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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  cofty

  for many believers there is moral and righteous purpose both for immediate action by God and for what appears to be delayed action. - Caliber

  Yes Caliber that is the question. What moral and righteous purpose exactly?

  You keep referrring to god's plan to sort things out later. How exactly would stopping the tsunami have interfered with that purpose?

  It is deeply dishonest of you to infer that god can answer a prayer for good health by drowning them but resurrecting them later. This is the sort of sophistry that rightly turns peoople away from theism.

  You seem to have misunderstood my point about prayer despite the fact I clarified it.

  Jesus invited christians to ask for anything in his name and to have confidence they would receive it.

  Jesus would not have made that offer unless there was at least a possibility that god would answer prayers. Not every prayer perhaps, but at least some. If god answers prayers - even one - then he is in the business of intervening in human affairs. Even the phrase"give us today our daily bread" proves conclusively that god is active in the world. Anybody who does not believe this is not a christian theist and has taken refuge in deism.

  If god helps christians - even occasionally - with daily needs like food and shelter, health and so on then your passive god is a figment of your imagination.

  Not to have your wife, children, friends and home washed away in a tsunami, created by god himself, seems like a reasonable request.
• 

  cofty

  I am working my way through the posts I missed today. I will embed a link to the post in each reply.

  Just want to jump ahead and underline what Viviane has just said.

  Its interesting that theists are so keen to answer an easier question I didn't ask rather than the difficult one I did ask.
• 

  caliber

  Caliber, the frame analogy doesn't apply to Cofty since what some people have been doing it trying to change the picture. He's asking for an explanation for the picture, some people are trying to describe a different picture.

  The picture is of an unloving, uncaring God so yes I guess I am guilty , if I want to "wander off" in an effort to

  show otherwise

  

  guilty!!!!!
• 

  cofty

  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. - flamegrilled

  What I agreed was the the tsunami does not prove there is no god. It is a part of the jigsaw but it is not sufficient to reach that conclusion.

  However I do not agree that the tsunami proves nothing. It does prove that there is something fatally flawed about christian theism.
• 

  cofty

  Has there never been a person in your life that you know... you know their nature... who has seemed to have acted outside of that nature? - Tammy

  If I had a friend who was well spoken of by lots of his aquaintances but I later discovered that he beat his wife and children I have a dilemma.

  I can stubbornly cling on to all of the good reports about his character and excuse his violence. I could blame his family. I could point to the wonderful future plans he has for their prosperity. I could admit being puzzled by his behaviour but insisit he must have had his reasons and that's his business.

  Or I could admit my confidence in my friend does not stand up to scrutiny. The facts prove he is not what I thought he was.
• 

  cofty

  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. - Flamegrilled

  Your analogy is unhelpful. Imagine a pet owner who beat his dog, failed to feed it, didn't give it water and left it out in the cold and rain.

  Is it likely that the owner had his good reasons which we just don't understand?

  If christian theism is true then yes you must be able to account for reality.
• 

  cofty

  That is a disingenius representation of the ongoing discussions in this thread - Tammy

  The summary is fair and balanced. If you can see a valid counter-argument that has not been addressed then say so.
• 

  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.
• 

  cofty

  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. - flamegrilled

  No I don't acknowledge that at all.

  Your god is supposed to be epitome of love and the example for humans to imitate.

  If the worse attrocity imaginable is actually loving in a strange sort of way we just can't grasp, then we must abandon all attempts to understand good and bad, love and hate.

  You have destroyed any sensible meaning of morality by calling mass murder an act of love.
• 

  tec

  If I had a friend who was well spoken of by lots of his aquaintances but I later discovered that he beat his wife and children I have a dilemma.

  This is not the same analogy. In this scenario you have all the facts, and in this scenario your friend caused the harm. As well, your analogy depends upon what your friends acquaintences say about him, rather than what you yourself know about him.

  That is not the scenario I gave, and that is not the scenario presented in this thread.

  If you can see a valid counter-argument that has not been addressed then say so.

  Gettin to it.

  Peace,

  tammy