My world has very few godbotherers in it and of these, none push the subject. However, in the media, I see people who do. When I do, I always wonder why they bother or what they mean by “God”.
There seems that adding “God” to any complete statement does not alter its meaning, it merely shifts the focus. It is in incomplete statements that the trouble arises and “God” is thrown in as you might sprinkle salt on a meal – to some, it makes it more palatable but to those who believe that salt is not good for you, it is an annoyance if someone sprinkles salt over their food without asking.
“The baby survived the car crash, thank God.”
Or the stronger
“God saved the baby that was in the car crash.”
Neither of these sentences is complete and the only real information you have is that the baby survived.
If the full statement is given, then God becomes a pointless add-on:
“The baby had been strapped into a baby-seat in the rear of the car by the driver and prior to setting out on the journey. The seat had been well-designed. At the time of impact, the momentum of the baby was contained; the baby remained in the seat and suffered no serious injury.”
Now the only place you can put “God” is either:
1. “The baby had been strapped into a baby-seat in the rear of the car by God…”
2. “…and suffered no serious injury, thank God.”
In 1. This is clearly not so. In 2. We have already been told why the baby suffered no serious injury, and it is unclear why God had any part in the event.
The implication of all the sentences is that the driver did not survive, so let’s assume that that happened. However, if credit for saving the baby is given to God, who then should receive the credit for killing the driver?
Godbotherers are experts in giving incomplete sentences and for attributing good things to God but failing to explain the bad things in the same light. The sheer number of godbotherers means that any deity common to them all
receives constant, huge, free and positive publicity – this is designed
to slowly erode the uncertainty of those whose faith is wavering, and to recruit more publicists.
You may recall the earthquake in Haiti
, there was not much “thanking God” when the news broke except for Pat Robertson:http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1953379_1953494_1953674,00.html
The Rev. Pat Robertson turned heads with his appearance on The 700 Club on Wednesday when he blamed Haitian history for Tuesday's devastating earthquake. In short, Robertson claimed that the quake was divine retribution for a pact with the devil that was sworn long ago, a statement he was audacious enough to make while the 800 number for disaster relief scrolled at the bottom of the broadcast. Here's the clip:
"And you know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon the Third and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.' True story. And so the devil said, 'O.K., it's a deal.' "
Now, in the Westboro Baptist way, this makes sense, but nobody wanted to hear it. They wanted to hear how a crippled orphan with her kitten had survived a building’s collapse “thanks to God.”
However, here again, and true to form, Pat Robertson is using language to deceive people: it is yet another incomplete statement, a half-truth plus wild imaginings. Had Pat Robertson spoke of the tectonic plates and the unpredictability of the movement of the Earth’s crust, the inadequacy of building regulations and corruption is building permits, of the poverty that led to these failures, then God could not have entered into it.
So, introducing God into a statement is to add nothing. In fact, it conceals the true cause and this approval of ignorance now prevents our learning from the statement.