Another tragedy has happened with a mother killing her son. A Florida woman brought her son to a shooting range, killed him, then killed herself. This is one the notes she left:
I’m sorry to do this in your place of business, but I had to save my son. God made me a queen and I failed. I’m a fallen angel. He turned me into the anti-Christ…. Hopefully when I die, there will 1,000 years of peace.
So she seems to have thought herself the anti-Christ. A literal reading of Revelation says there will be 1,000 years of peace once the anti-Christ is destroyed.
What a tragedy.
By the way, if you were God and knew this was going to happen and could stop it, can you think of any reason you wouldn’t? I can’t. If God exists, he doesn’t seem to be a very moral being.
Nelly: ditto 
Anthony D Jacques: I love how God saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill” comes off so Do as I say, not as I do. Christians are... 
Leah: These people came to my school and protested…. I can’t help wondering if maybe they are just a... 
gmcfly: Someone needs to read Romans 13. 
Francesco Orsenigo: It’s scary. As much as I support total freedom of speech (for example, I don’t like laws against... 
Olaf: I agree, the US has no a president that they should be proud of. One with brains and that gets a lot of respect from the... 
96 Comments
Just plain sad.
I don’t think you can say this was motivated by faith. It’s just a sad tale of a crazy woman who killed her son.
Unlike the woman who killed her son for not saying “Amen” at table, this one appears to have had a clear, previously extant history of mental illness.
I do wonder why there seems to be a propensity for crazy people to go religious. I mean, lots of religious people don’t go crazy in any way we’d recognize (leaving aside the whole question of faith).
But mentally ill people often claim to be the messiah, or claim god’s talking to them … Wonder why that is?
I think her mental illness has killed her son and herself.
I wonder if the kid (does anyone know how old he was?) knew of his mom’s “problem”? I would want to stay far away from a shooting range if my mom was nuts. I feel so bad for the kid, he was innocent.
“By the way, if you were God and knew this was going to happen and could stop it, can you think of any reason you wouldn’t? I can’t. If God exists, he doesn’t seem to be a very moral being.”
I’m sure you’ve heard this many times by now but I’ll say it again for others; its all about choice. Choice verses godbots. Choice is the difference between rape and love.
Most religions make some attempt at answering the existence of evil; karma, yin yang, etc. The Bible puts forth the dilema in the book of Job. And the Bible seems to be deliberately vague refusing to answer some of our demands for the creator to justify itself. However the bible is clear that the creator did enter the creation and taste of the evil himself on bad friday.
Why doesn’t god stop any of us even from being an atheist? Choice.
“Why doesn’t god stop any of us even from being an atheist? Choice.”
Tell me more about what your imaginary god can’t do.
Meh. The primary narrative in most of these tragedies — the mothers who slay their children, the losers who go on a shooting rampage — is the personal pathology of the perpetrator. Religion, or nazism, or some other kooky notion is a framework on which to hang their fears and hatreds. If it’s not this one, it will be something else. (There are, of course, exceptions, as with the “Amen” case, where the religion was the problem). However, even when not the prime motivator, religion is often an accomplice, as in the Virginia Tech massacre, where the shooter’s family thought him demon-possessed, and had him prayed over, when what he needed was competent psychiatric care.
I am not sure I agree 100% with the opinions that if a mentally ill person did not have religion to use as their justification for harming others or themselves, they would just find something else. I would agree that many of them would, but consider how steeped our society is in religion, as opposed to something like belief in aliens. A mentally ill person may unconsciously seek a justification for their actions, but if religion were not there, I believe it would be harder to find one.
I think this is just very very sad. What’s evil is James Dobson and his ilk.
Slightly related but fascinating article on the topic of interplay between religion and schizophrenia.
So Ummm….. Why did she kill her son? She failed to explain this exacly.
I think that Daniel has a point about god not intervening in this tragedy. For a while, before I turned from theism completely, I thought that, rather than being a benevolent overlord, the god of the bible was more like Zeus, interfering in the affairs of humans to suite his own capricious will. Like he was playing a cosmic game of The Sims. It took me a little while to realize I was just building an elaborate castle in the air to support the idea of an conscious, omnipotent, omniscient entity.
As being someone who has truly suffered from a mental illness, I can say that religion was a significant cause of my warped thinking.
When I was sick, I was convinced that I was “evil” and that the world would be better off without me here b/c I was actually the anti-christ. I actually went to a Catholic church during my illness and was totally convinced that I would turn into a serpeant once I entered the church. After a year of religious study, psychotherapy and of course medication, I slowly came out of my delusions. I then discovered that a lot of what I believed was b/c I was taught “right and wrong” by the church when I was too young to really understand things.
I have since discovered that it wasn’t me after all, but rather the strict unreasonable ‘rules’ of right and wrong of the Catholic church that were in direct opposition to what I thought was right and wrong. I have quickly moved towards more questioning and inquiring.
My reading this story just makes me think, but for the grace of science and psychotherapy go I. I could have stayed in the delusion and done something similar.
Just my two cents. sorry for the long post!
obviously she failed to raise him properly and so deemed herself a failure. I always get a laugh when one of my nephews says ‘fuck you’ to his mom and aka ultra-super religious nun and saint like holy sister of mine. Priceless!!!
:O
Whenever a distorted individual does something tragic, people always attempt to use that as an excuse for there being no God. What they usually fail to understand is that we are on a cursed world, run amok in sin and ruled by the devil (prince and power of the air). God is leaving it in our hands and aiding us when we pray and ask in true faith for help. He will then intervene. God doesn’t allow disasters to occur – we do.
It’s a cursed world – sorry if your can’t handle any responsibility
“By the way, if you were God and knew this was going to happen and could stop it, can you think of any reason you wouldn’t? I can’t. If God exists, he doesn’t seem to be a very moral being. ”
-Daniel, At what point should God not stop any type of suffering? Might as well remove gravity then, to relieve any pressure it gives us at every step of the foot.
Typical atheist conclusion:
‘A loving God would not permit us to suffer.
Some people suffer horribly.
Therefore, a loving God does not exist. ‘
Or would he? A parent who would not permit his child to suffer would never deprive his offspring of any want, nor would he discipline the child. What then, do we mean by ’suffer’? If we limit the definition of suffering to physical pain, then we have to acknowledge that loving parents permit their children to suffer pain, at least to some degree, when they allow them to have immunization shots, or undergo chemotherapy or teach them how to ride a bike, knowing that the chances of them falling and getting hurt are probable. Therefore, a loving parent does permit his child to suffer physically, if he considers the suffering to be insignificant and for a greater good.
But would a loving parent permit his child to suffer significant pain for a greater good? As humans, we have a corporeal concern; no matter how strong our faith in God, this material and physical world is the only world of which we are aware. Therefore, we consider any significantly painful infliction as harmful to our bodies and our existence.
The difference between man and God is that God is fully aware of man’s spiritual reality in addition to his physical reality. God knows that physical suffering cannot harm our eternal souls. God knows that our physical destruction is not an end to our existence. Of what significance is an hour of physical suffering compared to eternity? Of what significance is a lifetime of suffering compared to eternity? We can conclude that from God’s perspective, our physical suffering is relatively insignificant. This is not to say that He is unsympathetic or oblivious to our pain; loving parents feel empathy when their child receives a shot, knowing full well that the pain is inconsequential.
