Reflections: Where was God on 9/11?

October 26, 2007

9-11 Cross After the 9/11 attacks, a cross was discovered in the rubble of the fallen towers where about 3,000 people lost their lives. This cross became a memorial of the attacks and was a source of comfort to many individuals. As a result, there are those who believed God was busy fashioning this cross during the attacks.

I also stumbled across this piece tonight. I started to quote sections of it but reading it in its entirety is probably the best way to grasp what the author was saying:

Have you ever thought, “Where was God on 9/11 when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked?” Well, I know where my God was on the morning of September 11, 2001, and He was very busy!

He was discouraging people from taking those four flights. Together they could accommodate more than 1,000 passengers, yet there were only 266 aboard. He was on those four flights giving the terrified passengers the ability to stay calm. Not one of the people who was called by a loved one on one of the hijacked planes mentioned that passengers were panicked, nor was there any screaming in the background. And on one of the flights, God gave strength to the passengers to overcome the hijackers.

God was also busy creating obstacles to prevent people who worked in the WTC from getting to work on time. The work day had begun, more than 50,000 people worked in the two towers, yet only 20,000 were at their desks. On that beautiful morning, God created scores of unexpected traffic delays, subway delays, and commuter train delays. A PATH train packed with commuters was stopped at a signal just short of the WTC and was able to return to Jersey City. And far more meetings were scheduled elsewhere than was usual.

God held up each of the two mighty towers for a half hour so that the people on the lower floors could get out. And when He finally let go, He caused the towers to fall inward rather than to topple over, which would have killed so many more people. The foundations of six surrounding buildings were demolished by the fall of the towers, but God held them up for many hours until all the occupants were safely evacuated.

And when the WTC and Pentagon buildings went down, my God picked up almost 3,500 of His children and carried them to their home for all eternity. He also sat down and cried that 19 of His children could have so much hate in their hearts, that they did not choose him, but another god that doesn’t exist, and now they are lost forever.

He sent people trained in dealing with earthly disasters to save those that were injured. And he sent in thousands of others to help in any way they were needed. And He brought people together across the world in a way that moved thousands to tears and hundreds of thousands to prayer—and caused millions to turn to the one true living God.

He still isn’t finished. Every day He comforts those who lost loved ones. He is encouraging others to reach out to those who don’t know Him or believe in Him. He is giving the leaders of our great nation the strength and conviction to do the right thing, to follow His will, not a popular poll.

So if anyone ever asks, “Where was your God on 9/11?” you can say, “He was everywhere! And, in fact, he is everywhere today and every day.” Without a doubt, this was the worst catastrophe most of us have ever seen. I can’t imagine getting through such a difficult time without God at my side. Without God, life would be hopeless.

[Source: http://members.aol.com/Z321go/Where.htm ]

All I can say is ‘wow!’

- The de-Convert

Entry Filed under: The de-Convert. Tags: 9-11, christianity, faith, religion, skepticism, spirituality, terrorism.

73 Comments Add your own

1. Curtis | October 26, 2007 at 12:40 am

Wow is right. Thanks for giving us the whole article.
2. strawdog | October 26, 2007 at 7:08 am

Such twisted, pathetic ‘logic’!

And it’s sad that some people really need this to get through the day …
3. Dru | October 26, 2007 at 7:59 am

There are many who would have this interpretation:

- God inspired 19 devoted religious men to conspire to kill thousands of innocent people
- He predestined 266 infidels to fly on the selected airplanes to die
- He helped 20,000 maneuver through the congested NY transportation system to get to work so they’d be sitting at their desks when the planes hit
- After 1/2 hour and before everyone can get out, God caused the towers to begin to crumble
- Overall he led 3,500 innocent people to their untimely death
- He rejoiced over the 19 martyrs and prepared rewards for them in paradise….

Of course, this is as much crap as the author quoted in the post above.

Dru
4. JAN MICHAEL LACHICA | October 26, 2007 at 8:15 am

Salvation comes from God, whom the Bible calls as the Living God and Savior. God is employing a human being in order for His will to be fulfilled … and that is the salvation of man.
5. Samanthamj | October 26, 2007 at 8:49 am

The de-Convert-

Yes… wow is right, huh? I got that email… and just about every other religious email, and prayer chain, etc., on the planet, thanks to my mother and her circle of friends. It’s like a constant invasion. Thank God for the delete key! Or at least Bill Gates.

It is ridiculous…

~smj
6. happyman4 | October 26, 2007 at 9:40 am

I don’t know why people worry about where God was on 9/11 – God created the world and gave man dominion over it – the fact that we have messed it up has nothing to do with God – It has to do with our free will -
Yes God does help – but he also allows us our free agency –

I can tell you where God is now – God is in my heart and the heart of every person – some choose to listen – some choose to tune out – it’s your choice

Peace and Grace
7. loopyloo350 | October 26, 2007 at 9:50 am

whichever way you believe, if you believe in GOD at all, perhaps you should consider this,GOD gave us all free will. And if you don’t believe in GOD and you think people shouldn’t take comfort in their faith, then I ask this, What do you take comfort in?” Does it give you hope when all things are falling apart around you? Does it give you comfort to know that just possibly things will turn out alright in the end? I personally don’t like the way this world is going and I hope and Pray!!! that we wake up and do our part to change it. But I don’t blame it on GOD nor do I say it’s is GOD’s will. It’s is our choice where we go, what we do and how we think, we have free will. And even if you have no beleifs, you still have free will.
loopyloo350
8. The de-Convert | October 26, 2007 at 10:01 am

happyman/loopyloo,

If God is not to be blamed for bad things and it’s all a result of our “free will,” why are Christians constantly giving God thanks to God for good things, blessings, etc.? Aren’t those things a result of our “free will” also?

Paul
9. loopyloo350 | October 26, 2007 at 10:18 am

Of course thy are, but did you ever consider, that even though we have free will, we can still “give thanks” because who we are and what we believe plays a part in where we end up? A lot of people, believe it or not, give thanks when bad things happen too. Without the bad, could we appreciate the good? Or would we simply become so complacent that we would take the good for granted. Kind of like the way we have always taken our freedom, safety, and our country for granted.
koopyloo350
10. The de-Convert | October 26, 2007 at 11:17 am

loopyloo,

If it is all as a result of our “free will,” what is God’s role in the matter? Are you then advocating a “watchmaker God” – meaning that God set things in motion but is not involved in the daily workings of creation?

Here’s what I understand you’re saying. Correct me if I’m wrong:

1) Good or bad things happen as a result of our “free will” not because of God
2) We should still somehow thank God for these things (good or bad)
3) The bad things help us to not be complacent about the good things and as a result take the good things for granted even though those good things happen based on our choices also.

I guess I’m not seeing where God fits into this other that as an object of thanks for the good or bad even though he had nothing to do with either.

Paul
11. Joe | October 26, 2007 at 11:24 am

So what was God doing when US bombed Afghanistan back to stone age and killed almost a million people in Iraq? If he is God, is he God just for US citizens? I thought God will have to be common for all. But seems God is really biased as he made 1 million people to pay for the life of 3000 odd people.
12. LeoPardus | October 26, 2007 at 11:26 am

It’s a shame God is so limited. He just couldn’t quite stop those 266 from getting on the planes. He just couldn’t quite jam up traffic enough for those 20,000. He certainly couldn’t stop four big jets. Guess His server was just overloaded.

Just think what an infinite, all powerful, loving God could have done though. Man oh man. If there were someone like that, He could have stopped it all. Well anyway, it’s a nice fantasy to think about.
13. karen | October 26, 2007 at 11:34 am

OH good grief! I’m so glad I’m not on the mailing lists you’re on, Samantha. I couldn’t take reading this b.s. on a regular basis!

Without a doubt, this was the worst catastrophe most of us have ever seen. I can’t imagine getting through such a difficult time without God at my side. Without God, life would be hopeless.

Boy, I can’t imagine what life would be like for this dude without god. When god sits by like a nursemaid and “manages” the worst catastrophe in our lifetimes – and gets thanked for doing it! – what would life come to if god didn’t arrange traffic jams or muck up subway lines?

If only the almighty had had a little more time that morning, maybe only 2,500 would have died, instead of 3,500. Darn! That’s what he gets for sleeping in. And as for the whole Pentagon thing – too bad he didn’t make it down there. The trains were running slow, I guess.

(Okay, massive sarcastic rant over … these things just piss me off, they’re so innane.)
14. loopyloo350 | October 26, 2007 at 11:51 am

There is a place in the middle. GOD as a watchmaker sounds good, but how about GOD as a loving parent who has many children. You can’t be right there for everything, and you can’t stop bad things from happening, and you can’t make choices for your children. But you can love them wheather they are good or bad, you can tell them what you expect from them, and you hope they turn out alright. Would you rather be controlled and made to do good? We can’t all live, but the ones that survive learn from the deaths of others. Do I know which is right or wrong? No, I just know my heart tells me that the way our government has reacted has nothing to do with GOD, or Christanity. George Bush and his hypocritical gang who pretend to be christians have the resposibility, along with those who foolishly chose not to see and believe what was in front of their eyes.
loopyloo350
15. Brad | October 26, 2007 at 1:48 pm

It is easy to criticize a hope placed in something you may not believe, and even easier to assume (insert name here) is foolish based on that “false” hope. Yet what does it say about the truth of a belief that continues to sustain billions of people over the centuries? What does it say about the reality of belief that spreads ever faster when the need for hope and love is greatest?

