"Drawing the line on divine intervention"

I came across this editorial in today's paper and it made a lot of sense to me, because it vocalized an idea that I have held for some time now. I hear quite a bit of complaining from practitioners of organized religion about how it is acceptable to bash and say mean things about religion in general and its practitioners. To hear them talk, one would think that all of the mainstream media and anyone who has attained any higher education believes that there can be no nobler pastime than casting aspersions upon the devout of the world.

However, I have found just the opposite to be true. Whenever any mainstream media outlet, public figure, celebrity, or politician says anything even remotely "anti-religious," it seems to me that religious folks the world over come down on them with both feet, screaming about bias and intolerance (not to mention hellfire and damnation) until the maker of the offensive remark(s) is left stammering apologies and retractions like a twelve year-old schoolboy caught stealing cookies.

Anyway, here is the article:

http://dangardner.ca/Coljan1106.html

Quote:

---

The Ottawa Citizen wednesday, January 11, 2006, By Dan Gardner. ©The Ottawa Citizen.


It can't be easy being Pat Robertson. Like lots of fervent Christians, the American evangelist believes that God wants the Jews to have all of what was ancient Israel and he followed that belief to the corollary that any Israeli politician who gives away land acts contrary to the wishes of Jehovah. And from there, it was obvious that Ariel Sharon's stroke was caused by a vengeful Lord hurling thunderbolts, or blowing a heavenly trumpet or doing whatever it is the Lord does to cause strokes.
And yet simply for following his faith through to its logical conclusion -- and for doing it in front of his 700 Club television audience -- Mr. Robertson was denounced and ridiculed by newspaper columnists, politicians and the White House. Even some of his fellow evangelists said the old fellow is getting a tad embarrassing.
Imagine.
In all fairness, there are lots of other devout servants of the Lord who agree with Mr. Robertson. "The Torah says that whoever touches the land of Israel gets his punishment," an evicted Israeli settler told reporter Rory Mulholland. "Everything is from God." Some settlers went further and claimed that a curse -- "pulsa denura," or lashes of fire -- they put on Mr. Sharon last July had finally kicked in. "Nothing could kill Sharon," another man told Mr. Mulholland, "but we got him with the pulsa denura." (As a trained lawyer, I must digress to note this raises a host of fascinating legal questions. If God was acting on the settlers' orders, have the settlers committed a crime? Can you put a pulsa denura in a Ziploc bag and label it Exhibit A? Was it Colonel Mustard in the library with a pulsa denura?)

Many Muslims also saw God's vengeance behind Mr. Sharon's stroke. "Pat Robertson said this is a gift from Allah. On this, we agree," said a Muslim community leader in that hotbed of Islamic extremism, Greensboro, North Carolina. Allah wasn't angered at Mr. Sharon for getting out of Gaza, naturally. It was Mr. Sharon's involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacre of 1982 that did it, although it's strange that He waited 23 years to wreak His awesome vengeance. Perhaps He felt revenge is a dish best served very, very cold.
What I find odd about all this hand-of-God talk is not the rather cold spectacle of human beings relishing the misfortune of a fellow man as a manifestation of holy justice. At least there's an internal logic there. Once you've accepted the idea that there is not only a God but that the Lord intervenes to decide who wins wars, who gets the plague, who has a baby and whether the Broncos will cover the point spread, it follows pretty logically that God decides whether the prime minister of Israel will have a stroke.
What makes no sense is to say that there is a God, that He is directly involved in the affairs of humanity, that He must be thanked for good fortune -- but that it is outrageous and unconscionable to ascribe the misfortune of a high-ranking man to divine will. Those who believe that the Bible is something more than the collected writings of desert-dwelling primitives with too much time on their hands need only look at the Book of Job, wherein Job suffers a lot more than a stroke simply because God had a bet with the Devil. If the Lord would afflict you with boils and kill your children just so He could say "booyah!" to Lucifer, what would He do if you really pissed him off? And yet, as logically unsupportable as it is, this second view of an interventionist deity is remarkably popular. It saturates daytime television and soft-rock radio. It infests the non-fiction best-seller lists. It routinely appears on the news in the form of the crash survivor who thanks God for saving him instead of the other 192 people who were left to be crushed, burned and suffocated.

During the last presidential election, George W. Bush's campaign rallies routinely featured mass prayers in which the faithful proclaimed their belief that the Lord had personally intervened to put Mr. Bush in the White House -- apparently it was God who came up with the Florida butterfly ballot.
A recent television news story on the anniversary of the Indian Ocean tsunami ended with a young Indonesian man musing that the disaster was God's way of telling people to be more devout. Now, one might ask why it is that the omniscient and omnipotent Master of the Universe couldn't figure out a way to communicate that doesn't involve drowning babies and leaving children naked, starving and orphaned. But the reporter didn't ask that rather obvious question. Instead, this metaphysical insight was aired unchallenged, with images of a mosque and slow-rolling surf giving it an air of dignity and reverence.
This is the sort of respectful tone one is supposed to adopt when discussing faith. It is rude to think critically about the content of religious claims. It is impolite to be judgmental. One must not say that views such as this Indonesian man's, or those of Mr. Bush's more passionate supporters, make no sense even on their own irrational terms. One must not say they are crude, absurd, wretchedly superstitious and unworthy of the human brain.

