This may be the most horrendous pun I've seen all week. I approve highly.

That's also one of the most misguided things I've ever seen here. I can usually count on this site to provide insightful commentary (even if I disagree with it), but this story was, for lack of a better word, wrong.

How dare you...no, how dare anyone fling general accusations at the suffering that their pain is due to their disbelief in G*d? Do you think He ignored the cries of the Croats as the Serbs came for them because He could not find 10 just men? Or of the Serbs when the Croats came to return the favor? What about the rabbis and priests whom Hitler burned? Were they insufficiently inclined to G*d to merit His favor?

I don't know about the linked blogger (who had the temerity to say that "sick people" and "abandoned children" are afflicted because they "don't go to Him and do not look for Him"), but I expect better sentiments from this site than "those heathen idiots deserved it."

Steve, you missed the point. Entirely. In fact, you're about as far away from the message of the story as it's possible to be.

Human beings have free will. G-d is not a puppet master, and it is not G-d's job to micro-manage the lives of every living being in creation. Nor is prayer and devotion some kind of sanctioned version of sorcery or magic. Variants of "expecting the charging rhino not to kill your ass because you're a vegetarian" don't work.

Which still leaves us here, in this world, facing the reality of dukkha/sayvel as beings make choices.

There is a creation, and a divine hand deep at the most fundamental levels that sets the rules and expresses a long term direction, and an omniscient being who knows all possible outcomes of all possible actions. But G-d understands that this is not enough. Therefore, there is also grace, and love, and comfort that can ease the burden of living in this world, however difficult our collective choices may make it.

The barber doesn't stop your hair from growing, Steve, or from getting dirty and tangled. But if you visit the shop it can be cleaned up, and softened, and trimmed the right way, so you go out into the world in better shape.

I don't believe any of these things are restricted by religion, any more than being good at basketball requires one to play on a certain team (or indeed any team). Of course, some teams have better programs and coaching, or have a style that fits certain people better, and that can be a good reason to belong. How (and even if) you tap into The Force of Creation and elevate your game is up to you. Just understand what the training can help with, and what it does not and should not control.

It was not G-d's charge to keep the children of 1,000 Jewish communities out of the gas chambers. It was ours - and in our blindness, we failed. But among the stories of horror and depravity, even in the midst of that darkness we had suffered to grow, we hear stories of those who heard a higher call.

Some were gentiles, and for many of them it was their belief in G-d that forced them to hide and rescue Jews even at the risks of their own lives. If enough people visit the barber shop, it can make a differece.

Some were among the doomed, but in their last moments they found the dignity and the resources to care for others, to calm the children in their care and offer wat small solace they could amidst the hurts of this world. Some could give this gift because the right relationship with G-d had given it to them already. Others felt only the stir of conscience, and firm belief in a good and evil greater than the government that could order such travesties - and where, one asks, does that come from?

And for those of us who are left, those of us who remember, there are the prayers of Kaddish and El Maleh Rachamim, and the wisdom of the simple instructions that have been set before us. They are a gift of grace and wisdom to help us live in a flawed world where death and chance abide, and yet find the strength to continue and to make it a better place.

G-d was, and is, in all of these places - and many more besides. The Barber of Sayvel is most definitely in. Will we be dropping by?

This of course is one of the most fundamental questions, for those who have spiritual/religious belief systems. "Why is there suffering"?

A Steve, Joe is correct in that the point is being missed in this story.

Of course, clearly, this story uses a "category error" to make its point. So it is more a "pointing out" instruction, rather than a closed, true argument.

No post by Joe, no individual story, can answer what is one of the most fundamental questions a human being can ask, "why does suffering exist?".

But the practical human truth also is, people who turn to spiritual practices, be it jewish, christian, buddhist, muslim etc, do find themselves "lifted up", and experiencing higher meaning, joy, love, depth, and faith in their lives, by such practices. And this story points to that.

The related problem occurs, of course, because it is VERY hard to separate out exactly WHAT in the practices, acts to engender these very positive human effects, and what in these practices are based on superstition, ignorance, handed down by authority, or "bad philosophy", as Joe would put it - be it bad Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu philosophy, the "bad philosophy" and the "good practices", tend to be very bound up with each other.

JC speaks wisely, especially in his last paragraph.

