The Consequences of a Post-Christian America Revealed by COVID-19

[JoeB131]

I have never understood the logic behind believing that unless everyone is kept safe or nothing bad can ever happen that there can be no God.

Could one of you good people explain that to me?

No one made that argument.

This is why most people have you on ignore.

 

[ding]

Some pretty bad things happened to the apostles, right? And they had a relationship with God too, right?

 

[ding]

I have never understood the logic behind believing that unless everyone is kept safe or nothing bad can ever happen that there can be no God.

Could one of you good people explain that to me?

No one made that argument.

This is why most people have you on ignore.

That’s exactly the argument you are making and have always made.

 

[ding]

In fact, you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting an atheist who isn’t making an argument that God can’t exist because bad things happen to good people.

 

[Montrovant]

So let me see if I get this. Christians know that one human being cannot keep another human being safe. I suppose that means that bodyguards are useless, parents shouldn't bother to teach their children not to play with fire or knives, the invention of things like vaccines or PPE were pointless, etc. Because of this, I can only assume that the government's main focus to protect individual rights is doomed to fail, since the government is made up of humans who can't keep other humans (and their rights) safe. In addition, Christian children don't think that their parents can keep them safe. Is that about the size of it, in your opinion?

I do not play liberal gotcha games, sweetheart. I guarantee I'm better at it than you are, and have been at it longer than you have.

Liberal gotcha games, is it? I didn't know liberals created gotcha games, nor that trying to get you to clarify the things you've said was either liberal or a gotcha game.

Also, if you're better at it, why not play?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the claim that Christians know no other human can keep them safe. That's a new one, and seems to make little sense. I guess if you explain it I've got ya!

Okay genius, I'll play your little game, since you insist.

Please tell me how Your Precious Government can keep us safe, every day, in every circumstance, from this virus, if we comply.

That's your game, pal. It's called strawmanning. Embrace it, since you took such glee in ramping it up for me.

The difference with your post, of course, is that you didn't base your questions on anything I said. You just made them up. I, on the other hand, have quotes from you saying that Christians know no human can keep them safe (post #59), and you responding with a yes when I asked you if Christian children know their parents cannot keep them safe (post #67).

You didn't actually answer my questions, but I'm happy to answer yours.

The US government is my government and your government, assuming you are a US citizen. I don't think of it as precious. I certainly don't think it can keep everyone safe every day in every circumstance, from this virus or anything else. On the other hand, I also don't think that this is a binary equation in which the government either keeps everyone safe from everything all of the time, or does nothing.

Of course, I also think it's possible for one person to keep another person safe, at least in some circumstances.

You expect me to actually respond to your stupid, inane, junior high level strawman argument

And include a winky sign because you think you actually GOT ME. That's embarrassing, for you. But okay.

I'm going to start again with the OP, alright there, pal? The FUNCTION of the US govt is not to "keep us safe". That's why we have the 2nd amendment. It is only a small measure of safety against "enemies, foreign and domestic". You somehow now want to twist this into gotcha games with human beings and parents-children, as if you prove some kind of point that parents can, in some measure, keep children safe, you have won a Constitutional argument, or proven what the government's role should be.

The Constitution was written, and works, because the American populace never NEEDED the government to "keep us safe". I'm really going to end there because your skills at argumentation are beyond frustrating, to be honest.

Perhaps your skills at explanation are a bit lacking.

I see you still don't care to explain your statements. If it's frustrating for you to be asked to clarify things like "Christians know that no other human being can keep them safe," you might not want to post them.

I'm not at all embarrassed by using emojis. I do it all the time. It's what they are there for!

 

[ding]

You might as well be making an argument that your parents didn’t love you because they spanked you when you were little or they let you get sick.

 

[ding]

Or that cars and planes aren’t safe because they have wrecks and crash.

 

[ding]

Or that love doesn’t exist because people get divorced.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some pretty bad things happened to the apostles, right? And they had a relationship with God too, right?

And any relationship with 'God' is personal, unique and private, right?

 

[Montrovant]

I have never understood the logic behind believing that unless everyone is kept safe or nothing bad can ever happen that there can be no God.

Could one of you good people explain that to me?

