The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
FHN "I understand having questions about god. Glad. Its just not been your style to address posters in a disrespectful way."
OK, FHN - you won’t let this thing go, so, please quote the part of my post that was disrespectful or one sentence that was not factual, and I will reply to you. Otherwise drop it, because you are a distraction that is adding nothing to this debate.
Perhaps if FHN feels the need to wag her finger at people because she doesn't like their tone she could do it by PM in future.
Glad, I sent you a PM.
My apologies to Glad. I was confusing this with a different thread authored by another poster. It's easy to get the athiest vs thiest threads confused once they get pages away from the OP.
Caliber and others have been arguing that god left a quarter of a million people to drown because this is not his time to intervene in human affairs.
"If God did always intervene in human affairs and earth events would he need to do this .....yearly, daily or hourly?" - Caliber
The seven texts I cited above show that according to christian theism, god is intimately involved in human affairs. Not just in giving strength to cope with whatever happens in life, but in actually changing events for the benefit of those who ask in faith.
"If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." - John 15:7
"Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you , even as your soul is getting along well." - 3 John :2
If all christians comply with Jesus' words to petition god for things, and imitate John by praying that god bless and prosper others, then god is active every second of every day responding to millions of requests.
If god answers even one of those prayers it destroys the argument that god was not in the intervention business on 26th December 2004
Cofty said- You are making a groundless assertion that god didn't stop the tsunami because he had a better, long-term plan.
You're mischaracterizing the "benign neglect" claim, for one.
The "benign neglect" apologetic hinges on inactivity at a certain time, based on the idea of needing to intervene at a later time in order to treat the condition in a more-effective manner, since the ultimate and best resolution of the condition is actually provided under the more-controlled environment. Eg the procedure shouldn't be performed in-office, but is better-left to be performed in the controlled environment of a surgery suite, since most doctors don't have surgery centers on stand-by for their beck-and-call 24/7, with surgical teams pre-assembled on stand-by (teams, with anaesthesiologists, nurses, etc need to be scheduled, with a surgery date set in advance, so the time and place is planned and efforts can be coordinated).
In the analogy, God is planning to intervene in a final battle (Armageddon), set at an exact time which no one but God knows (that's a hint). To intervene early would be potentially disruptive to the success of the long-term intervention.
Cofty said- I am asking how that excuses him from stopping the tsunami and preventing the destruction of 250 000 lives in the short term. How would that negatively impact on his long-term solution?
Did you not read? Aside from the excuse implied in the very name (benign NEGLECT), in addition to the need for coordination, I offered TWO MORE reasons:
1) intervening in the short-term is a stop-gap measure, only, so hence deemed unnecessary, and,
2) intervening in the short-term likely interferes with the prognosis for the success of the long-term 'treatment', for a number of reasons offered in the analogy (eg trying to open the wound in-office involves risks of secondary infection setting in, and it destroys cancer cells which need to be treated with special dyes to allow the doctor to perform the more-effective Moh's procedure, etc).
You can certainty provide the theological Bible-based explanation for why God is failing to act.
Cofty said- Your metaphor/analogy is counter-productive.
More groundless unsupported conclusions?
I'll give you one more chance to engage on the "benign neglect" argument itself, but then if you can't or don't act (ironically providing an example of benign neglect of your own), I'll shift sides and show you how to dismantle the apologetic argument using logic (and not just appeals to Cofty's authority, as if you don't have to explain WHY you reach conclusions).
intervening short-term even likely interferes with the success of the long-term treatment, for a number of reasons...
And here I hoped you were about to actually say something. Instead you just went back to your unhelpful metaphor/analogy.
Three times I have asked you how preventing the tsunami would negatively impact on his long-term solution.
Still no attempt at an answer.
If you actually constructed an argument I might attempt to dismantle it. An inappropriate analogy is not an argument.
To intervene early would be potentially disruptive to the success of the long-term intervention.
Again - how so?
As I showed above christians believe that god intervenes millions of times every day.
intervening in the short-term is a stop-gap measure, only, so hence unnecessary
Tell that to the bereaved survivors.
Adam please stop playing devil's advocate. It's disingenuous.
This is not an intellectual exercise for me, it's not a game.
It is the issue that led directly to my loss of faith, a process that was far more difficult than leaving the Watchtower.
It is about real human suffering on a scale we cannot even imagine.
If real believers have anything to contribute about how they reconcile their faith with these events I really want to hear it.
I have no interest in allowing it to be used as a vehicle for your rhetoric.
Don't mean to interupt, just wanted to respond to tammy's lenghty non-response to this:
"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?
I've just requoted the two relevent parts below from your lengthy response, because the rest was not relevent:
I have no idea what you mean about 'hidden easter egg'... but speaking a warning, yes.
I meant hidden easter egg because in the example, you missed the warning - so god/jesus must not have been very clear in his warning.
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.
An area with high risk of cancer or miscarriage - what? But that's besides the point. What's the reason of even including this section? You just said that god speaks a warning, which you didn't clarify - is it a voice whispering as you're used to? Then why are you mentioning the high risk areas, man taking his chances? Is this the warning? Because if so - it is not gods warning, we know about plate tetonics and the equator, and what parts of the world are more at risk of tornados etc because of science, not because of god.
Please be clear about your answer.
cofty, You have been so ferocious that it wasn't until your last snarling post that it is clear that you actually are sifting through theist comments instead of skeeting them as they flew into the thread.
I am in sympathy with the sufferers of 2004--the personal horror of others is something I have taken to heart often--we take others in, 2 homeless women, 2 Cambodian families from the aftermath of the Vietnam War, and others. I say so that you don't think me cheap to say this: the Boxing Day deaths were no more the horrible because of their numbers, cofty. The deaths caused by the tsunami or the deaths by violent-other-means.
The woman holding her dead girl will have the same question of god even if the 249,999 were spared: where were you?
That question is every bit as valid coming from one as from 250,000.