Daniel,
The more I read your posts, the more I realize that while you may have perceived yourself as a “passionate evangelical,” somehow you were left outside the theological boat. I don’t expect you to agree with it, but at least try to understand it. God never promised to intervene in cases such as this as much as we might want Him to. Christians see this world as “fallen.” Such insane actions would occur whether there was religion or not. We see the good news of Christ as the remedy for evil.
As far as the book of Ecclesiastes is concerned, we see the recording of the book as an act of God, but the book is a record of a vain search for meaning in the world when the only path to meaning is to “Serve God and keep His commandments.” After all has been considered, this is the whole duty of man.” One would think a former Christian would understand this.
If mental illness is a symptom of religion, a point that has been made by several people here, then religion should accompany every case of mental illness.
From Daniel’s own comments:
This poor woman thought she was the anti-Christ and thus killed herself and her son. That was her rationalization. Perhaps there would have been a different one if religion wasn’t available, but I tend to think religion made a bad situation worse.
You are simply wrong, and the research shows that. Moreover, a person suffering from such a sever mental illness is incapable of thinking rationally — and that’s science, not opinion.
lauradee24 said it well here: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/10/anti-christ-mother-kills-son/#comment-31610
Normal religious practices are definitely not a cause of this type of behavior — her mental illness is the cause — and normal religious practices are not even likely to contribute to such delusions.
Do you honestly think a Christian pastor was encouraging her delusion that she was the anti-christ? That’s absurd. If there was a contribution from Christianity, it was only her reading of Revelation, which was completely distorted by her non-rational state caused by the illness.
===============
This post is disturbing to me, because this blog is posited on rational thinking and the claims of science. In this case, the claims of science would be that mental illness is to blame for this tragedy, not religion.
At most, certain religious ideologies could have contributed to her delusions. And in this case, it seems her delusions expressed themselves in a language she knew — the apocalyptic language of Revelation. However, if she were not familiar with Christian apocalyptic literate, her delusions would have expressed themselves through different imagery — aliens, voices, etc.
lauradee24 expressed similar sentiments given her background, and I, too, have a degree in Psychology — and I agree with her.
This post is simply not an accurate representation of the scientific evidence related to mental illness, and consequently is a very ironic departure from the tenants upon which this blog is rested.
…jesus and the fool are twins ruled by one star, venus, who
is also their mother. at first she was a deer jumping horizons,
then she became the weaving goddess, hecate, who gives us
the weft of breath, the vehicle of life and logos, the gift neander, the miming fallen angel, signed to us,
which came from his wonder and fear of creation.
then in the san appolinari church mozaic, ravenna, hecate/ehecatl(N) becomes mary, mother of god,
and the fool twin, the evening star is suppressed,
but since he is a dog, clown, tobacco god, and devil
in the making, it is his habit to make his rounds.
in the book of souls, he is 10/the center. the most ancient
christ, the solstice cave bear, now extinct, is 11, one up on
dog and belonging to the calli/being cuadrant. and dog?
he belongs to deathside, windside. to counter the devil
one has to look through him by letting our soul ride out of
its cave on the wind of his mother, breath hecate, and
talk to each other. in the words of an older wiser tongue
than english, hablando se entiende la gente(sp)=
speaking people understand(foolishness).
i blame worship for this one. church is a circle,
not a pie. religion is from tleco(N)=to rise.
suppresion is the titanic iceberg of awareness.
let us get to know our enemy, not hide him,
thereby we get to know ourselves.
…ah, miguel. lilith is the goddess of darkness. her name
is also her river, lethe, that runs through hell. in the first
language, 4river/4water/nauatl, the word is, tlil(N)=black, as in, t/lil xochitl(N)=black flower(vanilla, but vanilla is from,
vaina/vein because it comes in a pod). tlil(N) is also root of,
lilly, (n)ile(named for its dark blue water lillys), and when the
(n=nauatl) replaces (tl)=nil, nihilist, and probably the later,
null/nullify, as vowels are the jokers in the alfabet. as an
aside, vaina(sp) is from nauatl also, note the, -na, the
va-= ua(N)=ow(n), own comes from, ua(N), so, va/ua ina,
now, ina=inaya(N)=to cover, which is what a vaina(sp) does,
meaning scabbard where one holsters a sword.
I’ve often wondered what the connection is. I also wonder that if religion wasn’t available, if this person would still have done the same actions.
I do think it was motivated by religion, though. This poor woman thought she was the anti-Christ and thus killed herself and her son. That was her rationalization. Perhaps there would have been a different one if religion wasn’t available, but I tend to think religion made a bad situation worse.
I know a guy who’s schizophrenic. Some years ago he was temporarily commited. At the time he was convinced that he was Jesus.
He failed to convince his regular doctor of this, because, as the doctor said, “I don’t believe in Jesus”.
They both thought that was a pretty funny joke.
I’m with DarkMatter on this one. In my experience, (ir)religiosity does not bear on the type and severity of behavior among manics and schizophrenics. It’s the disease, and perhaps the way our society (doesn’t) deal with it that killed the mom and kid, not whatever fanciful framework she had cooked up in her head that made killing them both make sense to her.
According to the linked report:
“security video shows 20-year-old Mitchell Moore taking aim at a target in a booth when his mother, 44, walks up behind him and points a gun at the back of his head.”
How does mental illness square with this rubric of personal choice?
“its all about choice. Choice verses godbots. Choice is the difference between rape and love.”
So you’re saying that she chose to be mentally ill, or just that she chose to do something which led to her mental illness? Congratulations, your comment is the single most evil statement I have ever read, and the most convincing argument for the abolition of religion.
Because he’s a figment of *your* imagination!
You know what? I waited a few hours for you to defend that statement – and you didn’t even try. I want you to think really hard about the fact that you couldn’t.
Maaark, where was the son’s choice, here? This doesn’t sound like a willing sacrifice to me! How is it that the mother had the choice, and the son not?
This is one of the big problems I’ve always had with the “choice” argument; the rapist, the murderer, the child abuser, all have “choice”, but apparently, the victims do not; and saying that this is necessary collateral damage to demonstrate to other, uninvolved, in some cases (where the crime goes undiscovered) hypothetical third parties the consequences of “choice”, just does not cut it. Not if the deity in question is claimed to be merciful, or compassionate, or just, in any way. This moral argument does not fly.
Let’s be fair here, if she wasn’t religious there’d have been some other delusion that would have made her kill herself. Can’t really blame this one on God, I’m afraid.
Have you ever met a paranoid schitzophrenic? It’s a truly humbling experience. They genuinly cannot tell their delusions from reality; if they have an “imaginary friend”, then that person is as real to them as the doctor standing in front of them. Can you imagine having two people in the room, each claiming that the other doesn’t exist or is out to harm you? Never being sure if one or both of them are even really there?
Truly worthy of our pity, poor bastards.
