Posts by superpunk

322

God and Suffering

by AK - Jeff in

a few weeks back, in the midst of the haiti tragedy, much discussion took place in cyberland about the tolerance [or indeed the insistence on] suffering by a loving god.

the furor over haiti has settled a bit [as unfortunately most tragedy is wont to do far too quickly in the human mind], but this persistent matter continues to chew at my subconscience.

today i came across this:.

superpunk

I have no problem in my faith being opposed to my logic.

So your position would be that a "God of Love" needs us to ignore our thinking abilities (which he allegedly gave us, not sure if you believe that or not) in order to maintain our faith? Do you find that a little cruel and JWistic?

"Look we know that nothing we have ever predicted has come true, but we're totally God's chosen organization and we'd appreciate it if you did not question that and get your ass out in field service."

Oops...I may have used logic.

It's not, not to me anyways

I just explained how it is. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

322

God and Suffering

by AK - Jeff in

a few weeks back, in the midst of the haiti tragedy, much discussion took place in cyberland about the tolerance [or indeed the insistence on] suffering by a loving god.

the furor over haiti has settled a bit [as unfortunately most tragedy is wont to do far too quickly in the human mind], but this persistent matter continues to chew at my subconscience.

today i came across this:.

superpunk

I personally believe that God is Love, I am a Christian and that is the view and path that I have Choosen for myself.

Oh damnit. But you JUST said...."IF God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, we have NO IDEA what God does and why God does it."

If you start making positive assertions about your deity and his nature, then you've just violated your own principle - and you're opening up your God to all sorts of criticism from skeptics - criticisms for which you will have to fall back on statements like "It's a mystery" or "We can't understand" while at the same time trying to uphold your positive assertion, which you've already invalidated....

If that makes sense.

"God is love" and "we have NO IDEA what God does and why God does it" are contradictory statements.

Tying to understand the incomprehensibale is a human trait and a good one if you aske me

I completely disagree. Trying to understand things for which we do not as yet have reasonable explanations is a human trait and a good one. Trying to understand the incomprehensible, only leads to humans making up completely unverifiable myths and stunting their own growth.

322

God and Suffering

by AK - Jeff in

a few weeks back, in the midst of the haiti tragedy, much discussion took place in cyberland about the tolerance [or indeed the insistence on] suffering by a loving god.

the furor over haiti has settled a bit [as unfortunately most tragedy is wont to do far too quickly in the human mind], but this persistent matter continues to chew at my subconscience.

today i came across this:.

superpunk

I don't think there is an obvious answer, fact is, IF God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, we have NO IDEA what God does and why God does it.
Its like a single cell ameoba trying to figure out why humans created the Atomic bomb.

I think that is a very brilliant outlook.

I think if we assume what you've said is true - "God exists, and we cannot comprehend him" - we have to look at any and all attempts to define God as dishonest (and if we look closer, self-serving) - whether that be the Bible, the Qu'ran, or the countless branches of Christianity that exist today. The second anyone makes a positive assertion about God, i.e. God is Love, God cares about us, etc, They have violated our principle of God being incomprehensible.

If everyone were as honest as you we would have less discord.

322

God and Suffering

by AK - Jeff in

a few weeks back, in the midst of the haiti tragedy, much discussion took place in cyberland about the tolerance [or indeed the insistence on] suffering by a loving god.

the furor over haiti has settled a bit [as unfortunately most tragedy is wont to do far too quickly in the human mind], but this persistent matter continues to chew at my subconscience.

today i came across this:.

superpunk

I haven't read all 10 pages, but the obvious answer is that God allows suffering to prove his Universal Sovereignty. And don't ask any more questions because God will get really mad.

I read it the other day..."God wants to prove to the people of Haiti that they can't live in a world with earthquakes".

Point proven IMO.

322

God and Suffering

by AK - Jeff in

a few weeks back, in the midst of the haiti tragedy, much discussion took place in cyberland about the tolerance [or indeed the insistence on] suffering by a loving god.

the furor over haiti has settled a bit [as unfortunately most tragedy is wont to do far too quickly in the human mind], but this persistent matter continues to chew at my subconscience.

today i came across this:.

superpunk

I agree with you, but, you're asking an awful lot of atheists, when you insist that, they, (like every other person) addmit they use presuppositions, to form their opinions.

