VTech community heads to church to ask God for answers
posted at 10:50 am on April 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Looks like a slow news day. Might as well see if we can get a 500-comment thread going.
Tough questions. Luckily, the world didn’t end so God’s off the hook:
Through it all, [Pastor Tommy] McDearis told his congregation Sunday morning, he struggled to control his emotions — to understand how God could let something so vile happen to so many good people.
“I was sitting at the Inn at Virginia Tech, waiting for the next broken family to come in, and a woman pulled my badge … and said, you know it seems like God could have done better,” McDearis said. “I wanted to be able to argue with that woman. But the truth of the matter was that I knew just what that woman was feeling.” [Me too. -- ed.]…
At the Blacksburg Presbyterian Church, Associate Pastor Susan Verbrugge told her congregation that she too was having a hard time dealing with the shootings. During a recent morning walk, Verbrugge said, she stopped on a hill overlooking a normally stunning city skyline. Everything looked gray.
“I didn’t see anything beautiful,” she said. “My heart had been numb since Monday.”
She screamed into the wind at God: “This is your world, so do something about it!”
That moment, she noticed woodpeckers, and saw beauty again. She realized that the world would mend, and that “God started with my heart.”
Great news for her heart, not so great for Liviu Librescu and Ryan Clark. Meanwhile, another VTech student died this weekend when his car flipped over. He had come home to be with his family after the massacre on Monday.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
There’s an ancient opinion according to which every human being can be spoken of as striving toward God at every moment. In that understanding, the same striving is attributed to all animals, and the residual question is whether, or in what ways, plants are animal. The world, as it is, is the contemporary result of all that striving. I think that opinion and its overt expression merit thoughtful examination.
Entelechy? Do you have an opinion on the matter?
Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Doh!
John from WuzzaDem on April 23, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Bingo. Chew-toy.
spmat on April 23, 2007 at 2:10 PM
God is the original guy who farted and then points fingers at everybody else. He created the universe. He created the physical laws we live under. He created Man with all his flaws. He created Lucifer with his tempting ways. And he created evil, which snares so many. And yet somehow it’s our fault when we screw up.
I’ve posted this elsewhere:
God is the bully saying, “Why are you hitting yourself” as he holds us in a headlock and punches us with our own right fist.
PeteRR on April 23, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Krydor: When God forbade Adam to eat of the tree, Christ was already the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Does this smack of a setup? Perhaps. But there is an answer.
Bradky: Yes. In many cases, Christians have a bad name. Christ does not. They can be as hostile, selfish, demeaning, uncaring, etc., etc., etc., as any normal human. In fact, Christians are normal humans. The one thing Christians have is a Savior. The sick person goes to a doctor and hopefully gets better. If a Christian is driven to speak about his faith, it is many times with the knowledge of Jesus’ words, “No man comes to the Father except through Me.” The Christian may not do it right, or perfectly, and even sincerity is not a judge of spirituality. But for a Christian to infer that any other way is acceptable simply does not square with the teachings of Christ.
BNCurtis on April 23, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Or, at least, members of Campus Crusade were knocking on Cho’s door, waiting to be let in. And, in accordance with the ancient opinion at least, they were striving toward God, both when they approached the door and when they departed.
Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Darth E,
Unfortunately, the Bible literally says in all versions the following:
It’s pretty literal. Heck, I’ll even grant that this was some kind of translation error or a problem with oral histories finally being put to paper. Nevertheless, Pharoah had his heart hardened by the Lord, apparently so that the Lord could have some more plagues cast upon Egypt.
If we take the notion that there was some kind of Biblical telephone game afoot over the centuries, then one can surmise that the Bible is not the perfectly revealed word of God. That means we get to debate deeper meanings and whatnot.
Krydor on April 23, 2007 at 2:14 PM
By arguing that he does exist? That’s the form argument typically takes. Dinesh D’Souza argued the other day that VTech presents a bigger problem for atheists than it does for religious people. Fair enough; here’s my rebuttal. And let’s not be babes in the woods about horrific tragedies causing people to question their faith in God, as though I was the first person to ever broach that subject. If someone believes in an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being, one’s thoughts naturally turn to what that being was doing while Cho was busy plugging innocent kids. Even the pastors quoted in the article admit to doubt. Don’t jump down my throat about it.
Allahpundit on April 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Bravo!
nico on April 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM
BNC,
Well, it would have to be a setup, wouldn’t it? If God has a plan, a grand plan at that, he must have factored in the notion that people who are amoral by design do whatever they want in spite of warnings not do so something. They were amoral, as they had no knowledge of good and evil. They were forbidden to obtain that knowledge, but being forbidden means nothing to someone without the knowledge of good and evil.
You know what this place needs? An edit function. That way, I could just append this to my last post.
Krydor on April 23, 2007 at 2:24 PM
We have free will. Some of us do good with it and others do evil. God will sort it out in the end. I suspect Cho is getting exactly what he deserves now.
jman on April 23, 2007 at 2:34 PM
It seems better to make allowance for the possible existence of people who actively resist drawing conclusions in their theoretical pursuits. They would undoubtedly have many opinions on which they rely in practical matters, because they must be practical in order to remain alive. However, they may have rejected “final conclusions” in favor of maintaining a careful search for ways to improve their understanding. If they exist, I think they would dismiss your characterization of their questions as “intellectual chew toys,” but I could be mistaken.
Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Milk! It’s what the Cowsills drink!
