Rescuers were commenting on how it's uncommon for there to be survivors after 72 hours. 'Not unheard of, but uncommon. In any event, on
Arg...::sigh::
Now, of course, I'm happy that there were survivors, whether likely, or unlikely. Where happiness turns into frustration is when certain people completely ignore the fact that upwards of 7000 people had to die in order for this supposed "God" to work this supposed "miracle". Moreover, when we consider that the same "God" who presumably worked this "miracle" could have just prevented the earthquake to begin with, it becomes all the more *head desk* evoking. And then of course, if "God" really wanted to prove its existence via a "miracle", could he have not seen to it that not one person perished? Now that would give cause to believe that something miraculous had taken place, given that history shows that earthquakes as big as this one always have a high death toll.
But noooo. Nope....forget about it. Mysteriously, the results are always what we'd expect to see if there was no "God" in the mix. IOW, just like all big natural disasters, we'd expect to see a few lucky people among the gaggles of very unlucky people. It's a pity, and in more ways than one.
5 comments:
This ... precisely the type of thing that confounded my senses from my earliest understandings of religion ... why didn't god just stop the damn earthquake? why HAVE the earthquake only to rescue one baby after 3 days of torturous hell to the infant?!?... sorry, that is NOT a "miracle" by any standard - it's a real d-bag move if there IS a god (which I'm most certain there is not)
"why didn't god just stop the damn earthquake?"
That's the million dollar question that every Christian must tackle at some point in their journeys as believers. Sooner or later they must address it, if for no other reason, to supply a satisfactory answer to themselves. This, as we both know, leads to excuse-making, AKA, apologetics.
One of the top ten excuses I've heard(one of the ones I used to use on myself) is "sin".
It goes....
Since "sin" entered the world, biblegod not only allows things like natural disasters, he sends them with the premeditated intent to kill "the wicked".(You know, like he sends "plagues" and "she bears")
I'm sure you're familiar with the Isaiah passage where it explicitly states that biblegod created evil. At face value, that would make "God", as you say, a ginormous d-bag. But alas, the more sensitive believers don't like the implications of that face-value language in that Isaiah passage, so they turn to their "interpretation" card, saying that "evil" in this instance doesn't mean "evil" in the colloquial sense of the word, but "calamity".
Oooh-kay. So? Biblegod creates and sends calamities..e.g..tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, plagues, etc.
Did I miss something? How does that distinction make things all better? Moreover, most of Nepal practice Hinduism. Hello? IOW, chances are, that baby will grow up to be a Hindu, bound for "hell", according to the bible. It really is insanity.
How does anyone look at this and completely suspend logic and say simply "God works in mysterious way .."?
But then when it "doesn't add up" ... and more importantly, "It doesn't HAVE to add up" ...
well ...
headdesk (repeat as needed)
"How does anyone look at this and completely suspend logic and say simply 'God works in mysterious way ..'?"
It's simpler than you may think----they say those things because they want to believe it's true. The alternative is just too scary..e.g..there is no God, and subsequently, there's no mysteriousness when it comes to the way the world works. It's just odds. The universe is indifferent; sometimes people get lucky, other times, not. The effects of both worlds...i.e..one with a "God"; one without a "God", look identical.
"headdesk (repeat as needed)"
No thanks! ; )
Post a Comment