Yep, me too.
As Nightime points out this is a real risk.
It’s not hard to see how Eve was harmed (harmed!) by this young boy’s callous statement. What kind of ungrateful little brat he must be to not consider how Eve would feel.
I too will join in the highly appropriate and extremely justified atheist eye rolling. :rolleyes:
{{{{{{Eve}}}}}}
You poor, poor thing.
How will you ever recover from this devastating blow?
:rolleyes:
We could call it a draw then. Or we could say that we are all fumbling in darkness for the truth, taking different paths, and perhaps I am not so different (or any more advanced) than the thirteen-year-old in the OP, and that we should unit in our quest instead of arguing? I would say that if I weren’t afraid of being carried out of town on a rail by the angry mob of cynics who would be outraged at such a schmaltzy conclusion.
They will be grateful and appreciative, in the proper Christian spirit! But in real life I don’t approach people who say “Thank God for this happy turn of events” and tell them “Let me explain to you why your statement is wrong on just so many levels.” That’s what the SDMB is for.
I agree, Arnold.
There’s a big difference, though, between using someone’s off-the-cuff remarks as the basis of a serious discussion (more or less divorced from their source), and holding the speaker responsible for the remarks.
The OP clearly did the latter, by ridiculing this kid for his giving thanks to God for his recovery.
We are not harming the 13 year old boy, because he is extremely unlikely to ever hear of this discussion. But that doesn’t make it any less wrong, to ridicule him in absentia for his lack of theological acumen.
BTW, when does this thread get moved somewhere? It’s become a fairly serious debate; it’s no longer MPSIMS material. I would think it belongs in GD if it’s still this side of the Pit.
You may be right.
No one has been attacking the boy.
The media idiots who choose to sell this as a mush headed “human interest story”, however, are fuckin’ morons. The tone of their story belittles the people who did save the boy’s life, and insults the victims who didn’t survive by implying God didn’t consider them worth saving.
There is nothing wrong with the boy saying what he said, nobody has said there is.
Well, sure, they’re subject to scrutiny.
That doesn’t always mean it’s fair to judge the speaker on the basis of that brief remark.
No, your ridicule isn’t hurting him. But it’s still wrong, whether or not you’re right on the underlying theological questions. (And I’ve got a defense of the kid on those grounds, back toward the top of page 2, sitting unrebutted.)
Cite?
I’m serious here. As bodypoet’s story demonstrates, just because somebody was in the hospital, and they recovered, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a miracle.
So provide a link to the medical charts, please, so the doctors in our midst can critique them. Until then, I’m afraid you’re BSing.
grendel - I refer you to the thread title. If that isn’t intended as ridicule, you and I aren’t speaking the same language.
There’s nothing in the OP to suggest that Eve’s ridicule was aimed at the media.
You’re wrong.
Huh. You read the same thread I did?
Ogre thought the kid should have said…
CRorex said
and later…
Guess some of us are confused because it seems like some posters here are laying some ridicule on the comments of a 13 year old gun shot victim who was speaking to a group of reporters.
[Jim Hacker]
Let me make one thing quite clear: Sir Humphrey is not God, OK?
[/Jim Hacker]
You’re gambling from a busted flush here, and you know it. I could as easily say (and with more logical justification) that since it was a theist that said that God healed him, he has the burden of proof.
So let’s drop the frivolous tactics, shall we? Jodi had it precisely right. It is ultimately a matter of faith, and I don’t dispute your right to believe it. However, since the issue came up, I feel perfectly justified in telling you how I see it.
So, if you want to play logical games, let’s start with first principles. The theist has the burden of proof.
Or, let’s put it another way, out of any Emergency Room medical logs, let’s pick 100 cases of severely injured people, weed out those that have recovered, and see just how many of those are attributable to judicious oversight, fast response, good medicines, and dedication. Then, let’s guess how many would have died right there on the gurney if all we did was gather round and pray for a miracle. True, nobody can say for sure, but I’d lay my money on the docs. And you’d be a poor man if you did the opposite.
And let’s not all be simple and obfuscatory. We’ve moved well beyond the point of only talking about the sniper victim and the circumstances under which he thanked God.
And suddenly RTFirefly, it’s wrong of me to scrutinize a comment made which I believe indicates an unfortunate reliance on divine power above and beyond the specific case of this child?
Please. Who are you to tell me what I should and should not speak of?
Never said that either, but in the act of criticizing me SOLELY for criticizing what he said, we end up with an argumentative version of it being turtles all the way down. The larger issue of the “thank heavens for all the good things” is being discussed, forget the kid.
OK, don’t forget the kid. Fine.
And yes, sue me that I think you should thank those that verifiably saved your life. Tell me, do you think if he had been allowed to lay on the pavement that he would have sprung to his feet and said “THANK YOU, JESUS!” - do you?
