Let me begin with a confession: I honestly don’t know what to make of the “miracle of the sun” that occurred in Fatima, Portugal, on October 13, 1917, and that was witnessed by a crowd of 70,000 people (although a few people in the crowd saw nothing) and also by people who were more than 10 kilometers away from Fatima at the time, as well as by sailors on a British ship off the coast of Portugal. On the other hand, no astronomical observatory recorded anything unusual at the time.
Rather than endorsing a particular point of view, I have decided to lay the facts before my readers, and let them draw their own conclusions.
Here are some good links, to get you started.
Neutral accounts of the visions and the “solar miracle” at Fatima:
Our Lady of Fatima (Wikipedia article: describes the visions leading up to the solar miracle). Generally balanced.
Miracle of the Sun (Wikipedia article). Discusses critical explanations of the miracle, and points out that people both in Fatima and the nearby town of Alburitel were expecting some kind of solar phenomenon to occur on October 13, 1917: some had even brought along special viewing glasses. Also, the solar miracle on October 13 was preceded by some bizarre celestial phenomena witnessed by bystanders at the preceding vision on September 13, including “a dimming of the sun to the point where the stars could be seen, and a rain resembling iridescent petals or snowflakes that disappeared before touching the ground.” In short: the “solar miracle” of October 13, 1917 didn’t come entirely as a bolt from the blue.
The Fatima Prophecies by Stephen Wagner, Paranormal Phenomena Expert. Updated April 10, 2016.
Catholic, pro-miracle accounts:
Meet the Witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun by John Haffert. Spring Grove, Pennsylvania: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, 1961. John M. Haffert is a co-founder of the Blue Army of Fatima. He interviewed dozens of witnesses of the solar miracle at Fatima, and carefully records their testimonies in his book.
The True Story of Fatima by Fr. John de Marchi. St. Paul, Minnesota: Catechetical Guild Educational Society, 1956. Fr. de Marchi is an acknowledged expert on Fatima, whose account is based on the testimony of the seers, members of their families, and other acquaintances.
The Sixth Apparition of Our Lady. A short article containing eyewitness recollections, from the EWTN Website Celebrating 100 years of Fatima. (Very well-produced and easy to navigate.)
The Apparitions at Fatima. A short account of the visions and the solar miracle.
Catholic attempts to rebut skeptical debunkings of the solar miracle at Fatima:
Debunking the Sun Miracle Skeptics by Mark Mallett, a Canadian Catholic evangelist and former TV reporter. The author’s tone is irenic, and he evaluates the evidence fairly. His blog is well worth having a look at.
Ten Greatest (And Hilarious) Scientific Explanations for Miracle at Fatima by Matthew Archbold. National Catholic Register. Blog article. March 27, 2011. Rather polemical and sarcastic in tone.
Why the solar miracle couldn’t have been a hallucination:
Richard Dawkins And The Miracle Of Sun by Donal Anthony Foley. The Wanderer, Saturday, November 5, 2016. Makes the telling point that it was seen by sailors on a passing ship, who knew nothing about the visions.
A Catholic account by a scientist-priest who thinks that the “miracle” was a natural meteorological phenomenon, but that the coincidence between the timing of this natural event and the vision can only have a supernatural explanation:
Miracle of the Sun and an Air Lens (Theory of Father Jaki) by Dr. Taylor Marshall. Blog article. “Fr Jaki suggests that an ‘air lens’ of ice crystals formed above the Cova in Portugual. This lens would explain how the sun ‘danced’ at Fatima, but not over the whole earth. Thus, it was a local phenomenon that was seen at the Cova, and by others who were not present with the three children of Fatima within a 40 mile radius.” An air lens would also explain how the muddy and wet ground at the site of the apparitions suddenly dried up, after the miracle.
God and the Sun at Fatima by Fr. Stanley Jaki. Real View Books, 1999. Reviewed by Martin Kottmeyer. See also the attached footnote by Joaquim Fernandes, Center for Transdisciplinary Study on Consciousness, University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal, who argues that on the contrary, it was a UFO.