The great Sufi Shaykh al-Attar has some worthwhile thoughts on these matters.

I'm sorry. In retrospect, I see that I misunderstood (and overreacted). I may still misunderstand.

I understood the story initially as accusing those who suffered as being wholly responsible for their suffering. While some people no doubt are, a lot of bad stuff happens to people through no fault of their own (invading Huns, Mongols, and Magyars, for instance).

Instead, should I have understood the story as referring solely to those who, like the barber, refuse to go to G*d of their own will? The story makes more sense like that, but how does it explain others' suffering?

Granted that some people are quite far from G*d, why should they be allowed to make others suffer? This isn't a question of micromanagement so much as structure. If you had the opportunity to create a universe, why would you allow any suffering?

Oh, and good point about the good practices/bad philosophy divide. Like Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman pointed out in Good Omens, I've seen that up close and personal from the same person.

I'm sorry if I'm still missing the point. I hope this time I've been a little more polite about it.

I find a lot of truth in JC's last paragraph, too. I have a belief in God about half of the time. Turning to God, or attempting to strengthen my faith, makes me feel like I'm chasing after God. Then I feel like I've convinced myself to believe in God, which makes me waver... But this story does make me think about at least being more open to evidence of God's existence and not just rejecting it in an angry way. I'm struggling to explain it.

I'm curious to know what Rabbi Lazer Brody would say about this. Thanks for the links to him. He's such an interesting man. And I really like the religion posts because they relax me after reading all of the depressing stuff.

A Steve you might want to read the following book Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach.

Steve,

USMC's recommendation is a good one. The first section in particular will have you laughing out loud.

As to suffering... the story in question actually has no position on whether people are responsible for their suffering. The only question is what they choose to do about it, and as noted above, the Barber is always in and willing to help if we will just walk through the door.

Jewish tradition certainly recognizes responsibility when the suffering comes from our own decisions and screw-ups; but some also comes from a world where a] we don't fully understand its physical laws, b] we are not the only actors, and c] others have free will also. This produces bad situations that the victims are not at fault for, but must cope with.

No question, this is sometimes tragic. There is also no question that this gives us opportunities for growth, and greater incentives for developing our understanding as individuals and as a species (for a non-religious take, see also Harlan Ellison's short story "Pain God"). Those gifts are worth something, too.

If I had G-d's panoramic view, the balance and the long-term results might be clearer. I don't, of course, and never will - so all I can do is try to understand. And keep trying until I get an explanation that makes sense to me.

Perhaps some of these thoughts will help.

You ask...

"Granted that some people are quite far from G*d, why should they be allowed to make others suffer?

My answer: the only way to stop that would be to take away their free will, and that inevitably means micro-management. Imagine a universe where G-d intervened every time you caused suffering. Would moral choice have any meaning in a universe like that? And what kind if a relationship would this create between people and G-d?

Think the consequences of that one through... I believe that would be a really poor way to run a universe.

Interestingly, wrong choices do eventually seem to run up a tab of deferred consequences that comes due. So there is a teaching mechanism built in, but it's subtle and not always direct.

Hmmm, an ordered and evolving system with underlying foundations that bias its evolution in certain ways, and create "strange attractors" around certain kinds of conduct - with all of this open to discovery by those who can figure out the right questions and better align themselves with the Force of Creation. Furthermore, the elements of creation aren't just fixed elements - they're actual co-participants in the process!

That's a pretty lofty responsibility. And a pretty advanced form of creation, too, something worthy of a being I could respect as G-d instead of being a mere projection of human "insert tab A into slot B" methods. Of course, even my description is almost certainly many levels of understanding short... but perhaps it begins to give you a glimpse at a pitcure that would make sense.

"This isn't a question of micromanagement so much as structure. If you had the opportunity to create a universe, why would you allow any suffering?"

In a way, and don't take this badly, believing that a world created by G-d must be without suffering suffers from the same intrinsic flaw as the creationist argument. A real G-d would not create the way humans do. It's not about putting up a building, but about a building that creates itself while allowing for free will and co-participation.

So, I don't see how you could separate structure and micro-management. Free will inevitably means the potential for making the wrong choice. Wrong choices inevitably mean the potential for bad outcomes. Some of those bad outcomes will inevitably affect others.

