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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  PSacramento

  I posted the definition of compassion before, but in case it was missed:

  com pas sion

  noun 1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

  compassion

  / kəmˈpæʃən / noun
  1. a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it Word Origin C14: from Old French, from Late Latin compassiō fellow feeling, from compatī to suffer with, from Latin com- with + patī to bear, suffer Com= With/together Passion = Suffering
• 

  PSacramento

  No heaven, no compassion in heaven or suffering in heaven?

  Not, that is a very good question.

  If there is no pain or suffering in Heave, does that mean that Angels don't have any compassion?

  It might explain alot of what is written in the bible it seems.

  BUT, I am not sure that is warranted based on what is written in the bible.

  There is free will in Heaven and we know that angels are not only able BUT willing to rebel against God, so that means that there can exist pain and suffering in heaven BUT it may be that it is only the type that is willfully applied ( no "natural" disasters for example) BUT I am just specualting.

  I really dont' know for sure.
• 

  PSacramento

  An observable verfiable fact? Citation, please. Please explain how, when I see a puppy at my local no-kill shelter that is fed, played with, given cet care and has toys and a warm place to sleep, I still feel compassion and want to take it home.

  By its very defination, compassion requires suffering to exist, see the dictionary citation above.

  Even IF there no compassion without suffering, your argument is self-defeating. If there were no suffering, then there would be absolutely no need for compassion. The thing you say suffering helps us develop is ONLY needed because God allows the suffering his plans caused! You're right back to failing to connect the dots!

  Doesn't seem you understand the argument...compassion is needed to fully develop humans to God's greater plan/purpose.

  That some people choose to NOT be compassionte in the face of suffering does not change the fact that there is no compassion without suffering.

  You've still not explained how the lack of compassion after suffering isn't a valid counterpoint.

  The lack of a trait in some people does NOT invalidate the trait, that is like saying that because some people are dishonest the triat of honesty is not valid.
• 

  jgnat

  I think I've demonstrated that I am listening. I am not as confident that I have been heard.
• 

  Viviane

  Or misfortune. Not just suffering. You're ignoring half of the definition.

  In any case, God, in omniness, created the very conditions that caused the suffering. It's STILL ALL HIS RESPONSIBILITY. You are completely ignoring that. It's like saying an abusive father always buys his child an ice cream after the beating, so some good comes out of the beatings.
• 

  PSacramento

  I think I've demonstrated that I am listening. I am not as confident that I have been heard.

  Perhaps not, I apologise if that is the case.

  Can you explain your view again?
• 

  Viviane

  By its very defination, compassion requires suffering to exist, see the dictionary citation above.

  Or misfortune, according to your very own posting. Misfortune doesn't require suffering.

  Doesn't seem you understand the argument...compassion is needed to fully develop humans to God's greater plan/purpose.

  That's simply a version if "it's a mystery", an argument from ignorance since you can't explain in any way how 250000 people dying was necessary for God's plan.

  The lack of a trait in some people does NOT invalidate the trait, that is like saying that because some people are dishonest the triat of honesty is not valid.

  You're shifting the argument, moving the goalposts. You said suffering could be useful if it helped develop compassion. No one said compassion wasn't a valid trait, but that the method of developing compassion ALSO created incompassion, so the method was clearly faulty (also it killed 250,000 people, so there's that).
• 

  PSacramento

  Or misfortune. Not just suffering. You're ignoring half of the definition.

  In any case, God, in omniness, created the very conditions that caused the suffering. It's STILL ALL HIS RESPONSIBILITY. You are completely ignoring that. It's like saying an abusive father always buys his child an ice cream after the beating, so some good comes out of the beatings.

  No, the issue is the desire to alleviate the suffering caused ( if it be by misfortune is not really relevant to the issue of suffering existing).

  As to your statement that it is still all His ( Gods) responsibility, yes I agree.
• 

  PSacramento

  You're shifting the argument, moving the goalposts. You said suffering could be useful if it helped develop compassion. No one said compassion wasn't a valid trait, but that the method of developing compassion ALSO created incompassion, so the method was clearly faulty (also it killed 250,000 people, so there's that).

  Now you are judging the method of developing compassion, which is perfectly fine and accetable, BUT that is a different issue.

  If the method used to create/develop compassion is not 100%, then why is that? and what method would guarantee compassion to be developed 100% without infringing on a persons right to NOT be compassionate?
• 

  Viviane

  You said the good was the development of compassion. Compassion, by your own definition DOESN'T require suffering. The suffering can ALSO create incompassion.

  Explain how killing or allowing 2500000 people to die was a good plan. Connect the dots, A to B to C. Be specific.