Having a degree in psychology and after reading the full article which states she has some mental illness, it is safe to say that if she did not pick religion to use as a scapegoat, it would have been ghosts or aliens or some other such paranormal phenomenon (or even just a person in a television or on the street that is very real) that led to this. I would not say that religion is likely to exacerbate problems unless it was an extreme sort of religion that perhaps tried to cast out demons from her mind or other such nonsense; psychotic symptoms often manifest based out of a popular idea (aliens) or something a person grew up with (religion). So it is possible that it exacerbated it, but not entirely likely. Going off your psych meds (especially cold turkey if you just up and decide you don’t want to take them anymore) can lead to an extreme unbalance that can lead to this sort of thing, even if the person doesn’t believe in God at all. They may suddenly hear voices and decide they were wrong, that God is speaking to them. And if you ever went to church, you will know about the anti-Christ, and that can naturally pop into your head. Same as people who make up crap about aliens. It’s definitely hard to say one way or the other based on the limited amount of information given, but it’s just as unsafe to assume that religion did exacerbate problems as it is to assume that it didn’t.
(hehe, you’re going to hate me after today’s multiple dissenting comments. :) )
I think the role of religion in this incident is debatable, perhaps she would have found another reason, perhaps not. The primary issue was her disease, not her religion.
A little OT, but I think a more interesting connection between the two does exist though in the form of Jerusalem Syndrome. Apparently people visiting Jerusalem, at least a portion of which had no history of mental illness occasionally just have psychotic breaks, sometimes actually requiring hospitalization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome
I’ve found this response to be lacking because there is a distinction between what an entity can’t do and what an entity (for whatever reason) won’t do.
But this god thing that theists keep yammering on about is supposedly capable of anything.
Which is not the point. A being that could do anything could choose not to do any specific thing.
Yes, I have. That standout description, to the best that I can tell, matches exactly the devou- I mean, um, stubbornly entrenched christians repeatedly posting on this blog.
And their heaven-sky-gods, internal heartworm jesus, and internal live-in boyfriends.
And they get upset, really mad, or even hateful when we don’t perceive their imaginary friends.
I agree with custador:
Let’s be fair here, if she wasn’t religious there’d have been some other delusion that would have made her kill herself. Can’t really blame this one on God, I’m afraid.
All you would need to do for proof is sample 10-15 case studies of schizophrenia that resulted in suicide. You would find all sorts of reasons for such behavior without needing religion to blame it on.
This is a tragedy.
Um, come now.
* Delusions, esp. of importance or significance
* Frank auditory or visual hallucinations
* Disorganized speech
* Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
* Affective flattening, alogia, and/or avolition
With the important criteria being the first two. Whatever you may think of religious fanatics, they do not meet the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. Not. Even. Close.
I have to agree with Elemenope (though when I posted I thought somebody might make the comparison) – Unless you’re talking about a Christian who claims to have seen Jesus or God standing in front of them doing card tricks, it’s not the same thing at all.
Damned right.
In this case, the alleged entity’s refusal to intervene and either a)stop the woman from shooting her son or b)alleviating her mental illnesses would seem to point towards this entity’s moral viciousness. If it exists and can impinge on the minds of humans to do whatever it wills–and if that entity seeks the good of its creation, then this tragedy certainly seems to beg some questions about “god.”
Totally agree. At least complete moral incomprehensibility, which from down here might as well be the same as actual evil.
Exactly, Elemenope. This alleged “deity’s” goodness appears to be extremely subjective…at best. If it only rewards those whom it loves–and sometimes not even then (to wit: the 9 month old baby who died today as a result of one of the tornadoes that swept the Southeastern US) and promises punishment to those whom it hates, but does so as a result of extremely ambiguous and contested “commands,” then, at the very least, this entity is completely capricious.
Of course, this completely violates Christian arguments about “God”–even liberal arguments about God fail when we get to the problem of evil, and usually require a leap towards “process theology,” or other theologies that convolute arguments for “divine nature.”
True – this case is sad, but religion does not seem to be anything more than a contributing factor at most.
What worries one more is otherwise sane people doing loony things under the delusion of religion.
To rerun an amended version of the often quoted line: evil/nuts people will always do evil/nuts things, but it takes religion to make good/sane people to do evil/nuts things
Schizophrenia is often typified by highly disorganized thought-processes; as such, the conclusions arrived at by a schizophrenic are unlikely to make any sense to a person who does not share those thought-processes. She did say she had to “save” him, and somehow her process-derangement made her able to equate killing him with saving him.
Thanks for sharing your story! :)
Umm…huh?
None of us are using this as proof of god’s nonexistence.
This is to be an example of the many dangers of a religion.
Whenever a distorted individual does something tragic, people always attempt to use that as an excuse for there being no God.
Some do. I don’t. Unnecessary.
God is leaving it in our hands…
Poor plan. Shows lack of foresight. Someone should tell him.
God doesn’t allow disasters to occur – we do.
Wait, huh? Which act of man today causes tsunamis and plagues?
“…an excuse for there being no God…”
I’m not sure atheists need an excuse to say that there’s no God; it’s not really up to us to prove the negative, is it? After all, we’re not the ones claiming that something non-evident exists. It’s up to theists like you to prove to us that he does exist – of course, after a couple of thousand years of failing to provide any evidence whatsoever for your beliefs, most sensible people would have just given up…
@ravenmaster451:
If you really believe that you are one tragically deluded individual. That is a truely horrible thing to think, and tending towards evil to say it.
Or tornadoes that kill 9-week old babies? Or hurricanes that wipe out entire communities?
Yeah, raven…I think you need to rethink that argument.
LOL.
“A cursed world.” That’s fucking stupid, full stop. Also, your only reply to questions about who’s to blame for natural disasters is to say it’s a cursed world? Please; grow a brain and then come back when you’re ready to provide substantive answers.
That’s literally nonsensical. Nobody today bears responsibility for hurricanes and tsunamis and tornadoes that kill little children, cursed world or not.
@ravenmaster451:
If the world is cursed then what can our responsiblity possibly be – we can do nothing to uncurse it can we?
What leads you to this conclusion?
If all that is true, the why bother with the life stuff?
The way Christians behave bears out that this isn’t really believed. Christians go to the doctor when ill, take medicines, shy away from danger, avoid risk, just like everyone else.
And, BTW, the stronger version of the argument from evil isn’t that evil exists and therefore God couldn’t be good. It is that such evils exist as couldn’t possibly be explained by a good purpose (un-transmutable evil), and therefore God couldn’t be good.
A windstorm blows over a tree which crushes the leg of a deer. The deer suffers for days, lingering, before either starving to death or succumbing to infection. The deer’s suffering is never seen and goes unremarked. The meat goes putrid, and is uneaten until it finally rots away.
The question is, what possible greater good could transpire from such an event that it would surpass the evil it obviously engenders? Could such an explanation (if it exists) cover all incidents of this sort, of which there are uncountably many? (This is a subset of the problem dealing with natural evil.)
It is a harsh lesson which kills you.
Like most others, I’d let my kid learn the hard facts of life even though this means he would go through a certain amount of suffering. Free will and all that.
However, I’d also do anything in my power to stop him from dying a senseless death in, say, a natural disaster.
God fails at the latter. Unless letting people be killed needlessly is also part of God’s pedagogy. Do you think this is so, Miguel?
@Miguel: if you believe in an interventionalist god, then any non-intervention in disaster must be considered either immoral, unsympathetic or evil.
The eternal argument is weakgiven according to your view most individuals will not gain this redemption in any case.
“This is to be an example of the many dangers of a religion.”
So, mental illness is a symptom of religion?
Then how do you explain mental illnesses that happen to non-religious people?
Thanks for the Theology 101 lecture… I had the same one as a 7yr old in Sunday School.
