Creationist Wisdom #950: The God Haters

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Tribune-Democrat of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. It’s titled Only God, not man, can destroy world, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Barry. We wrote about one of his letters a couple of months ago — see #940: Dealing with the Devil. Excerpts from his latest letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

Why do I not believe in global warming? [Why?] I have it on the word of one who is greater than all scientists that man cannot destroy this planet.

Ooooooooooooh! Then he gives us his evidence:

God says in II Peter 3:5-7: “For this they (people) willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth, which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the Day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”

Barry believes that clearly settles the matter, but for those too ignorant to understand it, he explains:

God spoke the whole of creation into existence [Right!], and by that word destroyed all but eight people in Noah’s flood. [Right again!] This present world is now preserved by God’s word until his day of judgment, when he himself will destroy this world by fire.

That clarifies the issue. He continues:

Many scientists are God-haters, [Gasp!] denying his existence, though they see his glory in the intricate beauty of his creation. [They see but don’t understand!] They worship nature and created things as do many people. God calls them fools. (Romans 1:22) Humanistic-evolution is their religion.

Is Barry talking about you, dear reader? Let’s read on:

To you who support a woman’s right to choose, God says, “These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood …” (Proverbs 6:16-17)

The letter ends with good news, and also bad news:

Abortion sheds innocent blood. Repent and God mercifully forgives. You ignore God’s word at your own peril.

Barry has given you much to think about, dear reader, and your decision will have eternal consequences.

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

21 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #950: The God Haters

  1. Guess Barry has not thought about all of the innocent blood that was shed at the command of his god – men, women, children, and babies born and unborn. It follows that the Lord hates himself.

  2. “…a proud look, a lying tongue…”
    Hmm, I wonder what our letter writer thinks about our President?

  3. KB – he would no doubt do the evangelical-shuffle to rationalize his support for the POSPOTUS.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Proverbs 6: 16-20
    16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
    17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
    18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
    19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
    20 My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

    I guess when Michelle Bachmann called Trump a “biblical president” she didn’t have the verses above in mind. Or maybe she just meant that his actions were described in the Bible?

  5. Another dimwit that does not understand the difference between
    “destroy the world” & “destroy the world environment for man to live here”

  6. abortion sheds innocent blood
    But there is no innocence since the Fall of Man.

  7. Michael Fugate

    True TomS or God would have saved all the babies from the Flood. Even the animals weren’t “innocent”. As they say, “Sin is in our DNA.”

  8. “man cannot destroy this planet.”
    Barry obviously doesn’t have a clue about nuclear weapons. Not that I think he has much clues about other topics.

    “God spoke the whole of creation into existence.”
    Perhaps Barry can tell us whether that voice was a bass, a baritone, an alto or a soprano. Perhaps all four in one? I mean, his god is three in one.

    Our dear SC wants to know: “Is Barry talking about you?”
    Yes, except that I’m not a scientist.

  9. God spoke the whole of creaton into existence.
    Maybe soebody should read the Bible, sometime.
    One doesn’t have to go very far, just read the first chapter of Genesis.

  10. II Peter: “by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of water and in the water”
    It seems that the forger of II Peter took Gen 1 seriously and, ignoring the science of his day, believed in the good old flat earth with chaotic waters beneath and with the firmament protecting it from the waters above. Presumably Barry agrees with the Biblical view, but I’ll take my chances of the Lake of Fire and disagree.

  11. FrankB:
    Nuclear weapons could not destroy the earth any more than climate change.

    I have been to the Nevada Test Site, and it looks no worse than any other area in that part of Nevada.

  12. Bit hard to hate an abstraction (though in Yahweh’s case, it’s worth trying). Bible Barry goes on to cite Romans 1:22. For what?

    What’s Romans 1:22 ever done for us?

    @FrankB: obscure, wanky music trivia for ya. In Stravinsky’s ‘The Flood’, God is represented by two basses singing in heterophony. But the pagan shenanigans of ‘Le Sacre du Printemps’ are more convincing (and a big shout-out to Dave Luckett — I know how much of a fan he is of that music).

  13. Dave Luckett

    @ ChrisS: Have I alluded to that here? I can’t remember. But as Sterne remarked, every man to his own hobby-horse.

    @TomS: A pertinent and correct observation: there is no innocence in humans. All, All have sinned and fallen short. This is a vital and essential doctrine at the very core of Christianity. The very babe in the womb is as guilty as all the rest of us, simply by partaking of humanity. Only by denying that humanity can we attribute innocence to the fetus; and that renders moot any argument against abortion on Christian principle. So where does Peter get off, with this innocence palaver? What’s his authority?

