Stop Me If You've Heard This One

A joke from commenter drow ranger:

A guy's sitting on his roof, waiting for rescue from an overflowing river. A boat comes by, and the guy refuses to get in the boat, saying "God will save me". Another boat comes along and he says the same thing, choosing to stay on the roof. Finally a helicopter comes, and guy still says, "God will save me." Copter goes away, guy drowns. Guy's in heaven, saying to God "Why didn't you save me?" God says, "What are you talking about? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"

I've heard this joke many times when theists want to make a point about how God moves through the mundane. But let's poke at this joke a little bit from the perspective of someone who is not omnipotent and who does not get to hear God give the punchline at the end--you know, regular people. What role does faith in God play in this anecdote? The only thing faith in God does is keep that man on the house to drown--an atheist would have been saved. This is the point we have been making all along; all faith is going to do is keep you on that house to drown. Until God is willing to have a clear dialogue to let you know EXACTLY what He means (not a monologue like all theists experience now), then you shouldn't trust what you THINK His promises are going to be; trust your fellow man who's trying to get you off of that house before you drown.

55 comments:

Joe E. Holman said...

Yep, without the punchline, this silly joke doesn't say much at all. And none of us have the liberty of getting that reassuring punchline--ever!

Reminds me of my cousin's refutation of his mom's argument; she was saying that God and the Bible must be obeyed just as a general gives orders in the army and his orders must be obeyed without question. But he pointed out, "But mom, the difference is, we know that the general exists! We don't know that God exists!"

(JH)

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

So what are you saying? That a god can't inspire people? That a god must use people like puppets?

When I used to take credit for doing good (that is the meaning of pride) I
fell into self righteousness.

3M

Brian_E said...

There seems to have been a few posts here lately (regarding the faith healers) where hearing this joke (and more importantly comprehending it) could've done them some good. And this also represents an area where I've seen atheists and apologists overlap; no one, regardless of faith, should ever be expecting a miracle from god. As to the why they shouldn't expect a miracle is where the debates begin!

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

brian e wrote "no one, regardless of faith, should ever be expecting a miracle from god. "

Just because you place your confidence in the opinions of those who coincide with your own, does not exclude the testimony of those who have experienced occurrences that fall outside the realm of the natural world. BTW, I don't believe that God shares the same definition of "miraculous" as people do-I believe He thinks it's miraculous when people soften their hearts (moving the mountains) towards one another to amend enmity.

At any rate, nice talking with you,
3M

sadrok said...

I remember hearing this in church way back when I was still trying to cling on to my faith. It made me think "What use is a god if humans are more reliable?"
I'm thinking now that this "joke" pushed me a bit more to renouncing the religion idea.

Harry H. McCall said...

I have seen so much of “God talk” supported just as “mmm” has done:

“I think…”; “Well, maybe…”; “It could be that…”; “It’s just possible that…”; “We need to be open about…”; “You should understand that…”; “You should trust / have faith that …”; and so on.

mmm, I don’t give the “benefit of the doubt” to keep a concept like “God” on philophical life support.

Faith is nothing but religious optimistic thinking which any atheist can do without “God”.

Thranil said...

"Just because you place your confidence in the opinions of those who coincide with your own, does not exclude the testimony of those who have experienced occurrences that fall outside the realm of the natural world."

Yeah, but what I find interesting is how every single instance of supposedly supernatural phenomena that has been investigated has been shown to either be a misunderstanding or a hoax. If I were to represent this in a bar graph, there would be two columns: one showing how many supernatural claims have been disproven by science (a large bar) and the number of supernatural claims supported by science (no bar). So... until there is a modicum of proof of just ONE supernatural claim, I will continue to be skeptical of such things

... but clearly you have a much lower standard for whether you think something is true or not. Speaking of which, I have some land in Florida that I'd like to talk with you about...

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Harry wrote,"Faith is nothing but religious optimistic thinking which any atheist can do without “God”."

Sometimes it's easy to focus on what one would consider supernatural without actually realizing the cost of relinquishing proprietary pursuits-difficult but more than a worthwhile pursuit. There are days when I remember not believing and in many ways, perishing had become comfortable, easy and attainable. The best to you,Harry.

Then, Thranil wrote,"Yeah, but what I find interesting is how every single instance of supposedly supernatural phenomena that has been investigated has been shown to either be a misunderstanding or a hoax"

EVERY single incidence? Wow! You are obviously the superior one here doing all that research! EVERY single incidence!!!! Wow again-I'm impressed!!! Thranil, you've convinced me- forget about Jesus-you're the one!!!

Hey,in all seriousness, sweeping generalizations are a temptation -afterall they're sort of fun, sensational and dramatic aren't they?

Okay, Take care!
3M

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said...

Wow MMM, your condescension of Thranil's "sweeping generalization" was nothing short of pompous arrogance. Did you miss this little supporting phrase:

...that has been investigated

Every claim which has been investigated (and which results are currently available) has been dismissed as a hoax or as a purely natural phenomenon. Funny that you would argue this, though, for if it were otherwise, don't you think we'd be frantically trying to find a natural explanation for those claims of the supernatural which hadn't been found to be hoaxes?

Nice try.

Fail.

Trotting backward a ways, I also found Joe's anectode regarding his aunt and cousin amusing:

[S]he was saying that God and the Bible must be obeyed just as a general gives orders in the army and his orders must be obeyed without question.

The old Nuremburg defense, eh?

Why did you slaughter the Medianites, including their male children and any non-virgin women, and take the remaining virgin women as concubines? Just following orders?

Why did you pummel to death with rocks your back-talking child? Following orders again?

Why did you advocate slavery? Orders, you say?

The correct response, of course, is as follows:

With all due respect sir (or ma'am), I am duty-bound to refuse this order, as it is an illegal order.

It's too bad we don't have an example of that in the bible (Job notwithstanding)...