Mental illness is to blame, of course. But I still hold that religion makes it worse. I know Christians who have heard voices. Other than that, they were fairly rational. But instead of getting help, they prayed harder because they thought it was demonic oppression. I know others who heard “God” speaking. But they wouldn’t get help, because the pills would make god stop speaking to them.
Compare to this an atheist/skeptic who hears voices but is still fairly rational. They’d go get help. They would know this is a sign of mental illness.
Religion isn’t the cause, but I think it amplifies the delusions. Believers talk about gods, demons, angels, and unseen beings. The delusional person hears voices in their head, and thus the reason it must be these unseeing beings people are always talking about.
I realize this isn’t always the case, but isn’t it fair to say that this situation would have been completely different if it wasn’t for religion? We don’t know what would have — maybe she would have still killed herself. But I don’t think religion was helping here.
Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe it would be worse without religion. But I doubt it.
* * *
I disagree. If this woman was “incapable of thinking rationally” how did she get to the firing range? How did she convince her son to go there? How did she drive? How did she carry on conversations? Write notes? Plan the entire thing out?
There were obvious leaps and errors of logic, and many invalid presuppositions, but she was capable of some rational thought. She was able to deduce things and function. Just because someone is completely wrong doesn’t mean they are “incapable of thinking rationally.”
Some people think they have been abducted by aliens. They’re delusional. They probably have mental issues. But other than that, many of those people function quite normally in life.
(PS: Don’t know where you got the bit about a pastor encouraging her delusion. I have no idea about if her pastor had any role in this and never said that.)
Mental illness is to blame, of course. But I still hold that religion makes it worse. I know Christians who have heard voices. Other than that, they were fairly rational. But instead of getting help, they prayed harder because they thought it was demonic oppression. I know others who heard “God” speaking. But they wouldn’t get help, because the pills would make god stop speaking to them.
Compare to this an atheist/skeptic who hears voices but is still fairly rational. They’d go get help. They would know this is a sign of mental illness.
You could be right about the former. But, I think you’re wrong about the latter, and I think there is a scientific explanation as to why.
A person who is suffering from a mental illness this severe is incapable of thinking rationally — theistic or atheistic. By the time the illness has progressed this far, one’s (a)religious worldview has absolutely nothing to do with it, because a person who is this ill is by definition incapable of rational thought. Again, that’s not just my opinion — that’s what the research says.
Religion isn’t the cause, but I think it amplifies the delusions. Believers talk about gods, demons, angels, and unseen beings. The delusional person hears voices in their head, and thus the reason it must be these unseeing beings people are always talking about.
Maybe. But, I am arguing that your point is greatly undermined by the notion that delusions come in all shapes and sizes and in religious and areligious terms. Nonreligious people hear voices and believe they are abducted by aliens. Those examples alone seriously undermine your claim that religion is a contributor/cause of the delusion and not just an explanatory mechanism for the delusions to express themselves.
I realize this isn’t always the case, but isn’t fair to say that this situation would have been completely different if it wasn’t for religion? We don’t know what would have — maybe she would have still killed herself. But I don’t think religion was helping here.
Without serious psychological intervention, this woman was going to kill herself and her child, and religion has nothing to do with that either way. Religion didn’t cause it, and religion couldn’t have fixed it.
In this case, the apocalyptic imagery of revelation (which isn’t the same is the general word “religion: btw) merely gave her an explanatory framework for her delusions. Had she been a secular person, her delusions would still have been there and have been just as powerful, but they would have manifested differently. Perhaps aliens would have been speaking to her. Or a dead relative. Or voices in her head.
But in any case, a nonrational person — which is what she was when this happened — is just as apt to believe that aliens are compelling her to do kill herself as she is to believe she’s the antichrist, and both delusions would have been very powerful.
(PS: Don’t know where you got the bit about a pastor encouraging her delusion. I have no idea about if her pastor had any role in this and never said that.)
I was just giving a hypothetical example. I was trying to give some concreteness to how Christianity as a formal religion would have contributed to or exacerbated her illness. From my perspective and based on my experience, had she presented her delusions to anyone who is a part of Christianity, they would have negated and not reinforced the delusion.
As far as I can tell, the only contribution Christianity has made is the word “anti-Christ,” and as far as I can tell, she drew the analogy between herself and the anti-Christ on her own. Had she talked about it to any Christian, they would have told her she was wrong about that, and all the Christians I know would have encouraged her — if not compelled her — to get professional help.
I disagree. If this woman was “incapable of thinking rationally” how did she get to the firing range? How did she convince her son to go there? How did she drive? How did she carry on conversations? Write notes? Plan the entire thing out?
You are, of course, free to disagree with what the research says. But, if you are going to, I would think the onus is on you to prove your point, right?
If I came to this blog and said that I disagree with the scientific evidence for evolution, what do you think the response would be? I would be rightly challenged to prove my point scientifically.
Analogously, you are doing the same thing. You are questioning the scientific research — and you have every right to. But now, you need to defend your ideas with more than “I believe” statements, because that is exactly what you would demand from your opponents on different issues.
This woman was clearly delusional and incapable of thinking rationally about that delusion — that’s fact, not just my opinion. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t capable of thinking logically about other things, and I should have been more clear about that. You are right to point that out. People suffering from nonrational delusions are fully capable of functioning in a lot of areas — driving cards, buying groceries, etc — but when it comes to their delusions, they are completely nonrational. Without intensive psychological intervention, she would never have stopped believing that she was the antichrist and that she should kill herself to bring peace to the world.
Ironically, her premeditation of the act itself is actually symptomatic of her bigger, nonrational delusion and is actually support for what I am saying and not the other way around. Her premeditation required cognitive skills, to be sure, but it is not an example of rational thinking. No rational person would premeditate such a horrific act.
“If all that is true, the why bother with the life stuff?”
- The “life stuff” serves as a platform for us to be able to exercise our free-will (I argued
about morality being dependent upon freewill a few posts ago).
If we were created as eternal beings (spirit/soul/whatever) we could always hold our ‘choice’ to be moral for another time, hey, we have all eternity.
This “life stuff” gives us a sense of urgency that we have to make that ‘choice’ now.
“The way Christians behave bears out that this isn’t really believed. Christians go to the doctor
when ill, take medicines, shy away from danger, avoid risk, just like everyone else. “
- Because we have loved ones too. And besides, we do not objectively know what will happen to us
when we die, we don’t know how God will judge us. Physical experience is also all that we know.
It is fear of the unknown that grips us, as I’m sure it does with everyone. I truly believe what I believe, but I am surely still afraid to die.
“And, BTW, the stronger version of the argument from evil isn’t that evil exists and therefore God couldn’t be good. It is that such evils exist as couldn’t possibly be explained by a good purpose (un-transmutable evil), and therefore God couldn’t be good. “
– Evil exists because God wants to create a holy and moral people, morality is dependent on free-will. Evil is not evidence of an error on God’s part, but evidence that He has successfully created free-will agents.
“A windstorm blows over a tree which crushes the leg of a deer. The deer suffers for days, lingering, before either starving to death or succumbing to infection. The deer’s suffering is never seen and goes unremarked. The meat goes putrid, “
– I don’t see anything evil in your story. Sad, yes. Unfortunate, yes. I wouldn’t wish such a thing on anyone or any animal for that matter, but that wasn’t ‘evil’. We exist, see. We exist in one way, and not another, so our existence necessitates some kind of regularity: If a windstorm blows a tree – then it could fall. Likewise whoever is under it will get crushed. The situation certainly was not an expression of ‘evil’ since thunderstorms do not have the ability to ponder on the rightness or wrongness of an act – This distinction is important. “Evil” implies some kind of moral agent–local or remote.