Er, that may be a generation-specific cultural reference …
rightwingprof on April 23, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I know what it says. I think it’s a figure of speech, mainly because I find that particular reading of it inconsistent with the rest of the text. To give an example of what I mean:
A man loses his daughter in an earthquake. His heart hardens towards everybody afer that. One could say that the earthquake hardened his heart, but it wouldn’t be the earthquake literally hardening his heart. It would be the reason, but the earthquake wouldn’t be literally manipulating the man’s feelings.
Darth Executor on April 23, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Love the philosophical discussions about “good” and “evil” and the “nature” of human beings. I’m still encouraging people to read Euthyphro by Plato; it deals with the very topic of piety and what is good or what is evil. The entire dialogue is only a few pages long and the topics are so interesting.
This is the interpretation of The Bible I don’t like. Believing that it’s all mans fault that the world is horrible. It relies on the assumption that God exists (a given) and then it relies on an assumption that the world was perfect before men existed (which relies on your definition of perfect). And I get the feeling when reading your explanation that you’d be the type of person who believes the world isn’t 4.5 billion years old, but I could be wrong.
Define evil. Why does God get credit for the “good” things in the world and man gets the blame for all the “bad” things? What is God’s grace? How do you know what it is? Is it something you believe in and wish to be true or is it something you personally know is true (how so)?
And what would you say to the people who say truth is what people make of it? That good and bad are subjective. What would you say to someone who knows that God doesn’t exist (like you know he does exist)?
So nations or societies without Christianity are inherently flawed? What about the societies that were around before Christianity existed? Were they doomed because they weren’t Christian? Is our society doomed if we don’t become a religious country? How so?
This nation was founded on the principles of Liberalism forwarded by Hobbes and Locke (the former of whom is one of the most well-known atheists in history, and the later of which based the principles of life, liberty, and property not on God, but on nature as obtained through reason and an adaptation of Hobbes state of nature thought experiment). Christianity didn’t make the founding fathers believe that slaves were 3/5s of human beings, did it?
And people can be moral without religion, but again, I am not going to use the founding fathers as moral despots (and I know it may not be too PC to say this) when they believed in the restriction of rights for African-Americans and women.
These principles of freedom existed long before the New Testament was written. They are principles someone could imagine without reading a word of The Bible.
Reason is a tool we use to understand morality, but don’t be surprised when different people use reason to determine different moral outcomes. Were the people who wrote The Bible using reason to determine a moral guide? Yes. So were the people who wrote the Qur’an. Which is the truly moral outcome? Who determines what is moral? Again, I’ll use this to encourage everyone to read Euthyphro. No answer is specifically given, but it takes this discussion and summarizes it.
People like Cho can exist in a Christian society as well. Do not blame a lack of religion as to the cause of a horrific display of humanity.
Nonfactor on April 23, 2007 at 2:54 PM
To be fair, insult, like obscenity, is extremely subjective.
Kneejerk? If that’s kneejerk any response is kneejerk. He simply responded and illustrated why he cares about a subject through use of example (and maybe rhetorical question).
Sadly for you someone getting “very, very sensitive” isn’t the qualification for religion. You probably notice that I get very particular on certain terms especially when they’re used in a certain context; like this one for example you need to define religion to be able to categorize whether something is a religion or not, and just because you (or anyone else) defines religion as something does not make it universally so (my subjective side is showing).
Paging Doctor Freud. A man in a sports car is eating a Dodger dog. Paging Doctor Freud.
Because it’s an assumption about what someone says they truly believe. If I tell you I think the death penalty is morally wrong and you were to question me it would represent that you think I’m a lair, and I’m sure AP doesn’t want to represent that to someone, he might consider, a friend.
Nonfactor on April 23, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Plato didn’t have to deal with monotheism. If he had, Euthyphro would’ve smoked Socrates.
http://www.beretta-online.com/articles/philosophy/new_euthyphro.html
Darth Executor on April 23, 2007 at 3:08 PM
AP,
There’s a difference between them doing it in a moment of profound shock and you doing in a moment of boredom. And let’s not be babes in the woods about atheists capitalizing on tragedy to make the “problem of evil” argument. That has been going on at least since Voltaire wrote Candide.
I saw your AFA post. I read D’Souza when it appeared. People are doing some atheist bashing that I don’t think is fair. In their defense, Dinesh and others are clearly reacting to the onslaught of “new atheism” in the form of Sam Harris, Michelle Goldberg, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Kevin Phillips etc. On the broader national scene, I think it’s arguable who jumped down whose throat first.
John on April 23, 2007 at 3:09 PM
If someone believes in an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being, one’s thoughts naturally turn to what that being was doing while Cho was busy plugging innocent kids.
Allahpundit on April 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM
It’s not certain, in any case, that an omniscient, omnipotent being, if one exists, is God. I’m not making fun; it seems this is yet another opinion worth examining. It’s possible he’s merely mistaken for or conflated with God, partly on account of his being the indispensible ally or irremediable opponent in one’s pursuit of God. Of course, if he’s a jealous “God,” then only those who have the opinion that he’s God will be permitted to continue pursuing God. But since we take the pursuit of the truth to be part of the pursuit of God, the thought of continuing to live on such terms is repugnant.
Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 3:11 PM
And let me close by saying this: I don’t know what is morally right or morally wrong (or even for that matter if morality exists at all). Religious people don’t know what is morally right or morally wrong. But I can admit that I don’t know, and if I can do it, why can’t religious people? We’d all like to believe that our beliefs are “right” or “wrong,” but the truth is we just don’t know. I think the easiest and most logical argument is to say that morality simply does not exist and humans invent gods or rules of logic that tell them what is moral. What I can say for certain is that we all have different beliefs about what morality is; I want to be correct and so does everyone else. But we should all keep in our heads the fact of the matter: we don’t know.
Sorry, that’s a bit philosophical and doesn’t really deal with the topic at hand, but I think it’s important to note whenever the subject of “god” or “morality” is discussed.
Nonfactor on April 23, 2007 at 3:12 PM
We live in a world of sin. God is constantly trying to keep us from the dangers of sinful behavior. We don’t know the intimate details of Cho’s life and those who interacted or tried to interact with him. God may have made repeated efforts to stop Cho by sending people into his life or across his path, but for various reasons, such as people not responding to the situation God placed them in, it did not work. You can’t blame God, until you know ALL the details of Cho’s life.
This reminds me of the tsunami a few years ago. There were questions about how God could allow so many people to be killed. Well, we live in a world where tsunamis exist. We also have warning systems to limit the casualties caused by such natural disasters. In that instance, the warning system was not used and all those people died. God didn’t kill them. The humans who didn’t use the tools available killed them, or allowed them to die. I think there is an analogy here with Cho’s life.
God is putting us in positions to avoid sin and the effects of living in a sinful world. It is up to us to listen and obey. That’s where that “fee will” atheists like to talk about comes in. Listen or don’t; your choice.
Mallard T. Drake on April 23, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Unfortunately, it’s not a real discussion becase Plato controls what happens. Put up Plato’s Socrates against me in the discussion he had with Euthyphro and I’ll mop the floor with him.
http://www.beretta-online.com/articles/philosophy/new_euthyphro.html
Darth Executor on April 23, 2007 at 3:19 PM
It seems that whether evil is a problem for the existence of God depends on what God is, and then maybe on what evil is, too. It also seems worth asking what a problem is. If we can articulate the character of the entire class of things we recognize as problems, it seems that’s information important to our answering the question as to what God is.
Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Try living in the deep south for a few years and you will see that the flocks are taught to behave in the manner I described.
Neither of you seems willing to square the “judge not lest you be judged” verse with behavior of more than “just a few” believers.
The Buddhists and the Hindus are easy examples of religions that don’t preach hellfire and brimstone. As I mentioned before it seems that some “self-proclaimed” Christians prefer to dwell on how people will burn in hell because they don’t sit in the pew next to them each Sunday. Much less talk about the joy of having god in your life than the joy of seeing the unsaved “gnashing their teeth”.
Bradky on April 23, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I didn’t go hunting for this story because I was bored. It was in the LA Times, one of the three biggest papers in the country. Besides, I don’t know how you can be so sure that they were reacting “in a moment of shock,” which comes off as not a little patronizing. Maybe they were shocked or maybe they were genuinely, thoughtfully upset with God. They’re adults; I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the latter.
Again, I don’t know how you can be so sure that D’Souza et al. are “clearly reacting” to evangelical atheism. Granted, D’Souza did mention Dawkins by name in his post, but he also recently wrote an entire book about how godlessness and immorality are essentially inviting Al Qaeda attacks. His problems run deeper than feelings hurt by Sam Harris. And I would also refer you to that public opinion poll from a month or two ago that placed atheism at the very bottom of the pack among various “undesirable traits” the electorate wouldn’t want its president to have. I’m certainly not claiming to be an oppressed minority, but the fact is there is prejudice here and I take exception to trying to blame the victim.
Allahpundit on April 23, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Coming up with better replies than Euthyphro’s seems to be a worthy aim. However, as for “mopping the floor,” your own remarks indicate that the real contest would have to be between you and Plato. However, since there’s little evidence that Plato’s interest lay in “mopping the floor” in the way you seem to mean, I think Plato’s Plato would let you win, and Plato would go back to inquiry.
Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Either we have free will or God is the omniscient, omnipotent being most believers believe that he is. Since one cannot do anything without God already knowing you were gonna do it before the world was even created. With that in mind God created the world, created humanity and created the devil to tempt humanity just so that he could create a hell to be filled with the humanity he knew would be tempted by a devil that he created to tempt us.
Since God created the devil knowing the devil was going to tempt humanity does the devil get to go to heaven for both believing in Jesus and also doing what he was created to do?
frreal on April 23, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Joy is still joy, Bradky. I’m suppressing a grin as I write, but the point is actually worth considering, in my opinion.
Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Darth E,
The problem is that the text is quite specific. The Lord did the hardening, just as he told Moses he would. Exodus 10:1?
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD.”
It’s pretty clear to me that God made a conscious decision to not allow the Israelites to leave until he could heap a whole crapload of nastiness on them for posterity. So, God can do away with free will as it suits Him.
Nonfactor,
In case anyone wishes to brush up on their Plato. It’s amazing what you forget over the course of time, yet unconsciously integrates the data.
Krydor on April 23, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Are those really the only two possibilities, frreal?
Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Krydor, you seem to deserve some credit for directing interested people to the Euthyphro. But instead of Benjamin Jowett’s translation, or in addition to it, I’d have people use the translation by Thomas G. West and Grace Starry West, in Four Texts on Socrates.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0801485746/
Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Krailzec,
I don’t want any credit for anything. Hell, I just provided a link to a free thing that is free!
