It's fine to shift focus, if you prefer, but just for the record, you have not addressed the issue of God's lack of omnipotence (at least the God you describe)...merely sidestepped it.
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
MissFit
PSCA: I think I understand what you are trying to say .
But it sounds like you and Cofty are talking about two different gods.
I used to reason is the same way about death. Especially when it came to the blood issue or being willing to die to remain faithful.
Cofty made a point about that attitude some pages back that really made me think.
I dont have the link so I am paraphrasing what I got out of it.
That reasoning is dangerous and cheapens life. If god does not value our life because it is a temporary condition, why should we?
What is the point of this whole compassion thing you were talking about?
Wouldn't it be more compassionate to usher suffering people to the next "state"
by killing them, instead of letting them live in agony?
I had to believe death was temporary just to be able to justify putting my child's life in jeopardy.
The god cofty was challenging was the God of Love and omnipotence.
-
cofty
This being then KNOWS that death doesn't actually exist, it is simply a change from state A to state B before state C ( and D, and E, etc). - PSac
Thus sayeth every religiously-motivated mass murderer ever.
This was the attitude of Joshua's baby-killers, and the crusaders, and the conquistadors, and the inquisitors and the Taliban and ISIS.
This is why theism is not just silly, it is dangerous and ought to be opposed and ridiculed relentlessly.
Any ideology that can blithely dismiss the violent deaths of a quarter of a million humans is a blight on society.
-
Twitch
This was the attitude of Joshua's baby-killers, and the crusaders, and the conquistadors, and the inquisitors and the Taliban and ISIS.
This is why theism is not just silly, it is dangerous and ought to be opposed and ridiculed relentlessly.
I might suggest that not all christians are murderers, from my observations.
Fanatics and extremists rain on any parade of course but these exist on most sides of a fence. That Stalin was atheist and killed millions for an ideology does not make atheism evil.
Is it the ideology or the person that makes something dangerous?
-
MissFit
Straw man? ( Im still learning how to identify different fallacies)
-
Twitch
A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. [ 1 ] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition. [ 2 ] [ 3 ]
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
What would you consider is being misrepresented here?
-
Phizzy
Twitch your Straw Man was Stalin.
You also asked :"Is it the ideology or the person that makes something dangerous?"
It is the ideology that allows and nurtures the radicalisation of Extremists, the clue is in the last word, you could not have extremists if there were not the more moderate ones.
Cofty rightly said " Any ideology that can blithely dismiss the violent deaths of a quarter of a million humans is a blight on society."
-
Twitch
It is the ideology that allows and nurtures the radicalisation of Extremists, the clue is in the last word, you could not have extremists if there were not the more moderate ones.
Which is my point; there are moderates in any ideology, of which the extremists are not a fair representation.
-
cofty
A new formal summary is needed; I will try to get it updated soon, but I just want to summarise the previous few pages.
In response to the question of how the omnipotent, omniscient, loving god of christian theism can be reconciled with the drowning of a quarter of a million humans on 26/12/04, newly graduated theologian, Psac has offered the following...
1 - God can choose when are where to display love
2 - God showed his love by suffering on the cross
3 - God uses suffering like the Asian tsunami to teach us about compassion
4 - God is unable to prevent a tsunami
5 - Death doesn't matter anyway
Before I post a summary of the responses so far, the floor is open for your best succinct rebuttals.
-
defender of truth
"1 - God can choose when and where to display love"
Then he is not love. No rational person would argue (in any context outside of religion, where logic flies out of the window) that a person who stands there and watches as men, women and children are swept away in a disaster.. and makes no effort whatsoever to protect or save even ONE of them from the pain, suffering and death that the disaster inflicts, is a loving person. That person may have had his reasons for not acting, but they would not be thought of as the embodiment of love, or the finest example of love to be imitated. If they later said in a newspaper interview that they did nothing, because it would help the surviving victims and others around the world to be more compassionate in the future, how would you view the person?
The fact that the Almighty Christian God (if he were to exist) saw that it was about to happen, and neither warned or protected anybody, makes it even worse.
We are talking about the God of Christian Theism..
Do some Christians now dismiss
1 John 4:8?
New International Version (NIV)
"8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
[Note that God IS love]