A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul (page 8)

slimboyfat

nicolaou, you say that asserting the reality of resurrection, if it is not real, would be cruel, for example especially for parents who have lost children.

However the converse is also true. If resurrection is real, and parents were convinced it was not real, that would also be cruel.

So all you have proved is that it is an important issue, not helped to decide it one way or the other.

In fact we could go further and say it would be more cruel in the second scenario than in the first since it involves avoidable pain.

Plus when you really think about it, it is hard to understand how a hope of resurrection is cruel in any circumstance. If parents go to their graves believing in resurrection, when does the cruelty kick in? We'd have to imagine some final sort of explanation being delivered to them that their hope has been false and is definitely wrong. Is that final realisation supposed to happen at death, or else when? And if it doesn't ever happen, then in what real sense has their hope been cruel?

Militant atheists are a bit like someone who interrupts a musical concert to inform everyone the music is rubbish.

Well we don't think it's rubbish.

You might not think it's rubbish, but it is rubbish, and I can't sit here in good conscience without letting you know that you are deluded if you don't realise it's rubbish.

But we enjoy it and it's full of meaning for us.

I don't dispute that you think it is meaningful, but you are wrong, it is empty and it is cruel to let you go on thinking otherwise.

Okay well thanks for your thoughts, can we get on with the concert now?

Not if I've got anything to do with it.

Oh brother.

nicolaou

There is so much wrong with your last post Slim that I'll need to come back tomorrow to do it justice . .

Anony Mous

If parents go to their graves believing in resurrection, when does the cruelty kick in.

The cruelty began when the child died, how can you have a loving god if he requires children to die?

What's more cruel is that now these parents have to wait for a supposed future where they will be resurrected. If your god is all-loving, why did he let them die or why doesn't he resurrect them on the spot?

The promise of a resurrection is cruel in itself as it holds a promise that will probably never be fulfilled over someone's head in order to make them do something for someone else's benefit.

nobody

hello slimboyfat and nicolaou. I have read through this thread and see that the biocentrism thing is a dead horse, but let me just resurrect it for a moment (sorry) if I may. I looked into biocentrism about 6 years ago, after the death of a beloved cat, when I was trying to figure how something like "an afterlife" of any type could possibly exist. To make a long story short, what I found is that the idea of an afterlife for an organism is theoretically possible, via metaphysical idealism, specifically this guy Brian Whitworth's description/theory, which he used to call Virtual Reality Theory but is now calling Quantum Realism. Unlike Biocentrism, it gives a falsifiable prediction, which can be tested if/when science learns how to collide two photons with no other particles involved in the collision. His website for this theory is http://www.thephysicalworldisvirtual.com/

I just wanted to add that. Thanks.

Cold Steel

Nichlaou: » But the kindest, most rational Christian just cannot escape Paul's logic quoted above; if Christ is not risen your faith is in vain. The absurdity of all this is that faith is required to believe the very thing that makes faith futile.

I'm missing the absurdity. Are you saying that the very idea of a resurrection is absurd? Or are you faulting Paul's logic? Obviously Paul is arguing that Christians who don't believe in a physical resurrection are being inconsistent. If Jesus did not die and if he wasn't resurrected, then the whole fabric of Christianity doesn't jibe. Christian miracles include the virgin birth, the visitation of angels, turning water into wine, the healing of a man who was born blind, the feeding of the multitude, raising of the dead (a type of resurrection) and Jesus' resurrection in the flesh. How is any of this different than leaving the flesh at death and continuing on as a spirit?

Onager

Nicolau is an intelligent penguin typing his responses on this forum. That is a fact that I have witnessed right here.

When I tell my wife about it, she will have to have faith that Nicolau is a typing penguin because she hasn't seen the facts that I am reporting to her.

Therefore, if Nicolau is not, in fact, a typing penguin then the faith of my wife is in vain.

nicolaou

I'm off to the Kingdom Hall in an hour, my father in law passed away recently.

Was I too harsh criticising the comfort lies can bring? Maybe. It's always good to include fresh insight. I think that is about to happen.

We'll see.

nicolaou

Slimboyfat.

I've been thinking about this a lot since my Father in law passed away and especially since the funeral just over a fortnight ago.

I was too harsh, life and death are just too messy for absolutes. I saw a lot of good people draw comfort from their JW beliefs, especially my Mother in law.

I don't share their hope but I did share their grief and, despite myself, I found my voice and even shared their song 'Life Without End - At Last!'

Yes, me!

It is a lie, but it's a lie that helped many that afternoon. I still favour reality over lies but who would I be if I took that comfort away from people I love?

I feel very conflicted over this issue but appreciate your posts for giving me pause and making me think.

Thank you.

Vidiot

nicolau - "A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul.."

Well, even a busted clock is right twice a day. :smirk:

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

Share this