This is another variation of a primed narrative (left: "Muskets"!).

"God"! What do they even mean by this?!

I think *over-dependency* on ANY outside force by a person, or a society will create a lot of dysfunction - but this situation seemed to me to be the perfect storm of bad circumstances, bad choices and a really sick and evil Human being that gave us the horrors of last Friday.

But let's not kid ourselves, this is nothing new.

I alway like to point out to these people that over the last hundered years as people became less religious the crime rate has dropped

How do they explain the 1927 school bombing in Michigan, the most deadly elementary school massacre in American history?

If he was following the God of the Bible he never could have done that.

The God of the Bible ordered a man to kill his own son to prove his devotion to God.

We all want something to blame. If only there were fewer gun, this wouldn't have happened. If only there were greater access to mental health services, this wouldn't have happened. If only there were MORE guns, this wouldn't have happened. If only we brought God into schools, this wouldn't have happened.

This article on the subject is very good:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html

It's an argument for how nothing could have stopped Lanza from doing what he did.

What can you expect from people who believe God sent two bears to maul 42 youths because they made fun of a prophet's baldness?

I did a bit of googling, and I haven't found anything saying he's an atheist? Am a bad googler?

I think MonicaP's probably got it right. If we can come up with somebody to blame, identify the one thing that went wrong, than we can indulge in the illusion that we can actually prevent or control future obscenities like the one in Newtown.

Regarding Miss Alkon's adultery link. Whoever wrote that, after running through all the Mosaic law condemning adultery, goes on to claim that John 8:1-11 is used by many Christians "... to justify fornication and pornography." I don't remember that interpretation coming up in Luther's Small Catechism, so I'm not sure which astral plane the guy's on.

This is what I want to say on FB, but there's a few people I don't want to alienate.
*********

I am a Christian myself, and fairly religious. And I cannot tell you how insane with rage statements like this make me. It is the worst sort of superstition, using God as a fetish like the proverbial tiger repelling rock. "If they believed then nothing bad would happen to them. They don't believe so something bad happens. I believe so nothing bad will happen to me."

It's also the worst sort of dodge to the age-old and difficult to answer theological question: Why does a loving God let bad things happen*. They go for an easy answer and turn God into an abusive parent. "I only hit you because I love you," they imagine God saying to humanity. "If you would just be good then I wouldn't hit you. But hey, I love you. Have a rainbow." And then these walking skidmarks say "Just behave and He won't have to hit you."

God by his very definition exists outside time, space, and every other universal concept else that we humans can wrap our brains around. If you are a Christian then you believe God incarnated as a human and himself suffered a tortuous death. Is it such an unreasonable thing to think that maybe such a being has a different view than us of what death and suffering is?

But these assholes would prefer that God be an abusive SkyDaddy because then they can control what he does. "I'm good, you don't have to hit me. But Tommy broke the window so punish him." They think they are humble and submit to God's will, but it's the worst sort of arrogance.

Even worse, they go from abusive SkyDaddy to tantruming SkyToddler. "God's just throwing a widdle tantrum because we're ignoring him. Let's go say some nice prayers before school starts and that will make him feel all better. Who's a nice, tame deity. You are! Yes you are!" Better to make God something they can understand - even if it's kind of horrible - than to internalize that Isaiah 55:8's message is correct that His thoughts are not Our thoughts.

Jesus saved his most scathing condemnations for the religious hypocrites (Matthew 23) and for very good reason. These are the whoring shits who make being a Christian hard for people. How can you love their abusive SkyDaddy? How can you respect their tantrum-prone but easily fooled SkyToddler? How can you stand to be in their company? Better to just chuck the whole thing and make spaghetti monster jokes. Mike Huckabee, Johnathan Cousar, and their ilk think they are the sages who will be flogged for teaching the truth (Matt 23:34) to a wicked world. But they are the Pharisees who make heavy burdens for others, shut doors against would-be believers, and self-congratulate themselves because they pray loudly on the street corners.

Jesus justifiably flipped his cornbread in the temple when he found it had been overrun with people using the house of God to make a fast buck. How much worse is it to make political hay or blog views "spreading God's word" on the backs of dead children? As Christians we are literally called to be Christ-like. We are not saved by works, but we are still known by the fruit that we produce. What the *fuck* kind of fruit do you produce when you say something as poisonous as "it's God's punishment because we (and really I mean you) ignored him."

(*and the next mofo who says "God works in mysterious ways" gets a c*nt punt).

No NicoleK, you are not a bad Googler. Adam Lanza went to a catholic church with his mother (I know nothing of his personal religious beliefs obviously). Which is another reason Cousar is an ass.

