Expert Marksmanship Skills And Luck Are What Protected This Guy
This guy, Steven Willeford, the NRA instructor who went after the Texas church gunman, is a good guy and he did a wonderful thing.
I'm sure he isn't really thinking about what he's saying here.
"My Lord protected me": Hero ex-NRA instructor who took down Texas church shooter after 95 MPH chase breaks silence https://t.co/3QoyUhfTR9
— Billy Hallowell (@BillyHallowell) November 7, 2017
Many children died in that church shooting. It's a horrible tragedy, especially for the family that lost eight people that day, including young children.
I've been horrified by people who, on social media, have used this horrible murder to sneer at the religious.
But I think it's also horrible to say what this man did -- though, again, he probably just said it reflexively, not thinking about what he was saying about all the people who died.
I say that as an atheist. I don't believe there's a "god" who protected him and not some baby shot at point-blank range. But suggesting that sure is ugly -- especially when there are survivors listening whose families were obliterated by this horrible mass murder.
I'm an agnostic, raised old main line anglo catholic.
I have many relatives who are Baptist.
I understand exactly where this guy is coming from, as will everyone else from his culture. It is a position of humility.
You are grossly over thinking this.
Isab at November 9, 2017 3:26 AM
I have a friend (who is African American) who does the same thing a lot, for good reason. His dad died when he was a kid, but his mom kept him (mostly) on the straight and narrow, and he now has a great job, and a beautiful wife and family (ironically, his wife is the elder sister of someone I knew in high school). I kind of believe it is true in his case, since their SUV got sideswiped by a Semi, and none of them were hurt.
spqr2008 at November 9, 2017 5:36 AM
Roman conquerors would have a slave riding in the chariot with them during their triumphal parade, whispering in their ear to remind them that they were mortal. This is the slave in the chariot.
And, quite frankly, any guy who takes on an armored gunman while barefoot and gets the best of that armored gunman after a shootout and a 95mph car chase can thank the Great Pumpkin if he wants. Who's gonna argue with him?
Conan the Grammarian at November 9, 2017 6:46 AM
From the link:
“I’m no hero. I am not,” he told the outlet. “I think my God, my Lord protected me and gave me the skills to do what needed to be done and I just wish I could have gotten there faster.”
I'm not sure why someone would find fault with that. And, I think that there are a lot of people thanking God that Mr. Willeford was the person who happened to be across the street.
ahw at November 9, 2017 7:21 AM
My uneducated guess is that some just never grow out of the Shits on everything a Christian does and/or says edgelord phase.
These days, a simple Thankyou! or Bless you too! leaves a better impression on people.
Sixclaws at November 9, 2017 7:45 AM
What you're saying boils down to the reason I can't believe in god. If such a thing existed, He would insist on making the world completely fair immediately. And it's self-evident that that has not happened.
jdgalt at November 9, 2017 9:08 AM
By your reasoning, He would insist on making the world "completely fair," and that concept of fairness is also being judged from your perspective. Since reality does not match your definition of what it should be under a deity, you refuse to believe in any deity.
Perhaps there is a logic behind this reality, a logic that you, in your limited perspective, cannot see or fathom.
You rebel against human perspectives of God that don't fit with your individual perspective of God. You insist on a God that fits your perspective, that acts as you believe He should act; kind of like those Christians whose prayers are mere orders to a God they believe should do and act as they perceive Him.
If there is a God, He is not likely to be anything close what any of us perceive Him as. And many of us will be disappointed to find out that we are not his favored people, nor his most accurate skeptics.
Conan the Grammarian at November 9, 2017 9:33 AM
Amy Alkon: "But I think it's also horrible to say what this man did... suggesting that sure is ugly -- especially when there are survivors listening whose families were obliterated by this horrible mass murder."
I'll bet you the Christian survivors and families of the people who died will find no fault in what Mr. Willeford said. They don't think the way you do.
Ken R at November 9, 2017 10:19 AM
jdgalt: "What you're saying boils down to the reason I can't believe in god. If such a thing existed, He would insist on making the world completely fair immediately."
Why do you think that? Are you saying you don't believe there's a god because if there was, he/she/it would instantly make the world "fair"? How do you know that?