A Catholic, “anti-miracle” account by a scientist who thinks it was an optical illusion:
Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun by Professor Auguste Meessen, Institute of Physics, Catholic Univeristy of Louvain, Belgium. Paper given at the International Forum in Porto, “Science, Religion and Conscience,” October 23-25, 2003. Excerpt:
“So-called “miracles of the sun” were observed, for instance, in Tilly-sur-Seuilles (France, 1901), Fatima (Portugal, 1917), Onkerzeele (Belgium, 1933), Bonate (Italy, 1944), Espis (France, 1946), Acquaviva Platani (Italy, 1950), Heroldsbach (Germany, 1949), Fehrbach (Germany, 1950), Kerezinen (France, 1953), San Damiano (Italy, 1965), Tre Fontane (Italy, 1982) and Kibeho (Rwanda, 1983). They have been described by many witnesses and from their reports we can extract the following characteristic features, appearing successively.
“· A grey disc seems to be placed between the sun and the observer, but a brilliant rim of the solar disc is still apparent…
· Beautiful colours appear after a few minutes on the whole surface of the solar disc, at its rim and in the surrounding sky. These colours are different, however, and they change in the course of time…
· The sun begins to ‘dance’. First, the solar disk rotates about its centre at a uniform and rather high velocity (about 1 turn/s). Then the rotation stops and starts again, but now it is opposite to the initial one. Suddenly, the solar disk seems to detach itself from the sky. It comes rapidly closer, with increasing size and brilliancy. This causes great panic, since people think that the end of the world has come, but the sun retreats. It moves backwards until it has again its initial appearance…
· Finally, after 10 or 15 minutes, the sun is ‘normal’ again: its luminosity is too strong to continue gazing at it. But after about another quarter of an hour, the prodigy can be repeated in the same way…
“…It is shown that the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial intervention is not sufficient to explain all observed facts, while this is possible in terms of natural, but very peculiar physiological processes. The proof results from personal experiments and reasoning, based on relevant scientific literature.
“…Dr. J.B. Walz, a university professor of theology, collected over 70 eye-witness reports of the ‘miracle of the sun’ that occurred in Heroldsbach [an ecclesiastically condemned apparition – VJT] on December 8, 1949. These documents disclose some individual differences in perception, including the fact that one person saw the sun approaching and receding three times, while most witnesses saw this only two times! The ‘coloured spheres’ that were usually perceived after the breathtaking ‘dance of the sun’ are simply after-images, but they were not recognized as such, since the context of these observations suggested a prodigious interpretation.
“…The general conclusion is that apparitions and miracles of the sun cannot be taken at face value. There are natural mechanisms that can explain them, but they are so unusual that we were not aware of them. Miracles of the sun result from neurophysiological processes in our eyes and visual cortex, while apparitions involve more complex processes in our mind’s brain. The seers are honest, but unconsciously, they put themselves in an altered state of consciousness. This is possible, since our brain allows for ‘dissociation’ and for ‘switching’ from one type of behaviour to another.”
Meessen’s own explanation of the miracle as an optical illusion is based on experiments which he performed on himself, while looking at the sun under carefully controlled conditions (so as not to damage his eyes). However, I should point out that Meessen’s exposure to the sun’s optical effects was fairly short in duration (30 seconds), whereas the solar miracle at Fatima lasted far longer (over 10 minutes) and didn’t damage any of the spectators’ eyes.
Catholic blogger Mark Mallett also points out: “Professor Meesen’s logic further falls apart by stating that the dancing effects of the sun were merely the result of retinal after-images. If that were the case, then the miracle of the sun witnessed at Fatima should be easily duplicated in your own backyard.”
However, Meessen does a good job of debunking the “UFO hypothesis”: he points out that had it been a UFO covering the sun, it could not have been seen 40 kilometers away. Also, at least some witnesses would have reported seeing a “partial eclipse,” but none ever did.
A paranormal explanation of the solar miracle at Fatima:
The First Alien Contact And UFO Sighting Of The 20th Century by Tob Williams. Blog article. April 10, 2011. Updated June 18, 2016.
The Fatima UFO hypothesis by Lon Strickler. February 11, 2012.
https://www.paranormalnews.com/article.aspx?id=1562
“Live Science” debunking of the solar miracle:
The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun by Benjamin Radford. May 2, 2013. Ascribes the miracle to “an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God,” which, “if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” Also suggests that mass hysteria and pareidolia can explain some features of the visions.
