Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

50 Christmases Later

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

December 19, 1971 was a Sunday, the last one before Christmas.  I was ten.  My sister was eleven.  We went with our family to the evening service at Trinity Baptist Church in Boyd, Texas.  After services my parents left us with a group that was going Christmas caroling.  We never made it to the first house.

Our church was on the highway on the western edge of town.   Our group of about 20 carolers walked along the side the highway toward the first neighborhood a few hundred yards away.  The leaders were in the front and back of the group.  My sister and I were with the kids in the middle.  My memories of what happened next are episodic.  I don’t know if this is because I was in and out of consciousness or if my mind will not let me remember.  This is what I do remember.

It is a dark night.  We are walking along the side of the road.  My friends are around me.  Two headlights.  Screeching tires.  Screams.  Darkness.

Laying in a ditch.  Where is Robin?  Grabbing hands full of weeds as I crawl in the ditch.  Why can’t I stand?  Darkness.

Laying on the side of the road.  Someone has laid a coat over me.  A crowd has gathered around a car.  Yelling.  A man is beating someone with his fists.  Darkness.

The flashing lights of ambulances.  My mother is here.  She is hysterical.  She is screaming and fighting with a man who will not let her into an ambulance.  Darkness.

In an ambulance going down the road.  My father is beside me.  He weeps silently.  Darkness.

Bright lights of a hospital.  A doctor is wrapping plaster around my leg.  I see one of my friends on the other side of the room.  Sleep.

Later I learned that a drunken 19 year-old man had swerved toward the group as a joke to frighten us.  He lost control and drove into the middle of the group among the kids.  Eight were injured, including me and my sister, and one nine year-old girl was killed when the car pinned her against a highway post.  This girl was wearing the same style coat as my sister, and my mother had fought to get into the ambulance with her, thinking it was her daughter.  My sister was in a different ambulance, and my father was weeping because the entire trip with me to the hospital in Fort Worth he thought Robin was dead. 

Robin was not dead, but she was badly injured.  She was hit so hard that her body became a projectile that struck another kid and broke his leg.  She sustained a broken nose, a broken leg, a broken arm and injuries to her spinal cord.  She had operations and lived a fairly normal life, though she always struggled with fine motor skills.  Over 40 years later, in 2014, complications from her injuries caused her to become a quadriplegic.  She lived six more years and died in 2020.  By comparison, my injuries were slight, a broken leg from which I fully recovered. 

What to make of all of this?  Terrible, senseless things happen to children as Ivan Karamazov recounted in his famous indictment of God.  How can a loving God allow this?  I have contemplated the theodicy for decades, and in that time I have learned only one thing for certain.  Ivan’s indictment cannot be refuted by logic.  If it can be countered at all, it can be countered only as Alyosha countered it, by faith in God’s love as demonstrated though Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.  Robin trusted.  She forgave.  She did not allow bitterness to consume her soul.  This is our second Christmas without her, but I will see her again.  With joy in my heart, I sing the old song:

I’ll meet you in the morning
With a how do you do
And we’ll sit down by the river
And with rapture old acquaintance renew
You’ll know me in the morning
By the smile that I wear
When I meet you in the morning
In that city that is built four square