"Fair" according to whom? A left-wing social justice warrior? A vegan animal rights activist? A libertarian atheist? A conservative Baptist member of the NRA? Hillary Clinton? A fundamentalist Muslim? A Communist?
If there was a god and he/she/it made the world "fair" in the eyes of one of those, would that give the others good reason to conclude that there is no god?
Ken R at November 9, 2017 10:58 AM
The progressive's notion of thoughts and prayers: https://twitter.com/President1Trump/status/928596373976571904
I R A Darth Aggie at November 9, 2017 11:07 AM
I see the point completely. Why would God protect him but not those shot in the church? Was he more deserving then they were? Was God preoccupied during the shooting with something else and then suddenly got back to protecting? I think the same thing when people say God saved them in s disaster like a tornado but they never get mad at him for sending the tornado in the first place and wiping out half the town. A fickle god that sometimes protects and sometimes doesn't is no better than no god at all.
Tony H at November 9, 2017 6:29 PM
Moment of Truth: a critical moment or time that tests and reveals one's true self or makes one face the truth
Well Amy, you just haven't had to face your "Moment of Truth" yet. It really doesn't matter what you or anyone else believe -- it only matters what the person facing the "Moment of Truth" believes that allows them to act or not act at that critical moment. Most will fail to act when the critical moment arrives. Steven's whole life, regardless of what he believes, is why he did act when faced with his "Moment of Truth." Luck is preparation meeting opportunity, and Steven
I suggest you and Gregg sit down and watch "Hacksaw Ridge." "Most of the men don't believe the same way you do, but they believe so much in how much you believe."
Amy, what will you do when faced with you "Moment of Truth?"
Jay J. Hector at November 9, 2017 6:31 PM
I twitched when the phone rang and accidentally submitted an post that needed editing, so here is a corrected version:
Moment of Truth: a critical moment or time that tests and reveals one's true self or makes one face the truth
Well Amy, you just haven't had to face your "Moment of Truth" yet. It really doesn't matter what you or anyone else believe -- it only matters what the person facing the "Moment of Truth" believes that allows them to act or not act at that critical moment. Most will fail to act when the critical moment arrives. Steven's whole life, regardless of what he believes, is why he did act when faced with his "Moment of Truth." Luck is preparation meeting opportunity, and Steven's marksmanship was part of his preparation.
I suggest you and Gregg sit down and watch "Hacksaw Ridge." "Most of the men don't believe the same way you do, but they believe so much in how much you believe."
Amy, what will you do when faced with your "Moment of Truth?"
Jay J. Hector at November 9, 2017 7:12 PM
You rebel against human perspectives of God that don't fit with your individual perspective of God. You insist on a God that fits your perspective, that acts as you believe He should act;
This is more apt to describe a theist as opposed to an atheist
lujlp at November 10, 2017 9:08 AM
Well said, Tony H.
Plenty of famous writers have said that if you really think there's someone watching over you and that every good or bad thing that happens to you is somehow personal, that just suggests that you think way too much of yourself. Narcissism.
"We hyperactively detect agents where there are none, and this makes us suspect malice or benignity where, in fact, nature is only indifferent."
(Guess who wrote that.)
And while those who lost loved ones in the church shooting may not resent, right now, what Willeford said, that doesn't mean they won't resent "God" eventually.
lenona at November 10, 2017 10:02 AM
I see the point completely. Why would God protect him but not those shot in the church?
People who use reason and logic -- people like you & me & Amy -- ask questions like that.
People who rely on faith and belief will, instead, say something like "We can't know why God does what he does." To a devout Christian who relies on faith and belief, God isn't being odd or cruel because he allows little kids to die of cancer (and many other diseases) and starvation while allowing people like Hitler and Stalin to grow up to be adults (and slaughter thousands of other people.) It's all, you see, "part of God's plan" and we, being mere humans, can't possibly know what that "plan" is.
...but they never get mad at him for sending the tornado in the first place and wiping out half the town.
A tornado? A hurricane? Earthquakes? Those are nothing. God only kills a few hundred (or thousand) people at a time with those. God -- the God of the Torah/Bible -- is the the biggest mass murderer history has ever know. He slaughtered every single human being and every single animal on earth except for Noah and his family and the animals on the ark.
