The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday (page 219)

new hope and happiness

Sorry i meant to say " the evidence should never convict"

cofty

I have yet to hear from an athiest as to WHAT answer they WOULD find satisfying - PSac

Any answer that doesn't involve special pleading. By the way I concluded that all the answers were trite when I was still a born-again christian.

I know that there are certain explanations that hold weight for me BUT I openly admit that part of that is because I choose to have faith in God

Which is another way of saying that you have no rational answer, but you are willing to settle for anything that lets god off the hook, however inadequate.

I appreciate your honesty but how is that different from the way we used to make excuses for the failures of the Watchtower?

PSacramento

Sorry i meant to say " the evidence should never convict"

Well, evidence doesn't always equal proof, BUT I am still not sure what you are saying...

PSacramento

Any answer that doesn't involve special pleading. By the way I concluded that all the answers were trite when I was still a born-again christian.

I think that atheist have a very valid point when they say an answer is not good enough for them.

Which is another way of saying that you have no rational answer, but you are willing to settle for anything that lets god off the hook, however inadequate.

I appreciate your honesty but how is that different from the way we used to make excuses for the failures of the Watchtower?

No, I think that what I may view as a rational answer may not be views as such by you or maybe as a good enough answer ( the free will argument for example).

The failure of the watchtower ( or anyone that sets themselves up as an unquestionable authority) are far different from the statements of an individual trying to fighure things out and stating what they believe is there view on a matter.

I don't let God off the hook and while I am agree with a certain doctrines that SEEMS to let Him off the hook ( like the view that God doesn't see death like we do, that since it is not permanent for Him He doesn't see it as a problem to be solved, etc...) I don't like them that much.

I can't argue that the above view ( God doesn't see death like we do) isn't a valid one, even if I don't like it.

new hope and happiness

and thats my point PS.

It would be presumtiouse of anyone to be black white, right wrong or something in between...thats arrogent.

cofty

the free will argument for example

But this thread has been about natural evil where the free will defense is not applicable.

Regardless, it has been tried a few times and shown conclusively to be inadmissible.

I can't argue that the above view ( God doesn't see death like we do) isn't a valid one, even if I don't like it.

But you can. We have treated it in some detail and shown why it fails as an answer to natural evil for a god of love.

PSacramento

But this thread has been about natural evil where the free will defense is not applicable.

Quite correct, though I don't agree with the term "natural evil", nature is not evil.

Regardless, it has been tried a few times and shown conclusively to be inadmissible.

Unacceptable you mean?

But you can. We have treated it in some detail and shown why it fails as an answer to natural evil for a god of love.

Ah, the issue is how do we define Love for a being that transcends our emotional AND temporal understanding of love?

It is very hard for us to reconcile a God of love with one that allows for horrific events and countless deaths because of the emotion attached to those events and rightly so. The moment we reject a view because it doesn't reconcile the with our notion of a God of LOVE then it seems we are making an emotional issue out of it ( not that there is anything wrong with that mind you) and that doesn't make the argument invalid or incorrect as much as "emotionally unaccetable".

PSacramento

It would be presumtiouse of anyone to be black white, right wrong or something in between...thats arrogent.

You seem to be implying that it is arrogant for anyone to have an opinion, yes?

cofty

I don't agree with the term "natural evil", nature is not evil.

It is a theological term that excludes suffering caused by human action.

Unacceptable you mean?

No. Inadmissible in a discussion about natural evil where human free will is a total red herring.

it seems we are making an emotional issue out of it

Not at all. Even excluding all emotion, natural evil contradicts Jesus' own definition of love.

We are going over ground that has been examined at length but I can't blame you for not having read 110 pages.

PSacramento

Yeah, sorry, I don't wanna rehash things that have been addressed 100pages ago, sorry.

See, I diagree with the whole "natural evil" thing, so did quite a few of my professors BTW ( which put me at ease).

Evil is a funny thing, it must be define correctly to be used as a category and many tend to use it as something that is harmful or injurious or causes suffering BUT we know that isn't really a good definition ( certianly not a biblical one) since many good things can cause suffering ( certain therapies and treatments, pain that keeps us from doing something bad for us, etc...).

Evil is more correctly the consious doing of harm when no harm is need to be done, or something immoral ( though moral right and wrong is another issue).

I don't see natural disaters as evil since there is no active or intention to purposely harm or cause suffering.

A volcano explodes because that is what it does, is it evil if NO suffering happens? or only when suffering happens?

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

Share this