710
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
710 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4838 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ironically, A rather conservative old school pastor I had growing up often told a fable of a guy talking to god for the first time. His boat was damaged and sinking after he struck a rock. About 30 minutes after another boat saw the damaged boat and offered him help and the guy waved it away saying "nah, God will help me." A couple hours pass and another boat sees his submerging boat and offers him help and he replys again "nah, God will help me!" Another half hour passes and the boat is under water and the guy is struggling to stay afloat. A third boat passes by and he waves it by again, "no, God will intervene!"
The guy asks God "why didn't you save me?"
God replies "I sent three rescues, what more could I have done?"
This story is exactly to impress on people that god is behind everything (works in mysterious ways), and you should thank god whenever you are helped by people. It's complete bullshit.
God didn't send any rescuers, that's delusional.
If you are rescued, thank the rescuer not god.
I think it does a better job at highlighting the flaw in thinking "God is behind everything." The guy that drowned didn't "drown of Gods will" he drowned because he was an idiot.
Remove God from the story and it stays the same. At least, that's what led me to figure out the whole concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent diety and a whole religion was BS.
If it worked for you that's great, but consider why? If they were talking, did god not tell him earlier. The story is stupid, if somehow that stupidity prevents people from relying on god, then fine.
But it seems to me it's more explaining away why god doesn't actually help, which is supposed to be "it seems like" god doesn't help, but you should believer that he does, despite there is no evidence of it.
Note that this story is generally told by the religious, not by atheists. And there's a reason for that.
I think you got the wrong takeaway from that story... The character of God rebukes the dead man for not accepting the practical help of other people. It's just framed as though God sent the rescuers to convince the "believes in miracles" crowd that no such things exist.
Consider a simple rewording: instead of "I sent you two boats and a helicopter" you read "Two boats and a helicopter came to save you." This solves your only hangup and doesn't even change the story. Your beef is with the aesthetic component, not the meaning of the story.