"And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings;everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth."
JD at November 10, 2017 10:32 AM
"He slaughtered every single human being and every single animal on earth except for Noah and his family and the animals on the ark."
Why do you think that's true?
• The Bible says Noah reached 950 years of age. That's not human, as DNA doesn't replicate accurately to deny aging that much. No, there isn't another genetic coding method with magical reproductive fidelity.
• Ordinary processes continued through any period of time you'd care to name from the Bible. No upset in the last 160KA in ice cores, no genetic bottleneck in any species...
It's not that there's no evidence a great Flood occurred - it's that there IS evidence other things, which could not have occurred at the same time, did.
Radwaste at November 10, 2017 1:48 PM
"I see the point completely. Why would God protect him but not those shot in the church?
People who use reason and logic -- people like you & me & Amy -- ask questions like that."
Uh, no. This is an elementary school question.
And what passes for reason from you and a lot of other militant atheisits would be laughed out of a high school debate especially when it comes to your own smug self satified belief that you know enough to actually *prove* the non existence of God.
A lot of Christian beliefs are irrational but that doesnt make your athetist beliefs rational by default.
None of us have enough knowledge to have a rational basis for everything we believe and do, so we trick ourselves into thinking that we defer to the authority of the *right* experts on every subject. (Coincidentally those experts are always the ones who already agree with us).
But...just because some self proclaimed scientist, journalist, or government official tell you something is true, should they be given more creditbility than a priest? I say, it depends.
People who,study logic, reason, and have a passing familiarity with Christian doctrine, would ask: Since man is mortal, and no one ultimately can be*protected* from death maybe God, if he/she/it exists might be unconcerned about your inevitable physical death at all and more concerned about the state of your soul and the nobleness of your character?
Or maybe, like the great clock maker, God just wound things up in the beginning and is letting it play out to an end you and I will never fathom or see?
Isab at November 10, 2017 2:34 PM
I always wondered in the years in question werent a mistranslated lunar counting system
950 would be about 75 years if Im doing my math right
lujlp at November 10, 2017 5:43 PM
Isab, ever read "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag"
lujlp at November 10, 2017 5:46 PM
Isab, ever read "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag"
lujlp at November 10, 2017 5:46 PM
Not since Junior High. I was a big sci fi fan back then. And a militant atheist.
Fortunately I got old enough and smart enough to understand someone else being obviously wrong didn't make me right.
Isab at November 10, 2017 7:06 PM
Radwaste: Why do you think that's true?
God -- the God of the Torah/Bible -- is the the biggest mass murderer history has ever know.
Since I used the word "is" in that sentence, I can see why you assumed I thought it was true, so let me slightly restate:
God -- the God of the Torah/Bible -- is portrayed as the biggest mass murderer history has ever known.
And, unlike events such as Hurricane Katrina or the recent earthquake that hit Mexico City -- events which people who use reason and logic understand are caused by atmospheric and terrestial conditions, but which people who rely on faith and belief (and Isab) think may be caused by God -- the great flood in the Torah/Bible is portrayed as an intentional slaughter of people and animals by God.
JD at November 10, 2017 8:32 PM
But...just because some self proclaimed scientist,
Congratulations, Isab; you nailed it! When a scientist explains that it's natural conditions which create a hurricane, not God being cruel (or perhaps just mischievious), she does this because she merely proclaims herself to be a scientist, not because she has put in years of study of natural conditions on and above the Earth.
JD at November 10, 2017 8:49 PM
But...just because some self proclaimed scientist,
Congratulations, Isab; you nailed it! When a scientist explains that it's natural conditions which create a hurricane, not God being cruel (or perhaps just mischievious), she does this because she merely proclaims herself to be a scientist, not because she has put in years of study of natural conditions on and above the Earth.
JD at November 10, 2017 8:49 PM
JD, Congratualtions are more likely due to you. You have proven yourself to be a complete unreflective Philistine.
Somehow I dont think another thirty years is going to change that.
That's proabbly good because a lot of people need the kind of certainty about their beliefs that reflective thinking destroys.
Isab at November 10, 2017 9:42 PM
And you'll notice that i did compare that position to theists who insist God obey their commands.
