Religion and the Cork plane crash

philologos

robindch wrote: »

I can't begin to understand how somebody can say "Thank god" when there were six people near him who -- if the christian story were true -- were either executed, or permitted to die, by the same god.

Stockholm Syndrome with knobs on.

Admittedly, it is difficult for me also. As I've said, I know Dónal as Wavey does and I think that his conviction in Christ has served him well throughout this whole experience. Bearing with others in grief and suffering is a huge part of being a Christian in other words a part of the call that is given to us by God, it is of course important to take this into account.

TwoShedsJackson: An assumption that God will just do whatever you want. If this were the case we would be God and God would be a puppet. God is Lord over all things and it is entirely possible that His will as to what is best may be different to what we desire. I will submit to God's will in everything because it ultimately works out for the best that way instead of clinging to our selfish egos.

CiaranMT

philologos wrote: »

I will submit to God's will in everything because it ultimately works out for the best that way instead of clinging to our selfish egos.

So if God asked you kill your child? You'd do it?

fisgon

philologos wrote: »

. I will submit to God's will in everything because it ultimately works out for the best .

Really? 'it ultimately works out for the best'? How exactly? Not sure I follow. There are millions and billions of examples where it clearly doesn't work out for the best, from the people who actually died in the plane crash, and the effect it had on their families, to famines, natural disasters, genocides, right through history, which were, we have to assume, 'the will of god', if god is indeed in control.

I'm not being hostile here, just curious. I'm fascinated to know how you can rationalise all the massive pain and suffering experienced by human beings through history as 'it ultimately works out for the best'.

MrPudding

fisgon wrote: »

Really? 'it ultimately works out for the best'? How exactly? Not sure I follow. There are millions and billions of examples where it clearly doesn't work out for the best, from the people who actually died in the plane crash, and the effect it had on their families, to famines, natural disasters, genocides, right through history, which were, we have to assume, 'the will of god', if god is indeed in control.

I'm not being hostile here, just curious. I'm fascinated to know how you can rationalise all the massive pain and suffering experienced by human beings through history as 'it ultimately works out for the best'.

There are many different rationalisations that can be employed. I am no expect, but here are a few of the ones commonly seen around these parts.

1. We are mere humans, so we don’t understand god or his plan. He is so awesome we cannot know him, apart from the fact he hates the gheys, obviously.
2. He is good, and therefore everything he does is good. If it appears not to be good to us then that is because we don’t understand his plan, see point 1.
3. Natural disasters are a result of the fall. Man’s sin in the Garden of Eden brought on the fall. Because of this there is death. Had man not exercised free will then everyone would live forever and there would be no natural disasters.
4. Natural disasters are a punishment for sins committed on earth.
5. God moves in mysterious ways.

Personally for me it gets kind of ridiculous from there. It seems that the main reason why we have natural disasters is because of the sin of man. Man sins because he has free will. Free will was given by god. God is all knowing so he knew that man would sin. God is all knowing so he knew the result of sin. God chose to release man 1.0 knowing he would sin and what the repercussions of that would be. Ergo, god is a prick.

This then brings up the argument that god had to give us free will because without it we would simply be robots and we could not love. Personally I think that, like most of religion, is a load of sh1t. Additionally, some christians (Wolfie for example) believe that once a person goes to heaven then free will is removed so there is no possibility of sin.

All in all, pretty non-sensicle.

MrP

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

I can't begin to understand how somebody can say "Thank god" when there were six people near him who -- if the christian story were true -- were either executed, or permitted to die, by the same god.

it's just a turn of phrase rather than an actual offering of thanks, that's all.

fatmammycat

fisgon wrote: »

Really? 'it ultimately works out for the best'? How exactly? Not sure I follow. There are millions and billions of examples where it clearly doesn't work out for the best, from the people who actually died in the plane crash, and the effect it had on their families, to famines, natural disasters, genocides, right through history, which were, we have to assume, 'the will of god', if god is indeed in control.