Comments
Ram @302, So you're not willing to answer my two questions after all. No, you're not successful in anticipating where I'm going with this. I asked you not to try. One more time . . .
1. Imagine a normal curve centered at the origin. What’s the area under the positive half of the normal curve? 2. As you know, the presence of gravity affects the passage of time. So let’s say someone falls into a black hole, which in this case lasts only a few seconds before they’re “spaghettified.” How does this event appear from an observer at a safe distance?
-QQuerius
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
Querius, Let's save us some time. Answer my simple question in the service of avoiding futility: Is the eternal torture your concept of God metes out never-ending or not from the perspective of the tortured? This is the whole point of my interest. That's a simple yes or no question. If you answer no, then we have nothing to discuss, since I am not (necessarily) averse to the idea of time-limited punishment from the perspective of the tortured. If yes, nothing about black holes is going to matter. Never-ending is never-ending from the perspective of the tortured, and that's what matters. --Ramram
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
Ram @298, Please don't draw any conclusions before I make them. They're not what you think. 1. Imagine a normal curve centered at the origin. What's the area under the positive half of the normal curve? 2. As you know, the presence of gravity affects the passage of time. So let's say someone falls into a black hole, which in this case lasts only a few seconds before they're "spaghettified." How does this event appear from an observer at a safe distance? -QQuerius
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
The purpose is to use it [anger]as emotional fuel for righting a wrong. Or, as someone once put it, “To march into Hell for a heavenly cause.
Can’t you right a wrong without anger?Joe Schooner
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
SB: " I criticized WJM for characterizing love and virtue solely in feminine-like terms." WJM
Anyone who thinks love, kindness, compassion, mercy, and being just are primarily feminine traits has psychological issues, IMO.
No one I know thinks that way. I certainly don’t. The key word in my statement above is “solely.” It is the absence of the masculine virtues that causes problems, not the presence of the feminine virtues. A compete human being is capable of practicing both kinds of virtue – spirited fighting and gentle nurturing. The problem is that most people tend to fall into one camp or the other, albeit in greater or lesser degrees. It is bad to be a barbarian, but it is also bad to be a sissy. That is the point.
I cannot imagine being angry at people for doing exactly what I knew they were going to do. I’ve never found anger to ever be a positive trait of any sort. It clouds reason with irrational urges and thoughts.
To be angry for the wrong reason is a vice, but to be angry for the right reason is a virtue. Anyone who doesn’t get angry when someone molests his child has a psychological problem. Anyone who does get angry simply because someone disagrees with him also has a psychological problem. Righteous anger is often the foundation for positive changes. Aristotle put it best:
“ANYBODY can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody's power, that is not easy.”
WJM
I mean, what’s the point of being angry about anything?
The purpose is to use it as emotional fuel for righting a wrong. Or, as someone once put it, “To march into Hell for a heavenly cause.StephenB
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
Querius, Very. Are you going to try an make a case why stats and GR somehow diminish the monstrous concept of never-ending torture? While you're taking about that, you can answer this question: is the torture your concept of God metes out never-ending or not from the perspective of the tortured? --Ramram
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Ram @288,
I’m fine with with answering questions on this thread. As I understand it, KF doesn’t have to authority the quash the conversation on this thread if it moves into his theological discomfort zone.
Ok, how familiar are you with statistics or with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity? (A passing knowledge about the normal curve or gravitational effects on space-time is just fine.) -QQuerius
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
Ram @ 285, "If the Muslim God turns out to have been the official game in town then you’ve got serious problems..." Yep, I'm screwed then! 8-)EDTA
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
@StephenB : Why in the world you give the benefit of the doubt to a satanist?Lieutenant Commander Data
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Joe Schooner @275: LOL! It is mind boggling.William J Murray
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
SB said:
No. I criticized WJM for characterizing love and virtue solely in feminine-like terms.
Anyone who thinks love, kindness, compassion, mercy, and being just are primarily feminine traits has psychological issues, IMO. They are some of the traits of good people, regardless of gender. (This argument from the general concept of what it means to be "good.") Just because I don't talk about traits that are not generally brought up here for debate doesn't mean I don't find other traits virtuous, or worthy of admiration and aspiration.
Maybe that is one reason why he cannot love a Savior who was human enough to express righteous anger...
I cannot imagine being angry at people for doing exactly what I knew they were going to do. I've never found anger to ever be a positive trait of any sort. It clouds reason with irrational urges and thoughts.
...and tough enough to endure the worst kind of persecution without complaining.
ROFL ... you think Jesus went through "the worst kind of persecution?" Not even close. But, I do admire a person that endures pain and suffering without complaint.
Notice also that, for WJM, being angry is placed in the same category as being malicious or being hateful, as if anger could never be righteous.
You're correct in that I don't find anger to be a virtue. What I find virtuous, in the sense that I admire and aspire to a character trait, is the ability to be calm and rational in any situation. I've found in my life that when hard things need to be done, anger only serves to complicate matters unnecessarily. I think a sense of "righteousness" in one's anger only serves to embed that anger as the "correct" emotional response to a given situation, and I've honestly never seen what that kind of thing well serving any individual involved in any situation. I mean, what's the point of being angry about anything? I don't see that it serves any necessary use or function, unless one just enjoys the feeling or cannot motivate themselves to do hard things unless they get angry about it. IME, anger is usually just a way of dealing with being hurt emotionally.William J Murray
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
StephenB @290 In #248 WJM argued that there is no valid reason for heaven & hell to be the only options, that better systems were easy to conceive of and he went on to summarize Swedenborg’s concept of the afterlife involving multiple non-permanent domains. In #264 you quote him on that, and in the next breath you start your talk about manly love, that love doesn't always have to be "soft, cushy, and cuddly." Like Ram, I took that as a defense for the ‘manly’ ‘clear as a bell’ indelicate split between heaven & hell. I also took it as an answer to my question as to why there is but one punishment (hell) for all crimes, why there is no ‘neutral world’ in the hereafter. Questions in #249 and #270, which you have not addressed specifically. If your response has nothing to do with hell & eternal torment, then what is your response to Swedenborg’s concept of the afterlife? I would like to know. Do you agree that multiple non-permanent domains would have been a better idea, or do you still prefer the one eternal disposition of hopeless suffering approach?Origenes
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
EDTA said:
Judging God from man’s perspective? Really?
No, it's called judging concepts of God that men present to each other, which is all any of us here can do.
I presume that means you respect SB then.
Yes. I also think he's probably a good person doing the best he can with a highly troublesome belief system under threat of eternal torment, which is clearly a psychologically abusive concept.
If, at the end of my earthly life, I find out that you were more correct, then I’m all good, right? /blockquote>I guess that depends on what you mean by "all good."
Not every afterlife situation one may find themselves in after they die is pleasant. Not at all. They're just not permanent. There's always hope. That is what 100+ years of actual evidence about what we call "the afterlife" tells us, anyway.William J Murray
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
Ram
You criticized WJM on the basis that he is not viewing God in “manly” enough terms.
No. I criticized WJM for characterizing love and virtue solely in feminine-like terms. I will cite my own words (the entire paragraph, not just the second half of that you cited [was that because you didn't want readers to understand the opening context?]
That is a little one sided I should think. It’s all very well to characterize goodness as being kind, loving, and compassionate, but whatever happened to the hard virtues, such as persistence, determination, courage, valor, longsuffering, loyalty, trustworthiness, and steadfastness, Does WJM not value the traits of a strong man? Or does he appreciate only the soft qualities of a nurturing woman? WJM never refers to tough love. His references about love are always soft, cushy, and cuddly, as if the only thing that mattered in a loving person was the quality of being “nice.” Maybe that is one reason why he cannot love a Savior who was human enough to express righteous anger and tough enough to endure the worst kind of persecution without complaining. Notice also that, for WJM, being angry is placed in the same category as being malicious or being hateful, as if anger could never be righteous [referring to Christ's act of running money changers out of the temple - nothing there about eternal punishment] I have to wonder. Was Jesus Christ too manly for WJM’s taste?
What I wrote had absolutely nothing to do with the perverse idea of torture as a manly activity. It was a reference to Jesus Christ with respect to his human nature and his admirable masculinity. You will not find anything anywhere in the entire paragraph about eternal punishment. This is nothing new with you. You did the same thing a while back when you said that I have a "low opinion"" of God because I pointed out that not even a all-powerful Creator can make a true statement false or create a contradictory being since it would violate the law of non-contradiction . You are far too reckless with your words. Try to be more responsible.StephenB
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
SB: You lied when you said this: 'He [SB] actually thinks it’s “manly” to torture someone forever.' You criticized WJM on the basis that he is not viewing God in "manly" enough terms. You attacked WJM with regards to the lack of his "manly" approach to God as he rejected your belief in a god who eternally tortures people. The clear implication is that your view of God is correct because the "manly" view of God, and thus the proper view of God "himself" as "manly", is that "he" eternally tortures people. "Does WJM not value the traits of a strong man? Or does he appreciate only the soft qualities of a nurturing woman? WJM never refers to tough love. His references about love are always soft, cushy, and cuddly, as if the only thing that mattered in a loving person was the quality of being “nice.” What on earth does any of this have to do with a Transcendent God, who exists in bliss, who can do anything, choosing to eternally torture some tiny little human forever. Monstrous theology you have there. At any rate, WJM defendent himself splendidly as always. Your monstrous view of God is bankrupt. --Ramram
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
Querius: And you’re still unwilling to to answer the questions that I posed, right? I'm fine with with answering questions on this thread. As I understand it, KF doesn't have to authority the quash the conversation on this thread if it moves into his theological discomfort zone. --Ramram
January 5, 2022
January
01
Jan
5
05
2022
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
Ram @283,
Your cognitive dissonance about the monstrous concept of never-ending torture is apparently making you grasp at straws.
How would you even know? You'd decided your conclusion before you even were willing to answer my previous questions. Instead, you labeled them as worthless without the courage to answer them. Thus, your vituperative ad hominem attacks such as above are empty of content and pointless noise. And you're still unwilling to to answer the questions that I posed, right? -QQuerius
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
Ram
What have I lied about?
You lied when you said this:
He [SB] actually thinks it’s “manly” to torture someone forever.
StephenB
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
EDTA: the traditional Christian God turns out to have been the official game in town, then I’m good–bribed coward or otherwise. If the Muslim God turns out to have been the official game in town then you've got serious problems, if you worship Jesus and/or believe that he is God. That Pascal's Wager gambit is not without it's risks. You could find yourself boiling in excrement for eternity. At any, whoever or whatever turns out to be the Real Creator, is beside the point, which is the psychological acceptance of the monstrous incoherent theology that asserts that the Creator tortures people forever. --Ramram
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
SB, Ram should try [telling the truth] sometime. What have I lied about? --Ramram
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Querius, I read what you had to say and it wasn't worth responding to. Speculative nonsense about black holes and how that relates to eternal torture. Give me a break. Moreover, the Bible doesn't say anything about infinite torture, but rather endless torture. The Christian Bible speaks of a "lake of fire" where people are thrown into and will be "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev 20:10,14,15), and "being thrown into the fire prepared (by whom?) for the devil and his angels" (Mat 25:41) where there will be "weep and wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Mat 25:30). (Some Christians reject the Book of Revelations, but that's probably a minority position around here.) Your cognitive dissonance about the monstrous concept of never-ending torture is apparently making you grasp at straws. --Ramram
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
WJM,
But, if God/Jesus has these “manly” qualities, then he would respect and honor my loyalty and faithfulness to those I love, my courage and steadfastness against threat of hell and promise of heaven,...that kind of God would respect and honor that my love, loyalty and commitment cannot be bought on command... ...a manly God would respect, honor and love me for the fact that I will not, cannot give such a being my gratitude, love or respect for then offering to get me out of that situation. God would honor and respect and love me for doing the best I can to live my life like a man instead of some obsequious weasel...That is not a “man” that deserves respect or admiration.
Judging God from man's perspective? Really? I know SB led the discussion into the manliness angle, but I didn't think you would be fooled into heaving such invective from that perspective. (You must have gotten in touch with Dawkins and borrowed some of his hatred; the language is similar anyway.) Has anyone ever suggested that you might be arrogant or self-righteous?
...to hold to the courage of their convictions, even if they are convictions I do not share.
I presume that means you respect SB then.
You’re [SB] a coward that can be bought off with a threat and a bribe.
If, at the end of my earthly life, I find out that you were more correct, then I'm all good, right? No penalties. If on the other hand, the traditional Christian God turns out to have been the official game in town, then I'm good--bribed coward or otherwise. I clearly did not create myself, and the one who did will get the last word, regardless of his personality as seen from my--or your--earthly perspective.EDTA
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Ram @278,
SB cognitive dissonance about God meting out eternal torture is causing him to go from the silly to the sublimely ridiculous. It’s been amusing to watch from the sidelines. He actually thinks it’s “manly” to torture someone forever. This is where such bizarre philosophies end up. Mercy.
Note that "eternal torture" is not necessarily "infinite torture." If you were honest enough to answer my questions in a previous thread, I would demonstrate how this is possible. But you weren't and so I didn't. -QQuerius
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
Ram
He [SB] actually thinks it’s “manly” to torture someone forever.
No. But it is manly to tell the truth. Ram should try it sometime.StephenB
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Origenes:
I am sitting here wondering if I read what I just read. God created only heaven and hell, and refrained from creating a neutral world, because he wanted to make a manly statement? Eternal torment for uncle Bob and daugher [sic] Suzie because ‘manly love’? Really?
No, not really. It was a simple statement about virtue, which isn't legitimate unless it involves masculine traits as well as feminine traits. It has nothing to do with eternal punishment.StephenB
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Origenes: I am sitting here wondering if I read what I just read. God created only heaven and hell, and refrained from creating a neutral world, because he wanted to make a manly statement? Eternal torment for uncle Bob and daugher [sic] Suzie because ‘manly love’? Really? SB cognitive dissonance about God meting out eternal torture is causing him to go from the silly to the sublimely ridiculous. It's been amusing to watch from the sidelines. He actually thinks it's "manly" to torture someone forever. This is where such bizarre philosophies end up. Mercy. --Ramram
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
[duplicate]ram
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
SB: My position is that the souls in hell would be even unhappier than they are right now if they were suddenly forced against their will to live with God in heaven. Origenes:
According to you, uncle Bob and daughter Suzie would both prefer eternal torment to being in heaven? Ok. Got it.
Yes, I think you do. The temptation to be a God (and a law) unto one's self is the main impetus for much evil in this world and the next. It’s all about p-r-i-d-e. From a psychological perspective, pride is similar to a prisoner’s chains, and, as in the case with any bad habit, it requires a great deal of moral exertion and a measure of Divine help to break the chain. Recovering alcoholics learn this truth the hard way. I suspect that Hell is full of misguided and prideful souls who cannot admit that they were responsible for their fate. It was someone else’s fault (maybe even God’s fault).for allowing their chains to make slaves of them. During their earthly life, while they still had the opportunity to break those chains, they chose to curse God (or invent another god) rather than ask for his help. Now, in Hell, they would, if they had the chance, prefer to suffer rather than humble themselves, repent of their sins, and loosen their chains. It's the same choice that they have always made. The stakes are higher, but the idea remains the same; being with the God they hate would be a greater Hell than the one they are now in. Subjecivists do not recognize the existence of chains because they don't understand the role that objective morality plays in breaking them. Even in the natural order, "good" moral habits can,, in a few weeks, displace "bad" moral habits, but if the former is not recognized for what it is, all hope is lost. Subjective morality, which ignores the difference between a good or bad habit, cannot break chains.StephenB
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
274 comments in and you guys are still arguing over whether forcing someone to suffer eternal torture for not worshipping someone else is cruel and evil?Joe Schooner
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Doubter @272, I am a theist. I don't believe in an intervening God; I believe in God as ground of being and existence. I do realize, like I said, that there are better Christian metaphysical perspectives than those commonly on display by KF, BA77, SB, LCD and some others here. I'm related to a couple of such Christians. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want. But, if they want a debate, I do enjoy a good debate :)William J Murray
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 12

Leave a Reply