That would show balls. If you’re going to believe in this stuff, and sell it, then you should go all the way. As silly as all the flawed arguments go for a gods existence are it’s the excuses made for its impotence in matters of “reality” which i find most infuriating.
A, B and C contradict the dogmas of a omniscient and omnipotent god, so it must be D. Of course, god is supposed to be loving, so the traditional explanation is: caused it deliberately to punish the sinful people. The innocent victims got what they deserved because of original sin. The righteous among the victims where recalled to the heavens, where they are better of, so what is the problem? 🙂
You can always explain the shit away in any ideology, if you want to. If you are not successful, you can still open the book of Job. Where have you been… The ways of the lord are not ours to understand and it is not ours to argue with the lord.
Moreover, it is against the authority to open your mouth and sit among the mockers. Woe betide you!
😉
My problem with that explanation as a kid was, “what about the puppies?” No one could ever answer that awkward quandary. Puppies, i soon realised, fucks up with omnipotence 🙂
Like the crumbling of bridges, the crumbling of ideologies starts with small cracks that open up in places where nobody is looking (except for children). As I always say, reality has more properties than our theories about it describe. This is also true for ideological theories. It is like the impossibility of the perfect crime, something is always overlooked.
Puppies? You’re doing cute puppies … oh! Meta for ‘innocents’. C’mon, John — have you ever seen an innocent animal? They were put on earth for us to use, dammit~!
Bite your tongue, Maka… Your human senses can’t possibly comprehend such a complex and kickass god as this god God. Didn’t you read the disclaimer? It clearly says, “MYSTERIOUS”
You think this is what they’re thinking about when they sing “Our God is an awesome God” on Sunday’s? Fear and trembling is necessary to convince the “faithful”, eh?
We don’t say it in Australia, and i’ve never heard it said here in Brazil, but the American saying, “God Fearing,” has always come across as strikingly odd to me. Such a primitive way of approaching a deity.
C’mon, Gentlemen! You are forgetting that before He created the hev’ns, firmaments, earths etc He sat down on a rock somewhere with a notebook and pencil and wrote the entire script. All of it. And not even the omnipotent can change a word of it (oh Gods, I’m channelling Omar now …)
I expect all Christians believe the god God was aware but willing to do anything. Why? The folks in that part of the world weren’t praying correctly. Ask any pastor’s wife looking for a car parking space how good her deity is when she needs him. That’s all the proof I need. 🙂
Violet, you can’t get that car park thing out of your head, can you? It was pouring rain! She needed gods intervention… and by Christ he intervened! Of course, while he was working that little bit of magic he missed the 9.1 earthquake, but hey, it was RAINING!!!
Ah, my son, the Lord works in mysterious ways. Your tiny pea brain can’t possibly understand the infinite mind of the Lord as he kicks the anthill he has created “just to see them scurry.” Does the Pope scurry? He should, His Lord wants him to.
Indeed they do. I had an unusual, fiery relationship with cacacha when i first arrived in Brazil. We didn’t see eye-to-eye so i divorced that wench quick time 😉
Woof — so could the cheap Mekong of the time, although Mekong is exported widely these days. Love to know how much resemblance today’s export has to the old backstreet stuff with the pasted labels …
Obviously D: either the folk who died were sinners (in which case, they’ve gone straight to Hell: result!) or they were saints (in which case, they’re now with the big guy upstairs: also result!). Go with Christianity. God is love.
Let me get this straight: God created people. He allowed those people to sin knowing full well that they would, he’s omniscient, and then punished them for doing what he knew they would do. He sounds like a bit of a sadist. I’m not sure I agree with notion that “god is love” when he displays such sadistic tendencies. In fact, by any conventional definition of morality, he’s immoral.
There isn’t really any good human analogy because there’s no such thing as omniscience. However, here’s an attempt. God is apparently like a crack dealer or parent, who puts crack or chocolate chip cookies in front of a crack addict or child. He tells the crack addict or child here is some crack or chocolate chip cookies. I’m going to leave them on the table. I’m going to leave the room. You are not to touch them. I KNOW that you are going to touch them , but I want to punish you.
Forget entirely that we are supposedly being punished for the fact that we had the audacity to seek knowledge. You see god is a maniacal control freak. He wants his subjects to be ignorant in a cloud of darkness.