I'm not being hostile here, just curious. I'm fascinated to know how you can rationalise all the massive pain and suffering experienced by human beings through history as 'it ultimately works out for the best'.

Cognitive dissonance, the default state for the religious.

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's just a turn of phrase rather than an actual offering of thanks, that's all.

Not for everyone.

MrP

robindch

philologos wrote: »

As I've said, I know Dónal as Wavey does and I think that his conviction in Christ has served him well throughout this whole experience. Bearing with others in grief and suffering is a huge part of being a Christian in other words a part of the call that is given to us by God, it is of course important to take this into account.

I wasn't really referring to whether his religious belief sustained him through his or anybody else's grief. I was specifically referring to how somebody can stand in the vicinity of six dead people and say "Thanks" to the deity whom he's required to believe caused (directly or indirectly) the deaths.

philologos wrote: »

Admittedly, it is difficult for me also.

If I had any religious beliefs, I'd be screaming oaths at the sky. As it is, I'm happy to hear that you're having at least some difficulty with it too -- it's a start to elevating flesh and blood humanity over religious belief.

goose2005

philologos wrote: »

TwoShedsJackson: An assumption that God will just do whatever you want. If this were the case we would be God and God would be a puppet. God is Lord over all things and it is entirely possible that His will as to what is best may be different to what we desire. I will submit to God's will in everything because it ultimately works out for the best that way instead of clinging to our selfish egos.

You sound like a battered wife. "I'd be nothing without him ... it's my fault when he gets angry, he's right to punish me ... I feel so guilty that I was angry at him that time ... I know he loves me, he just doesn't show it sometimes ... how dare you say those awful things about him"

Bloody Nipples

philologos wrote: »

I will submit to God's will in everything because it ultimately works out for the best that way instead of clinging to our selfish egos.

I wonder if you'd throw that out so easily if you thought there was a likelihood you were going to get called on it.

fisgon

MrPudding wrote: »

1. We are mere humans, so we don’t understand god or his plan. He is so awesome we cannot know him, apart from the fact he hates the gheys, obviously.
2. He is good, and therefore everything he does is good. If it appears not to be good to us then that is because we don’t understand his plan, see point 1.
3. Natural disasters are a result of the fall. Man’s sin in the Garden of Eden brought on the fall. Because of this there is death. Had man not exercised free will then everyone would live forever and there would be no natural disasters.
4. Natural disasters are a punishment for sins committed on earth.
5. God moves in mysterious ways.

MrP

You are right, of course, those are exactly the rationalisations usually employed, and all of them are, without exception, either total and utter nonsense or a complete cop out, or both.

philologos

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

I wonder if you'd throw that out so easily if you thought there was a likelihood you were going to get called on it.

What do you mean get called on it?

I believe God is Lord over all things, and that He is the author of Creation. As a result I believe that God's will must be for the greater good as He knows what is best in His Creation.

goose2005: What a poor analogy? For this to be accurate one would have to assume that I was being abused by the mere fact that God's will wasn't the same as mine at a particular juncture. That's a pretty petty way to look at it no?

strobe

philologos wrote: »

What do you mean get called on it?

I think he means this kind of thing man;

CiaranMT wrote: »

So if God asked you kill your child? You'd do it?

If God asked you to shatter the skulls of a few Lebanese or Jordanian toddlers open against rocks while their mothers screamed begging you to stop. Would you?

Bloody Nipples

philologos wrote: »

What do you mean get called on it?

I believe God is Lord over all things, and that He is the author of Creation. As a result I believe that God's will must be for the greater good as He knows what is best in His Creation.

I mean that you say you will submit to God's will in all things, but seeing as God has never requested jack squat from you, it's very easy to say you'll accept his will in any situation.
And seeing as God has a history of making irrational, demanding requests, it's fair to ask would you willingly accede to something as monstrous as the murder of a child, should it be demanded of you.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I believe God is Lord over all things, and that He is the author of Creation. As a result I believe that God's will must be for the greater good as He knows what is best in His Creation.

