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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

  • KateWild

    Caliber here here, simply priceless! I have the backbone to my responses now. Kate xx

  • caliber

    Interesting timing, just as he seemingly was about to say something pertaining to his beliefs. So, counting down the minutes until a believer claims the pipe bursting was an act of Divine intervention.

    "The Lord works in mysterious ways"

    Caliber here here, simply priceless! I have the backbone to my responses now right ...hahahahahaha !!!

  • EdenOne

    humbled might have just proved me wrong on the non-interventionist view of God in modern day ...


  • cofty

    Eden - What's your response to this one...

    7 - Preventing a tsunami would rob people of free will whether or not to believe in him.

    This is wrong for so many reasons. For a start the issue is not believing or not believing it is whether or not to worship and obey him. Don't the "demons believe and shudder?" Evidence of god's existence in no way removes a person's free will regarding whether or not submit to him. How anybody can read the gospels and make this assertion is very puzzling. Did Jesus not perform all sorts of miracles to provide evidence of who he was? Did this rob anybody of free will and force them to obey him?

  • sunny23

    “15. Suffering will be unimportant compared to eternal rewards.

    Response - Like other theodices it is dehumanising by reducing humans to pawns in god's game.

    Imagine that scientists developed a pill that would eradicate all unwelcome memories and create a feeling of bliss. How would you judge a scientist who imposed the most horrific suffering on millions of people, as unwilling subjects of his experiment, but who gave all of them one of the magic pills when it was over?”

    I would feel that the scientist better have some damn good reasons for doing so! Although after taking the pill I probably would no longer give a f***

    If a man came up to me and said that he’d give me $1,000 if I let him punch me in the face I would take it! If he offered me $50,000 to break my femur and pay my medical bills I would take it! If he offered me $10billion and the entire islands of Hawaii and continent of Australlia completely under my ownership if I were to let him torture me for a week until I died but guaranteed I would be revived and restored to perfect health and demonstrated proof of this and I knew it to be true and worthy then I would take it as well! To what end, to what magnitude, and to what degree or ratio do the suffering and the reward need to be in order to become acceptable to all? I’m tempted to say f*** determining the morality of it or judging the guy, give us the reward! Why waste time judging the scientist or God when we could just try to make the best of what we have now and hopefully of what we get after? But perhaps to view it as only this would be dehumanizing, so there must be more to it.

    You asked how I would judge a scientist who imposed that suffering, that’s to assume that God is causing the suffering and you already state this is more about why it’s allowed and that God isn’t causing it right? Usually there are other factors to come into play and I believe that PB mentioned it best when saying,

    “Aren't there times when men or women in authority must make hard choices? Choosing between saving a mother caught in a burning car or her child? Or the Fire Chief who must call his men out of a burning building knowing full well there are still people trapped in there. Hard choices happen every day in war as well. For the most part, these choices are recognized as necessary though much heartache has resulted. It is my belief that God is being placed in the same position. Choosing to allow a terrible circumstance in order to bring about a better world is very hard to understand but in the end we will know and understand. That is my firm belief.”

    We aren’t simply manipulated and man-handled pawns in God’s game, perhaps we are chess pieces with free will to move about on our own but with the influences of bigger “spirit” game over-lookers. If God really did enable angels and people with free will then it is inevitable that in order to keep order in his court (the universe and heavens) he would eventually after inevitable chaos, allow the defense and prosecution (satan & jesus?) to make their cases before he makes a ruling. A judge can only do so much “ruling” to keep things fair, and it’s usually only done once all parties have exhausted all possible attacks and defenses and evidences. Perhaps we are living in the time of “evidence exhibit v,” and have a few more before a ruling is made? Perhaps there is no intervening of God any more, perhaps he intervened only enough in the start to guarantee the survival of so called “good” people because many lacked our inherent sense of love and compassion and the desire for fairness as mentioned before. Now-a-days we put people with no love and empathy in psych wards to die heavily medicated. There are plenty of good loving compassionate people today and perhaps why God doesn’t need to intervene anymore until that changes and/or a “ruling” has become necessary due to the ending of divine court hearings?

    If there is God and he created all things. He creates angels, the galaxies, and the first humans on earth. He enables all “thinking” beings such as angels and humans with the power of FREE WILL. What are the odds or chances that over a long enough timeline (eternity) that “shit hits the fan” and all chaos breaks lose if he were to NEVER intervene? (100% in case you were wondering)How much intervention is allowed before infringing upon the parameters of free-will? Could we for a minute “play God” and come up with a way to create an everlasting earth and heavens with all angels and humans living peacefully and no “evil,” natural or otherwise, ever occurring whilst still allowing free will? If we can’t come up with a perfect scenario to meet these terms (and we can’t), then that points us to either:

    1)The non-existence of a creator

    2)The existence of a careless non-intervening creator

    3) The existence of a creator who cares but has good reason not to intervene in natural disasters for reasons that we could never understand without asking him personally.

