by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
He doesn't need to know those things, Tammy. If God really is omniscient and omnipotent and love, then he should know how, be able to do it and do it out of love.
If he doesn't know how, can't or just doesn't want too, you're left with a two legged stool that falls over.
Or He does know, and it is as it must be for this planet to support life.
How would you know the difference?
Peace,
tammy
Cofty do you ever even listen to yourself? You have insulted how many people now, just because they have not come to the conclusions that you do. Now you are also insulting Outlaw... just because he mods on our forum, and does not back down when you speak falsely about it. He never did a thing to you except speak honestly about what he knows.
Peace,
tammy
You are still suggesting that God 'should have done' something; without knowing how that something could be done, yourself - Tammy
Suggestions for god...
1. Create a globe where plates move gently over each other and moutains grow a few inches per year with no sudden jerks.
2. If this it too hard for god - when an earthquake happens dampen the vibrations so they don't kill people. This should be tirivally easy for a god who made galaxies.
3. If an earthquake happens under the ocean calm the wave at source before it drowns lots of people. Nothing could be simpler for a deity.
A deity who cannnot come up with an even better plan than these off-the-cuff ideas is a bumbling idiot.
So, Tammy, if it as it MUST be, then your God is neither omnipotent or omnisceint, not God.
Carry on with your cartoons and we will carrry on with adult conversations.....Cofty
How condescending of you..
You have a distinct "Air of Superiority"..
It`s 66 pages of arguing about something you don`t believe in..
66 pages about a subject (The existance of God) neither side can prove..
.
Normally I wouldn`t Waste My Time on a thread like this..But..
I had to Clear Up any Problems between the Two Forums..
...................................... 
...OUTLAW
You're not presenting arguments to support your conclusion - Adam
You have not been reading. You just pop in occasionally to say the same thing you said last time. I and others have presented lots of arguments.
Natural evil is a fatal blow to christian theism unless theists can explain how drowning a quarter of a million people is an act of perfect love.
Somebody may be along in a minute to explain what it is we have missed.
66 pages about a subject (The existance of God) neither side can prove..
Nobody is arguing about the existence of god. We are discussing whether christian theism can account for natural evil.
It has been an interesting conversation.
I had to Clear Up any Problems between the Two Forums..
There was no problem. Strypes was a member of the now defunt JWS forum. Tammy manipulated you to cause trouble as usual.
Whle you're insulting everyone and just generally looking like a directionlessly angry person, maybe I could get insulted too?
This whole topic is fatally flawed. You assert that natural disasters are unloving, but there are many people who clearly don't feel that way, because atheists are a fraction of the planet's population. Not to say that the majority is always right (being agnostic myself), but it defeats your assertion because a Christian believes that God created us in his image. Therefore, if most people believe that God can be loving while also allowing natural disasters (for which reason he does this is not relevant), then from the Christian standpoint most of the people created in God's image share his values. You are free to disagree, but you cannot prove anything, only state a dissenting opinion.
Similarly, many here feel that the traditional JW theodicy (the divine court case) is not reasonable -- that God cannot be loving if he allows these things to happen just to prove Satan wrong. While I personally tend to agree with this, the fact of the matter is that we cannot state what God should and should not do because, if he exists, his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. If some people are willing to accept this sovereignty issue as the reason for evil, then we cannot convince them otherwise and we cannot demonstrate logically why they are wrong. Their very belief validates itself in the same sense that one cannot "prove" that chocolate is better than vanilla.
Nobody is arguing about the existence of god. We are discussing whether christian theism can account for natural evil.....Cofty
This god is not loving, knowing and powerful. It is a fatal blow to christian theism.....Cofty
The "Existance of God" is Embroidered into every Religious Debate,between Believers and Non Believers..
Neither side would have anything to argue about,without it..
.
...................................... ...OUTLAW
Apog - Ethics are not a matter of popular opinion.
Here is the response to your point from the summary...
This answer requires that we unhitch the word "love" from any meaningful definition. We may think we know what love means but god demonstrates that we have not the slightest idea. Love could just as easily mean the capricious annihilation of a quarter of a million innocent people. It destroys our ability to make moral judgements. "Good" is whatever pleases god from moment to moment. Mass destruction is just as morally good as altruism and self-sacrifice.
If god is love, everything he does must be motivated by love, even when he judges. Love is not a hat he can take off for a while and replace with one labelled "vengeance".
Ethics become a matter of divine fiat and the value of human life is trivialised. This defence reduces god to a celestial Pol Pot who may choose on a whim to eradicate our lives in the manner of the killing fields of Cambodia.
If you are suggesting that we need to justify the statement that drowning a quarter of a million people is not loving then theism has given up the fight.
So far nobody has suggested how we hold on to the power of god to avoid the devastation of tsunamis and the love of god with the fact of natural evil.