Skeptic Benjamin Radford on the Fátima Miracle by Dr. Stacy Trasancos. A response to Radford’s debunking. Points out that plenty of dispassionate observers at Fatima also reported seeing the sun move. Promotes Fr. Stanley L. Jaki’s carefully researched book on Fatima. Acknowledges that there may be a scientific explanation for what happened with the sun that day, but argues that this doesn’t explain the timing of the event, and why it coincided with the visions.
Virulently anti-Fatima accounts:
Solar Miracle of Fatima and
Fraud at Fatima. The author places too much reliance on discredited sources, such as Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident by Portuguese UFOlogist Joachim Fernandes (critically reviewed here by Edmund Grant). The author also tries to argue, unconvincingly, that only half the people at Fatima actually witnessed the miracle, whereas in fact there were only a few people who saw nothing. See Jaki, Stanley L. (1999). God and the Sun at Fátima, Real View Books, pp. 170–171, 232, 272. The author is right in pointing out, however, that Lucia’s own published account of her visions at Fatima is highly retrospective (being written over 20 years after the event) and contains a lot of added material. Also, the seers didn’t all see the same thing: Lucia, for instance, saw Our Lady’s lips move while she was speaking, while Francisco (who saw Our Lady but never heard her speak), didn’t see Our Lady’s lips moving – a point acknowledged by Fr. de Marchi (see above). Finally, some of the prophecies associated with Fatima turned out to be false.
My own take:
Given the evidence that the solar miracle was witnessed by passing sailors and also seen at several different locations within a 40-kilometer radius of Fatima, I cannot simply dismiss it as a hallucination. Professor Meessen’s arguments (discussed above) appear to rule out the possibility that it was a UFO. The theory that it was an optical illusion founders on the fact that nobody reported any damage to their eyes, subsequent to the miracle. The hypothesis that it was a natural, local meteorological phenomenon sounds promising, but the fortuitous timing of the “miracle” (which coincided with the seers’ visions) would still point to supernatural intervention of some sort. Finally, if it was really a miracle, then one has to ask: what, exactly, was the miracle? After all, no law of Nature was broken: no-one seriously suggests that the Sun actually hurtled towards the Earth, as witnesses reported. The notion of God messing with people’s senses sounds pretty strange, too: why would He do that? On the other hand, the testimony of 70,000 witnesses is very impressive, and the event clearly meant something … but what? Beats me.
Over to you.
FMM,
“1) By what authority do you presume to judge God?”
Why do I need any authority. I judge peoples actions all the time. So do you. Why should God exempt from this?
“2) Do you honestly think there is no possible reason to justify his allowing these things?”
Of course there is. He can justify these things if he is a sick sadistic bastard. I thought I was clear on that.
“3) Why do you think God is obliged to explain himself to someone who has already prejudged him like you just did?”
There is no pre-judgement going on here. I am judging his past actions. Keep in mind, deciding not to act is still an act. I would think that someone who claims to be all-loving would feel obliged to explain himself if people are mis-understanding his justifications. A sick sadistic bastard, on the other hand, would never feel obliged to explain himself, and wouldn’t expect him to.
“4) Do you really think that there is vastly more bad than good in the universe? In your own life?”
Bad and good are subjective.
“5) Did you listen to the musical interlude? 😉”
Nope.
But those are just the figures we’d expect if Christianity spread by genetic drift alone.
There’s something called the observable universe, and it’s named that for a reason. Beyond that we don’t know what is happening. So we don’t “observe the universe expanding.” For all we know it’s collapsing. We just can’t see that far.
peace out
We’re supposed to be dogmatic VJT. We’re not supposed to be capable of changing our minds. Theism forbids it, or so the story goes.
As someone who must care about justice.
No one can really help it while being a psychologically healthy person, so if God is responsible for us, he’s clearly made us to judge him as well.
