flamegrilled

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 365 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by flamegrilled

• 
  2596

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

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  flamegrilled

  besty - I did it several pages back with the anaology of a domestic animal unable to comprehend why a loving owner might inflict pain on it

  (sorry I don't know how to link to specific previous comments)
• 
  2596

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

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  flamegrilled

  What's your definition of murder? And who said the tsunami was an act of love?

  Your logic seems very loose to me.
• 
  2596

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

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  flamegrilled

  It does prove that there is something fatally flawed about christian theism. Cofty

  No it doesn't. You can dismiss the pet analogy all you like, but the fact remains that we CAN conceive of a circumstance whereby it seems irrational to reconcile the loving nature of a higher being from the viewpoint of a being that has more limited ability to assess the true facts. If we CAN conceive of such a situation then we cannot dismiss that such a thing is occurring in our case. If we cannot dismiss it, then we cannot say that any form of human suffering ("natural evil" as you call it, or otherwise) proves a fatal flaw in theistic belief.

  Therefore your above statement is simply logically false.
• 
  2596

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

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  flamegrilled

  Viviane

  But I didn't criticize Cofty for that. I was only pointing out that those seemed to be the rules of this thread, and I was both attempting to operate within them, and pointing out their limitations.

  How can you answer YES to #1 considering your YES answer to #2? That's surely a contradiction.

  Your #3 addendum isn't logical or helpful. To say something is "a mystery" defines it in a persistent way. I've never proposed that.

  That would be like a courtroom hearing part of the evidence and declaring the case closed as "a mystery" even though it acknowledges that there is currently insufficient evidence to make a ruling and/or that more evidence might become available. It is simply not a helpful or logical way of describing the available data.

  However, to acknowledge (as you have) that there are factors involved that we are not capable of grasping would not make them irrelevant.

  I return to the pet analogy. From the POV of the pet, the fact that it cannot grasp the intention behind what it perceives to be a cruel act does not make it irrelevant to the pet does it?

  You say that whatever cannot be grasped is irrelevant. I say that there is no logic to that. If we are capable of determining that something might be outside of our sphere of knowledge, then we can certainly factor that into our decision making.

  FG
• 
  40

  Did You Ever Hear An Elder or Bethelite's Comments That Made You Question ??

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  years ago, the society's speakers used to give many off the cuff statements.

  a lot of personal opinions and questionable remarks.. anything ever stand out for you in this area?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  flamegrilled

  jw women are kissing corpses ...

  ??????
• 
  2596

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

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  flamegrilled

  Viviane - To present my comments as "it's a mystery" is just a crude attempt to avoid the logic.

  Let me rephrase the points I made earlier in terms of direct questions to you:

  1) Do you believe we have every fact necessary to reach a logical conclusion on this matter? YES/NO

  2) Do you accept the possibility that there are factors involved that we are not capable of grasping? YES/NO

  How would you directly answer these YES/NO questions?
• 
  2596

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

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  flamegrilled

  Ah, but you missed my point Viviane. I did not say that we were the animal and God was the owner. I already made the point to Humbled after he referred me to the (very entertaining) Louie C.K. interview - this is not an illustration that can be stretched to fit like a glove.

  The point is far more simple than that. We can acknowledge that it is possible that a higher being has a reason for doing something that appears unloving from our standpoint - but only because we have incomplete information. It does not mean that the higher being (should He exist) is unloving, simply because we cannot reconcile the information available to us and explain a clear answer in human terms.
• 
  2596

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

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  flamegrilled

  Viviane

  No. Keeping it tight in this case is simply diallowing any line of reason that Cofty doesn't want to accept as part of the answer. As long as he stipulates the parameter that IF there is a God of the Bible then we MUST be able to explain the tsunami, then it does not allow for the simple line of reason that I put forward in my analogy of the animal that is not capable of understanding the actions of its owner in certain very specific circumstances.
• 
  2596

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

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  flamegrilled

  I am simply pointing out a dilemma for theists. (Cofty)

  Sure. I accept that it's a dilemma, or at least a question that is necessary to ask. I also accept that we may not have the capability to answer it and therefore we cannot draw conclusions. Since you claim that you are not drawing conclusions, then you and I are in the same boat.

  And since you seem determined to keep this thread tight, so that I cannot bring in additional evidence for God, and you do not claim that suffering disproves God, then are agreed. The 2004 tsunami proves nothing in and of itself.

  Your only point is that it creates a dilemma. And what do you do with other dilemmas that you may be faced with Cofty? Leap to a conclusion that dismisses the dilemma? It's certainly one option. I say it is a lazy one if it doesn't deal with the whole body of data. But in the interests of keeping this thread within your parameters no one is allowed to stray outside of your perceived dilemma.
• 
  2596

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

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  flamegrilled

  Cofty - I don't particularly wish you had asked any specific question. My response is not a hijack of the thread based upon the directions the conversation has taken.

  You've ignorred the point that 250,000 people doesn't equal 250,000 problems. It is simply one problem. If you cannot grasp that then you are already dealing with the issue illogically.

  My point applies whether it is "all suffering" or a subset of suffering caused by what you term as "natural evil". Unless you can demonstrate that you have all the information then you are likely to reach a flawed conclusion.