Coyote Montrovant JoeB131 ESay

I don't think that argument would be that everyone has to be kept safe or there can be no god. It would probably be more along the lines of everyone should be kept safe or there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, loving and merciful god. The reason for that would be that allowing pain and suffering, when it doesn't have to exist, doesn't seem to be loving or merciful.

That's the best I've got off the top of my head. I'm not sure I've ever seen that argument presented, at least not in quite that form.

 

[ding]

It appears that critical theory is alive and well.

 

[SweetSue92]

I do not play liberal gotcha games, sweetheart. I guarantee I'm better at it than you are, and have been at it longer than you have.

Liberal gotcha games, is it? I didn't know liberals created gotcha games, nor that trying to get you to clarify the things you've said was either liberal or a gotcha game.

Also, if you're better at it, why not play?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the claim that Christians know no other human can keep them safe. That's a new one, and seems to make little sense. I guess if you explain it I've got ya!

Okay genius, I'll play your little game, since you insist.

Please tell me how Your Precious Government can keep us safe, every day, in every circumstance, from this virus, if we comply.

That's your game, pal. It's called strawmanning. Embrace it, since you took such glee in ramping it up for me.

The difference with your post, of course, is that you didn't base your questions on anything I said. You just made them up. I, on the other hand, have quotes from you saying that Christians know no human can keep them safe (post #59), and you responding with a yes when I asked you if Christian children know their parents cannot keep them safe (post #67).

You didn't actually answer my questions, but I'm happy to answer yours.

The US government is my government and your government, assuming you are a US citizen. I don't think of it as precious. I certainly don't think it can keep everyone safe every day in every circumstance, from this virus or anything else. On the other hand, I also don't think that this is a binary equation in which the government either keeps everyone safe from everything all of the time, or does nothing.

Of course, I also think it's possible for one person to keep another person safe, at least in some circumstances.

You expect me to actually respond to your stupid, inane, junior high level strawman argument

And include a winky sign because you think you actually GOT ME. That's embarrassing, for you. But okay.

I'm going to start again with the OP, alright there, pal? The FUNCTION of the US govt is not to "keep us safe". That's why we have the 2nd amendment. It is only a small measure of safety against "enemies, foreign and domestic". You somehow now want to twist this into gotcha games with human beings and parents-children, as if you prove some kind of point that parents can, in some measure, keep children safe, you have won a Constitutional argument, or proven what the government's role should be.

The Constitution was written, and works, because the American populace never NEEDED the government to "keep us safe". I'm really going to end there because your skills at argumentation are beyond frustrating, to be honest.

Perhaps your skills at explanation are a bit lacking.

I see you still don't care to explain your statements. If it's frustrating for you to be asked to clarify things like "Christians know that no other human being can keep them safe," you might not want to post them.

I'm not at all embarrassed by using emojis. I do it all the time. It's what they are there for!

That is exactly the truth, actually. No other human being can keep them safe. Now you want to argue semantics. I'm not interested, unless YOU are interested in arguing this statement: "Americans know that the government cannot keep them safe".

It's ridiculous. You knew what I meant and expect me to go down a rabbit trail.

No.

 

[SweetSue92]

I have never understood the logic behind believing that unless everyone is kept safe or nothing bad can ever happen that there can be no God.

Could one of you good people explain that to me?

Coyote Montrovant JoeB131 ESay

I don't think that argument would be that everyone has to be kept safe or there can be no god. It would probably be more along the lines of everyone should be kept safe or there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, loving and merciful god. The reason for that would be that allowing pain and suffering, when it doesn't have to exist, doesn't seem to be loving or merciful.

That's the best I've got off the top of my head. I'm not sure I've ever seen that argument presented, at least not in quite that form.

Pain and suffering exist because this ain't Heaven yet

 

[there4eyeM]

If any attitude to 'God' is necessary, it would be child like, not childish, as today's religions are.

 

[ding]

Some pretty bad things happened to the apostles, right? And they had a relationship with God too, right?

And any relationship with 'God' is personal, unique and private, right?

That’s how I have always seen it.

Do you mind if we add and irrespective of which religion or faith one follows?

 

[there4eyeM]

I have never understood the logic behind believing that unless everyone is kept safe or nothing bad can ever happen that there can be no God.

Could one of you good people explain that to me?

