree with OTWO, I deserve to be spoken to like he did. I might get bored again and go for another stroll. Stayed tuned.
-
-
-
N.drew
I love you movie girl!!!!
-
AGuest
Sigh. Sorry, but there are folks on the this who are not only not "listening"... but refuse to listen (may you all have peace!). Why, then, keep "talking"? I can't see the point. To be FAIR, though, some questions have been directed at me and although I am through with the other matters, I will address them. But only them:
If your LORD really can speak all three of those languages, why is he relying on sounding it out in modern english? I think this was left unanswered. I saw it as one of the many nuggets in this thread.
In an effort to provide YOU with an answer, dear Jay88 (as always, peace to you!)... "hallel" is not an English word, but Hebrew... which is the human language my Lord speaks first (he speaks them all, of course, but only Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek... and because I speak Engligh, English... to ME). The English work is "praise". Thus, " Hallelujah, Halleluyah, and the Lating form Alleluia are transliterations of the Hebrew word ?????? (Modern Halleluya, Tiberian Hall?lûyah) meaning "Praise Yah. The last syllable is from the first two letters of the name of God, YHWH, written JHVH in Latin*). Hallelujah is found primarily in the book of Psalms. The word is used in Judaism as part of the Hallel prayers, and in Christian prayer. It has been accepted into the English language and has a similar pronunciation in many other languages." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallelujah
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that since dear EP (peace to you, as well, dear one!)... "knew" what he was talking about, he also knew this and so there really was no reason TO respond: he either knew it... or would figure it out once he re-read what he posted.
What, if anything, would allow you to question your faith, or perhaps accept ideas proposed by a non believer?
The same thing that has always done so (for example, with my "faith" in the WTBTS and its claim to be the "truth"), dear Uber (peace to you, too!): the "fruits" of the proponent(s) of what I believe in. Hence, I could not continue with the WTBTS because their fruits belied their claims. Contrastly, as I have stated on many occasions, my Lord has NEVER lied to me... and in ALL things he has conducted himself with the very love he claims to possess... and asks of me.
This is, again, one the primary reasons why I reject those things I do: I either don't see the [true] love in them (such things)... or emanating from those who tout them. While I do see some things... sometimes many... that suggest a knowledge and understanding of the physical world... I also often see hatred, intolerance, arrogance, anger, bigotry, falsehood, deceit, greed, self-concern, lack/denial of accountability, judging, finger pointing, disdain, denial of the spiritual... and other things like these... that tell ME they, too, are false (possibly because they either have NO clue as to or utterly deny the SPIRIT world)... and so stand in opposition to the truth... and the Truth.
It really is just that simple for me, dear one.
I hope both of these clarify and, again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
*There was no "y" in ancient Hebrew. There was a "yodh"... which corresponds to the letter "j"... which is PRONOUNCED as the English letter "y". In contrast, there was/is no "w" (the Hebrew "waw") in the name of the Most Holy One of Israel. The letter is a "v" (the "vav"). Due to the Jewish penchant for pronouncing the "waw" as with a "v" (i.e., "Manischewitz", pronounced "manisheVitz", etc.), it was ASSUMED that the "waw" was a "w"... versus a "v". The symbol can represent both, however. Thus, even if one chooses the SPELLING "Yahweh"... the pronounciation is still "YahVEH".
-
AK - Jeff
THIS was the point that began this discussion - a point that has been haplessly ignored by the believers who have posted, while continuously brought back to the board by non-theists here.
With the death of millions of kids from starvation each year do we not have to honestly conclude that one of the following is true regarding God -?
1- God is evil.
2- God cannot or will not hear and answer prayers.
3- An omnipotent god simply does not exist."To address the first one:
1- God is evil.
IF you premise that God cannot be evil - then we must move to premise 2 or 3. IF you agree that God is evil, then we can stop here, declare that good people would never desire to worship an evil god and be done with religion/faith/worship based on principles.
The second:
2- God cannot or will not hear and answer prayers.
It cannot be argued that millions [perhaps billions] of good hearted people pray often, perhaps daily, even hourly in some cases for the situation that causes millions of kids to die from hunger every year to be resolved so that such does not continue. They clearly pray with the assumption that such could be resolved by god if he chooses. It could be that they misunderstand god, having incorrectly categorized him as 'loving'. Or it could be that he does not hear prayers. Or it could be that his answer is a simple 'no'.
So it follows, that since believers have discounted the first premise [God cannot be evil in their opinion], that if he is indeed god, he cannot or does not desire to hear prayers and answer them regarding these millions of starving children. If you find a way to justify this ignorance of prayer, or the ignoring of the pain and suffering of all these children, then you have agreed to this premise. [Although agreement with this premise might sound like a way out for believers, it isn't really. For only a monster would hear prayers and not act if he had the capacity to act.]
Which leaves only number three:
3- An omnipotent god simply does not exist.
NO further discussion required unless you can discount the result. Much of what has been offered by the believers here has been ad hoc hypothesis, seeking to shift the onus of proof toward those who accept only that which is already proven to have at least a substantive foundation. This discussion can only arrive at one of the above conclusions unless substance is provided that other alternatives are possible or likely.
Still, the burden of proof must rest with those who seek to defend invisible persons doing invisible things that are understood only by those who believe in the invisible person doing those things. That would be true, even if substantial 'evidence' were brought to bear, be it circumstantial. Yet, no such evidence has been brought to bear except in the form of opinion, faith, or suggestion.
To succumb to such irrational conclusions is the height of circularity [and I might add presumption].
If such could be demonstrated [let's say a particular boy was prayed for in all the world and his body strengthened, his ribs receded, his pale skin gained luster, and his starvation immediately subsided] that would still only be anecdotal. But if such evidence existed, then perhaps it would give way to double blind studies that showed that god could and does reverse the potential death of victims of starvation and famine.
But none of the above has been demonstrated - nor do I suppose it could be. Since the only means of reversal of starvation is to provide food, and only man has ever done so, it cannot be demonstrated that God ever did so - except in myths and legend and application of supernatural explanations to things that can be explained otherwise.
Still, the magnitude of the problem, millions starving every year for decade after decade, is much larger than any anecdotal solution, even if one could be proven. And hence the value of using such a basis for determination of the existence [or not] of god. For in spite of the continuous claims that it is mans' fault that these children are starving - not god's fault - this does not relieve the above premises. Still, one of them is correct. If you accept that this is man's problem - but there is a god who has handed it to man - then you accept premise #2. God simply ignores the prayers of the faithful who ask him to relieve the earth of starving children - or doesn't hear those prayers.
I maintain that acceptance of premise #2 is far worse than #1 or #3. For acceptance of #1 means that God is evil. So, we run from evil, we do not embrace it. #3 means that God is non-existent. God is not to blame, but just isn't here. But number 2 means that he does exist, but either can't or won't act. And who wants to worship an impotent God, or far worse a malevolent God of that sort? And yet, are not believers forced to accept premise 2? It appears so. They cannot dare acceptance of the other two, so they must embrace a monster, and accept congnitive dissonance as forever companion in order to excuse it.
Jeff
-
N.drew
God is Jeff
-
N.drew
So, Jeff, which one is it?