Have you ever cared for children? Sometimes an adult is pretty sure they’ll chose something that hurts them, but allows them the freedom. Have you ever said, or heard, “I knew that would happen!” “I knew it was you calling…” but that doesn’t mean you’re omniscient or are you?
What ever the pope answers it has to be the right answer, because alledgedly he is inerrant. Is he not? Exept, if he says something embarresing, like he did a few days back, when he let it slip, that everybody even atheists are going to be let into heaven. Then of course the Vatican public relations department, that is even more innerrant, than the pope, has to correct him. So, the real question here is not what would the pope answer, but what does the Vatican public relations department think?
I thought that whole “You’re all going to heaven,” “Oh no you’re not!” business was hilarious. A small army of professional comedy writers couldn’t have penned a better sketch.
Hilariuous indeed! As an atheist it is of no consequense, if someone thinks I am going to go to a place, that does not exist, be it heaven, or hell. It is just as interresting as someone telling me what would I be, if I lived in the imaginary land of Narnia. However, as a person, I would find it less insulting, if the head of a major social movement would not actually preach, that I deserve eternal torture for not being a part of his particular movement.
It is just the infallibility issue I find especially funny. Who is more infallible, the pope or the publicity office?
Pope Francis is a liberation theologist and I think he meant it from the heart when he said everyone is good not matter what they believe. Isn’t that your message too?
first there will be vatican hearings ad nauseum, then the media will jump on the sensational bandwagon and fuck it up for everyone, THEN come the idiot lawsuits. it’s a process.
Vatican spokesman came out the next day and said Francis was full of shit (or words to those effect) and atheists are indeed all going to hell. You didn’t hear? I think Rautakky posted a story link above.
I thought that sermon took a lotta guts. And I assume he knew it’d piss people off and some would try to explain it away. If he then let his words stand without further ado, more guts.
You kidding me? He’s the Pope, for goodness sake. He got slapped down by a lowly spokesman and didn’t have the courage or conviction to stick by his words. That speaks volumes of the man’s lack of character.
He is the Pope. He has more important things to do. He’d already said exactly what he meant, knowing the lowlies would try to do damage control. But he’d already let the cat out and he knows it.
Of course this whole subject is bunk anyway, but i think you’re working overtime here to make excuses. If the man actually believed what he said (and i’ll agree, it was a fine sentiment) then he should have had the courage and fortitude to re-affirm his words. As it stands, after what transpired, he simply looks like a weak man with no moral backbone.
“You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
Know when to fold ’em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run
You never count your money
When you’re sittin’ at the table
There’ll be time enough for countin’
When the dealin’s done”
I don’t not have no problems with that. Actually that’s pretty well the definition I use myself, of good people. Simple but effective:
# good people do good things
# bad people do bad things
ergo a good guy (atheist) has a better chance of getting into heaven than a bad pope. Yep, I’ll buy it …
(How the hell did that comment end up waaaaay down here~?)
Anyway, you can’t say he lacks balls! Oops …That’s one of the essential qualifications for popehood, unless I’ve been led astray; the formulaic “Testiculos habet et bene pendentes” (oh gods, I hope I got that right).
Is it true that the candidate has to sit sans knickers on a raised seatless stool so all the voting cardinals pass below to get a judgemental perve at his wedding tackle—or have I fallen for yet another old nun’s tale?
Anyway, he has to impress the lot—next question: Why on God’s earth would a blasted pope need a toggle and two, of all people?
Or does God’s rep on Earth get to let his hair down in the privacy on his own apartments, and none the wiser?
Having thought about it — it IS a trick question.
There’s two answers: B and D … all else violates the Law of Contradiction (if applied to the Big G’s three ‘omnis’).
I still think we’re judging the Divine by our own standards.
Don’t forget that according to the Clergy God is
(a) omniscient (a know-all)
(b) omnipotent (can do anything, and
(c) omnipresent (did I miss any?).
Ergo no point in phoning Him ‘cos He knows what it’s all about anyway (although out of pure good manners He should at least phone you back).
It’s these three qualities that force me to opt for choices B and D in the post above; and why I conclude it’s a sneaky trick question … hah! You don’t catch this ol’ dog that easy …
Do they still use that term? Be great if they did because it opens them up to all sorts of legal challenges which can’t be leveled at the church because, well, the church is sneakier than insurance companies and never actually commit to anything.
Yes…insurance companies say it all, but hidden away in the small print. The church just tell you what it wants you to hear and tough luck if you don’t agree.
