by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
If he can't at least do that what exactly is the point of him?
Guaranteeing an afterlife where everything is sorted out fairly.
You are proposing a god who acts like a 12 year old burning ants with a magnifying glass and calling it an experiment.
No, because once again this concept of God is not someone who actively destroys innocent people. This God would allow the ant farm to run amuck, but afterwards would raise up each ant after it died, to judge according to how it lived.
once God's blessing and protection was removed from Adam and Eve, all bets were off
Every time a chrstian thanks god for their food, or for a safe journey they rule this defense off-limits.
"Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it"
Apog - Your suggestion that the violent deaths of millions of humans in natural disasters don't ultimately matter because there is an after-life actually fills me with rage.
It is a dehumanising, ivory-tower piece of sophistry.
It dismisses real human suffering as inconsequential.
It is precisely the attitude that flies planes into buildings and made the inquisition into a virtue. This is why I detest theism with a passion.
Cofty, I agree. That reasoning also can lead to "mercy" killings and Jonestown koolaid, suicide- because this life is seen as temporary. What about when an unbeliever dies and your JW friends tell you at least now he will be resurrected so it was a blessing he died before the big A.
Thinking this life is temporary , and another better one is available after death is dangerous.
Yes, it's dangerous, but I don't think you should get angry over it, cofty. Religion, with its belief in the afterlife, is a double-edged sword. Imagine being born with some sort of serious handicap (whether physical or mental) and being expected to accept that there's no one up there that cares about you, that there's no better place you'll go to when you die -- that all you get is a life dealing with your handicap, being on the fringe of society, then you're gone forever.
That would make most people resentful. They could become a malcontent, a felon. But instead they have something to look forward to in the next life. Then on the flip side, there are those who behave worse because of religion. But if someone wants to say that they cope with a horrible event or factor in their life by leaning on God, what right do you have to try to take that comfort away? You've said that you wouldn't do that to your own parents, so why to strangers?
There is a huge difference between somebody who needs the emotional crutch of an after-life, and an apologist using that myth to diminish the value of this life and justify their dehumanising dogma.
I'm curious, what sort of motive do these apologists have, in your opinion? What do they gain from 'diminishing the value of this life'? Is a priest an apologist? Are you thinking of the sorts of people who promote suicide bombing? Sorry for all the questions, but I'm honestly a bit perplexed.
What do they gain from 'diminishing the value of this life'?
Its about the urge to defend precious beliefs at all costs despite evidence to the contrary.
What do JWs gain from letting their child die rather than authorise a blood transfusion?
JWs diminish the value of a child's life in favour of eternity in paradise petting lions. Muslims fly aeroplanes into buildings in the belief that this life is less important than paradise with 72 virgins.
Apologists shrug off the violent deaths of a quarter of a million people with the same delusion.
Well whether they shrug off the deaths or not, they still happened. It's not like anyone is saying, "Let's not try to prevent tsunamis because it doesn't matter if those people died." And I'm pretty sure there are Christian charity groups helping people in disasters like that. What religion does is provide a way to deal with death better than saying, "Yep, all those people are gone forever." It may be a baseless comfort, but it usually doesn't do any harm because Christians are just as interested in continuing to live as anyone else; nobody healthy and normal is eager to make a martyr out of themselves, not in the first world.
The issue of suicide bombers is different and obviously more problematic. And JWs refusing blood is also a problem. But these come from a need to believe in a better life than this one. Nobody really wants to die now just to live in a paradise that supposedly comes later; it's a belief born out of desperation due to fears about the world, poverty, etc. So it's human nature and we shouldn't get angry at it anymore than we get angry at tribalism or lack of foresight or selfishness or any other flaw that's been ingrained in us by evolution. The only solution is to improve the quality of life for everyone.
Apog - whether or not the delusion of an afterlife is helpful or harmful isn't the point.
it's a belief born out of desperation due to fears about the world, poverty, etc
No it isn't. Its born of religious imperialism and the disease of faith. There are plenty wealthy Muslim terrorists. JWs don't refuse life-saving treatment for their children because of poverty, but that's another thread.
The challenge remains to explain how the tsunami can be compatible with the god of christian theism.
