The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday (page 83)

caliber

Is it right or loving or ethical to passively observe the death of a quarter of a million innocent people, if is within your power to prevent it? - Cofty

A simple yes or no would do Caliber. Yes

I will give a one word answer ,if you promise not to quote me later without adding that you failed to allow me to qualify the reason for my answer.

and you answer this question .....

IS it honest or in the spirit of fair play ,to ask a question so loaded with adjectives and adverbs that are so bias to yes or no,(if not actually untrue or matter of opinion )

that to answer any other way without explaination would make you look totally unreasonable ? (one word answer yes or no)( you cannot qualify your answer in any way )

caliber

One word answers may be fair in court because you are only a witness, the defense team must should fill in the rest through proper questions to

bring out hidden facts and circumstances that reveal the true picture from your point of view example....

The prosecutor sits down, confident that he has successfully driven home a critical point. The witness, on the other hand, is frustrated because he feels as if his answer was misleading, and he thinks that the questioning is over. It's not. There is re-direct examination, then re-cross, then further re-direct, then further re-cross, and on and on until the lawyers are through

Defense Attorney:
You just testified on cross-examination that you didn't actually see the man bite his ear off, right?

Witness:
Right.

Defense attorney:
Well, if that's the case, how is it that you can say that you know that he bit the other man's ear off?

Witness:
Because I saw him spit it out

You should not be frustrated if a lawyer (especially the opponent's lawyer) does not ask the "right" question. That's his plan. But the other lawyer (your ally) has his job, too. He knows what information will help his case, and he will find a way to elicit the testimony from you.

http://www.lawyerssacramento.org/How_To_Testify_in_Court.html

You should not be frustrated if a lawyer (especially the opponent's lawyer) does not ask the "right" question. That's his plan. But the other lawyer (your ally) has his job, too. He knows what information will help his case, and he will find a way to elicit the testimony from you.

Defense Attorney: You just testified on cross-examination that you didn't actually see the man bite his ear off, right? Witness: Right. Defense attorney: Well, if that's the case, how is it that you can say that you know that he bit the other man's ear off? Witness:

BeDefense Attorney:
Defense Attorney:

You just testified on cross-examination that you didn't actually see the man bite his ear off, right?

Witness:

Right.

Defense attorney:

Well, if that's the case, how is it that you can say that you know that he bit the other man's ear off?

Witness:

Because I saw him spit it out
You just testified on cross-examination that you didn't actually see the man bite his ear off, right?

Witness:

Right.

Defense attorney:

Well, if that's the case, how is it that you can say that you know that he bit the other man's ear off?

Witness:

Because I saw him spit it outcause I saw him spit it out.

Defense Attorney: You just testified on cross-examination that you didn't actually see the man bite his ear off, right? Witness: Right. Defense attorney: Well, if that's the case, how is it that you can say that you know that he bit the other man's ear off? Witness: Defense Attorney: You just testified on cross-examination that you didn't actually see the man bite his ear off, right? Witness: Right. Defense attorney: Well, if that's the case, how is it that you can say that you know that he bit the other man's ear off? Witness: Because I saw him spit it out.

Because I saw him spit it out.

cofty

Caliber - I said, "A simple yes or no would do". I did not require you to give a yes or no answer, neither did I say you were not free to explain your answer at length.

Instead of explaining your answer you chose to lecture me about the question.

So back to the topic.

You have just said that - it is right, loving and ethical to passively observe the death of a quarter of a million innocent people, even if it is within your power to prevent it.

Now please explain why this statement, that contradicts all of our instincts, can be true.

caliber

You have just said that - it is right, loving and ethical to passively observe the death of a quarter of a million innocent people, even if it is within your power to prevent it.

God's universal issue is of uttermost importance, it is of greater importance than our current human life. Is this fair ? consider the issues

and problems...

The Creator have set a system in motion beyond human comprehension.

Earthquakes, tempests, famines and floods are called 'acts of God' because usually there is no other explanation for their occurrence. So if we look beyond human acts to natural disaster, we find that it falls upon all, innocent and guilty alike. As soon as we begin to question the suffering of innocent victims of these disasters another dilemma is raised. Are we saying that the calamities should be selective in their working, searching out only those who deserve to suffer'?

If God did always intervene in human affairs and earth events

would he need to do this .....yearly, daily or hourly ?

Man lives in an universe of cause and effect and must accept its consequences

The question to ask is... what is the way out ?

So it was that, nearly 2000 years ago, God intervened in the lives and history of man by giving His Son Christ Jesus to share in human suffering to the uttermost in order to bring about redemption from sin and death. Suffering and loss are common to man, but for the children of God they are directed to their Heavenly Father

Viviane

How come none of those 250000 people are telling how awesome it was to die just once? I'm not sure at all how Jesus dying makes 250000 deaths OK.Can you connect the dots for me, Caliber?

adamah

Caliber said-

God's universal issue is of uttermost importance, it is of greater importance than our current human life.

I'd say if the all-important "Universal Sovereignty" (US) issue outweighs God's questionable decision to sit on His Divine Hands while 250k die, then the issue is settled.... God doesn't deserve to rule.

See, you still haven't 'connected the dots' of how the US issue relates to God's failure to protect His creations from His bad designs, since it's not like Satan designed the tectonic plates, and has a duty to protect those sentient beings who should in fact file a product liability class-action lawsuit against God. The situation is the premise of this video, where a fictitious pair of product liability lawyers run an infomercial seeking to sue God for manufacturing a product with known defects, even after a recall (AKA Noah's flood) fails to address the defect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGQvQv9o-Mg

The concepts of product liability law are reflective of the morality and ethics of modern men, recognizing that certain responsibilities cannot be excused by dreaming up endless excuses for manufacturers (a task that is so common for God, it even has a name of its own: theodicy).

The duty of a manufacturer to protect the public from flawed defective products CAN be applied to God of the Bible, obviously NOT to sue God, but to demonstrate the foolishness of continued excusiology to sustain the fantasy belief.

Adam

tec

So in other words the answer to the question that Caliber asked Cofty:

IS it honest or in the spirit of fair play ,to ask a question so loaded with adjectives and adverbs that are so bias to yes or no,(if not actually untrue or matter of opinion )

that to answer any other way without explaination would make you look totally unreasonable ? (one word answer yes or no)( you cannot qualify your answer in any way )

is a no.

The question that Cofty keeps demanding a yes or no answer to is a loaded question.

Just wanted to say that some of us noticed that, Caliber, and you made a great point.

Peace,

tammy

bohm

Caliber

If God did always intervene in human affairs and earth events

would he need to do this .....yearly, daily or hourly ?

What would we call a parent who allowed his children to play on the highway and, when one of them got run over, excused himself by saying if he should interveen once in their play he would not know if he should interveen every minute?

i would call him an idiot.

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

cofty

LucidChimp

caliber

caliber

cofty

caliber

Viviane

adamah

tec

bohm

Share this