Browse By

39 thoughts on “God Waits Four Days to Help Out Lost Girl in the Woods”

  1. deep thinker says:

    Open thread? Of whom does this light-hearted headline make fun? Perhaps it makes fun of the CNN writers, the little girl, the rescuer who stepped out with simple faith and preparation to attempt something worthwhile or perhaps the child’s father? I choose the writers of the article.

    1. Jim says:

      It’s trying to make a point more than to make fun.

      If Andrew Blibovitz of 523 Park Drive Ocean City Maryland knew for days where some poor little autistic girl was lost in the woods, but didn’t call anyone and say so for four days, but just sat there and watched the girl suffer, and only called someone on Day 5 with the information, would we call Mr. Blibovitz a hero? More likely we’d slap on the cuffs.

      But if some dude called “God” does the same thing, then praise be to the Lord? Why? Because He is so good? Then what Mr. Blibovitz did must be good too. Or is He due praise for this action because He is the Lord and that makes it all OK? Or is it all pretend so let’s not take the God talk seriously (in which case we shouldn’t take God talk seriously)?

      1. Tomas says:

        Here we go again…God is an asshole for not correcting things man brings upon himself….like I’ve said in the past, If you are right and there is no God, then when we die, know one will know. But If I’m right and there is…then there will be hell to pay….I’ll bring the marshmellows….

        1. Tomas says:

          I hate no edit buttons….

        2. Jim says:

          Tomas, if our hypothetical Andrew Blibovitz watched this girl get lost in a swamp and knew where she was but didn’t say anything about it to anyone for four days because it was after all the girl who got herself lost, would you or would you not say Andrew Blibovitz was an “asshole”?

        3. Hendrix says:

          Pascal’s wager only makes sense if there are only a very few (preferably one) possible religions to believe in. It’s hard to feel like you’re avoiding the wrath of the gods with so many potential gods to offend by your choice.

  2. deep thinker says:

    Oh, I misunderstood. Absolutely, we should call a kook a kook. The article certainly leaves open the possibility this guy is one; and if he is a kook deserving of cuffs, there is some chance it will come to light. At least locally we can hope, if not at the same level of exposure from CNN!

    As to your second paragraph in response, you introduce the thoughts behind your post and now I understand better. I would not have assumed that you think it is logical to reason that because some people believe that good things happen as acts of God, it is therefore rational to believe that because bad things happen, God can’t exist, or can’t be good. I’m absolutely no expert in theology and not attempting to be, but that doesn’t pass the rules of logic. I confess I didn’t make that mental leap when I read your post, but that is essentially why I assumed it was a light-hearted attempt to make fun. My mistake.

    1. Jim says:

      No, actually, I didn’t mean that the guy in the CNN article who discovered the girl is a kook. I made up “Andrew Blibovitz of 523 Park Drive Ocean City Maryland” as a hypothetical person, not an actual one.

      Thank you for noting, however, that this hypothetical Andrew Blibovitz would be a “kook” if he watched this poor girl suffer for four days, did nothing to stop her suffering, and THEN let someone know about it on the 5th day.

      Do you or do you not consider God, who by this account did exactly the same as the hypothetical Andrew Blibovitz, to also be a “kook”?

      1. Chucklenuts says:

        Lots and lots of poor-thinking and holes in this “question”.

        “… Thank you for noting, however, that this hypothetical Andrew Blibovitz would be a “kook” if he watched this poor girl suffer for four days, did nothing to stop her suffering, and THEN let someone know about it on the 5th day.

        Do you or do you not consider God, who by this account did exactly the same as the hypothetical Andrew Blibovitz, to also be a “kook”?…”

        Let’s quickly look at only a few of them.

        It’s a huge supposition to assume the God watched this girl suffer for 4 days and did nothing.

        Assuming the girl had free will granted by God, she was free to chose to walk into the swamp against what is usually deemed “common sense” or “good judgment”.

        Personally, I’m blaming the author of the book about “nature” and “adventure” she had been reading. It was obviously this book’s author who was at fault for giving the girl the idea in the first place, right?

        God could have just as easily given a suggestion to someone to go search for her in the right spot, but the person that He gave this suggestion to used their own free will to ignore it, just as the girl ignored common sense.

