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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  PSacramento

  No. It is an impossibility that that the god of Jesus, the god who "is love", would design an earth that would drown millions of its inhabitants with no better reason than it would somehow help them grow in some undefined way. Jesus told you what love means. In no possible way could it include the capricious annihilation of innocent people.

  When god saw the tiny little wave spread out from it's epicentre, and it would have been trivially easy for him to calm it before any human even knew of it's existence. He didn't. He passivley observed it grow and rush towards the inhibitants of the Pacific Rim. He knew it would drown 250 000 men women and children and he did nothing.

  It is morally repugnant that god would drown 250 000 Asians so that self-satisfied western christians could be experience the warm glow of compassion.

  Your supposed answer is self-contradictory. We convered it in great depth in previous pages.

  Your refutation is an emotional one and doesn't make the reason any less valid.

  A god of love can still choose HOW and WHEN to express that love and it may be in a way that we find horric based on our understanding.

  Christ's comments on God's love created a world that would bring forth the TYPE of life He decided to bring forth, can you deny that is exactly what happend? you may not like HOW it works, but it works, ie: the life on this planet exists HERE because of HOW here IS.

  It may seem to you to be morally repugnant to allow the death of 250K people and I agree 100%, even the death of ONE person is one to many if it can be avoided BUT that doesn't have any baring on whether there IS a reason for it happening.

  We may not like the reason or agree with it, but it is still a reason.
• 

  sunny23

  Then if the reason is that God thinks suffering is beneficial for growth or any other variation that is horrific when dealing with murderous rapes or large tsunami death tolls, then he is not worthy of worship. Thats the point! The point is not that you are not stating a reason at all PS, it's that you can't state a reason that makes God worthy of worship. The bible doesn't answer this. Logic and proper morals doesn't answer this. God didn't care to let humans know his reasons yet expects them to worship him regardless.
• 

  Oubliette

  The Pastor of Cofty's Old Church, "Christians ... ought to have answers because people do ask these sort of questions."

  That doesn't follow.

  Just because there is a question, does not imply that there is an answer.

  But even when there is an answer, it is important to provide the right answer. The problem with religious apologists, is that they try to come up with answers to the problem of evil and suffering that fit with their existing belief systems. This is why they come up with "answers" that are inherently contradictory, incoherent or just plain to not fit reality.

  It is far better-and the only intellectually honest course-to entertain answers the fit reality and the facts and then be willing to adjust or even change our beliefs if necessary. This is what most people will not do.

  And so they cling to nonsense answers that allow them to cling to their superstitious beliefs rather than abandoning them and accepting reality.

  I think the basic problem is fear. They are afraid to confront reality and so they hide behind their beliefs.

  It's really pretty sad, actually.
• 

  PSacramento

  Then if the reason is that God thinks suffering is beneficial for growth or any other variation that is horrific when dealing with murderous rapes or large tsunami death tolls, then he is not worthy of worship. Thats the point! The point is not that you are not stating a reason at all PS, it's that you can't state a reason that makes God worthy of worship. The bible doesn't answer this. Logic and proper morals doesn't answer this. God didn't care to let humans know his reasons yet expects them to worship him regardless.

  I thought the point was a plausable reason as to why God permits suffering from natural disaters.

  Whether you find God worthy of worship is one thing, whether God is or isn't is another and neither have anything to do with God's reasons to allow suffering.

  Now, if you want me to state a reason that God allows suffering that would make Him worthy of worship by you, then that is another question and WHY I asked at the very beginning IF "you" ( the non-beleiver) believe there is ANY possible answer to this question that would satisfy you.
• 

  cofty

  Oubliette - You are spot on. I was willing to face up to the challenge of evil and concluded that there was no answer that didn't involve intellectual dishonesty. I had the courage to face the consequences of that fact and followed it where it leads.

  Psac and others and willing to do mental gymnastics to protect the superstitions that they have decided a priori cannot be wrong. This is what faith does.

  Psac - I have explained clearly why your answer is impossible for the god of chrisitan theism. You have resorted to dishonesty - you played the emotional card - because you have no rational answer.

  Your god is love. Everything he does is love. He cannot take his love hat off and replace it with his vindictive one for a while. Even when he punishes, it must be an act of love.

  You are forced to conclude that the capricious drowning of 250 000 men, women and children on 26th December 2004 was a perfect act of love.

  This is not possible for a christian because Jesus described the meaning of love.

  You propose that it was beneficial that a quarter of a million Asian men, women and children were drowned so that you and your fellow comfortable western christians could learn a little more about compassion.