Glen Davidson
Hi everyone,
I’ve found that there appears to have been only one lady present at the “solar miracle” at Fatima who saw nothing. She is discussed in the online article that I dug up recently:
I’ve also got the text of reports by some people who witnessed the “solar miracle” from a distance: http://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/whole-truth-fatima/10-the-dance-of-the-sun-october-13/#VIII_THE_VISION_OF_THE_SOLAR_PRODIGY_AT_A_DISTANCE
One historian who has investigated the visions of Fatima very carefully thinks that they are based on a fraud. His book is titled, Fatima. Enquête sur une Imposture (Fatima : Investigation into a Fraud), Alain Moreau publications, 1977. The historian’s name is Gerard de Sede. See here for a hostile review of his book: http://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/whole-truth-fatima/13-the-rationalist-solution-of-gerard-de-sede/ . I have to concede that even on a charitable interpretation, de Sede’s evidence demonstrates that Lucia, the eldest seer, suffered from a very unreliable memory, especially when writing her book on Fatima, 25 years after the visions. However, de Sede spends only three pages of his book on Fatima discussing the “solar miracle,” which he dismisses rather glibly:
As we’ve seen, this isn’t a good explanation, as it fails to account for sightings of the miracle several kilometers away. But there’s a much better explanation, which I’ve settled on as the most likely, after sifting the evidence. To be continued…
Hi everyone,
I’ve just located an article by Dr. Stacey Trasancos titled, Fr. Stanley Jaki on the Fátima Miracle, in which she quotes from his book, A Mind’s Matter: An Intellectual Autobiography (Cambridge U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), Chapter 13 “A Portuguese Proverb.” Here’s how he summarizes his extensive research into the solar miracle at Fatima:
Whatever one thinks of Fr. Jaki’s theological interpretation of the events narrated, the specificity of his model regarding the events seen at Fatima beats rival models hands down. For that reason, I’m inclined to think it’s superior to Professor Meessen’s “optical illusion” model. As for the view that it was a collective hallucination, I should inform readers that the evidence for such hallucinations is very flimsy: http://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/whole-truth-fatima/10-the-dance-of-the-sun-october-13/#APPENDIX_I_THE_MYTH_OF_COLLECTIVE_HALLUCINATION
To sum up: I’m going to cast a vote for Fr. Jaki’s meteorological model of the “solar miracle.” How would other people be inclined to vote? Which model do you favor?
It seems a pretty good conjecture. It’s obvious that weather was making a difference, with the sun apparently in a haze (pale), which is why it didn’t burn eyes (apparently not many, if any), and strange phenomena do appear in the skies after all.
Still, I wouldn’t want to latch onto one idea as if it’s the answer. In historic cases like these it’s difficult to reconstruct what happened faithfully, mainly because anything like it seems to occur rarely, at most.
Glen Davidson
“Mysterious ways.” The Get Out of Jail Free card of theism.
Moved one comment to Guano. Please address the content, not the commenter.
Often, the “mysterious ways” gambit will appear right after a believer has given you great detail about how God thinks, acts, and what he wants of us.
I agree, it logically impossible detect light traveling for longer than the time since the BigBang.
If only there was something like the Doppler effect for light, it might be useful for detection the direction objects( in the observable universe) are moving relative to our position. Maybe Hubble’s Law would be a good name for certain regularities observed.
Now if all this was magically possible perhaps one might say these objects could be receding into empty space,of course that would not be without complications.
Not unlike atheism, where “it just happened, that’s all.” I fail to see the difference.
You realize, don’t you, that this is not an observation that the universe is expanding.
Do you need me to explain it to you or can you figure it out on your own.
I really like the books by Stanley L. Jaki.
“but test everything; hold fast what is good.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21 ESV
I’m not saying that the author might not hold God to be an exception to that (saying that God is the standard or some such question-begging assertion), but you can’t really state an apparently proper epistemic principle and then reasonably claim that some entity or other fails to be included in “everything.”
The principle is stated in the Bible, so there’s really no excuse for Christians not to judge the alleged God’s goodness.
Glen Davidson
Not being god and not being privy to god’s thoughts, we are judging assertions made by humans. People who have been abused as children to the point where they cannot probe and question what they have been taught are not able to see that lots of conflicting claims have been made about god.
I happen to think that the universe is a pretty good place to be and while it’s not perfect it could definitely be a lot worse.