Unless, of course, it's crazy old Pat Robertson we're talking about.

Then this whole divine intervention thing is just nutty.

---

Couldn't agree more.

Why do you hate religion?

More religion bashing, which will lead to a staunch counterattack, which will lead to a war???

:flybye:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

Why do you hate religion?

---

I got tired of hating Freedom.

:laugh4: would you mind if I put that in my signature?


I think that people in general need to realize that other people are going to disagree with them sometimes and that they can't always have the gestapo bash down their door and drag them away.

Listening to idiots who think that saying anything remotely anti Christian/Islamic/Jewish/what ever means that you need to be silenced gives me a headache.

lol Mongoose, I like your sig.

Quote:

---

This is the sort of respectful tone one is supposed to adopt when discussing faith. It is rude to think critically about the content of religious claims. It is impolite to be judgmental. One must not say that views such as this Indonesian man's, or those of Mr. Bush's more passionate supporters, make no sense even on their own irrational terms. One must not say they are crude, absurd, wretchedly superstitious and unworthy of the human brain.

---

This is very true. I didn't noticed that face of religion and religious people until recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

To hear them talk, one would think that all of the mainstream media and anyone who has attained any higher education believes that there can be no nobler pastime than casting aspersions upon the devout of the world.

---

It isn't the most noble thing to do? I suppose I should extract the beam first before going for anothers splinter.

I think some people need to go to a few science conferences and see how much sledging, aspersions, cutting down, sarcasm etc all in the name of the higher calling of science... scientists are pretty ruthless with each other, and at least in that niche environment of intellectual gladiators the winner tends to walk off with the prize money... well next years grants and tenure. :laugh4: ... while with cutting down religion there is not much to gain in a monetary sense.

Not bad, but how are you reading the Ottawa Citizen, Goofball?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

Not bad, but how are you reading the Ottawa Citizen, Goofball?

---

The article also appeared in the Victoria Times Colonist.

Nice little afternoon reading.. ehr night.

Wouldnt it be more logical that it was Lucifer... you know,the "morning star", that created the tsunami... if I was a religius man, I guess that would be more logical to me.

If a buss crashed, wouldnt it be Lucifer that killed 28/30 people and the two that survived actually are just people he failed to kill.

....I need some sleep.

Big-whoppity-frickin'-do.

A person who is obviously contemptous of religion writes a bunch of ad hominem attacks and commits the logical fallacy of comparing all Christians to Pat Robertson.

Quote:

---

What makes no sense is to say that there is a God, that He is directly involved in the affairs of humanity, that He must be thanked for good fortune -- but that it is outrageous and unconscionable to ascribe the misfortune of a high-ranking man to divine will.

---

His understanding is shallow, and reveals his prejudice. Noone said that it was outrageous to ascribe Sharon's sufferings to God's will (another logical fallacy), Pat Robertson said it was God's punishment. All things are God's will-but only God knows for what reason they were done.

Another example of personal slander with no substansive arguments:

Quote:

---

Those who believe that the Bible is something more than the collected writings of desert-dwelling primitives with too much time on their hands need only look at the Book of Job, wherein Job suffers a lot more than a stroke simply because God had a bet with the Devil. If the Lord would afflict you with boils and kill your children just so He could say "booyah!" to Lucifer, what would He do if you really pissed him off?

---

It also illustrates that the writer does not really understand the Christian concept of God. He thinks of God as just some guy with superpowers.

Crazed Rabbit

What an idiotic argument. The story of Job is a testament to his unshakeable faith, not how psychotic God is. Even a frigging atheist can see that.

Rabbit, he's not comparing all Christians to Robertson. He's saying that divine intervention is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Rabbit, he's not comparing all Christians to Robertson. He's saying that divine intervention is nonsense.

---

Divine Intervention is his main focus, but he does compare Christians to Robertson:

Quote:

---

It can't be easy being Pat Robertson. Like lots of fervent Christians, the American evangelist believes
...
And yet simply for following his faith through to its logical conclusion

---

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

What an idiotic argument. The story of Job is a testament to his unshakeable faith, not how psychotic God is. Even a frigging atheist can see that.

---

I always thought the book of Job was a party :balloon2: . Salt pillar, single guy... all he needs is lime and tequila. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Divine Intervention is his main focus, but he does compare Christians to Robertson

---

Tell me you missed the words 'fervent' and 'evangelist' in there. Also, whose faith is being followed?

