"As good a guess as any."
That just about sums up the 99% of the posts from theists on this thread.
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
humbled
Well, cofty, I hate being an impotent mom(ahem).
I really DO love my kids, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't have the absolute power to help them--even if they are in desperate need.
It's a crying shame, but maybe the carpenter was pretty disappointed to find out that his Abba didn't have a way to stop shit from happening either.
Maybe an impotent god is having to do as much as he can with love. And we all are just going to have to deal with it.
But that is a very good question-- If I were writing propaganda to win folks to my religion I would definitely tell them my God was all-powerful.
-
flamegrilled
Flamegrilled, if you're going to call other people stupid, you should make sure your sentence doing that isn't written incorrectly. Viviane
I beg your pardon? I don't believe I called anyone stupid. And I'm not going to apologize for any gramatical or spelling errors (whatever they were) on a forum. I have a day job too. Please don't be petty.
If its not too much trouble can you let me know the page number of the post you want me to read. Besty
Page 53. 4th post. (and then some subsequent exchanges I guess)
If you know an owner who claimed to love his dog was beating it mercilessly with a big stick, and its discovered that he has been starving it and leaving it out in the cold all night, would it make sense to conclude that his definition of love is perverse? Cofty
Sure. What's that got to do with my analogy?
If there was an owner who did anything cruel to his pet then he is cruel, not loving. That's just simple defininition. I don't know why you think this is relevant.
The simple point is that from a pet's point of view it is possible that something that might seem cruel actually is not. By extension we can say that from the point of view of a lower being ... blah, blah, I'm just repeating what I said above. If you can't get it by what I've all ready written then unfortunately I don't think you will.
You can't even hint at what these facts might be because you know that nothing could possibly turn the drowning of a qaurter of a million people into a perfect act of love.
Drowning 250K people is not a perfect act of love. Who said it was? Why would I need to find a way to prove that it is? You are making connections where they do not logically exist.
-
flamegrilled
Most things are possible. That's why we invented probable.
250k drowned people for no reason = christian bible god probably doesn't exist.
Besty - I've already been directed that this thread is not about the probability of the existence of God. Therefore I am sticking to the point which is simply that the tsanami does not logically present a fatal flaw to theists.
-
flamegrilled
What is the point of an impotent god?
Cofty - again you go off in an illogical and irrelevant tangent.
You may as well ask "what is the point of my parents if they are not omnipotent?".
And before you say that you said "impotent" not "not omnipotent", you were responding to "Possibly not all-powerful."
-
Viviane
If you weren't saying some people here couldn't understand logic and concept, then I apologize. That's how I read the sentence.
I agree that Cofty's example of a dog being being doesn't jive with your analogy. God is, at best, guilty of criminal negligence. However, for people who are beleivers in the God of the Bible, who is omniscient and all-powerful, how is it NOT a problem?
And impotent was the right word in the way he used it. The reason it's even being discussed is that would NOT be the God of the Bible, the one Christians worship, if he is NOT all powerful, if he is impotent. That's changing God into something other than what he is desribed as, into a different God.
-
cofty
If there was an owner who did anything cruel to his pet then he is cruel, not loving. That's just simple defininition. I don't know why you think this is relevant.
Please explain how drowining 250 000 people is not cruel.
Your pet analogy begs the question.
-
cofty
Drowning 250K people is not a perfect act of love. Who said it was? Why would I need to find a way to prove that it is? You are making connections where they do not logically exist. - FG
The god of theism is loving. More than that, his followers claim "god is love".
He knew about the tsunami as it evolved and he did nothing. He knew it would kill a quarter of a million people and devastate the lives of millions more. He watched it happen and did nothing.
The tsunami happened because of the way the god of christian theism made the world. The pressure had been building for centuries but he did nothing.
Everything that the god of christian thesim does must be motivated by love.
Therefore, according to theism the tsunami was an act of love.
-
cofty
I agree that Cofty's example of a dog being being doesn't jive with your analogy. God is, at best, guilty of criminal negligence
That would be true if we were not talking about the creator.
He made the earth in such a way that earthquakes were a certainty. When he put humans on earth he knew for an absolute certainty that he was condemning millions to violent death.
It was a sin of commission not merely one of omission
-
flamegrilled
Please explain how drowining 250 000 people is not cruel. Cofty
I cannot think of any circumstance under which for me to drown 1 person would not be cruel to some degree. That doesn't mean that such a circumstance does not exist. Furthermore in applying this to the tsunami it assumes that God drowned someone, which is also not established.