When analyzed closely, this is a fascinating set of statements which clearly points out the self-contradictory nature of most attempts I've seen that try to explain good and evil in theological terms, or which try to rationalize God's behavior.
Let's look at it closely:
"God would not contemplate an evil as such." That statement attempts to defend God as being Good. It follows the usual pattern of explaining that God is kind and benevolent and would not purposefully be mean.
"we bring evil upon ourselves by the choices we make! And sometimes, the innocents suffer." Another in a long tradition of statements that tries to explain that the evil in this world is a result of man's own inhumanity to man, not because of God being mean to us. A statement that, in most cases, even atheists can agree with. So far, so good.
But once you think about it, here's the interesting thing. In the context of responding to Gingi's article about the tragedy, those statements contradicts each other. Because Irving clearly couldn't have directly *caused* the plane crash (i.e., none of his actions could have caused the plane to malfunction), then the only way the crash could have been his fault ("evil he brought upon himself") would be supernaturally, i.e., God intervened and smacked the plane down Himself.
A God who exacts punishing revenge on a man by deliberately and precisely killing many members of his innocent family in an airplane disaster has clearly performed an evil act. That kind of behavior is what we call "terrorism" these days, and we all agree it's evil, immoral, self-defeating, and ineffective.
Even if one agrees with the idea that abortion is murder and causes innocents to suffer, that kind of excessive revenge would be just plain wrong. If we took abortion out of the equation, for example, if Irving was simply a serial killer rather than an abortion doctor; even if we all agreed that Irving was evil and needed to be punished, we'd all also have to admit that murdering Irving's innocent family is still the wrong type of punishment.
Anyone who says that Irving brought this upon himself and his family is simply not understanding what that statement implies about their God. By saying that Irving "had it coming to him", they are admitting that their God is an immature, wrathful, vengeful, spiteful creature who can commit truly mean and vile acts of terrorism with deliberate and horrifying precision.
At that point, any argument you try to make that says your God is good and loving, and deserving of our love and worship, falls completely flat. No amount of quoting Bible verses will fix that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: God would even contemplate an evil act like murdering five
Date: 2009-03-27 10:10 pm (UTC)Let's look at it closely:
"God would not contemplate an evil as such."
That statement attempts to defend God as being Good. It follows the usual pattern of explaining that God is kind and benevolent and would not purposefully be mean.
"we bring evil upon ourselves by the choices we make! And sometimes, the innocents suffer."
Another in a long tradition of statements that tries to explain that the evil in this world is a result of man's own inhumanity to man, not because of God being mean to us. A statement that, in most cases, even atheists can agree with. So far, so good.
But once you think about it, here's the interesting thing. In the context of responding to Gingi's article about the tragedy, those statements contradicts each other. Because Irving clearly couldn't have directly *caused* the plane crash (i.e., none of his actions could have caused the plane to malfunction), then the only way the crash could have been his fault ("evil he brought upon himself") would be supernaturally, i.e., God intervened and smacked the plane down Himself.
A God who exacts punishing revenge on a man by deliberately and precisely killing many members of his innocent family in an airplane disaster has clearly performed an evil act. That kind of behavior is what we call "terrorism" these days, and we all agree it's evil, immoral, self-defeating, and ineffective.
Even if one agrees with the idea that abortion is murder and causes innocents to suffer, that kind of excessive revenge would be just plain wrong. If we took abortion out of the equation, for example, if Irving was simply a serial killer rather than an abortion doctor; even if we all agreed that Irving was evil and needed to be punished, we'd all also have to admit that murdering Irving's innocent family is still the wrong type of punishment.
Anyone who says that Irving brought this upon himself and his family is simply not understanding what that statement implies about their God. By saying that Irving "had it coming to him", they are admitting that their God is an immature, wrathful, vengeful, spiteful creature who can commit truly mean and vile acts of terrorism with deliberate and horrifying precision.
At that point, any argument you try to make that says your God is good and loving, and deserving of our love and worship, falls completely flat. No amount of quoting Bible verses will fix that.