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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

  • adamah
    adamah

    flamegrilled said-

    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.

    And that's another valid point, since all of these theodocies don't operate individally, in serial (eg as a string), but in parallel (as a foundation); believers are facile at switching between them as needed, even understanding on an unconscious (or conscious) level which scriptures to go to, eg those that refer to humans as children are relying on a "benign neglect" concept or the pet/child analogy of the explanation being beyond the capabiity to understand, etc. Some believers DO rely on the inferior intellectual capabilities of humans vs spirit beings as a defense, but there's another one you've touched on, based not so much on the capability for humans to understand, but their NEED TO KNOW.

    In case anyone hasn't noticed, the Bible explicitly and implicitly relies on military metaphors, where the foot soldier (human) has no right to automatically expect to be privy to top-secret strategies that are for the eyes of the commanders in the field, and their bosses in the Pentagon (the joint chiefs of staff, with each member representing their respective branch)! Above all of the forces sits the POTUS (CINC, commander in chief, AKA God), who gets the final say on ALL actions involving the military, and obviously has complete access to information which he uses to make decisions. What CINC says goes, and if the members of JCS cannot abide, they risk being canned by the POTUS. Foot soldiers on the battlefield don't expect to be 'in the loop', and the Bible is simply a guide for the foot soldier issued in boot camp to explain HOW to follow the orders they are given; believers don't expect the Bible to contain ALL explanations of why God operates as He does, since they have absolutely no need to know, and it's irrelevant to them doing their job, and well above their pay-grade and security clearance they hold since the military uses officers who are analysts who's entire duty it is to determine which information is made public, and which is kept a classified secret (and many here overlooked that thought by committed the fallacy of exclusion of others alternatives, AKA creating a false dichotomy, arguing that they should possess the knowledge of tactics, since the Bible is supposedly written by God as an instruction manual, mistakenly thinking it thus entitles us to ALL information).

    The need for discrete disclosure of information IS the entire basis of the 'appeal to authority, except in the Bible, God is the biggest authority imaginable: the DIVINE authority. Heck, this is found in the story of Job, where the reader is given a 'birds-eye' view, with Satan making a challenge that Job is loyal to God only because he gained some enrichment.

    (Satan was a member of Team Jehovah in Heaven (Elohim, a plural Hebrew term for God's Divine Counsel), an eye-brow raising detail that SHOULD give the modern-day believer a moment's pause, and spur them to learn WHY Satan was essentially a member of God's staff, carrying out operations in the name of God to test humans to see if they 'cut the mustard'!)

    So Satan tests Job by killing his children (how's THAT for evil, authorized by God!), and God later appears in a whirlwind and proceeds to verbally strip Job down, with his "where were you?" series of questions, NOT answering Job's question directly explaining WHY God was the cause of Job's suffering despite Job knowing he was innocent, but brow-beating poor Job such that he sulked and shrunk back and wisely refused to curse God.

    (BTW, if you don't know what the 'oath of innocence' is, you simply cannot understand the story of Job in any depth, since it's the premise driving the entire account. Read more at bookofjob.org. Robert Sutherland is a lawyer/OT scholar who is a theist, so I don't agree with his conclusion; however, the presence of oath itself in the account SHOULD reveal how the Bible relies on ancient concepts of justice that have long-ago been discarded.)

    In rethinking the account of Job, I'm not so sure the addition of the narrative frame (i.e. the epilogue and prologue, where God's motivations are actually revealed to be a cynical bar-bet between God and Satan, but more broadly reflects the idea of God testing humans in their lives) are as damaging to the message delivered in the poetic core as I suspected ("God works in mysterious ways") since the narrative epilogue actually changes the message from "God works in mysterious ways" to "God works in mysterious ways, for which the individual has no NEED to know" since God COULD'VE told Job Satan was testing Job on God's behalf, but he didn't. So it actually is a subtle way to plant that suggestion to the reader, while reinforcing the point that humans have no RIGHT to know why things are happening to them.