    This discussion however isn’t to debate the existence of a creator but to try and provide reasons as to why a supposed “loving creator” would sit idly watching people die from tsunamis.

    I don’t know, I’m just speculating, to believe in a God is to assume He is doing the right thing under the circumstances of ruling over beings with free will and yet being unable to explain why he is still continuing to allow natural and unnatural evil to occur. In my eyes I believe the reward of eternal life without suffering or natural evil IS adequate compensation for the current situation even though we might not agree it is and YES if I was the father and husband to victims of the tsunami I wouldn’t agree with that logic until I died and rejoined my family, then I would agree ONLY IF God gave me good reason as to why he had to allow all that shit to take place for so long. We can only speculate.

  • doofdaddy

    Ah the time zones and work make it so hard to continue points.

    Apologies Eden One that I didn't see the sarcasm in your post. I was scrolling through trying to get a clear understanding of your beliefs.

    So could you pleaes clarify this point? god does not provide his holy spirit to you in any shape, form or manner??

  • humbled

    (I'll know soon if the PVC fix holds up.Good fun. All muddy, but no water to clean up with.....)

    Adamah--Not a "he" here. I ain't so young, but still-- I's a female the last I looked.

    But to finish--

    I suppose I am not a-- Christian, maybe not a believer. I can't say either the Nicene or Apostle's Creed without so many asterisks as to make a credo meaningless.

    Cofty, It is immaterial to me whether Jesus was raised from the dead or whether he is going to rule over all things. What he taught, the jist of it --including the non-canonical gospels that have surfaced, is about love--and, yes the Golden Rule which allows self-love to reflexively teach anyone fundamental fairness.

    The stuff that came after, the doctrines and rules, I don't believe he wanted that. It is slavery.

    I do not know if I believe that Jesus has the power rule the natural elements, I don't know if he is alive in the way Christian doctrine teaches. But I still follow his teachings because I have a strong sense that he lives in a sense through his teaching--(I couldn't say his "spirit" was alive , could I?)--so I'll take my chances --even if he were really going to judge me.

    Because the need for love and fairness is pretty much universal, it makes me wonder if THAT is not the "kingdom of god" Jesus is said to have preached--. Was Jesus reaching toward a Good that was hard to apprehend--even for himself? Did he realize a god (or Good it says in the gospel of Mary) that didn't fit the picture of the OT Jehovah? "He makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous."

    I would feel really foolish saying these things if I didn't already know what a shambles the theologians have made of the Jesus story. And God.

    I pray sometimes even if I don't know for sure if who or what is there. Even if Jesus is dead as a door-nail, he had the right ideas.

    Jesus neither sent nor failed to prevent the tsunami.

    Love and fairness is our problem to deal with ourselves.

    Edit: Water working again! Nightmare over

  • cofty

    Sunny you claim that you would willingly allow a psychopath to torture you for an extended period and kill you in exchange for a material reward. I suggest you have never been tortured.

    1. Would you allow him to do the same to your children?

    If so then you are a psychopath - if not then your answer fails right there.

    2. No human volunteered to be drowned on 26th December 2004. There was no quid quo pro deal

    3. You still have all your work to do to explain the necessity of natural evil - bad stuff that is not caused by humans - in god's plan

    4. God did cause the tsunami. He made the world this way. He didn't have to but he did. Having made a dangerous world he passsively observed the drowning of a quarter of a million people.

    Next you claim that that god was in an impossible position like a fire chief that has to choose between saving a victim of safeguarding his men.

    How has this got anything to do with the question?

    God was not in an impossible dilemma on 26th Decemebr 2004. He could have calmed the wave in the first second just because he loved the potential victims and for no other reason. He didn't.

    You would have and so would I. We would have acted in harmony with the "golden rule" to protect others if it was within our power to do so. God failed to live by his own basic principle.

    Next you suggest that the reason was so as to allow free will.

    Exactly how do you think human free will would have been interfered with by god calming a tsunami?

    The question is not about god ending all suffering - just the stuff that he caused by the way he made the world.

    Finally you say we just have to trust god is doing the right thing

    Why? If the unecessary death of a quarter of a million innocent men women and children doesn't give you pause to reconsider your child-like trust, what would??

  • cofty

    Humbled - I'm glad you got your burst pipe fixed without too much drama.

    I'm not as convinced as you are that Jesus' teachings were universally helpful but that's another thread.

  • DS211

    Oh cofty start tha thread i wanna comment....the "Are Jesus' Teachings helpful" thread. Ive learned alot on this thread from many sides. thanks to all for your posts. I know these debates get heated and sometimes personal but i appreciate my freedom in searching and expressing my thoughts and feelings. DS

Share this