My guess is the Pope’s first response would be: “Ah…paenitet te posse repetere quaestionem?”, caught off guard thinking he was actually on the set for ‘The Price is Right’ 😉
Well yeah exactly. In fact who’s to say he doesn’t but just couldn’t be arsed to pick up the other line?!
Maybe he does indeed play favourites. I’m sure he must have a roulette wheel up there, gambles a little in his spare time. The little ball probably ‘accidentally’ falls into the number 13 slot quite a lot, just so that he can call on superstition and claim plausible deniability!
thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com 
If the man is brave, he chooses D.
LikeLike
That would show balls. If you’re going to believe in this stuff, and sell it, then you should go all the way. As silly as all the flawed arguments go for a gods existence are it’s the excuses made for its impotence in matters of “reality” which i find most infuriating.
LikeLike
A, B and C contradict the dogmas of a omniscient and omnipotent god, so it must be D. Of course, god is supposed to be loving, so the traditional explanation is: caused it deliberately to punish the sinful people. The innocent victims got what they deserved because of original sin. The righteous among the victims where recalled to the heavens, where they are better of, so what is the problem? 🙂
You can always explain the shit away in any ideology, if you want to. If you are not successful, you can still open the book of Job. Where have you been… The ways of the lord are not ours to understand and it is not ours to argue with the lord.
Moreover, it is against the authority to open your mouth and sit among the mockers. Woe betide you!
😉
LikeLike
My problem with that explanation as a kid was, “what about the puppies?” No one could ever answer that awkward quandary. Puppies, i soon realised, fucks up with omnipotence 🙂
LikeLike
Like the crumbling of bridges, the crumbling of ideologies starts with small cracks that open up in places where nobody is looking (except for children). As I always say, reality has more properties than our theories about it describe. This is also true for ideological theories. It is like the impossibility of the perfect crime, something is always overlooked.
LikeLike
Puppies? You’re doing cute puppies … oh! Meta for ‘innocents’. C’mon, John — have you ever seen an innocent animal? They were put on earth for us to use, dammit~!
LikeLike
I’m tellin’ ya dog, your little one’s are the ruiners of the gods 😉
LikeLike
I want to be a millionaire and am going with A as my answer.
LikeLike
Unaware it was happening because it didn’t exist?
LikeLike
Was busy elsewhere on the vast universe and got to know about it later and went like, ooh shit, what a mess! I should have seen this coming
LikeLike
Ahhh, distracted were you? That sort of craps all over Anthropocentrism. Sorry fundies!
LikeLike
But on a serious note, all the answers can apply to the christian idea of god. You know he suffers from multiple personality disorders
LikeLike
Bite your tongue, Maka… Your human senses can’t possibly comprehend such a complex and kickass god as this god God. Didn’t you read the disclaimer? It clearly says, “MYSTERIOUS”
LikeLike
My bad, my bad! This kickass god is good at nothing if you ask me, no wonder he makes such a bad manager
LikeLike
You think this is what they’re thinking about when they sing “Our God is an awesome God” on Sunday’s? Fear and trembling is necessary to convince the “faithful”, eh?
LikeLike
We don’t say it in Australia, and i’ve never heard it said here in Brazil, but the American saying, “God Fearing,” has always come across as strikingly odd to me. Such a primitive way of approaching a deity.
LikeLike
In Dutch “god fearing” (rather its literal translation, god vrezend) is/was used quite often.
LikeLike
OK. I didn’t want to speak for Europe because i really didn’t have an idea. I guess the whole notion of “fearing” must have puritan roots, right?
LikeLike
I think so, the phrase “god fearing” is here in the Netherlands mostly used by calvinists.
LikeLike
So medieval: Fear.
LikeLike
Keaton always said, “I don’t believe in God, but I’m afraid of him.” Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.
LikeLike
Oh, well played, Sir!
LikeLike
I think it’s another way of saying respect. Treat God with the same respect as a scorpion and you can’t go far wrong (and for the same reasons).
LikeLike
C’mon, Gentlemen! You are forgetting that before He created the hev’ns, firmaments, earths etc He sat down on a rock somewhere with a notebook and pencil and wrote the entire script. All of it. And not even the omnipotent can change a word of it (oh Gods, I’m channelling Omar now …)
LikeLike
Reblogged this on hitchens67 Atheism WOW!! Campaign and commented:
Fucking hysterical!
LikeLike
Okay, that’s pretty funny….I’m gonna go with D.