I don't think so. I think most would admit it. For instance, to begin any analysis of our world, we have to first suppose that "we exist", and that we are not currently living in the Matrix. Could we be wrong? Sure. But that would make our consciousness a pointless, never-ending struggle and would most likely drive us insane.

Presupposing the existence of invisible beings is a very different animal. But again, that's another thread or something. In this thread, God exists - if I understand the OP correctly. From there, we analyze his apparent inaction and indifference to human suffering.

322

God and Suffering

by AK - Jeff in

a few weeks back, in the midst of the haiti tragedy, much discussion took place in cyberland about the tolerance [or indeed the insistence on] suffering by a loving god.

the furor over haiti has settled a bit [as unfortunately most tragedy is wont to do far too quickly in the human mind], but this persistent matter continues to chew at my subconscience.

today i came across this:.

superpunk

Ah guys, you do know that its OK if you don't believe in God and that other people do, right?

For the purposes of a "Why does God permit suffering" thread it's necessary for all participants to begin with the assumption that God exists - even if they do not personally believe so, I think.

If no suitable explanation is found, then other conclusions can be drawn. (He doesn't exist, he is malevolent, he is indifferent, etc.)

23

How did you feel when they let a 10 year old boy stand up on the podium and a sister couldn't ?

by RULES & REGULATIONS in

one thing that really bothered me about the ministry school was letting a little boy around 10 years old read an outline and scripture.

he faced and addressed the audience.

he was actually teaching.

superpunk

As ridiculous as it is, these are the types of regulations you get when basing a religion on a centuries-old mysoginistic text.

Paul desired the women to be silent in church - and JWs view the bible as the infallible/inerrant. I suppose, given that, female JWs are lucky they get to talk at all during the meetings.

145

GETTING SUCKED IN? Ask the right questions to get the right answers.

by Terry in

it is too easy to get sucked in to the wrong argument at the wrong time.. asking the wrong question leads to the wrong answer.

a wrong answer does nobody any real good.. i once had a heated discussion with an old friend who is still an active jehovah's witness.. he came back at me with this:.

"okay, then--if jehovah's organization is a false religion, where is the true one?

superpunk

I also have a website with the basic theme that the KJV is superior to most:

We've moved from "authoritative" to "superior to most" in under an hour.

145

GETTING SUCKED IN? Ask the right questions to get the right answers.

by Terry in

it is too easy to get sucked in to the wrong argument at the wrong time.. asking the wrong question leads to the wrong answer.

a wrong answer does nobody any real good.. i once had a heated discussion with an old friend who is still an active jehovah's witness.. he came back at me with this:.

"okay, then--if jehovah's organization is a false religion, where is the true one?

superpunk

I'm talking about what startingover asked - what I responded to in the first place.

Definitions seem to be the problem here. Has a christian out there somewhere ever thought about putting out a dictionary with christian meanings,

That would deal with alot more than one doctrine.

No thoughts on who deemed the KJV authoritative?

145

GETTING SUCKED IN? Ask the right questions to get the right answers.

by Terry in

it is too easy to get sucked in to the wrong argument at the wrong time.. asking the wrong question leads to the wrong answer.

a wrong answer does nobody any real good.. i once had a heated discussion with an old friend who is still an active jehovah's witness.. he came back at me with this:.

"okay, then--if jehovah's organization is a false religion, where is the true one?

superpunk

And if you take the KJV (Received Text) bible the authoratative text book, you'll have no problem with definitions.

Who deemed it authoritative?

And by the way, what is wrong with branches of Christianity? The New Testament (Contract) is between Jesus and individuals, not congregations. There is vast unity among the different branches that accept Christ as sole Mediator and his blood the sole justifier.

There is also vast disunity among the branches, on many of the most core doctrines of Christianity. Definitions will vary - any attempt to nail them down in some encyclopedia wouls be futile.