(June 1, 2016 at 4:31 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:What? My original statement was in response to her original statement, which she had at the time deleted because people were pointing out to her that an animal was killed to save her child.(June 1, 2016 at 4:27 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Yup, not mentioning the animal that got shot in the head so that your son could live makes a person a bit of a douche, even without the God praising.
But the praising God (along with the people) still does? That's what it sounded like you were saying.
She praised God for saving her child. I understand that she feels that God was actively involved in preserving her child. I understand your perspective.
I am also allowed my perspective. There is no such thing as this silly idea you call God. From that perspective, I see that thanking an omnipresent deity which you believe became intimately involved in a situation only after bad shit happens, and which situation could have been prevented anyways without any trouble for an omnipotent being is silly at best. Not even mentioning the animal that lost its life or the deadly animal response team that acted quickly and professionally or the paramedics and doctors that treated your toddler's concussion and injuries---you know, actually doing the things you are giving God credit for---is a bit douchy in my book.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
