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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  cofty

  God wants us in a position of not understanding his full purpose in order to show our heart condition: proud and haughty, or humble?

  If god invented natural evil in order to test whether people would submit to him regardless, then he is evil and unworthy of our worship.

  Why does "God is love" have to be taken as a statement that God is composed entirely of love and all his actions are loving?

  If all of god's actions are not loving, then god is sometimes guilty of unloving or evil actions and is not the god of christian theism.

  I don't see how omnipotence automatically leads to being able to blame God for anything that goes wrong

  I am not asking about "anything that goes wrong" but only about natural evil where human action and free will are not a factor. If you have absolute power over everything that happens then nothing occurs without your knowledge and permission. That makes god 100% responsible for the devastation of the tsunami. Morally his action and inaction are perfectly equivalent.

  Let's try it with you: cofty , have you stopped beating your wife?

  I have never struck my wife so I can reject your question. God did drown - or passively observed the drowning of - the tsunami victims, so his apologists can't reject mine.
• 

  Viviane

  God wants us in a position of not understanding his full purpose in order to show our heart condition: proud and haughty, or humble?

  And he can't do that without allow 250K people to die just to keep some people confused? God is not very bright. A cliffhanger ending on Sherlock would be better.

  Why does "God is love" have to be taken as a statement that God is composed entirely of love and all his actions are loving?

  The question is whether or not there is any reason NOT to take it that way. Once your position is "there are other ways to look at it", we can say it's all just satire and it means the opposite.
• 

  Apognophos

  If god invented natural evil in order to test whether people would submit to him regardless, then he is evil and unworthy of our worship.

  Well, technically that wasn't a direct answer to my question, as I wasn't speaking about God making the natural evil, just his not offering an explanation of it. On the subject of how this evil could exist without being made by God, I suggested earlier that the planet itself was made imperfect as a result of the Flood. This is a common JW trope.

  However, I don't really find this to be a very good answer, as it begs the question of why God allowed the planet to get this way. I mentioned before that he could have executed the wicked at the time of the Flood without causing a massive ecological disaster. So I think this is a good reasoning point and I'm not arguing with it. That being said...

  If all of god's actions are not loving, then god is sometimes guilty of unloving or evil actions and is not the god of christian theism.

  Doesn't the OT say that God can commit evil? So are you suggesting that we ignore that in our discussion, or are you saying that Christian dogma ignores that? Because I know the JWs are aware of those verses, though they don't talk about them much. We once had a visiting brother dwell on this subject in his Sunday talk, though it made everyone uncomfortable and I think he may have been an apostate....

  I have never struck my wife so I can reject your question.

  Just to be clear, I was not comparing the specific concept of hitting one's wife with God "striking" mankind. I was simply referencing the old "loaded question" joke as an example of how some questions have to be rejected instead of answered. The question you asked, "How is drowning a quarter of a million random men women and children a perfect act of love?", is a loaded question because it presumes that all of God's actions must be loving and that there is no distinction between action and inaction on God's part.
• 

  Apognophos

  Ah, this page was open so long that I didn't see Viviane's post.

  And he can't do that without allow 250K people to die just to keep some people confused? God is not very bright. A cliffhanger ending on Sherlock would be better.

  Maybe you're right that it was not necessary to permit disasters like the tsunami in order to sustain the mystery of his purposes. I could force myself to argue on this, but I really don't have it in me since I tend to agree.

  The question is whether or not there is any reason NOT to take it that way. Once your position is "there are other ways to look at it", we can say it's all just satire and it means the opposite.

  Now this issue of "God is love" being poetic, I honestly think is a very reasonable suggestion on my part. It's silly to say that any interpretation is equally likely, including satire. Obviously some meanings must be more likely. Do YOU honestly think that the writer of 1 John intended to make a statement that superseded all previous statements about God's nature and to declare all God's actions to be loving? Because I just don't see how that could have been intended.
• 

  humbled

  Apog,

  I t is obvious from this and other threads of the past that no one not even God can tell a Christian how to be a Christian. History bears this out as well.

  Your comments about the varied ways to understand bible verses underscores the fact that the bible- God hung us out to dry by the inscrutability of holy scriptures. Or perhaps the text that tells us about God was intended to be a rorschach test?

