Posted on 01/17/2010 8:50:17 AM PST by OneVike
After the Earthquake that devastated Haiti, Pat Robertson was accused of saying that God was punishing Haiti because of the evil practices of its people. At first I must admit that I cringed and even stated that he was out of line and the statement was ignorant on his part, especially when the Scriptures go directly against such foolish beliefs. Then I looked into what Pat actually said, and found this statement put out by CBN:
"Pat Robertson's comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God's wrath. If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson's compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. CBN
So Pat Robertson did not say what he was accused of saying, yet I still have a problem with the so called scholars whom he quoted and it is their belief that I want to address today. I must question how well learned these scholars are for making such a claim. After all, a simple reading of the encounter that Abraham had when he was visited by three angels on their way to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah should be enough to dispel such nonsense. 16Genesis 18:16:33 God was willing to spare the whole of Sodom and Gomorrah if, as Abraham pleaded, He found 10 righteous individuals. Well, God did not find 10 righteous people and so, destroyed both cities. Regardless of how evil the men of Sodom were, God was willing to spare them. I could probably list many of the evils things that have been going on in Haiti, from their supposed deal with the devil in 1791 all the way up their current practices of Voodoo. However, I could probably find and list the names of Haitians who practice their Christian beliefs as good or even better then many Christians I know in America. That would be hundreds of times the number of people God was looking for to spare Sodom and Gomorrah.
What many Christians fail to understand is that God did not target the people of Haiti for their sinful ways no more then He specifically targeted Indonesia in 2004 when it was devastated by a tsunami, or America on September 11, 2001. I can think of a certain few cities in America that are just as evil in God's eyes, if not more so, because they have more access to the truth than many people in Haiti do. Last time I looked San Francisco is still among the cities of America.
Furthermore, we live in a dispensation of time that was ushered in by Christ. This new dispensation makes each individual person responsible for his own sin. There is no corporate punishment for countries or societies like there was in the Old Testament times. Other than the final judgment that is spoken of in Revelation when God will finally judges all mankind, there is no such thing as God punishing nations. Like it or not that is a fact. Christ came as the Lamb of God the first time to usher in His church and die for our sins. The next time He comes it will be with a sword, and He will Usher in His Kingdom.
Now as far as disasters are concerned, it's easy to think of nature as serene and safe--the way that many people who enjoy the comforts of the modern world experience it. We in America are used to nature when and how we like it. But natural disasters are faith-shakers. It may be that we in the west should ask why we do not suffer more faith strengthening natural disasters. Katrina should have been a faith building disaster, but we allowed too many to use it for political purposes and in the process too few realized the moment to trust fully in God as they should have. We would be wise to study the actions of the early Christians who suffered many tragedies for their faith. For them, suffering was not a metaphysical problem needing a solution but a practical challenge needing a response of faith. Apparently it never occurred to them to question their belief in God or his goodness because they were unjustly suffering from either man made or natural disasters. Rather, their faith gave them direction in the face of persecution and general misfortune. God did not cause the earthquake nor did he step in to stop it, because he expects us to use those moments of trouble to look to Him.
There will come a time when we will all collectively be tested by persecution and tragedies because of mankind's sin, but depending on what your understanding of the end times is, the way, and time will happen when God is ready. Ones understanding of how and when the end will come has no bearing upon the salvation of ones soul. Acceptance of Jesus as your Lord and Savior will save you, not your understanding of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
So in conclusion, I would advise any and all Christians to refrain from claiming God is targeting any population of people for the corporate sin of their society as some have erroneously claimed.
I pray that those who have ears to hear will hear His voice and call upon the name of the lord Jesus Christ.
Amen
bttt
Thanks for the ping!
I hear an old George Carlin skit coming on, "Why do you never hear 'Jesus made me fumble at the line of scrimmage!'"
Haiti is easy for me to explain: Nature is indifferent. The earthquake would have happened had there been the perfect Christian colony on it, had it been run by Satanists, or had it been empty.
Go back one step. God gave us the choice and, being omniscient and eternal, knew how we would choose and knew what the consequences of that would be in the end. Remember, God knew at the time of Adam, before the Apple, that some years later he would be killing everybody in the world except for Noah and his family.
This has been a problem for a long time. Ascribing to your deity the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and pure benevolence conflicts with the bad in the world. Strike any one of those three and there is no more conflict. It required some pretty torturous logic to attempt to reconcile all three.
This reminds me of that hurricane that was supposed to hit "gay days" celebrations in Florida, and Pat was all over it as God's wraith against gays.
Then the hurricane took a right turn and slammed into Pat's Virginia headquarters. Oops. Now it was just a natural disaster, not judgment from God.
This seems to be a verse no one wants to come to terms with, it's so clear that disasters are used as punishments and calls to repentance.
For those interested, from Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition on this passage:
Ver. 2.
