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

by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences

  • cofty

    Caliber- please go back and read my last post carefully. Notice that I asked some very specific questions about things christians pray for. I didn't question how god answers those prayers; only whether you ask them and how that contradicts everything you have written in this thread.

    Now please read your last post and observe how you completely evaded my question.

    Please try again.

  • FlyingHighNow

    Glad, I didn't think of you as one to poke fun at this kind of thread topic or its author. Did someone knock you out and commandeer your computer? You're generally more effective with your posts because you usually treat posters in a respectful way.

  • adamah

    Caliber said-

    Immediate answers to prayer. You want them. I want them. But God simply does not always work that way. And to get His best, we must be patient. In some cases, we must wait until 11:59 for His answer to come.

    Holy Hell, Caliber: can't you come up with anything more feeble-minded than citing Apostle Garth's dreadful and soppy lyric? Doesn't that give you even the slightest clue that maybe your thinking is NOT based on logic, but is more of an emotional response based on your desires?

    And you DO realize you're repeating yourself (#8 "it wasn't God's time to act" has already been offered in many rephrased variations)?

    It's simply a rephrased variant of the classic JW thought-stopper, "We must wait on Jehovah!", or "Don't get ahead of Jehovah's chariot!" etc etc? Did any of that kind of vapid excuse-making work on you when in the JWs? If not, then why do you think it's any-more powerful of an excuse now, esp on an ex-JW board where many know it for meaningless excusiology?

    The claim rests on a string of questions presuppositions which must be accepted on faith; unfortunately, 250k people waited until 11:59 and their requests went unfilled.

    Again, your 'argument' (if one wants to call it that) is based on the presupposition that dismisses this Earthly life as only the opening act to be tolerated until the headliner act (the one you bought the tickets to see) takes the stage, with the Earthly existence used as the dirty floor-mat to clean one's dirty shoes ('mortal coil' or 'vessel', in Xian speak) before entering Heaven with it's pristine white carpets.

    FHN said-

    Glad, I didn't think of you as one to poke fun at this kind of thread topic or its author. Did someone knock you out and commandeer your computer? You're generally more effective with your posts because you usually treat posters in a respectful way.

    FHN, are you still struggling with self-control issues to overcome that bad habit of "tone-trolling"? You cannot claim ignorance, since I've repeated out a nasty tendency to resort to it. Here it is again:

    A tone troll is someone who, in the course of a debate, dismisses an opponent's argument based on perceived crassness, hysteria, or anger. [1] It's a particularly slimy form of ad hominem attack beloved of Very Serious People, and its sliminess comes of it being quite commonly deployed against opponents lower on the privilege ladder.

    Rather than addressing the central claims of an argument, it focuses on superficial, "shrill" features of said argument, which inherently isn't that logical. Tone trolling in practice is almost always dishonest and therefore kind of creates an "appearance of impropriety" situation.

    If you can add anything of substance to the discussion (vs attacking the style of posters who's arguments you not coincidentally disagree with, focusing on their style and rests on the "valuing style over substance" fallacy), then please do so.



    FlyingHighNow Humour is an effective way to make a valid point about a serious subject, in an entertaining way. Questioning the way I choose to make my point is a distraction from the questions that still remain.

    Why does the god of the bible still use’ methods of communication from the dark ages? Why did he not communicate at all and allow 250,000 people to die in the tsunami under discussion?

    You have just asked me a question and I have answered. It’s not that hard is it. Why can’t god do that?

  • tec

    Never said it. Don't think it. - Tammy

    You have made exactly this point.... Cofty

    why should He be more concerned about the temporary death (of the flesh only; death that His Son can resurrect people from) - than about eternal death of His children? - Tammy

    Time after time in this thread you have stressed the relative unimportance of the physical life and used that as justification for god passively watching a quarter of a million hepless people drown.

    Nope. Not even close. This is you taking my words that were in response to your continued use of the adjective 'passive' in your loaded statement that you keep applying to God, and using them to make it appear I have said something other than what I did. You also quote-mined.

    It was another point altogether, and the words I did speak in response to your statement were in response to God being 'passive'. This is what I actually said:

    think that is your loaded statement... same as your loaded question. I objected from the start to your addition of the word 'passive'... and now also the word 'innocent'... (has nothing to do with innocence or guilt).

    I'm not going through it again just to go around in circles with you. You will not accept any answer other than the one you have concluded, and you will not even consider that there are things you do not know. Even when you have to admit that there is so much that you do not know... so much that you are not even willing to consider or receive? Because anything to do with the spirit is nonsense to you. Even though God is spirit. If you limit what you are willing to recieve... and the truth lies outside what you are willing to receive... how will you ever know the truth?

    Cofty, you don't even know the physical consequences to the action you seem to think should have been done.

    I asked at the beginning and I did not get an answer:

    Why would God not just put an end to death altogether?

    Then all of the causes of this physical and temporary death become... moot.

    And why should He be more concerned about the temporary death (of the flesh only; death that His Son can resurrect people from) - than about eternal death of His children?

    How could a passive and unloving God have sent His Son to give LIFE... if that God did not love and did not act?

    This is not the god of Jesus or of the New Testament. He is a god who is initimately involved in the affairs of the world. the lives of His children.... Cofty


    Not that they would not die or suffer. Christ said that disasters would happen. He said that they would have suffering.