LikeLike
He was tripping and felt mischievous?
LikeLike
Exactly. Had one of those peyote-infused death-mask visions and thought what the heck…humans, meh, too many of ’em anyway.
LikeLike
Well, we are funny as we’re drowning!
LikeLike
Ouch.
LikeLike
From a loving deities perspective 😉
LikeLike
Been meaning to ask you – do you follow God on Twitter? He’s pretty funny… https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod
LikeLike
I don’t follow anyone yet, but god might as well be the first! 🙂
LikeLike
Recent tweet from “God”: The harder you believe in something, the nothinger of a difference it makes.
LikeLike
He’s a wise old Llama, isn’t he 😉
LikeLike
If suffering in this life is meant to teach us something, then why must people suffer in hell, too?
LikeLike
Ah, the Double-Devil Chocolate Cake conundrum; no amount of promised torment is ever enough satisfy a healthy religion.
LikeLike
I expect all Christians believe the god God was aware but willing to do anything. Why? The folks in that part of the world weren’t praying correctly. Ask any pastor’s wife looking for a car parking space how good her deity is when she needs him. That’s all the proof I need. 🙂
LikeLike
Violet, you can’t get that car park thing out of your head, can you? It was pouring rain! She needed gods intervention… and by Christ he intervened! Of course, while he was working that little bit of magic he missed the 9.1 earthquake, but hey, it was RAINING!!!
LikeLike
That story is like an Aesop’s Fable for me. The Pastor’s Wife and the Rain. It will follow me round forever …
LikeLike
As it should. Rain free car parks are the key to understanding the ways of the god God.
LikeLike
I think it’s a trick question.
LikeLike
You might be onto something there, Hans.
LikeLike
Ah, my son, the Lord works in mysterious ways. Your tiny pea brain can’t possibly understand the infinite mind of the Lord as he kicks the anthill he has created “just to see them scurry.” Does the Pope scurry? He should, His Lord wants him to.
LikeLike
Sounds a little like Dr. Strangelove 😦
LikeLike
We are frogs in his lab.
LikeLike
Shit, that’s rather depressing 😦
How are you, old man? You’ve been quiet of late.
LikeLike
No post but ain’t quiet at all. How can a poet be after 3 drinks down 🙂
LikeLike
Ha! And here i am only on my third coffee 😉
LikeLike
Combativeness of caffeine is pragmatic to endure his notoriety. Spirits do funny stuff..
LikeLike
Indeed they do. I had an unusual, fiery relationship with cacacha when i first arrived in Brazil. We didn’t see eye-to-eye so i divorced that wench quick time 😉
LikeLike
I had to look it up … it sounds a bit like the Mekong we used to get in Thailand … dammit, my education is showing gaps.
LikeLike
Rum without the molasses. Good cachaca (properly distilled) is great, but if its a quick boil the stuff can run jet engines.
LikeLike
Woof — so could the cheap Mekong of the time, although Mekong is exported widely these days. Love to know how much resemblance today’s export has to the old backstreet stuff with the pasted labels …
LikeLike
Obviously D: either the folk who died were sinners (in which case, they’ve gone straight to Hell: result!) or they were saints (in which case, they’re now with the big guy upstairs: also result!). Go with Christianity. God is love.
LikeLike
Can’t argue with that kind of logic, Rob! 🙂
LikeLike
Let me get this straight: God created people. He allowed those people to sin knowing full well that they would, he’s omniscient, and then punished them for doing what he knew they would do. He sounds like a bit of a sadist. I’m not sure I agree with notion that “god is love” when he displays such sadistic tendencies. In fact, by any conventional definition of morality, he’s immoral.
There isn’t really any good human analogy because there’s no such thing as omniscience. However, here’s an attempt. God is apparently like a crack dealer or parent, who puts crack or chocolate chip cookies in front of a crack addict or child. He tells the crack addict or child here is some crack or chocolate chip cookies. I’m going to leave them on the table. I’m going to leave the room. You are not to touch them. I KNOW that you are going to touch them , but I want to punish you.
Forget entirely that we are supposedly being punished for the fact that we had the audacity to seek knowledge. You see god is a maniacal control freak. He wants his subjects to be ignorant in a cloud of darkness.
LikeLike
This is a good comparison, one to remember just in case I want to convert someone to maltheism.