Sinners, &c. People are naturally inclined to believe, that those who are unfortunate, and afflicted with calamities, must likewise be culpable and impious. The Jews were very much given to these sentiments, as we see in many places of Scripture; John ix. 2 and 3. Our Saviour wishes to do away with this prejudice, by telling them that the Galileans, who are here spoken of, were not the most culpable among the inhabitants of that country; shewing by this, that God often spares the most wicked, and sends upon the good the most apparent signs of vengeance, that he may exercise the patience, and crown the merit of the latter, and give to the former an example of the severity which they must expect, if they continue in their disorders. Neither can it be said, that in this God commits any injustice. He uses his absolute dominion over his creatures, when he afflicts the just; he procures them real good, when he strikes them; and his indulgence towards the wicked, is generally an effect of his mercy, which waits for their repentance, or sometimes the consequences of his great anger, when he abandons them to the hardness of their reprobate hearts, and says, "I will rest, and be angry with you no longer." (Ezechiel, Chap. xvi. 42.) This is the most terrible mark of his final fury. (Calmet)
Ver. 3.
This prediction of our Saviour upon the impenitent was afterwards completely verified; for Josephus informs us, that under the government of Cumanus, 20,000 of them were destroyed about the temple. (Jewish Antiquities, lib. xx, chap. 4.) That upon the admission of the Idumeans into the city, 8,500 of the high priest's party were slain, insomuch that there was a flood of blood quite round the temple. (The Jewish War, lib. iv, chap. 7.) That in consequence of the threefold faction that happened in Jerusalem before the siege of the Romans, the temple was every where polluted with slaughter; the priests were slain in the exercise of their functions; many who came to worship, fell before their sacrifices; the dead bodies of strangers and natives were promiscuously heaped together, and the altar defiled with their blood. (The Jewish War, lib. vi, chap. 1.) That upon the Romans taking possession of the city and temple, mountains of dead bodies were piled up about the altar; streams of blood ran down the steps of the temple; several were destroyed by the fall of towers, and others suffocated in the ruins of the galleries over the porches. (The Jewish War, lib. vii, chap. 10.)
Ver. 4. Or those eighteen, &c. The Almighty permitted these people to be thus chastised, that the others might be filled with fear and apprehension at the sight of another's dangers, and thus become the heirs of the kingdom of heaven. But then you will say, is another punished that I may become better? No; he is punished for his own crimes; but his punishment becomes to those that witness it the means of salvation. (St. Chrysostom, Concio. 3. de Lazaro.)
Ver. 5. Unless you do penance, &c. The Jews did not penance; and therefore, forty years after our Lord's Passion, the Romans came, and beginning with Galilee, destroyed this impious nation to its roots, and polluted not only the court of the temple, whither the sacrifices were carried, but the inner sanctuary, with human blood. (Ven. Bede)
Correction: Lk 13: 1-5
Which facts are you referring to?
Have a wonderful glorious day.
BINGO!!
Exactly...and whether it's Haiti or San Francisco or Kuala Lumper...nature remains indifferent!
It is benevolence, for sure, that caused Him to give us the absolute right to make the choice. WE make our OWN choices, and a sizeable number of us would make the same choice again. There are many who “don’t need no steeking “diety”.” Right?
There are even Christians who don’t realize that NO ONE is “thrown into hell” or DRAGGED into heaven. We CHOOSE and get to either on our own steam.
Thus it was God's plan that such suffering, even of innocents, would occur. If he is omniscient and eternal then he knew from the beginning every instance of suffering his plan would cause. All of that in order to let us choose, well, most of us -- the innocent victim of the earthquake didn't make any choices leading to his suffering. True, whether or not choice is worth it is a judgment call, purely subjective.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, Occam's Razor.
On one hand, we require explaining, apologetics, extensive logical exercises to reconcile the bad in the world with God's stated attributes of absolute benevolence, power and knowledge. Probably billions of words have been written and spoken in order to reconcile this, up to and including your last post (and probably thousands more around the world since then).
On the other hand we have the premise that nature (or God, if you wish) is indifferent. No explaining, no apologetics, no logical exercises required. It's simple, it is straightforward, it fully explains everything, so it is more likely true.
Yes, I tend to operate on logic and reason, not much on faith. It works well for me. If you take the Martin Luther approach that faith must "trample under foot all reason" to whatever lesser or greater extent, fine, if it works well for you. Yes, my quoting of Martin Luther is perfectly within context.
The god who created the sun which gives us light, who rouses the waves and rules the storm, though hidden in the clouds, he watches us. He sees all that the white man does. The god of the white man inspires him with the crime, but our god calls upon us to do good works. Our god who is good to us orders us to revenge our wrongs. He will direct our arms and aid us. Throw away the symbol of the god of the whites who has so often caused us to weep, and listen to the voice of liberty, which speaks in the hearts of us all.
Now I will leave that for somebody else to decide whether the above equates to a pact with the devil or whether it is calling on people to go back to their ancestoral religion.
From our perspective, an animist religion such as what they had / have equates to the same effect, but was that the intent of their action?
