Are You Sure

A carload of teenager take a curve too fast, run off the road, spin, hit a tree and die a fiery death.

Why?  What was the purpose? What was the reason?

My answer:  The driver attempted to break one of God's laws called the Law of Inertia - an object moving in a straight line tends to continue moving in a straight line.

God weeps with sorrow, and comforts the family if allowed, but He did not do it, nor was there any purpose in the event, unless you want to blame Him for the way reality is structured.

Firetech Firetech 56-60, M 50 Responses Mar 5, 2008

Your Response


Also, if you are going to start intervening, where would you stop? You couldn't. The holocaust here, the war there. The next thing you know you would be interfering in child abuse, then wife abuse, then poverty, and on and on.

I believe it is called the Prime Directive.

I agree with blue here, We are all responsible for our own lives. When people ask why would God let a child die?

I respond why would God want to intervene in a child going to paradise? That would be unloving in my opinion.

Jeckyll, absolutely no apologies are needed. The subject is a varied as we are and I appreciated all the comments...well.. maybe there was one I didn't appreciate, but you didn't make it.

I believe you are on your on here in this world, If you want intervention then you have to ask for it, and even then if it isn't in your best interest to have such you won't receive it.

God has nothing to do with who dies or when, he simply "according to the Bible " knows when you will die.

I believe he has more to do than make sure we don't run off the road while driving.

My humble opinion as one who believes in God. TY

I am glad your daughter is safe, and if her friend's death causes her to make better decisions, then she has made meaning of the tragedy, and given it a form of purpose.

unrelated to the comments already here I suspect...just my random thoughts on the story itself....

You are right...our choices cause these things, not God. God though I imagine hopes for others to learn lessons from things such as this. My daughter just lost her best friend in a car accident. One of the lessons she learned was why I get onto her so much while trying to teach her to drive. Distractions such as singing and dancing in your seat to the radio are not wise things to do.

I imagine she wont again get defensive and and aggravated with me for what she sees now is my attempt to keep her alive.

"........I really can't be bothered with someone who moves the goalposts just to make themselves look a bit more intelligent. Thankyou and goodnight!"

Mike, I appreciate being allowed the last word after such sharp criticism. I do want to say that when I started this discussion, the last thing I wanted to do was bother you or anyone else, and you have my apologies.

I had no idea that implying that the tendency of an object moving in a straight line was a law of physics, particularly a law of motion or inertia would offend anyone. So let me put it this way.

An object tends to continue doing whatever it is doing unless acted on by an outside force.

I think we can both agree on that.

Regarding trying to act intelligent, I am probably guilty of that, but I tend to have an inferiority complex, and would like to be seen in the best light. However, I will see if I can dumb it down a bit when I'm talking to you.

But I have never put on airs in order to put someone else down, or acted arrogant, or failed to acknowledge it when there was a possibility that I might be wrong.

For instance, I have never criticized a story before I read it correctly. In fact, I don't remember criticizing anyone, other than polite disagreement, up until this point.

Nor, have I ever made an issue of some point that wasn't significant when compared to the to main point of the story.

In addition, I never ever put anyone down even if I did not like them, unless I think they have first put me down; then I have to fire back.

Once again, thanks for the last word, and you have a good night too.

Yes, MitchandMaureen, I am not blaming this God for our evil. But, I have to say I don't think I have a God. I really don't know about that. But if I did, I would not be able to describe this entity.

The only thing I can say is that after I look at everything there is, my instincts tell there is more. Therefore, I do tend to be a theist.

However, if you don't see more, that is ok, because that is where you are right now, just as this is where I am.

I just find it difficult to look at a mother's love for her child for example, and say that it is nothing more than chemicals and hormones designed to ensure the survival of the species.

I see more there; in most cases anyway.

But I honestly don't think we are that much in disagreement. We are like blind people on different sides of the elephant, none of us with a clue as to what an elephant is, but each of us describing our own experience.

Firetech, you did quote the law incorrectly because you didn't mention constant velocity at any point.....this is my last comment, I really can't be bothered with someone who moves the goalposts just to make themselves look a bit more intelligent. Thankyou and goodnight!

I got your point, Firetech. It was interesting to watch the way the comments evolved, or was it devolved, from what you were trying to say:)

Actually, the law was not quoted incorrectly, not was it used to make a point, other than the cars tendency to remain moving in a straight line was the major physics behind the accident.

No point about the driver and passengers was attempted, and there was a deliberate non-empirical approach to the entire narrative.

My only effort was to express my belief that God is not to blame for choices made; whether made under the auspices of free will, deterministic, a combination, or some other unrecognized paradigm.

Wiseoldowl, inertia played a part I agree, but Newton's first law of motion (or law of inertia as some describe it)relates only to objects at rest or objects travelling at a constant velocity in a straight line, neither of which correctly describes the car involved in the accident. Sorry to be pedantic but what's the point of quoting a law incorrectly to try and prove some other point?

As for determinism vs freewill, that's a different matter altogether really, it's all down to what the individual believes.

Maybe those that loved those people who died needed to lose someone special in order to correct something in thier lives

mikemcneil, inertia caused the car to continue in a straight line. The mass had velocity. The mass did not receive the required force to negotiate the bend due to driver error or mechanical failure.

I think the real issue with this story is accepting responsibility for our actions.

Firetech, the first law of motion describes two states of large particles, either bodies at rest, or obbjects moving with a constant velocity. Neither of those two states are relevant to a car taking a bend too fast. You need to really consider all the other forces involved, friction. steering, acceleration/deceleration etc which makes it a much more complicated scenario. That is the point I was trying to make. Inertia isn't the reason the car goes off the road. The first law of motion is only sometimes called the law of inertia when it used to describe the tendency of an object at rest to remain at rest-not when it used to describe an object moving at constant velocity.