Coyote Montrovant JoeB131 ESay

I don't think that argument would be that everyone has to be kept safe or there can be no god. It would probably be more along the lines of everyone should be kept safe or there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, loving and merciful god. The reason for that would be that allowing pain and suffering, when it doesn't have to exist, doesn't seem to be loving or merciful.

That's the best I've got off the top of my head. I'm not sure I've ever seen that argument presented, at least not in quite that form.

Pain and suffering exist because this ain't Heaven yet

It can as easily and logically be maintained that "pain and suffering" exist so that we can experience their lack.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some pretty bad things happened to the apostles, right? And they had a relationship with God too, right?

And any relationship with 'God' is personal, unique and private, right?

That’s how I have always seen it.

Do you mind if we add and irrespective of which religion or faith one follows?

That is implicit.

 

[Toro]

So let me see if I get this. Christians know that one human being cannot keep another human being safe. I suppose that means that bodyguards are useless, parents shouldn't bother to teach their children not to play with fire or knives, the invention of things like vaccines or PPE were pointless, etc. Because of this, I can only assume that the government's main focus to protect individual rights is doomed to fail, since the government is made up of humans who can't keep other humans (and their rights) safe. In addition, Christian children don't think that their parents can keep them safe. Is that about the size of it, in your opinion?

I do not play liberal gotcha games, sweetheart. I guarantee I'm better at it than you are, and have been at it longer than you have.

Liberal gotcha games, is it? I didn't know liberals created gotcha games, nor that trying to get you to clarify the things you've said was either liberal or a gotcha game.

Also, if you're better at it, why not play?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the claim that Christians know no other human can keep them safe. That's a new one, and seems to make little sense. I guess if you explain it I've got ya!

Okay genius, I'll play your little game, since you insist.

Please tell me how Your Precious Government can keep us safe, every day, in every circumstance, from this virus, if we comply.

That's your game, pal. It's called strawmanning. Embrace it, since you took such glee in ramping it up for me.

The difference with your post, of course, is that you didn't base your questions on anything I said. You just made them up. I, on the other hand, have quotes from you saying that Christians know no human can keep them safe (post #59), and you responding with a yes when I asked you if Christian children know their parents cannot keep them safe (post #67).

You didn't actually answer my questions, but I'm happy to answer yours.

The US government is my government and your government, assuming you are a US citizen. I don't think of it as precious. I certainly don't think it can keep everyone safe every day in every circumstance, from this virus or anything else. On the other hand, I also don't think that this is a binary equation in which the government either keeps everyone safe from everything all of the time, or does nothing.

Of course, I also think it's possible for one person to keep another person safe, at least in some circumstances.

You expect me to actually respond to your stupid, inane, junior high level strawman argument

And include a winky sign because you think you actually GOT ME. That's embarrassing, for you. But okay.

I'm going to start again with the OP, alright there, pal? The FUNCTION of the US govt is not to "keep us safe". That's why we have the 2nd amendment. It is only a small measure of safety against "enemies, foreign and domestic". You somehow now want to twist this into gotcha games with human beings and parents-children, as if you prove some kind of point that parents can, in some measure, keep children safe, you have won a Constitutional argument, or proven what the government's role should be.

The Constitution was written, and works, because the American populace never NEEDED the government to "keep us safe". I'm really going to end there because your skills at argumentation are beyond frustrating, to be honest.

Aren’t you making an argument to disband the military?

The military is a government institution that keeps us safe.

Same with the local and state police.

 

[ding]

If any attitude to 'God' is necessary, it would be child like, not childish, as today's religions are.

That is not only a blanket statement but an oversimplification.

yes, we are supposed to be childlike in our relationship with God.

no, we are not supposed to be childish in our faith.

To argue today’s religion is childish is to ignore that for any given thing there will be a distribution.

 

[ding]

Some pretty bad things happened to the apostles, right? And they had a relationship with God too, right?

And any relationship with 'God' is personal, unique and private, right?

That’s how I have always seen it.

Do you mind if we add and irrespective of which religion or faith one follows?

That is implicit.

And needs to be explicitly stated. Lest people make the other argument they make all the time which is if there is more than one religion God can’t exist which is as stupid as the argument that if bad things happen to good people God can’t exist.