Besides, for our limited purposes, it should do fine. I’ve pretty much given up on re-stocking the library since the great sewer backups of 2004 & 2005.
Krydor on April 23, 2007 at 4:10 PM
However that may be, I like the world, and I like living in it. Moreover, watching people’s antics and laughing is a big part of the enjoyment.
Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Christians are taught to be in the world but not “of the world.” We are also taught that you can’t love God without loving his creations e.g. other people. Just some thoughts.
Mallard T. Drake on April 23, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Um… not afraid to touch that one. As to the “judge not lest you be judged” verse, all believers will be judged by the ruler they use to judge. That’s square enough. Hopefully that ruler is Christ, but being imperfect humans, it may not be.
Tons of folks mess that quotation up, leaving out the context. Matthew 7:1-5 (ESV):
If a person thinks avoiding hellfire and brimstone is what it’s all about, they’re missing the point altogether. Yes, that’s how some people put it across, but it’s just wrong. The point is to love God and enjoy Him forever (yes, it’s from the Westminster Confession).
Many, if not most, Christians today in America are biblically illiterate. That’s a whole discussion on its own.
BNCurtis on April 23, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Please show me where they existed before the Reformation. Not under the Greeks, certainly not under the Romans, and nowhere outside the West. In fact, it wasn’t until Christians rejected the extraneous (and Roman) dependence on Aristotle and returned to the “original source material” of Galatians during the Reformation that knowledge, liberty and industry were able to kick into gear. Luther’s admonition to the German princes was born of his understanding of the New Testament and the doctrines contained in it. That admonition and the movement that it represented were applications of ideas that had not existed prior to the profound and unique doctrines of Jesus of Galilee, the Christ.
Locke and Hobbes did not operate in a vacuum. They worked within the social and philosophical context of a thoroughly Christian world-view. Even those men that denied the validity of the Bible were indebted to the application of its principles within the larger society. Thomas Paine would have been beheaded, jailed, assassinated or worse in every other culture throughout the world. The very presence of dissent only has meaning and protection within a Christian context. Under Christianity, men are free to disagree, as there is no earthly dominion to which they are accountable for their religious beliefs.
And the slavery example you gave only proves my point, to wit the deviation from Biblical principles accounts for the destructive behavior on our part. Slavery is counter to the principles enumerated in the New Testament (there are no slaves in the Kingdom of Heaven, only on earth in imperfect societies), and the South’s use of the Bible to justify slavery indicates the extent to which its aristocracy had left behind its own heritage, to its own damnation. The Founding Fathers passed the buck out of political expediency resulting from the immoral intransigence on the part of the Deep South aristocracy. The result? The cancer of slavery continued until civil war was inevitable. Eventually, the United States was forced to return to the Spirit of ‘76, and we were worse for the wear as the result of waiting so long.
spmat on April 23, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Or, to be more correct, those ideas enumerated by Jesus did not exist within a whole, integrated package, and the framework that He gave could only be found elsewhere in bits and pieces, devoid of the power and motive force gained from their integration as a whole. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, as evidenced by the explosion of knowledge, liberty and industry after the final rejection of Greek and Roman mysticism by Western society post-Reformation.
spmat on April 23, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Ugh. I cannot read all the comments. It is useless to try and convince Allah or anyone else here that God exists.
If Allah is really interested in whether God exists or not he will stop trying to “win” arguments here and perhaps discuss more with Mary Katharine, whom he respects.(Didn’t she give you a book to read about it?)
It’s always nice to feel one is making some grand point here in comments on blogs. You can go home and pat yourself on the back about how right you are.
But God is not found in arguments. He is found when we look for Him. It’s really that simple.
Rightwingsparkle on April 23, 2007 at 5:18 PM
This is just going to be a couple of hundred comments of people making excuses for the evil that God allows, followed by condemnation of the atheist’s supposed lack of moral sense.
dorkafork on April 23, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Pssst. He has a plan.
But it’s a special plan where you control the outcome! Or something.
Allahpundit on April 23, 2007 at 5:31 PM
If it makes you feel better to be sarcastic about people’s belief Allah, then fine. Do it. But don’t complain when they do the same to you about your unbelief.
Rightwingsparkle on April 23, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I don’t. I fight back, like when I took a swipe at D’Souza. I said I wanted 500 comments in this thread, no? I fully expect most of them will be critical. Fine by me.
Allahpundit on April 23, 2007 at 5:36 PM
dorkafork,
It’s not like our Christian belief taught us that everything would be peachy if we just believed. Nothing that has happened in human history is a surprise to anyone who knows scripture.
Also, I am not one who questions an atheist’s moral sense. I have known many people who didn’t believe in God who were wonderfully moral people. Morality isn’t what defines us as Christians (although it should!) It’s God’s love for us that defines us. Being aware of that love is the only difference between us sometimes.
Rightwingsparkle on April 23, 2007 at 5:40 PM
*shrugs* Allah’s bored, it appears. For what it’s worth, I’ll chime in to see my posts go down the sinkhole as well.
Why does a perfect God allow pain? Why does He not prevent evil? Fundamentally, of course, the question of free will emerges, as laid out above. God only rarely intervenes, though He will on occassion (He’s no blind watchmaker).
