Bill's Notes

Andy over in World Wide Rant took exception to a comment I left on his blog. He seemed to be tearing into some folks, and I didn't like his attitude, and so being the diplomatic guy that I am, I wrote a few sentences to give Andy some food for thought. Then he responded by writing a post explaining why I was WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! His post is here. I'll just reproduce it here to make it easier.

God Is Love
Indeed.

That's what we're told anyway; however, I find it somewhat difficult to believe when a Christian says something like this in my comments:

What the hell does any of this [mocking Westboro Baptist Church] have to do with a debate about God.

God could heal through science, you know.

Some of you are just as bad as the folks you complain[] about.

First point: Given that Westboro Baptist Church claims that "God hates fags" - that AIDS is punishment to homosexuals - and that their belief is just a logical extension of the charming book of Leviticus from which other Christians love to pick and choose their morality*, I'd say it has everything to do with a debate about God.

Second point: Yes, God could heal through science**. He could also heal just by thinking about doing so for a nano-nano-nano-second, all while juggling an infinite number of bowling pins and standing on the heads of angels on the head of a pin.

Imagine, just like that (snap fingers), he could prevent suffering on a massive scale from both biological and environmental threats.

Instead, IB Bill asks us to accept that this all-loving, all-powerful God would rather sit on the sidelines while human knowledge of science trudges along, finding the odd cure here and there.

God would rather make pouty sad faces at centuries of senseless pain and misery than to actually do something about it.

God would rather watch my cousin waste away and die from this horrible disease rather than heal him and say "Hey, wasn't that neat? I'm probably worth following now, aren't I? Seeing as how I am loving and all-powerful and all."

God is love? Sure, in much the same way Susan Smith loved her little chirrens right to the bottom of a lake.***

Third and final point: Yes, some atheists are just as bad as religious zealots. This, of course, has absolutely no bearing on the irrationality of god-belief or the fact that the Problem of Evil continues to be a crown of thorns on theism's pretty little head.

* Homosexuality? Bad, bad, bad because God says so! It's right there in the Bible! Eating unclean animals and wearing mixed fibers? Surely he was just kidding around about that part.

** If he existed, which he does not. Get over it.

*** The obvious difference being that Susan Smith exists and can actually have an impact on the lives of others.

Posted by Andy at 12:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

So I called up God on the telephone. Out of respect for God, I shall only transcribe my half of the conversation.

Hello, God. Bill here. Thank you for taking my call. Anyway, sorry to disturb you because I know you are busy, but Andy over at World Wide Rant says you don't exist. Furthermore, he says that if you did exist, you aren't acting at all in a manner of an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God.

What's that?

Yes, I know you hear that a lot. Hmm...How would he know how an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God would act? I guess he just thought about it, and based on the wisdom he's gleaned in his two-digit numbers of years on the planet, has decided he couldn't be wrong about the behavior of a eternal divine being based on such his period of observation. Please stop laughing.

What's that?

Well, yes, there's also the spatial dimension, too, when it comes to comparison of observation. Wait, I'm not getting that. I know it's amusing when we struggle with space and time. So just considering the observation limits are only a few years on one planet around one star in the outer spiral of only galaxy ... how do you divide by eternity [illegible scribbles in my notes, sorry] then multiple by the relative mass of the portion of the earth compared to the total mass in the universe. Am I to assume N is very small here? Yes, I understand the assumption is this is your first universe. Okay, I give up. Yes, yes, I'm glad this is amusing. So a creature has too small an observation period and space to judge the eternal and the divine, got it.

What's that?

No, Andy cannot build a whale. Or a fish. But he seems smart and apparently made a kid. I know that doesn't count unless you start fabricate from scratch. He's got a cool Web site, though. He made that. Yes, I know that those are God-given talents.

Ok, thanks God. I appreciate your guidance.

In fairness to Andy, I do not believe that God "hates fags" and I don't take seriously those who create placards and march in the street saying things like that.

I'm also not discussing homosexuality on this site right now, simply because I'm really, really, really sick of the subject. Like most of us.

And I'm not going to explain, for the two billionth time, the impact of the New Testament on the laws of the Old Testament, and the difference between the kinds of laws in Leviticus [Hint: Would you say the Leviticus laws against incest are also void, Andy?] Google it if you want the answer. Perhaps someone can comment and leave a link to a good response. I know I've seen them all over the place.

That's all. Thanks for playing.

UPDATE: Andy responds. Really quickly, too. I mean, my computer crashed, and by the time my system was up and running and I went over to check, he had already written a response.

Andy says:

Claiming that I cannot know how an all-powerful, all-loving God could or should act unfortunately implies that IB Bill also cannot know. Thus, for him to even suggest that his god is all-powerful, all-loving, or all-anything-else, and to assign any sort of value judgment to any actions of said God, while admitting that to understand such a thing is impossible, reduces his assertions on the qualities of his god to, well, absolute gibberish.

You're missing the point, Andy. I'm not saying I know and you don't. I'm saying if there is such a thing as an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving God, his actions might appear to be a mystery to all of us, especially over a limited observation period.

Andy further says:

As for whether the laws on incest contained within Leviticus are also void, claim all you wish that certain kinds of laws no longer apply, while some still do. This leaves the (thinking) Christian in the position that he must say that at one time killing homosexuals, adulterers, and back-talking children was a moral thing to do because God said so.

Personally, I find anyone who would say that to be rather... disturbed.

As long as the person who casts the first stone is without sin, then it's the moral thing to do.