Even on a natural level, you have an intricate system that works via certain rules. Those rules create hazards, at least for those who do not use their primary gifts (in humans' case, intelligence) to work with the forces of the universe and avoid or remove the hazards in a balanced way. Again, bad things can happen from an individual human's point of view.

So you can't remove human suffering without removing free will and becoming a micro-manager, or creating a world in which deriving its natural laws was damn near impossible for your creations because of the exception factor. Both of those outcomes are really bad ones. But what if....

What if you offer a removal of suffering that's INDEPENDENT of the environment, and resides in the consciousness of the humans themselves?

The Buddhists point out that suffering is a label applied by consciousness, and this label can be removed (as Wonhyo discovered). Sufis have tales about faithful servants of kings and of Allah who are grateful for anything they are given, even if it is normally "unpleasant", because they are so immersed in the giver and not the gift. Similar angles can be found in most religions, especially in their mystical traditions.

When suffering is removed and one is in contact with the larger perspective afforded by greater union with the divine, one can make the best possible decisions under any stress, and manifest the reallity of divine grace for others to see and learn from.

THIS is the priceless gift of the Barber of Sayvel to those who would fully enter (and remain in) the shop. Even occasional visitors can receive some of these gifts, however, gifts that hint at the greater possibilities open to them.

Joe, this assessment of God's self-imposed limitations would seem inevitably to lead to Deism:

The universe grinds along according to its merciless rules. Under these conditions all manner of prayer, worship, faith, and tradition become manifestly irrelevant. Understanding of God is reduced to understanding the operating rules of the Universe he created, the horrific nature of which I've discussed at length before.

God will sit back and allow humans to engage in Ye Liveliest Awfulness. He doesn't interfere, "because he wants us to have unfettered free will." The laws of the Universe allow such horrors and depravity to occur largely unhindered. What evidence do we have that God disapproves of such horrors since he's unwilling to stop them and the Universe allows them? How can we make any objective moral claims in this environment other than the observation that weakness is a mortal sin?

T.J., "The laws of the Universe allow such horrors and depravity to occur largely unhindered."

One could claim that God gives us plenty of ways to reduce suffering. I don't see how the 'largly unhindered' necesarily follows.

And then it seems that you are saying, there's a possibility that there's a God and God's plan could be really hard for us to endure. Yes, that's undeniably one scenario. And furthermore, how do we divine God's plan from just looking at the world? There are so many possible interpretations. I think many religious people would say that you can't just divine God's will by looking at his creation, you need some other stuff, like a guide.

Which leads to where I've ended up with this story and discussion: If you change your perspective, you can create room for a God in your universe. OK, but what then? I just have real trouble getting from there to the concept of a single grand creator who has a plan for me. Aren't the details of that plan kind of important? Who has the plan?

T. J. Madison -

"What evidence do we have that God disapproves of such horrors since he's unwilling to stop them and the Universe allows them?"

For this question to be taken really seriously, don't we have to consider an alternate, micro-managed Universe in which God actively stops horror?

For example, J.D. Salinger has an idea for a book called Catcher in the Rye. God, however, realizes that Mark David Chapman's demented interpretion of this otherwise harmless work will result in the death of John Lennon, not to mention a lot of annoying and tasteless exploitation by Yoko Ono. So God takes Salinger's typewriter away, or takes Chapman away, or - just to be really safe - takes Salinger, Chapman, Yoko Ono, and the damn typewriter.

Those who are familiar with Jerome Bixby's short story It's a Good Life might consider what it would be like to live in a horror-free universe, even under enlightened management.

Joe: I understand now. I remember a Taoist story with a similar perspective on "good" and "bad" events. It's not that what is within us causes suffering, but that what is within us creates it merely by naming and experiencing it as such. Of course, to not experience suffering is something with which even the greatest followers of the Buddha had difficulty, so that's probably quite difficult for humans to do. But, we can give it a try. Maybe G*d will help us...or maybe His mere existence is enough.

Your comments about free will and design lead to what's more or less an endless debate. I'm not sure which is true, but if one of our postulates is that we cannot know our destiny, there may be no functional difference. (note to anyone who thinks we can discern our destiny: I've got a great method for doing so involving stars, tea leaves, and phrenology, and I'll teach anyone who wants to know. Small, non-sequential bills only, please.)

