sometimes It's more complex than this to figure out
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
humbled
Caliber, Yes it is possible that a higher being has a reason to appear unloving and weak and unfair.
But nothing changes a simple statement:the tsunami does nothing to prove God's love and power.
Our old training gave us really involved excuses that laid reason on reason for shit happening. But that is presumptous. As others have said--Job's friends (who thought they were better friends of God than Job was)--they supplied reasons for the natural disaster of Job.
We could sit on the edge of our seat reading the book of Job to find the answer to cfty's OP. But, ironically the ancient story of Job lost it's innocence when later editors supplied,without foundation, the behind-the-scene drama of satan in God's court of heaven....
It is so tempting to write a happy ending to the Job story---but it IS more complicated than the fixers could fix----even their attempt o write a happy ending left something out---Job's dead kids
Let's move on
-
Viviane
Flamegrilled, I didn't avoid anything, and it wasn't crude, it was just getting to the point instead of making a complicated argument to say "it's a mystery".
So, before I answer your questions, I do find it really funny that earlier you were saying Cofty only allowed answers he liked and now you are trying to dictate how I answer a question.
1) Yes. The logic is inescapable and there have been thousands of year and thousands of examples. It's no different that saying I've got enough information to conclude the sun will rise tomorrow.
2) Yes, but if there are, then they would be utterly irrelevant since if we can't grasp it, those reasons are meaningless to us and could never play a part in any decision. It's no different than saying whether or not I have a ham or turkey sandwich tomorrow is going to be determined by whether or not a star 1000 light years away exploded last year as that information couldn't possibly ever have meaning in my lifetime since I would never see it. Something outside of the human capability to grasp cannot be relevant in decision making.
3) If there IS some reason we know is there and can't grasp, it's a mystery. If we don't know it's there and couldn't grasp it anyway, it's not a mystery.
-
caliber
1) Do you believe we have every fact necessary to reach a logical conclusion on this matter?
2) Do you accept the possibility that there are factors involved that we are not capable of grasping?
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. ~~ flamegilled
Most excellence points
And since you seem determined to keep this thread tight, so that I cannot bring in additional evidence for God ........
results ......The sky within this artist frame of reference (which he tolds upward to the heavens) cannot give a complete picture ( understanding )of all that is above
-
Viviane
Caliber, wouldn't the answer to get a complete picture be to simply put the frame down or move it around?
-
flamegrilled
Viviane
But I didn't criticize Cofty for that. I was only pointing out that those seemed to be the rules of this thread, and I was both attempting to operate within them, and pointing out their limitations.
How can you answer YES to #1 considering your YES answer to #2? That's surely a contradiction.
Your #3 addendum isn't logical or helpful. To say something is "a mystery" defines it in a persistent way. I've never proposed that.
That would be like a courtroom hearing part of the evidence and declaring the case closed as "a mystery" even though it acknowledges that there is currently insufficient evidence to make a ruling and/or that more evidence might become available. It is simply not a helpful or logical way of describing the available data.
However, to acknowledge (as you have) that there are factors involved that we are not capable of grasping would not make them irrelevant.
I return to the pet analogy. From the POV of the pet, the fact that it cannot grasp the intention behind what it perceives to be a cruel act does not make it irrelevant to the pet does it?
You say that whatever cannot be grasped is irrelevant. I say that there is no logic to that. If we are capable of determining that something might be outside of our sphere of knowledge, then we can certainly factor that into our decision making.
FG
-
cofty
Kate - I hoped it was obvious from the context that I was referring to your theological issues and nothing else. You do seem determined t omisunderstand whatever I say, but you are not alone on that.
-
caliber
Caliber, wouldn't the answer to get a complete picture be to simply put the frame down or move it around ?
Then tell cofty that ... rather than him calling everyone "off topic "... thus you get my point , in a left handed way at least....
the topic is framed too tight
The sky within this artist frame of reference (which he tolds upward to the heavens) cannot give a complete picture ( understanding ) of all that is above so why not move the frame around ? (good additional point )
But in some sports or card games they play by home field rules... this is cofty home field
-
Viviane
Flamegrilled, you were being critical. You talked about how you weren't allowed to do what you wanted to and then used loaded words like "not allowed to stray" and lazy.
Why do think it's a contradiction? We know enough about fluid dynamics and engineering to make air travel the safest form of travel yet we are still learning more about engineering and fluid dynamics that could make it better. It's not a contradiction to say we know enough to draw a conclusion YET there is a CHANCE we may learn more because it's not sure there even IS more information. If decisions were made using that type of thinking, no decision would ever be made.
My addendum three was not an addendum, it was a point I was making. It was simply pointing out the logic in waiting on ungraspable information to make a decision. It would be like giving me a menu half in English and half in ancient Hebrew. Even though I have it in my hand, I can't understand it so it can't possibly help in my decision on what to order.
And, you're wrong about what I acknowledged. You asked if there was a possibility that there could be knowlege, not that there IS knowledge about this we don't have. Maybe that's why you think there is a paradox in what I wrote?
In your pet analogy, to the pet, it's a mystery. I don't know you are going out of your way to avoid calling what you are describing by what it is.
-
Viviane
Caliber, the frame analogy doesn't apply to Cofty since what some people have been doing it trying to change the picture. He's asking for an explanation for the picture, some people are trying to describe a different picture.