Why the Garden of Eden? Why allow a paradise to be screwed up by two idiots? It’s because it was meant to happen. This life is a schoolground. We are intended to feel pain, to fail, to understand sorrow–so that we can also understand the sweet, appreciate the joy. In a word, we are here to gain knowledge. Events happen in our lives, each of us–and we are left to decide how we react. Will our hearts be hardened (we “curse God and die?”), or will we be softened and look for a good result. It is how each of us react to these horrible events (and good events, too) that is what is important. Was the VT tragedy horrible? Yes, it was–but who knows, maybe one of those students would have been killed in a car accident on the way home from class. Either way, they are dead, and their friends still grieving.
How do we react–that’s the rub. God will only test us to make us grow, to progress,–in fact, that is a lot of the reasons why sometimes horrible seeming things happen to us. Will we grow harder, or softer? Will we become more like God ourselves, or retreat from Him?
“Know this, that all these things shall give thee experience and be for thy good.”
Vanceone on April 23, 2007 at 5:48 PM
And that’s where you make the fundamental mistake. Christian belief is that ALL (that’s means everybody) has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, Thus, there is no such thing as an “innocent” kid. There are those who have been redeemed by accepting the work of Jesus Christ and there are those who have chosen to reject the work of Jesus Christ.
And, guess what? God, being omnipotent, already knows whether you are one of those who has/will or has not/will not, accept His free gift. Christians also trust God to do the right thing, as His creations we do not presume to judge the creator.
Oh, and then there is that whole – life is just the beginning of eternity – thing. So our brief time here followed by a death which is NOT an end, just a transition may not be as all important as an athiest’s beliefs require it to be.
Fortunately, we do not get to define God, regardless of how hard we try.
Fatal on April 23, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Spmat,
Rejection of Greek and Roman mysticism? Don’t want to throw a caveat or two in there? You know, because from what I’ve read it was the embracing of certain Greek philosophical ideas that provided the foundation of modern science. Couple that come to mind are Empiricsm and Skepticism.
When Issac Newton was talking about standing on the shoulders of giants, he certainly was not talking about Christian philosophers or Biblical stuff.
Then again, if we are going in the direction of those crazy pantheists, hardly any of that was rejected and was instead co-opted. I can, if you want, explain why Jesus appears as a white dude with a beard. The history is fascinating, absolutely and unequivocally amazing. However, it did not rise up from a vacuum and stole from a whole bunch of extant myths and religions. No, really.
This can become a discussion of the existence/non-existence of God. That is an absolute waste of time. This might become a discussion of the nature of religion, which is way more fun (for me).
Krydor on April 23, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Perspective is critically important in understanding as much as we can about God. God has stated plainly and repeatedly that there is life beyond this one. Therefore, His plan covers past,present and future. If we only look to the present life, then these tragedies simply end existance, and we cannot understand how that would be good in any way. Indeed, if this reality is all there is, then that conclusion would be probably correct. But, Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. There is more beyond. Therefore, even though a person’s earthly demise might be terrible, or even peaceful, the eternal is good for those who have their sins forgiven, or bad if they have not. We have seen the ones who died, but how many people will have their stories out, as to the odd circumstances of why they weren’t in the place they would normally would have been, and thus to their reason, would have been killed. There are other things which we will learn over time, but many things we won’t be able to learn that would give us a deeper understanding of the cosmic effects of that massacre.
Until we are all talking about the same thing, that we are bound by the limits of our reality, but God is not, the debate just goes around and around in non-intersecting circles.
naliaka on April 23, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Did Jesus appear to you? Or do you mean why people who make up a painting out of their own imaginations depict Him that way?
Perhaps because he was a jew?
Jews, being semitic, are fairly light-skinned in the grand scheme of things. And the beard? Pretty sure that can be chalked up to Judaism too.
No mysticism required.
Fatal on April 23, 2007 at 6:07 PM
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But when you start your post with:
I don’t think you can accuse me of jumping to a wild conclusion.
I’d also stick by my statement that the reactions in the piece you linked were primarily ones of shock. The first line of the article is:
Even in the bit you excerpted, there’s this:
Weeping and numbness-of-heart aren’t “thoughtful” reactions they’re emotional ones. I’m not suggesting one couldn’t reach the same place through reason, but that’s not what this article is about.
I think you’ve been very fair in the past about pointing out some of the more outrageous attacks on Christians, but the fact remains that there has been a wave of high profile publishing by atheists over the last couple years. Literally dozens of books warning of the coming theocracy or directly attacking Christianity, several of which have become major bestsellers.
Atheists are certainly a minority, but they’ve been a very vocal one recently. Nothing wrong with that, but there is with some of the things they’re saying. Dawkins has equated Sunday school with child abuse both in his book and in a two hour TV special for the BBC. Dennett dubs atheists “brights” as a not-so-subtle way of saying that Christians are rather dim.
So when it comes to that poll that you mentioned, I don’t think it’s prejudice at all. Christian voters look at the question and ask themselves: “Would I vote for someone whose fundamental affiliation is with a group that hold me in open contempt?” NO. What’s surprising about that?
John on April 23, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Fatal,
Or, one might google “Zeus at Olympia”. Early Christian history is replete with this stuff. For instance, you really don’t want know why people are so enamoured with the Virgin Mary. Think “Artemis”…
Krydor on April 23, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Is anyone else getting the FindSingleChristians.com Google ad when they view this thread?
Act of God?