I won’t comment on the “Americanization” of Christianity, because I will likely agree with most everyone on here that this country has hijacked the faith and marginalized it to an “American Dream Christianity.” I agree that it is incredibly wrong to assume that God’s blessing/love extends only to Americans (or to any people group alone).

But regardless of the cultural injection on the above article, I mourn that someone’s attempt to encourage and strengthen others in times of suffering is mocked. Regardless of whether you call yourself a follower of Christ or not, there are many, MANY better and easier targets than those who cope with suffering (on whatever level). Most of you know by now that I will gladly take critique where critique is due (as well as give it), so I don’t say that lightly. Were any of you in NYC when this happened? Did any of you lose a loved one and now struggle to find meaning? Shame on you for lobbing rocks from a distant place of comfort.

I will cast my lot with the “twisted, pathetic logic” of someone at least trying to find meaning over and against those who criticize their sincere attempts (that goes for Christians and non-Christians alike).

(Disclaimer: I mean no offense or disrespect to any of you, and hope my tone only emphasizes my passion and sincerity for this issue. Please, let us not lose invaluable perspective as we write/discuss/argue/disagree.)
16. refincher | October 26, 2007 at 2:39 pm

I think you answered your own question in another post:

“Is God any more present at the mundane bottom than at the wondrous top? It seems I have left God up there, yet is that so? It seems that way, yet we don’t want a God who only visits us during moments of euphoria.”

The e-mail you quote cites all the incidents of rescue and escape, but the cross is about suffering and death. “Moments of euphoria” aren’t the prime indicator of God visiting us, nor are God’s visits always sunshine and light.
17. loopyloo350 | October 26, 2007 at 3:59 pm

It’s interesting that you see the cross as sorrow and death. I can see it as resurrection and light also. I think it is a symbol of rebirth, and often the bible calls knowledge of GOD as the fear of GOD.All the major religions strive to follow the light, could we not see their feelings at seeing the cross as knowing at least for a moment or two that there but for the grace of GOD go I. If we didn’t feel empathy for those who have lost loved ones, what would we be? Not human, I think
loopyloo350
18. tobeme | October 26, 2007 at 4:25 pm

This is a very interesting perspective, full of twists and turns to justify a persons belief. Step back from this, take away blind faith and it makes no sense. Thanks for sharing.
19. missingpriest | October 26, 2007 at 4:27 pm

i was just gonna stumble through this site after reading the first few lines, but gave it a second thought and decided to give it a chance…and after reading most of that, i just had to give it a thumbs down!

first of all, if you’re going to include statistics in your rants, please put the sources down!! after all, 83.56% of all statistics are made on the spot – some of y’all won’t get that.

this is a very biased opinion for ones own interpretation of their “one true living god” [para. 6, last sentence] – see how easy that was? it’s not APA style, but it’s something.

in my own opinion, i believe that god is omnipresent, so he couldn’t have been busy, that word has no meaning to him, cause he’s everywhere at the same time. i believe that god is omnipotent, so yea, i believe that he could have stopped those planes; i believe that he could have turned those planes into flowers and just showered the twin towers with a plethora of flora…but he didn’t, and this is the most important part! so for all of you believers who’s still with me, keep reading, cause there’s something very important that i think you’re all missing…

i believe that god is capable of saving every single one of us from every natural disaster, every human disaster and even those minor conflicts here and there. but if god just simply went around and saved everyone and just simply gave us everything we ever wanted, then where does that leave us? if we relied totally on someone else to solve and deal with all our problems, we’d have nothing to worry about! we’d just go home to our paradise, eat, sleep, be merry…and become numb to the rest of the world!

that doesn’t sound so bad right? but if we continue on this trend, sooner or later, we won’t be able to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, happy or sad, cause everything is taken care of! this is a paradise! if there’s nothing bad in this world, then what is good? if there’s no such thing as doing wrong, what becomes right? do you get it yet? if everything is always done for us then we will know nothing else and care for nothing else. we become complacent. we become like cattle. a cow drops dead in front of a group of cattle, what do you think the others will do? they’ll probably just eat around it and it’ll stay there until the farmer comes to take it away. but for you believers out there, concerning the cow, after she’s passed, do you think she’d know which way to go? i’ve no idea really, but there’s a 50% or maybe 33% chance that she’ll get where she wants to go. odds go up when you know the “right” answer!

so going back to the question, “Where was god?” my answer is, God was there before, during, after, always with us and everywhere around us; teaching us, comforting us, guiding us in our lives to tell us what’s right and wrong. all we have to do is listen and let our decisions define us so that in the end we’ll be able to save our most important aspect of all…our soul.
20. karen | October 26, 2007 at 4:58 pm

It is easy to criticize a hope placed in something you may not believe, and even easier to assume (insert name here) is foolish based on that “false” hope. Yet what does it say about the truth of a belief that continues to sustain billions of people over the centuries? What does it say about the reality of belief that spreads ever faster when the need for hope and love is greatest?

The popularity or longevity of a belief or practice does not equate to its truth or even its morality. I’m sure you realize that.

I will cast my lot with the “twisted, pathetic logic” of someone at least trying to find meaning over and against those who criticize their sincere attempts (that goes for Christians and non-Christians alike).

(Disclaimer: I mean no offense or disrespect to any of you, and hope my tone only emphasizes my passion and sincerity for this issue. Please, let us not lose invaluable perspective as we write/discuss/argue/disagree.)

No disrespect taken, Brad, and your passion and sincerity definitely come through in your posts. I understand where you are coming from, believe me. I’ve been there- so have most of us here.

However, what’s needed in cases like this is criticism and a radical re-thinking that shakes people out of their comfy mindsets. Sometimes ranting, or sarcasm, or humor are a way to point out when something is patently absurd, like this. The worst part is that it’s not only absurd, it’s offensive and hurtful to suggest that god was somehow not concerned enough to save everyone.

Let’s put it this way – if there’s a god, and he’s omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent, why wouldn’t he stop the hijackers at the security gates before they got on board? How about curing the ineptitude of the U.S. intelligence services and getting the word around about this pending attack in time for law enforcement to stop it? Surely such a god could do stuff like that in his sleep.

Positing that he not only couldn’t, but he wouldn’t, but somehow he would try to minimize the damage after it’s done is selfish and insulting. There’s a long Christian tradition of “making lemonade out of lemons,” i.e. finding something good in a bad situation and praising god for it while ignoring reality. That’s what the quoted poster is doing.

To answer your question, my brother and several extended family members live in NYC and surrounding boroughs. I was scared witless on 9.11. Thankfully they were all okay. But let’s say my spouse, or daughter, or father, or best friend was killed in the attacks. And then I read this nonsense about how god arranged for long delays at traffic lights, or stopped subways trains on their tracks for other people, but apparently allowed my loved one to be obliterated into smithereens. Why? Was my loved one somehow not as deserving of life? Is this supposed to be comforting?? Unfortunately, if I was a survivor and read this, it might haunt me for many years.

I realize that the poster is trying to make “sense” of the tragedy, but I assert that he is going about it the wrong way. The sensible takeaway for me – and many others – from the 9.11 attacks is that fundamentalist religion fueled by blind faith is dangerous. And if we didn’t pay enough attention to it before, we certainly need to do so now.
21. OneSmallStep | October 26, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Brad,

Were any of you in NYC when this happened? Did any of you lose a loved one and now struggle to find meaning? Shame on you for lobbing rocks from a distant place of comfort.

I think the questions you’re asking above are precisely why so many are commenting on the above quote. IT’s why I would comment, and it sounds like it’s why Karen commenting. God puts in enough effort to cause delays at the traffic stops, and yet allows so many to be destroyed on the planes? Or the buildings? While the person who is quoted above is no doubt doing what we all do — make sense of a disaster of that magnitude — it also comes across as incredibly dismissive to all those who died. It’s like saying, “Wow, God loved me so much He saved my life” from the tornado when 300 people died around you. I understand the gratitude and love behind the statement, but it also comes across as incredibly selfish, and almost self-absorbed, to all those who lost loved ones. Because the implication behind that statement is that God expressed love through saving hte person’s life — and so He didn’t love those who died. I’m sure an answer to this would be that God did love those who died and love is expressed in a multitude of ways, such as taking the deceased to heaven, but the sentence isn’t set up that way. Then the whole gratitude falls apart, because really everyone should be praising that God took those people to heaven, and spared them anymore pain on Earth. If anything, God has prolonged the suffering of the surviver, rather than giving the survivor paradise.

I don’t mean this as a personal insult, nor am I saying that those who believe in God or that God works in one’s life are self-absorbed. There are some who would mock this post above, yes. But I don’t see that here, I see people reacting in anger and incredulity, because of the negative implications of God.

To missingpriest,

if we relied totally on someone else to solve and deal with all our problems, we’d have nothing to worry about! we’d just go home to our paradise, eat, sleep, be merry…and become numb to the rest of the world!

Isn’t that the core elemtn of Christianity? You totally rely on God to save you from your sins/problems, because you can’t do anything to get into heaven? And if relying on someone else is like that, then what will heaven be like? Do you become numb to the suffering of others in heaven? Do you lose any concept of what “good” means in heaven?
22. locomotivebreath1901 | October 26, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Dang! Imagine how ticked off all those people in that story were when they discovered that some ‘god’ was messin’ with their lives. For good or bad, that ‘god’ was gettin in their bizzzzness!

And isn’t that what really turns people’s crank about an omnipotent, omniscient creator GOD? The laboring resentment that they are not truly autonomous, & libertine? Kinda like when parents pry & question their adult children. They resent it & avoid it, even to the point of denying their parents due respect or recognition. Stay outta my bzzzznesss!

