The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one. Satan is ruler of the world.
Jehovah's Witnesses have been peddling this ‘Biblical truth’ for well over a hundred years.
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Hummingbird001
I've never seen anyone so completely miss the main point of EVERY post, as tec. It's the only thing she's consistent on.
You know that saying about people who don't listen with a view to understand, but they listen with a view to reply? It seems tec doesn't READ with a view to understand, she reads with a view to replying.
That's why her posts take everyone's thoughts apart, piece by piece, arguing minutae, and completely miss the point.
"Can't see the forest for the trees" seems to apply a bit here, too.
-
cofty
Spot on Hummingbird. I groan when I see the white lilly becasue I know we are going off on tangents.
Let's have a look at this attempt to shift the blame.
It was the first response that pastor John tried, and I couldn't believe he was serious. This is the 21st century and christians are blaming a devil for bad stuff!
The concept of god's nemesis doesn't even appear in the bible until post-exile when the Jews came into contact with the dualistic Zoroastrian religion. It is a strange pagan notion that makes god look pathetically weak.
Let's play along with it for a while.
Did god hand over his entire creation to a diabolical enemy with no restrictions and then go AWOL? This is not the god of christian theism.
The devil can do nothing without the knowledge and permission of god. Jesus' god remains in control, sustaining all things, providing good things and answering prayers.
Jesus invited his followers to pray for anything with the confidence they would receive. John's example shows that it was proper to pray for the health and well being of others.
So, if Satan caused the tsunami he did so with the full knowledge and permission of god.
An omnipotent god who is intimately involved in human affairs sat back and watched a quarter of a million people drown and your dilemma remains unanswered.
Your answer is the moral equivalent of letting a wild lion loose in a village and then blaming the animal for the deaths.
People who offer this lame excuse worship a bumbling, impotent god.
-
flamegrilled
I confess I haven't read every comment on this post. I have read the first 5 pages, and the last 3 as well as some in between just to see which direction things were going.
I am a believing theist. I believe God is love.
It is true that an all powerful God could stop suffering. One solution would be to kill everything – quickly and completely painlessly. Applying the same logic we could say that all suffering could have been prevented by not bringing into being any beings capable of suffering in the first place.
I wonder if Cofty is so certain that if he was all-powerful that he would have a way to bring into existence creatures with absolute free-will that were not capable of causing or experiencing suffering. For those who think there is a trivial answer to that, I suggest that there is not, and furthermore I do not think that you and I are capable of fully fathoming it.
For those who have domestic animals that show a reasonable degree of awareness and can (to a lesser degree than humans) reason on certain situations (I might trim that back to “mentally react” for those who wish to take issue with the word “reason” in this context, but animal lovers who have had smart animals will understand what I mean) have you ever experienced having to put them through distress in order to do what you believe to be the best thing for them? Have you seen an animal having needles stuck in it by a vet, experiencing extreme discomfort, and clearly not understanding why (if you are present) you are allowing him/her to go through this, but at the same time you are sometimes aware of a sense of trust even in these extreme situations. It depends on the animal. I have certainly experienced this.
The point is that you know something the animal does not know. In fact you know something that the animal is probably not capable of knowing. But let's run with the idea that the animal was capable of asking a simple question - “is my owner cruel?” How would the animal answer? Again I say it depends on the animal and the relationship that you have with it. You might indeed be an uncaring owner in other ways and the animal might have no reason to think you were anything but cruel. However if you were a loving owner in all other ways and yet the animal experienced these “out of character” periods with no way of knowing the reason, then what should it conclude?
It is my firm belief that we are like that animal. Now, if you allow for the possibility that there might be a God, then you may draw your own conclusions as to whether he is a cruel owner or not.
But that is not my primary point.
My primary point is that our perception of negative things that we may go through as humans is neither proof that there is no God, nor is it proof of what his character MUST be if he were to exist.
In the pet analogy your pet would ALWAYS be right to conclude that you were a cruel owner whenever you allow “bad things” to be inflicted on it. The conclusion would be flawed based upon limited information. And so it is with us and God.
-
cofty
I wonder if Cofty is so certain that if he was all-powerful that he would have a way to bring into existence creatures with absolute free-will that were not capable of causing or experiencing suffering. - flamegrilled
The point that I have stressed more than any other for 53 pages is that this is NOT about suffering in general.
It is ONLY abut "natural evil " - bad stuff that isn't caused by humans and doesn't involve human free will.
I am not claiming that suffering proves there is no god - that would be facile.
