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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Viviane

  In case you haven't figured it our, the love Jesus spoke about ( since it keeps getting referred to) is self-sacrifice.

  250,000 people didn't self-sacrifice.

  As for the arugment for compassion being demolished because SOME people are not compassionate in the face of suffering, well...I don't really view that as an argument at all.

  Your argument was that suffering can increase compassion. If it can also decrease it, in what way is point NOT a valid argument? What did they teach you in school?

  That is like saying that because some people are that are loved are not loving means that loving people doesn't lead to love.

  Of course not, and that's not analagous to the argument being made.

  Connect the dots between "God is love" and his creation and laws and foreknowledge that it would happen causing the deaths of 250000 people. How is that love?
• 

  cofty

  PSac - I asked you earlier to explain how Jesus getting himself crucified had anything to do with demonstrating his love for us.

  In what way is it different from a teenage boy cutting his wrists to "prove his love" for his girlfriend?

  Please explain simply and without metaphors.
• 

  MissFit

  Great question Cofty. I was wondering the same thing.

  PSAC: I am disappointed that you would automatically assume that any answer you gave would not satisfy me. I think that is a cop out.

  What did I personally say to give you that impression? I just pointed out that your answers did not address the question asked.

  Please understand that I am not trying to attack your beliefs in any way. I may not personally accept your explanation, but that doesn't mean I dont respect your right to it.

  I am examining every thing I thought I knew. I realized that I was accepting "facts" and conclusions without question.

  I am not asking you to get me to accept your beliefs, I will make up my own mind.

  I enjoy and appreciate your responses.

  Your earlier posts about taking the emotion out of q uestion Cofty asked seemed like a valid point.

  The fact that I can actually discuss these issues freely is so liberating. I am keeping an open mind regarding god, I find I am starting to view him differently than I was raised to.

  I feel I have plenty of time to reach my conclusion.

  This thread has helped me in my journey.

  Thank you for your contribution.
• 

  M*A*S*H

  Sorry for jumping in... but I am not sure I really believe that Jesus sacrificed anything if the biblical story is to be believed. Jesus was fully aware of his divine nature, he knew he would survive this earthly death and be taken back into heaven - just what exactly is the sacrifice?

  I would like to apologise in advance to those that take offence at me even asking the question, as for some this is an affront. I try to liken my point to the popular Christian belief in the rapture, this is an event very much looked forward to, at no point has anyone suggested this is a sacrifice in anyway despite the similarity in concepts.

  Another interesting view comes from the Jewish religion. Obviously they believe they are still waiting for the return of the messiah and do not recognise Jesus' sacrifice... and yet they make no blood sacrifice. They believe the Old Testament provides grounds for forgiven of sins without blood sacrifice; this is achieved through prayer, good works, observance and charity; this viewpoint seems pretty sensible given the Old Testament reason used (see here http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm). It is difficult to argue with this position; it seems to me the Old Testament implies that by living a good life, observation of the law and prayer forgiveness can be achieved. Now some of the laws may be considered 'odd' by modern standards, but did this really require a human sacrifice to amend?

  As a non-believer I still find the whole concept of human sacrifice and blood offerings as payment of 'sins' completely alien to the concept of justice, divine or otherwise... this is without touching on the 'sins of the father debate'. Surely the only person that should be punished and\or make recompense for the 'adamic sin' would be Adam? I always struggle to understand why so many are so willing to accept that a third party can absolve them of their sins or make up for the original - nowhere else would they ever accept such a concept. If the mother of a murderer offered to sacrifice herself on account of her son's wrong doing to allow her son to walk free - would that be justice?
• 

  PSacramento

  PSac - I asked you earlier to explain how Jesus getting himself crucified had anything to do with demonstrating his love for us.

  In what way is it different from a teenage boy cutting his wrists to "prove his love" for his girlfriend?

  Please explain simply and without metaphors.

  Sure, Jesus act of becoming human shows Us the kind of God He is and the kind of God that we are to CHOOSE to worship.

  He loves us so much that He gave up being God to be human ( as opposed to humans trying to be God), He went throught the full process of being human in all ways, including a very horrific death.

  He did that to show how much He loved us, how He feels we are deserving of that kind of love and to show what kind of love He is asking from us.

  He leaves it to us to decide if what He has done is worthy of our worship.

  He is not the kind of God that "fix things" ( the only mention of things getting fixed is at the very end of things), He is the kind of God that sufferes WITH US, that knows our pain because He had gone through with it and the kind of God that has given as a living example of what will happen at the end ( the resurrection and eternal life).

  It is up to us to decide if that kind of God is worth worshiping, the choice has always been and will always be ours.
• 

  PSacramento

  As a non-believer I still find the whole concept of human sacrifice and blood offerings as payment of 'sins' completely alien to the concept of justice, divine or otherwise... this is without touching on the 'sins of the father debate'. Surely the only person that should be punished and\or make recompense for the 'adamic sin' would be Adam? I always struggle to understand why so many are so willing to accept that a third party can absolve them of their sins or make up for the original - nowhere else would they ever accept such a concept. If the mother of a murderer offered to sacrifice herself on account of her son's wrong doing to allow her son to walk free - would that be justice?

  That really is a whole different thread...

  But, in a nutshell:

  There is NO FREE ride to heaven ( though there is to hell).
  Christ's sacrifice was done because NOTHING that humans could do could atone for their sins, why?
  Because when we do something with an ultior motive, the act is tainted and when dealing with SIN, it actually makes it worse.
  See, Man chooses to be defiant of God, to "do their own thing" and, of course, they make a mess of this and then they try to fix things with God NOT by doing what is right BUT by doing what THEY THINK is right TO GET SOMETHING out of it. God knows our intentions, He knows why we do what we do, He KNOWS why YOU are doing what you are doing.
  He is willing to forgive you because He loves you and He has shown that love by THE act of self-sacrifice.
• 

  PSacramento

  Your argument was that suffering can increase compassion. If it can also decrease it, in what way is point NOT a valid argument? What did they teach you in school?

  No, my argument was that there is NO compassion without suffering, which is a fact.

  That some people choose to NOT be compassionte in the face of suffering does not change the fact that there is no compassion without suffering.
• 

  Viviane

  No, my argument was that there is NO compassion without suffering, which is a fact.

  An observable verfiable fact? Citation, please. Please explain how, when I see a puppy at my local no-kill shelter that is fed, played with, given cet care and has toys and a warm place to sleep, I still feel compassion and want to take it home.

  Even IF there no compassion without suffering, your argument is self-defeating. If there were no suffering, then there would be absolutely no need for compassion. The thing you say suffering helps us develop is ONLY needed because God allows the suffering his plans caused! You're right back to failing to connect the dots!

  That some people choose to NOT be compassionte in the face of suffering does not change the fact that there is no compassion without suffering.

  You've still not explained how the lack of compassion after suffering isn't a valid counterpoint.
• 

  bohm

  Psac: No, my argument was that there is NO compassion without suffering, which is a fact.

  No heaven, no compassion in heaven or suffering in heaven?
• 

  jgnat

  I take from what you are saying PSacramento, that the definition of compassion demands that suffering be included. I'm not sure that a finely held definition is the same as fact. For instance, the WTS has insisted that Jesus died on a stake by finely interpreting the definition of STAUROS.