The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday (page 136)

cofty

I already agreed that 1 death from a natural disaster is just as much a fatal blow to christian theism as 250 000 deaths.

Flamegrilled is asserting that there is evidence of a loving god and therefore the fact that he invented tsunamis and allowed one to drown a quarter of a million people is not a problem.

Imagine you thought you knew a friend really well. You knew he was capable of being kind and generous as he had demonstrated many times. Then to your horror you discovered he regularly beat his wife and children. You had proof to this effect.

It would be foolish of you to overlook his violence as if his moments of kindness made it of no consequence. You would need to put your emotions aside in order to form a more honest appraisal of your friend.

Similarly you need to face up honestly to god's abuse of the human family he claims to love.

You are like a character witness in the dock complaining that the prosecution keeps going on and on about your friend's violent crimes and forgetting how much he gives to charity.

Due for an update summary so far ...

zound

Could I just add..

There's a few arguments that 'love' may be in the eye of the beholder - we may not understand god's 'love' just as a pet being taken to the vet doesn't understand that his owner is just doing it out of love. To the pet it seems malicious.

Pet owners can't communicate to their pets.

It states clearly in the bible that god is love (even jesus says it for those who like to dismiss the OT). Jesus could have used any number of words or explanations, but said that god is love - KNOWING that we as humans might see a 'loving' act of god (allowing people to be destroyed by tsunami) and interpret it as malicious - but he didn't bother to explain that god's 'love' is on another level. He was a man that spoke in illustrations constantly - why couldn't he have used the pet owner illustration himself to clarify this?

He used the word love, which we humans relate to as kind, protective, helpful, empathetic etc etc.

On a side note - I'm no one's pet. Or slave for that matter.

Viviane

Flamegrilled, in regard to your postion regarding Z, the question already allows that a god exists, it's simply up to you to show that his actions and inactions square with the statement that he is love.

You seek to counter Cofty's statement, but so far you've just offered "we might not know that we don't know something that we can't grasp", a concept that's been shown to have zero possible outcome in thoughts or decision making.

Of course the traits of the God of Bible are relevant. His omnipotenence, omniscience and love are what is under discussion.

cofty

Zound and Viviane thanks those comments have helped me to clarify my thinking on this point.

Its fine for a believer to claim that god had a reason for allowing the tsuanmi and that humans cannot know what those reasons are. I accept that.

However, a believer cannot have that AND also claim that god is love for the following reason.

Christian theists are compelled to accept the following...

1. God observed the Asian tsunami as it evolved

2. God knew it would kill a quarter of a million people and displace 5 million more

3. God had the power to stop the tsuanmi

4. God did not stop the tsuanmi

5. Everything that god does is perfectly loving

6. Therefore allowing a tsunami to drown a quarter of a million people is a perfect act of love.

But this contradicts everything that christianity teaches about love. Jesus greatest command was "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

If we failed to prevent the violent death of others when it was within our power to do so we could not reasonably claim to be following Jesus' greatest command.

Therefore christian theism is fatally flawed, not only because of external evidence but because it is internally inconsistent.

Due for an update summary so far...

bohm

Asserting god want nothing but the best for us but allow evil for a reason we do not understand and he cannot explain is like asserting aliens want nothing else than for us to know of their existence but choose to only let themselves be known by molesting farm animals and drunken hill billies in remote areas for reasons we do not understand and they cannot explain.

sure one can assert that as a last resort when the evidence wont fit, but nobody should find it very convincing.

(updated)

snare&racket

These are the most important questions in the universe.... what better things to discuss?

Thankfully it is a forum, join in or jog on.....

Outlaw, I find your cartoons fun and thoughts interesting, but don't attack Cofty for discussing one of the most important theological questions of our time on a religious forum. Besides, he did not bait anyone , he related a story and people started to try and impress upon him their theological reasonings. Now they have not been able to satisfy his musings and to be honest probably a few of peoples concerns about deity and suffering, some have started to get personal and question his right to even discuss it. It just seems like the last resort of someone who has no answers.

Cofty and agnostics/atheists simply share that there is no reasonable answer to such theological questions (hence his OP and life choices), by distancing from the question of suffering in a universe where god has power to do anything, people are likewise admitting that to this specific question.... there is no logical, reasonable, sensible, comprehendable answer....

For some this is an element of their desicion to become an agnostic/atheist... for some it is another mystery that they have about their god.

I know I was not allowed to consider these things as a JW, I did consider them, but I did so alone and it was a lonely, difficult theological stage of my life, though the conclusions I came to were wholly my own, I believe it is a healthy and rewarding thing to bring up in a discussion.

Snare x

Chin up everyone, lets not get personal, lets focus on the question in the OP, that is how forums work. (I know we have all gotten snipey at times, including me, but it is regretable and non-contributing).

snare&racket

Tec,

Something that I find odd, is how I used to reconcile issues such as death, illness, disasters. Your latest replies make me think, with respect, that you underestimate what a 'god' is, specifically, the 'god' of the bible, the 'god' of the judeo-christians.

This god made everything, can do anything.

You made this comment : How could it be a booby trap... when God did not make MAN to be subject to death to begin with?

I sincerely used to think the same thing Tec, but looking back, I can't believe that I did not recognise that god created everything, he did so because of his will, for nothing happens outside his will right? He created ....sin....death.....cancer....... suffering....

The very concept of suffering had to be invented, it had to be thought out and created. Some non-thinking people will ascribe all of these things to Satan, handing over to Satan the power to create, to design. This is not at all scriptural. God clearly designed suffering, illness, death as a punishment.

Ignoring Adam and Eve and eating some fruit, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for inventing, creating these things in the first place. God didn't have to design punishment and forgiveness and death and cancer and drowning and crushing and infant mortality. You may believe Adam stepped in the terd and brought it on us, but that does not contemplate WHERE these evil, disgusting, immoral concepts come from, if you believe a personality willfully brought them into life.

When I was a christian I thought on such a small scale, I reduced the power of god and ignored where the worst suffering of the universe came from.

People think being an atheist is a scary, lonely, dark place... maybe this is an insight in how empowering it is, to look at the universe, recognise the data that implies that it has formed without any deity, its random chaotic nature is indeed frightening, but at least it wasn't invesnted, designed, created and introduced into the universe by my hero.... yaweh.

Either he isn't there, or his behaviour doesn't deserve reverence... in my humble opinion.

flamegrilled

Alright, since my primary response to the OP has been repeatedly ignored or made out to be something that it is not, I'll reframe it once more with a minor modification:

Cofty: My owner punched me in the face, threw foul tasting liquid in my mouth and nose, and watched while I choked and threw up.

Dog 2: What a bast#$rd

Cofty: I know. It PROVES that I cannot possibly have a loving owner.

Would Cofty be logically correct?

snare&racket

Not if you are Louis CK trying to give medicine to a dumb dog that ate chocolate, to make it vomit the chocolate out....

Dying in a tsunami, is not medicine flamegrilled.

The owner made ALL the rules, louis CK did not make chocolate poisonous to dogs and dogs keen to eat anything they see....

Nice Try

Viviane

Well, aside from calling Cofty a dog, the correct answer is "invalid question". Dogs can't communicate like that. Plus, the dogs lived, so it's not a well formed analogy to match the death 250K people.

In reality it would go like this.

Dog 1: Who's your owner?

Dog 2: Michael Vick.

BAM!

Dog 2 is dead, no reason given.

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

Share this