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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  cofty

  Adam - You posted this before. The digest version is - "The mighty Adam deems this conversation to be a waste of time".

  As I replied then, discussions of this sort are mainly of benefit to the invisible readers who are helped to think through the issues. 31 000 views would suggest there is some interest.

  For the thousandth time it is not about the existence of god. It is about how christian theism can deal with natural evil. Specifically, is it internally consistent to posit a loving god who permited the Asian tsunami"?

  Please let theists answer for themselves.

  Summary so far...
• 

  Viviane

  Why is that a fly in the ointment, Adamah? Cofty posed a very specific question with certain things accepted as true for the pupose of conversation, that happens all the time in debate, philosophy and science.
• 

  flamegrilled

  I don't have to pretend. THE GLADIATOR

  That's no surprise to me. But for those that are able to comprehend it I will continue to discuss. If there isn't anybody on this site that can, then so be it.
• 

  cofty

  If there isn't anybody on this site that can, then so be it. - Flamegrilled

  You cheeky bugger!

  I responded directly to you 25 minutes ago.

  ---

  Whilst the statement may be true, the way you are framing it is an oversimplification. What you are really asking us to agree is:

  God is love therefore every act or lack of action taken in isolation must definable as an act of love. - Flamegrilled

  Yes every act or lack of action must be perfectly loving even if it is not immediately obvious how it is loving.

  The alternative is to admit that some acts or inactions of god don't just appear unloving, they really are unloving. But that is impossible for the god of theism.

  Therefore number 6 follows - allowing a tsunami to drown a quarter of a million people is a perfect act of love - even if Flamegrilled can't work out how.

  You are confusing what is loving with what seems loving in order to avoid the damning conclusion.
• 

  flamegrilled

  Viviane: Not buying a car doesn't = not generous.

  That is correct.

  Finally, in soccer, hockey, Australian and American football and rugby, backwards moves are part of a valid strategy with the entire field visible and an explantion for the call.

  That is correct too. The point of the analogy in this case is that a single action taken in isolation does not reflect the overall picture.
• 

  KateWild

  flamegrilled,

  Perhaps the following analogy would be apt.

  A businesman creates a trainline service, Richard Branson, Virgin. All the trains and lines are manitained correctly but a train is derailed and crashes into a cliff costing all the passengers lives.

  Is Richard a cruel heartless creator of this business? NO. Should he have maintained the lines better? Yes he should have. Should he give the families compensation for their losses? Yes he should.

  Richard had the power and the money to prevent the accident, he only did the minimum maitenance. Is he ultimately responsible? Is he cruel and heartless?

  This is an analogy, Richard Branson or virgin have not been involved with an incident as I have explained above, it is purely fictional.

  Kate xx
• 

  Viviane

  No, it doesn't, Flame, but your analogy is broken because in the case of God, we don't have a large part of the picture to evaluate, in your examples we do.
• 

  Viviane

  Kate, in your analogy you said he DID maintain the train lines properly and then said he should have done better. Is doing "proper" maintenance defined as "not well enough"?
• 

  flamegrilled

  We are not trying to prove that god doesn't exist, just get an admission that there is no evidence that he does exist. Simon

  For the thousandth time it is not about the existence of god. Cofty

  So which is it?
• 

  KateWild

  Viv,

  He maintained them as the schedule dictated, but the train still derailed. What do you think? Was it good enough? Should Richard have been a more caring businessman and maintained the lines more frequently with more money spent to save more lives?

  Kate xx