    Hence the whole account is premised as an appeal to Divine authority, and the structure fully BITE control-compliant, which is why so many fell for joining an all-volunteer theological armed force, armed only with a Bible.

    Many believers accept this explanation, esp since they're told that accepting the questionable premises are a condition of their survival, since ALL hard-to-swallow beliefs are justified as an exercise to strengthen one's 'faith', the very trait which is REQUIRED for their survival! They have motivation to believe....

    When examined from the viewpoint of Job, his children were killed to test JOB; nevertheless THEY are dead! Rather selfish POV the account is written from, and of course, the same parallel can be made by believers to 250k deaths they witnessed: they narcissistically view it as an opportunity to test and strengthen THEIR faith, to ensure THEIR salvation....

    Adam

    BTW, I'm describing how various theodicies operate in the minds of believers, so don't bother arguing to convince me; you're preaching to the choir. Believers had 3,000 yrs head-start to fine-tune and tweak the approach, and as pointed out in the most-recent video created by NonStamp Collector, MOST believers aren't even bothered one bit by contradictions which they manage to resolve via compartmentalization:

    http :// www . youtube . com / watch ? v = 7gvv _ UM7CYg

    I obviously am not baffled by the approach of balderbashery the Bible uses (AKA dazzling them with unfathomable BS, so as to intimidate), or I wouldn't be explaining it; I am describing the birds-eye-view of how such belief systems work AS A SYSTEM, and I wouldn't have been an atheist for the past half-decade of my life if I hadn't seen thru the age-old scam (at a point when many JWs were still knocking on my door, trying to "save me" when they were the ones in need of salvation from themselves)....

    Adam

  • cofty
    cofty

    Flamegrilled - nobody is going to follow your analogy because it is completely misleading for reasons that have been explained to you many times by numerous posters.

    Why won't you drop the analogy and engage in open honest conversation?

    Here is my response to your point that there may be good reasons for a deity to allow a quarter of a million people to drown - reasons that we can't grasp. Please respond to it without analogies.

    Its fine for a believer to claim that god had a reason for allowing the tsuanmi and that humans cannot know what those reasons are. I accept that.

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

    Christian theists are compelled to accept the following...

    1. God observed the Asian tsunami as it evolved

    2. God knew it would kill a quarter of a million people and displace 5 million more

    3. God had the power to stop the tsuanmi

    4. God did not stop the tsuanmi

    5. Everything that god does is perfectly loving

    6. Therefore allowing a tsunami to drown a quarter of a million people is a perfect act of love.

    But this contradicts everything that christianity teaches about love. Jesus greatest command was "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

    If we failed to prevent the violent death of others when it was within our power to do so we could not reasonably claim to be following Jesus' greatest command.

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

  • flamegrilled
    flamegrilled

    No, because it is not an analogy about the tsunami as I have said several times. It is not intended to parallel the experience in any way. It simply demonstrates 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.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Flamegrilled - We all get your point.

    I have just said that I grant your point and go on to show that it is inconsistent with christian theism, which insists that we can and must understand what love is through the example of Jesus.

    Over to you...

  • bohm
    bohm

    Flamegrilled: you made your point, dogs dont understand why they are showered for instance.

    but the situation is as different from the op as showering is from drowning.

  • zound
    zound

    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.

    Notice how many people actually talk to their dogs when they are being taken to the vet? - saying 'it'll be okay little buddy, just a jab and you'll be fine." Most moral people even though it's fruitless, desire to assure their pets it will be okay and that they are only doing the best for them.

    Now, imagine you're Doctor Dolittle and had the actual capacity to communicate to your dog in his language. Granted, perhaps instead of giving him the entire history of medicine you might give him enough information to satisfy his questions. Perhaps if you had a particularly inquisitive dog you might take the time to explain vaccinations and medicine etc etc in simple terms so he can understand. If his mind just isn't up to the task you could take him as far as you can to understanding, or even use simple illustrations that he could grasp.