Except when something really, really horrible happens; then somebody should have done something! Like GOD. On 9-11. He should have done something to interfere with all those bad people! Except he needs to stay outta my bzzzness – says 6 billion other people.

So, where is GOD in your life? I guess, first, we should define some terms….
23. Stu | October 26, 2007 at 6:38 pm

missingpriest

If nothing is bad, then everything is good. What’s wrong with having paradise?

“if god just simply went around and saved everyone and just simply gave us everything we ever wanted, then where does that leave us? if we relied totally on someone else to solve and deal with all our problems, we’d have nothing to worry about! we’d just go home to our paradise, eat, sleep, be merry”

Sounds good to me. I don’t see a problem here. After all, isn’t that what most people want anyway? Sounds like hand-waving and rationalisation to me.
24. Brad | October 26, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Karen,

“The popularity or longevity of a belief or practice does not equate to its truth or even its morality. I’m sure you realize that.”

Absolutely. I am not trying to prove truth or morality with said claim, only prove that it cannot be quite so easily dismissed as “twisted” or foolish.

“Sometimes ranting, or sarcasm, or humor are a way to point out when something is patently absurd, like this. ”

Reason is not, and should never be, divorced from the heart. When ranting, joking, etc. I only advocate some sensitivity and fairness to the perspective of the author. I’m not saying don’t critique or challenge the message, only that you understand and incorporate it’s source (which is really the most effective way to critique anyway, as said author never intended to make a hard-and-fast statement about God, more likely they intended to propose some possibilities). The initial responses did not seem to take that into consideration so much, but your follow ups did, so thank you!

“The sensible takeaway for me – and many others – from the 9.11 attacks is that fundamentalist religion fueled by blind faith is dangerous.”

I agree wholeheartedly! But surely that is not the ONLY thing to be taken away in lesson? Is that so diametrically opposed to what the author is trying to communicate?

“The worst part is that it’s not only absurd, it’s offensive and hurtful to suggest that god was somehow not concerned enough to save everyone.”

This seems to be the main thrust of everyone’s problem with this article. I can’t say I blame you. I have heard many attempts at explaining this away, but very few portrayed a kind or loving God. Let me give you the best explanation, and the one that I believe resolves that dissonance.

Genesis 1:28-30 and 2:15 says that God gave man stewardship and responsibility for (or “dominion over”) all the earth. This is not limited to just gardening, but includes how we interact with each other (individually and internationally) and free will in general. He has not reneged on his promise, and still holds us responsible. A parent who continues to trust a child with a responsibility after he/she betrays that trust in some way, knows that they are teaching, encouraging, and loving their child more than if they just did the task for them. God has not taken back his charge of stewardship from humanity, we are still responsible for our actions and face the consequences (such as crashing a plane into a skyscraper). Thus, any involvement He had in saving lives during 9/11 was pure grace. He loves his creation enough to BOTH keep his promise and gift of stewardship (free will), as well as (potentially) miraculously save some from that horrible tragedy (God’s sovereignty).

I believe that God was involved in saving lives during 9/11, but I do not know where our free will (heroic firefighters, EMTs, and police officers) ended and His sovereignty (supernatural acts) began. But he did so in such a way that did not betray his trust in us to steward his creation. I don’t know why he saved those he did (whoever they are), but love was the motive for BOTH saving some and allowing us to deal with the repercussions of our poor stewardship.

No matter how badly we screw it up.

At first, I was a little pissed (to be totally honest), but I’m feeling much more encouraged by everyone’s secondary responses. Thank you!
25. OneSmallStep | October 26, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Brad,

A parent who continues to trust a child with a responsibility after he/she betrays that trust in some way, knows that they are teaching, encouraging, and loving their child more than if they just did the task for them.

Not necessarily. If you trust a child with a task that is simply beyond their ability to handle and you know it’s beyond their responsbility, then you bear some of the responsiblity for the outcome.

but love was the motive for BOTH saving some and allowing us to deal with the repercussions of our poor stewardship.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so are you saying that those who died in 9/11 shared responsibility for what happened to them, because they failed in their stewardship? Because the way I’m reading it makes it sound like God was demonstrating love in allowing all those people to die, for it would show others how much they failed. That leaves us with God allowing people to die to teach others a lesson. How can that be love for those who died?
26. Brad | October 26, 2007 at 10:39 pm

OneSmallStep,

No, that is pretty fair. Individually, no I would not say they are responsible for what happened to them. They were victims through and through. The responsibility lies on humanity as a whole. Humanity has failed (not headline news, I know). E

“If you trust a child with a task that is simply beyond their ability to handle and you know it’s beyond their responsibility, then you bear some of the responsibility for the outcome.”

True, but where that analogy fails is that humanity was created by God with the ability to do so. Sin has thrown a monkey wrench into it, and now we are up shit creek without a paddle. Because of this we cannot do it on our own, we need God’s help, thus enters Jesus… and you know the rest.

I’m not trying to convince anyone of these things, merely trying to present the biblical worldview and foundational beliefs behind these claims.

Does that at least address your question, or maybe answer it?
27. LeoPardus | October 26, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Brad:
That’s about as good an answer as anyone is likely to come up with. Essentially it’s pretty much what I learned in my apologetic days. Unfortunately it won’t work.
Of course, for those who are desperately determined that there must be an answer and a God, your answer will have to do. Though any answer would be good enough really.
In the end though, all answers leave you with a deity who is some combination of completely capricious, utterly unknowable, thoroughly incomprehensible, decidedly unloving, and so on. But as long as you are trapped by the necessity of having to believe in some sort of God, you’re stuck with such nonsense..
On the other hand, once you’re willing to just accept sense, and dispense with nonsense, you become truly free to accept the world as it is.
Instead of tortuous mental contortions to explain a monstrous deity who claims to be infinitely loving yet leaves His “beloved little children” to unspeakable horrors, you can just acknowledge that “S*** happens” and that’s that.
Anyway, nice answer. And given in what I perceive to be an excellent spirit. But as C.S. Lewis once said, “Nonsense remains nonsense, even when spoken about God.”
28. OneSmallStep | October 26, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Brad,

No, that is pretty fair. Individually, no I would not say they are responsible for what happened to them. They were victims through and through. The responsibility lies on humanity as a whole. Humanity has failed (not headline news, I know).

But the individuals are a part of humanity. If you say humanity as a whole, you are including the very individuals who died. I’m unsure as to how you can divide them.

This also leads us with the idea of love being connected to letting people die: if I knew 600 people would be killed tomorrow, and did nothing to stop it, there is no way I could call that love. It would violate any definition of what the word “love” is. So to apply this concept to love, to me, makes the word “love” lose any meaning, and that’s what would make many upset. We have the idea that God’s love is expressed in letting people die. Can that concept of love work in *any* other context? I would say no. So why is it valid in this one? The only reason I can see is because the discussion entails God. But doesn’t that make the meaning of love a relative concept?

True, but where that analogy fails is that humanity was created by God with the ability to do so.

I would disagree with you here — the only entities that can successfully resist sin are those who are created perfect, because if someone is perfect, then the someone can’t sin. God can’t sin, because God is perfect. Jesus, under the Trinitarian idea, could also not sin for that reason.

But humans were originally created imperfectly: they had to be, in order to be attracted to what the serpent offered, or even finding it a viable option. Perfect expectations were applied to imperfect beings, and then the imperfect beings were punished for it.
29. Rachel | October 27, 2007 at 12:28 am

Hi everyone! Interesting blog.

I don’t claim to understand the ins-and-outs of God’s sovereignty and our sinfulness, but would the crucifixion change this discussion at all? If there is a God who lived life as a human and who suffered and died, wouldn’t that make him more trustworthy? An apathetic being sitting back and watching his creatures run themselves into the ground is one thing, but what about a God who suffers alongside us, and in fact suffered to redeem us?
30. Brad | October 27, 2007 at 12:47 am

Leo,

Ya know, the ironic thing about you quoting C.S. Lewis is that his comment was most likely made in response to claims that God is “completely capricious, utterly unknowable, thoroughly incomprehensible, decidedly unloving,” and so on. It is not that the evidence does not support the idea of a God who is loving and knowable, you just reach a different conclusion. I disagree with your conclusion, but it still requires at least an equal degree of faith to hold to… if not greater.

OneSmallStep,

“he only entities that can successfully resist sin are those who are created perfect,”

Well… yes and no…. Before the fall, it was unnecessary. God said his creation was “very good,” and man was very capable of stewarding his charge. Then comes sin, and then I agree with you that we cannot successfully resist sin. Thus comes the “perfect” messiah (Christ) to do what we could not.

Rachel actually nails it on the head in connecting your disagreement with Leo’s. It is EXACTLY Christ’s (God’s) sacrifice that overcomes sin.

And Leo, God made the ULTIMATE statement of love by allowing his son (himself) to die. No greater love….