But then again, if Christians want to voluntarily equate themselves with Nazis, I appreciate the irony.

--
Stan

sconnor said...

mmm, said, BTW, I don't believe that God shares the same definition of "miraculous" as people do-I believe He thinks it's miraculous when people soften their hearts (moving the mountains) towards blah, blah, blah.

Put the cuckoo back in the cuckoo clock.

Whenever someone claims to know what god thinks, don't walk, run away -- quickly -- from that delusional zealot.

--S.

Scott said...

So what are you saying? That a god can't inspire people? That a god must use people like puppets?

Just because it's logically possible that God could inspire people does not mean he really does. Just because one could presuppose that God is omnipotently arranging things that occur around us for a particular purpose, doesn't mean that he actually is.

It's as if the mere inability to prove with 100% certainly that God does not exist is all the justification one needs to believe that he does exist.

Clearly, it is logically possible that God, being omnipotent, could be a malicious force behind childhood illnesses, arranging accidents and causing natural disasters. He could easily fool us into thinking otherwise because, well, he's supposedly omnipotent. Does this give me the right to claim it's true?

When I used to take credit for doing good (that is the meaning of pride) I fell into self righteousness.

So then why do you do good at all? Because, whether you intentionally take credit for it or not, you're making a conscious choice to do "good" instead of "evil."

No one else can make that choice for you. Nor can anyone else take credit for that choice. Otherwise, it wouldn't really be your choice in the first place.

Joe E. Holman said...

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

"So what are you saying? That a god can't inspire people? That a god must use people like puppets?"

My reply...

He's saying that stupid quips like this that believers use don't hit home with atheists because we have way to get anything on the principles of the joke because we can't know what God does when he does it. We have no proof of him, unlike the guy in the joke does in the end.

Why is God always SENDING people and prophets, etc? Why would he do that? Why doesn't he do these things himself? That's the mucho grande question here.

We'd like an answer.

(JH)

Brian_E said...

MMM,

You only seem to prove my point. Millions of christians expect miracles to happen; millions more don't. Who's right, and who's wrong? The simple fact that this discrepancy exists demonstrates a failure of your 'god'. He has failed so magnificently at getting a clear message across on multiple points regarding your faith, that it's no wonder there have been so many wars and killings based off different interpretations. There is no way in hell that a kind and loving god would have allowed so much confusion to exist amongst the beings he purportedly loves so much.

John said...

"When I used to take credit for doing good (that is the meaning of pride) I fell into self righteousness."


I'm not sure that taking credit for doing a good deed is pride. I always thought that pride was thinking of yourself more highly than you ought to. Not giving yourself credit for doing something good.

For me humility comes when I recognize I'm flawed but also realizing the good in me.

Maybe I'm wrong here but I think
you should give yourself a little bit of credit for doing a good deed. You're not all bad.

Through my conversations with you on your blog I would say that you're a very sweet person with alot of love in your heart. You are one of the key people who have helped move me away from the Christian religion and back to the God of my understanding. Thanks Beautiful Feet!

Anyway, I miss your blog. I can't agree with you about Jesus but I think you have alot of wonderful things to say.

Thranil said...

Thanks for clarifying that to MMM, Stan. I'm sure it's hard for MMM to read something completely in context after being so conditioned to read the bible in pieces...

After all, if he DIDN'T read the bible that way, he probably wouldn't call himself a Christian anymore...

John said...

MMM,

If taking credit for doing good is prideful then God must be prideful since He takes the credit for doing good.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The reason this is so very silly is becasue there is nothing about faith that would tell the guy to stay on the roof. The point of the story is that God moves int he mundane. You are merely adding to that a proviso that one must screw oneself to have faith.

btw I woudl be dead now if not for my faith. I lost everything, my life was shattered if God hadn't rebuilt it I would be dead.

why do you feel the need to ridicule the way other people choose to respond to life. I am not asking you to be a Christian. I don't want to you to be one. so why ridicule the choices of others when it does not effect you?

Searching for an Edge said...

I think this kind of joke highlights a different problem. God has a different value system to a human. God doesn't particularly care if you die - in fact it always happens. That humans care I think is a direct reason to think there is no god. If we really knew there was an 'after life' we wouldn't fear death - under any circumstances. That we aren't sure is a weird trick to play by god isn't it?

sconnor said...

hinman said, why do you feel the need to ridicule the way other people choose to respond to life. I am not asking you to be a Christian. I don't want to you to be one. so why ridicule the choices of others when it does not effect you?

Oh, but, it does affect people. You being one of the mindless, christian, drones, supports an institution that wants to:

1. Get America back to it's supposed christian foundation
2. Put christianity back into the public school system.
3. Put the ten commandments in front of State properties.
4. Not allow women to make decisions about their bodies.
5. Not allow people to make end of life decisions.
6. Discriminate --In the case of Baptists, Catholics, evangelicals, and fundamentalists -- against women and not let them become priests or pastors.
7. Discriminate against gay people -- not allowing them to marry, raise kids or have the same benefits as a man and a women have when they are married.
8. Preach creationism or it's sick, parasitic, twin ID, over evolution, breeding ignorance in the science classroom.

Not only do you affect people, you belong to a club that is and was notorious for "affecting" people. You possess the same deluded and magical thinking that has been a part of the christian faith.