Whoa.. I was supposed to italicize only the quoted texts.. sorry for the mess.
“However, I’d also do anything in my power to stop him from dying a senseless death in, say, a natural disaster. ”
– Because your physical being is all you know. If, say, you had the ability to die, check heaven out, then go back to life (stupid hypothetical I know, but please bear with me), you would definitely have a different perspective because you now know with certainty that death is only temporal. Ofcourse this is not to say that you would want your kid to die, you would ofcourse still want him to experience this physical life as much as he can, because he deserves that too.
“God fails at the latter. Unless letting people be killed needlessly is also part of God’s pedagogy. Do you think this is so, Miguel? ”
– No I don’t think so, trj
“@Miguel: if you believe in an interventionalist god, then any non-intervention in disaster must be considered either immoral, unsympathetic or evil. ”
– Why? God knows that physical suffering cannot harm our eternal souls. God knows that our physical destruction is not an end to our existence. Of what significance is an hour of physical suffering compared to eternity? Of what significance is a lifetime of suffering compared to eternity? We can conclude that from God’s perspective, our physical suffering is relatively insignificant. So if He chooses to not intervene, why is that evil? What if the victim lived a good life and was destined for heaven? Would it have been proper for Him to intervene? I see where you are coming from, but you are making an emotional argument from a material perspective.
Miguel: “Of what significance is an hour of physical suffering compared to eternity?”
Until/unless I hear otherwise, I’ll take it you refer to “hell”.
If “God”, who is “all-loving”, does not want people to go to “hell”, then why does this deity not simply supply people with the evidence that it knows, per its “omniscience”, that it would take to make a believer out of someone? Please do not hand me the “free will” argument that you’ve been tossing around here lately, because as we’ve already established, biblegod, appearing, does not harm anyone’s “free will”—just like it didn’t harm anyone’s free will back when biblegod was supposedly making numerous physical appearances just a few thousand years ago. “God” can appear, and we can all still “choose” whether we want to follow its “Plan”, or not.
And BTW, comparing a child falling over while *choosing* to learn to ride a bike, to a child who does *not* choose a slow, painful, gruesome death by Leukemia(but gets it anyway), is severely lacking, IMO.
Furthermore, if you feel up to it, I’d be curious to see your rationalization as to how/why a supposed all-powerful, all-loving, omniscient being would bring a child into an earthly existence, only to have it suffer and die. Tell me how such a gruesome “Plan” is virtuous. If it is your position that an eternity of bliss awaits, then why not just “Plan” for the child to die in the womb, as opposed to allowing it to come into the world for a few short years, only to suffer and die?
@Miguel:
So then what is the big deal about the whole jesus on the cross “sacrifice”?
So your god isn’t this all-seeing, all-knowing dude I got taught he was, then?
And I stand by my statement. If there’s “nothing unloving” about eternal suffering, then there’s sure as … well, something pretty sure … nothing wrong with torture.
Thus, if God condemns anyone at all to that eternal suffering (for sins that are, at most, peccadillo by comparison), then what kind of “Father” is he really?
Seems as appropriate as killing your kids for cheeking you. Which of course God appears to desire as well.
“Until/unless I hear otherwise, I’ll take it you refer to “hell”. ”
– No, I wasn’t referring to hell. Do you remember the very first injection you had? I’m sure when you were a kid, you thought that that was one of the worst pains you could ever experience. Suffering is relative, now consider that we are eternal beings, it makes the relativity of suffering all the more pronounced.
“If “God”, who is “all-loving”, does not want people to go to “hell”, then why does this deity not simply supply people with the evidence that it knows, per its “omniscience”, that it would take to make a believer out of someone? ”
- The Christian God does permit the existence of Hell, but there is nothing inherently unloving about Hell.
First, you must realize that Hell is a neutral separation. Consider the existence of hospitals; people don’t go to hospitals to get sick, they go to hospitals because they are already sick. Likewise, people don’t go to Hell to get punished; they go to Hell because they are already in the process of causing their own misery.
Therefore, Hell is the inevitable result of man’s unwillingness to part from his sin.
Therefore, God could not have created free-will agents without the prospect of Hell.
In that case, only immoral people who don’t want to part away from their immorality are destined for hell. I’m presuming that you already are able to perceive morality from immorality, so isn’t this enough to ensure that you have the capacity to go to heaven? God reveals Himself subjectively, rather than objectively. This way, each will believe what they will, instead of having to acknowledge an undeniable objective reality. If we knew with 100% certainty that the Biblical God existed, there is not one among us, including the already faithful, who would not act differently.
““God” can appear, and we can all still “choose” whether we want to follow its “Plan”, or not. ”
– Depends on what kind of “appear(ance)” you would want. I suspect that, in your case, you would insist that God appear on your terms, for you to be a believer.
“And BTW, comparing a child falling over while *choosing* to learn to ride a bike, to a child who does *not* choose a slow, painful, gruesome death by Leukemia(but gets it anyway), is severely lacking, IMO. ”
- You got the most incomparable example and pit them together. Hows this: A child *not choosing* to have a flu shot, but parent has him have one; child *not choosing* to die of leukemia, God (who s fully aware of man’s spiritual reality in addition to his physical reality. and knows that physical suffering cannot harm our eternal souls.) allows his death.
It isn’t that God wills us to experience misfortune, but that these misfortunes are merely the
consequence of living in a physical world within our physical bodies. Every day, loving people
make the decision to bring children into this world, knowing that it is a world filled with risk
and injury.
God is no less loving for having created the world in which we all live. But one may ask, “Why doesn’t God do what He can to prevent these injuries, as any good parent would?
The argument quickly reduces itself into absurdity. At what point should God cease to prevent suffering? Should He suspend gravity for every trip of the foot? Should He suspend the properties of heat for every finger that touches a lit stove? In short, we would be asking God to suspend the physical laws that allow our very existence.
We are saying, “Surely, God, there had to be a better way than all of this!” But until we can create a better planet that contains no risk to physical life, I shouldn’t think that we would be in a position to criticize. For all we know, the existence that we are experiencing now may well be the only logical possibility of existence.
Miguel,
I was going to jump in here and raise some of the same issues you’ve brought up, but there is no reason to do so after reading your replies. Very good answers.
Miguel: “No, I wasn’t referring to hell.”
Previously, Miguel…
“Of what significance is an hour of physical suffering compared to eternity?”
Then WTF did you mean by “COMPARED to eternity”?[emphasis, mine] Compared to an “eternity” of whAT?
Continues….”The Christian God does permit the existence of Hell, but there is nothing inherently unloving about Hell.”
Let’s see, a place of perpetual hellfire which is permitted to exist for the expressed purpose of housing those who don’t act in accordance with how biblegod wants them to act, and you say it’s not “unloving”, when biblegod could just let people cease to exist. This is the type of bizzare rationalizing that one must do to believe such things. Let’s see some more…..
“First, you must realize that Hell is a neutral separation.”
Yes, uh-huh….it may be “separation”, but in addition to being a place of “separation”, it is *also* a place designated to inflict indefinite punishment to human beings for that of a finite “crime”. Your religio-speak does not change the bottom line, Miguel.