Wow! Elle is my new hero. Seriously- that was really well said. I'm cut and pasting that for future reference.

Elle,

Thanks for sharing your sincere thoughts.

Amy,

I appreciate the specification of "some religious bloggers."

Sometimes, persons such as Freedom Torch fail to articulate that, no matter how fervently we humans attempt to open our hearts to God, and to spread the Word of God, evils

(including massacres) will inevitably occur. If secular persons never committed another evil act: evils and massacres would still occur by the hands of the faithful, as they already do.

If it is true that a massive cultural shift, towards God, would lessen the frequency of massacres (and I am not confident that is true): it is likely also true that the lessening of

frequency would be imperceptible to we who are citizens of the culture. Inadequate sample size. There will be math.

an interlude; setting of the stage

Lee Strobel, in The Case for Faith:
1. "During my years as an atheist, I mocked the fantastical tales and blatant mythology that I believed disqualified the Bible from being a divinely inspired book. [...] I was quick to reject the Bible in order to free myself to live the kind of corrupt lifestyle that was blatantly at odds with its tenets."

2. "When I asked about alleged contradictions in the Bible, [Dr. Norman Geisler] leaned back in his chair, and smiled. It was an issue he had spent a lifetime studying.
'I've made a hobby of collecting alleged discrepancies, inaccuracies, and conflicting statements in the Bible,' he said. 'I have a list of about 800 of them. A few years ago, I coauthored a book called When Critics Ask, which devotes nearly 600 pages to setting the record straight. All I can tell you is that, in my experience, when critics ask these questions, they invariably violate one of seventeen rules for interpreting scripture.'"

The list of seventeen, with short explanations of each item: http://endtimedeception.org/books/when_critics_ask-a-popular-handbook-on-bible-difficulties.pdf

re "no evidence exists"

You actually mean: no valid scientific evidence exists. I simply note that there are scientists who disagree. According to Strobel:

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross: "[Scientific and historical evidence] deeply rooted my confidence in the veracity of the Bible."

Robert Jastrow, agnostic, and founder of the Goddard Space Institute: "the Big Bang points toward God."

Mathematical Physicist Robert Griffiths: "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the Philosophy Dept. The Physics Dept. isn't much use."

End Strobel.

Of course, anecdotal examples could go on, and on.

Also, one could be convinced, in part, by various science which comprises parts of various philosophic argument. For instance, Philosopher Anthony Flew was convinced of God's existence, in part, due to the scientific evidence which comprises the foundation for the Fine Tuning Argument.

And, one could simply be convinced by philosophic argument, alone. For instance, Francis Collins, former Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and current Director of the National Institute for Health, was heavily influenced to believe in God by the Moral Argument for God's Existence.

a Christian explanation of supposed OT injunction against cutting hair

It was not a strict injunction against cutting hair, but rather an injunction against "rounding" hair, insofar as some peoples of the time would "round" their hair as a sign of respect for a pagan god.

a Christian explanation of OT law that adulterers should be killed

Norman Geisler, When Critics Ask, Mistake #17 when interpreting Scripture
http://endtimedeception.org/books/when_critics_ask-a-popular-handbook-on-bible-difficulties.pdf :

"Mistake 17: Forgetting that Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation

Sometimes critics of Scripture forget the principle of progressive revelation. God does
not reveal everything at once, nor does He always lay down the same conditions for every period of time. Therefore, some of His later revelation will supersede His former statements. Bible critics sometimes confuse a change of revelation with a mistake . The mistake, however, is that of the critic. For example, the fact that a parent allows a very small child to eat with his fingers, only to tell them later to use a spoon, is not a
contradiction. Nor is the parent contradicting himself to insist later that the child should use a fork, not a spoon, to eat his vegetables. This is progressive revelation, with each command suited to fit the particular circumstance in which a person is found.

There was a time when God tested the human race by forbidding them to eat of a specific tree in the Garden of Eden ( Gen. 2:16–17 ). This command is no longer in effect, but the later revelation does not contradict this former revelation. Also, there was a period (under the Mosaic law) when God commanded that animals be sacrificed for people’s sin. However, since Christ offered the perfect sacrifice for sin ( Heb. 10:11–14 ), this OT command is no longer in effect. Here again, there is no contradiction between the latter and the former commands. Likewise, when God created the human race, He commanded that they eat only fruit and vegetables ( Gen. 1:29 ). But later, when
conditions changed after the flood, God commanded that they also eat meat ( Gen. 9:3 ).

This change from herbivorous to omnivorous status is progressive revelation, but it is not a contradiction. In fact, all these subsequent revelations were simply different commands for different people at different times in God’s overall plan of redemption.