You possess the same deluded thinking that made it possible to burn witches at the stake.
You possess the same deluded thinking that made it possible to torture non-believers during the inquisition.
You possess the same deluded thinking that led to a massive cover-up and continued to let priest rape children in the Catholic faith, over and over. (Father So and So couldn't have raped little Johnny, he's a man of god).
You possess the same deluded thinking that made it possible to kill non-christians during the crusades.
You possess the same deluded thinking that makes it possible for JWs to withhold blood transfusions, allowing their children to suffer and die.
You possess the same deluded thinking that made it possible for parents of an eleven year old girl to die, because they only prayed over her, neglecting medical intervention.
You possess the same deluded thinking that allows christians to use a rod on their children.
You possess the same deluded thinking that makes it possible to relegate women to a subservient role to their husbands.
You possess the same deluded thinking that made it possible to justify slavery in America.
You possess the same deluded thinking that made it possible to trample other cultures by proselytizing christianity to them.
You possess the same deluded thinking that made it possible for sick, screw-ups, to blow up abortion clinics.
You possess the same deluded thinking that makes it possible for christians to have a hundred different interpretations, on how to obtain eternal life, with an array of endless combinations, all the while claiming their interpretation is the one and only truth and then you take this delusion and proselytize, because god told you to do so.

Yeah, you and your little club has and will continue to try and "affect" people. Christianity affects like a disease and is the scourge of humanity. And you as one of christianity's, little, bitches -- is only worthy of ridicule. I'm empathetic to the mentally ill, diseased or addicted, but you choose to be an ignorant, gullible, religious zealot, who contributes and supports the intolerable institution of christianity.

--S.

akakiwibear said...

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller you certainly live up your name with
"Did you miss this little supporting phrase:
...that has been investigated ...
Every claim which has been investigated (and which results are currently available) has been dismissed as a hoax or as a purely natural phenomenon."
.

As you claim expertise in this area I presume you are familiar with the rigorous and objective (some might say excessively harsh) process the Catholic church follows when considering a person for sainthood. Requirements like immediate response to specific prayer and independent medical evaluation.

So please refer me to your credible source that dismisses the healing of Ron Pytel of Baltimore attributed to the intercession of St Faustina.

You appear to have a different source than the report of the independent medical panel including Dr. Nicholas Fortuin, from Johns Hopkins, who investigated the claim in the role of so-called 'Devil's Advocate'.

Of course you also have the documentation that shows the Maureen Digan healing miracle attributed to Faustina's intercession is also in your words "a hoax or as a purely natural phenomenon."

Personally I go with the report of the medical panels of November 16 1999 - but I am open to your evidence ...
... in other words put up or shut up.

Hamba kahle - peace

Joe E. Holman said...

akakiwibear said...

"As you claim expertise in this area I presume you are familiar with the rigorous and objective (some might say excessively harsh) process the Catholic church follows when considering a person for sainthood. Requirements like immediate response to specific prayer and independent medical evaluation.

So please refer me to your credible source that dismisses the healing of Ron Pytel of Baltimore attributed to the intercession of St Faustina."

Every cult has their own "verified" miracles, lying-wonder-lover.

Do you believe in those of the Greek Orthodox Church? They sure put a lot of emphasis on them, and if you disagree, they'll present plenty of "expert testimony" that "proves" what they are saying.

And bear in mind, aside from having good historical scholarship, your church has no credibility; "proving" the authenticity of holy relics has been your church's business for the past 2,000 years.

It's a sham for the gullible. Wake the fuck up!

(JH)

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said...

I see, Akakiwibear. So now a) convening a medical board at The Vatican constitutes an unbiased review, and b) Evangelical Christians accept praying to a dead human not named Jesus as acceptable.

You have proven that St. Faustina is a deity, if anything.

Yes, your wit and talent at investigation are amazing. Despite my unbounded resources, my infallible memory, and my magical third nipple, you have shown that I do not, as it turns out, have access to each and every purported miracle and its accompanying evidence.

No doubt you, too, will be canonized following your death and a dubious claim of a miracle due to your intercession on my behalf. I'm praying to you right now.

In all seriousness, I had evidence which proved these events were natural phenomena, but it was destroyed when lightning inexplicably struck my dog, who had eaten it.

--
Stan

Don said...

Does everyone that prays to St. Faustina get healed?

I'm sure Father Pytel prayed to her again when he got diagnosed with kidney cancer. Did it work that time?

I'll believe causality if you answer "yes" to these questions>

Don said...

I just read Father Pytel's testimony about the event. If I understand it correctly it goes like this:

- Father Pytel is diagnosed with heart disease.

- He has surgery to replace a bad valve.

- He takes medications for several months.

- He feels better.

- Doctor says his heart looks better.

I think I would be more impressed if he had felt better without the surgery and medication.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Wow, I'm gone for just a couple days and I am honored that my comment generated so many responses - thanks for the input! I don't generally challenge others' comments in such an arrogant way,but once in awhile, I do get infected by the surrounding influences, I don't claim absolute immunity from such but I do believe in the spirit of mutuality that if one dishes it out, one should also take it.:-)

At any rate, somewhere along the line (perhaps it was Joe?) someone said something akin to, Why doesn't God just do it all? Why does He use people? Legitimate perspective! As a nonbeliever, I never understood the value and the honor of sharing in the work offered by an authority that doesn't abuse power. There is value and life in such endeavors- God shares His authority with those who can be trusted with it.

As far as me having special knowledge of God's will- it's been revealed through Christ.

And then lastly there was a comment about if pride leads to self righteousness then God must be self righteous. Thats' a very formulaic approach. I had confessed that I fell into self righteousness when I would seek "taking credit" or pridefulness- God doesn't abuse power like I have done - He shares His righteousness - He doesn't use it to abuse or lord over others to punish or humiliate them like some people can get infected with.

At any rate, thanks for all the responses -they were all good and thought provoking!

Adios!
3M

sconnor said...

mmm said, He doesn't use it to abuse or lord over others to punish or humiliate them like some people can get infected with.

Absolutely right, mmm, God would never punish his earthly children by abusing them or torturing them by, let's say, burning them to death or maybe infecting them with some kind of hideous disease -- right?

Leviticus 20:14
Leviticus 10:1-2
Numbers 11:1
Numbers 16:35
1Chronicles 21:14
2Samuel 12:14-15

--S.

akakiwibear said...

Atheists are often quick to call for theists to present evidence to support this or that claim. Yet it seems when atheists make unsubstantiated claims they retreat behind bluster to cover their porkies.