I don’t necessarily disagree that it is hard to separate the communal and the individual responsibility. It is a paradox within our enlightenment-influenced worldview. I don’t have all the answers, and God doesn’t give them (seriously), but He has given enough to be trustworthy.
31. Centerman | October 27, 2007 at 3:04 am

I became ever more nauseous as I continued to read. Being a firm non-believer for a few years now. This kind of delusional logic frightens, scares, and disgust me… I wish I lived on Vulcan.
32. missingpriest | October 27, 2007 at 6:49 am

onesmallstep,

i mean no disrespect, but you’ve only scratched the surface of what i had said, read further, it explains what i meant by that statement. but essentially my point was to state that god is ever present continuously guiding us so that we do understand the differences between right and wrong, here and after, and appreciate its importance.

stu,

to some it may be enough, but for me, paradise through ignorance isn’t paradise at all. to have god do absolutely everything for you doesn’t only seem selfish, but also inhibits our growth as thinking, learning, sentient beings. how can we truly understand the significance of love, pain, peace, sorrow, happiness, etc. if we ourselves don’t experience it?
33. loopyloo350 | October 27, 2007 at 10:14 am

I would like to tell you a story, it’s not about 9/11, bad as that was, I don’t think it comes close to the horror of know what can be done to a child. I used to be a nurse in a pediatric nursing hose. One of my patients was a little girl, less than two years old. Her mother left her with her boyfriend while she went to work. When she came home, she found that her baby had been raped by her boyfriend and grabbed her and rushed her to the hospital. In her haste, she neglected to put her in the carseat. On her way, she had a wreck and the baby went through the windshield. The mother died but the child survived. Was this an act of GOD? It’s not for me to say, but I will say this, the memory has been with me for almost thirty years. I went for a long time denying that their was a GOD, and many of you will say I was right then. But my beliefs are a personal thing, and if they give me and those around me strength it does not make me foolish, but it does make me thankful. So I feel a great deal of empathy for anyone that loses loved ones and no matter their beliefs, if it brings them comfort, so be it. But as for revenge or justice, in my beliefs, that is GOD’s department.
loopyloo350
34. Stu | October 27, 2007 at 10:29 am

missingpriest

How can I truly understand the significance of not being raped if I don’t experience it myself?

How can I truly understand the significance of not being tortured in a concentration camp if I don’t experience it myself?

How can I truly understand being trapped in a burning house and experiencing 3rd degree burns if I don’t experience it myself?

I can’t. Obviously. But why should I need to? Assuming you, as I, haven’t experienced any of the above, does that remove any of our appreciation of not having been through those things? Should we be envious of those who have, because they now have a greater appreciation of the good things in life?

Do you think anyone who had been through those things would appreciate the opportunity to have experienced them because it now allows them to appreciate what life they have left?

Do you think anyone who had been through those things, even in Heaven would look back with thankfulness for having experienced these things?

In what sense would their life be better overall through experiencing such things than through not having to go through such horrors.

Think about what you’re saying.
35. loopyloo350 | October 27, 2007 at 10:31 am

P.S. Just because we believe GOD died for our sins does not mean that we think we should just sit back and take every thing for granted. He gave us a brain and he expects us to use it, if we just followed like sheep and never questioned or learned, how would we be better than sheep led to the sacrifice. loopyloo350
36. kip | October 27, 2007 at 11:11 am

Since God was invented by Man, we shouldn’t be so quick to judge Him when he fails us.
37. OneSmallStep | October 27, 2007 at 11:17 am

Brad,

Before the fall, it was unnecessary. God said his creation was “very good,” and man was very capable of stewarding his charge.

So before the fall, being perfect was unnecessary. But that very lack of perfection is precisely what lead to the fall. Man was only capable of stewarding the charge because the serpent hadn’t talked to Eve yet. Usually, when we say someone is capable of something, we mean that they are capable regardless of what occurs. If someone is capable of piloting a commercial plane, then they are capable throughout, even if bad weather occurs. Capability includes the ability to get through all the bad stuff that might occur — which man could not do, and really wasn’t created to do.

But if man cannot resist sin, then I don’t see how we could say man was created capable. We certainly can’t say man was created perfectly. The only entities/entity capable of successfully resisting were perfect in the first place. So now we have God maintaining this trust for a stewardship that man is simply incapable of doing, hence Christ’s sacrifice. I would still say man was incapalbe in the first place, because God requires perfect stewardship, and man was not created perfect. So again — perfect standards for imperfect beings, and then holding the imperfect beings accountable when they fail.

It is a paradox within our enlightenment-influenced worldview. I don’t have all the answers, and God doesn’t give them (seriously), but He has given enough to be trustworthy.

But for many, that is a huge answer not to have. God may have given enough to be trusthworthy for you, but there are others looking at this situation, stuck on the idea of how arbitrary it comes across in who lives and dies, who don’t find that enough, based on the reactions to the quote.

And Leo, God made the ULTIMATE statement of love by allowing his son (himself) to die. No greater love….

I’m not sure this was in reference to my question on love as well, because I’m not sure how it answers it. Can the idea of love being expressed in letting people die work in any other context? How does that not violate the very meaning of the word love?

The other thing here, and I’m not belittling your belief structure, but this also ties into what Rachel says. Did God actually die? Can God die? Doesn’t that go against the eternal concept of who God is? Yes, Jesus died on the cross, but under the Trinitarian idea, Jesus was also man. We can say the man died, but I don’t think we can say God died — that gives God a start/stop point, in terms of His nature.

And how great of a sacrifice was it? (I’m not being sarcastic here). God and Jesus knew the death was permanent, and knew that there’d be a resurrection, which would completely glorify God. Is it really an ultimate sacrifice to say that God gave His son when He never lost that son? Or the son didn’t stay dead? For me, in Christianity, an ultimate sacrifice would be if the son were gone forever. A perfect being eternally condemned to hell, to resuce humanity. The very idea of sacrifice is that you give up something you can’t get back.

MIssingpriest,

mean no disrespect, but you’ve only scratched the surface of what i had said, read further, it explains what i meant by that statement.

You’re not being disrespectful. I did read your whole statement, and still end up with my original thought: the idea behind Christianity is that you don’t have anything to worry about, in the big eternal scheme. The end result is set, because God has intervened and set right what Adam did wrong. You are suppose to totally rely on God, so that when problems occur, you will still be calm/peaceful about them, or be able to see the problem through.

But you do seem to be equating paradise with ignorance, though. Perhaps you’re meaning two types of paradise? Except the only way you’ve defined paradise so far is someone doing everything for you, so that we can eat, drink, and be merry. However, under this structure, we would also have no reason to hate or steal or kill — everyone would be happy and satisified. Many times, true happiness drives people to want to share it with others. Who is to say that wouldn’t occur under this situation? Also, does something need an opposite in order to exist?

I’m assuming your belief structure is Christian. Eventually, don’t you believe that you’ll be in a paradise where there will be no bad things? What’s to prevent you from becoming numb there? Or complacent? You won’t be able to experience the things that can seperate good and bad for you, so how will you continue to do good?
38. JAN MICHAEL LACHICA | October 27, 2007 at 11:31 am

i agree with you loopyloo350 .. we should do Good Works to be save…
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.
Ephesians 2:10
Not just to sit down …and think your save already… like many Pastor today they said that just raise your rigthhand and receive jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and One save Always save…no need Good works! thats Fool… teachings… ! there is no such in the bible jesus Christ Personal savior… if we said personal savior it is only yours not for others… Like yOUr personal toothbrush.. remember Christ is the Savior of the Body

For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body.
Ephesians 5:23
and that body is the Church
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:18
therefore he is not your personal savior
we must do Good works to be saved
beause Faith without works is dead..
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.
James 2:26

God Bless you all….
39. loopyloo350 | October 27, 2007 at 11:42 am

You ask if we would look back on those things and be thankful that they experienced them. That si a odd question, don’t you think. I experienced some of those things, I was an abused child, sexually , physically and mentally. I was also a victim of rape. But I don’t consider myself a victim anymore. What happened to ma was a lifetime ago and I don’t blame anyone but those that hurt me.But believe it or not, I do look back and say I would not change thing in the past. I believe I am a stronger, better, more compassionate person and that I can care for others a little more because I suffered than I would if I didn’t. loopyloo350
40. refincher | October 27, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Rachel does indeed hit the nail on the head; it is the Incarnation and the suffering of Christ on the cross which changes everything.

Loopyloo, when I mention the cross as a sign of suffering and death, Rachel’s point is precisely what I am referring to. When we reduce the cross to ONLY a symbol of hope and rebirth, we’re left with mere feel-good nonsense a la Oprah. God dealt with sin and death not by removing it, but by swallowing it whole and transforming it. Hope and rebirth only come to us through Christ’s suffering for us and through us.

LeoPardus, “Instead of tortuous mental contortions to explain a monstrous deity who claims to be infinitely loving yet leaves His “beloved little children” to unspeakable horrors, you can just acknowledge that “S*** happens” and that’s that.” I must wonder at this statement in light of this blog author’s statements in another post about looking at the wonder and beauty in the universe and recognizing that we are part of “something larger than ourselves”. This “something larger than ourselves” generally put forward by atheists as the basis for morality. It serves the purpose of God in the supposed absence of God. And yet, this impersonal and unloving universe acts in the same capricious manner as you suppose God to act. Why submit oneself to the laws of this capricious universe, serve its good and its betterment, accept with longsuffering the “s***” that “happens”, and even preach its gospel, and yet indict God on the very same grounds?

Kip, You demonstrate aptly C.S. Lewis’ thesis that modern man has indeed placed God “in the dock”.
41. bipolar2 | October 27, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Then old Nobodaddy aloft
Farted and belched and coughed,
And said,
‘I love hanging and drawing and quartering
Every bit as well as war and slaughtering.’