Of course, God cannot change commands that have to do with His unchangeable nature (cf. Mal. 3:6 ; Heb. 6:18 ). For example, since God is love ( 1 John 4:16 ), He cannot command that we hate Him. Nor can He command what is logically impossible,
for example, to both offer and not offer a sacrifice for sin at the same time and in the
same sense. But these moral and logical limits notwithstanding, God can and has given noncontradictory, progressive revelation which, if taken out of its proper context and juxtaposed with each other, can be made to look contradictory. This, however, is just as
much a mistake as to assume the parent is contradicting herself when she allows a child
to stay up later at night as he gets older."

Elisha and the 2 bears who mauled 42 persons

Norman Geisler, When Critics Ask http://endtimedeception.org/books/when_critics_ask-a-popular-handbook-on-bible-difficulties.pdf :

"2 KINGS 2:23–24 —How could a man of God curse these 42 young men so that they were mauled by she-bears?

PROBLEM: As Elisha was going up to Bethel, he was confronted by some young people who mocked him saying, “Go up, you baldhead!” When Elisha heard this, he turned and pronounced a curse on them, and two she-bears came out of the wood and mauled 42 of the young men. How could a man of God curse these young men for such a minor offense?

SOLUTION: First of all, this was no minor offense, for these young men held God’s prophet in contempt. Since the prophet was God’s mouthpiece to His people, God Himself was being most wickedly insulted in the person of His prophet.

Second, these were not small, innocent children. They were wicked young men, comparable to a modern street gang. Hence, the life of the prophet was endangered by their number, the nature of their sin, and their obvious disrespect for authority.

Third, Elisha’s action was designed to strike fear in the hearts of any other such gang members. If these young gang members were not afraid to mock a venerable man of God such as Elisha, then they would have been a threat to the lives of all
God’s people.

Fourth, some commentators note that their statements were designed to challenge Elisha’s claim to be a prophet. They were essentially saying, “If you are a man of God, why don’t you go on up to heaven like Elijah did?” The term “baldhead” might be a reference to the fact that lepers shaved their heads. Such a comment would
indicate that these young men looked upon Elisha as a detestable outcast.

Fifth, it was not Elijah who took their lives, but God who alone could have providentially directed the bears to attack them. It is evident that by mocking this man of God, these young men were revealing their true attitudes toward God Himself.
Such contempt for the Lord was punishable by death. The Scriptures do not say that Elisha prayed for this kind of punishment. It was clearly an act of God in judgment upon this impious gang."

gcotharn's note: Geisler's last paragraph is premised upon it being moral for God to take life, insofar as God creates the very life which He later takes. This is why Geisler is careful to specify that this was God's choice, and not Elisha's.

Uh, what about Passover? It's a whole holiday dedicated to not being killed by a vengeful god. Didn't god send a really indiscriminate angel to kill all the first born of Eqypt? What's the difference between that and what happened in Conneticut? As far as supernatural explanations go, it's just as valid to say that this happened because there's no prayer in school as it is to say it happened because god sent a vengeful angel to kill innocents as a punishment for some sort of violation of god's will.

How do you explain god not doing shit about the millions of rapes of children over the centuries by his priests then?

Was the virginity of 5yr old boys such an affront to his mouth peices?

lujlp:

It makes just as much sense that god was acting through all those rapists. If god can slaughter innocents Eqyptians, why not rape innocent Americans? It's all god's will.

In fact, I think that's the whole argument behind Westboro Baptist.

gcotharn- you made my point. God, Creator of the Universe, millions of light years wide, got pissed off that some "youths" made a mockery of His servant's hairline, and commanded two she-bears to attack them. Thank you.

With all the shit going on in the world, even back then, His attention was on a baldy insult.

Dude- it's silly.

This Christian columnist has a great response to the "kicking G*d out of schools" b.s.:

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-kept-out

re numerous rapes, over centuries, by priests:

God imbues imperfect persons with free will.

Evil acts ensue.

Also, humans are able to freely choose love.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When an evil thing occurs, a huge spiderweb of repercussions ensues - more repercussions than we could ever anticipate or track. Butterfly effect. Consider:

- if true evil were not on display, humans would never believe evil exists.
- consider the increased bonding, between parent and child, upon a parent's discovery of the details of those rapes. And consider the resultant increased vigilance on the part of many parents.

Currently, my Facebook feed contains multiple instances, of both secular parents and parents of faith who have taken to Facebook to declare: "Looking at Sandy Hook, I have pulled my children into ever tighter embrace. I love them so."