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller, seems you can't admit to using unsubstantiated exaggeration to further your argument.

It would have better for you to have followed my advice and 'shut up' since you clearly can't 'put up'. Discretion would have suited you better than adding to being caught in your half-truth ... but that with your nom, why should we have expected anything else!

Joe E. Holman, I extend the same invitation to you, put up your evidence or shut it.

Don, it pays to read the whole evidence before you speak. Try checking the medical report prior to the event ... besides do you really think the non-religious on the panel did not have full access to the case notes and accounts ... all the same at least you looked into the event, more than can be said for most. I trust your error was simply due to lack of time rather than an intent to misconstrue.

Hamba kahle - peace

Joe E. Holman said...

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

"At any rate, somewhere along the line (perhaps it was Joe?) someone said something akin to, Why doesn't God just do it all? Why does He use people? Legitimate perspective! As a nonbeliever, I never understood the value and the honor of sharing in the work offered by an authority that doesn't abuse power. There is value and life in such endeavors- God shares His authority with those who can be trusted with it."

My reply...

3M, it may indeed be productive for daddy to pick little junior up by his britches and let him move the butter knife across the cake so that he can think he's frosting the cake too, just like mom does. But that's not the bone of contention here.

Sharing authority isn't the problem. You have evidently forgotten that we are talking about evidences for God's existence and the barf-bag-worthy sentiments of Christians who talk about God SENDING them to do his will.

I have a big problem with some bigoted bible-bubba saying that I need to believe that an invisible, unknown force is all-powerful and responsible for all space-time and existence itself, and then expecting me to believe them when they talk about it. If I can't see this omnipotent force at work in some way, how dare you tell me, "I'm speaking for God. God sent me to reveal him."

That makes you and your "representatives" of heaven nothing but a bunch of prideful sufferers of delusions of grandeur.

It does no good to argue the existence of what we can find no evidence for. You are arguing for Klem Kaddittlehopper's alleged ability to jump 20 feet because you say, "I can prove that I can jump 20 feet. Just go check the records of the people who saw me back in Greybull, Wyoming." We skeptics are saying, "No, just do it here if you can do it."

The very fact that we are having to ARGUE over the existence of the most important and attention-loving man in the room should make you want to burn your Bible right now.

See the problem? See why we're not having a meeting of the minds here?

(JH)

Joe E. Holman said...

akakiwibear said...

"Atheists are often quick to call for theists to present evidence to support this or that claim. Yet it seems when atheists make unsubstantiated claims they retreat behind bluster to cover their porkies.

Joe E. Holman, I extend the same invitation to you, put up your evidence or shut it."

My reply...

Ok, akakiwibear, you win. We'll play it your way; since I'm definitely not going to waste my already-near-wasted shell of a life disproving the silly and sanctified lies of ecclesiastical eggheads not unlike yourself, I'll do that; I'll shut-up.

But ONLY if you agree to get my book and read it. There, I discuss your kind of nut-case who believes what you believe.

Tell me, do you really believe that the 66 "healings" officially recognized by the Catholic Church at the Lourdes Basilica in France are authentic? What about modern Virgin Mary sightings? Do you believe those too?

(JH)

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi again Joe! It's not that there will never be a state where there is an absolute meeting of the minds on every issue I love the ones that disagree with my belief.

Thanks! BTW, I think you're a talented and witty writer.
3M

John said...

Hi mmm,

According to you if I do a good deed I give the credit to God because He is the one who has enabled me to do it. So, God is really the one doing it through me. If I depend on God for righteousness I'm not being prideful. Who does God depend on when He does a good deed? He depends on Himself right? God's righteousness doesn't come from somebody else it comes from Himself. Who does God depend on when He makes a decision? According to you Jesus was God. Who did Jesus rely on to do His good deeds? He relied on the Father. Jesus and the Father are one. God relied on Himself. When Jesus gave God the glory for doing a good deed he was giving himself the glory. When Jesus gave God the credit He was giving Himself the credit for doing a good job. If being arrogant means giving yourself credit for doing a good deed then God is arrogant because He gives Himself the credit for doing a good deed. I don't understand it.

For me becoming humble means I attain a realistic view of myself and where I fit in the world. I grow into a state of awareness founded on my acceptance of all aspects of myself. I neither deny my good qualities nor overemphasize my defects. I honestly accept who I am.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

I need to get some typing lessons! I wrote,"It's not that there will never be a state where there is an absolute meeting of the minds on every issue I love the ones that disagree with my belief"

I need to add a "but" between the words "issue" and "I" so it reads, "but I love the ones".... that's a big "but" (remember, mine is a weight loss blog...).

About pride and righteousness - the one thief on the cross got it right - God is innocent - He's creative, expressive - I don't think He should be crucified for that, but I know that people can take offense and become suspicious and guarded as though there's an ulterior motive to be unearthed. I had that approach towards faith and it came from being infected with religious hypocrisy and heirarchy.

Take care!

3M

Scott said...

M3: There is value and life in such endeavors - God shares His authority with those who can be trusted with it.

Can you tell us what value you're referring to?

M3: God doesn't abuse power like I have done - He shares His righteousness - He doesn't use it to abuse or lord over others to punish or humiliate them like some people can get infected with.

But how exactly did you come to this conclusion based on what we actually observe?

Don't you need to..

01. Presuppose that God exists
02. Presuppose that God is only manipulating specific aspects of his creation
03. Presuppose that the results from that manipulation is what God intended
04. Presuppose the results do not ultimately represent an abuse of power
05. Presuppose that God is not involved in manipulating other aspects which DO imply an abuse of power

...to come to this conclusion?

If you claim there is enough "evidence" that God could be behind behavior or event X, then he could be responsible for anything and everything that occurs since there is no clear indication of his involvement. You merely choose to associate God with "good" things based on your presupposition that "God doesn't abuse power." Nor do cases where you claim his involvement appear to be outside of what one might expect in a natural universe.