Not meaning to be rude here, but why do you exclusively use religious cliches when describing your religious beliefs? Why not extend yourself and try something more original?

If I had the hots for some chick -- about as close, I suppose, to the situation you believe yourself to be in -- I'd really avoid using the kind of nth-hand prose you're using here.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

clinging to our selfish egos.

Hold the phone now a second laddie. Have you not oh so graciously previously claimed that atheism doesn't make sense, is depressing and gives people no meaning in life? Ok that question was rhetorical, you did claim that. Of course to seek this 'great' meaning to someone's life would be a bit, you know, egotistical.;) To be a selfless ego you need to start embracing the idea that you are just on a lump of dust with no destined purpose or meaning other than that. The idea that the universe was created for you,looks out and holds some greater meaning for you is selfish. Trying to lose your selfish ego was the reason you choose to cling to God. Rather it was because of your selfish ego that you seeked out God in the first place.

Turtwig

Wavey1111 wrote: »

Can I just say that I know someone who was on that plane. Dónal, who was the guy that was all over the news and returning from an IFES event in Belfast to work with Christian Unions in Munster.

You can.

First of all to the OP this country is largely Catholic and so you have to take the Catholic-ness of Ireland with a pinch of salt.

I take it by this vague statement you are either non Catholic or a Catholic and that possibly you might regard the majority of Ireland's Catholics as not actually being Catholics.

Secondly The "thank God" was actually a quote of what Dónal said when he got out of the plane ok (for himself obviously he is still devastated that he survived while six died).

You never asked permission to speak this bit. Have you got a source for that quote? Victims memories of accidents and the short while after tend to be unreliable and often confabulated.

It makes me feel a little bit ill that people are picking apart the Christian side to this when SIX people died!!

If you get ill feel free too puke on Fianna Fail's Facebook page. Seeing as you mentioned it though it makes me sick to the bone at times when people attempt to stop you from discussing a serious issue due to their perceived lack of respect. I recall once a Garda being lynched over commented that kids who were killed would still be alive if they had only worn their seatbelts. Yes, the dead need to be respected but lessons need to be learned from their death. After all, I would hope the progression towards a better society is what everyone wants and the issue of the Church's perceived exclusivity over tragedy is one of those things that needs to be discussed. As other posters have mentioned it wasn't as if the discussion was right outside the funeral home of the victims.

We, Dónal's friends, were very fortunate (or blessed by God maybe?) that he got out with minor injuries from trying to break open the windows.

Six people died and you think the being who supposedly gives everyone free-will (up to a point, of course) will interfere to save your friend just because He belonged to the special blessed groupies? That such a thought could even enter your head without causing an ache among your conscience is terrifying in some extents.I sincerely hope you struggled to write that sentence.

TwoShedsJackson

philologos wrote: »

Admittedly, it is difficult for me also. As I've said, I know Dónal as Wavey does and I think that his conviction in Christ has served him well throughout this whole experience. Bearing with others in grief and suffering is a huge part of being a Christian in other words a part of the call that is given to us by God, it is of course important to take this into account.

TwoShedsJackson: An assumption that God will just do whatever you want. If this were the case we would be God and God would be a puppet. God is Lord over all things and it is entirely possible that His will as to what is best may be different to what we desire. I will submit to God's will in everything because it ultimately works out for the best that way instead of clinging to our selfish egos.

It was luck that Donal survived that crash, blind luck and nothing else. He could have sat in a different seat and been killed, he could have missed the flight, flown on a different day, anything, but to think that because he survived the crash that it was God's will, while mentioning nothing of it also being God's apparent will that six people died, is ridiculous.

Think about the number of decisions that had to be made throughout history just for my parents to meet and result in me being born. The idea that a supreme being caused all this to occur, along with doing the same for everyone else that's ever born or died, is beyond belief. It was LUCK.