If God exists, He is playing at a different level, and He sees things which we cannot see, and He acts for His own reasons. If God exists, then we must concede the possibility that God has loving reasons for His actions - and we, in this life, will never be able to grasp the full scope of those reasons.

Oh, for pity's sake. Regardless of the significance of the action - love and sacrifice and so forth - at the center of the Christian mythos lies one of the most horrific, gruesome, cruel methods of murder that man has ever invented. I somehow don't think that putting more Bibles into schools is going to magically fix the sorts of folks who will read them as instruction manuals.

What do I like about living in a "free" society? Idiots often and freely reveal themselves to be, well, idiots, thus enabling the rest of us to avoid, ignore, or otherwise lampoon them.

Monica, thanks for the link to that Daily Beast piece. It was excellent.

My guess is that we're going to get a law anyway, and my hope is that it will consist of small measures that might have some tiny actual effect, like restrictions on magazine capacity.

The author is correct in saying that we're never going to ban guns (nor, in my opinion, should we.) However, it seems reasonable to me -- as it does to the author -- to attempt to limit the carnage that a murderer can cause. We already do this to some extent. As the author notes, "Unlike many libertarians, I am fine with a ban on automatic weapons. ...machine guns have been illegal in the United States since 1934, and since the 1980s, it has been illegal to manufacture and sell any automatic weapon.

"If God exists, He is playing at a different level, and He sees things which we cannot see, and He acts for His own reasons. If God exists, then we must concede the possibility that God has loving reasons for His actions - and we, in this life, will never be able to grasp the full scope of those reasons."

This is why saying that the shootings were caused by pushing God out of schools is so inappropriate. Where does John Cousar get off pretending that he has direct insight into the mind of God? It's presumptous and disgusting.

Please tell me exactly where God® and Jesus™ have been prohibited from entering a school.

There is nothing preventing a child in school from saying silently, "God, help me pass this test" or "God bless this food." Or even a group of students saying grace among themselves before eating.

If a school is denying that, they are are in violation of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Prohibiting students from saying a prayer is just as wrong as the prayer coming over the intercom system, proselytizing the existence of a God®. If a student wants to read the Bible© during free times that is their right as well.

If Elle at December 18, 2012 12:15 PM wants to believe -- I have no problems with that in he form. I admit I used to argue belief with anyone.

I also consider proselytizing among students equivalent to bullying.

To sum this up -- God® is in the schools, just not advocated by the state.

"invariably violate one of seventeen rules for interpreting scripture.'"

Oh, goody. More rules.

Filed under 'IGNORE'.

Here's what I think some of them are on about, though. Reading through some threads at PJ Media, I'm seeing some apologists for Lanza. You know, the usual stuff: "he had a mental illnes; he couldn't control himself", "he wouldn't have thought of it if he hadn't had easy access to guns", you know, the usual bed-wetters. What do all of these have in common? They want to deny the existence of evil.

Now, evil isn't what some people think it is. It's not some supernatural force. It's an impulse that lives within all of us. It's hard-wired into our brains. We sometimes personify it as being the devil or whatever, but the truth is, we all have the capacity for evil. The single greatest challenge of being a civilized human being is overcoming the impulse to be evil.

Now why do some people want to pretend that evil doesn't exist? This is way: they themselves want to give in to evil. They are tempted; they find that fruit tasty and delicious and intoxicating, and they want it. But they don't want people calling them evil! Oh no, mustn't hurt their precious little feelings! Now, this doesn't mean they are all going to be mass murderers. But there's big evil and little evil. Little evil gossips and spreads rumors. It cuts people down behind their backs. It sabotages other peoples' work. It pilfers money from a relative's purse at a family gathering. It cuts off other cars on the freeway. It swaps tags on merchandise in stores.

In the short run at least, evil is fun. It's more fun than good. That's why people want to give in. And some of them want it very badly. But few people actually enjoy thinking of themselves as evil people; therefore, they must deny the existence of evil. That way, they can think of themselves as superior, and good people as just chumps. Oh, they tell themselves that they will never commit big evil. But it's all on a continuum. Once a person has given themselves permission to engage in little evil, there is no philosophical barrier to big evil -- it's just a matter of how daring they want to be.

So by all means, mock the people who attribute stuff like this to the presence or absence of various supernatural forces. But don't proceed from there to deny the existence of evil.

I note that the message of Jesus was about love, tolerance, and forgiveness, and that the current Christian message is about hate, division, and punishment.

I'm surrounded by them, and I swear they would, with songs on their lips and joy in their hearts, march me and my kind into gas chambers for not believing as they do.

