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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  snare&racket

  Adamah,

  It is not applicable, the dog i clearly said, was dumb.

  We are not, we appreciate the parameters of god, his creation and suffering as explained in the bible.

  i cant believe you thought i didnt comprehend where the 'analogy' was going, obviously he was going in the direction of us all being 'dumb' to the mystery of god....wow, new argument!..... I think it is on page one.... But anyway, that is bullshit, god wrote a book..so we ARE informed.

  Such suffering is a contradiction to his ability or his love or his morals as potrayed in the bible.......Have you not been taking notes?

  Keep floggin the horse, but it went to nirvana yonks ago....
• 

  snare&racket

  Ps , its ok, dont quote and dissect my words, i sincerely dont read your reply usually.sorry chief xxxx
• 

  cofty

  Why does Adam tell us things very obvious things that we already know VERY LOUDLY?

  COFTY SAID- However, a believer cannot have that AND also claim that god is love for the following reason.

  NEWS-FLASH: they not only CAN, they DO (and don't need your permission). Most believers don't NOTICE the contradictions, or if they DO, they don't even CARE about the contradictions - Adam

  Yes indeed that was my whole point. Christian theism is internally inconsistent. That was my conclusion...

  Therefore christian theism is fatally flawed, not only because of external evidence but because it is internally inconsistent.

  Will update this summary today...
• 

  flamegrilled

  Way to miss the ENTIRE point of the analogy, since it's inexplicable to the dog: he cannot explain it!

  This is true, although I no longer accept that they are missing the point. They are just unwilling to answer the question, because to do so would be to acknowledge that the OP is logically flawed.

  Trying to pretend that I am illustrating the tsunami is silly. Calling the dog dumb is irrelevant, unhelpful and inaccurate. If the dog were truly "dumb" in the absolute sense, then it wouldn't feel malice toward Louie CK either. We ourselves are NOT omniscient, therefore we can be lacking certain information just like the dog.

  We can logically conceive of a situation whereby a being of lower intelligence is not capable of understanding the situation. If it makes what seems like the obvious conclusion it would be wrong. This is simple to understand people.

  zound made the best contribution by saying that "God CAN communicate with his 'pets' if he wants to." But this also presumes that such communication would be in our best interests. There is no particular reason to logically presume that.
• 

  cofty

  Hiding behind a flawed analogy is not the same thing as honestly trying to communicate.

  I responded to your answer here...

  So far you have offered nothing apart from insisting that forcing unpleasant medicine on your dog is morally equivilent to drowning a quarter of a million people for reasons we can't possibly understand.
• 

  flamegrilled

  I read that entire post and nowhere did it answer the question as to whether the dog would be logically correct.

  You can reject the application if you choose, but why are you finding it so hard just to answer the question? I think we both know the answer to that.
• 

  flamegrilled

  So far you have offered nothing apart from insisting that forcing unpleasant medicine on your dog is morally equivilent to drowning a quarter of a million people for reasons we can't possibly understand.

  Where did I say this?

  I think we both know the answer to that too.
• 

  bohm

  flamegrilled: Okay lets run with the analogy but add the few missing elements:

  1) the dog must die an awfull death (for instance drowning)

  2) it should be possible to talk with the dog.

  Lets focus on number (1). Imagine a man who breed dogs. Now the man stand back and allow 1000 of his dogs to drown even though it was fully within his power to save them at no cost or danger to himself.

  According to you it would be unreasonable to think that properly don't love the dogs very much?
• 

  flamegrilled

  bohm - no, that's a different analogy which would be attempting to demonstrate a different point.
• 

  bohm

  flamegrilled: Well, that only goes to show if you make your analogy more accurate (ie. include the primary point, that we are not talking about mere unplesant experiences but suffering including children by the thousands dying from drowning) your analogy begin to work in the wrong direction.

  So your point is if you make an analogy that exclude the primary point of the thread, people drowning by the thousands, you can explain something unrelated to this topic?