Enrique on April 23, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Ever wondered why the Greeks never got beyond a basic agrarian society? It wasn’t because of a lack of mechanical aptitude. It was their separation of existence into spiritual and physical realms, where only the spiritual realms contained truth. Reason did not apply to the physical world, beyond the scope of one’s immediate surroundings. Why? Because they did not believe in a universe ordered by a rational God. Their physical reality was determined by arbitrary, capricious deities, each with their own divine bureaucracy and each requiring homage in their own way. They could lie, cheat, and modify reality to suit their whims.
Induction did not apply to the Greeks’ physical world, only to the worlds in their minds. It couldn’t, since the universe and the gods which controlled it were under no requirement to maintain the causal succession necessary for induction. Certainly they achieved feats of application of reason in their architecture and aqueducts etc., but the overwhelming majority of these feats were for what purpose? To placate the gods they so feared.
The Judeo-Christian world-view did away with that. Not only was reality ruled by a single deity, but that deity is both omnibenevolent and fully rational. God, by His nature, cannot lie. No other religion on the Earth has that defining characteristic of its deity. Allah is as capricious as any Greek or Roman god; his will is absolute, inscrutable, and arbitrary.
Not only is the Judeo-Christian God incapable of lying, He has made it a point, through His Son, to communicate to each man individually the will of God. No more priests but the High Priest. Every man is free to worship God in spirit and in truth, and every man has a right to expect that a rational God’s universe to behave rationally. In fact, it is incumbent on men to understand God’s universe to better understand God himself.
In effect, the massive and complete decentralization of both God’s communication to men and men’s understanding of His rational universe is what opened up the world to the explosion of learning after the last vestiges of Roman autocracy finally died away during the Reformation. Christ came first to free mankind from bondage, then that emancipation eventually led to prosperity, but only in those places that esteemed Christ’s gospel and its liberty, i.e. Europe and America.
spmat on April 23, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Why do so many believe you have to be religious to have morals? Do you have to believe in God to know that murder is wrong? It’s a common liberal reaction to respond to any mention of morality with … “don’t push your religion on me.” It’s also another example of someone not wanting to feel guilty for their actions. Erase God and ignore morality and suddenly, in your own mind, you’ve done nothing wrong.
We have a winner. That’s got to be one of the most embarrassing comments I’ve seen since HotAir’s creation.
The definition of victimhood. It’s all God’s fault. Nothing is my fault. I would have never murdered the cashier if they had simply given me the money. I would have never robbed the bank if someone would have given me a job. I would have never dropped out of school if they hadn’t punished me for bringing drugs on campus. I would have never done drugs if the dealer hadn’t pressured me. And the dealer would have never been there if God hadn’t created the dealer’s product.
It’s all God’s fault.
Speaking of HotAir’s creation …
God created Michelle, so if not for God, you would have never been able to post such a comment, so don’t feel too bad. That’s God’s fault too. You’re simply a helpless, brainless form, unable to think for yourself or make your own decisions.
Gregor on April 23, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Spmat,
This, I suppose, is where it may get touchy. There was no rebuttal of the notion that Zeus at Olympia served as the model for Christ images. No rebuttal that Mary simply took over the role of Artemis. I hope that means a concession on your part.
Your description of God was trumped by Zoroastrianism. The point is that there is nothing new in what you wrote.
As I mentioned earlier, Christianity did more than a smidgen of “fair use” when bringing it all together. There’s a reason for that, as well. The history of the stuff is what’s fascinating.
As for the description of Greeks, I think that is more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact. It can also be applied to Christians, as in “Hi, I’m Robert Schuller and welcome to my Crystal Cathedral which I built to make God happy”. We could also apply that to the Catholic Church, who make some pretty neato churches for the greater glory of God.
Krydor on April 23, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Gregor,
It’s only embarassing if you assume I believe in God. I don’t.
Believers have all the answers when the credit’s being passed around, but tragedy brings out the, We-don’t-know-what-God’s-plan-is when the going gets tough. “Benevolent God” and “Virginia Tech” should never be used in the same sentence.
God is either a manipulative busybody sadist or he doesn’t exist. Take your pick.
PeteRR on April 23, 2007 at 10:46 PM
As a Christian I have learned in my emotional and physical suffering that God doesn’t always answer with a why, instead He answers with Himself.
You can dash yourself against the rock of the fact that He is God and you are not, or you can find shelter in the rock of the fact that He is God and you are not. Those who know Him have realized both His sovereignty in suffering, sometimes His silence, and yet can know His very real and very present sustaining care and grace and love in the midst of pain.
There is an aspect of mystery to suffering and evil that we will not fully know until we see Him face to face. One book that has helped me tremendously is Os Guiness’ book Doubt (I believe it’s been reprinted as God in the Dark). In it he says, “We may not know why, but we know why we trust God, who knows why.” The sum total of God’s love for me was demonstrated in the death of His Son. That laying down of His life tells me that He won’t leave me in the dark, but has a good purpose I cannot see and that He will walk with me until I am safely home.
I can testify that He is true.
INC on April 23, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Kralizec, a.k.a. the Voltaire of HOTAiR, I saw this earlier and smiled reflectively. Been thinking about it ever since.
If by “the matter” you meant “result of all that striving”, then Entelechy is disappointed because the results, after all these billions of years, are dismal. Of course you knew exactly to ask Entelechy, which means, among so many hard-to-explain things, constant striving, without ever arriving.
If by matter you meant the religion versus atheism topic, all I know is that I don’t know. However, on this subject I’m very uncomfortable getting into a debate, as most end up being futile.
