The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday (page 155)

Viviane

You haven't said why the train de-railed. You can't say they were properly maintain and broken. That's like saying a married bachelor. If you are claiming that they were maintained to the standards set by the transit authorities and that wasn't good enough, then he did his job properly but the standards were lacking, so it's still not a valid analogy.

cofty

Flamegrilled - I have stated many times what the topic is.

I told you explicitly that you can have a deity who drowns a quarter of a million people in a tsunami but you can't have the loving god of christian theism.

For the third time...

Whilst the statement may be true, the way you are framing it is an oversimplification. What you are really asking us to agree is:

God is love therefore every act or lack of action taken in isolation must definable as an act of love. - Flamegrilled

Yes every act or lack of action must be perfectly loving even if it is not immediately obvious how it is loving.

The alternative is to admit that some acts or inactions of god don't just appear unloving, they really are unloving. But that is impossible for the god of theism.

Therefore number 6 follows - allowing a tsunami to drown a quarter of a million people is a perfect act of love - even if Flamegrilled can't work out how.

You are confusing what is loving with what seems loving in order to avoid the damning conclusion.

flamegrilled

... but your analogy is broken because ... Viviane

Just like in real life, things tend to break when they are misused.

I would like to know why your record is broken.

cofty

Flamegrilled - You have ignored my answer 3 times. Why?

KateWild

If you are claiming - viv

I am claiming nothing. It's just a fictional analogy. Do you think the businessman is cruel? Thousands of lives were lost, do you think the train could have been prevented from derailing?

But if you think it's a poor analogy then perhaps it is. I just thought it was good, hey but that's me. We are all different aren't we?

Kate xx

Viviane

I'm sure you would like to know a lot of things, how to properly construct an analogy, for instance.

In any event, your analogies keep being broken because you are trying to create a specific scenario to make a very specific point and apply that to a different scenario with different circumstances. It just doesn't work.

Viviane

You haven't said why the train de-railed or clarified how you can have an improperly yet properly maintained rail line. There's no way to say it's a good analogy without knowing these things.

Simon

re: the train derailment anology. You are forgetting a VERY important piece which is lacking in the story:

Suppose the train operator knew in advance of a faulty piece of track (why it's faulty doesn't matter) and that the train was for certain going to derail and many passengers, including lots of children, would inevitably face an agonising and painful death. Suppose that the operator has told everyone that he could very, very easily prevent such accidents using a tiny fraction of his resources. The train crashes. Thousands die.

Now, is that operator "loving" and "caring"? Sure, we don't know why he didn't act to prevent it even though he easily could. But does that matter?

If his PR dept then turn up to tell everyone asking questions that yes, he could easily have stopped it but what a great and awesome guy he is and how dare anyone question his mysterious motives for not preventing it ... well, would you put up listening to such nonsense?

The obvious conclusions would be:

The train operator lied about his resources and abilities and was really powerless to prevent it.
He's really an evil son of a bitch.
His PR people are assholes.

Please explain why those conclusions would be wrong.

Simon

The point of the analogy in this case is that a single action taken in isolation does not reflect the overall picture.

That is not an analogy. It's simply stating the bleedin' obvious !

Really? A part of something isn't the whole thing? Way to advance your argument ...

cofty

Flamegrilled - I asked you which of the following you would not affirm...

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.

You replied that ...

It starts to go off the rails at point 5. Whilst the statement may be true, the way you are framing it is an oversimplification. What you are really asking us to agree is:

God is love therefore every act or lack of action taken in isolation must definable as an act of love. This is not necessarily true..

Then you used a couple of analogies to explain why, including that of a father who lovingly refuses to buy his daughter a dangerous sports car.

I responded that you are confusing what only seems to be unloving with what is actually unloving.

As a christian theist you have two options. You can affirm that, "Everything that god does is perfectly loving" even if it is sometimes difficult to understand how. But then it inevitably follows that, "allowing a tsunami to drown a quarter of a million people is actually a perfect act of love" - even if we can't see the love in it.

Or you can concede that not everything god does is actually loving. But then you have denied the god of christian theism.

Please address the question directly, and preferably without any further analogies.

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

Share this