God Owes Us an Apology (arrogant God-hater Barbara Ehrenreich)

The Progressive ^ | March 2005 Issue | Barbara Ehrenreich

[BipolarBob]

"Actually it's Adam and Eve who owes us the apology "

Perspectives will change in Heaven, because we see things not so clearly now. I have sinned and so have you, Eve and Adam were just the first. Although it did seem like a verrry easy thing to do to just NOT EAT THE STUPID APPLE.

[DocRock]

"last fall's hurricanes flattened the God-fearing, Republican parts of Florida while sparing sin-soaked Key West and South Beach."

I live where Charley, Frances and Jeanne crossed paths. Polk County Florida. Roofs are still covered with tarps, signs are down and you can hear traffic from great distances due to the lack of trees and foliage. Each time one of these hurricanes came through, I thanked God for my lack of damage. After securing my neighbors roofs and sharing supplies, I headed to my local church to inspect the damage. I was met with a parking lot full of downed tree limbs and shredded aluminum and other assorted debris. But the church was undamaged except for a very small window that was broken from a flying carport. All the members of my church reported severe damage all around their property, but nothing major to theirs, and nobody had been injured. Our attendance has increased as well as decisions when the invitation is given.

What is strange is that I made a conscious decision to move from western Kentucky to this region of the United States to get away from the New Madrid Fault. I have said for years that earthquakes will kill you, but a hurricane only kills stupid people that refuse to heed warnings and God gave me a brain I use for survival. (No offense intended to any that had loved ones killed or injured during these devastating storms. I know some elderly had no transportation to flee.)

I had days and days I could spend with my children with no TV or homework to interrupt quality time. I shared the story of Job and other Bible stories of trials. My children understand that trials come by fire and they have a deep understanding of "trial by fire". You see, I'm a jeweler/gemologist and when I cast jewelry, I use a torch to melt the gold and a rod to remove the impurities. When it is ready to pour, it looks like a mirror. God does the same.

The Lord is the ultimate refiner and when He uses fire to refine His gold, He removes our impurities and when He looks at His gold and only sees His own reflection, He is satisfied that all the impurities are burned away.

Mal 3:3 And he shall sit [as] a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

Zec 13:9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God.

This author forgot to mention evil SUVs and corporations, otherwise, she covered all the left wing talking points! Sheeesh... God haters... you gotta luv 'em!

[CyberAnt]

But .. we all became sinners because of their original disobedience. It was not our choice - it was their choice.

I have always believed the reason GOD was willing to attempt his plan of sending Jesus was because we became sinners not by choice - but because of Adam and Eve's choice.

And .. yes, it does seem like it would have been very easy not to eat "the stupid apple".

What bothered me was that when Eve first ate the apple - nothing happened - no change took place. It was only after Adam got into agreement with Eve and he also ate the apple - then the change took place. I believe that Adam was deceived because he saw that when Eve ate the apple nothing happened - so he doubted what GOD had said - that they would die if they ate the apple.

I've always wondered what GOD would have done had Adam dragged Eve into a meeting with GOD and pleaded for GOD's forgiveness after Eve ate the apple ..??

[DocRock]

"I believe that Adam was deceived because he saw that when Eve ate the apple nothing happened - so he doubted what GOD had said - that they would die if they ate the apple."

It was Satan that put doubt in God's Word. The first recorded words of Satan are, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

According to the Scriptures, Eve takes the heat for the transgression.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

[CyberAnt]

You are very correct - it was satan's suggestion that caused Adam and Eve to doubt what GOD had said. My Pastor always says, "words are seeds" - they're spoken either in faith or in doubt.

But .. the point I was trying to make was the fact that a husband and wife are ONE .. and while Eve had been deceived and ate - nothing happened until her husband got in agreement with her by taking a bite of the apple himself.

[hinckley buzzard]

Barbara Ehrenreich should step carefully. God is not mocked.

[CFC__VRWC]

She ought to just do us all a favor and crawl under her bed and stay there. Forever.

[xm177e2]

Your conclusions do not logically follow.

Wrong. The conclusion logically follows from the premises.

If you want to take issue with that statement, you can question the validity of premises 1 and 2, but not premise 3 or the conclusion that naturally follows if premises 1-3 are all true.

[Havoc]

No, you complain from apparent ignorance and act as though God just sits on high and causes nasty things to happen. If you aren't on His side, what does He owe YOU. ZIP. His enemy, you probably think is cool or something, and he's the destructive nasty one. You have your choice of masters and yourself to blame for the choice - and everyone else in this world has the same choice and options you have in that regard.
You want to collectively disbelieve God, curse him, turn your back on Him and treat him like crap, then have the gaul to fault him for the mess you've made of his creation by your own choices. No, your conclusions do not follow. The blame doesn't lie with God, it lies with you and the Master you do serve.

If you come pee in my pool and curse me, what do you suppose my reaction might be? Must be all my fault you got thrown out and can't come back and I must be evil for holding you responsible. God is merciful; but, he's also Just. Try putting some perspective to it - you might learn something.

[xm177e2]

I'm going to be really polite, even though it's against my nature.

You are WRONG.

You are wrong because you do not understand what the phrase "the conclusion logically follows" means. It's impossible to have a conversation about logic with someone who doesn't understand such a fundamental concept.

So I'll explain it for ya, because I'm such a nice guy:

Premise 1: A can of Coca-Cola costs $30.
Premise 2: A six-pack of Coca-Cola is the same price as six cans individually
THEREFORE
Conclusion: A six-pack of Coca-Cola costs $180

The conclusion is FALSE. You know that.

