yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Welcome, Vivane, hadn't relised you were a newbie!
Agreed, presuming that believer were willing to admit that they don't know what their god does or doesn't do and why. Most are quite dogmatic about knowing that, so they don't get the luxury of a "get out jail free" card
Especially true of jws, with that sort of kindly, condescending smile. They have all the answers. . .but they might be different next week
I'm more familiar with more inclusive religions.
cheers, Retro
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Hi Viviane,
From Cofty's summary post on p20
I thought a summary might be helpful.
The question is simple. It isn't an attempt to use suffering to prove there is no god. It isn't even about suffering in general.
It is about suffering that is not caused by humans and how theism accounts for it.
So it's not about the details of any person's belief.
I'd reiterate: a believer in a God or power greater than himself , cannot by definition account for every action or non action of that being. Being unable to do so does NOT make the believer intellectually dishonest; quite the opposite.
Retro
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
cofty, for tomorrow morning, perhaps. ..
.
14. Its a mystery.
Response - No response required. The intellectual dishonesty of faith is self-evident.
I must respectfully disagree with this. Do I need to understand a "God" to have faith in her? Heck, I don't even understand my friends!
tell us a little about yourself and your family.. born in the 1970s in glasgow, currently married, 2 children in their early teens.
were you a born in or a convert?.
neither, my mother became a jw when i was 7, she was a single parent by this time having divorced my father.. are your parents / family jws?.
Welcome, Bethel Dark!
ok so this is a conversation that i am having with a friend that i really love.
i have some points that i want to say but tell me, how would you respond to this email?.
not gonna try to defend anyone i can really only speak for myself.
Hi MsGG,
I would say that if God is a wiser and more loving father than our earthly parents, I cannot imaging the He would condemn all his children to oblivion except one small group. A small group, moreover, that admitted to being led by "imperfect men" and issuing false alarms.
Caveat - i'm a never-jw and so don't know how a jw would react to this.
Well for one, I think I get it.
Make abortions illegal, blame, shame and punish all concerned in such.
Even though you have been repeatedly been shown that this will certainly increase maternal deaths and injuries from backyard abortions and will not reduce unwanted pregnancies.
This is not about saving lives, mothers or babys. this is about imposing your rules on others.
IUD = Intra Uterine Device - put in place in a health clinic and works by preventing implantation. So technically, according to your definition, "murdering" the zygote.
The thing is, with your definition, and your stance that "taking a life" is always wrong, it doesn't fit with the real world. When a doctor administers morpheine to a dying patient, technically s/he is "taking" hours or days of life, which would otherwise be intolerable suffering. So is it wrong?
You have also agreed that removing a living fetus to save a mother's life could be a non-criminal choice. So perhaps, if a fetus could be seen to be so malformed that it could only life briefly if at all, that might be another lawful "choice".
This is why it's already not a black and white issue, education, options, support all help, and coercion probably will only make bad worse.
OK. If the system needs repair - I'd say more like rebuild - we don't overload the wreckage.
So would you also outlaw the morning-after pill? the normal contraceptive pill? IUDs that prevent implantation?
thanks, USR.
So, what education did you have in mind? statistics and/or graphic pics?
Will the statistics be kept current with deaths and injuries from the illegal abortions once the laws have been amended (those that have been found out, anyway)? What if these show that outlawing abortions causes more suffering than before?
What support provisions should there be for families and single mums who cannot cope with children they had to birth (such as
*result of rape, mother acutely depressed and not able to bond with child
*child with acute birth defects needing intensive care
I'm guessing you would say they just have to soldier on like the rest of us if we have problems with kids. My view is that if you deprive people of choices, you also bear responsibilities for all resulting problems.
Retro
sorry, pressed enter by mistake,
society needs to
1. educate people about the problem
2. make most abortions illegal (boundaries to be determined)
3. implement heavy punishments for all participating in illegal abortions
4. (should pro-choice advocates also be punished?)
Is that a fair statement of your position?