– William Blake
42. karen | October 27, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Brad:
This seems to be the main thrust of everyone’s problem with this article. I can’t say I blame you. I have heard many attempts at explaining this away, but very few portrayed a kind or loving God. Let me give you the best explanation, and the one that I believe resolves that dissonance.
-snipped concise, nicely presented explanation of the free will argument -

Brad, as I’m sure you understand, all of us deconverts are very familiar with the free will argument. I’m assuming that it did resolve the dissonance for all of us at one point, too – or at least it answered enough of our objections to faith that we were willing to accept it and no longer question how a loving, omnipotent, omniscient god could co-exist with evil.

What happens in the deconversion process, as Leo pointed out, is that the cognitive dissonance of supernatural belief grows and grows until it simply can’t be explained away. The free will argument and the other, similar mental and theological gymnastics that have to be executed to reconcile supernatural belief and objective logic start to wear thin.

It’s like we’re living in a cocoon of faith one day, nice and cozy with all our questions answered, and the next day a crack in the wall appears and a cold wind starts to leak in. We paper the crack over with the free will argument, and other explanations provided by our pastors and by apologists and authors and teachers – and we put on sweaters and turn up the heat, but before long that chilly breeze is blowing again and we just can’t ignore it!

Eventually, the free will argument and the sermons and the books just don’t cover the cracks in the walls anymore, and we break out of the cocoon of faith – or perhaps it just falls apart around us.

I say this not to disabuse you of your beliefs, Brad, but to try and explain why the standard explanations eventually do come to sound like nonsense to non-theists, particularly when the logical explanations – s*** happens, and the lot of humanity is to deal with it and go on living – are so much simpler and more “elegant” in their own way. No, they are not comforting, or warm or fuzzy – but they are appealing in their honesty in a way that the contortions of faith like the original article writer made just appear ugly and offensive by comparison.
43. karen | October 27, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Loopy:
On her way, she had a wreck and the baby went through the windshield. The mother died but the child survived. Was this an act of GOD? It’s not for me to say, but I will say this, the memory has been with me for almost thirty years. I went for a long time denying that their was a GOD, and many of you will say I was right then. But my beliefs are a personal thing, and if they give me and those around me strength it does not make me foolish, but it does make me thankful. So I feel a great deal of empathy for anyone that loses loved ones and no matter their beliefs, if it brings them comfort, so be it. But as for revenge or justice, in my beliefs, that is GOD’s department.

Loopy, I’m glad that your beliefs give you strength and make you thankful. That’s a good thing for anyone.

However, I can’t reconcile your story with your decision to believe in god, because it seems a rather horrifying story with a totally random, and cruel, outcome. What kind of loving god allows babies to be raped and then orphaned within a few hours!? I find that horrific, frankly. If anything it would cause me to lose faith, not find it. It’s interesting to me that that anecdote was a pivotal one for you in terms of believing in god.

What’s also interesting about this thread is that I was in the midst of deconverting when 9.11 happened and it had a profound effect on my loss of religious belief. I think this is true for many people, in fact.

I remember reading the story of a good samaritan who insisted on helping a very heavyset man down the stairs in one of the towers – a long and arduous process. A couple other people were helping also, but they realized that they needed to get out more quickly and eventually abandoned the heavy man and the good samaritan and got out safely. The good samaritan, because he would not abandon his fellow human being – someone he didn’t even know – was killed when the building collapsed.

So, the people who put themselves first (understandably so) survived – and the guy who was self-sacrificing died. His widow was very grateful that he was posthumously recognized for his courage, but unfortunately that was cold comfort compared to losing her husband, his ongoing financial and emotional support, and the father that her children would not grow up with.

It seemed to me that stories like this – and many others that were similar – just highlighted the ultimately random nature of tragedy. Why did one guy stop for a cup of coffee and miss being at his desk when the plane obliterated his office, while another was conscientious about always being at work early and got evaporated? Trying to make sense of it all and still account for a god who’s “in charge” became an impossibility for me in the long run.
44. loopyloo350 | October 27, 2007 at 3:27 pm

We could go crazy, if we constantly wondered wheather GOD exists or he doe not. Perhaps life consist of moments, snapshots if you will of time, and the only one who really cares in the end is not you or I. loopyloo350
45. missingpriest | October 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm

stu,

in no way would i want to be caught up in any of those situations either, but physical experience isn’t the only way to experience things. we see, hear, feel, empathize. the simple fact that you know that those are terrible things to happen to anyone and hopefully be pro-active in doing something about it rather than just sitting there waiting expecting someone else to intervene on your behalf, is half the battle…YO JOE!
46. Brad | October 27, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Man… this has broadened considerably…. I’ll try (most likely in vain) to keep this concise.

OneSmallStep,

“But that very lack of perfection is precisely what lead to the fall.”

Can one be perfect without free will? Can one choose to not be perfect? Eating of the fruit was resistible, but chosen. If it were irresistible, they wouldn’t have had a choice. That argument, followed to the logical conclusion defeats itself.

“God may have given enough to be trusthworthy for you, but there are others looking at this situation, stuck on the idea of how arbitrary it comes across in who lives and dies, who don’t find that enough, based on the reactions to the quote.”

Oh, totally agreed. I do not claim that it is an easy, simple, or quick process in coming to faith. There are many things we need to wrestle with before that comes, and that never really stops. It is just viewed from a very different perspective.

“Can the idea of love being expressed in letting people die work in any other context?”

My intent was to show a (THE) example of that taking place, not say that every instance (or most) of allowing someone to die is in fact love. And it doesn’t violate the meaning of love if it is within the context of selfless sacrifice. i,e, to whom is the love being shown to?

On the topic of sacrifice… Those are questions that have each been answered in entire books. I would not do it justice here. Instead, I recommend the book “Far As The Curse Is Found” by Michael Williams.

Refincher…

Excellent. Dead on. Thank you for that emphasis and reminder!

Karen,

Oh, I do not believe that deconversion is an on/off switch (or even a dimmer switch). I imagine it is very similar to my coming to faith in God (although reversed): somewhat of a rollercoaster, faster and slower at times, with twists, turns, and unexpected drops.

It’s kind of ironic that we discuss the intellectual aspects of Christianity, in defense/offense of it, when those are only the “symptoms” (for lack of a better term) of our life experiences that (ultimately) lead to the end result. In short, we cannot divorce the logic or reason from our experiences. I totally hear you, and have no delusions that anyone will magically change their mind because this 23-year-old 2nd year seminarian thought up some new apologetic that explains the problem of pain perfectly.

This is a great conversation, and I really appreciate the challenges you all bring, as it only serves to confirm my faith as I search for answers.
47. OneSmallStep | October 28, 2007 at 9:25 am

Brad,

Can one be perfect without free will? Can one choose to not be perfect? Eating of the fruit was resistible, but chosen. If it were irresistible, they wouldn’t have had a choice. That argument, followed to the logical conclusion defeats itself.

God is perfect. Does God have free will? Can God choose not to be perfect? This might come down to how sin is defined, because I’ve heard it include the idea of even wanting to go against the will of God. If you so much as want that, then you’re barred from heaven/destined for hell. As soon as they wanted to eat that fruit, then there was some part of them that was going against the will of God. It’s not a matter of them choosing to be imperfect — they were created that way, if there was a part of them created to be attracted to sin. After all, that was the only way the serpent could’ve affected them, if it was appealing to something “not perfect” within them. Wanting something bad or wrong for you is maybe a conscious choice 50% of the time.

not say that every instance (or most) of allowing someone to die is in fact love. And it doesn’t violate the meaning of love if it is within the context of selfless sacrifice. i,e, to whom is the love being shown to?

I know you meant this as the ultimate example, but if most instances of allowing someone to die is not an example of love, then how can you say that it is one in 9/11? I still see this as making love relative, not an absolute.
48. Stu | October 28, 2007 at 11:16 am

missingpriest

I thought you were going to say that. In order for us to “know that these are terrible things to happen to anyone”, do we need someone somewhere to suffer these things?

If yes, then that means that God is allowing terrible things to happen to some people in order to show other people how lucky they are not to experience those things. God is in effect allowing suffering to be inflicted upon them so they can serve as some sort of object lesson for other people. That’s outrageous. Please tell me that’s not what you believe.

If no, then we don’t need anyone to actually experience suffering in order for us to know that it would be a terrible thing. I can think of lots of things that would be terrible to happen to people, but thankfully I don’t know of anyone who has ever experienced them.

I’m sorry but I really can’t buy your rationalisation because it’s more horrific than the simple realisation that shit happens and there’s no-one in charge. It’s not comforting, but it’s less creepy.
49. Marcus Lycus | October 28, 2007 at 11:39 am

What sick twisted logic thinks this kind of outrageous rationalization helps? God can discourage SOME passengers but not all. God can delay SOME work commuters but not all. Apparently god felt that the people who DID die somehow deserved it. And as a show of his true wisdom and benevolence he left a hunk of metal in the rubble shaped like a cross. Sorry Muslims, no symbol for you.
50. LeoPardus | October 28, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Rachel, Brad, refincher

Please read http://de-conversion.com/2007/10/28/by-the-way-who-are-the-de-cons/

Now, I’ll go back to responding directly to your responses now. Just wanted you to know a bit of who we are, and why we are.
51. LeoPardus | October 28, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Rachel
would the crucifixion change this discussion at all? If there is a God who lived life as a human and who suffered and died, wouldn’t that make him more trustworthy? An apathetic being sitting back and watching his creatures run themselves into the ground is one thing, but what about a God who suffers alongside us, and in fact suffered to redeem us?
Brad
And Leo, God made the ULTIMATE statement of love by allowing his son (himself) to die. No greater love…
refincher
Rachel does indeed hit the nail on the head; it is the Incarnation and the suffering of Christ on the cross, which changes everything.