Essentially you're saying...

P1. The Bible makes accurate claims about the existence of God and Jesus
P2. Some of the Bible's claims about the nature of God and Jesus are accurate
P3. One accurate claim is that God does not abuse power
P4. I interpret some situations that I observe as lacking the abuse of power

Therefore...

C1. Some situations are caused by God

But as a I mentioned in an earlier comment, all you have to do is change your presuppositions about God and there would be just as much evidence that he was the malicious force behind illnesses, accidents and causing natural disasters. It's simply not clear or obvious that God is really behind any events.

As such, I'm led to believe that you simply use the idea of "God" as a placeholder for all of the good things that happen in the universe. A label, so to speak. Because, if God really did exist, his impact could not be isolated in the way you seem to think it is.

For example, if God exists, his non-action would be just as important as his actions. In fact, if God knows what would occur by taking a specific action, he could not avoid knowing what would not occur based on this same action. Otherwise he could not rule out their occurrence in place of what he did want to occur.

In choosing one specific thing, he intentionally chooses an near-infinite number of non-occurances. Otherwise, how could he know the right answer in all situations?

John said...

mmm,

If God is perfect He obviously knows He's perfect and He walks arround thinking He's perfect. If I were to walk arround thinking I'm perfect I would be prideful. I would be thinking of myself more highly than I ought to. I'm not perfect, I don't know everything. Is God perfect? Does God know everything? Is He prideful and arrogant because He knows everything and thinks He's perfect?

Scott said...

I had confessed that I fell into self righteousness when I would seek "taking credit" or pridefulness

Again, I'm confused. If God gave us "free-will" then how can you NOT be due credit for your free choice?

If God gets the credit for your good actions, then free-will is just an illusion. But if, when given two choices, you intentionally choose to good, then you are responsible for that choice and the credit is due to you. You can't avoid it. Nor can it be given to someone else.

However, if you're simply following orders, without interpreting their results, then I could see how the credit would be due to someone else.

However, I don't think you see your actions are merely following God's orders. Do you?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Scott! All those presuppositions! Yikes! Presuppositions and faith - not sympatico! Please reread what I wrote about the thief on the cross - this man was no theologian, he had just experienced enough punishment of the world and had finally developed a thirst and hunger for what was innocent and right.Also, I think I'm seeing evidence that you perceive me as having gotten my faith via the Bible. Interesting. I find scripture to affirm what I know to be true about both infected human nature and divine nature, but I don't use the Bible as God- I find it inspirational and affirming of man's search for a loving God and how that desire is met in Jesus.

As far as other comments are concerned - The beauty of grace is it allows ourselves to be revealed in the way that we perceive God and others. (BTW, this is explainedin the parable of the talents).

Thanks for the insights!

The best to you,
3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Scott-you asked if I were merely following orders and I'm glad you brought that up - my last encounter with folks who practiced Fundamentalism put a strong emphasis on obedience without enough teaching of "what should I be obeying?" It was a very destructive and insensitive teaching for me since I was already compulsive, but God's spirit prevailed and I am here to say that He is a God who frees people from fear of punishment and blind obedience and yes, presuppositions - wisdom is different than approaching others formulaicly and trying to presuppose a set outcome.

At any rate,
peace out,
3M

John said...

mmm,

Do you believe it's true that God is the most beautiful thing alive? If it's true that God is the most beautiful thing alive then He obviously knows He's the most beautiful thing alive. So God walks arround thinking He's the most beautiful thing alive. Is this arrogant and prideful?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Scott- I've given some thought to your presuppositions and I'd like to address your outlook. The starting point of your presumptions are wrongly founded.

The order of your thinking seems to arise from a perspective that I think of the Bible as being tantamount to God. Even if a person does take scripture as "god" then at the very least, one would expect to believe (according to the literary Jesus) themselves captives without free will. I know this to be true,not via a literary work, but spiritually.. What I know is affirmed in scripture so it ultimately is an affirmation and inspiration but I also know literary works can be manipulated and misused.

I don't know if you ever noticed this, but Jesus never really approached people in a formulaic way - He used some scripture for those who were familiar with it, but not with everyone.

Bye!
3M

Joe E. Holman said...

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

"Hi again Joe! It's not that there will never be a state where there is an absolute meeting of the minds on every issue I love the ones that disagree with my belief.

Thanks! BTW, I think you're a talented and witty writer.
3M"

My reply...

Well, first off, thanks for the compliment! You paid me the nicest compliment you could have paid, in my view.

I'm feelin' good now! :-) And it's damn hard to make me feel good!

But of course, if you're recognizing inevitable disagreement, then you're essentially surrendering the point--people who claim to speak for God will never reach us infidels.

Further, you consent that you have no explanation for exactly WHY an omnipotent creator would not operate undeniably (visibly and above-board).

Fair enough. That's fine with me. At some point, we've all got to quit arguing and walk away to live the rest of our lives.

(JH)

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Joe - I am sincere about your writing.

Speaking of which, here is something you wrote,"Further, you consent that you have no explanation for exactly WHY an omnipotent creator would not operate undeniably (visibly and above-board)." I don't have such an explanation because I know God
does operate undeniabley - one simply must have the hutzpah to be labeled delusional and equipped for being trashed in order to share such encounters. Not me - not yet.

At any rate, Joe,I think it's only fair that you know that when I pray, I ask God, "Could Joe,et. al, sit with me at my end of the banquet table in heaven?" I hope you don't mind.Actually I am more like one of God's beloved pets so we might be eating under the table....if that's alright....dont' worry, it's all good..we'll probably get steak scraps.:-)

Peace out,
3M

Scott said...

God is innocent - He's creative, expressive

I don't know what you've trying to say here.

God is innocent of being all knowing and all powerful? God just wants us to all get along, so he sits around thinking up "creative" ways that just happen to look like random chance or natural events?

