After my very first comment you insisted that I narrow my thoughts to the very specific field in which you framed the problem. Now you accuse me of not painting the bigger picture.
What exactly do you want?
flamegrilled
JoinedPosts by flamegrilled
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday 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.
-
-
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday 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.
-
-
flamegrilled
What is your problem with analogies Cofty?
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday 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.
-
-
flamegrilled
The issue is really that anyone trying to make out that the drowning of a quarter of a million people is even just part of a perfect act of love comes across as a heartless, inhuman and unchristian monster. Simon
Just describing things in emotive language does not add to a logical assessment of anything. You guys get so righteously indignant about this. You'd think it would be the theists that would be more inclinded to appeal to emotion, and yet we would not be able to compete even if we were inclined to.
Are you really so intrinsically altruistic that every seeming act of injustice really renders you incapable of logical objectivity? I have to say it just ends up coming across like a rant. And those who are incapable of building a logical thought just randomly throw in repeated soundbites.
I am aware that someone recently got banned from this discussion by merely suggesting that one factor IN CONTEXT was not as big of a game changer as some were purporting it to be. I believe that she actually said "in context", but all subsequent references to that modifier were edited out. Why?
Why not permit rational discussion to be given free reign for a while? I don't just mean in terms of undesirable comments being deleted. But even for your own benefit, curbing this gut reaction to stiffle any opposing view through censorship and vitriol might provide some of you with the opportunity to consider your possible fallibility.
Are you fallible? Perhaps if you cannot honestly answer that then the problem has been nailed before we even get into the discussion of any specific subject - theological or otherwise.
I know I'm falliable. I shouldn't even have to say it, but I only believe that my voice is worth hearing because I recognize that. If I didn't then all I would be offering is rhetoric. You don't have to be a Christian theist to have some humility, but some people make it appear that it's an impossible quality for an atheist.
jgnat - thanks for your cut and paste of a bad analogy. From reading your comments on other posts I believe that you are smart enough to understand the limitations of an analogy as applied by the person who provides it. Each analogy I have provided demonstrates a very specific point. To then try to pretend I am illustrating the full picture of the Asian tsunami in each one is a demonstration of ignorance. If we go down this road then every illustration and anaolgy ever given should ultimately be able to explain every aspect of the universe. A logical argument should break down the issue into the key principles that are in question and deal with them both individually and then collectively. When presenting an analogy that addresses an individual componant, it is a lazy and ignorant response to misapply it to the collective and label it weak.
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday 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.
-
-
flamegrilled
what you call "bleeding obvious"
Oops that was Simon. Reading too fast. Sorry.
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday 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.
-
-
flamegrilled
Please address the question directly, and preferably without any further analogies. Cofty
I did so. The analogies were only there to help people who are unable to grasp simple logical statements. But here it is again:
Whilst the statement may be true, the way you are framing it is an oversimplification. What you are really asking us to agree is:
God is love therefore every act or lack of action taken in isolation must definable as an act of love.
This is not necessarily true.
The bold type is to assist you to see the logical point without the need of an analogy.
You seem incapable of applying what you call "bleeding obvious" in a logical sense.
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday 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.
-
-
flamegrilled
... but your analogy is broken because ... Viviane
Just like in real life, things tend to break when they are misused.
I would like to know why your record is broken.
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday 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.
-
-
flamegrilled
We are not trying to prove that god doesn't exist, just get an admission that there is no evidence that he does exist. Simon
For the thousandth time it is not about the existence of god. Cofty
So which is it?
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday 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.
-
-
flamegrilled
Viviane: Not buying a car doesn't = not generous.
That is correct.
Finally, in soccer, hockey, Australian and American football and rugby, backwards moves are part of a valid strategy with the entire field visible and an explantion for the call.
That is correct too. The point of the analogy in this case is that a single action taken in isolation does not reflect the overall picture.
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday 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.
-
-
flamegrilled
I don't have to pretend. THE GLADIATOR
That's no surprise to me. But for those that are able to comprehend it I will continue to discuss. If there isn't anybody on this site that can, then so be it.
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday 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.
-
-
flamegrilled
Okay, I switched my brain back on and I will have to withdraw what I previously wrote (oh wait, someone already removed it so that's good). It's too painful not to be allowed to think.
Cofty asked which of these I disagree with:
1. God observed the Asian tsunami as it evolved
2. God knew it would kill a quarter of a million people and displace 5 million more
3. God had the power to stop the tsuanmi
4. God did not stop the tsuanmi
5. Everything that god does is perfectly loving
6. Therefore allowing a tsunami to drown a quarter of a million people is a perfect act of love.
It starts to go off the rails at point 5.
Whilst the statement may be true, the way you are framing it is an oversimplification. What you are really asking us to agree is:
God is love therefore every act or lack of action taken in isolation must definable as an act of love.
This is not necessarily true.
I will create a couple more analogies that you can have fun misapplying and pretending not to understand.
You are a generous father. Does every action taken in isolation reflect that? Your daughter asks you for a high powered sports car as soon as she passes her driving test. Let's say you have the power to buy it i.e. it's easily affordable to you. Should we expect every action you make (or do not make) to reflect your generous personality? If we take your decision in isolation (assuming that you are a sensible parent who withholds it because of care for her safety) does this non-action in isolation reflect your entire personality as non-generous?
Here's another. The objective of a soccer team is to get the ball to other end of the pitch and score. A player makes a pass backwards. If taken in isolation does that mean that the player is not acting in accord with the objective?
Now you will say ... explain how killing a gazillion people = passing a soccer ball, blah.