Alice: I can't prove G*d loves you, or even that He/She/It/Them doesn't/don't hate you. That's where the faith comes in.

How do you know the difference between something you've talked yourself into believing and something that you believe in because it's true?

>> And furthermore, how do we divine God's plan from just looking at the world?

My point is that Joe's statements about suffering leave us no alternative. If God is unwilling to intervene and "bend the laws of physics" to save/hurt people then we must conclude that the laws of physics constitute the sum totality of God's will.

>>I don't see how the 'largly unhindered' necesarily follows.

By "unhindered" I mean that God doesn't tweak the laws of physics to make those horrors more difficult.

>>For this question to be taken really seriously, don't we have to consider an alternate, micro-managed Universe in which God actively stops horror?

Exactly. We also have to consider an alternate micro-managed Universe in which God actively promotes horror. It seems clear that we live in neither universe. This leaves us with variants of Deism or atheism as rational alternatives.

Alice,

You're asking questions I'm not qualified to answer, if indeed anyone is. All I can do is talk around the edges.

Faith is not the same as certainty - you are asking questions, and I don't think that people of faith ever stop asking questions. Is my faith genuine? What is it I have faith in? I ask these questions with sincerity, daily, and over time the anwsers which find me slowly evolve and build.

Unquestioning certainty is a kind of vanity, and when the prophets identifed vanity as a sin, I believe they were on to something.

Some people can freely talk about the nature of what they have faith in. I cannot, the more I try to describe it the further it recedes.

But here's something, anyway: I do believe in miracles. Say what? Bear with me.

It can appear that the having the power and strength you need to change the path that you’re on is as impossible, just as impossible as the power to part the sea or to walk on water. Yet the practices of spirituality can bring that strength to anyone – anyone, that is, who is open to the possibility. This is what faith feels like for me: a strength coming from inside myself, yet far, far beyond myself at the same time. What was impossible is suddenly simple, and what was lost to me is found, in plain sight all along. What was once all about me is suddenly not about me at all, and this feels like a blessing, not a curse.

I’m not very accomplished. I felt it was worth saying something anyway, and I hope it was. I keep asking questions, and I try not to pursue the answers, but let anwsers find me, from within and from without. My faith is that if you do this, answers will find you, too, bit by bit.

Joe said, "So you can't remove human suffering without removing free will and becoming a micro-manager, or creating a world in which deriving its natural laws was damn near impossible for your creations because of the exception factor."

With regards to the 'exception factor', just because something doesn't happen the same way one hundred times in a row doesn't mean we can't learn from the other 99 times.

T.J. God could be unwilling to stop suffering because he/she/it left instructions on how to reduce the suffering ourselves. I have no idea where they are hidden. But there might be more than merciless rules. Obviously religious people think they are able to get further than "be strong in the face of suffering". I still might not be getting you TJ, forgive me. And just because it's not God's job to micro manage doesn't mean that God never intervenes for the benefit of an individual. (Isn't that what grace is? A gift?)It's just that God doesn't owe it to you.

Lewy, That was a nice reply. Are you talking about faith in God in general or faith in a particular religion? The first step is clearly the easier, at least to me.

Maybe my standard for belief has to do with external validation; if I couldn't persuade someone to see what's rational about my belief in God or a religion, then it's not a real belief. It just gets confusing when ratioanlity is praised as being a tool to get closer to God, on the one hand. But on the other, people talk about a personal relationship with God that's not dependent on the mortal's ability to explain it to anyone, which is embracing the irrational. 'A strength coming from inside you' sounds like faith is not something one can necesarily explain. 'When you try to it slips away' - that's irrational. And I'm not saying that in a negative way.

Alice

”How do you know the difference between something you've talked yourself into believing and something that you believe in because it's true?”

Anyone can talk themselves into to believing anything they want. As sure as 1 + 1 = 2 some one some where will believe 1 + 1 = 3 and argue the point. The possibilities are endless. Anyone can rationalize what they want and yet again the possibilities are endless.

I suppose you could argue it’s how it makes one feel deep inside. A consciousness of one’s self. You can try to explain love all you want and at some point you may even experience it. If you don’t experience love does that mean you don’t or shouldn’t believe in love? Your experience will totally be different than any one else's. It’s like trying to describe to someone what a banana tastes like. You know it’s color, shape and texture. You even know what it tastes like. Yet you can’t put into words that very taste. You’ll always have doubts if some one else tastes the banana in the same manner you do. Where faith comes in is knowing that the other individual sees the item as a banana and tastes the item as a banana.