I believe God is Lord over all things, and that He is the author of Creation. As a result I believe that God's will must be for the greater good as He knows what is best in His Creation.

And you know that believing something doesn't make it true.

mikhail

Malty_T wrote: »

...Rather it was because of your selfish ego that you seeked out God in the first place.

That's "sought out".

Sorry. I write software, and that kind of thing makes the bit of my brain that yells "compiler error" jangle.

Shenshen

Religion seems to be a lot like patriotism in that respect.
Religious people will thank god for everything positive, while negative events are either ignored altogether in that context, or are being blamed on humanity.

Patriotic people will go on about how proud they are to have been born in their country which is such a great place and did so much good, while either ignoring everything bad going on, or blaming it on individuals who are for one reason or another not to be fully associated to the country in question....

It takes a special kind of people, I think,

robindch

mikhail wrote: »

I write software, and that kind of think makes the bit of my brain that yells "compiler error" jangle.

Spent five years running a translation shop, in between extended bouts of software dev. Almost synaesthetically, bad grammar, spelling and logic feel like wrong notes in music. It's a terrible affliction

Less autistically, the number of irregular verbs has been declining steadily for centuries. I believe the number's around 190 at the moment and I'd imagine "sought" is right up there with "dove", "borne", "forsook" and other old-timers.

philologos

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

It was luck that Donal survived that crash, blind luck and nothing else. He could have sat in a different seat and been killed, he could have missed the flight, flown on a different day, anything, but to think that because he survived the crash that it was God's will, while mentioning nothing of it also being God's apparent will that six people died, is ridiculous.

Where did I say this? - The section you quoted was in response to your picture.

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

And you know that believing something doesn't make it true.

Indeed. The same applies to you and anyone else.

robindch wrote: »

Not meaning to be rude here, but why do you exclusively use religious cliches when describing your religious beliefs? Why not extend yourself and try something more original?

It might be repeated, and familiar. I don't see why that is of necessity a bad thing. You can understand clearly as to what I mean by using that phrase. It's not as if I am writing a literary masterpiece.

Turtwig

mikhail wrote: »

That's "sought out".

Sorry. I write software, and that kind of thing makes the bit of my brain that yells "compiler error" jangle.

Given that I have no recollection of posting that comment, correction well and truly appreciated.:D

strobe

I realise you are probably a busy man Philo, but any chance you could throw out an answer to this stuff next time you post in the thread;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74161715&postcount=314

I'm genuinely interested. Believe it or not I put a lot of stock in your answers on here.

If your answer is 'I don't know', that's cool. I think it would be a very acceptable answer. But you must have an answer surely (just to be clear I'm not calling you Shirly)?

philologos wrote: »

What do you mean get called on it?

Post quoted for summoning purposes...

philologos

Sure.

I was asked this question in 2010.

I responded by asking what reason would I have to think God would ask me to do this?

People responded SIZE=1]1[/SIZE][/URLSIZE=1]2[/SIZE][/URL that God asked Abraham to do this in Genesis 22. The point being to differentiate Himself by showing Abraham that He didn't find human sacrifice acceptable. It would be God in human flesh who would come into the world and die for the sins of mankind. Given what I know of God, I don't think it would be in his nature to expect a human sacrifice given what we know of Him.

My response is largely the same.

I also explained what I think of the Abraham & Isaac issue here given what we know of Middle Eastern history.

MagicMarker

It's always a bad sign when someone skips around a question that has, what should be, an obvious answer.

The answer is no.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

It might be repeated, and familiar. I don't see why that is of necessity a bad thing. You can understand clearly as to what I mean by using that phrase. It's not as if I am writing a literary masterpiece.

It's more that the presence of clichés implies the absence of thought.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's always a bad sign when someone skips around a question that has, what should be, an obvious answer.

The answer is no.

This means nothing other than you not liking the answer given. I of course can't guarantee that.