Please explain why those conclusions would be wrong.- Simon
Very interesting conclusions, and very believable that a situation like this would ensue. Kate xx
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
KateWild
-
jgnat
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy
Bad Analogy:
claiming that two situations are highly similar, when they aren't. For example, "The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also."
Or, "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is."
-
-
KateWild
lol!
-
humbled
Apog,cofty,
There is a crisis on the forum(I think it's a crisis) and in the thread itself that needs to be addressed so that we can learn something in this discussion.
This particular thread is addressing an old problem that religion cannot resolve when humans face suffering and death: How can a just/loving/powerful God(a god we have been told exists) can let violent natural deaths occur.
The OT records God's contract "You do right--I'll do right" That is the axis upon which all the OT stories and prophesy turns.
But the Book of Job showing up in the Tanak (hebrew)canon tells me something that is very important. Whether there was or wasn't that event or that person, whether or not I have a background in Hebrew or ancient mid-eastern history it tells me that even the old timers of faith were seeing that the god program wasn't working. FOR SURE damage control was needed EARLY ON to vent off the pressure from the cognitive dissonance among the Chosen People when they faced suffering and death too.
So apparently old Jewish believers had to walk(spiritually speaking) with a rock in their shoe to worship in their temple or synagoge. God didn't explain how he was loving/fair/powerful and....NOT.
The contract with God has loopholes for god's behavior that nobody could understand while the contract laws multiplied on his people. And the people needed to follow the laws carefully.
Jesus' version of God blew that apart.the laws didn't bind you to God--love did. Good news for some but it pissed off the religious rulers. God-'n-Moses wrote them, right? Love was in there, sure. But all those laws were IMPORTANT.
Of course they were upset with Jesus. Jesus' teachings about reconciliation with God was just so much crap. This wasn't the God they had limped with for so many years. They were used to walking with a rock in their shoe. so there was a New wine/old skin problem. New cloth patch/ old garment problem.
I think that's our problem now. On the forum. In the thread.
A theist on this forum is almost certainly hanging with Jesus. And how to talk about God letting children drown --well, that goes all over a Christian.Not even Job had to walk on arock that big and sharp.
Harder for us because we know that the loving-Jesus stories are tied up with the rest of the dark-god bible.
It's hard to get rid of the old god-rock in our shoe if we are afraid of losing contact with Jesus. So from Christians we can get defensive posts, off-topic, pre-emptive strikes with back stories because the old-rock-god doesn't fit with Jesus the god/man.
Tammy is an UN-orthodox Christian. She said this forum helped her process through some of her questions.(I hope she can return) She has a christian cosmology now that satisfies her. But it doesn't satisfy everyone.
Others of us don't see that she solved Job's rock-in-the-shoe problem. It feels too much like the same old rock to many of us only with a new name.
There were rough reactions to her ideas. Maybe some couldn't believe that she was honest about her motives for saying things. But i think we should understand where her dilemma comes from. She held tight to the love and tried to reconcile the rest. It got convoluted and lied, as many commented, on personal revelation. That said I think having Tammy's solution to the conflict between OT god and Jesus helped fashion the keys to unlock biblical theism's last prison. It was so impossible to reconcile Jesus' love and the all-powerful OT god that I discarded chunk after chunk of the bible. The only thing left was love getting to transcend life's horror. It left me with a carpenter who perhaps was as disturbed as Job at what he saw, felt the rock in his shoes and startd running barefoot. He is still my hero. Old theism has confined not only me but I think it has imprisoned Jesus as well.
It is as hard to talk about the problem of belief in god now as ever. I have been glad to bounce my experiences and observations around folks here......and listen to everyone's else do the same. and this time we are having the most prolonged exploration of god among non-clerics that I imagine I'll ever get to participate in. It is really important to us all to find a way to continue it. I'm afraid if we stop now we may never get it started again.
Maeve
-
jgnat
Oh, sure it could be resurrected again, with the same energy. The argument is very old. Not to say that old has no value. There are old things that are of inestimable value.
-
flamegrilled
Please address the question directly, and preferably without any further analogies. Cofty
I did so. The analogies were only there to help people who are unable to grasp simple logical statements. But here it is again:
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.
The bold type is to assist you to see the logical point without the need of an analogy.
You seem incapable of applying what you call "bleeding obvious" in a logical sense.
-
flamegrilled
what you call "bleeding obvious"
Oops that was Simon. Reading too fast. Sorry.
-
Simon
flamegrilled: The only difference that you are clinging to is that you are saying "allowing a tsunami to drown a quarter of a million people is just part of a perfect act of love"
It seems of scant consolation to the dead and difficult to come up with any plausible explanation of what the complete act of love would be which would still fit with the theist narrative as whole and the specific event itself.
The issue is really that anyone trying to make out that the drowning of a quarter of a million people is even just part of a perfect act of love comes across as a heartless, inhuman and unchristian monster. It's the kind of reasoning you expect to hear in the Nurenburg trials and THAT is why theists dance around to avoid answering the question - they know the expression of their beliefs utterly damns them. At least tammy was idiotic enough to be honest.
Have faith in your convictions but be prepared to be convicted by your faith.
-
cofty
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. - Cofty
You are refusing to answer a simple question.
Duly noted.