Continues…..”Consider the existence of hospitals; people don’t go to hospitals to get sick, they go to hospitals because they are already sick. Likewise, people don’t go to Hell to get punished; they go to Hell because they are already in the process of causing their own misery.”
LMAO! You’ve gOT to be f%cking kidding me!?!?! Frankly, this has got to be the most bizarre rationalization I’ve ever heard from a Christian. Um, yes—-people might be “sick” before they get to a hospital, but the hospital is there TO HELP THEM get better; not to cause them MORE misery than they already have, nor punish them for “being sick”.
“Therefore, Hell is the inevitable result of man’s unwillingness to part from his sin.”
Did you say “unwillingness”?……un-WILL-ingness”? The bible makes clear that *ALL* human beings are inherently “sinful”. Thus, we cannot simply “will” to adopt a nature that we don’t have to begin with; we cannot simply choose to “part with sin”, while on earth. You are losing ground….. BIG-time.
“Therefore, God could not have created free-will agents without the prospect of Hell.”
Bullsh*t. As I just said, “God” could simply allow those “free-will agents” who disbelieve in it, to simply cease to exist. And furthermore, I’ve explained to you numerous times how one cannot simply “choose” to believe something that they don’t find believeable. Surely, “God” has more integrity than to accept those who must LIE to themselves in order to qualify as a “Believer”, yes? Wouldn’t “God” prefer genuine believers?
“In that case, only immoral people who don’t want to part away from their immorality are destined for hell.”
My goodness—’still harping on “morality”, when we know that there is NO objective “morality” to follow—not in the Christian philosophy; not anywhere.
“I’m presuming that you already are able to perceive morality from immorality, so isn’t this enough to ensure that you have the capacity to go to heaven?”
To have the “capacity” to “go to heaven” is irrelevent, if I don’t believe such a place exists. I have the capacity to read the Qu’ran and do all the things Allah requires of me. ‘One problem—I’ not a believer of Islam. Likewise….I. do. not. believe Christianity. Notice, I am not “rejecting” your biblegod, nor be rebellious. I simply don’t believe your invisible friend has a referent in reality.
“God reveals Himself subjectively, rather than objectively. This way, each will believe what they will, instead of having to acknowledge an undeniable objective reality.”
How convenient for those who get the evidence they need to believe; how unconvenient for those whom “God” does not reveal “Himself” at all. The latter are to have “faith”, while the former don’t need “faith”—they presumably know that Christianity is the One Universal Truth it claims to be, because “God” makes his existence obvious – albeit subjective to the individual – nonetheless, undeniable to them.
“If we knew with 100% certainty that the Biblical God existed, there is not one among us, including the already faithful, who would not act differently.”
You once more disingenuously circumvent the point. If we “knew with 100% certainty that the Biblical God existed”, we would not be forced to worship him would we? No, of course not. The “God must remain hidden!!” argument fails.
“You got the most incomparable example and pit them together.”
I used your f%cking example. If you don’t want me to “pit” poor examples together, then don’t provide the material.
You attempt it another way……
“Hows this: A child *not choosing* to have a flu shot, but parent has him have one; child *not choosing* to die of leukemia, God (who s fully aware of man’s spiritual reality in addition to his physical reality. and knows that physical suffering cannot harm our eternal souls.) allows his death.”
If doctors could eliminate influenza altogether, I believe they would. If “God” could eliminate childhood Leukemia altogether?…well, I would *think* he would, but yet, if such a being exists, it doesn’t seem to be the case, does it? Thus, I am not being unreasonable to believe that either “God” is incapable of preventing cancer, or it can, but doesn’t mind that people “temporarily” suffer for months or even YEARS, because in long-run, their “souls” cannot be harmed. Any such being, if it existed, would not be worthy of my belief, let alone my “worship”. And yes, your twisted rationalization fails to convince me.
“God is no less loving for having created the world in which we all live. But one may ask, “Why doesn’t God do what He can to prevent these injuries, as any good parent would?
The argument quickly reduces itself into absurdity. At what point should God cease to prevent suffering?”
You ask the question as if there’d be no point in ending suffering, yet, you evidentally have no problem believing that there exists a magical place where there is no suffering…i.e…”Heaven”, and I’m guessing there’s a point to no suffering there.
In my view, it is your twisted, convoluted rationalizations that illustrate “absurdity”.
That is why the more I try to understand God’s love, the more I learn of christians’ hatred.
>i/ii/ii/ii/ii/ii/ii/ii/ii/ii/i<
- Uh.. OK.
“Then WTF did you mean by “COMPARED to eternity”?[emphasis, mine] Compared to an “eternity” of whAT? “
– “to an eternity” of eternity. Whether at hell, or elsewhere. Hypothetically consider just an eternity of living in earth, whats an hour of suffering to an eternal being?
“Let’s see, a place of perpetual hellfire which is permitted to exist for the expressed purpose of housing those who don’t act in accordance with how biblegod wants them to act,”
- You’re taking this ‘hell’ thing too literally.
The same hellish earthly attitudes that cause people to become closed off from God are magnified in the stretch of eternity
Traits such as jealousy, conceit, self-righteousness, pessimism, and hatred, which are all bearable in a mortal existence, will result in all consuming bitterness and burning misery in an endless existence. There is no need for Hell to contain black hooded sadists. Our own minds will become effective instruments of torture.
Furthermore, people destined for hell are people who won’t part with their sinful state. Remember, free-will still exists beyond our material existence.
Moreover, it is far from obvious that God’s being all-loving compels Him to prefer a world in which no one goes to hell over a world in which some people do. Suppose that God could create a world in which everyone is freely saved, but there is only one problem: all such worlds have only one person in them!
Does God’s being all-loving compel Him to prefer one of these underpopulated worlds over a world in which multitudes are saved, even though some people freely go to hell? I don’t think so. God’s being all-loving implies that in any world He creates He desires and strives for the salvation of every person in that world. But people who would freely reject God’s every effort to save them shouldn’t be allowed to have some sort of veto power over what worlds God is free to create.
Why should the joy and the blessedness of those who would freely accept God’s salvation be precluded because of those who would stubbornly and freely reject it? It seems to me that God’s being all-loving would at the very most require Him to create a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost, a world where as many as possible freely accept salvation and as few as possible freely reject it.
Finally, it’s possible that God would permit the damned to leave hell and go to heaven but that they freely refuse to do so. It is possible that persons in hell grow only more implacable in their hatred of God as time goes on. Rather than repent and ask God for forgiveness, they continue to curse Him and reject Him. God thus has no choice but to leave them where they are. In such a case, the door to hell is locked, as John Paul Sartre said, from the inside. The damned thus choose eternal separation from God.
“Did you say “unwillingness”?……un-WILL-ingness”? The bible makes clear that *ALL* human beings are inherently “sinful”. “
– No, the bible makes it clear that we were all marred by the sin of Adam, but that doesn’t mean we are inherently sinful. Being inherently sinful is like being inherently evil, which we are not.
“My goodness—’still harping on “morality”, when we know that there is NO objective “morality” to follow—not in the Christian philosophy; not anywhere.”
- Really? I didn’t realize that you already proved objective morality does not exist? I argued a few posts ago that we cannot prove objective morality by referencing the bible, but that doesn’t mean that ‘objective morality’ does not exist.
