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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  jgnat

  PSacramento, you have thoroughly and repeatedly clung to the notion that suffering is required for compassion, largely based on the definition of the word "compassion". I've recently read Pinker's book "The Better Angels of our Nature..." who convincingly demonstrates a different avenue for compassion to develop, which I won't go in to here.

  I think I can pretty well demonstrate that increased suffering does not result in a commensurate increase in compassion. You have also admitted that not every person responds to suffering by becoming more compassionate. So there is no purpose in allowing or increasing suffering in order to create more compassionate human beings.

  The tsunami deaths are therefore purposeless.

  Having to repeat myself is a little too much like domestic life, when a partner knows when they have not been heard. It is mildly offensive to have to repeat ourselves. It is much more gratifying to know that what we care about, others do too, and that our opinion has some sort of weight.
• 

  PSacramento

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

  By my defintion, it does indeed require suffering, where did you get the idea it didn't?

  The word itself means just that.

  If your point is how this defintion is worded in particular:

  compassion

  / kəmˈpæʃən / noun
  1. a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it .

  I think you are missing the fact that the way this is worded still emphasies the FEELING to ALLEVIATE it ( suffering associated with misfortune).
• 

  PSacramento

  PSacramento, you have thoroughly and repeatedly clung to the notion that suffering is required for compassion, largely based on the definition of the word "compassion". I've recently read Pinker's book "The Better Angels of our Nature..." who convincingly demonstrates a different avenue for compassion to develop, which I won't go in to here.

  I have not read that book, so I can't comment on that, but just from reading the wiki page it seems some have issues with his conclusions (Such as John Gray).

  I think I can pretty well demonstrate that increased suffering does not result in a commensurate increase in compassion. You have also admitted that not every person responds to suffering by becoming more compassionate. So there is no purpose in allowing or increasing suffering in order to create more compassionate human beings.

  That is a matter of opinion of course, since you are assuming some sort of "ruler" to measure suffering -to- comapssion ratio.

  That people have the choice to due with ANY trait what they will doesn't seem to invalidate a trait or how that trait may be developed.

  The tsunami deaths are therefore purposeless.

  Having to repeat myself is a little too much like domestic life, when a partner knows when they have not been heard. It is mildly offensive to have to repeat ourselves. It is much more gratifying to know that what we care about, others do too, and that our opinion has some sort of weight.

  To state that any death is purposeless is a matter of opinion.

  I agree, it is midly offense to have to repeat ourselves, as it is offensive to be insulted and even called names when expressing a view or an opinion in a which I have not insulted anyone at all in this thread.

  If I didn't car about your view I would not have been discussing this with you NOR would I have asked for clarification when I was not understanding your viewpoint.
• 

  jgnat

  Well, if you are trying to find purpose in a quarter million deaths, it has to be a pretty compelling one. Indeed I am trying to use a ruler, the ruler of logic. I have demonstrated that using suffering to increase compassion is unreliable and illogical. This makes the tsunami deaths purposeless.

  My opinion is based on logic. My opinion has more weight.

  Regarding Pinker's book, there's the authorship and then there are the many references he uses to bolster his case. I found his evidence to be compelling. It is worthwhile to look up all the references Pinker uses for his case.
• 

  humbled

  Compassionate people will help alleviate suffering where they can. This is a given whether or not you are a Christian theist or not.

  The existence of God is not proven by the existence of compassion, is it? Also, suffering and death is a natural occurence you said earlier, Psac. (Although the bible says it is the punishment /consequence of sin--See Genesis and Romans.

  How do you think that all this proves anything about God's love?

  That the carpenter believed it was true is no proof either. He was as deluded as we all have been. Jesus believed in compassion, as do I.

  Edited: It is easier to belief that we have invented God than to believe that there is a god who actually cares for us. I can believe that a jewish carpenter (as other gospels tell it) taught us to become true human beings in spite of the evil and greed that discourages compassion and selflessnes. It doesn't matter to me that he was the son of god.

  Good examples are needed to help teach compassion. Jesus, stripped of diety, without pretensions for deity, is one of the best. But the Bible God has been a dry hole for a long time.

  .
• 

  Viviane

  By my defintion, it does indeed require suffering, where did you get the idea it didn't?

  / kəmˈpæʃən / noun
  1. a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it .

  From basic grammar. There would be no need for an OR statement if they were the same thing. It's not suffering associated with misfortune, it's suffering OR misfortune.

  Try to twist it all you want, your own provided definition nullifies your argument.
• 

  cofty

  It is sad and pathetic when a theologian resorts to semantics in order to avoid genuine conversation.
• 

  PSacramento

  Well, if you are trying to find purpose in a quarter million deaths, it has to be a pretty compelling one. Indeed I am trying to use a ruler, the ruler of logic. I have demonstrated that using suffering to increase compassion is unreliable and illogical. This makes the tsunami deaths purposeless.

  Compelling to who?

  I don't think that I mentioned or agreed that the 250K dead because of the Tsunami had a purpose. Just like the over 50 million killed by the Spanish influence has a purpose.

  The view that God USES suffering to develop the triat of compassion does NOT equal that SPECIFIC deaths have a purpose ( though one can argue that death in of itself has purpose).

  I am not trying to state that the people killed in the tsunami were killed to serve a higher purpose since from the start I mentioned that naturla disaters are a part of nature, of this world we live in and death from them will always happen.

  The bible itself makes no mention that God CAN or DOES divert natural disaters to save lives, thoug it does mention that there will be a time that death will not be a factor.

  This all goes back to what I mentioned earlier in regards to seeing what type of God is demonstrated in Jesus's life, death and resurrection and deciding IF that is a God you deem worthy of worship.
• 

  PSacramento

  The existence of God is not proven by the existence of compassion, is it? Also, suffering and death is a natural occurence you said earlier, Psac. (Although the bible says it is the punishment /consequence of sin--See Genesis and Romans.

  How do you think that all this proves anything about God's love?

  God's love is shown in His self-sacrfice for Us.

  Compassion does NOT proove the existence of God and yes, death is natural ( to what degree suffering is natural is still debatable in regards to all animals).
• 

  jgnat

  250,000 deaths, eh, drop in the bucket. It barely makes a blip in your preaching work. The senslessness of the deaths obviously was compelling to cofty. And apologists have not provided him a single solitary satisfying answer to his question.

  But fine, preach on. You might even find an audience inured to the inconsistency of the message. Since God obviously does not concern himself with specific inconsistencies/deaths.

  About "natural disasters are part of nature", which I agree. Your particular belief system demands however, that this is a God-created nature. A perfect God creating a flawed nature that sometimes comes crashing down on humanity with devastating effect. You absolve God from this flaw. Cofty doesn't.