I respect people who believe, and I respect people who don’t. I don’t believe their morals, lives, values are less valuable/good, either way. My father was agnost and my mother very religious. Both parents did not influence the children. One of us became very religious and one of us didn’t. We were taught, however, to grant all others the same right and freedom of belief.
I love it when in such threads invariably Plato and Socrates are mentioned. You posted much today. Great ideas.
Here is one of my all/old time favorites – the planing (as in carpenter) song. Marlene Dietrich sang it well.
Anyway, I hope you get to read this, even if you’re the only one. Just like in Socrates’ time, or even Voltaire’s, it would be fun to roam a market with you and philosophize, to stop for tea/coffee, walk, talk, stop, talk, walk, drink and philosophize some more. Nothing would get solved, but we’d continue to search. Btw, in Paris today, there still is a coffee-house called Voltaire. Regards,
Entelechy on April 24, 2007 at 12:16 AM
The Rabbis were concerned over the implications of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, precisely because free will is a given in Judaism. The traditional interpretation is that God gave Pharaoh plenty of opportunities to change his mind. His free will was removed only after he made it clear that he wouldn’t change. Pharaoh, though is a special case.
As Rabbi Akiva taught in Ethics of the Fathers, “Everything if foreseen yet free will is given”. Judaism accepts the seeming paradox of an omniscient God and free will. Ultimately, though God is intimately involved in everything, Judaism is not deterministic and comes down on the side of free will. Without free will, any kind of service to God is meaningless.
rokemronnie on April 24, 2007 at 12:30 AM
I posted this else where and wanted to add it here.
See Natural Evil is not the same as Moral Evil. We do not reflect upon Moral Evil, it is only upon having Natural Evil that we actually reflect on Moral Evil. In fact I would say that Natural Evil is very much limited compared to Moral Evil. How many times have we thought in our heart of hearts for evil for someone, yet since we never actually did that evil, there was no Natural Evil for the Moral Evil we commited when we thought of wishing Moral Evil on someone.
Ask yourself, when is the last time you apologized to someone for thinking evil toward them (not saying something, but just thinking it)?
So Natural Evil is a call back. It calls us to God about our fallen state. When someone is murdered, we reflect on that evil. We seek for an answer to it. We seek for a way to solve that Moral Evil.
From the philosopher Gangadean:
Also, for someone to claim it is unjust for God to allow us to suffer and for him to not suffer is a false assumption.
The reasons it is false is because:
*Natural Evil was caused by Man’s Moral Evil (specifically Adam), therefore we created it so we must live with it.
*We do not know the pain that God feels when we reject him for our own pursuits.
*Natural Evil (Pain, suffering and Death) was experienced by God.
When Christ was on the cross, he experienced pain. Having studied the medical aspects of the Cross I can’t think of a worse death than that. If you just want to imagine how painful, watch The Passion of the Cross. The nail in the hand actually went just behind the wrist and pierced the nerve that runs to the hand. If you want to imagine how painful that is just poke at it with your hand. Now imagine it being a nail. That isn’t even talking about the lashings and such. So as awful pain and suffering is for us, God did not spare himself that same pain.
So God did not hold himself to a different standard, not only that, but he did accept the worse pain man could give. No person would call a parent evil if that parent made the child get a painful shot. One of the reasons is the greater good, but beyond that it is because everyone knows that the parent would go through the same pain themselves, if it was for the greater good. God did not make man suffer and absolve himself from it himself.
When we suffer pain, we reflect on our fallen state and I can give you example after example. I know a pastor who didn’t intend to become a pastor. He actually was planning on being a businessman. He accidentally ran over his toddler with his car. During that time he said he called to God and called to God and ultimately felt God was calling him to serve others in need. The pain he felt in his heart called on him to reflect on his (and man’s) fallen state and he decided to try to work to with others who were suffering.
During my times where I was bed ridden for a month at a time, I can honestly say that it was probably some of the closest times I was with God. I reflected upon suffering, because I was suffering (literally). I helped a couple of philosophers on their philosophies and used the time to reflect on meaning. I probably prayed more in my life during that time, because I couldn’t sit up and read much of the time. When I could sit and read I did, when I would have probably spent the time arguing and posting stupid things on the net.
I recall the saying, “Man is at his best, when Men are at their worse.” While in Nazi Concentration camps Corrie Ten Boom struggled with man harming her, yet when reading her book, I was amazed at how she talked about how close she was to God. She was literally suffering with those Jewish women and yet saw a purpose in her suffering at saving Jews (which was was NOT one) and it brought her closer to God.
Ultimately, no matter how offensive the above seems, the Atheist has less answers for pain. In fact, he has no answers.
In your heart of hearts think of the point of pain and suffering in Atheism. There is no answer, pain does not call for man to reflect on God or man’s fallen state, in Atheism. Pain is hollow meaningless and ultimately futile.
In Atheism there can be no point to pain, there is only the red herring that it is a survival technique. Sure in Atheism pain is meant to help survival, but ultimately it has no other purpose and fails when it comes to the largest pain in Natural Evil. The pain that comes in the physical manifestation of Moral Evil. There is no purpose in Atheism to the pain someone feels when their loved one is murdered. In Atheism there is no purpose or answer for the pain a woman feels when she is raped.
Search for an answer for Pain in Atheism and you will only be left with an unanswerable void.