Christians believe that god is loving powerful and knowing - On 26th December 2004 he passively observed a wave grow into a tsunami that drowned a quarter of a million people.
How do you reconcile those facts?
The only answer that is not allowed is anything that sounds like "its a mystery". That is ruled out as dishonest sophistry.
-
snare&racket
Ahh Tec,
Could you tell us any philosophy or teaching unique to Jesus and no other human as you have chosen to credit him with them?
With the gospels being handpicked and edited for a political message, how can you quote the new testament or hold any beliefs held in them? The very idea of a Jesus charachter is founded on books proven to be manipulated. Let's not even go into the books chosen and ignored.
Tec, your hipocrisy is as clear as day to everyone but yourself. You say you know which scriptures are legitimate as they do not contradict scriptures you hold true, namely the ideaology of Jesus. You dont have access to a source of data other than the bible as formed by the catholics, to use the teachings of christ to determine what is right or wrong in the bible is nonsensical, the verses about Jesus ARE IN THE BIBLE TOO !!!!!
You handpick the verses on Jesus and for no reason make them the ultimate authority to judge the rest of the bible, do you not see the illogical nature of this approach?
Further to that are you aware of the history of...
Heaven
Sin & Forgivness
Monotheism
The son of a deity, his death and ressurection (long before the new testament, and not stories of Jesus).
If you do alongside knowledge on the history of the bible, you will know that the verses on Jesus you use to judge the rest of the bible, are arguably the most illegitimate of the whole book ! All these teachings are older than the jews as a people, they are beliefs that began in pagan worship and slowly evolved into teachings the jews held dear. The origin being anything but inspired!
Back to the gospels, they contradict each other constantly, they were written AT EARLIEST 30yrs after jesus dies and most likely over 70 years after. This in a time where only word of mouth was used until it was written. The logic of using these words as an an authority of anything is ridiculous! Why these scrolls from the desert overy any other Tec ? Your answers are usually about Jesus.. a charachter IN THE SCROLL. Do you see your issue in doing that ? 'JesusChrist' is as much evidence as you need, his name would have been Ieshua and Christ is a greek term.... This is a huge clue to the pollution of the message, even the name is clearly historically incorrect. I bet you NEVER call him Ieshua! What else is wrong ?
As for the message of 'Jesus' it promotes and defends slavery and even being a good slave, he treats women terribly, his attitude to the poor was disgusting, his words on breaking up the family are reprehensible and those EXACT words are respoinsible for much pain on this very forum. He talks of returning, then returned several times accordinf to the gospels, though the end did not come in any of those returns... What reason is there to hang on the words of a text with no historical or spiritual authority, none of the message is uniue, none of it is historically evidential and it is FULL of inconsistancies, how on earth can you, do you, use these verses as an authority to judge everything else?
I just dont get it Tec, then you respond by talking about Jesus... a charachter in the scrolls.... it is like me promoting that Superman is real, then quoting the superman film script as evidence.... of course the bit where he fly's around the earth to change time is made up, i use the script from the first movie to judge the others... and in the first film, the laws of physics are respected.
Do you see the issue...
-
doofdaddy
Flamegrilled
Page 26 covers your point
-
Hummingbird001
If God held up the waters of the Red Sea, surely he could have done the same with the tsunami? If he wanted to...
-
bohm
Thanks, cofty! This thread is truly epic. It is amazing to behold the best answers and how quickly an answer is dropped when it ís criticized.
-
KateWild
Why should anything be on our time? Do we know what needs to be done? Are we willing to lose even one because we don't want to wait any longer? Would we be willing to wait longer if we knew that one was our own flesh and blood? Would it be worth it then, if it was our own child?-tammy
This is what sounds a bit WTish to me a little prov3.5,6. I always found this profoundly unsatisfying. My own child is suffering, I can't remove his pain, but he knows what I can and cant do because I communicate with him. He knows I am doing my best.
But as far as God and Christ are concerned I am communicating with them, but being ignored, the spirit doesn't talk to me, through my gut or any other way. I want suffering to end in my lifetime, I am being reasonable. If God and Christ cared they would put an end to suffering now
She (Kate) has removed him from creation as science has made evident-snare
I do believe that God is the creator and by means of evolution created atoms, and sub-atomic particles. I also believe the complex laws of the universe had an intelligent creator and the evolutionary process of abiogenesis makes me think of God and the wonders of science. Science actually reinforces my opinion. But it is just my POV, I like having faith in a creator and getting angry at God when natural disasters cost millions of lives. Venting at God helps me regain composure.