-
Posts
10,827 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
48MPHSlapShot's Achievements
Canucks Franchise Player (12/14)
17.3k
Reputation
Single Status Update
See all updates by 48MPHSlapShot
-
Thank you for closing this vile thread...
http://forum.canucks.com/topic/385708-lightning-strikes-church/?tab=comments#comment-14320188
- Show previous comments 7 more
-
Quote
Yes, because "My guess is because they thought that their faith would protect them." and "Well, it was obviously their faith that killed them." are totally different statements.
Do you really see equivalence in the two statements or are you trying to put words in my mouth? Because the second one implies that there is only one plausible explanation when that is not what I have said at all.
QuoteYou said that you figured they didn't install a lightning rod or take necessary precautions against lightning strikes because "they thought their faith would protect them", meaning that they died because of their faith. They're the same statement, and pretending otherwise is just intellectually dishonest, as is pretending that the OP wasn't using this tragedy as a means to attack religion.
Faith doesn't kill you. My mom is as devout as they come but I still grew up in a house with a lightning rod. I still got vaccinated as a baby because my mother had the common sense not to put her faith in front of modern science.
If you hadn't perceived the OP's thread as an attack on religion you would have realized that he was conveying a point that faith alone does not solve issues, human intervention is necessary.
The thread was basically rehashing an old saying "God helps those who help themselves" meaning relying only on your faith to solve your problems is foolhardy.
-
There is equivalence in those two statements. I find it slightly hypocritical that you would accuse me of "putting words into your mouth", when you're doing the exact same thing by implying that my paraphrasing of your statement was meant to imply that you were saying "there was only one plausible explanation".
Basically, you're arguing over semantics when you and I both know exactly what you meant. Again, intellectually dishonest.
And yes, I do take statements like
"So.... if the place was full of God's people and assuming that most, or all, would offer prayers on a daily basis, one has to wonder why an "act of God" targeted a church, rather than say, a Brothel, or a Casino...."
and...
"Your move, Evangelicals...."
and...
"Not joking, nor "delighted". Just pointing out to those who think prayers (or thoughts) are an answer to anything, are kidding themselves."
...as a smug attack on faith and those with faith, using this tragedy as ammunition in the assault.
However you may want to paint it, this boils down to the OP saying "Lol, where's your God now?".
You may say that I myself am arguing over semantics, but when dealing with issues of faith, especially when discussing a situation in which people lost their lives, a certain level of tact is necessary in order to start a civil discussion.
-
IT will be perceived as an attack by those who dont want to read between the lines. It was an open question to a rational debate about faith. A Simple question for those that have faith in an omnipotent presence that controls all aspects of reality. Surely with an all mighty being cradling civilization in HIS arms there has to be a simple and rational answer ?
- Show next comments 6 more