There are no gods, therefore it's up to us to take care of each other.

Quoted: I note that the message of Jesus was about love, tolerance, and forgiveness, and that the current Christian message is about hate, division, and punishment.

You're right about the first part, and I wouldn't condone the second part: in great part I agree with you. I love God and wouldn't think of treating others badly in His name because I disagree with them. I doubt I can measure up to their standards anyway.

Quoted: I'm surrounded by them, and I swear they would, with songs on their lips and joy in their hearts, march me and my kind into gas chambers for not believing as they do.

I'm sorry you believe that, and I wish I could strenuously disagree. Not all of us are like that, certainly not me.

When Jesus was here, he railed against the religious leaders and institutions of His day. I'll bet he'd be even harder on "His" church today.

Our local school board, good Christians all, refused to allow the high school theater kids to put on The Odd Couple because of a minor gay reference contained therein. Seriously.

They were in rehearsal and had the set half built, and were required to switch gears in mid production lest we acknowledge the homosexuals among us, even in the most passing fashion. You would have thought the kids were putting on Heather Has Two Mommies, The Musical the way they carried on.

Wouldn't want the kiddies to Go Gay you know.

I can't wait for the rapture, except I don't think one hundred forty four thousand are enough. Can't they all get sucked up into the sky?

Now, evil isn't what some people think it is. It's not some supernatural force. It's an impulse that lives within all of us. It's hard-wired into our brains. We sometimes personify it as being the devil or whatever, but the truth is, we all have the capacity for evil. The single greatest challenge of being a civilized human being is overcoming the impulse to be evil.

Dave, I agree with you on that. You've reminded me of a quote I've always liked from Solzhenitsyn:

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

I note that the message of Jesus was about love, tolerance, and forgiveness, and that the current Christian message is about hate, division, and punishment.

Steve, I'm not a Christian (in fact, not religious at all, although I was raised Lutheran) but I need to point out that's the "evangelical/conservative" Christian message. That's not the messaage of "liberal/progressive" Christians. The way I see it, the first group focuses on the Old Testament, where their angry and jealous God was condemning and smiting and slaughtering people, while the second group focuses on the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus.

Here in Washington, back on November 6th, the majority of voters approved a referendum to keep a same sex marriage law that had been passed by the state legislature. When it passed, a conservative minister who had opposed it was on the news saying, "we've turned our backs on God." I thought to myself, "no, you've turned your back on the teachings of Jesus."

JD, thanks for the two notes. Solzhenitsyn identifies the crux of the problem, in two ways. It is necessary for society to isolate its most evil members, in order to prevent a huge amount of harm from being done. But identifying them is a tough problem. In a lot of cases we can only do so by looking at that person's total behavior record, but of course, by the time that record contains enough information to make the identification, harm has already been done. I have a relative that I would describe, without hesitation, as an evil person. Yet, I can't point at any one act that she has done and say, "that act branded her". It's the totality of the record -- all the things that I'm aware of that she has said and done -- that allows me to make the judgement that she is amoral and has no interest in controlling her baser impulses. She has seen her own capacity for evil, and she likes it. She has not committed an act of Big Evil that I'm aware of (one incident that borders on it). However, there is nothing in her philosophy (such as it is) that stops her from doing so. It's just that impulse and opportunity haven't yet coincided. If someday she gets angry enough at someone to want to kill them, and the means to do so is handy, she'll do it.

The other thing is the bit about tearing out a piece of one's own heart. Yes, that's possibly the single hardest thing about being a civilized person, and it's a thread that has run through the entire history of literature. You have to confront that part of yourself, but in order to do so, you must first acknowledge it. Pretending it doesn't exist is not a useful strategy. It results in all kinds of logical fallacies regarding both personal morality and how society should respond to evil acts. (I'll reiterate my own belief that most conventional morals make logical sense, in the context of how people must behave to maintain order in a civilized society.)

I'll end with one more thing: I don't find it useful to describe different groups of Christians in terms of partisan politics. The situation is usually more complicated than that; e.g., most Catholics in the U.S. are fairly conservative in thier personal morals, but the worldwide organized Catholic Church is not too far from Marxist. And don't forget that narcissists will seek any front of moral authority to use as a disguise and a source of personal affirmation.

You're welcome, Dave.

I don't think of "liberal" and "conservative" solely in terms of politics. To me, they are philosophies. And I believe one would find that Christians who are conservative are much more likely to have a message of - to use Steve's phrase -- "hate, division, and punishment" than Christians who are liberal. I believe that Christians who are conservative are much more likely to take the Bible literally, whereas Christians who are liberal are much more likely to view it metaphorically.