LikeLike
* comparison yes analogy no
LikeLike
That reminds me of this little biblical gem:
For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
(1 Corinthians 1:19)
LikeLike
Have you ever cared for children? Sometimes an adult is pretty sure they’ll chose something that hurts them, but allows them the freedom. Have you ever said, or heard, “I knew that would happen!” “I knew it was you calling…” but that doesn’t mean you’re omniscient or are you?
LikeLike
your point?
LikeLike
I mean specific examples…
LikeLike
What ever the pope answers it has to be the right answer, because alledgedly he is inerrant. Is he not? Exept, if he says something embarresing, like he did a few days back, when he let it slip, that everybody even atheists are going to be let into heaven. Then of course the Vatican public relations department, that is even more innerrant, than the pope, has to correct him. So, the real question here is not what would the pope answer, but what does the Vatican public relations department think?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2013/may/29/pope-francis-open-heaven-atheists
LikeLike
I thought that whole “You’re all going to heaven,” “Oh no you’re not!” business was hilarious. A small army of professional comedy writers couldn’t have penned a better sketch.
LikeLike
Hilariuous indeed! As an atheist it is of no consequense, if someone thinks I am going to go to a place, that does not exist, be it heaven, or hell. It is just as interresting as someone telling me what would I be, if I lived in the imaginary land of Narnia. However, as a person, I would find it less insulting, if the head of a major social movement would not actually preach, that I deserve eternal torture for not being a part of his particular movement.
It is just the infallibility issue I find especially funny. Who is more infallible, the pope or the publicity office?
LikeLike
PR people are never wrong, Raut…. they’re just quicker than most mere mortals at redefining what is “true.”
LikeLike
Pope Francis is a liberation theologist and I think he meant it from the heart when he said everyone is good not matter what they believe. Isn’t that your message too?
LikeLike
This is hilarious! 🙂 I’m pretty the Pope would answer ‘none of the above’, god being too mysterious for us mortals to understand.
LikeLike
Well, logic is often not the strongest point of theologians.
LikeLike
What would be a strong point of a theologian? Hmm…I’m trying to be charitable, but I just can’t think of one.
LikeLike
Me neither.
LikeLike
Lying and evasion?
LikeLike
He probably would… Slacker!
LikeLike
1st rule of God-dome: deniability
LikeLike
Imagine the lawsuits if they actually committed to anything!
LikeLike
first there will be vatican hearings ad nauseum, then the media will jump on the sensational bandwagon and fuck it up for everyone, THEN come the idiot lawsuits. it’s a process.
LikeLike
It all is. If it weren’t 80% of people wouldn’t know what to do with themselves after that first cup of coffee.
LikeLike
yahoo ‘news’ and caffeine-can’t imagine why we’re such a mess over here…
LikeLike
If you were to actually ask the man in your photo, his answer might surprise you. After all, he’s the newbie Pope Francis who caused scandal this week in saying, “Atheists should be seen as good people if they do good.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html
LikeLike
Oh, i read about it. You think that it was revolutionary thinking? How odd. I have to admit I laughed when the retraction was issued. Oh well….
LikeLike
Liberation theology goes way back. How odd you’d think it revolutionary. Where’s the retraction?
LikeLike
Vatican spokesman came out the next day and said Francis was full of shit (or words to those effect) and atheists are indeed all going to hell. You didn’t hear? I think Rautakky posted a story link above.
LikeLike
Oh that nonsense. Francis didn’t retract what he said.
LikeLike
Well, he certainly didn’t stand by it either. Some might see that as being gutless.
LikeLike
I thought that sermon took a lotta guts. And I assume he knew it’d piss people off and some would try to explain it away. If he then let his words stand without further ado, more guts.
LikeLike
You kidding me? He’s the Pope, for goodness sake. He got slapped down by a lowly spokesman and didn’t have the courage or conviction to stick by his words. That speaks volumes of the man’s lack of character.
LikeLike
He is the Pope. He has more important things to do. He’d already said exactly what he meant, knowing the lowlies would try to do damage control. But he’d already let the cat out and he knows it.
LikeLike
Of course this whole subject is bunk anyway, but i think you’re working overtime here to make excuses. If the man actually believed what he said (and i’ll agree, it was a fine sentiment) then he should have had the courage and fortitude to re-affirm his words. As it stands, after what transpired, he simply looks like a weak man with no moral backbone.
LikeLike
Not to me. I’ve used his strategy.
