Live Q&As

By "them" I realize you meant the Amish peoples' animals, not the Amish themselves, but let's start by making clear that others understand that too!

Your claim about the weather and human behavior is actually not from as distant an era as you may imagine.  In fact, I would guess that many Americans, and a plurality of people on the planet, if not an outright majority, hold such views.  Don't confuse what you wish was the norm with what other people actually experience as such, and don't make the mistake of consigning to history what is very present for lots of people -- at least not if you want to be taken seriuously by them.

In fact, one of the reasons for the conflicts which arise around our various and competing beliefs is the ease with which all people seem to slip from the fight for the right to believe what they want, to the fight for others to share their beliefs.  Even if yours are judged more sophisticated by you and I, that's no excuse for arrogance.

My question for those who do not put lightning rods on their barns, would be why do they place them on their homes?  That questions takes their theology seriously, while still challenging how it works.  A more productive course, I think.

You are certainly correct about the evolving nature of human understanding of what/who God is.  I am more cautious however regarding the claim that assumes it is always used to explain the otherwise unexplainable.  That approach always leaves us looking back and down at our ancestors or those who continue to hold their theologies.

It seems to me that for both the serious religionist and the serious scientist, the challenge is always to head for the mystery,maintain a sense of humility about what we do not know, fear no inquiry about such things, and delight in the unfolding of new knowledge which leads us to lead better lives and help others to do the same.

You are most welcome and it was hardly a rant.  You raise important and valuable issues, even if you are a bit to forgiving for my taste!  :)  What I mean is that even though you are correct about the difference between sarcasm and a joke, it strikes me as no time for either when a storm is bearing down on other people.  Were it used to diffuse the tension and cope with misfortunes befalling one's self, then I woudl defend it, but not when used to analyze the woes of others.

Your line that God should not be used as an excuse is simply fantastic!  You leave room for those who understand God as the cause of all things, but refuse to let them off the hook in terms of their own ethical and spiritual obligations.  Thank you!!

The idea of a God who experiences emotion is certainly a challenging one.  Personally, I don't know what is or is not "unfit for God" because I am not her/him/it/them.  That is not a joke either.

For me, all language describing God is for human consumption and, by definiton, a pale image of a reality beyond our comprehension.  That is why I so dislike all this speculation about the hand of God.  It assumes that the finite(we humans) can fully appreciate the infinite God being invoked by believers.  It strikes me as almost idolatrous for the beleivers, and foolsih for the non-believers, to do so.

A perfectly logical response, but one which avoids the ethical challenge of how those who feel the hand of God in day-to-day events should speak about those events, which is the real concern here.

I am totally prepared to leave the theological debate altogether, but the ethics of public discourse, how people use their most deeply held beliefs to navigate in the world, etc.  Those are questions which effect us all and need to be examined.  That's we are here!

Your sensitivity resonates with me, but I am less sure regarding your conclusions. In fact, for those who believe that God is moving in all things, then all things flow from God.  And for you to object to invoking God as a source of woe but not object equally to invoking God as a source of good, leaves you thinking of God as a cosmic vending machine in which the "goodies" are a projection of your understanding of the good.

Rather than deciding what God does and doesn't cause (which is NEVER provable in any direction), it seems more resonable to agree that we will apply the most rigorous tests to ourselves and the most generous undertandings to others, avoiding using God as little more than a sanctimonious footnote for what we already believed in the first place.

Actually, your claim that nobody deserves what they get in disasters is very simillar to Robertson's claim that all people get exactly what they deserve.  Each of you is trying to craft a way to live with human suffering in a way that allows you to make sense of the world. 

Perhaps, you would both consider the possibility that the question of why it happens cannot be resolved, at least when we speak about suffering beyond ourselves and those who share our faith, and instead focus on what our faith can do to help us address the suffering when it happens.

On the one hand you point out, rightly in my view, that we can't know the mind of God.  But on the other hand, you go on to limit what God could or would do based on exactly that presumption! 

If there is an infinite God, and I believe that there is, them we all need to reisit the temptation to finitize that God, especially when doing so makes us less willing or able to engage others and take their needs seriously.

That last bit includes the people who DO take seriously the notion of a God who acts through the weather, as probably billions of people do.  Who knows?  Perhaps they are correct.  But what gets to me is their insistence that not only do they "know" they are correct, they also "know" that theirs is always the correct interpretation.

It's a good question and before I address it, I would beg you to check your tongue-in-cheek remarks.  Even as a joke, how do you think they are experienced by people who truly hold those beliefs and who lives are being wrecked by teh storm?  Don't do to them what you rightly object to them doing to others.

As to the absence of willingness to apply the approach to one's own, you are spot on.  I have heard from some, though not seen in print, that this is applicable to Republicans and -- you will love this -- it is a punishment for not being conservative enough.  The one thing I will say for those who take that view is that they are at least willing to live by the same standard they impose on others.  That makes them honest and ethical, if still really difficult for me to appreciate.

Could not have said it better and thank you for saying it.  The moral compass concern is real and boild down to the problem that we have become a culture in which people assume that the unknowable is knowable to them and that wherever they are headed is, by definition, true north.  Of course, these are the conversations which help correct that problem and, hopefully, contribute to creating a healthier culture.

It must be nice to assume that all those who disagree with you are idiots, but tell me one thing: doesn't that mean that you relate to others in exactly the way you find them to be most offensive.

Here's a test for you to ponder, assuming as I do, that you are a decent and intelligent person:  would you rely on your theory about what all non-idiots understand and make such a joke in the presence of someone who has lost their home, business, or worse, a loved one in the storm?  Think about it and I think you will stop make excuses for what you know is inappropriate language, no matter who uses it.

Where to begin?  Since time is short, let's just say that when you compare the most easily embraced of science to the lowest level understanding of God, it's really no big deal for science to "win".  Of course, as a self-described believer in a new tradtion, you reflect the fervor or all converts.

Perhaps a wiser path would be to adress how both science and relgion, in the absence of some intelellectual humility can both run amok, and why you find greater meaning and purpose through science.  No decent person could argue with that, and you would actually help diffuse some of the relgious arrogance which you  rightly find so offensive.

A little angry there, huh?  Well there is no time to address all that you wrote, but it is certainly important to clarify that NO comparison can be made between disrupting a politcal convention and the horror of Katrina.  I know, I saw the devastation not that long after it happened, and will never forget it. 

Also importnat to not that in your anger, you assumed that I was even thinking of Katrina when I mentioned New Orleans.  In fact, I was thinking about the potential damage of Hurrican Isaac.  I mention that because your comments remind us that when we start out looking for the worst in each other, we will always find it, and that is exactly what you did.

We are not all equally good, and we are not even all good, but always hunting for the worst in each other and in each other's views is no recipe for a happy life for anyone.