The cross, the death, the sacrifice, the resurrection, the ascension: all the core issues of the Christian Faith. For my own part I believe in Jesus as an historical person, and the founding personality of the Christian Faith. I’m perfectly willing to believe that, as a religious leader, he was crucified. (That happened a lot back then.) The resurrection, I’m not so sure about. But for the moment I’m just gonna say, maybe it happened. Heck, I’ll allow Jesus to be a human incarnation of the Divine. Fine. So what happened since then? The early church (Acts, Ancient Fathers) evidenced the power of God regularly. Paul, spoke of coming not with just words but with power, and he affirmed that miracles he and others did testified to the Gospel they brought. Jesus told folks to believe on the evidence of his miracles.
So y’all want to cite – as a reason to believe or love God – the miracle He supposedly did 2000 years ago. You say that is the evidence of His love. But folks, that was long ago and far away. It’s hard to believe in a miracle-performing God-Man when all we have for evidence is armies of apologists, apologizing for God not showing up, or for God allowing horrible things. Sorry but armies of apologists are frankly not convincing. Ditto for volumes of words. Paul, Jesus, and others backed their words up with tangible demonstrations of real power from God. Where is that today?
{Just FTR: You may want to think that the only reason I won’t believe is a lack of miracles. No. That’s only one reason of many.}
More anon.
52. LeoPardus | October 28, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Brad
Leo, Ya know, the ironic thing about you quoting C.S. Lewis is that his comment was most likely made in response to claims that God is “completely capricious, utterly unknowable, thoroughly incomprehensible, decidedly unloving,” and so on.

You are incorrect in your assumption. Lewis said, “Nonsense remains nonsense, even when spoken about God.” in response to the old question, “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it.”

For all my reading of Lewis, I don’t recall him directly taking on the “God is capricious” argument. Someone else may recall.

It is not that the evidence does not support the idea of a God who is loving and knowable, you just reach a different conclusion. I disagree with your conclusion, but it still requires at least an equal degree of faith to hold to… if not greater.

The evidence supports a God who is loving and knowable? Really?
Would that be the evidence of God ordering the genocide of the Midianites and the taking of all their virgin females as slaves? (Numbers 31)
Or the evidence of the pro-life God who killed an innocent baby because his parents did something bad? (2 Samuel 11,12)
Or the evidence of millions who cry out to Him for life, freedom, lost loved ones, relief from persecution, relief from agony of body, healing from insanity, etc, etc, etc….. ???

My conclusion takes more faith??
53. LeoPardus | October 28, 2007 at 12:33 pm

refincher
LeoPardus, … This “something larger than ourselves” generally put forward by atheists as the basis for morality. It serves the purpose of God in the supposed absence of God. And yet, this impersonal and unloving universe acts in the same capricious manner as you suppose God to act. Why submit oneself to the laws of this capricious universe, serve its good and its betterment, accept with longsuffering the “s***” that “happens”, and even preach its gospel, and yet indict God on the very same grounds?

Ummm….. Did you think this one through? Could you take a look again and see if you can’t see how silly this query is?
54. loopyloo350 | October 28, 2007 at 3:33 pm

What are you striving for? Why do you question? If you think there is nothing larger than us as humans, why do good? People are always searching for answers. I know that even in my faith, I constantly question. Maybe that is simply part of our blueprint. I don’t mean to be shallow but maybe perfection is not what we think it is, or maybe just, maybe life a good gardener GOD is waiting for the right weeds to appear.loopyloo350
55. refincher | October 28, 2007 at 10:06 pm

LeoPardus, actually, I did and I can’t. That’s why I said it. If it is silly, you’ll have to spell it out for me.

And you are correct (Sorry, Brad!) that your position does not require more faith. You position does not require faith at all. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The author of Hebrews goes from there to list examples of those who were rescued from their troubles and then without pausing for breath lists those who were tortured, burned, sawed in half, and killed. He sends rain on the just and the unjust. It’s not like there is some great cover up here. One of Christ’s lesser quoted promises: “In this life you will have trouble”…the Greek word is thlipsis (pardon my poor transliteration) which means tribulation. For us, to live is Christ (and that includes His suffering), to die is gain. That life sucks and then you die, that s*** happens, that is as obvious to me as it is to you. Accepting reality isn’t the problem here.

And the problem isn’t that Christianity teaches that big powerful Superman-God is going to rescue us from all life’s trials and problems. The problem is that that is what *you* think God ought to be like, and since He isn’t, He must not exist. You can accept an imperfect world which “just is”, but if God is both good and powerful then the world *ought* to be perfect.

And the sense that it *ought* to be perfect is quite reasonable. It OUGHT to be. And it WAS. But *we* messed it up. You say, “The world is thus.” I say, “Thus have we made the world.” It’s like the rose bush in my backyard that we want to remove. We keep chopping back the branches and it keeps growing right back. It’s never going to be gone until we burn the roots out. Or like treating the symptoms but not the disease. All you see are those pesky vines, those horrible sores. He struck the root, the disease. And you say, “Forgiveness of sins? What good is that? Look at this mess. A man died on a cross and the world went on exactly as it had before”

But taking the cure means swallowing the medicine. When you say, “If God were good and loving and powerful, there would be no evil and suffering,” you pin the blame for the state of the world on God. When you say, “None of those people who died on 9-11 deserved to die, therefore God was unjust and unloving,” you are also tacitly saying, “I am basically a decent person, and it would be unjust if God let such a thing happen to me.” Your arguments lead not to “God does not exist”, but to “I do not need the cure.”

LeoPardus writes: “Paul, Jesus, and others backed their words up with tangible demonstrations of real power from God. Where is that today?”

When Jesus told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man in a seemingly unselfish gesture, asks Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead so that his brothers will believe and be spared. Very subtle. If Lazarus goes, and my brothers believe, the God didn’t do enough to save ME. But Abraham speaks truthfully when he says, “Even if someone were to be raised from the dead, they would not believe. They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them.”
56. OneSmallStep | October 29, 2007 at 12:08 am

And the sense that it *ought* to be perfect is quite reasonable. It OUGHT to be. And it WAS. But *we* messed it up. You say, “The world is thus.” I say, “Thus have we made the world.”

Except we didn’t. If we go back to how the fall is portrayed, Adam/Eve made that choice, and this was the end result. Original Sin is presented in such a way that everyone inherits that sin-state, and can do nothing on their own to resolve that sin state. You can’t fix it on your own, and yet you’re held responsible for why the world is the way it is? That’s a little one-sided there. We, you and I and everyone else on this board, did not do anything in the past to cause the situations in which we were born — original sin. We are responsible for what we do today, and how it affects others, yes. But we didn’t mess up perfection. We, you and I, never had perfection in the first place.

When you say, “None of those people who died on 9-11 deserved to die, therefore God was unjust and unloving,” you are also tacitly saying, “I am basically a decent person, and it would be unjust if God let such a thing happen to me.” Your arguments lead not to “God does not exist”, but to “I do not need the cure.”

This is something that really bothers me about the response to the problem of evil/suffering. I can’t speak for Leo, but when I say that those on 9/11 did not deserve what happened to them, I am not dragging myself into the statement. I am not making any statement about myself, whether I am decent or not. I have nothing to do with it. I’m looking at the suffering of others. Yet the response inevitably seems to entail that it’s about me, or the speaker, and it’s not. The question is asked from a selfless angle, and yet the response always seems to make the speaker approach it from a selfish angle.

Along with that, this also bothers me:

And the problem isn’t that Christianity teaches that big powerful Superman-God is going to rescue us from all life’s trials and problems. The problem is that that is what *you* think God ought to be like

I don’t really know anyone who is asking that every single trial/problem require a rescue. I don’t think God should swoop down and stop me anytime I might do something that will cause me to suffer. When people try and reconcile the suffering with the Christian God, they’re looking at situations like parents abusing their children. Or that recent story where the three (possibly five) year old was raped. They’re looking at genocide. Situations like those go far beyond trials/problems. And so when that is contrasted against a God who loves far beyond we could ever imagine, a God who is incredibly powerful and just, and knows all … yes, there will be expectations, because of what those words mean. Because of the assocations attached to “love” or “justice.” IT’s not that people just randomly say, “THis is what God should be like.” They take the words that Christianity uses, like “love” or “just,” the comparison that Christianity uses, such as shepherd or father, and go based on the very definitions of those words.

When Jesus told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man in a seemingly unselfish gesture, asks Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead so that his brothers will believe and be spared. Very subtle. If Lazarus goes, and my brothers believe, the God didn’t do enough to save ME

Why say there’s a selfish motive behind the rich man’s request? Why couldn’t he be where he was, fully realize the repercussions for the first time, and selflessly ask that his brothers not share his fate?

Plus, there are other accounts in the Bible of people using the tangible demonstrations as proof of the power. Jesus makes says that don’t believe him based on what he says, but based on the works he performs. The apostles back up their claims with demonstrations. James makes a mention that if someone is sick, the person should go to the elders and then that person would be healed.
57. Samanthamj | October 29, 2007 at 2:11 am

karen – regarding post 42 – I really liked the way you put things when you said the following:

=====from post 42 (Karen):

“It’s like we’re living in a cocoon of faith one day, nice and cozy with all our questions answered, and the next day a crack in the wall appears and a cold wind starts to leak in. We paper the crack over with the free will argument, and other explanations provided by our pastors and by apologists and authors and teachers – and we put on sweaters and turn up the heat, but before long that chilly breeze is blowing again and we just can’t ignore it!