LikeLike
“You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
Know when to fold ’em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run
You never count your money
When you’re sittin’ at the table
There’ll be time enough for countin’
When the dealin’s done”
LikeLike
Spin, spin, spin 🙂
LikeLike
Don’t get dizzy on that merry-go-round now ; )
LikeLike
Oh, i got off years ago…. Realising there are no gods is a wonderfully stabilising event 😉
LikeLike
Good for you! I can relate in that truly knowing one’s values has positive effects.
LikeLike
I don’t not have no problems with that. Actually that’s pretty well the definition I use myself, of good people. Simple but effective:
# good people do good things
# bad people do bad things
ergo a good guy (atheist) has a better chance of getting into heaven than a bad pope. Yep, I’ll buy it …
LikeLike
(How the hell did that comment end up waaaaay down here~?)
Anyway, you can’t say he lacks balls! Oops …That’s one of the essential qualifications for popehood, unless I’ve been led astray; the formulaic “Testiculos habet et bene pendentes” (oh gods, I hope I got that right).
Is it true that the candidate has to sit sans knickers on a raised seatless stool so all the voting cardinals pass below to get a judgemental perve at his wedding tackle—or have I fallen for yet another old nun’s tale?
Anyway, he has to impress the lot—next question: Why on God’s earth would a blasted pope need a toggle and two, of all people?
Or does God’s rep on Earth get to let his hair down in the privacy on his own apartments, and none the wiser?
LikeLike
One picture is worth ten thousand words …
I’ll read other comments before commenting further
LikeLike
Having thought about it — it IS a trick question.
There’s two answers: B and D … all else violates the Law of Contradiction (if applied to the Big G’s three ‘omnis’).
LikeLike
Well at least you’re being honest. I like the fact that dogs can’t lie.
LikeLike
Personally, I think he’d phone a ‘friend’ on high!! 😉 x
LikeLike
Ha! Great pick up! Knowing the RCC it’d be a reverse charge call, too 🙂
LikeLike
of course, … money cannot be wasted… and God only knows how expensive the call would be? .. 🙂 x
LikeLike
True. Roaming charges through the supernal regions are a bitch!
LikeLike
OK then, Ask The Audience, … a poll of RC’s in the World.. last count 1.2 billion.. should keep ’em busy!! 😉 x
LikeLike
Chances are, he’d phone this friend, and the friend won’t be there to answer…
LikeLike
I still think we’re judging the Divine by our own standards.
Don’t forget that according to the Clergy God is
(a) omniscient (a know-all)
(b) omnipotent (can do anything, and
(c) omnipresent (did I miss any?).
Ergo no point in phoning Him ‘cos He knows what it’s all about anyway (although out of pure good manners He should at least phone you back).
It’s these three qualities that force me to opt for choices B and D in the post above; and why I conclude it’s a sneaky trick question … hah! You don’t catch this ol’ dog that easy …
LikeLike
In insurance speak, anything to do with extremes of weather is referred to as an act of god so I’m going with D.
LikeLike
Do they still use that term? Be great if they did because it opens them up to all sorts of legal challenges which can’t be leveled at the church because, well, the church is sneakier than insurance companies and never actually commit to anything.
LikeLike
Yes…insurance companies say it all, but hidden away in the small print. The church just tell you what it wants you to hear and tough luck if you don’t agree.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266365/Insurers-accused-20m-Act-God-out.html
LikeLike
Ha, nice article! Thanks, my friend 🙂
LikeLike
Billy Connolley did a great film about just that … “The Man Who Sued God” a bit ridiculous towards the end though.
LikeLike
Hee! well done!!!!!
LikeLike
This one’s not mine. I just changed the question and popped the whole thing inside a TV set. Naughty 🙂
LikeLike
My guess is the Pope’s first response would be: “Ah…paenitet te posse repetere quaestionem?”, caught off guard thinking he was actually on the set for ‘The Price is Right’ 😉
LikeLike
My other answer would be C, because God was on the phone at the time as a phone a friend for the previous Pope – omnipresent right? 😀
LikeLike
You’d think an omnipotent god would have the Party Line option standard
LikeLike
Well yeah exactly. In fact who’s to say he doesn’t but just couldn’t be arsed to pick up the other line?!
Maybe he does indeed play favourites. I’m sure he must have a roulette wheel up there, gambles a little in his spare time. The little ball probably ‘accidentally’ falls into the number 13 slot quite a lot, just so that he can call on superstition and claim plausible deniability!
LikeLike