Faith is the essence of your belief between you and your G-d. Your G-d is what you make it to be.

It seems to me that both the original posting, and the discussion that has grown up around it have obscured the essential question the barber was asking.

The question is not "Why does suffering exist?" but "Does suffering have any moral meaning, or is it simply arbitrary?" and the key text of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the Book of Job. The clearest modern expression of the problem is the book title, When Bad Things Happen To Good People.

Speaking as a Buddhist, I can say that my teachers answer with a definite "yes" to this revised question: suffering is the result of prior unskillful actions. They also say that the only reason suffering appears arbitrary is that we cannot see the cause-and-effect chain across multiple lives. It is noteworthy, I think, that the Buddhist answer also answers the Barber's original formulation of the problem.

Alice, thanks. I'n not talking about faith in any particular religion.

I think part of the problem is that "irrational" is not necessarily the opposite of "rational". What is beyond the power of reason to convey is not necessarily belief held despite the existence of a rational refutation.

I tend to see reason as a tool to chip away at falsehood, as opposed to a tool for communicating the truth.

The power and strength which comes from God is as real to me as water is wet. However, I can't throw you, or anyone else in to my private pool in order to demonstrate this. But when you experience the wetness for yourself, it is anything but "irrational", it is the most obvious thing in the world.

The difficulty comes in describing this exactly, and convincingly, to others. Consider this: when you love someone, really love them, can you describe exactly what it is you feel? Can you put it perfectly into words, in a way that leads others to understand your love in a way that is logical and rational? It's difficult, isn't it? And yet, isn't this love the thing that is most real in the world?

TJ: "If God is unwilling to intervene and "bend the laws of physics" to save/hurt people then we must conclude that the laws of physics constitute the sum totality of God's will."

Sorry, that is a complete and utter non-sequitur. Note the implicit assumption that the laws of physics are all there are to G-d's will, which is sort of like the creationist mistake that demands G-d's methods and works fit into conventional human understandings and templates. This mistake flows in part from T.J.'s earlier error in maintaining that the thought-construct I've proposed above = deism, and in part from the flawed empiricist drive to collapse all spiritual elements into objective constructs (like physics).

The model I threw out does allow for major interventions, so it isn't deism; it just points out that frequent intervention creates bad consequences - so obviously bad that they're apparent even to a human mind.

As several participants have noted, the request/demand to have G-d eliminate all human suffering might be an unwise request on a number of levels. Turning the tables on this request offered us a useful way of helping us think it through. It seems to have led to a very interesting conversation, for which I thank you all.

Glen, that Jerome Bixby story sounds especially interesting.

DIVINE PLANS?

Alice, on a personal level, I'm not so sure about "there is a divine plan for me". Never have been - it just sounds way too much like conventional human approaches to me, so I tend to suspect that it's wrong. I'm closer to the concept that a stronger connection with the divine ground of all should help one to apply what the Taoists call wu wei, and more naturally flow where and how we are needed. This certainly seems to be an oft-reported traits among people who are very spiritually advanced. Maybe it isn't so much about the personal plan for us, as it is about finding a form of peace and developing the kind of foundations we need to be a fuller part of something bigger? Don't know.

Rabbi Brody, who had an explicit "I've got a plan for you" religious experience during a commando mission in Beirut, may have a different take on that.

SUFFERING, MORALITY & CAUSATION

RE: the moral content of suffering, I didn't see the story in my blog article as touching on that in any way. Job is indeed the tale designed to explain this in a Judeo-Christian context, but I see it as a flawed tale. IMO, G-d's direct agency in Job's suffering makes it a useful story for people who can't conceive of anything else, not so useful if one is culturally beyond that.

I see suffering as being more directly explicable by cause and effect. It is given potential existence by the presence of a) awareness, and b) any orderly and self-supporting universe that is not in complete stasis; in addition, c) the addition of free will ensures additional causation by the beings in that universe. Suffering's causes are always traceable by testable means, and there are spiritual and practical lessons in that tracing if we want to find them.

