...so an apparent unloving and unjust act will be balanced out somehow.
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
caliber
.so an apparent unloving and unjust act will be balanced out somehow.
Cofty calls the tsunami a case of in-action ...whom should I believe ?
Unloving would be intent to cause harm , would it not ?
-
snare&racket
May I add something that just came to me in thought.....
The only premise that christians can attempt to pursue, is the one Tec decided to grasp.
To offer that we are not intelligent enough to know gods purpose and that death may not be a bad thing, it may from the perspective of a deity be a good thing, for an over all benefit.
What did god do to people he didn't like?
What did god do to people that did not obey?
What did god do to those that broke his laws?
He..... KILLED them. God did not look down on the flood and pour water on babies, children and all but 8 of mankind out of LOVE, it was in anger and as a PUNISHMENT.
So even the bible, communicating the activity, words and thoughts of god makes clear that death is not just a BAD thing, but a PUNISHMENT.
If these people were dying, then shooting to heaven, or dying and going somewhere nice, it would not be a punishment!
The bible is not ambigous about death.
Death is the punishment for inherited sin, a ridiculous notion, but this is your belief not mine.
So any death, be it punishment from god, be it cancer or be it in a Tsunami, according to the bible the concept of death is a design from god, a punishment for the breaking of his rules in a garden.
Accept that your god is evil by the standards of humans in 2014, but you have decided to worship him anyway. That is the only honest answer.
To say otherwise is blasphemy and to promote a message not in the bible.
-
Viviane
Unloving would be intent to cause harm , would it not ?
So it would not be unloving to watch your child drown if you didn't throw them in the water?
-
adamah
Cofty said-
re Adam post 2282...
Maybe if you asked a JW or ex-JW what the Watchtower theodicy was rather than telling us what it is and getting it all wrong that would be a good start. For JWs it's all about the issue of divine sovereignty. A fictional naked lady ate some fruit and god decided to leave humans to fend for themselves for thousands of years to prove we need him.
Is any rebuttal of this facile nonesense really necessary?
Uh, YES, actually it is.
And the fact you even need to ask that question suggests you don't understand the rules of challenging theodicies, since much like debating presuppositionalists, it REQUIRES the challenger to accept at least THREE assumptions of the believer:
http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/theodicy.htm
II. Theodicy Defined
"Theodicy" is a term that Leibniz coined from the Greek words theos (God) and dike (righteous). A theodicy is an attempt to justify or defend God in the face of evil by answering the following problem, which in its most basic form involves these assumptions:
- God is all good and all powerful (and, therefore, all knowing).
- The universe/creation was made by God and/or exists in a contingent relationship to God.
- Evil exists in the world. Why?
Furthermore, if you want to challenge a person's particular belief system, then you MUST temporarily accept ALL of the premises, beliefs, suppositions, presuppositions upon which these theodicies operate. And since JW theology in fact DOES assert that a "naked lady ate fruit after being tricked by talking snake", then YOU must temporarily accept that belief, since you wish to challenge the logic used in various theodicies that are offered to adherents to explain the question of evil. YOU must accept those premises, or else you're not challenging the THEODICY itself: you're instead challenging the THEOLOGY.
Review, and you'll see I've NEVER said that Xian THEOLOGY made much logical sense, I only claimed that the THEODICIES used with Xianity actually DO rely on sound logic (valid AND sound, when some are perfectly-logical to address why the existence of evil doesn't contradict God's omni-benevolence).
Cofty said- There was no Adam and Eve, no perfection, no fall. This is a fact that is not open to sensible debate so the theodicy fails at step 1.
Nope, and if it were that easy to dismiss theology with the wave of a hand, then you just eliminated all but the very airy-fairy Xians who say Genesis is metaphorical, etc. In fact, you just eliminated all Xians who believe Jesus redeemed mankind from the fall of Adam, PLUS you just toppled all branches of Judaism (who wrote the silly story) and Islamists too, since according to your facile methods you can now declare victory against ALL religions! Congrats, you WON!
Unfortunately, that's called "moving those goalposts". You're getting outside of theodicy and deep into theology (where the former is a SUB-CATEGORY of the latter), so you're off-sides, out of bounds. You agreed to accept the premises under which each of these theodocial mechanisms operate, and should be willing to temporarily-accept the beliefs of specific branch of Xianity that you are challenging (yes, all 35,000 of them).
That's why I asked why the tsunami was such a crisis of faith for you as a JW, since surely you weren't having doubts about the "talking snake" story and the Universal Sovereignty Spiel even BEFORE the tsunami, were you? That's not a problem with theodicies (i.e. being unable to resolve the contradiction between omnibenevolence and a God who fails to intervene), but a loss of faith in the entire kit and caboodle, the whole ball of wax.
Cofty said- Even if we play along with the creationist fairy story it is dishonest. The bible is full of stories of god intervening in human affairs to make life better for his buddies. JWs pray constantly for everything that they want. You can't have a deist god when there is a tsunami and a theist god when you need a new job.