What’s with this political correctness bullsh*t that you guys keep throwing around? He’s getting piled on because his statement was irrational. Somehow I doubt that if he said “I just wanna thank Binky the Magic Space Clown and Teddy Roosevelt for saving my life” that you’d be coming to his defense.
I think we’ve hit a nerve here.
You know, if we were mass media, I might agree with you. But it’s a damn message board, lighten the hell up. Jesus.
Uh, Beagledave?
You underlined a portion of my statement in which I said that we should be allowed to say that we think the boy is mistaken - now explain to me (I’m a bit slow apparently) how that means I think the boy should not have been allowed to say what he said?
It’s a subtle difference, but if you stick with me, I’m sure you’ll understand - here we go:
There is nothing wrong with the boy saying what he said. That is, there is nothing wrong with his action of free speech.
I disagree with what he said. That is, I think WHAT he said was wrong, not that HIS SAYING IT was wrong.
Got it? Good. Now, let’s do keep up next time.
Perhaps wrong in the abstract, but then again, at this board, I have seen people speculate on the colour of the skin of Michael Jackson’s new baby, discuss the drinking habits of George W. Bush’s twin daughters, make fun of Inky-'s neighbours for their Christmas decorations, gripe about their their nephew and sister-in-law’s behaviour at a family gathering, etc… etc… (to take some random recent examples from the board) Some of those people were involuntarily thrust in the media limelight, some others are private individuals who might not enjoy that their lives are being discussed here. This case of this 13-year-old is not novel.
I’ll leave that up to the MPSIMS moderators, but in my opinion it doesn’t hurt to have an occasional thread in MPSIMS that goes beyond flirting or jokes.
Re: Donating food to kids who will say it was just God.
I still donate food to kids. I donate money, as well. But I also REALLY appreciate it when the shelter sends a thank you letter to the local paper, or the kids appear on a Labor Day or Easter Seals telethon to thank the donors, or when they do whatever it is that’s a good way to thank an anonymous donor. Hell, even Catholic Charities thanks the donors AND God, in my ex-church’s bulliten, every now and then.
To not thank people who have demonstrably done good is just rude, and, while it wouldn’t stop me from helping someone, if I knew they wouldn’t thank me, it sure is nice to get a “thanks”.
Given that all we know of this kid is that he thanked God, and ASSUMING (big assumption, but I think that’s what this debate is based on) that he didn’t thank the surgeons, he’s being rude. Forgivably rude, under the circumstances, to be sure. But still rude.
How far does this verbal combat have to go before it gets moved to GD’s?
It’s not a GD by far.
It’s not a Pit Rant either, although perhaps it should have been. I honestly don’t see how one could get riled up about anyone thanking God for an unexpected recovery. To me, it reads as if the OP was looking for offense, and found it.
Now y’all be nice and behave, as this thread is in MPSIMS. It’s not going anywhere else.
Eonwe wrote:
I never said that he correctly thanked God.
I don’t think that he reviewed in his mind the ontological arguments from Anselm to Tisthammer, and then decided that thanking God would be “correct”. I think that he thanked God because he was grateful.
Coldfire wrote:
For me, it was like opening a thread titled Baby Smiles at Mother, only to find a meek rant that the baby’s smile was compromised because the kid was slobbering. When people express confounded surprise, someone jumps in agreeing with the OP, and pointing out that people don’t slobber in polite society. And that we should tell them so at SD.
Damnit, why can’t I ever find these threads when they’re first starting out? It’s just so hard to make a difference on page 3, ya know?
I guess I am stupid for thinking that Michaelangelo was to be thanked for all the paintings.
All along it was the paintbrush.
Regards,
Shodan
Nope, I’ve got the cards.
You see, Iran Brown didn’t make an assertion on this board, or in a similar forum where one should expect to back up one’s statements. You did.
Therefore, cite, please. Them’s the rules.
Identify one, and I will.
Jodi has made a case that I have trouble with. I’ve made what I feel is a more sound case, but nobody’s bothered to address it, so it still stands. Besides, as it says here,
There might - just might - be a possibility that the kid’s faith was the source of his positive attitude.
Now you are the one who’s engaging in “frivolous tactics” - specifically straw-man games. You are rebutting a position I have not taken. Knock yourself out.
For the most part, I’ve concerned myself strictly with the child, and posters’ response to him. Although I did have some remarks that addressed the broader question.
If you want to debate the broader issue, that’s fine. But you will have to either rassle with the debaters that are going there, or address my remarks that were germane to that. So far, nobody has done the latter, so I’ve got nothing to say there until someone does.
I think it’s perfectly fine to have a general debate about whether prayer and faith can make a difference in one’s physical well-being, even using this kid’s remarks as a jumping-off place.
But I think ridiculing and deriding 13 year old Iran Brown for his lack of theological correctness or sophistication demonstrates a lack of character on the part of the posters who have indulged in this practice.
Who are you to tell Iran Brown what he should or should not speak of? Good. Now shut up, and I’ll do the same.