Firetech, I think many people confuse inertia with kinetic energy.

I'm sorry, but I am taking this quote from the Classroom of Physics

"The focus of Lesson 1 is Newton's first law of motion - sometimes referred to as the law of inertia."

PLEASE. When we say law of motion or law of inertia, we are talking about the same thing.

How did this become an issue?

Somebody ins confused and it may be me, but below is the definition that I have for Newton's First Law of MOTION.

A body maintains its state of rest or of motion unless it is disturbed by external force.. A body continues in a state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless it is acted upon by an external (unbalanced) force. An object will continue in its current state until an external force acts upon it.. An object at rest or in uniform motion (rest is a uniform motion!)remains at rest or in uniform motion unless acted on by an unbalanced (external) force. Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform speed in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force. This law is also called the "law of inertia", because the tendency of an object to maintain its state of rest or state of uniform motion is called inertia. Basically,the first law is the natural tendency of objects to keep on doing what they're doing. i.e. moving or staying at rest (not moving). An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Now, if this definition is wrong we have some major textbooks to correct. (I am smiling btw)

Human attributes cannot be ascribed to God.God is not some old man with a long grey beard sitting on a cloud somewhere.

In my humble opinion as one who believes in God, *smiles at mike* We are designed by God but we are not lead by God.

The distance some people have put themselves from god may have something to do with there morals.

This isn't true in all cases because of course there are many who don't believe in God at all who have morals.

I feel that if someone truly believes there will be no consequences for there actions, then why would they care about morals or right or wrong.

It seems to me that there are growing numbers of these people these days.

These are merely my humble opinions and not stated as fact.

One thing I don't understand is if we are designed by a God, why do some have good morels and others none. To my line of thinking that indicates a defective design.

I think there is more to it than that. The simplest life forms on the planet have a peaceful existence. It seems the higher the order of intelligence the less peaceful things become if morels are lacking.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what belief you follow as long as we do well toward each other and use our free will with consideration of the outcome.

The accident you talk about in your story has nothing to do with the "Law of Inertia"....inertia relates to objects at rest, not moving objects. If a car takes a corner too fast it will leave the road, but the law of inertia won't have anything to do with it.

And where does this knowledge come from WOO?

This thing you call right and wrong.

We all experience the old "this isn't right or this is wrong" feelings. Where do these feelings come from?

We have the free will to choose. We are also impregnated with the knowledge of what is right or what is wrong.

If we choose to do wrong we "unless we are mental in some way" we know we are doing wrong. But how?

Because it is part of our design. A design like that could only come from a God.

This is my humble opinion as a man who believes in God.

I believe we have evil in the world because some with a free will use it to their end.

It comes down to morels, a simple matter of what is right and wrong towards others.

We don't have an answer as the why there is evil in the world. Even the Biblical literalist can't explain it. They can talk about Lucifer and pride and fall, but that does not answer why. We can talk about free will, but that does not answer why we have the free will to harm others.

I'm sorry, but I automatically distrust those that say they have these kind of answers.

The reasons things happen can be due to our actions and inactions.

In the case of the young girl, who had not yet been empowered to sense such danger, suffered as a result of the bad actions of others and possibly the inactions of those responsible for her empowerment and well being.

You know, there are many metaphysical teachings that believe that we ( our souls) choose events in our life before we even incarnate on earth. These teachings also believe that we choose the time and manner of our death, any illnesses that may afflict us, even that we may die as a victim of a murder.

These teachings do not believe that God causes these things to happen, but looks upon events as lessons that our soul has chosen for the purpose of growth and evolution.

Who's to say that these teachings aren't correct.

I think in the case of the road accidents, they did occur for reasons.

Those who were unfortunately killed did not use their free will to think about the possible results of their actions.

There are reasons why illness occurs. They are not willed by anyone, they are there waiting to attack the weak. If we learn the reason why they exist we have some chance of stopping the spread. Cancer is a sad example. Everyone is looking for a cure. Not enough are looking to eliminate it.

I am absolutely amazed that some of you think that the laws of physics do not belong to God. God has constructed reality so that there is a causality, and an effect as a result. The gravitational constant did not just happen...unless you are an atheist. If your are, I agree with you, that the laws of physics just happed as a result of the initial chaos created within the first milliseconds after the Big Bang.

Now, if you are theist and believe that the Big Bang was a result of a divine command like "Let there be light." Then I agree with you that reality and the laws of physics were constructed by God.

What I don't agree with is the implication that this is an either/or premise. How arrogant it is of us to put it that way, as if we had analyzed the universe and transcendental nature of God and decided that this is the way it is or that it is the way it is.

Does that notion come from the fact that we have a right brain and left brain and tend to put things in an either/or construct.

Although the following point moves from the physical nature of reality or our perception of such, to the spiritual, it can illustrate the same principle.

Once there was a very wise and intelligent spiritual man called Jesus. Many believe that he was God personified. Whatever, he was, I challenge you to point out where when asked a yes/no or either/or question, that he answered with a yes or no.

He did not because the issues and condition of humanity could not be answered that way. He may have responded with another question, or a parable, or a scolding. But he never said yes or no to the questions.

I urge all of us to be leery of staking out positions in that way. Taking to the logical extreme it leads to a fundamentalism that can justify anything, including murder, because someone works in an abortion clinic for example.

It was pretedermined that this thread would eventually become about Mexican food. Every thread happens for a reason. Sometimes that reason is very stupid - but it's still a reason.