That knowledge does not change suffering's immediate reality, however. The ability to strengthen adherents and help them deal with or transcend the internal reality of experienced suffering is one of the great benefits of spiritual practice. It certainly isn't the only one; still, it's nice to know that the Barber of Sayvel is always in.

On a parallel front, conventional science also has a useful and necessary role to play in averting or removing suffering. Suffering spurs many of science's investigations, then provides the second-tier feedback loop (Tier 1 is: can we get the effect we wanted?; Tier 2 asks: was what we wanted such a good idea after all, or did we miss something important?). The results lead to practical and spiritual insights. Ultimately, a better understanding of creation and how to work with it as fully responsible stewards allows us to improve our understanding of what it means to be creators. That's why an approach to suffering that does not include and acknowledge science isn't just wanting in a practical sense; it's also a spiritual rip-off.

BELIEVING & KNOWING

Alice… RE: "the difference between something you've talked yourself into believing and something that you believe in because it's true" - it's a great question. Now we're into ontology, stages of consciousness, and questions of cultural context as well as spirituality. Ken Wilber's A Brief History of Everything offers some answers; it's well written, but requires some effort to grasp. Summarizing his views on the matter might be doable in a post or two with some time and hard work, but that's a task for another day.

FINAL THOUGHT

Final thought re: one of TJ's questions: the words "evidence" and "G-d" are always a problematic combination. However, if one accepts the Jewish belief system (and the Hasidic blogger linked in my blog post obviously does), then The Ten Commandments and its related story are pretty conclusive evidence that G-d disapproves of the horrors you describe.

How long it takes for humanity to really get that message and do something about it... well, that's up to us, isn't it? Our High Holidays are about examining and strengthening our role in that great effort.

As an interesting aside, there's a strain of Jewish thought that says the Messiah will come to acknowledge our success, not to create it. Ponder that one for a while...

Shana Tovah to all, and best wishes for our success in the coming year.

Lewy, "What is beyond the power of reason to convey is not necessarily belief held despite the existence of a rational refutation."

Great point. You gave me a real brain full. Too much for a comment in this tiny box!

Maybe a common theme here is the idea of reorienting oneself away from the question, "What are they experiencing?" to "What am I experiencing?" God may be hard to see sometimes, but it's easy to see that I can never experience the universe through another's body or mind. So shifting towards the individual in matters of faith flows with that idea nicely.

Joe,

Chuang Tzu refers to this type of being in the world as flowing, or more poetically (and provocatively), as "purposeless wandering!"...To have no purpose is unthinkable and even frightening, certainly anti-social and perhaps pathological in the context of modern day living.

The demand that faith be explainable or rational could be seen as flowing from this kind of pressure. If you can't explain it, it's without purpose.

The Brody interview gave me shivers. And sure, he got a clear message, but look at what he had to go through to get it!

>>Note the implicit assumption that the laws of physics are all there are to G-d's will,

Hey, when the Pillar of Flame shows up I'll be as impressed as anyone. But for now, Einstein's Principle of Relativity -- the laws are the same everywhere -- seem to hold up pretty damn well.

>> the flawed empiricist drive to collapse all spiritual elements into objective constructs (like physics).

How exactly is this flawed? If these spiritual elements are in any way observable, then they are subject to empirical analysis. If they cannot be observed, even in principle, how is it meaningful to say that they exist?

>>The model I threw out does allow for major interventions, so it isn't deism;

God's Chosen People (chosen for what?) sure could have used a Major Intervention around 1942. Didn't seem to happen. Was this God sending his people a message?

At any rate, the same objections (free will, Universal stability, etc.) to small interventions apply just as well to large ones.

>>However, if one accepts the Jewish belief system (and the Hasidic blogger linked in my blog post obviously does), then The Ten Commandments and its related story are pretty conclusive evidence that G-d disapproves of the horrors you describe.

And the very same Old Testament has stacks of evidence that God endorses and even directly perpetrates those horrors. Need I enumerate them?

A friend sent me this email yesterday that I thought would fit well into this discussion.

Subject: No joke this time, Just Read!!

In light of the many perversions and jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke, it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11).

Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.

And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they WILL think of you for sending it.. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
-------------------------------------------------
I sent this to everyone in my address list and was delighted that I could share it here with the Winds of Change.

SBD