Well, I would say “Thank God it’s Friday”, but I am working tomorrow, exclusis improvisis, and so it’s not the last day of the work week, which is what people are generally celebrating when they say, “Thank God it’s Friday”.
I suppose that tomorrow I could say, “Thank God it’s Saturday” as a replacement expression. It’s a bit more cumbersome, but at least it would be sort of appropriate, since in Judaism, Saturday is Shabbat. Then again, if one is an observant Jew, one does not work on Saturday. Well, I guess if one is a rabbi or a cantor technically one works on Saturday, but that’s a whole nother* thing.
As for the thanking of any deity for the fact of it being Friday (or any other day), it seems gratuitous, because the days of the week and how we order them and what we do on specific ones seems very much a purely human convention. It doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that a god would arrange specifically, and certainly not for individual people. After all, when it’s Friday for me, it’s Friday for everyone else, barring those far enough away for the clock to roll over and such.
Of course, I suppose, if there really were a God, and if that God were, as is generally described in the Abrahamic religions, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then God would be literally responsible for everything, including every action and choice that any and all humans ever make. So, it wouldn’t be absurd in that case to thank God for the fact of Friday, but it would also be reasonable to say, “Screw God, it’s Monday”.
If God can be given credit for all good things, then God must bear the blame for all bad things. There is no other logical possibility as far as I can see.
I am open to being convinced otherwise, of course, but please spare me any trite and transparently nonsensical excuses like the whole “free will” thing or blaming Satan (or some other, similar entity) for the bad stuff. If people have free will‒a fairly nonsensical notion in and of itself, at least as far as the so-called libertarian** free will as imagined by some in the Abrahamic faiths goes‒then God is not omnipotent, and cannot really even be omniscient.
As for the whole “blaming Satan” thing, well, did God not create Satan? Who is to blame if Satan is faulty? Likewise, who is to blame if humans are faulty? If they were made by an omnipotent and omniscient being, along with everything else in the universe, then that being is the only one that can possibly be held ultimately responsible.
Of course, one could claim that Satan (or Ahriman or whoever) was not created by God, but came into existence separately. That at least is more logically consistent (and somewhat more interesting) than the alternative, but it also inescapably implies that God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient (and it raises questions about the omnipresence thing as well, for where was such a God when its antagonist came into being?).
Of course, it’s all pretty much nonsense, though some of it can be entertaining. We could replace “God” with Eru/Iluvatar and “Satan” with Morgoth and lose nothing from the above discussion. Actually, the latter two are slightly more honest, for in the very first chapter of The Silmarillion, Iluvatar plainly and openly says that Melkor (aka Morgoth) can do nothing that does not have its uttermost source in Him (Eru/Iluvatar). Neither can anyone else. But of course, Tolkien was smarter, or at least better educated, than the men who wrote the Bible and other similar religious works.
An interesting (to me) aside: the name Lucifer (“light-bearer”) referred initially to the morning star, and is referenced only thus in the “old testament”, though apparently there was some snark involved, since it was a taunt toward the King of Babylon, or so I am led to understand. But of course, the morning star is the same astronomical body as the evening star (Eärendil in Tolkien’s world), both of which are actually the planet Venus, just at different times in its relative orbit.
Also interesting is the fact that Venus, supposedly representing the Goddess of Love, is the most hellish place in the solar system, with crushing surface pressure, searing heat, suffocating carbon dioxide atmosphere, and even sulfuric acid rain. Maybe that’s appropriate for the Goddess of Love; love can be corrosive and crushing and searing and even suffocating a lot of the time.
It is funny that the same planet can have come to represent evil (Lucifer) and great good (Eärendil) depending on the story, and also that it can represent love while being the most hellish (though not the deadliest) planet in the solar system. I don’t think the dichotomy or contradiction or whatever you want to call it has any deep meaning about the nature of the cosmos, or even the solar system, but it does say something about the nature of humans and their myths.
Anyway, if I haven’t irreparably offended you with the preceding, I hope you’ll look forward to my post for tomorrow, which I will be writing, exclusis improvisis. It’s not as though you can look back to it, at least not today.
*I wonder if “a whole nother” counts as tmesis, the insertion of a word in the middle of another in order to add emphasis, e.g., abso-friggin-lutely.
**Not to be confused with the political ideology of Libertarianism.
