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.