But the conclusion LOGICALLY FOLLOWS FROM THE PREMISES. In other words, if premises 1 and 2 were correct, then the conclusion would be correct. If coke cans really did cost $30 each, and six-packs were the same price as 6 cans individually, then six-packs really would cost $180.

The problem with that argument is that premise 1 and premise 2 are both FALSE. Coke cans cost closer to $.50 apiece, and there is a slight discount when buying a six-pack as opposed to six cans individually.

This is the previous post:

(1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
(2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then the world would not contain evil.
(3) The world contains evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.

The conclusion DOES LOGICALLY FOLLOW. What you disagree with is most likely Premise #2, not the logic of the argument itself. Premise #2 is that if a perfectly good God existed, there would be no evil. I'll bet you think that is false.

you do not have to believe that a conclusion is true in order to believe that it follows logically

you cannot say that a conclusion does not "follow logically" just because you think the conclusion is false

[xm177e2]

God will NOT be mocked.

He Shall.

I'm telling God jokes right now.

What's wrathful and spins in circles? God in a blender!

Why did Jesus cross the road? No, he rode the cross!

How many priests does it take to change a lightbulb?

4: one to unscrew it, one to screw another in, one to transfer both of those priests to another parish before the unions find out that they've used non-union labor, and one to pay off the old light bulb so it won't tell the press it was un-screwed.

No lightning bolts yet, huh? See, so long as we have free will, God WILL be mocked.

Is your conception of God really so pathetic that you think all He wants from humans is for us to bow before him and shower him with praise and never mock him? That sounds more like a six-year-old with superman powers than it sounds like an omnipotent God.

[xm177e2]

I notice that no one has addressed Ehrenreich's arguments. There's nothing but ad-hom attacks on her for not being a Goddite.

I'll try to make the same point in a brief manner:

1) Mainline Christians say God controls the whole world
2) Mainline Christians say the existence of evil is the result of free will, and that explains how the harm from evil can exist in our world
3) But the Tsunami was not the result of human free will
4) And the Bible says nothing about Tsunamis having free will--in fact, natural disasters are often described as acts of God
5) so any natural disasters at least have God's permission, if they weren't caused by Him outright
6) so God gave permission for the Tsunami to slaughter a quarter-million human beings
7) a loving God would not slaughter so many human beings
therefore
Conclusion: there is no loving God.

Explain which of the premises 1-7 you disagree with.

[k2blader]

This answer might not satisfy you, but it comes down to the fact that for Christians, many things are taken on faith.

[shibumi]

IF God owes us an apology (and I stress the "IF") it's for allowing the arrogant ignorance of Barbara Erenreich to parade itself around in public where impressionable children might be contaminated by her anti-religious vitriol.

Personally, I prefer to think that He's just not through with her yet.

[shibumi]

1. I do not know of a mainline Christian denomination that teaches that God actively "controls" every event on the Earth.

2. In Christian Ethics, there is a difference between objectively undesirable events in the natural world, and the subjective "evil" of human action.

3. No one has said that it was, the point is moot.

4. I believe you are using insurance company terminology, not quoting the Bible.

5. God does not "permit" what exists, He is the cause of it coming into existence.

6&7. Are a straw men based on moot or spurious points in you line of reasoning. If the premise is flawed, so then the conclusion.

I offer as evidence for the existence of God the reaction of the sentient human race to the plight of those hurt by this disaster. In a world devoid of God and good, this would be an empty waste of resources.

[BipolarBob]

God will/will not be mocked. He will not be mocked without consequences. That is the unwritten/unsaid part. He is holy, soverign and to be feared. There are two roads in life. Choose wisely.

[7.62 x 51mm]

I'm doing fine, AFE. How are you doing these days?

[xm177e2]

1. I do not know of a mainline Christian denomination that teaches that God actively "controls" every event on the Earth.

What I meant was, God could prevent anything if he so chooses. He had the option to stop the Tsunami, and he chose not to.

2. In Christian Ethics, there is a difference between objectively undesirable events in the natural world, and the subjective "evil" of human action.

Yes. That's my point as well. Just because God says he wants to allow human free will, and that's the explanation for why people are evil, that tells us nothing about why He would allow natural disasters.

3. No one has said that it was, the point is moot.

No, it's necessary to establish even simple things when logically reasoning through something.

4. I believe you are using insurance company terminology, not quoting the Bible.

Come on, the Bible is full of stuff about mountains jumping like rams, etc. God even floods the whole Earth just to commit genocide.

5. God does not "permit" what exists, He is the cause of it coming into existence.

If He is aware of it, and He could prevent it, but chooses not to, then he's tacitly permitting it.

6&7. Are a straw men based on moot or spurious points in you line of reasoning. If the premise is flawed, so then the conclusion.

Alright, I'll re-phrase them:

6) so God gave tacit approval for the Tsunami to slaughter a quarter-million human beings
7) a loving God would not allow so many people to be slaughtered for no good reason
8) There was no good reason for the slaughter (unless you think God is going back to his genocidal history... those were his Glory Days, ya know)

[shibumi]

Just got up and have to go to work...look for response later tonight!

[ApesForEvolution]

Sun is shining, spring is on the way and I'm hitting 'the road' again...see you in AZ in April!

I wonder how many Death Cultist headcutters will be coming down to wish us well? :)