Tim Burton on April 24, 2007 at 1:03 AM
So God invented pain so we’d realize how nice he is to us? I guess we deserve it then.
PeteRR on April 24, 2007 at 1:42 AM
You just contradicted your own point. Your previous comment suggested that if there is a God, then all evil is his fault for allowing it to take place, and for basically allowing humans to have the option of free will to participate in that evil. In other words … it’s God’s fault for NOT being a manipulative busybody.
And then of course, you suggest that the only other possible option is that there is no other God.
It couldn’t possibly be that God created all that exists and than allows life to follow it’s own path? Do you need him to hold your pecker while you pee? Who’s fault is it when you miss?
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 2:51 AM
I’m sure you learned this in first grade Pete. The purpose of pain is to warn you when something is wrong with your body. You know? Like when you stick your finger in a bed of burning coal? It’s a defense mechanism. What an amazing concept and almost impossible to believe that the entire nervous system in all living creatures was somehow designed and created by mistake, or by fluke while forming in some pool of pond scum. Don’t you think?
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 3:07 AM
PRCalDude,
Salvation is a gift. The act and redemption paying for your sins and mine was completed on the cross of Calvary.
But each person CHOOSES to accept or reject that gift. That’s free will. Believe, or don’t. To think anything else while believing in the existence of God means you think that everything which has occurred in history since Eden is God playing out exactly how He wants things to be. How horrendous a thought.
It makes far more sense to look at it this way. Imagine yourself as God, and nothing else exists but you. Having the power to create, you do so. And whatever you create surely is meant solely to please you, because who else is there to bother about? You are “all that”, but what of love? You can love what you’ve created, but can it love you back? Really love you? So you create something that is designed specifically to love you. You make sure that it can only obey you, only serve you, and only love you. Is that really loving you, or is that a pre-programmed automaton? The only way to be CERTAIN that your creation really loves you, is to give it the option not to, and let it choose. Ahh, but that option means that it can choose to love and obey you, or choose to defy your wish. And the possibility of evil exists.
At the end of this universe’s time, God will grant EVERYONE their ultimate wish. Those who in their lives discovered how much God loves them and accepted the gift, will live in His realm for eternity. Those who don’t believe in Him, or in His gift, or in His love, will live eternally without Him. That’s fair, wouldn’t you say?
Freelancer on April 24, 2007 at 5:04 AM
Not sure where you were going with that, but it prompts another serious question on my part. How does one know that murder is wrong, if not for God? Is it programmed into the human psyche? If so, how? Is it a cultural development? How, why, and on what basis? To me, it makes no sense without God.
BNCurtis on April 24, 2007 at 8:53 AM
My point is that morality is sometimes thought to be restricted to those who believe in God. I happen to believe in God, but even if I didn’t, I’m 100% sure that I’d still know that murder is wrong. Allah does not believe in God, but I can tell by his writing that he knows murder to be wrong.
I believe morality is a common sense issue. There are those without common sense, and there are those who are mentally ill (or pathological) who might not grasp morality due to some mental flaw, but for the most part … to know if something is right or wrong, all a person need do “sincerely” think.
Is it wrong to steal?
Is it wrong to murder?
Is it wrong to cheat on my wife?
Do you really need God to know the answers?
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Gregor, I think you’re right. Humans simply know it… we know certain laws. It’s innate, and that’s part of what I was saying. It’s as if it were put there, rather than just happened by chance. We can override it, of course. But we don’t know we know it until we are confronted with it. And I think when it gets down to brass tacks, God put it there, as we were made in His image, and mirror His values. We’re just broken, is all, and cannot reflect them properly, and often deny them.
BNCurtis on April 24, 2007 at 10:19 AM
I agree totally, but that explanation doesn’t work with those who have no belief in God. When arguing with these people, you have to avoid using Scripture. I’ve seen people debate moral issues with non-believers by quoting text from the Bible, which is really senseless … being that they’re arguing with someone who sees the Bible as fiction.
Those of us who believe, know that God gave us the knowledge of good and evil. But I try to put myself in the position of someone who does NOT believe, and if you use someone like Allah, you can then argue that even without God … a person is aware of right and wrong. Allah does not believe in God, yet he understands that it’s wrong to murder and steal. My guess is that Allah would agree with the Ten Commandments, even though he does not believe they came from God.
Based on THEIR belief that there is no God, atheists must then come to the conclusion that God is not needed to understand what is moral, or what isn’t.
Non-believers love to tell us to keep our religion to ourselves when we speak of morality. My point is that even if you don’t believe in God … you’re still well aware of what is right or wrong. I happen to believe you’re right, that this instinctive knowledge was ingrained within us at creation. But an atheist will not accept this explanation, even while having no explanation for their own instinctive morality. Do they believe that if mommy and daddy had never told them what was right or wrong, that they would not have known?
Some would suggest that morality is relative and based on your environment. How do they explain Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was raised in a society where children are taught that murder is acceptable? She is also an Atheist who lectures on morality. She seems to have a pretty strong grasp on the subject for someone who doesn’t believe in God. It certainly didn’t come from her “environment.”
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Well said. I suppose the atheist is sort of backed into a corner. No wonder so many come out fighting… it’s only natural, huh? I’ve heard it said that perhaps it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God. For me, to NOT believe, I’d have to squeeze my eyes shut, plug my ears, and sing “la la la” so I wouldn’t hear anything else. Have a great day!
BNCurtis on April 24, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2