        I don’t know the depth of her autism, but I’ve worked with many levels of autistic children, and there are huge differences between high-functioning autistic children and “poor little autistic girl”. Let’s drop the sympathy ploy, unless we know for sure how much her autism played into this experience.

        Also it has been made plain by many religions that this world that we currently live in is not a perfect world, yet the afterlife is promised to be. Certainly the main translations of the Judea-Christian bible do not promise us that everything on this world will be perfect, or that no suffering will exist on this world.

        So it is not claimed by most religions that this is the perfect world and the only one, and it is fairly consistent among religions that suffering is a part of life on this world. Jesus also said, in the Sermon on the Mount, “blessed are those who mourn; they will be comforted.” In this case the comfort was actually in the form of finding the girl alive and healthy. But there is not a guarantee that those who “will be comforted” are necessarily comforted in this world, but possibly in the next.

        Let’s also look at suffering. I have a cousin who recently got her appendix infected. Yet before they can safely remove it, she must take antibiotics for 4 weeks! And live with the constant pain. Yet this process is necessary for the overall result to be satisfactory. Why should she be forced to “suffer” for so long? It’s just a part of the healing process.

        It is also sometimes said that we learn by our mistakes. Perhaps, the “suffering” (self-induced) that this girl went through will have some learning related positive affect on her life later on. Bill Gates, who “suffers” from Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) a portion of the autism spectrum is immensely successful. Yet he will tell students that dropping out of college, as he did, is most likely a mistake. He has stated that he wished he would have time to finish his school. Yet this “mistake” in his case worked out for him tremendously well. So there are often good results in the future from present day suffering. It’s not universal.

        Is the doctor who is treating my cousin a “kook”, or does the average person, who just wants it fixed NOW just not properly understanding the bigger picture?

        1. Jim says:

          Would you make the same excuses for a person who watched this poor little autistic girl lost in the woods for four days and did nothing?

          1. Chucklenuts says:

            Do you mean by that that my cousin’s doctor is a “kook” because he won’t operate on her for 4 weeks? Or are you just avoiding that?

            And here we go again with the “poor little autistic girl…” This was a quote from the Mom:

            “..Bloom said she and her husband thought Nadia might have wandered farther into the woods than authorities expected because she is an “out-of-the-box thinker.” The fifth-grader has Asperger’s syndrome, a type of autism-related disorder. Her parents described her as bright, curious and imaginative but not as social as other children….”

            And as far as a direct comparison to the doctor’s waiting, here is a quote attributed to the girl herself:

            But Nadia’s first words to her mother after her rescue were, “I will obey you more, Mommy, now,” Tanya Bloom said.

            So it seems like the girl learned perhaps a valuable lesson about heeding the advice of her wiser and more experienced Mom. So, just like the case of the doctor, a little pain may have brought around some useful learning for the girl. Sometimes, telling something to a person is not as valuable a learning tool as them finding it out themselves.

            This is referred to as “discovery learning” and another example is the case of Dorothy in the “Wizard of Oz”, who learned there is no place like home.

          2. Jim says:

            I have no idea how to answer the question about your cousin with appendicitis, because I’m not a doctor.

            If some guy watched Nadia be lost in the woods for four days and did nothing, would you be defending him by saying hey, maybe it was all good for Nadia in the end?

          3. Chucklenuts says:

            You’re obviously not God, either, but you feel free to make a religious claim about what would make sense for a deity to do.

            So you’re just not capable of defending your weakly thought out statements.

            I’ll leave you with your own statements: “…I notice you didn’t answer the question, which is actually of central relevance to the subject. Please answer the question….”

          4. Peregrin Wood says:

            Well, deities categorically don’t make sense. No one can make a sensible statement about a deity. That’s the point, CN. Way to stumble into it.

          5. Jim says:

            Fine, to answer your question: no, I don’t think your cousin’s doctor is a kook, because your cousin’s doctor is actively giving your cousin medical treatment. The analogous situation would be if your doctor just sat there and let your cousin’s appendix plump up with pus instead of providing medical treatment. That would be kooky behavior.

            You didn’t answer my question, not about God, but about a person:

            “If some guy watched Nadia be lost in the woods for four days and did nothing, would you be defending him by saying hey, maybe it was all good for Nadia in the end?”

            I think a reasonable person wouldn’t defend such a guy. But lots of people defend their fictionalized all-powerful deity for the same conduct. I don’t feel that is reasonable, and it certainly is not consistent.