  If the scriptures are meant to be that subjective then Tammy's view of them is equal to St. Thomas Aquinas.

  If that is true, then whether the scriptures exist or not hardly figure. (Which is only fair considering the number of Christians throughout history who could not read a bible if they could get one.)

  If Jesus the carpenter lived and taught the poor the good news about the love of God "who made the rain to fall on the righteous and the unrighteous" it is small wonder that he called out finally: "My God, my God, why have you foresaken me?"

  If I try to live according to the precepts Jesus taught, I will say along with him "My God why have you foresaken us" what is wrong with that?
• 

  cofty

  I suggested earlier that the planet itself was made imperfect as a result of the Flood. This is a common JW trope.

  I think you have answered your own point but to underline it...

  1. There was no flood. We don't have to go along with risible claims about reality.

  2. The flood did not change anything about plate tectonics. Even JWs would have to concede earthquakes have been going on for billions of years.

  3. Even if we are faced with a total dullard this still does not excuse god's inaction. He is stil the god of christian theism not deism. He is the hearer of prayer who is immanent and active in the world. Every prayer request makes hypocrite of a christian who would use this excuse.

  I wasn't speaking about God making the natural evil

  If not god then who?

  Doesn't the OT say that God can commit evil?

  Yes indeed. That is why I have said a few times that the tsunami poses no problem for pre-exile worshipers of Yahweh. So far no christian has had the balls to stand beside the clear testimony of scripture that their god is not a god of love but a cruel and capricious tyrant. No Pat Robertson or Westboro supporters so far.

  it presumes that all of God's actions must be loving and that there is no distinction between action and inaction on God's part.

  I think I have shown that to an omnipotent and omniscient deity, action and inaction are moral equivalents. How can they not be?
• 

  cofty

  this issue of "God is love" being poetic

  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. I f you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. oh and when the mood takes him he drowns babies by the tens of thousands just for the fun of it, it's hilarious LOL" - JC
• 

  Apognophos

  That's an eloquent post, humbled, I have a hard time responding to it. It's true that the Bible seems to be a Rorshach test, and somehow I think that some Christians will also argue that this is intentional and for a purpose of God's.

  It seems to me that there should be a halfway position between a deist God and a theist God, if "deist" means "does not care about human affairs" and "theist" means "watches over each one of us". I would suggest that, while cofty's argument tends to invalidate the theist God, it does not disprove the possibility of a God who is somewhat remote from us -- not our best friend or our father, but someone who is interested in how we solve the test we've been given. One of my favorite sci-fi authors wrote a story suggesting that perhaps God is most interested in the humans who do the most thinking. I wrote about it here.
• 

  cofty

  there should be a halfway position between a deist God and a theist God, if "deist" means "does not care about human affairs" and "theist" means "watches over each one of us"

  Don't you think not booby-trapping the planet with earthquakes and tsunamis and capriciously drowning a quarter of a million people would be the minimum requirement of a theist god? If he can't at least do that what exactly is the point of him?

  perhaps God is most interested in the humans who do the most thinking

  How can they think if he drowns babies before they get the chance to decide their favourite colour let alone their metaphysics?

  You are proposing a god who acts like a 12 year old burning ants with a magnifying glass and calling it an experiment.
• 

  Apognophos

  I think I have shown that to an omnipotent and omniscient deity, action and inaction are moral equivalents. How can they not be?

  The distinction exists regardless of omnipotence and omniscience. If God warned humans not to disobey him or else they would die, and then they disobeyed him, what could they expect? God would simply be letting humans suffer the consequences of their actions. Now, you will probably say that natural disasters should not be allowed as consequences by a loving God, but basically, once God's blessing and protection was removed from Adam and Eve, all bets were off.

  Again, this is a description of a God who is more about justice than love. If he were your dad, and he warned you not to play in the street, he would watch while you did it anyway, and allow you to get hit by a car and have your arm broken. He would then sternly tell you that he had warned you and you deserved the consequences -- but he might at least help you recuperate afterward.

  My own personal objection to this concept of God is not even that I dislike the idea of a stern God, but that even when I was a young Witness I couldn't understand why God made us become imperfect due to the sins of our first parents. While this may seem outside the issue that your thread raises, for me it is at the heart of the matter because of the apologetic reasoning I gave above.