I definitely would not say that the creator of this universe was sadistic.
Is my opinion just as valid as yours?
peace
Of course not. That’s crazy talk. 🙂
FMM: “I happen to think that the universe is a pretty good place to be…”
Do you have anything to compare to? Personally, I find air a pretty good thing to breath. And food a pretty good thing to eat. Thank you Captain Obvious.
Who said any thing about “mysterious ways”? I’m only asking if it’s possible that God has his reasons. It’s not about God it’s about your qualifications for being his judge.
Is there any way ever that God could be justified in allowing evil to exist? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. Of course it’s possible but Acartia can’t even conceive of any possible way that God could not be a sick sadistic bastard.
It’s clear that someone who can’t even conceive of extenuating circumstances has demonstrated that they can’t judge a case impartially.
As far as God’s actual reasons that’s another topic all together.
peace
fmm,
No, as an ‘Eliza’ type computer program it is not possible for you to hold opinions, unless you call a state an opinion.
bzzz click whirr
But you just said that the God who gives you breath and food is a sadistic bastard. Do you honestly think it would it be better if he denied you these things?
Clearly, he is not all bad correct?
Would you say life is 80% bad and just a little good or would you say all and all the good outweighs the bad?
If I don’t neither do you. But you just concluded that the universe was so bad that the only possible conclusion was that it’s creator was a sick sadistic bastard.
Clearly you are claiming some sort of knowledge as to these things.
If you don’t have any thing to compare your experience with how can you presume to judge it’s value or the moral culpability of it’s creator?
IOW by what authority do you presume to judge?
peace
Mung,
Care to take a stand on if the universe is expanding or collapsing then? Is that your final answer, we can never know as just around the corner everything may change?
No wonder you lot are so obsessed with miracles.
I don’t think that is right.
If there was a violation of natural law we would see the universe expanding on Monday from Paris but see it contracting at the same time from Berlin,
Or we might see one galaxy being effected by dark energy while another was not.
Our ability to verify that the universe is expanding is yet another confirmation that the laws of nature are universal and consistent.
Just because we are some times surprised at what we find when we look at the universe with better instruments its not evidence that the Laws are inconsistent it’s evidence that different measuring devices are needed to observe at different resolution.
peace
I can’t see how they could be more that 100% consistent and universal. which is what they are.
I think it is very atypical at least when it comes to possible universes. that is the point.
But why from the Atheist’s perspective should anything be consistent at all? let alone so darn over the top generously consistent?
again we are not talking about run of the mill stability we are talking about 100% consistency and universality. Surely that sort of abundance is overkill from the perspective of an atheist.
Why would they not be possible given the atheist paradigm?
Is there something other that God that compels the production of universes with an overly generous bounty of consistency for no known reason? Just because
peace
Sure. We don’t know. It’s not possible for us to observe “the universe.”
Care to tell all the rest of us ignorant rubes how big the universe is and how to measure it’s size? Also, why is the visible universe not the same as the universe?
When we look at light from distant galaxies we are looking at the past. Maybe the universe was expanding once.
Imagine that. Me teaching OMagain basic science. What is the universe coming to.
God is Good so to hold fast to the Good is to hold fast to God.
Do you have all the information necessary to make that sort of judgement?
A toddler might judge the adult who sticks him with a needle to be a sick sadistic bastard but that is only because he does not understand that immunizations are a good thing and painful needle pricks are justified to save him from a horrible disease,
A intelligent crumb cruncher on the other hand realizes that he does not know everything and trusts that his loving parents would not hurt him if there were not a good reason.
peace
Sky daddy springs to mind
Be careful, folks around here are in a judgeing mood and I don’t see any reason you can’t judge a mind by what springs to it 😉
peace
Perhaps that’s because we evolved to fit in.
If that’s all there is to it how do you explain why we feel like it should be better?
quote:
For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
(Heb 11:14-16)
end quote:
peace
Maybe because everything wasn’t designed so intelligently?
You walked right into that one.
I predict yet another “mysterious ways” comment coming up.
Is that supposed to be a serious question?
The world didn’t evolve to fit us. Rather, we evolved to fit the world. Of course there are ways that we could wish the world were better.