And ‘morality’ has a lot to do with the Christian God’s plan for us, I am not “harping” on it. It was you who was asking the questions right? So don’t blame me for “harping” on anything.
“To have the “capacity” to “go to heaven” is irrelevent, if I don’t believe such a place exists. I have the capacity to read the Qu’ran and do all the things Allah requires of me. ‘One problem—I’ not a believer of Islam. Likewise….I. do. not. believe Christianity. Notice, I am not “rejecting” your biblegod, nor be rebellious. I simply don’t believe your invisible friend has a referent in reality. “
– So are you arguing that if God exists, you are definitely going to hell? Did you not pay attention to my argument a few posts ago that our eternal destiny is of our own volition not of our circumstance? If you are an atheist and do not believe in God, then I’m assuming that is your circumstance, maybe your parents didn’t believe in God or whatever, I’m not going to pretend to know how God will judge you. Therefore, your being ‘moral’ will satisfy God’s intention of creating a ‘holy and moral boomSLANG’, which then allows you to go to heaven.
“How convenient for those who get the evidence they need to believe; how unconvenient for those whom “God” does not reveal “Himself” at all. The latter are to have “faith”, while the former don’t need “faith”—they presumably know that Christianity is the One Universal Truth it claims to be, because “God” makes his existence obvious – albeit subjective to the individual – nonetheless, undeniable to them.”
- No, God doesn’t capriciously choose who to reveal himself subjectively to. Some people search Him out, some don’t (maybe because of circumstance). Furthermore, why is it unfair if God, for a very important reason, chose to reveal himself to someone? Even if this were the case, He still would judge you justly. The unfairness that you feel is simply the state of your heart – you become envious of the generosity granted to others.
“If doctors could eliminate influenza altogether, I believe they would. If “God” could eliminate childhood Leukemia altogether?…well, I would *think* he would, but yet, if such a being exists, it doesn’t seem to be the case, does it?”
- Because this physical reality is all that doctors objectively know. Like I said, if God were to eliminate all suffering He would have to (1) give us everything we want, and (2) do the absurd, like remove the properties of heat and gravity.
Suffering is relative. If we had absolutely no suffering in this world, you would still be an atheist demanding that God remove the effects of gravity on your foot to be able to prove he exists and prove his loving nature, since that would be the worst suffering you could ever experience.
“if it existed, would not be worthy of my belief, let alone my “worship”. And yes, your twisted rationalization fails to convince me.”
- I’m not here to try and convince you. I’m just here to defend my faith. I’ve already realized that whatever I say, you will make the same old “thats bullshit!” rant.
“you ask the question as if there’d be no point in ending suffering, yet, you evidentally have no problem believing that there exists a magical place where there is no suffering…i.e…”Heaven”, and I’m guessing there’s a point to no suffering there.”
- As spiritual beings, we do not experience physical pain. Our state of mind is perhaps the only thing that could give us pain and suffering. The ultimate purpose of the soul/spirit is to be with God (obviously I cannot explain how this would be good or pleasurable, since I never have experienced it) therefore I don’t know how one could suffer in heaven.
“In my view, it is your twisted, convoluted rationalizations that illustrate “absurdity”.”
- Thats just your view, though. Luckily, I think of you narrowly.
Donny,
Thank you.
“The Christian God does permit the existence of Hell, but there is nothing inherently unloving about Hell.”
Yeah, and there’s nothing inherently unloving about Guantanamo Bay Naval Torture Facility either.
If I could take action that would prevent someone else getting that “eternity of suffering” you seem to get such a thrill from, wouldn’t it be damnably immoral of me not to take it?
And yet this “God” dude seems to be too busy to help all us unbelievers see the light.
Yeah, and there’s nothing inherently unloving about Guantanamo Bay Naval Torture Facility either.
- *sigh* I get it, you did not understand my explanation of what hell actually is, lest you wouldn’t be making such silly analogies.
If I could take action that would prevent someone else getting that “eternity of suffering” you seem to get such a thrill from, wouldn’t it be damnably immoral of me not to take it?
- Again, please read my explanation on why this isn’t possible. Morality is dependent on ‘free-will’.
Ah yes, Heaven, the great equalizer. No matter how much evil or senseless disaster befalls the world, Heaven makes everything all right.
Too bad if my kid strayed from God’s ways, then got killed in a natural disaster before he had a chance to repent. Collateral damage in God’s masterplan, I suppose.
Why? Are you already presuming that prior to his death, he would live a very immoral life?
What makes you so sure that, if God existed, then your kid is going to hell? Being an atheist was his circumstance in life, our eternal destiny is based on our own volition, not of our own circumstance.
No, I’m assuming that at the time of his death he didn’t believe in God and would thus be destined to Hell. His unbelief could be due to external circumstances or it could be of his own volition. Whatever it was, he wouldn’t get a chance to redeem himself.
But seeing as your belief strays somewhat from common doctrine, perhaps you don’t think unbelief would earn you a place in Hell?
“But seeing as your belief strays somewhat from common doctrine, perhaps you don’t think unbelief would earn you a place in Hell? “
– If we were to believe what the bible says about God being just and merciful, then no, unbelief does not automatically earn someone a place in hell.
If You accept Christs sacrifice as atonement for your sins, then God will judge you mercifully,
Otherwise God will judge you justly.
Myself, I’d rather be judged mercifully than justly.
Dorkman,
I’d like to know exactly what you mean before I respond.
Are you saying that Jesus didn’t suffer enough?
Or are you asking what the purpose of Jesus’ suffering was?
If an hour of physical suffering is insignificant in the larger scheme of things, then why is Jesus’ suffering significant in the larger scheme of things?
After all, a sacrifice ain’t a sacrifice if it isn’t significant. I do remember a story near the beginning about God being particular with His sacrifices…
First of all, it’s really WORSE than just a three day issue–it’s actually only a three-HOUR separation between God the Father and God the Son!
But at noon, something dramatic happens. The sky goes dark and Jesus cries out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?!” The Son is separated from the Father for the first time in eternity…this continues for only three hours…and at 3.00pm Jesus wills himself to death. He cries ‘it is finished’ (the Greek phrase actually has a technical meaning in those days of ‘paid in full’–it was so used when people were released from debtors prison and their unpaid bill was stamped ‘paid in full’–same phrase). And then he decides to die and gives up his spirit. So those three HOURS are the only slice of time in all of eternity that the Son experiences brokenness in his relationship with his Father.
When I then try to understand 3hrs vs. eternity issues, I quickly run across the problem of how God ‘experiences’ time…The old crusty Scholastics sometimes argued that God experienced time all at once, much as a entire landscape is visually experienced simultaneously, even though it is quite distributed. If, as they suggest, universe-time is like a mural on a wall that God experiences ALL AT ONCE, and experiences it ETERNALLY (not the old ” I’m through with that day, I’ll move on to experience the next day”), then the Father is still “experiencing” that grief now…it’s a bit heavy, and we tread on shaky ground here (logically speaking), but this experience is slightly mirrored in humans (made in the image of God) when we recall a past experience and ‘re-feel’ the pain or joy therein…
So, subsequently I pondered the ‘contents’ of those three hours, and why was the God-Man (who came to earth specifically for those three hours) terrified at the prospect?! He, of all Persons in the universe, was smart enough to have argued the three-day (or three-hour) point in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before his death, when he wrestled with his impending sacrifice. But the agony in the garden, with tears, and sweat, and such psychological/emotional torment that he begged His Father to save the world in some other manner…why such torment? His personal death was no big deal to Him nor is it to us his followers. But three hours of becoming the very ugliness of sin, the very hideousness of rebellion against Love, the very fragmented reality of moral failure…this was the very anti-matter of his character…the thought of becoming the very thing you hated most, the very thing that enraged moral sensibilities of the whole world… The scripture is very clear in II Cor 5.17-21–”God made Him to be sin for us, that we might be made morally pure in Him.” So something was very, very bad about those three hours (to use understatement).
