The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  flamegrilled

  I am simply pointing out a dilemma for theists. (Cofty)

  Sure. I accept that it's a dilemma, or at least a question that is necessary to ask. I also accept that we may not have the capability to answer it and therefore we cannot draw conclusions. Since you claim that you are not drawing conclusions, then you and I are in the same boat.

  And since you seem determined to keep this thread tight, so that I cannot bring in additional evidence for God, and you do not claim that suffering disproves God, then are agreed. The 2004 tsunami proves nothing in and of itself.

  Your only point is that it creates a dilemma. And what do you do with other dilemmas that you may be faced with Cofty? Leap to a conclusion that dismisses the dilemma? It's certainly one option. I say it is a lazy one if it doesn't deal with the whole body of data. But in the interests of keeping this thread within your parameters no one is allowed to stray outside of your perceived dilemma.
• 

  tec

  Viviane, you are not allowed to say that you don't know. Or that there are things we don't know. I am sure Cofty will not have a problem confirming that he has deemed this answer unacceptable.

  Has there never been a person in your life that you know... you know their nature... who has seemed to have acted outside of that nature? Would you not trust that there may be elements that you know nothing about... but you are sure that if you knew those elements, that you would see that your friend/loved one had not acted outside of their nature after all?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Viviane

  Tec, I asked for an example where Cofty disallowed an answer.

  Saying "I don't know" would be fine, but you keep going and say you DO know. You're just mashing up two answers that have already been discussed. Your questions about someone else in my life, I don't see how that is relevant. It's made up to go with the answer you want to give (that we don't know, but we do) by making an emotional appeal on a hypothetical situation and it's loaded with WT like writing designed to make the outcome the one you want, "loved ones", "would you not trust", etc.

  Flamegrilled, why would you need additional evidence for God? The question already allows that the god of the Bible exists. Why do you mention other dilemmas and call reaching a conclusion lazy? Cofty is keeping it tight to see if there is an answer to the dilemma, how is that lazy?
• 

  flamegrilled

  Viviane

  No. Keeping it tight in this case is simply diallowing any line of reason that Cofty doesn't want to accept as part of the answer. As long as he stipulates the parameter that IF there is a God of the Bible then we MUST be able to explain the tsunami, then it does not allow for the simple line of reason that I put forward in my analogy of the animal that is not capable of understanding the actions of its owner in certain very specific circumstances.
• 

  tec

  excellent summary of both sides cofty

  I'd like to see a lucid believer take your summary and do a point by point rebuttal.

  There have been counter-rebuttals when the various points have been discussed... throughout the thread.

  These are not included in the summary that Cofty keeps posting. Making it seem as though there has been only a reason given, and then the 'rational' rebuttal... but no counter-rebuttal.

  That is a disingenius representation of the ongoing discussions in this thread.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Viviane

  No, you are mixing up two things and trying to call them one thing, it seems. His not allowing the question to be change or the parameters is NOT disallowing lines of reasoning.

  It's his question and he's simply making sure that answers given stick to the question. It's not any different that a teaching asking what 2+2 is and when you say five and marks you wrong, you saying if the question was 2+3 then you would have the right answer.

  Besides, your answer about animals is not a good comparison. You aren't killing the animal, the people is the tsunami didn't get surgery or a painful medical treatment, they died. My dog accidentally poked her self in her neck on a stick, I am putting antibiotics on it. Sure, she doen't like it, but I do it anyway and I give her treats when I do it. I don't shoot her in the head even though that would technically stop the cut from getting infected and hurting her.

  Tec, you're free to create a counter-rebuttal list if you think there needs to be one. And you haven't provided proof of your accusation against Cofty.
• 

  flamegrilled

  Ah, but you missed my point Viviane. I did not say that we were the animal and God was the owner. I already made the point to Humbled after he referred me to the (very entertaining) Louie C.K. interview - this is not an illustration that can be stretched to fit like a glove.

  The point is far more simple than that. We can acknowledge that it is possible that a higher being has a reason for doing something that appears unloving from our standpoint - but only because we have incomplete information. It does not mean that the higher being (should He exist) is unloving, simply because we cannot reconcile the information available to us and explain a clear answer in human terms.
• 

  Viviane

  I didn't miss your point at all. I was just pointing out that the analogy is broken. You're basically giving an answer that's already been covered, "it's a mystery".
• 

  humbled

  It isn't possible to look "behind the scene" with any God that we've been told exists.

  This is an ex-JW site. We are familiar with the description we were taught of the Christian God--who,btw, isn't significantly different than any other christian-church version of him.

  Isn't it fair to say that a natural disaster doesn't prove that God is all powerful. Isn't it fair to say it doesn't proveGod is love.

  How can a tsunami prove these things?

  It is fair to say the discussion can move to another phase of conversation, slowly and deliberately. We are still each free to believe as we will, the discussion of God can remain on the table. But how can we say the death of 250,000 gives evidence of a loving all-powerful God?

  Isn't it fair to say that John 3:16 does NOT read:For God so loved the world that he sent a tsunami so that none should perish.....
• 

  flamegrilled

  Viviane - To present my comments as "it's a mystery" is just a crude attempt to avoid the logic.

  Let me rephrase the points I made earlier in terms of direct questions to you:

  1) Do you believe we have every fact necessary to reach a logical conclusion on this matter? YES/NO

  2) Do you accept the possibility that there are factors involved that we are not capable of grasping? YES/NO

  How would you directly answer these YES/NO questions?