Like I said, if there is a God, He is not likely to conform to anyone's perception, theist or atheist.
But go ahead atheists, keep arguing against God's existence using the presumption that all He could be is a bearded old human in the sky.
Conan the Gramamrian at November 11, 2017 7:38 AM
gcotharn had a problem like this years ago -- he could NOT understand that no matter what you believe or practice, when you make an assertion which is exclusive, you must show what makes the assertion exclusive.
God™ did it? Okay, how was it not Zeus, Allah, the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the FSM?
Radwaste at November 11, 2017 9:28 AM
And what passes for reason from you and a lot of other militant atheisits...
Isab, other than your typical know-it-allism, on what basis do you conclude that I'm a an atheist? (And, not just an athiest but a "militant [oh my!] atheist."
By the way, it is atheist, not atheisit. An atheisit is a person who believes in God, but only when God stands.
JD at November 11, 2017 9:36 AM
Why do you think that's true?
Radwaste, I forgot to ask: do you think the account of Noah and God's mass slaughter of humans and animals is true? (Based on your question, it would seem not, but I just want to confirm.)
JD at November 11, 2017 9:40 AM
Like I said, if there is a God, He is not likely to conform to anyone's perception, theist or atheist.
But go ahead atheists, keep arguing against God's existence using the presumption that all He could be is a bearded old human in the sky.
Given the vast majority of real atheists only claim there is no god insofar as described by religions, and only a small minority claim there is no and can be no god what so ever I dont now what you are getting so worked up about.
After all your proposed version of god doesnt care about us to the point that their existence from our point of view would appear to be non existance
lujlp at November 11, 2017 9:47 AM
"I always wondered in the years in question werent a mistranslated lunar counting system
950 would be about 75 years if Im doing my math right"
That is a common viewpoint. At the time the lunar calendar was used, not a solar one. There are a lot of translation issues like that. If I give you 10 talents how much money is that? Stories lose their meaning when the local context is lost.
Rad, that is a common response and shows a complete lack of understanding of logical arguments. A statement of 'Jehova is god' does not require logical proof. It is a statement of faith. Or in the language of logic an initial assumption. The statement 'god does not exist' is exactly the same. A statement of faith. If someone wants to make that statement a logical deduction then they need to show they have searched every possible way and no god was found. But the same is not true if the statement is taken as an initial assumption. Which is why anyone with any logical training should be able to recognize that atheism is a religion. All be it a disorganized one.
Ben at November 11, 2017 9:49 AM
Conan: But go ahead atheists, keep arguing against God's existence using the presumption that all He could be is a bearded old human in the sky.
You forgot white. A bearded old white man.
That, of course, is the classic depiction of God in Christian art (I prefer the depiction of God in Evan Almighty.) And I think that is the conception of God that most Christians have.
Do you think that's the conception that most atheists also have?
JD at November 11, 2017 10:14 AM
Isab: But...just because some self proclaimed scientist, journalist, or government official tell you something is true, should they be given more creditbility than a priest? I say, it depends.
This Oregon couple gave more credibility to prayer, to faith in God, than to self-proclaimed doctors. Click on the link to see how that turned out for their child and for them (spoiler alert: they weren't treated very nice by the jackbooted leftist thugs [I put that in there so Cousin Dave could nod knowingly] in the Oregon government.)
JD at November 11, 2017 10:24 AM
lenona: Plenty of famous writers have said that if you really think there's someone watching over you and that every good or bad thing that happens to you is somehow personal, that just suggests that you think way too much of yourself. Narcissism.
I think those writers have a very good point.
Of course, we don't know for an absolute fact that someone (or some being/thing) isn't watching over everyone, duly noting who's been naughty and who's been nice, and frequently intervening, like protecting a gunman or helping a singer win a Grammy. Just like we don't know for an absolute fact that, every night when we fall asleep, a band of hippos from Botswana don't paint themselves in green and purple polka dots, strap on jet-packs and fly to our homes, shrink themselves down to microscopic size, and zoom down into our stomachs where they have a frenzied falstaffian party.
JD at November 11, 2017 10:41 AM
complete unreflective Philistine.