As to the 3 hours themselves, the theology tells us that during those Jesus ‘paid for the sins of the whole world’ (John the Baptist made this clear when he called him the Lamb, which takes away the sins of the whole world). What did this entail? The concise statement is that God the Father, who had loved/enjoyed/delighted/ fellowshipped with the Son at the most intimate of levels for all eternity, suddenly turned his back on His Son, and for three hours poured His awesome wrath out on His Son (instead of on us). So one component was the abandoning His Son (to save the world), and the other was the very active outpouring of judicial punishment upon Him to generate the ‘paid in full’ comment.
Oh boy Miguel, there are so many assumptions there I don’t know where to begin …
I knew it wouldn’t be a good answer for an atheist, as it seems to beg a lot of questions.
Here let me just summarize it for you:
The issue turns now from one of quantity (amount of pain) to one of quality (honor versus shame). Jesus’ divine identity made him a personal being due the highest honor by nature — not infinite of necessity, but the highest. The reversal of this value upon Jesus, and the experience of status degradation — his public humiliation in the eyes of others, and thereby loss of ALL honor status — undermines and makes irrelevant the question, “Could he have suffered enough for all sins?”
Oh I also forgot to mention in that last post, that it is also because of Jesus’ divine identity that his experience of death, and that the emotions would remain with Jesus throughout eternity, made for the difference. At least this is what a lot of theologists argue.
That’s what a lot of theologists argue…
Crappy. How many hours and how many theologists? To give an explanation to the words someone wrote 2000 years ago, someone without the logical skills we have today, someone who didn’t mind at all, someone who was only reproducing and adapting human’s sacrifices myths…
But let’s assume that that’s God’s vision of time. He can see all the time as a landscape. He is still feeling the separation from His son, as He is still seeing Adam’s sin… we should assume that he cannot only see the past, but the future too, as He is omniscient and almighty -He is not binded by time, too, as He is almighty. Can’t God travel to the past?
So, when He created Adam, He knew that Adam was not perfect. He knew that he will eat from the tree. He knew that, with His programming and satan’s -the speaking snake- influence Adam was going to do the worst sin, and then He should expell humanity from the paradise. Why? He could have been here arguing with satan and convincing Adam not to eat the apple. He could have done us with a little more of authority’s sense. Moreover, when he created Lilith, he knew that Adam wouldn’t be “happy” til He created Eve. What happened with lilith?
He knew that Cain was going to kill Abel. He knew that He was going to genocide fast all the humanity with Noah’s flood. He knew that Abraham was willing to kill his child for Him, and that Job wouldn’t give up and stop praising Him, so what was the point in killing his family while he was betting with satan?
He knew that His son was going to die for “our sins”. Why not send Jesus before Noah’s flood?
He knew that the earth wasn’t flat. Why actively lie to us? He knew that we will come to an evolution’s theory, why hide all those fossils? Lying again?
(Well, we know that the FSM will forgive us, as He created us when He was drunk and He knows we are far from perfect. We know too that He has a good sense of humour, so He enjoys messing with our scientists’s data. That does a far more reasonable explanation)
But let’s assume that that’s God’s vision of time. He can see all the time as a landscape. He is still feeling the separation from His son, as He is still seeing Adam’s sin… we should assume that he cannot only see the past, but the future too, as He is omniscient and almighty -He is not binded by time, too, as He is almighty. Can’t God travel to the past?
- You’re taking it too literally. Why stop there? Ask me if He can travel to the past and meet himself as Jesus. Ask me if He can meet ‘Doc’ from 1955.
“So, when He created Adam, He knew that Adam was not perfect. He knew that he will eat from the tree. He knew that, with His programming and satan’s -the speaking snake- influence Adam was going to do the worst sin, and then He should expell humanity from the paradise. Why? He could have been here arguing with satan and convincing Adam not to eat the apple. He could have done us with a little more of authority’s sense. Moreover, when he created Lilith, he knew that Adam wouldn’t be “happy” til He created Eve. What happened with lilith? “
- Who is Lilith? I would assume He cannot know those things because we have free-will. Ofcourse He knows who of us have the propensity to do evil or who of us have evil intentions etc. But He also knows that all of us have the will to change. If He knew all of this, If He knew that we both would be talking at this blog at this time even before we were born, then that would mean we essentially do not have free-will. You don’t have to take the statement “He experiences time all at once” literally. Ofcourse I cannot give you a good explanation since I have not experienced such a thing.
He knew that the earth wasn’t flat. Why actively lie to us? He knew that we will come to an evolution’s theory, why hide all those fossils? Lying again?
– Shockingly shallow reasoning. He didn’t tell us the earth was flat nor did He tell us evolution wasn’t real. You are such a simpleton. Maybe you should read about this more before you ask these amazingly childish questions. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to offend you, I’m just calling it like it is.
If she was going to kill herself wouldn’t that have saved him also? i still fail to see the point in killing him. Though trying understanding the religious nut cases is pointless
I think you’re having a hard time with this point:
The internal logic of schizophrenics *doesn’t make sense* to normal people. You fail to see the point in killing him because out here in the real world, there is no point to killing him. In the world that she had constructed in her head, it did somehow make sense.
And it has nothing to do with religion. She could have just as easily thought she and her child were aliens who needed to be released from earthly bondage by killing their false human forms, or something.
So your god isn’t this all-seeing, all-knowing dude I got taught he was, then?
-He is, but if He knew something before we even had the chance to exercise our free-will to choose that something, then he essentially failed to create a ‘free-will agent’ .
Your question is sort of like the question : “Can He create a rock He can’t carry? ”
If He created the rock, then He doesn’t become all-powerful after having created the rock – since He can’t carry it, likewise If He cannot create the rock, then He isn’t all powerful because there is apparently something He cannot create.
The answer is simple, God isn’t illogical, He wouldn’t create the rock, because doing so would be an illogical decision.
Likewise, He cannot create free-will agents who have ‘destiny’ – doing so would be an illogical feat.
Ofcourse He knows our hearts and knows who has the propensity to do evil, or who, because of the choices he made in his life, is on the path of unrighteousness. But He also knows that everyone has the will to change.
His inability therefore to see beyond the choices we make is not an error on His omnipotence, but evidence that He has successfully created free-will agents.
Thus, if God condemns anyone at all to that eternal suffering (for sins that are, at most, peccadillo by comparison), then what kind of “Father” is he really?
- My previous argument was that we condemn ourselves to hell by choosing to remain in sin. The Christian worldview believes that God is Holy and Moral, this is His nature. Thus, the natural effect of unholiness and immorality is separation from Him – who is holy and moral. This separation is Hell, because the same hellish earthly attitudes that cause people to become closed off from God are magnified in the stretch of eternity.