It's as if it's unreasonable to expect God to actually do something which would result in what God supposedly wants to occur in the first place. Such actions would "deprive" God of his opportunity to express whatever it is he's trying to express by allowing all of our suffering and not clearly revealing himself to us.

I find scripture to affirm what I know to be true about both infected human nature and divine nature, but I don't use the Bible as God- I find it inspirational and affirming of man's search for a loving God and how that desire is met in Jesus.

Also, I think I'm seeing evidence that you perceive me as having gotten my faith via the Bible. Interesting.

Interesting indeed.

I find scripture to affirm what I know to be true about both infected human nature and divine nature, but I don't use the Bible as God-

Humans have nature. We know this to be true because we can observe it.

The divine is said to be contra-nature. So you're merely confirming that God is not us, which effectively says nothing. God must ultimately be incomprehensible and lack nature, otherwise he could not solve the problems nature cannot solve or provide the answers that nature does not provide. God is anything but what we are, and this is by design.

I find it inspirational and affirming of man's search for a loving God and how that desire is met in Jesus.

So believing in Jesus, even if the Bible is not correct, saves us? It feeds our desire for a God who loves us, so the goal is met? Perhaps this is what you meant when you said, Jesus doesn't save us in the way you wanted him to.

Scott said...

Hi Scott-you asked if I were merely following orders and I'm glad you brought that up

I'm asking how it is that you should not receive credit for your actions if God really gave you free-will to choose. Because you seem to think that it is necessary for us to choose due to some inability of God to give us something he wants us to have.

As I mentioned, I didn't think you're simply following orders. However, this was the only way I could see that God was due credit for your free choice. Since you have confirmed this is not the case, then you cannot avoid deserving credit when you choose to do "good."

Why would you reject what is due to you? Why do you feel that credit for your choices and actions is wrong, when you believe God gave you that choice, which you alone can make, and he wants you to make it?

It seems you've put yourself in an impossible situation.

Scott said...

The order of your thinking seems to arise from a perspective that I think of the Bible as being tantamount to God.

Actually, I do not think this. Otherwise, I would not have said...

As such, I'm led to believe that you simply use the idea of "God" as a placeholder for all of the good things that happen in the universe. A label, so to speak. Because, if God really did exist, his impact could not be isolated in the way you seem to think it is.

I know this to be true,not via a literary work, but spiritually.. What I know is affirmed in scripture so it ultimately is an affirmation and inspiration but I also know literary works can be manipulated and misused.

I thought I had accounted for this in my presuppositions.

P1. The Bible makes accurate claims about the existence of God and Jesus

Do you think God and Jesus actually exist in some form or another?

P2. Some of the Bible's claims about the nature of God and Jesus are accurate

Do you think at least one aspect of the nature of God and Jesus is portrayed accurately?

P3. One accurate claim is that God does not abuse power

Is there at least one occurrence that accurately portrays God's nature as not "abusing" power?

P4. I interpret some situations that I observe as lacking the abuse of power

Do you think there are situations where some force is working behind the scenes, but not "abusing" power?

C1. Some situations are caused by God

Does this not "affirm" your belief that God exists and is the said force which is working behind the scenes in these specific instances?

Again, this is all based on your presupposition that God's nature is to not abuse power, which you then apply to the universe as a filter and point to the results as God's work. There is nothing inherent in the universe that indicates it was arranged by God, you're merely exclude all of the "bad" things that occur and claim what remains must be of God since he's a really nice guy and wouldn't be behind anything else.

In other words...

P1. I believe that, out of all the beings that do abuse power, there must be one that does not.
P2. I interpret some situations as lacking an abuse of power
P3. There are some Biblical accounts that depict God not abusing power

C1. God exists
C2. God does not abuse power
C3. God is behind all of the situations I interpret as lacking an abuse of power
C4. I can have a relationship with God without fearing an abuse of power

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Scott- I'm not sure (correct me if I'm wrong here) but it seems as though you are trying to approach supernatural deity as though it could be identified and seized through formula. I am a believer - therefore, I recognize the scripture about the Holy Spirit (no one knows where it comes or where it goes) to be true. Now as I used to see that scripture and it offended me - it sounded irresponsible and negligent. But not anymore - I am not insecure - instead I trust and I recognize freedom to be in connection with this nonabusive God.

I know this much about the difference between belief and nonbelief - as a nonbeliever, on a subliminal level, I held punishment and condemnation in my heart - Jesus doesn't justify or condone that. I abandoned belief in the notion of a supernatural god because on a subverse level, I held authority in contempt and I blindly placed the condemnation upon God instead of the people that were ungodly in their use of authority.

At any rate, Scott, I can't give you the god of formulaic deduction - if deducing everything into logical formula is the approach towards life that you desire, it is readily available in the world.The best to you!

Bye!

3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Scott wrote, "Again, this is all based on your presupposition that God's nature is to not abuse power, which you then apply to the universe as a filter and point to the results as God's work. There is nothing inherent in the universe that indicates it was arranged by God, you're merely exclude all of the "bad" things that occur and claim what remains must be of God since he's a really nice guy and wouldn't be behind anything else."

By saying my faith is by presupposition is incorrect. I had abandoned belief and was a nonbeliever. I was offended by scripture because I didn't fully understand and my approach was literal and superficial. I practiced atheism for many years. When you address me it seems you are presupposing that God does not exist as He claims He did in the Bible. It seems you relate to Jesus as though He is strictly a literary character.

As far as me excluding all the bad things that occur - that would be called "denial" - a condition I once used to suffer from - also I used to be an enabler. Jesus told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - no enabling, no denial, but responding with passion,love and grace. Faith isn't about denial - it is about being enlightened - becoming sighted to the truth of one's need for and the availability of God as savior in the midst of the real world.

At any rate, Scott-thanks once again!

3M

Shygetz said...

Atheists are often quick to call for theists to present evidence to support this or that claim. Yet it seems when atheists make unsubstantiated claims they retreat behind bluster to cover their porkies.

The Catholics have no evidence. Father Pytel's condition has been known to spontaneously cure itself (Preuss KC, Chapman PD, Ptacin MJ, Keelan MH, Bamrah VS. Clin Cardiol. 1988 Jul;11(7):497-500), he was on medication, he had been surgically treated with an artificial valve--there was nothing spontaneous about it. Was the resolution of his disease unusual--yes, and the unusual happens all the time in medicine. Is it unexplainable given our current knowledge? Yes; that's why people like me still have jobs. There was no skeptical investigation published; only the "investigation" of the Catholic canonization committee into an intercession supposedly by a well-beloved Sister already on her way to sainthood. The medical professionals on that committee did NOT rule that Pytel's recovery was impossible; only that it could not be explained with our current scientific knowledge. I will reiterate what was said before: there exists no examples of miracles that have withstood skeptical scrutiny.

Don, it pays to read the whole evidence before you speak. Try checking the medical report prior to the event ... besides do you really think the non-religious on the panel did not have full access to the case notes and accounts ... all the same at least you looked into the event, more than can be said for most. I trust your error was simply due to lack of time rather than an intent to misconstrue.

Has Father Pytel released his medical records? Which non-religious panel do you refer to, and did they say that his recovery was medically impossible? The only medical panel I find referred to in the investigation was led by Dr. Valentin Fuster, who is undoubtedly an eminently qualified cardiologist--however, they didn't say that this recovery was impossible and must be a miracle. He said science can't explain how it happened. HUGE difference. The THEOLOGICAL panel said the healing was a miracle, and if you think they are unbiased you're nuts.

You appear to have a different source than the report of the independent medical panel including Dr. Nicholas Fortuin, from Johns Hopkins, who investigated the claim in the role of so-called 'Devil's Advocate'

Falsehood; Pope John Paul II abolished the role of Devil's Advocate, and it has not been re-established (which is part of the reason why we've seen such a rash of beatifications and canonizations within the Catholic Church). On occasion, a skeptic is allowed to testify to the canonization comittee (e.g. Hitchens in re Mother Theresa), but it is not required and such a skeptic no longer has an official role and I have seen no such description of a skeptic taking the role even informally in Faustina's case. One would think that someone like you, who is so quick to insult people and throw around accusations of people not looking into the facts, would know something so easily discovered and that made such a huge impact at the time. Dr. Fortuin was Father Pytel's original cardiologist at Johns Hopkins; I have found no role that he played in the canonization proceedings, and if you have evidence of such a role, please present it.

It would have better for you to have followed my advice and 'shut up' since you clearly can't 'put up'. Discretion would have suited you better than adding to being caught in your half-truth ... but that with your nom, why should we have expected anything else!

I would suspend my victory lap, if I were you, especially given your apparent difficulties with facts. It makes you look like an ass.

Scott said...

Hi Scott- I'm not sure (correct me if I'm wrong here) but it seems as though you are trying to approach supernatural deity as though it could be identified and seized through formula.

I'm merely trying to make my questions clear in hope that you will answer them. Instead, It seems that you keep finding different ways to portray my position in an attempt to avoid answering them.

I am a believer - therefore, I recognize the scripture about the Holy Spirit (no one knows where it comes or where it goes) to be true.

...instead I trust and I recognize freedom to be in connection with this nonabusive God.


To clarify, you think God is non-abusive because he tells you so though the revelation of the Holy Spirit, as described in the Bible.

I know this much about the difference between belief and nonbelief - as a nonbeliever, on a subliminal level, I held punishment and condemnation in my heart - Jesus doesn't justify or condone that.

So how does Jesus fit into your belief? Is he merely someone who was inspired by the Holy Spirit? As such, his actions reveal God's non-abusive nature and provide an example for us to emulate?

Is the rest just one more example of humans manipulating and misusing literary works?

I held authority in contempt and I blindly placed the condemnation upon God instead of the people that were ungodly in their use of authority.

I'm not condemning God. I'm looking for support of your claim that God exists.

If God is who you say he is, wants what you say he wants and did what you imply he did, then we should be able to see some kind of correlation between our universe and your description of God. Instead, what we see are significant contradictions between the two. When I point them out, you seem to find them irrelevant and imply that I'm unreasonable for even bringing them up.

At any rate, Scott, I can't give you the god of formulaic deduction - if deducing everything into logical formula is the approach towards life that you desire, it is readily available in the world.The best to you!

Again, I'm being unreasonable for asking God to make sense. Instead, I should desire a non-logical approach to life, because expecting God to be logical denies him of "creatively" expressing things which he cannot come out and say and just happen to look like random chance or natural events.

If I desired a non-logical approach to life, then I wouldn't desire God, or anything, to act in a logical way. Is this how God saves us? By asking us to deny and reject reality?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

"By asking us to deny and reject reality?"

Scott, please re-read my last comment - thanks!

The best to you,
3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Scott, did you notice what you wrote here, "So how does Jesus fit into your belief?". This very question/perspective is the essence that depicts where I was at before God intervened. In other words, I was into idolotry - I wanted a god I could reduce to my understanding so that he could be manipulated by me. Because He doesn't conform to my likeness, I abandoned belief in Him. But He didn't come here to be like me, He came so I could be like Him. That's good news.

At any rate, it's not that God doesn't make sense (once the log was out of my eye), but it's that He doesn't suffer from pride.

Once again, good talkin to ya, Scott.

3M

Anonymous said...

Scott,

I'm beginning to get the feeling that MMM is into yanking chains.

Scott said...

Scott, please re-read my last comment - thanks!