    2 Peter has been long considered pseudonymous. It directly contradicts 1 Peter on a number of points, the imminence of Christ’s return being the most striking. Of course for a fundamentalist, the idea that any part of the Bible is not as claimed in the text is heretical. In 2 Peter’s case, the text does claim to be written by Peter, but most serious scholars consider that the verse at 3:9, where we are told that some say the Lord is slow in coming, but He might take a thousand years, indicates that it was written after the first generation after Jesus was dying off – in other words, after Peter’s death in about 65 – and illustrates the repositioning of the early Church to cope with the fact that Jesus’s own words at Mark 9:1 were apparently not going to be fulfilled. All of those who had heard him were dead, and he hadn’t returned. He still hasn’t.

    This should have been a fatal blow to the Faith. For us, it would be; we understand the idea that a correct theory makes accurate predictions, and if it doesn’t, it isn’t correct. But anybody who knows anything about religions would not be surprised at what happened. The Church simply redefined its terms and went on its merry way. Cf the Mormons.

    I must admit that I find even more striking that fundamentalists insist that the traditional attributions of the text are also mandatory, even though they are not in the text. Three of the four gospels, for example, contain no attribution at all, and the traditions associating the names of Matthew, Mark and Luke to them are, to say the least, shaky.

    But that wanders away from the point. Pseudonymous or not, 2 Peter necessarily implies that there can be such a thing as innocent blood. The rest of scripture Psalm 14, for instance, says no, there can’t be. This simply demonstrates that scripture is not consistent with itself. So much is obvious; but the really weird effect is that for fundamentalists such as the correspondent, this is actually a feature, not a bug, no matter how paradoxical that may seem. It means that all eventualities are covered. Fetuses are innocent; they are also guilty. Either. Both. Whichever part of his mind he uses for either position can be shut down to argue the alternative.

    It’s got some affinities with Schrodinger’s cat, I suppose. Perhaps I am too deterministic. But I really doubt that that reflection could occur to Barry.

  14. “Only God, not man, can destroy world.”

    I was wondering where that idea came from. I heard it stated emphatically by a neighbor who is a Trump supporter and climate-change denier. I was meaning to ask where she got that idea, but now I see it’s something that is circulating among the Born-Agains and their ilk. No use arguing with religion. Minds are closed.

  15. @RetiredSciGuy: “Only God, not man, can destroy world.”
    I heard this argument from a catholic scoutmaster peddling it within the boy scouts at least 55 years ago! It is NOT a new argument at all. At the time the US was in a raging cold war and numbnutz was assuring us that we did have to worry about the nukes destroying life on earth. Unsurprisingly this flake would ultimately abandon is very large family (anti-birth control) and move to another state to remarry. He didn’t even bother getting a divorce before remarrying because that would be a sin. What a pompous jackass!
    He was far from the only one ruining the boy scouts. It is only recently that the idiot Mormons finally abandoned the boy scouts due to the acceptance of gays.

    “Minds are closed”
    All critical thinking is disabled because that leads to doubt, and that slippery slope often leads to unbelief. Where would the priesthood be without any sufficiently brain dead true believers to support them?

  16. @KeithB: “Nuclear weapons could not destroy the earth any more than climate change.”
    No – because both can destroy the Earth exactly one time.
    Yeah, that a test area looks fine to you is conclusive evidence. The entire world should admire the power of this excellent argument!
    But thanks for demonstrating that your logical skills are on creatiopnist level.

  17. Hundreds of years ago, it was commonly believed that extinctions were impossible. The few animals known from fossils were assumed to be still alive in remote areas. Thomas Jefferson thought that the Lewis and Clark. Expedition might find herds of mammoths. That humans could be responsible for an extinction, no way!
    Only in the 19th century did it become clear about the numbers of fossil animals, and the decreasing unexplored places, to force the acception of extinctions. And there were the cases of the dodo and the passenger pigeon.

  18. See the Wikipedia article “Extinction”, section “History of Scientific Understanding”.

  19. @Zetopan:
    Thanks for the insight re: “only God can destroy Earth”. Just goes to prove you can find a quote in the Bible to support or deny just about any idea.

    Also, I agree that critical thinking is antithetical to blind submission to would-be religious “leaders”. Do you know of any studies correlating IQ with one’s degree of religious belief? I’ve got a hunch what the answer would be, but being able to cite validating studies would be useful. I’ll start poking around in the web to see what I can find.

  20. @FrankB:
    I can’t read his mind, but I think KeithB intended his comment, “I have been to the Nevada Test Site, and it looks no worse than any other area in that part of Nevada.”, to be ironic. The test site is barren desert, just like the rest of that region. The bomb wouldn’t have changed much there.

  21. Concerning IQ and religiosity, here’s an article from Wikipedia:

    Upshot: mostly ambiguous results. Maybe God interfered with the studies. Who knows? (And FrankB – I meant that ironically, lest there be any doubt.)