onegoodmove

God has been speaking to Pat Robertson again. This time God told him that there is going to be a major terrorist attack in 2007. It will happen after September and millions of American will be effected. God also hinted that it was going to be a nuclear event.

I hope this tragedy does not happen.

Three questions:

1. Does this now mean that anyone involved with anti-terrorism, working to prevent this attack, is now acting against the will of God?

2. Doesn't this imply that God wants it to happen? Or are the actions of terrorists beyond his control?

3. Why didn't god just tell Pat Robertson where and when? Or maybe how to prevent it altogether?

Thank you for the link Norm. I've resisted watching the Wired Science feed at pbs.org so I can see Ben's story tonight for the first time. I hope it's great!

On the topic of "Seeing the light -- of science | Salon Books," Steve Paulson says a lot of really messed-up stuff...

For one, he answers the question, "Are you an atheist?" with, "I don't think so. I think that's a belief -- that there's no God..." This is complete nonsense! It's one thing to label non-belief in a non-verifiable Judeo-Christian "God" as atheism (as if it was any different from non-belief in Thor, Jupiter, Zeus, Osiris, unicorns, fairies, and Russel's orbiting teapot) -- but to label it a "belief" is beyond arrogant. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. This man claims to have recovered from his religious delusions... Clearly, he has not. (Paulson claims to be a recovered Seventh-day Adventist. This movement grew out of Millerism. When the Millerites' belief that the world would end in 1843 (and again in 1844) was proven wrong, some became atheists. Some committed suicide, or went insane. And some became Seventh-day Adventists. Clearly, not an intellectually sound foundation to start with, there...)

Furthermore, he claims that the Church's prosecution of Galileo and Bruno was not due to their scientific views, but due to Galileo being "a terrible diplomat," and Bruno's "theological heresies" -- and makes a specific point of the fact that that Galileo was merely given house arrest. This is profoundly misleading. Galileo recanted his views -- under threat of torture and death -- and was "rewarded" by merely having to spend the rest of his life confined to his home. Bruno did not recant, and his reward was to be burned at the stake.

Paulson claims that Galileo "thumbed his nose at the most powerful person who critiqued him" as if this somehow excuses the Church's behavior. If an actor gets upset with Roger Ebert's review of his latest flick, and "thumbs his nose" at him, does that somehow make it acceptable for Ebert to abduct the actor, threaten him with torture and death -- and even when he recants, still keep him under house arrest for the remainder of his days?

I want to make sure that everyone who reads this blog (the comments, at least) are aware of the level of the Church's arrogance -- past and presently. Pope John Paul II is said to have apologized over this issue. Don't believe a word of it -- in this supposed "apology," the phrase he used to describe the event was, "a mutual misunderstanding..."

For the libraries removing unborrowed titles: Could there not be a concerted campaign to swap the barcodes on Michael Crichton books with those from the -about to be condemned- pile?