Tuesday, July 6, 2010

shit happens

I'm watching a drunk guy getting booked on a TV show. It's like COPS but it's called "Jail" or something like that. This poor guy was fighting and screaming at the Police so hard, they finally had to restrain him in a chair made with feet and hand restraints. The Cops asked what his problem was, his answer was that his daughter was in a wheel chair and that wasn't fair. Then at the top of his lungs he said "I curse you God for making my little girl be in a wheel chair". (or something close to that).

You know what? I respect that guy. And I respect his choice to curse God. It's his daughter and his circumstance and so he has the right to deal with it however he decides. It's between him and God.

I also have very close friends who have a daughter who will be in a wheel chair her whole life. She is a very sweet little 12 yr old girl with Spina-bifada. Her parents have dealt with it very well, but no where near as good as Elizabeth does. And again I respect Elizabeth and her parents decision to make sense out of it all. But in this case they haven't cursed God, and at least to the outside world have no complaints. Who knows, maybe one day Elizabeth and or her parents might get mad at God about this and curse Him? But again that is between them and God.

Here's why I bring this up? Why do people feel like they have the right to be mad at God for other peoples afflictions? Especially if the people who are going through it have made peace with their situation and God. When "Katrina" hit Louisiana some cursed God and some were thankful. When the Tsunami hit the coast of Indonesia same thing, some were mad and some were grateful. There are people starving to death right now, who are giving thanks to God.

So if you want to be mad at God because some or even many people are hurting about their circumstances, then you should be thankful to God as well when people are grateful during their trying circumstances.

I know most of you don't believe in God, but if there is God, can't you see how silly you'd look trying to justify yourself before Him. By complaining how mean and sadistic he is when people who starved to death or spent their life in a wheel chair never once thought God was cruel?

The Bible teaches us that we all must work out our own salvation. It's your life, and if you want to curse God go ahead. I will respect that. But cursing God because we live in a fallen and sinful world is a cop out.

Late, feeno


  1. In no way does what I'm about to say take away from the difficulties endured by those who have come to peace with disabilities.

    There is a transitional living facility just down the block from me where people who have been recently disabled live before finding housing that can accomadate them. Many stay for years, others just months. Some are recently disabled, but most lately have been people who have been disabled and fell on hard times.

    It's not easy living with a disability. With the very modest help and funding provided by the government, most are consigned to second-class lives wrought with difficulty which leaves many broken and bitter.

    What does this have to do with anything? Well, people with families providing for them don't endure this dehumanizing experience. Take the support away, and I would honestly hate to see the attitudes of those who have come to terms with a difficult life be left hopeless in an impossible situation.

    Still, shouldn't be drunk in public (or driving, not sure of the situation).

  2. Well said.

    I find cases like the drunk who cursed God because of his daughter's disability to be rather rare, at least in comparison to the number of people who curse God over other people's misfortune. It seems in the latter case that it is all too often a cop out or excuse: "I won't believe in you God because if You do exist, how can You allow so-and-so to undergo such tragedy?" Meanwhile, so-and-so is more often that not a believer who is thanking God even in the midst of his trying circumstances.

  3. MC, tragedy is validly used as an argument against the existence of God in response to arguments for God based on positive happenstances.

    There is a Christian double standard, not used by all Christians but present nonetheless, whereby they credit and thank God for everything good that happens but seek to distance Him and His character from anything bad that happens. They claim that the good things are evidence not just for God but for His benevolence, whereas bad things don't mean jack. Highlighting tragedies provokes application of this confirmation bias and makes it obvious.

  4. Geenks, That makes sense, but who knows?

    Crusty Terp, Thanks, that was perfect. I don't know what it says about me or what it says about you, but you can say what I'm trying to say in a more concise and articulate way.

    LX, True dat, and I know this answer is exactly what your talking about, but God did put the natural order of things in place. After the fall he just left nature to itself. When, why, where and how much He intervenes is a mystery. And Christians question God on these things often.

    Peace multiplied, feeno

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. SmartLx: The Christian double standard you refer to is unfortunately present among some Christians who, despite their good intentions, have not read their Bibles carefully and have given atheists a strawman to easily knock down.

  7. tragedy is validly used as an argument against the existence of God in response to arguments for God based on positive happenstances

    Neither do a good job at explaining the existance of God.

    It's my understanding that the existance of evil, or why bad things happen to good people arent even discussed in the finer philosophy departments anymore and havent been for years.

    The existance of evil, diseases, etc. does not mean God does not exist. At best one could state something along the lines of "It is poorly understood by numerous people why bad things happen to good people/evil or diseases exist/natural disasters occur/fill in the blank with your favorite gripe here".

  8. I'm fine with that, JD, but many people seriously take the existence of love, sunsets, puppies, good fortune, etc. to mean that God does exist. Quite apart from the Problem of Evil and its opposing theodicy, the above is an earnestly given argument for which there is a reply.

  9. Sunsets are nothing but light refractions through the gases of the atmosphere?! THERE IS NO GOD!

  10. I recently read in another forum about a lifelong skeptic that converted to Christianity after the birth of his baby boy.

    So great was his love for him that he couldnt imagine not being with him for all eternity.

    This provided the impetus for him to begin examining theological arguments with an open mind for the first time ever, eventually becoming a Christian himself..

    Such events might provide the impetus for one to begin examining the claims of God, but perhaps in and of themselves they do not make a very good argument for God's existance.

    Emotional pleas are best left out of discussions re: the existance of God.

    Unfortunately this comprises the majority of the arguments from the atheists that I encounter online.

  11. Likewise the theist arguments, JD, including the one your ex-skeptic used on himself. I couldn't bear ever to be separated from my child, therefore I never will be and now I'll go and find reasons why. His mind wasn't open, it was desperate.

    I'd like to know whether he was able to convince anyone else using the arguments he'd suddenly examined with an "open mind"; whether he was able to get them to make sense to people who weren't immediately seeking rationalisations, having only just been in their frame of mind. I also wonder what his chosen arguments actually were.

    As for you, JD, the emotional atheistic arguments you encounter tend to be indictments of God's character, whether or not in response to unsupported praise of it. I'm not surprised, really, because there are actually very few atheistic arguments - only responses to theistic apologetics. To an atheist, the absence of a god is the null hypothesis and isn't worth arguing for apropos of nothing. I had a go, though, in response to Shockofgod's mantra.