Whether you meant or not, you agreed to accept the theist's starting point when you challenged theodicy, as you need to show WHY they are illogical while operating WITHIN the belief system, agreeing to the basic tenets. (And yes, it's fair for you to point out Bible contradictions to disprove a certain theodicy, since THAT would be challenging the theodicy. However, many are not so much as contradictory, but overlapping, and work in parallel; ultimately it is POINTLESS, since the final judgment call is already claimed as "unknowable" and known ONLY by God (which is the brilliance of the account of Job)).
And OF COURSE the Bible talks out of both sides of it's mouth, eg with Jesus telling his followers to give away all of their Worldly possessions and follow him, vs Job prospering and being blessed with twice as much after passing his test; hell, the entire concept of sacrifice is a contract between believers and God, premised on the great 'return on investment' offered by God, where if you give God a little bit, He'll see that you'll be blessed with much more and in spades. As with theodicy, the Bible also 'shot-guns' on prosperity theology, and as an ex-elder you know all about the need to manage the selfish expectations of the flock, keeping their expectations low.
Whether intentional or not, your claims of killing Xian theodicy is an eyebrow-raiser, since it's actually one of the few parts of the JW theology that they actually improved upon vs their competitors.
Cofty said- Jws do not distinguish between human evil and natural evil. Leaving humans to the consequences of their own actions is one thing, booby-trapping the planet is nasty and vindictive.
Sorry, but flaws in God's creation, long history of earthquakes, fossil evidence, evidence from evolution, cosmology, geology, etc are ALL out of bounds and inadmissable as evidence, since as I stated above, you have to accept the Worldview and doctrines of the JWs (and the booby-trapped Earth was adequately preemptively addressed above by Apo, on the top of this page).
Cofty said- The resurrection hope does not in any way negate the suffering of this life. Any theology that minimises the importance of this life is dehumanising. JW theodicy reduces humans to unwilling pawns in god's pissing match with his nemesis.
Again, it does if you believe it. Which begs the question:
If all of this is so repulsive to you NOW, why did it not bother you WHEN you were inside the Borg?
You don't have to answer that, of course, but obviously SOMETHING changed in your thinking patterns. Were you just dishonest with others, telling them lies to play a role of an elder, or were you honestly and genuinely fooled? Or something else?
THAT'S where YOUR answer lies, and just imagine debating with the JW Cofty on theodicy, and adopting HIS beliefs in order to dismantle the theodicy.
Jgnat said- Now, in one simple sentence, explain how a fully just, loving, and omnipotent God would fail to act before a tsunami.
If it's not clear by now, it's an especially-bad idea to ask a JW that question, as it'll backfire, and only gives them permission to chalk up some time witnessing about the hope of resurrection offered by an 'all-loving' God who'll resurrect the victims into a perfect paradise Earth to be rejoined with their loved ones who survive to greet them (only if they join the JWs, though). They HAVE the answer.
Fact is, the JW approach to theodicy for 'evil' (or ANY kind, since as Cofty said, the JWs don't differentiate when there's no need: dead is dead, and ensures resurrection, both ways) is actually one of their strong suits, and is one of the most highly-refined and emotionally-satisfying answers offered throughout all of Xianity. Why? It allows God to maintain all of the claimed traits (omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience), when some theists are forced to sacrifice at least one to maintain the logic of their available theodicies.
So maybe it's better not to go there when talking to one's JW family members, except for those who still cling to persecution complexes and enjoy getting beaten about the head, face, and neck, with scriptures and JW literature, LOL!
Adam
-
cofty
S&R that is a knock-down argument against that excuse
There are a lot of excuses that any rational person knows are wrong, but its very satisfying when the specific reason occurs to you. That has been one of the benefits of this thread for me. It has forced me to think specifically about why thesim is wrong.
-
cofty
Cofty calls the tsunami a case of in-action ...whom should I believe ? Unloving would be intent to cause harm , would it not ? - Caliber
The god of christian theism knew about the earthquake in advance
He observed the wave rise from 19 miles below the Indian Ocean.
He watched it for another hour as it rushed towards the countries around the pacific Rim
He knew for a certainty what the death toll would be.
He knew that the lives of a further 5 million would be devastated
He only had to say the word to stop it in its tracks
He did not.
For an omniscient, omnipotent god, to send the tsunami or passively observe the tsuanmi is morally equivalent.
-
cofty
Adam - We are not discussing my spiritual journey here. If you want to start a new thread on the topic carry on.
See S&Rs post above for a rebuttal of most of your last post.
You also missed the key point in my reply...
Even if we play along with the creationist fairy story it is dishonest. The bible is full of stories of god intervening in human affairs to make life better for his buddies. JWs pray constantly for everything that they want. You can't have a deist god when there is a tsunami and a theist god when you need a new job.
-
cofty
flaws in God's creation, long history of earthquakes, fossil evidence, evidence from evolution, cosmology, geology, etc are ALL out of bounds and inadmissable as evidence, since as I stated above, you have to accept the Worldview and doctrines of the JWs (and the booby-trapped Earth was adequately preemptively addressed above by Apo, on the top of this page).
No I don't because unlike you I am not playing silly games.
If JWs have got science and geology worng then too bad for them. If we have to sort that before we can talk theodicy them so be it.
-
Oubliette
Cofty: You can't have a deist god when there is a tsunami and a theist god when you need a new job.
For further review: