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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  OneEyedJoe

  If an atheist could think of a way to explain away all the problems with theism (and especially the christian god) I suspect most would never have become atheists. So, sorry, we're no more equiped to tell you what answer to give us that would be satisfying than you are to come up with such an answer.

  Unfortunatly, it seems that the problems for the god of christianity are so basic as to be problems with the very axioms of christianity itself. That is what is meant when cofty says that it is internally inconsistent. Trying to come up with a satisfying answer to these questions is like trying to come up with a satisfying mathematical answer to explain away proof that 2=5. If we had proof that 2=5, the very axioms of our mathematical system fall apart and there's no way to resolve the problems without coming up with a new system.

  It's much the same with christianity. Proof exists that god could not possibly be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. Those are the three basic tenets of the description of the christian god, therefore it is as catastrophic to the theory of christianity as would be evidence of 2 equating to 5 for mathematics.
• 

  PSacramento

  Thanks for that Bohm, I ask beacuse at times hving these discussions is very frustrating ( on both sides of course) because regardless of any reason given, the other will simply say " that isn't good enough for me", as if whether a reason is good enough or not makes it valid or not.

  Some will argue that natural disaters are what they are because they must be, they must exist for the world to function the way it must ( indedependant of human life on this planet) and human must adapt, not the other way around.

  Of course Cofty's argument of why did simply did not create a better world is a very valid one also, to which some would say "the bible doesn't state a perfect world, simply a good one, good for it's purpose" and it has been, if the purpose was to bring forth sentient life according to God's will.

  BUT the issue of death and suffering when God CAN eliminate it leads us to the question of WHY doesn't he?

  I don't know wheich positions have been rehashed here, but the one that I tend to lean towards is that suffering is crucial to the development of humans as beings who will eventually "be like god".

  God doesn't see death and suffering like we do, He knows it is simply a small stage in our development and that NOT physical death is a true death, but simply a state of change of our material form, one the leads to a far greater "evolution" of man, with far greater rewards, more than we can even contemplate at this time.

  This is of no comfort for those left behind to morn the death and suffering of loved ones and does this excuse God's inactivity in the face of suffering?

  That seems to be an emotional issue, one of pain, that we do NOT want to suffer and do NOT feel we should if it is not our fault.

  God's answer to this was to suffer with Us, die with Us in Christ so that we can all have the chance to see that God cares enough to suffer and die like one of Us and that the resurrection awaits for us all.

  Does that answer the issue? No, I don;t hink it does because I myself dont' liek it very much BUT I am forced to accept that just because I don't liek that argument, doesn't mean that it MAY isn't valid and MAY be the way things are.

  Does it suck? Big flaming balls BUT that said, IMO and based on my observations, humans tend to be at their best when they show compassion and what is compassion?

  To suffer with others.
• 

  cofty

  I don't believe the world was designed, so...

  I'm sorry I didn't realise you were a deist.
• 

  PSacramento

  I'm sorry I didn't realise you were a deist.

  I am not, I am a theist and I believe that God created /set in motion the process of creation AND that He sustains creation and that He has equipped living organisims with the ability to survive.

  I don't think He designed every living organisim or the universe in individual acts of creation, every moment in time from now to infinity.
• 

  cofty

  He knows it is simply a small stage in our development and that NOT physical death is a true death, but simply a state of change - Psac

  Your answer degrades human life to something that is totally without value. Tens of thousands of babies may be violently wiped out in an instant before they have had a chance to learn any lesson from the experiences of life and yet you say that this is in some way beneficial to them.

  Or is it beneficial to their parents who learn fortitude through grief?

  But what if the parents and brothers and sisters and all their friends and relatives were wiped out too. Who benefits now?

  Perhaps you do by the warm feelings of compassion and empathy that you feel.

  humans tend to be at their best when they show compassion

  Wonderful! Praise god for his wisdom for wiping out a quarter of a million Asians so western christians can feel more pious.

  You have reduced 250 000 humans to a commodity to be dispensed with for the benefit of others.
• 

  cofty

  I believe that God created /set in motion the process of creation

  Then he foresaw that the earth would destroy millions of it's inhabitants and he is guilty as charged.
• 

  bohm

  psac: I appreaciate you do claim to have a single universal answer. The problem is i am back to the man with the child in the car. He might say: "Yes but i was REALLY just doing nothing because i feel deep in my hearth that suffering is part of Gods plan for mans development". He might even cite swinbournes typical arguments at this point and say he feel his inaction will also bring these other states of goodness about: "Just imagine; if no children died needlessly, no people would read about it in the newspapers and feel a special soul-making sense of empathy, or perhaps be moved to do other good deeds which is also good". We can then agree that he MAY be right.

  But where does that leave us? I think such an argument is absurd. it MAY be right, but nearly everything MAY be right in that case. What matters if we feel the argument is REASONABLE. I certainly don't.

  You have not actually addressed the case of the man. I assume you agree with me that his inaction in the situation would lead you to think he was unlikely to be loving or caring to all humans?
• 

  PSacramento

  Bohm, I can answer other than to say MAY simply because I do NOT know for sure.

  Some will argue that as horrific as it sounds it has at leats at the end a end result that is worth it ( not sure if I agree since I have never been a fan of the end justifies the means) and will state that atheisim holds no such redeeming value and has no answer for the issue of suffering either.

  If "Life just is this way" is accetable to an atheist then the atheist can't really fault the theist for stating that "God is just that way" either.

  The arguement not being reasonable is because it is an eomotional one, we just KNOW that it doesn't sound right, it can't be right.

  Yet, what do we base that emotion on? wht can't God be that way? why can't God knowing was is better for us than we do, do things the way He does? Why do we NOT want to accept that?

  Why does it bother Cofty ( and you and me too by the way) that millions, billions have to die?

  Because deep down we don't think it NEEDS to happen that way, yes?
• 

  PSacramento

  You have not actually addressed the case of the man. I assume you agree with me that his inaction in the situation would lead you to think he was unlikely to be loving or caring to all humans?

  I would think him to be worse than that based on what I think he should have done, what I would have done, yes.

  BUT what if ( and yes, it is a what if) we know that He knew that letting the child die would simply bring it to another stage of life far greater than this one, a life surround by a love beyond our comprehension, that the child would be reborn and that death of this child would serve a greater purpose for the child, NOT that he THOUGHT buty that not only did he KNOW but that HE made it possible for the child to have all that. Add to that that we would also KNOW that He was right?

  We would see things very different of course BUT that is NOT the case now because ALL we know is that the child will suffer, it will die and for what? why? Because some asshole didn't give a shit?

  Am I right?
• 

  cofty

  If "Life just is this way" is accetable to an atheist then the atheist can't really fault the theist for stating that "God is just that way" either.

  Ok but that isn't the god of christian theism. It is perhaps the god of deism or a moral monster. You choose.

  You have to stop pretending that you know anything about love because killing 250 000 men women and children in a tsunami is also a perfect act of divine love.

  Everything Jesus said about loving others needs to be reconciled with this fact.

  You are prevaricating between a temporary retreat into deism and the "mystery" defense.

  Anyway we have examined precisely these non-answers in some depth in preceding pages.