Perhaps I should have said 'Christians who actually believe in the Bible and the Commandments, which are fervent fundamentalists compared to Christians who have a laid back, hippy-like beliefs, with the TV show 'Book of Daniel' as an example' instead of just 'Christians'. The implication is that if you take your belief seriously, you're a Robertson wanna-be,. And evangelist is just describing Robertson.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Perhaps I should have said 'Christians who actually believe in the Bible and the Commandments, which are fervent fundamentalists compared to Christians who have a laid back, hippy-like beliefs, with the TV show 'Book of Daniel' as an example' instead of just 'Christians'. The implication is that if you take your belief seriously, you're a Robertson wanna-be,. And evangelist is just describing Robertson.

---

Fervant christians is just that, fervant christians. In the "fervant" part you lose your rationality. If he was refering to the average Christians he would have said that Rabbit, so don't try to get to conclussions that aren't there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Big-whoppity-frickin'-do.

A person who is obviously contemptous of religion writes a bunch of ad hominem attacks and commits the logical fallacy of comparing all Christians to Pat Robertson.



His understanding is shallow, and reveals his prejudice. Noone said that it was outrageous to ascribe Sharon's sufferings to God's will (another logical fallacy), Pat Robertson said it was God's punishment. All things are God's will-but only God knows for what reason they were done.

Another example of personal slander with no substansive arguments:


It also illustrates that the writer does not really understand the Christian concept of God. He thinks of God as just some guy with superpowers.

Crazed Rabbit

---

Read the article again. He does not hold religion in contempt. Rather, he holds in contempt those who try to ascribe divine purpose (and therefor divine support of their own causes) to earthly events that they view as furthering their own causes. This is demonstrated by both the Muslim fundamentalists and the Christian fundamentalists claiming that God smote Sharon, but for completely different reasons. Not to mention that the reasons claimed for this divine smiting are diametrically opposed to each other.

But your response did go a long way in supporting my initial point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Whenever any mainstream media outlet, public figure, celebrity, or politician says anything even remotely "anti-religious," it seems to me that religious folks the world over come down on them with both feet, screaming about bias and intolerance (not to mention hellfire and damnation) until the maker of the offensive remark(s) is left stammering apologies and retractions like a twelve year-old schoolboy caught stealing cookies.

---

Fortunately, I suspect Mr. Gardner has sufficient backbone to ignore the hate-mail he must be receiving demanding apologies for having talked a bit of sense.

I don't have an issue with the doctrine of "divine intervention." I think God can and does manipulate things to serve His plan.

I just don't think we can tell when that is.

And especially not Pat Robertson.

I hate religion, I hate religious people, I hate God, I hate heaven.

Screwwwwww yoooooouuuu guuuuuuuuyyyyyyyyys, I'm going home!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

I hate religion, I hate religious people, I hate God, I hate heaven.

Screwwwwww yoooooouuuu guuuuuuuuyyyyyyyyys, I'm going home!

---

Youre so inclusive.

Reeemember the Alamo :laugh4:.

Seriously though, my history teacher says they give a REALLY glossy version of Texas history down there...

you mean the only version where one proud upstanding german immgrant killed 11323235345 mexicans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

you mean the only version where one proud upstanding german immgrant killed 11323235345 mexicans

---

Heckz Yeahz!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Reeemember the Alamo :laugh4:.

Seriously though, my history teacher says they give a REALLY glossy version of Texas history down there...

---

That was that bunch of Mexicans getting killed by another bunch of Mexicans wasn't it?

On topic, if you can't justify your beliefs logically, don't speak about them. Trying to work out why an all-powerful and all-merciful god would legitimately need to give people strokes or wash them out to sea gives me a headache.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

you mean the only version where one proud upstanding german immgrant killed 11323235345 mexicans

---

Wasn't that Kaisers great grandaddy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Read the article again. He does not hold religion in contempt.

---

Really? From the article:

Quote:

---

Those who believe that the Bible is something more than the collected writings of desert-dwelling primitives with too much time on their hands need only look at the Book of Job,

---

Seems slanderous to me.

And you're right I'm going to come down hard on a pack of lies and innuendo that falsely impugnes religion.

Quote:

---

Fervant christians is just that, fervant christians. In the "fervant" part you lose your rationality. If he was refering to the average Christians he would have said that Rabbit, so don't try to get to conclussions that aren't there.

---

No, he does not quite think that. To him, any Christian who actually beleives is 'fervent'.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Divine Intervention is his main focus, but he does compare Christians to Robertson:

---

Quote:

---

[ORIGINAL QUOTE]
Like lots of fervent Christians, the American evangelist believes that God wants the Jews to have all of what was ancient Israel and he followed that belief to the corollary that any Israeli politician who gives away land acts contrary to the wishes of Jehovah.

---

That is the full quote. Are you saying that isn't true? Cause... you're wrong.