Eventually, the free will argument and the sermons and the books just don’t cover the cracks in the walls anymore, and we break out of the cocoon of faith – or perhaps it just falls apart around us. ”

=====

Great visual and exactly how I feel.

~smj
58. Brad | October 29, 2007 at 9:36 am

Leo,

I’m well aware of the background of the “de-Cons.” If my responses do not communicate that, it is because 1.) I know that many of you came from a fundamentalist Christian background, and I am coming from a reformed perspective. It is different in many ways, but I don’t know how different until I present my perspective, and 2.) I am commenting with other readers in mind aside from the editors of this blog.

On conclusions taking faith….
I am not saying that God’s character as loving, knowable, etc. is a 100% scientifically and/or objectively proven conclusion. Yes, it takes faith. If those verses are read by themselves, yes God can seem quite evil. But when read with the whole of scripture, He certainly leans on the side of good (IMHO). That conclusion does not erase difficult sections like those you cite, and it doesn’t *not* take them into account. It is weighed carefully, believe me.

Any conclusion takes faith to believe, particularly if said conclusion affects your daily life. If you believe that there is no God, then you are trusting in that conclusion (on a very basic level) when you don’t pray, go to church, etc. Simply, you live your life on that assumption, and that in of itself takes faith. When I said “if not more” faith, I left that open ended because beliefs are not made solely (or even mostly) by the kind of evidence that can be discussed on blogs such as this one. I don’t know what kind of experiences you have had, and your conclusion may be more obvious to you then others who believe the same, but then again, it may not. But no belief, whether it is Christian or Atheist, doesn’t require any faith at all. All have faith, we simply put that faith/trust in different things.

On the Lew is quote…
I appreciate the explanation, as I didn’t know the context of the quote (hence “most likely”). My assumption was based on the majority of his writing and, even though he may not have tackled the argument of whether God was capricious or not, he certainly did on the “goodness” of God. Even still, the implications of the question he was tackling implied many things about his character and divinity beyond his ability to lift a rock….

Here’s the bottom line for a kind of “wrap-up” for my commenting on this article (especially since it has meandered so far away from the original topic). I am not saying that it is “clear” that God loved people by allowing them to die on 9/11. I am not saying that it is easy to understand, or that my faith explains everything perfectly. It’s tough. My intent in commenting on this post was to try to communicate that it is just not so black and white as it was portrayed. Most (of not all) of you on de-Conversion pride yourselves on being able to live good, moral lives, love your families, etc. without your Christian faith. I believe you, very much, and 90% of the interactions I have had on here back that up completely.

However, when sweeping statements are made about the “twisted” or “pathetic” logic of sincere and affliction-tempered belief (or expression thereof), it sounds incredibly unloving and misunderstanding, particularly since most of you have been there at one time. I am not saying do not critique or evaluate their belief, only that some more tact and sensitivity might be a little more helpful to your case. I know that to some degree I’ve stated this previously in this discussion, but I wanted to bring the discussion back around to my original reason for posting.

Again, thanks for the excellent discussion. I mean no disrespect or offense, only offering the kind of accountability and perspective I would want in a similar situation. Thanks!
59. LeoPardus | October 29, 2007 at 10:39 am

refincher:
The absurdity is this:
this impersonal and unloving universe acts in the same capricious manner as you suppose God to act.

Something that is impersonal does not act. It simply is. Nor does it love, hate, fail to love, and so on. It isn’t a being with mind or will. You may as well say, “The old rock by the back fence acts capriciously.”
God, on the other hand, is supposed to have mind, will, and action.

Why submit oneself to the laws of this capricious universe, serve its good and its betterment, accept with longsuffering the “s***” that “happens”, and even preach its gospel,

Absurd! Why submit to the law of gravity, or to aging, or to hurricanes? Because there’s no other option. Even insane people, who think they can fly, don’t have the option to resist, though they may think they do.
Your question simply is meaningless.

and yet indict God on the very same grounds?

As I’ve now pointed out, it’s not the same grounds. God is supposed to be a person, to have will, to take action. He is supposed to be reachable and to pay attention. (i.e. He hears prayers and knows what it going on.)
I’m not indicting the universe. That would be silly to the point of complete insanity. And frankly, I’m not indicting God. That would be as silly as indicting the Easter Bunny. I’m just pointing out that your conception of God, as loving, good, merciful, and all those other wonderful traits, is impossible.
60. LeoPardus | October 29, 2007 at 10:48 am

refincher:

When you say, “If God were good and loving and powerful, there would be no evil and suffering,” you pin the blame for the state of the world on God.

Exactly. If God existed, He would bear the blame for everything, since He has the power to fix it all and does not do so. Just as anyone would be rightly blamed for leaving a child to be molested when they had the power to stop it.

When you say, “None of those people who died on 9-11 deserved to die, therefore God was unjust and unloving,” you are also tacitly saying, “I am basically a decent person, and it would be unjust if God let such a thing happen to me.” Your arguments lead not to “God does not exist”, but to “I do not need the cure.”

No. That is wrong. I am not saying any of those silly things.

Look at the efforts to blame the US government for 9/11. Everyone agrees that if the US knew it was going to happen, and did not use their power to stop it, then the US govt would be guilty of incredible evil. Likewise God, if there was one, would certainly have known about 9/11, and certainly could have stopped it. If He did not, then He would not be good, or loving, or merciful by any definition of those terms.
61. Dane Cook on Atheism « Confessions of a Seminarian | October 29, 2007 at 10:49 am

[...] across this video (ironically) at the same time that I was having an interesting conversation on de-Conversion on a post called “Where was God on 9/11.” I won’t lie, the conversation had a [...]
62. LeoPardus | October 29, 2007 at 10:59 am

Brad:
I know that many of you came from a fundamentalist Christian background, and I am coming from a reformed perspective. It is different in many ways, but I don’t know how different until I present my perspective

After 10 years in southern MI, I am quite familiar with the Reformed wing of Protestantism.

I am not saying that God’s character as loving, knowable, etc. is a 100% scientifically and/or objectively proven conclusion. Yes, it takes faith. If those verses are read by themselves, yes God can seem quite evil. But when read with the whole of scripture, He certainly leans on the side of good (IMHO).

“leans on the side of good” ???????? So your God is not good. He’s just not totally evil. Sounds like the plot of “Oh God III”.
63. Brad | October 29, 2007 at 11:10 am

“After 10 years in southern MI, I am quite familiar with the Reformed wing of Protestantism.”

*winces* yeah, but southern reformed is… well… not necessarily my cup of tea in how it is expressed. But that is good to know.

““leans on the side of good” ???????? So your God is not good. He’s just not totally evil. Sounds like the plot of “Oh God III”.”

“leans on the side of” is stated in contrast to “can seem quite evil.” I wholeheartedly believe that God is good, yet acknowledge that it is sometimes hard to see from a vantage point of suffering and reading difficult sections of scripture such as those you quoted. Anyone who says they have it all figured out (on either side of this debate) is either a.) lying, b.) full of himself, c.) wrong, or d.) all of the above.

Thanks for completely missing my main point (yet still proving it), not hearing the core of what I’m saying, and instead looking for potential holes in my argument. I think I’m done with this thread.
64. LeoPardus | October 29, 2007 at 11:15 am

And another one runs away. The truth is scary when you’re on the wrong side of it. Especially when it threatens your security blanket.
65. Brad | October 29, 2007 at 11:55 am

Leo,

Your last comment saddens me. I greatly respect authors on d-C like HeIsSailing, MysteryofIniquity, Thinking Ape, lostgirlfound, or The de-Convert (to name a few). We’ve had some wonderful and respectful discussions. This has degenerated into something not within that category. The aforementioned authors, at least, are mature enough to understand the difference between respectfully agreeing to disagree, and “running away.”

I hope that we can have discussions in the future that do not resort to insults and harsh judgments.
66. LeoPardus | October 29, 2007 at 12:49 pm

There’s a mythical device called the ‘sonic mirror’. It works like this:

Thanks for completely missing my main point (yet still proving it), not hearing the core of what I’m saying, and instead looking for potential holes in my argument. I think I’m done with this thread.

Now that it’s coming back your way, what do you see/hear? Does it sound petulant? dismissive? pouty? open? engaging? respectful? harsh?

And looking for holes is a bad thing? You don’t want folks to point them out? When I make a point, you don’t try to counter it?

You can do as you please, but when people state their opinions in an open forum, I take it that they are ready to have those opinions challenged, their logic critiqued, their arguments dissected, and their errors exposed. And all that does not always get done by Carnegie course graduates. If you can’t deal with that, what are you here for? This isn’t a kindly, Sunday crowd that sits in the pews and just nods to whatever you say.

If you want to walk because I’m not being nicey-nice with you, walk. But if you state your opinion, I will dissect it. And I you think I’m brusque about it, deal with it, grow thicker skin. You just may find that there are others out in the big world who lack my ever-sweet disposition. How will you ever face them, if you run from an internet persona?

Sheesh! Jesus and the apostles could be whipped, ridiculed, spat on, challenged in an open market-place, imprisoned, persecuted by emperors, and today’s Christians whine and run ’cause somebody isn’t all sweetness and light to them on on internet forum. If there was ever a Church that deserved to wither (like the fig tree that wouldn’t produce fruit) it’s the Church of whiny-wimps who can’t stand up to words on a screen.
67. Brad | October 29, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Dismissive? Very probably. I apologize for that, but it was hardly petulant or pouty.