    Intimately involved - as in speaking, guiding, teaching, promising and giving eternal life, giving fruits of the spirit, giving the right to become children of God, giving strength and comfort and love and life.

    He never promised to end natural events. He did promise to defeat death... and to give Life and a Kingdom to those who are in His Son, as well as to the sheep (from the sheep and goats parable).

    Not enough for you?

    Your argument is also a false dilemma. You allow only two options for that tsunami not being stopped: God is a 'moral monster'... or ... God does not exist.
    No matter what you are told, those are the only answers that you can hear. Never mind how many other options, considerations, in addition to all the information and knowledge that you do NOT know.

    I mean, if that is your opinion... then fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But that is all it is... an opinion.


    I also don't think that Caliber is arguing universal sovereignty. I may have missed it... but universal issue is not the same as universal sovereignty. I am sure that Caliber can correct me if I have misread him.

    There is no universal soverienty issue.

    The point of the book of Job is that Satan accuses US (not God, but US) of loving God only when it benefits us. Fairweather friends, as it were. His accusation to US is that we will 'curse God and die' the moment things get hard, the moment we have suffering or loss. We only love God when things are good.

    Satan is OUR accuser. Not God's.

    Some people prove his accusations about them is true.. and some people prove that his accusations about them is false.


    One more thing.

    If my family died in a natural disaster such as the tsunami... I would not blame God, and for the reasons that I stated, including that somewhere along the way I did not heed a warning given to me somewhere along the way. My children would suffer for my decision. But death is part of this world, and unless Christ returns in my lifetime, I am going to die, and if not in my children's lifetime, then my children are going to die. Maybe of old age, maybe a car accident, maybe a disease, maybe in a natural disaster, maybe from murder or intentional harm by another. THAT is this world. I was not promised anything else, and I knew it from the start. So did you. (except those who were promised by men that they would never die, and perhaps that lie - the same lie that the serpent told Adam and Eve - affects the way you think about these things now) I follow and serve Christ because I love Him. Suffering, death, hardship... He never promised that we would not have these things in this world. So why be surprised when they happen? Why lose your faith over them?

    I would know that I am going to see my children again, because my Lord will resurrect them giving them life, so that they will live despite whatever means they died in this world.

    That doesn't trivialize their death or their suffering. But faith in the Life and the Resurrection (Christ) does make loss much easier to bear, knowing that it is not forever.



    Adamah I am sure that you possess the mental capacity to get your point across without resorting to petty and 'feeble' insults. (feeble-minded, weak-willed, beleivers are empty inside and have gaping holes to fill... ) I am sure you have even lectured other atheists on the harm they might cause for using them when trying to discuss faith with beleivers. Your insults are not even true... feeble-minded would be to against what one knows to be true, caving into the pressure and insults and ridicule of some here, just to be accepted and appear rational and logical... whatever it is that would get the approval of such people.




    I'm sure this post is long enough, lol. So I am off for now.





  • zound

    I would not blame God, and for the reasons that I stated, including that somewhere along the way I did not heed a warning given to me somewhere along the way.

    So are you saying that god won't intervene in the tsunami but he'll leave hidden easter egg warning signs to certain people?

  • tec

    I have no idea what you mean about 'hidden easter egg'... but speaking a warning, yes.

    But man doesn't even heed the warnings given to him by doctors or scientists that he can hear with his physical ears (or read about, etc). Plus man does not, for the most part, believe that God exists and even can speak (or rather Christ now), much less HOW He speaks.

    People know that smoking can cause cancer and many other things... but people take their chances. People know that drugs can kill them. They take their chances (or don't care). Man knows that certain foods can fight carcinogens... and certain foods can enable carcinogens... but depending upon what he likes (or believes in what he is told... since it does seem every other day something new is carcinogenic)... he takes his chances. Man knows that living near the water or in 'tornado alley' brings greater risks... but he takes his chances. Man knows that living in an area with high risk of cancer or miscarriage etc... is a risk. But he still goes, or he doesn't leave.

    Sometimes, oftentimes, he has few options due to financial reasons or through his work, etc, etc, to make a living for himself and his family. But that is due to the way of this world and the decisions of men who came before him; as well as the carelessness of men whose bottom line is the almighty dollar, and who, themselves, are not listening... and so throw their fellow man under the bus.



  • cofty

    If anybody can be bothered to read Tammy wall of text and provide a digest version that would be great.

    I think she is trying to blame the victims again.

    I only got that she thinks Caliber is not using the universal sovreignty defense, despite the fact he has said so explicitly numerous times.

    Its like trying to have an adult conversation with a child running around the room screaming "look at me".

  • tec

    If you don't read it... then no wonder your 'digest' version is always wrong. Thank you for confirming this though. It explains a lot.



  • cofty

    Tammy - There is one reason I no longer invest a lot of time trying to decipher your verbose and convoluted posts.

    No matter how carefully anybody tries to respond to your arguments, however much one tries to accurately represent your points and respond ot them, you will claim that this is not what you meant.

    You are the most intellectually dishonest person I have ever tried and failed to have a conversation with. You are a waste of my time and effort.

    Now back to the topic.

Share this