You wrote: As far as me excluding all the bad things that occur - that would be called "denial" - a condition I once used to suffer from - also I used to be an enabler. Jesus told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - no enabling, no denial, but responding with passion,love and grace. Faith isn't about denial - it is about being enlightened - becoming sighted to the truth of one's need for and the availability of God as savior in the midst of the real world.

You're describing a strategy for responding to reality. While I applaud your decision to acknowledge the reality of situation you found yourself in, I'm talking about the nature of this reality. How did it get here? What is the causality behind it?

If you start with the presupposition that God exists and God does not abuse power then you simply point to all of the things and events you interpret as lacking an abuse of power and say they are a result of God's love for us. They are "proof" of his existence. You're not denying everything else exists, you're denying the nature of their existence despite your claim that God exists and has specific properties and goals.

One could just as easily presuppose that God is malicious, then simply point to disease, disasters, and accidents as just as much "proof" of God existence and agency in the universe.

As such, there really isn't any "proof" for either scenario. This is part of the denial I'm referring to. To keep with the topic of the post, you're claiming supernatural agency where agency not is really apparent and would be contradictory if it actually were present.

But He didn't come here to be like me, He came so I could be like Him. That's good news.

It's as if God is an passionate, brave, heroic, fire fighter.

Sure, being omnipotent, he could prevent every fire from happening in the first place, but God's very nature is the essences of fire fighting. Who are we to deny God's desire to put out fires? He wants to save us from the fires which are occurring all around us. And the good news is he wants to teach us how to put out fires too. That's why it only appears that God is randomly putting out some fires, but not others.

At any rate, it's not that God doesn't make sense (once the log was out of my eye), but it's that He doesn't suffer from pride.

I'll respond to this once we've addressed your last comment.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Tigg wrote "I'm beginning to get the feeling that MMM is into yanking chains."

If I could yank the chains hard enough perhaps a few captives could be set free of their chains, but then again, one would have to acknowledge the state of being chained.

Scott, one can't use territorialism to be set free from territorialism - through the natural, there will always be the inclination and justification to punish or condemn one another.

Territorialism/pride - call it what you like is a true practice but so is being set free from it. There is a Way but if one isn't interested in it then I doubt it sounds very appealing or inspiring to talk about it. I can't respond any further beyond what I've written here - my answers won't gratify your questions because my faith isn't in idols anymore.

Thanks,Scott - I enjoy conversing with you.I'm sorry I don't have what you seem to be looking for.

3M

Scott said...

Scott, one can't use territorialism to be set free from territorialism - through the natural, there will always be the inclination and justification to punish or condemn one another.

Ok. So who am I punishing or condemning?

Are you suggesting that human nature is so hopelessly corrupt that my questioning the existence of a being who is not nature is condemning humans to an existence of hopeless corruption?

I should embrace any way to escape being human, regardless of how inconsistent it appears?

I'm merely pointing out contradictions from what I can gather what you yourself believe. If I'm off base, then please correct me. Where does my fire fighter analogy break down?

Am I just not able to "feel" whatever it is that you feel which makes these contradictions irrelevant? Have you "freed" yourself from the chains of contradictions by simply not acknowledging they exist? Do you deny these contradictions even exist?

There is a Way but if one isn't interested in it then I doubt it sounds very appealing or inspiring to talk about it. I can't respond any further beyond what I've written here - my answers won't gratify your questions because my faith isn't in idols anymore.

So then what is your faith in? You keep telling me what your faith is NOT in.

For example, you have faith in a being that does not doesn't abuse power. You've simply told me what God is not. Since things with nature are hopelessly corrupt, God isn't nature. What does do these claims mean?

It's as if you think God conditionally exists. God is somehow irrelevant / simply not present / incapacitated when things happen that you interpret as contrary to what God wants, but he's the ultimate mastermind and power behind everything you interpret as being in harmony with what God wants. It's this convenient absence of God's influence that I find the most confusing.

If God created us from nothing, then God must have wanted us to exist. If not, who was he unselfishly serving by creating us? Did God omnisciently know we'd like to exist, so he created us for ourselves?

But surely, there would be an infinite number of beings that would want to exist. Some far more condemning and abusive than us, others far less. Why would a unconditional, selfless God deny their right to exist, but not ours?

Or perhaps you think God created an infinite number of universes for the infinite number of beings he knew would want to exist?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Scott-thanks so much for your continued interest - I doubt that there will be a meeting of the minds through dialogue here but I think you have a heartfelt interest in understanding. In honor of that, I will respond here once more.

You asked,"Ok. So who am I punishing or condemning?" For myself, as an unbeliever, those words would have been, well, unbelievable. I saw myself as a "good" person who grew toward meeting some pretty high standards of conduct. But underneath it all,I kept getting pulled down - there was a subliminal and very personal message undermining my own life. At any rate, fight or flight under duress is natural - and ultimately, we can be pressed to punish and condemn those who trespass against us. Sometimes it's subtle, such as a condescending attitude or more overt as in an expressed bigotry.

You asked what my faith in IN. There are many roles God describes Himself and I know to be true - farmer,gardener, retailer, teacher,father,son,friend, etc. all human relations that we can understand and apply in our own lives. You also mentioned an aspect of God's personality as savior- I like the way you called Him a fireman. (I think there is a scripture that encourages people to save their brethren from the flames or fire). But that isn't the ultimate goal. Ultimately, God is inviting us to a full life banquet - simple. No ulterior motive, no sinister agenda - to create and share His creation. Now I happen to know there is an antagonistic force towards love that invites people to dinner,not as a guest,but rather to be eaten. Part of the underpinnings of fight or flight is fear - fear of punishment and condemnation (death). At any rate, my faith is in a God Who removes fear of these things - - one cannot seize the divine by bypassing God.

I apologize Scott, but I don't quite understand some of your other questions-It looks like you've really devoted some time in trying to figure God out. I know I used to try and go in my head and figure out every possible outcome but I am growing in the practice of trusting God.

Scott, I thank you for conversing -It's been swell! :-)

3M