Why would organisms evolved to compete for resources actually compete for resources?
Um, seems kind of obvious. But to spell it out for those missing the obvious, one might aim for something better to reduce pain, danger, threat of famine, to improve mating opportunities, etc. You know, sort of what organisms evolved to do.
Glen Davidson
There is no difference in outcomes. There is a difference in parsimony.
Life is complicated enough. Eliminate the superfluous.
Apparently not, please explain it.
And when that toddler grows up and realises the adult could have immunised him in a totally painless fashion – well, he’s likely going to be furious.
FMM, the ‘greater good’
argumentexcuse simply does not work when the subject is God.For finite beings like ourselves things such as invasive operations, debilitating treatments, military action….etc are all ‘necessary evils’ – but only because we have no other solution. If we could cure a childs heart disease without the trauma of ripping the chest open WE WOULD. But until we discover less gruesome ways to fix our problems we are stuck with these ‘necessary evils’.
God, being infinite in power, has no such excuse.
Whatever outcome God desires he can bring it about – with either as little or as much suffering as he wishes. Unlike us finite, ignorant beings God does not need to perform X in order to bring about Y.
Therefore any suffering that God causes or ‘allows to happen’ is entirely gratuitous.
The same as my qualifications to judge any fictitious character — read the books and see how the character is written and how the character arc evolves. The god described in the bible is more than a bit of a dick.
ok, sure. Always willing to help.
You “observe” receding galaxies. You infer that this means the universe is expanding. But it doesn’t follow at all that the universe is expanding. That’s just a basic error in reasoning. It’s illogical. Irrational even. Anti-skeptical.
“…the wavelength of photons propagating through the expanding space is stretched, creating the cosmological redshift.”
The light from the most distant galaxies has been traveling for a long time before it reaches us. Basically we’re looking at the past when we see it. Even if the universe was expanding in the past it doesn’t follow that it is still expanding.
Plus, as I said before, there’s so much of the universe that you cannot even see, that you can’t observe that it is currently expanding. The claim that you can observe that the universe is expanding is pure nonsense.
Great author though.
If you’re into bipolar murderous psychopaths that is.
Some of the people who contributed to it were overly fond of begats. A decent editor could have condensed it to a novella with far fewer internal contradictions.
Ignoring of course the example gave you , fine, how do know they are universal?
No idea what that means but I am sure I would disagree in some possible universe.
Everyone in Texas does not have the same perspective, it is the same with atheists.
If you know it is 100% you know how to measure consistency. How?
You seem so sure , I want to think you have some basis for that. Don’t disappoint me.
Since many of your definitions are idiosyncratic, could you lay out this atheist paradigm? Thanks.
That is a symphony of illogic. Bravo
peace
So Erik was right about you all along. You put scripture in the genre of fiction. And then you blame others when you misread it. tsk tsk Patrick.
FMM: “Acartia can’t even conceive of any possible way that God could not be a sick sadistic bastard.”
Sure I could. He wouldn’t we a sick, sadistic bastard if he decided to get off his ass and prevent children from getting cancer. If he had have decided to prevent the holocaust. If he would stop nut-jobs from doing mass killings in schools, or theatres, or gay night clubs.
Since we’re judging folks, I have some confessions to make.
I have not given away everything to help cancer research so that cancer in kids can be prevented, and I guess that makes me a sick sadistic bastard.
I also didn’t do anything to prevent the holocaust, and I guess that makes me a sick sadistic bastard.
Never did anything to prevent a mass killing either. I’m an SSB.
I hope you all can forgive me.
Acartia,
Another evolutionist looking for a world with immortality and no choices.
I would also like to confess that I did not do anything to punish Mung for not doing anything to prevent a mass killing because I thought he should not be punished for an evil that he did not himself do.
I wish you all could forgive me but I guess you won’t because apparently only a SSB would even attempt to justify such a lack of action to prevent evil.
peace
To be completely honest, I probably could have done nothing to prevent the holocaust, but think of all those people who could have and didn’t. IMO, the whole human race is a bunch of SSB’s. If God wants to prevent evil he’d need to kill us all off. But then, he said he’d never do that again. We should probably be thankful.