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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  cofty

  Flamegrilled I invited you twice yesterday to lay out the big picture. I said "the stage is yours". The only thing I asked is that you be succint and don't use it as an excuse to preach.

  Stop pretending you are not being allowed to make your point. Your dishonest debating techniques in this thread is disappointing.

  Its page 89 so let's allow a little bit of drift. You have spent 30 pages saying "it's a mystery" in a hundred different ways.

  On the one hand we have overwhelmingly compelling evidence that christian theism cannot be reconciled with reality.

  God drowned a quarter of a million innocent people when he only had to say the word to stop it. The disaster was not in any way casued by human sin but by the way god created the world. No human free will would have been compromised if he had done the loving thing.

  If you insist on believing in a loving, omnipotent god regardless, then you must have astonishingly powerful evidence on your side. Please outline it now.

  Remember you are talking to people who know as much or more about theology than you do so you only need to state the broad outline.
• 

  adamah

  So the question to ask is, why didn't any ex-JWs here see how amoral the Bible truly is WHEN they were JWs who truly believed?

  There's always been natural disasters and cancers, and the Bible hasn't changed: it's just as horrific as it's ever been. The JW version of theodicy ("we're trying to SAVE lives by warning Worldly People of Armageddon, an act of our LOVE for our fellow man") presumably worked back then, and seemed perfectly-logical.

  So, what changed?
• 

  cofty

  we do not know what the consequence of that would have been except to prevent one "natural" disaster. - Flamegrilled

  It would have prevented the needless violent deaths of a quarter of a million people.

  It would have prevented the grief of hundreds of thousands of bereaved wives, husbands and infants.

  It would have avoided 5 million people losing their homes, businesses and access to food and water.

  Was that really not worth the effort?

  I am accusing you and every other apologist on this thread of rank hypocrisy.

  You witter on enlessly about gentle Jesus, meek and mild and how loving and compasisonate he was. According to you he was moved with pity at the sight of a leper, a cripple or a widow - a real visceral reaction to human suffering and he took action to stop the grief.

  But faced with the monumental scale of grief of an Asian tsunami you resort to the pathetic excuse of what was the point of preventing one natural disaster. HYPOCRITE!
• 

  jgnat

  Our society now demands that our world make sense. A by-product of our scientific age, where sense is made of mystery. Like oil in a pond.

  
• 

  Viviane

  So, what changed?

  That's a great topic, you should start one on that so we don't go OT here.
• 

  cofty

  Obviously if you've predetermined an atheistic position and you are just looking for a club to bash theists, then the missing information is just a convenience for now. - Flamegrilled

  Actually the Asian tsunami happened when I was still a christian. I tried very hard to reconcile the event with my beliefs. I was eventually forced to face up to the obvious contradiction between theology and reality. It was a painful process. I am not the one with the predetermined position.

  Therefore there is no reason to conclude with certainly that his apparent inaction must be contradictory to a loving nature.

  There is every reason. The burden of proof is on you to explain why we should ignore reality in favour of blind faith.
• 

  cofty

  You are the one trying to logically conclude that the tsunami must be an act of love, not me. Not every action or inaction taken in isolation should be used to interpret the characteristics of a person. - Flamegrilled

  Yes it must actually be an act of love. It may not appear to be an act of love taken in isolation, but when seen from another perspective it must actually be a perfect act of love.

  You should be singing god's praises for his love and wisdom in drowning a quarter of a million innocent people to achieve his will.

  Your alternative is to admit that the omnipotent, righteous god does evil in order to accomplish a bigger goal. Pre-exile worshippers of Yahweh had no problem doing so.

  Summary so far...
• 

  flamegrilled

  Flamegrilled I invited you twice yesterday to lay out the big picture. I said "the stage is yours". The only thing I asked is that you be succint and don't use it as an excuse to preach.

  It's an unreasonable request. The big picture is not succinct, and if I give it to you I would be preaching.

  If a Christian went to Dawkins and said - I don't believe in evolution, but I'm prepared to hear you out. The only thing I ask is that you prove it in less than 100 words, and don't use a tone that offends my Christian sensibilities.

  Do you think he'd give them the time of day?
• 

  flamegrilled

  You witter on enlessly about gentle Jesus, meek and mild and how loving and compasisonate he was. According to you he was moved with pity at the sight of a leper, a cripple or a widow - a real visceral reaction to human suffering and he took action to stop the grief. Cofty

  It truly amazes me how you make these many assertions that I've said certain things that I haven't even come close to saying.

  Where did I say this even once, never mind about "endlessly"?

  We are probably getting into double digits as to the number of times that you have accused me of saying things when I most certainly have not. What is the point of doing that? Any reader can check back and see that you are presenting verifyably false accusations. How does that strengthen your position? It just exposes that you are prepared to make things up without a second thought.
• 

  cofty

  Flamegrilled - If you asked me to lay out the broad reasons why I accept evolution in a few paragraphs I would have absolutely no problem doing so.

  In fact I have done so many times. I couldn't prove evolution in a few paragraphs bbut I could describe the evidence very succinctly.

  You can objectively state your case without preaching.

  You have spent pages saying nothing apart from "it's a mystery".

  Now its time to say something. Why do you ignore the overwhelming evidence of reality against the god of theism?

  In broad strokes what convinces you there is no contradiction?

  Take as many words as you need. You are not being asked to convince anybody just tell us why your conviction is not simply blind faith.

  ---

  God drowned a quarter of a million innocent people when he only had to say the word to stop it. The disaster was not in any way casued by human sin but by the way god created the world. No human free will would have been compromised if he had done the loving thing.

  If you insist on believing in a loving, omnipotent god regardless, then you must have astonishingly powerful evidence on your side. Please outline it now.

  Remember you are talking to people who know as much or more about theology than you do so you only need to state the broad outline.