          6. Chucklenuts says:

            So, if prodded a bit by your own words, you will at least attempt to answer the question. Of course your answer doesn’t make complete sense. You are coming up with a situation that you claim is analogous, and stating it is somehow different from this situation. The appendix is inside the body, hidden from view. Normally to treat an infected one, the body is somehow breached/opened up and the organ is removed.

            I don’t see this happening in this case, so the behavior of the doctor would absolutely be kooky, by your previous standards.
            Oh, but let’s see, you say the doctor IS giving the patient active treatment. How do we know that? I don’t see (figuratively) a scalpel or a scar of an opening. Maybe the treatment (oral antibiotics in this case) isn’t immediately apparent to the casual observer. Indeed, if you looked at my cousin, who is in plenty of constant pain that is being only somewhat blunted by weak painkillers, you would observe no treatment for the root cause problem at all.

            I’ll gladly answer your question. I have personally seen forest workers let a forest fire burn itself out along a forest floor. They have stood by while a fire burns. But there is a reason for this. In fact, they set the fire themselves. They know that the fire, which on the surface looks like a bad thing, will be ultimately much better for improved forest growth.

            So they stand by, so to speak watching and fiddling while Rome burns. I, being uneducated in their science, might question why they would stand by and just watch a fire burn instead of putting it out. I, not being a doctor, might question the wisdom of letting someone with a diagnosed inflamed appendix suffer in pain instead of taking it out.

            But in both cases, I would be wrong.

            If you have children, then I’m fairly sure that you have had times where the child wanted something immediately, but as the parent, you made them either wait for it, or denied it completely. From your child’s point of view, this would make no sense. If you love that child, and they want three milkshakes in a row, and think that will make them very happy, then why don’t you give those to them?

            I’m not complaining that you do not believe in the possibility that there are beings that exist that are superior to human beings. That’s entirely your business. But to try and make comparisons to human beings is just weak minded thinking.

            First, you make the assumption that God stood by and did nothing in this case. That is only an outside observation. I already stated that God might have done something like visited the man in a dream. He might have told him “…Go find this girl, who is in the woods..” The man might have simply used his free will to ignore that. He might not believe in God either, and figure the dream came from eating too many hot Buffalo Wings before bedtime. If, according to your concepts, God should have just reached down and plucked the girl out of the swamp and set her back in her parents’ living room, then you are projecting your own thoughts as to what God should have done in this situation.

            To finish with your question, ..if a person did nothing…; Again, you are free to believe or not in God, but if you allow for His existence, then obviously God is not a person. Putting human-level comparisons on His behavior would not make any sense, since you are not capable of understanding the methods and motives of a hugely superior being.

            How well does your child understand why it would ultimately not be good for them to have three milkshakes in a row? And the gulf between the understanding of a child versus an adult would not be nearly as great as that between a human being and a deity.

            If your only valid argument is that “God does not exist”, then just leave it at your belief. Making a comparison between what a human being would do, and what a deity, or hugely superior being, would do, simply cannot be made.

            Is it “wrong” when some animal species sometimes eat their own young? If that concept of “right” and “wrong” don’t really apply to them the same it does to us, as human beings, then how can you apply your value systems on someone, who if they exist, would be by definition that much or much higher in level than yourself?

          7. Peregrin Wood says:

            Besides that, have you ever read God’s blog comments? How do you know who God is and who isn’t? Is it the lack of mustache that gives us away?

  3. veganrampage says:

    Great retort Jim. “God” id a kook and has many other undesirable personality disorders as well.

  4. KILGORE TROUT says:

    As Kurt Vonnegut wrote, “God, the laziest man in town.”

  5. Tom says:

    Or, as Bishop Pickering (in Caddy Shack) said, “There is no God.”

    Of course the typical response to that is: “God works in mysterious ways.”

    1. Hendrix says:

      To which I respond, “So mysterious that man should not attribute acts or desires to this God person, especially if you imagine a whole constellation of other mysterious entities such as the great Satan, demons, and angels.”

    2. JD says:

      Amazing how much discussion and argument over nothing. Must be something to that.

      1. Truman says:

        You’re right that this God character really doesn’t amount to much. Why do people bother worshipping such a paper-thin idea?