Thanks Isab! You just gave me the name, with a slight spelling change, for a band: The Philisteens.
They play Bruce Springsteen melodies combined with their lyrics, doing songs such as "Born to Run (Away from Culture)" and "Dancing in the Unenlightened Dark."
JD at November 11, 2017 10:48 AM
Ben: A statement of 'Jehova is god' does not require logical proof. It is a statement of faith.
This statement also does not require logical proof. It is, as you noted above, a statement of faith.
JD at November 11, 2017 11:00 AM
"That, of course, is the classic depiction of God in Christian art ..."
Not true. Black Jesus, Asian Jesus, Polynesian Jesus are all classic depictions of the Christian God. Christians have depicted Jesus like the locals pretty much since the beginning. White Jesus is the classic depiction in Western European art since Western Europeans were all white.
And I'll give you the Clapton one.
Ben at November 11, 2017 2:14 PM
"Isab, other than your typical know-it-allism, on what basis do you conclude that I'm a an atheist? (And, not just an athiest but a "militant [oh my!] atheist."
Your reading comprehension is poor, Poorer than my spelling. At no time did I call you a militant atheist. I called myself one when I was under 30.
But if you weren't, I don't think you would be so smug as to your certainty that science has slayed religion.
Some people never grow out of scoffing at the religious because they have a deep need to feel intellectually superior to someone, and the religious are an easy target. It seems to be a tenant of socialist group think.
If I recall, I called you an *unreflective Philistine* mostly because your arguments are so juvenile and ill thought out.
You used the example of a fundamentalist Texan attributing his strength in a crisis to God's invervention to go on a rant about how much more rational you think you are than people who believe in God. You did this by asking a philosophical question that most Christians learn the answer to before they are eight years old.
Science doesn't answer philosophical questions for a reason. It isnt very good at it.
Isab at November 11, 2017 2:56 PM
"Science doesn't answer philosophical questions for a reason. It isnt very good at it."
What method of inquiry and response do you suggest?
What do you think science is? Noting what happens, given a set of circumstances, doesn't work for "philosophical questions"? That's because they deal with feelings. "How many roads must a man walk down?" isn't designed to have an answer. "Was this landmass ever flooded?" does.
If all you want is to feel better, well, go ahead and just make something up. That's what gcotharn was defending in the link above.
But don't think for a minute that it isn't just a matter of opinion then. Dozens of religions can and do claim they have the answer - providing you agree with them.
Extreme confusion attends the observation that the natural world is flatly not susceptible to opinion. We refuse to believe that belief itself, an emotionally charged investment, is insufficient to describe everyday events and objects thoroughly.
Meanwhile, every modern convenience, every chemical, every weapon of war and every tool of peace was developed via the scientific method, even when people didn't use the term.
Radwaste at November 12, 2017 11:42 AM
Damn, this was a fun debate and I missed it. It seems to have gone very nicely without me, though.
Cousin Dave at November 13, 2017 2:13 PM
"What method of inquiry and response do you suggest?"
I dont expect science to answer questions, about, love, kindness, values, right, wrong, the meaning of life, the existence or non existence of any number of Gods, what came before the big bang, or why the big bang even occured.
Do you?
People are not very rational and in general, are not very intelligent. There are vast areas of human experience and inquiry where science falls short.
People love certainty. This is why so many have replaced their religion with science as a religion. People want answers, and they want certainty. What they dont want is real science. i.e.
*There is is 70 percent probability that under these conditions, x will happen. * That hurts their brains.
Isab at November 13, 2017 8:58 PM
"I dont expect science to answer questions, about, love, kindness, values, right, wrong, the meaning of life, the existence or non existence of any number of Gods, what came before the big bang, or why the big bang even occured."
I expect that someday that will all be possible, although that day is probably in the far future. Science has arrived at answers for things that our ancestors either didn't understand or regarded as magic, such as the structure of the solar system, the nature of lightning, and the transmutation of elements. Chemistry replaced alchemy; astronomy replaced astrology. You can argue that the human race won't survive long enough to see that day, and you could be right -- our continued survival depends on a whole bunch of things that we don't understand or don't have control over, although we continue to make progress there too.
Cousin Dave at November 14, 2017 11:01 AM
Leave a comment