“And looking for holes is a bad thing? You don’t want folks to point them out? When I make a point, you don’t try to counter it?”

You miss the forest for the trees, my friend. The forest is neither characterized nor accurately represented by any single (or even a few) trees. Your focus is not incorrect, but (in this specific instance) inaccurate, inefficient, and misplaced.

“You can do as you please, but when people state their opinions in an open forum, I take it that they are ready to have those opinions challenged, their logic critiqued, their arguments dissected, and their errors exposed.”

Agreed. But resorting to ad hominem is hardly working within that logic and is, by definition, a fallacy.

“If you want to walk because I’m not being nicey-nice with you, walk…. it’s the Church of whiny-wimps who can’t stand up to words on a screen.”

You make many many assumptions here. So many, that I find myself laughing rather than being offended at the insinuations you make. I actually agree with you, and find myself sick and tired of many of the emasculated, wishy-washy pastors who characterize the Western Christian landscape with maybe’s, I don’t knows, and other hesitant rhetoric not backed up by solid theology and reasoning. I guarantee you that I am not one of them. I stand by the truth claims I make, and am willing to hold those claims to scrutiny.

But you have left the critique of those arguments and have resorted to critiquing my character. I have (literally) risked my life for others, led war-hardened soldiers as a U.S. Army officer (MP), and left a well paying job to receive seminary education and training to plant churches. Am I the epitome of strength and selflessness? Doubtfully. But hardly would I consider myself “whiny and whimpy.” I say this not to pat myself on the back or defend myself, but to illustrate the ludicrousness of your assumptions.

I encourage you to not make these or any other assumptions about other bloggers who visit this site and expect the same freedom of thought and reason that you so rightfully expect from them. Constructive conversation cannot happen apart from a foundation of mutual respect.
68. karen | October 29, 2007 at 1:46 pm

karen – regarding post 42 – I really liked the way you put things

Thanks, Samantha! Way back when I was deconverting and in the process of trying to puzzle out what in the world had happened to me, I “wrote out” a whole analogy based on that metaphor. It was sparked by a comment my therapist made to me.

Of course my “writing” took place in my head in the middle of a sleepness night while I was tossing and turning – isn’t that the way with all our masterpieces?! – and I never got around to actually writing it all out. At least, I don’t think I did. I’ll have to check and see. Glad you enjoyed the thought.

Brad:
However, when sweeping statements are made about the “twisted” or “pathetic” logic of sincere and affliction-tempered belief (or expression thereof), it sounds incredibly unloving and misunderstanding, particularly since most of you have been there at one time.

I think a couple things are going on here.

1) The problem with the OP’s logic is not that it was insincere, but that it was very offensive to those who lost loved ones. Someone trying to justify the tragedy doesn’t hurt me, he hurts people whose losses and pain are inconceivable to me. I understand where he’s coming from – yes, I have been there – and I also understand that it needs to be pointed out firmly that he’s wrong. It’s like the church folk at HIS’s picnic praising Jesus for bringing them sunshine for their party, while they ignore the fact that Jesus is letting thousands die in floods in Bangladesh, or earthquakes in Pakistan. Not only is the attitude wrong but it’s selfish, insensitive and cruel.

2) We’re here on a site for deconverters. It’s a place where we can let down our hair just a little bit. Most of us grew up surrounded by god-belief and we still are to a great degree. We have to be very polite and careful not to offend much of the time. This is a place where that constraint is not imposed on us, and we can speak our minds. Thus the sometimes venting of frustration that may come across as harsh.
69. LeoPardus | October 29, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Brad:

Good on ya.

You point, that you say I ignore, seems to be that God is loving. From one of your posts: God made the ULTIMATE statement of love by allowing his son (himself) to die.

Is that the point?

If so, I can’t see how to back it up. It makes no sense at all.

Anyway, is that your point? If not, then indeed I missed it.
70. Brad | October 29, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Leo,

See comment #58, the paragraph that begins with “Here’s the bottom line…”

Karen,

I totally understand your two points, and do not disagree with those aims. I get the need to “let your hair down” and be free to express frustration, pain, offense, etc. I do the same thing on our blog, Confessions of a Seminarian. My only contention is with how that is expressed. Noone is winning friends (or de-Converts) by speaking truth harshly. Love without truth is neglect, but truth without love is abuse. These same things can be communicated clearly, effectively and lovingly without the need to insult those who disagree. This is absolutely necessary for any kind of logical/reasonable discussion.

Again, I understand the dissonance and frustration. I also understand how those frustrations and experiences can make it hard to speak truth with love on this topic and in response to Christian claims.

However, out of respect for the readers here, the other moderators, and Leo himself, I had to say something. I do not believe that the goal is to offend or insult anyone. Conversely, if I were coming off in that way, I would want the same loving rebuke, so I may have assumed that it would be welcome as well. If not, I apologize. Respect was my motivation for this entire tangent.
71. Sam | November 27, 2007 at 12:18 am

Hey, I got it. We could just believe that hydrogen became the mess that we live in and that it’s our own fault. You see, at some point we apes, jumped off the evolution wagon and started making rules to protect those who would otherwise be disposed of in a wrongful, yet quite evolutionary way.

Allow me to explain. Approximately six thousand (6,000) years ago a pure genius thought up a less than scientific hypothesis called “The Bible”. I say pure genius because it took approximately six thousand (6,000) years to debunk the myths that were recorded in it. It says that it was written by more than one man but it also says that it was inspired by a being that is invisible and is backed by the usual scare tactic, “You’ll go to hell if you don’t believe”, which is the least of all the ways to prove something is true. The genius would have been filthy rich had he lived to the fifteen hundreds. Anyway, this genius made up this crazy list of rules to live by starting with the circular logic rules that scare people into believing that they’ll be killed or maimed if they don’t agree and follow the rules. Then a simple list of the usual rules; obey your parents, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill, and be content. Now the genius didn’t know that soon after he wrote his masterpiece, others would allegorize it and add it to a bigger book that essentially he wrote, and that six thousand years later that not only would he be the founder of the most popular religion, but his myths would be debunked by more believable myths like evolution. Sense the book “origin of species” the eight thousand year old myths that falsely led people to morality and hope and love has been trashed by some of the most immoral, elitist, apes for the sake of immorality and selfishness (judging by the consistent behavior of the evolutionist). They know how we got here and it wasn’t by being content. It was by being apes and killing the weak and promiscuity and a selfish drive to dominate the world. The genius who never got rich off his masterpiece has suffered shame sense then because of the preferred truth of the selfish apes. Stupidity has now been spotlighted by all of those in the know but here in lies the problem that I’ve taken so long to get to. You see, though the elitist apes aren’t responding the way you would expect them to. Sure they’re abrasive but they have still been weakened by the morality of the “creationist” (for lack of a better word). Before this stench of morality rose up the apes would have utterly destroyed the idiots. That’s how they survived all these years (what’s the count up to now, 4 billion? The only evolution that has been scientifically observed is the growth and changes found in the explanation of the theory of evolution. So I can’t be sure what the true number of years are now). You know, they want to be independent of the religiosity but I think it has still penetrated. They don’t want to kill stupid and weak people like their ancestors did before them. Their theory that they cling to is breaking down in many respects but this one thing is what got them here. I mean, sure the sex is nice and their animal instincts are still working in that respect but now their instinct that used to lead them to the pheromones of the opposite gender leads them to the pheromones of the same sex. Evolution is failing. For one, they can’t reproduce that way according to their theory and two, their instinct to reproduce is replace by a instinct to exercise there glands. Some of the apes don’t even develop relationships with people they would consider exercising their glands with. Instead, they look at pictures of them which is least of all conducive to reproducing offspring, again destroying the theory they support. And one last thing that proves the instincts have shifted is the fact that the apes that carry the offspring to term are actually killing the offspring before it is born. These are observable facts that have been documented time and time again by the idiots with the circular logic.

Now I know this has gone on long enough so I will say this in closing; we have to stop this idiocy. We are definitely the ones to blame here. If you’re going to be a believer in your origin then I say support it. You apes out there, have as many children as you can and kill the stupid people who think that there is an invisible being out there like, HELLO, the Taliban. Stop killing your offspring and exercising your glands for pleasure and start thinning out the stupidity that you say should not exist. Survival of the fittest, baby. If you adopt a stupid rule like, “Thou shalt not kill”, your only combining truth with the lie and bringing the world to an end.

All joking aside, I love how people leave their comments about religion, knowing all along they’re basing their beliefs on selfishness and greed, and pretending like they’re consistent in something that the whole world knows is true and that anyone who believes otherwise needs to be let down gently and with compassion because they’re like stupid children who need some guidance, when they themselves haven’t the slightest clue what they believe except, “I’m horny, hungry, and gosh darn it, I want to do whatever I want for eighty years and die clinging to a unfulfilled excuse for a life.” Gosh you people make me happy I’m stupid.

Sam
72. Brian | November 27, 2007 at 6:49 pm

for the christian believer:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
73. Heard of God | December 2, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Well I say, “Never believe the man who is selling the truth, because the truth is not what interests him.” A man with a political agenda is worse.

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

de-conversion

Reflections: Where was God on 9/11?

73 Comments Add your own

Leave a Comment

Today’s Featured Link

Most Recent Discussions

Navigation

Attention Christian Readers

Most Recent Posts

Today's Most Read Posts

de-conversion wager

Contributors

Twitter

Atheism Central

Archives

Blog Stats