        1. JD says:

          Why do you spend so much time and energy against those who do?

          1. Truman says:

            If Christians really believe in an all-powerful God, why do they spend so much time working against the freedoms of non-Christians? Why not just let God do the dirty work?

          2. JD says:

            Must be something to this afterall.

  6. deep thinker says:

    I was merely trying to point out what appeared to be fallacy in Jim’s reasoning, not remark on his lack of belief in the God of the Bible; which I think among most is well understood. Good conversation often occurs on this site, which I attribute to Jim, but because some conversation is bad, Jim doesn’t exist or can’t be good? That makes no sense, but is exactly the kind of reasoning Virginnrampage, Kill More Trout and Tom Thumb Reasoning are applauding? tell’m da man!

    In response to Jim’s question, “Do you or do you not consider God, who by this account did exactly the same as the hypothetical Andrew Blibovitz, to also be a “kook”?” The answer is a no brainer; however, it is an atttempt to change the subject from the original reason I replied.

    I’m reminded of the story of the nut who simply could not believe that a tree can exist.

    1. Jim says:

      I notice you didn’t answer the question, which is actually of central relevance to the subject. Please answer the question.

      1. deep thinker says:

        “Do you or do you not consider God, who by this account did exactly the same as the hypothetical Andrew Blibovitz, to also be a “kook”?” If restricting to this ‘account’ as a condition you place on it, yes that would be kooky. In reality, there simply isn’t enough information in the article to make the assertion that God waited four days. Humor…i get it. Relax.

        1. Jim says:

          So God, if He exists according to the account of Christianity as an omniscient and omnipotent, is a kook. I appreciate you letting me know that, deep thinker.

          What’s your answer, Tomas?

          1. deep thinker says:

            If your purpose was to attack Christianity, why go to all this trouble? Just explain how the gospels can’t possibly be accurate portrayal of what happened and God is out of a job. You don’t have to convince me of your opinion, I’ve already looked into the claims. Putting aside wishful thinking, I looked and researched as well as I could in two university libraries and online to find documented evidence that the Gospels’ claims were full of errors. Then I looked for one error, even one clear contradiction that couldn’t be cleared up. I couldn’t do it. What I found were the most attested to documents in history! Even secular documents written at the time, and within a century after, describe enough of the events recorded in the Gospels that without them, we could still piece together the basic facts about Jesus with greater attestation than the Illiad and the Odessy.

            What do you say Tomas? Shall we rely on facts or wishful thinking to attack Christianity?

          2. Jim says:

            Interesting that you should consider a of questions, answered by you and others, to be an “attack upon Christianity.”

            You’re the one who called God a “kook.”

          3. deep thinker says:

            Actually, that is what you implied. You posed the question and deemed the “account” as sufficient to draw the conclusion that God is a kook. That’s how you framed your question, and this is the method you use to get out of the logical trap you made for yourself. Show the world where the Gospels are flawed. That would be Irregular!

          4. Jim says:

            No, actually, you deemed the account as sufficient to draw the conclusion that God is a kook. And thanks for being clear on that.

  7. Hendrix says:

    Deep thinker’s analogy is not apt because Jim does not threaten those who post “bad conversation” (nor does he use such a term in accusation, though I will generously assume that “bad conversation” is simply “illogical argument”). Perhaps if Jim made such a threat and did not use his admin powers to pre-filter or delete bad conversation (thus needlessly preserving his justification for punishments) he might achieve a sort of evil that would be analogous to the evil we see in many descriptions of gods. Of course if he made the threats without the ability to enforce them, he would simply be a kook. Finally, if he had the perfect solutions but refused to share them (perhaps so he could continue to punish bad conversations), he would be an evil kook.

  8. deep thinker says:

    Look, I can make headlines! Flashes from the Past!
    God waits 400 years to bring Jews out of Egypt!
    God lets his people wander in desert for 40 years!
    God cheers as youth cuts off head! Makes boy King!
    Jesus claims to be one with God!
    God caused famine! He is so mean!
    God burns bad people! With lots of warning!
    Over 500 witnesses see the Risen Jesus!
    Most skeptics have never researched Bible’s claims, but feel qualified to dismiss!

    1. Jim says:

      Yes, you can, and bully for you in doing it! Congratulations, you win.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Do you still beat your wife?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!