It seems we have a “circular argument”, to be sure. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe and neither of us will be convinced- right? You must see in order to know (you must be fun in discussions about gravity!). I have found that trying to describe a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe is a bit like trying to describe an orgasm to one who has never experienced it.
We CHOSE the pain, loss and, yes, earthquakes we experience in this life. I suspect that had the forebears known what went along with “being as gods”, they might not have been seduced by the enemy. There has to be a certain amount of security in allowing God to make all the decisions and choosing all the (unpainful) exigencies that we might have experienced. However, our pride (a singular human failing) would never have allowed it, and, I re-submit, most of humanity would make the same choice NOW. Would you prefer that God had struck Adam and Eve with lightning to keep them in the garden? He gave us free will- and we used it.
I’m sure that attributing our fate to “chance” has its appeal for some. The unsatisfying lack of explanation of nature and its laws leaves some of us decidedly more skeptical of atheism than others. I am a skeptic.
You seem like a smart guy (girl?) and I am sure you have given your atheism LOTS of thought. I am an old lady and have given my faith lots of attention. I collect degrees as a hobby, now (goes with being retired and having time on my hands!) and I find that the more I learn, the less I know. I do know this- there is something bigger and greater than us. I have chosen to believe in God and have no regrets.
BTW- I’m sure you used the Latin to impress and it worked! I am dang shure IM-pressed. Yoo sho’ gots yoo sum larn’in!
I'm always open. But I've already been on your side and decided it was not for me.
I re-submit, most of humanity would make the same choice NOW
I don't doubt it, although, you've seen the Russian communists pining for the old days. I think it's the right thing, too. However, I don't think a god can be purely benevolent and allow the suffering. Surely there is a way to give free will without the innocent suffering. If there isn't, then that is admitting that something is beyond the power of God. If there is, then God isn't doing it, thus not pure benevolence.
Given this world, infinite power, knowledge and benevolence cannot coexist. One must be less than infinite.
I’m sure you used the Latin to impress and it worked!
I wanted to define it first. After that I just think it sounds cool in the Latin. Anything sounds cool in Latin. For me it started with this line:
"What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house?"
” However, I don’t think a god can be purely benevolent and allow the suffering. Surely there is a way to give free will without the innocent suffering.”
God is benevolent and forgiving. I have been the recipient of both on more occasions than I could ever recount here. He is also capable of righteous anger, for which I don’t blame Him (at all).
What we have come to believe, and I DON’T understand, is that we have a “right” to make our decisions and NOT have to accept the consequences. It seems that this is a legacy going all the way back. Children are the only “innocents” and they are the greatest examples of our “pain and loss” choices. It doesn’t have to be an earthquake that takes your child from you and not many would want to hear that it is part and parcel of our rejection of God’s plan. We want to blame something or someone else. We have no interest in personal accountability.
We are all just so smart- too intelligent, by far, to believe in God. We are just doing it so right on our own, aren’t we? This world, outside of God’s protection, has “bear traps” set precisely with the purpose of removing us from God or, even, to foster hatred for Him. Our self-importance doesn’t even allow us to see how we are used as a means to an end. And yes, I AM speaking of the devil here ( I believe he is true as well). In the great cosmic battle, we are the purpose on one side, and ammunition on the other.
Ultimately, I believe. I know you believe you are right, also. And it’s all good. We all make our way the best that we can. I also know that my belief won’t stop bad things from happening in my life. But my faith enables me to understand and gives me hope for the life beyond this one.
“Anything sounds cool in Latin”
LOL! I agree! But the only thing I remember from my Latin (a LOT of years ago) is “agricola, agricolas, agricolorum”
Scripture teaches we are in bondage to sin unless God regenerates us.
Scripture teaches that all have sinned. IOW, no one is innocent.
I always thought that was a nice little racket. Take a person who has no idea of the concept of sin, Heaven or Hell, tell him he is a sinner destined for Hell, and then give him a way out. IOW, you provide both the problem and the solution. It's kind of like if I popped your tire and then mentioned I have a tire shop right up the street.
I don't get that either. From my POV you have a full accounting for your actions since there's no penance or confession or indulgence to wash away the guilt. There can be no forgiveness except from the person you've wronged, and if he is not so inclined, you're screwed.
Children are the only “innocents”
Nope. Original Sin. OTOH, the effect of Original Sin varies widely among Christians, so I can't say absolutely whether children could be innocent under your specific understanding.
We are just doing it so right on our own, aren’t we?
We weren't doing too well under God either. In fact, I'd think we're far better off now than in the more religious times of a few hundred years ago.
I know you believe you are right, also.
It's not quite so concrete. I don't "know" that I am right. I may be wrong. I can't claim ultimate truth because nobody knows everything. It is simply that nobody has been able to show sufficient evidence and argument to me otherwise. You can tell I'm not too into the faith thing, religious or otherwise.
LOL! I agree! But the only thing I remember from my Latin (a LOT of years ago) is “agricola, agricolas, agricolorum”
Dead Poet's Society? :)
There were some present at that very time who told [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
And He answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
Luke 13
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.