  I am willing to bet that every rational person who is not blinded by religious superstition finds your answer morally repugnant.
• 

  sunny23

  I thought the point was a plausable reason as to why God permits suffering from natural disaters.

  Yes, a plausable reason within the constraints of the bible as regards the attributes of Jesus and his teachings about his father. Jesus showed concern and healed people not only as a showy display of his power but out of true love and concern. He healed even non believers. God does NOT act this way according to the example of the tsunami that was a byproduct of Gods design and an incident he could have stopped. You have not listed a "bible approved" reason. This thread wasn't made for deists.
• 

  PSacramento

  Psac and others and willing to do mental gymnastics to protect the superstitions that they have decided a priori cannot be wrong. This is what faith does.

  I openly admited I do NOT have an answer for this question that would satisfy an unbeliever and presented one that I personally have a hard time refuting myself and believe MAY hold part of the answer.

  All I know is that God does allow suffering and I do NOT know why.

  Psac - I have explained clearly why your answer is impossible for the god of chrisitan theism. You have resorted to dishonesty - you played the emotional card - because you have no rational answer.

  Your god is love. Everything he does is love. He cannot take his love hat off and replace it with his vindictive one for a while. Even when he punishes, it must be an act of love.

  You are forced to conclude that the capricious drowning of 250 000 men, women and children on 26th December 2004 was a perfect act of love.

  This is not possible for a christian because Jesus described the meaning of love.

  You propose that it was beneficial that a quarter of a million Asian men, women and children were drowned so that you and your fellow comfortable western christians could learn a little more about compassion.

  I am willing to bet that every rational person who is not blinded by religious superstition finds your answer morally repugnant.

  It is an emotional response, staements like "morally repugnant", acusing of dishonesty, referring to horric emotional moments in earth's history, accusing God of being horrific and so forth, are all emotional statments. Correct of course from your POV.

  You mention repeatly that the Christian God is a God of Love, which means, according to you, He CAN NOT allow suffering If He can prevent it.

  I am not sure how you get from A to B...

  What I am saying is that God allowing for suffering to build compassion and to bring people to him and make us better in His eyes IS a valid reason for many and the only way to dispute that view is based on the emotional response that the Christian God is a God of love and, accoring to Us, He should love like that, He should allow these things to happen if He really loved us.

  As some hard-line fundamenatlist would say, No one is innocent, so no one is above suffering".

  We may not like the argument, but it is a valid one.
• 

  PSacramento

  Yes, a plausable reason within the constraints of the bible as regards the attributes of Jesus and his teachings about his father. Jesus showed concern and healed people not only as a showy display of his power but out of true love and concern. He healed even non believers. God does NOT act this way according to the example of the tsunami that was a byproduct of Gods design and an incident he could have stopped. You have not listed a "bible approved" reason. This thread wasn't made for deists.

  Jesus healed those that came to Him, asked Him to BUT He did NOT stop suffering did he?

  He healed to show the kingdon of God was amongst them. Yes He shoudl concern and love, He did suffer and die for Us to show His love BUT He did NOT take away suffering at all BUT warned that it would get worse even.

  I don't knwo why He didn't take away suffering BUT the fact is that suffering DOES bring people together, it DOES breed compassion and love, even among enemies, suffering unites people better than anything else it seems.

  To say that suffering serves no purpose is wrong and it it serves a purpose then perhaps that is why God allows for it.

  I know many people that in suffering turned to God and I also know many that turned aways from God.

  You guys keep saying that God designed this world...strange thing to read from atheists...

  The argument against this world being made a different way to elminate natural disasters have been addressed by others like Dinesh D'Souza for example, that shows that LIFE on this planet as it is because of how this planet is, natural disaters and all.

  Seems like we can't have one ( This type of life) without the other.

  Unless of course it has been proven that human life as it is right now would have existed on a planet without the same "natural evils" that ours has.

  I don't follow that debate so I honestly don't know if it has.
• 

  cofty

  You mention repeatly that the Christian God is a God of Love, which means, according to you, He CAN NOT allow suffering If He can prevent it.

  No it doesn't. But you have to show the benefit of drowning 250 000 men women and children. You have to explain how the tsunami was a perfect expression of love. Just so you can feel the warm glow of compassion is not only inadequate it is shameful.

  No one is innocent, so no one is above sufferin

  So they deserved it did they?
• 

  cofty

  Unless of course it has been proven that human life as it is right now would have existed on a planet without the same "natural evils" that ours has.

  Of course it could. I explained specifically how yesterday.

  Are you suggesting that your omnipotent god couldn't do that?

  If you are an admirer of D'Souza I understand how you can suggest god drowned a quarter of a million people to make you a better christian.