    God doesn't have to explain everything to his 'pets' - just enough information to satisfy their righteous indignation of seeing him allow thousands of innocent people to die. He can speak our language - he supposedly CREATED our language. If our minds can't take the 'mysterious' explanation of why allowing thousands to die is moral, then I'm sure he can impart enough information in our tongue to satisfy our questions and allow us to trust him.

    He doesn't. Not even close. In fact I'm fairly confidence his apathy when it comes to interfering in suffering (or explaining it) is what causes most to lose faith that he exists (talking about the christian god here - the god of love).

    His best effort of communicating is by whispering in the ear of tammy-like people who play chinese whispers with the rest of us, or start their own cults.

    As usual he comes across as either non-existant, apathetic and immoral, or a blundering moron. None of which is worthy of respect let alone worship.

    Perhaps it's time to put this dog illustration to sleep now? (pardon the pun)

  • adamah
    adamah

    Flamegrilled said- No, because it is not an analogy about the tsunami as I have said several times. It is not intended to parallel the experience in any way. It simply demonstrates 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.

    Cofty is ordering you to believe what you MUST believe.... Trying to conquer dogmatic beliefs via use of dogmatism? One might almost suspect someone is trying to start a cult to battle cults!

    From http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Logical_Fallacies_by_Todangst

    It is a mistake to believe that a science consists of nothing but conclusively proved propositions, and it is unjust to demand that it should. It is a demand only made by those who feel a craving for authority in some form and a need to replace the religious catechism by something else, even if it be a scientific one. Science in its catechism has but few apodictic precepts; it consists mainly of statements which it has developed to varying degrees of probability. The capacity to be content with these approximations to certainty and the ability to carry on constructive work despite the lack of final confirmation are actually a mark of the scientific habit of mind." -- Sigmund Freud

  • cofty
    cofty

    Using logic to show theism is internally inconsistent. You are a self-obsessed bore Adam.

    There is a good reason Flamegrilled refuses to engage in anything except a flawed analogy.

    Which of the following statements would you not affirm Flamegrilled and why?

    1. God observed the Asian tsunami as it evolved

    2. God knew it would kill a quarter of a million people and displace 5 million more

    3. God had the power to stop the tsuanmi

    4. God did not stop the tsuanmi

    5. Everything that god does is perfectly loving

    6. Therefore allowing a tsunami to drown a quarter of a million people is a perfect act of love.

  • Simon
    Simon

    The basic problem is that religious people believe that anything god does immediately makes it loving and right and proper.

    If he orders people be slaughtered right after commanding people not to kill ... well, that makes it right even though it contradicts his own edict.

    If he could but didn't chose to stop a natural disaster that kills hundreds of thousands ... well it's suddenly an act of love.

    If he allows millions of children under 5 to die every year, women to be raped and murdered and just watches it happen ... well, it's nuttin' but holy love.

    The real problem is that religious people are totally amoral and have no real sense of right and wrong which is why they rely on someone else to tell them but they also lack the reasoning skills to realize that the explanations they are given make no sense.

    The rest of us have better developed sense of justice and a standard of right and wrong - basically, we're better and more loving than their god and of course they don't like that because despite what they lack, deep down they can see it.

  • cofty
    cofty

    religious people believe that anything god does immediately makes it loving and right and proper - Simon

    Yes theists are stuck on the horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma, “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”.

    On the one hand they know instinctively that drowning a quarter of a million people is not "good" by any sensible definition. On the other hand they are faced with the fact that god did do this thing.

    The only place left to go is variations of "it's a mystery".

    That is why I have tried to show that the meaning of "love" cannot be a mystery to christians or Jesus' teachings were in vain.

    In other words theism isn't condemned by external evidence by by its own internal contradictions.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit