New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Monday, March 15, 2010
Home arrow News arrow Religious Right leader defends Robertson's Haiti comment
 
Religious Right leader defends Robertson's Haiti comment Print E-mail
By Bob Allen   
Thursday, January 14, 2010

VISTA, Calif. (ABP) -- As several religious leaders criticized Pat Robertson's comments blaming Haiti's massive Jan. 12 earthquake on a pact supposedly made by its people with the devil, one came out to defend him.

Gary Cass, chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, issued a statement saying that while Robertson's comments made him an "easy target" for criticism, they are essentially theologically sound.

Cass, who before taking his current job in 2007 worked three years as executive director of the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, an outreach of the late D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries, said the Bible talks of connections between historical realities and spiritual influences when it uses the terms "blessing or cursing."

Gary Cass is president and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.

Cass said the majority of Americans believe in moral causality. Eastern religious call it "karma," while Christians call it "God's providence." In that regard, he said, Robertson's comments were "well within the bounds of historic Christian theology."

Cass suggested one reason Robertson's message is so unpopular is that it forces people to face the spiritual dimension of their lives.

"As long as everything is going well we live as if we are never going to die," he said. "Then crisis hits and death slaps us in the face. Rather than humbling ourselves and searching our hearts like the Pilgrims did, we lash out at God and anyone who dares insinuate Him into our lives."

"A simple reading of the Bible shows how God uses natural disasters to further his purposes," Cass said. "Earthquakes, floods, famine, locusts, etc. they're all there, but man hates it. Rather than humbly acknowledging that God's ways are not our ways, man rails against and accuses God. The last thing they will do is cry out for his mercy in Jesus Christ."

Mohler criticizes Robertson, but affirms theology

A Southern Baptist scholar faulted Robertson for "over-claiming" the meaning of a single event, but also affirmed his theology.

"Do I believe that God punishes nations?" Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on his daily radio program Jan. 13 "You bet, the same way I know that judgment falls upon individuals."

The problem, Mohler said, is that natural disaster often falls on nations and individuals who seem to deserve it least while sparing others like Germany and the Soviet Union that exhibit a "fist-in-the face kind of sin."

"Do we know that God sovereignly rules over all things and exercises his justice and judgment over the nations?" Mohler asked. "Yes we do, but we are not in a position as human beings, as believing Christians, to say we know exactly what God is doing in a situation."

"There is a real matter of theological integrity here," Mohler said. "How do we answer those who say, 'Why did God not destroy, then, nation or community or city X, Y or Z for its apparent fist-in-the-face kind of sin -- and why on the other hand are there others that seem to suffer inordinately?'"

The answer, Mohler said is the "mystery of God's judgment." That mystery is not a question of whether or not God punishes evil, but rather that "We can not always trace his hand."
 
"It is human arrogance to over-claim on behalf of God," Mohler said. "We must be very, very careful."

"The same hurricane that destroyed all kinds of sinfulness and enclaves of paganism in New Orleans there in the French Quarter also destroyed orphanages and evangelical churches. There's just no way to make a generalization without grave, grave theological danger."

Mohler said Robertson "is absolutely correct in speaking about the sinfulness of the people of Haiti."

Mohler: Haiti 'a very dark place'

"There is no doubt that Haiti is a very dark place, where voodoo and all kinds of idolatry and all kinds of dark magic, all kinds of enslaving forms of religious belief are very prevalent," Mohler said. "It is a dark place. It has been a dark place for a long time. The poverty there is not just because the nation started off as a rather impoverished nation, but because of the behavior pattern, beliefs, that have led to a society that has been virtually ungovernable for much of its history and really has embraced so much darkness."

However, he said, Robertson could have said the same thing about every human in every country. "All of us are sinners," Mohler said. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

While Mohler accused Robertson of saying "too much" about God's plan, he also warned against saying "too little," such as denying that God's judgment is revealed in the rising and falling of nations.

"Saying too little would be refusing to say or to acknowledge that God is reigning over every single nation and every other people at every single moment," Mohler said. "Saying too much is to say, 'I know exactly what God is doing in this and why God did it.' And that just isn't given to us."

Cass said some of the religious broadcasters throwing stones at Robertson wouldn't have jobs if he had not paved the way for both religious broadcasting and political involvement by conservative evangelicals. He also reminded that Robertson's Operation Blessing humanitarian ministry has provided goods and services valued at $1.7 billion for disaster victims around the world.

According to the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission website, the group exists to "advance religious liberty for Christians by protecting Christians from defamation, discrimination, and bigotry from any and all sources."

An advisory council includes well-known conservative evangelical leaders including Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, Matthew Staver of the Liberty Counsel, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association and Rick Scarborough of Vision America.

Robertson responds to criticism

Robertson's official website posted a statement Jan. 13 clarifying that the broadcaster's comments were based on a widely discussed story from the Haitian slave rebellion in 1791 in which the rebellion's leaders allegedly made a pact with the devil in exchange for victory over their French oppressors. That history, the statement claimed, along with the fact that Haiti has experienced enormous difficulty throughout its history, has led numerous religious scholars over the years to describe the country as "cursed."

"Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God's wrath," CBN spokesman Chris Roslan said in the statement. "If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson's compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster."

Many other political and religious leaders, however, have condemned the statement roundly since Robertson uttered it Jan. 13. Asked about the comments during his Jan. 14 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded with disgust.

"It never ceases to amaze that in times of amazing human suffering somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid," he said. "But it, like clockwork, happens with some regularity."

-30-

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press. ABP Managing Editor and Washington Bureau Chief This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it   contributed to this story.

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (52)Add Comment
...
written by nwwells, January 14, 2010
quote "As long as everything is going well we live as if we are never going to die," "Then crisis hits and death slaps us in the face. Rather than humbling ourselves and searching our hearts like the Pilgrims did, we lash out at God and anyone who dares insinuate Him into our lives."
----------------------------
the fact is this is true. God judges nations and individuals alike. His curse, blessing, judgment, and kindness all alike are of his own doing however no one on this earth has the ability to predict what he does. So while trying to predict his wrath is immoral and he will be punished for being a false prophet the truth is that all will be punished for invoking God's wrath poor, rich, nation, individual, all races, sexes, and all people alike. In the bible it states that God loves everyone as they are his children but it also shows several cases where he punishes people as a whole for going against his word. One prime example is in a bible story i read as a child where the followers of moses worshiped a cow like deity and made a golden idol of it. God invoked wrath on them for doing so. Anyone see a pattern here? Of course you do, just most people can not accept what they already know to be true which is one reason im glad people like Gary Cass are around to reveal the word to people ignorant of it's meaning.
If this truly is God's judgment
written by JeffF, January 14, 2010
I quake for what is coming to us in the United States. We sold our soul to the almighty Dollar long ago.
...
written by Broadman, January 14, 2010
"[Its amazing] somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid," [Gibbs] said. "But it, like clockwork, happens with some regularity."

Indeed, kinda like the press briefings over which he daily presides.
You discredit yourself and our God
written by jbkmcd, January 14, 2010
So, help me to undertand the rules, Mr Robertson and Mr. Cass. If Timothy McVeigh and his band of militants had promised the devil that they would worship him if he would allow him to succeed in blowing up a building, then our entire nation would be cursed? Then you could happily point to every bad thing that happens with delight in supporting your vaulted position. Cool for you. But know this, it is the application of your convenient logic (or complete lack thereof) that discredits you and the people who would follow you.
Pat is right that religion matters
written by Xenophon, January 14, 2010
I do not think we can discern all of God's purposes in bringing about natural disasters, and, of course, God is sovereign and so brought this earthquake about. But what we can say is that religion matters to individuals, cultures, nations, economies, legal and political systems. Religious beliefs do not play out in a social vacuum. There is a long-track record of low-church Protestant countries, viz. Britain and its satellites including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand as well as Switzerland and the Netherlands, fostering a greater sense of personal morality and personal responsibility (but not reaching perfection), political liberty, the rule of law, social stability, and economic prosperity that is not matched by cultures shaped by other religious perspectives.

Incidentally, why are comments not being accepted on Jim Denison's recent columns?
Amen
written by Mark Osgatharp, January 14, 2010
Xenophon said:

"I do not think we can discern all of God's purposes in bringing about natural disasters, and, of course, God is sovereign and so brought this earthquake about."

He is right on both counts. Mr. Robertson is a false prophet who, when his prophecies don't pan out, just says "oops!" According to God's law he is as surely worthy of death as a practitioner of voodoo. In fact, his laying hands on the TV to "heal" people isn't much different than voodoo.

Furthermore, the notion that poverty is necessarily a judgment of God on sin flies in the face of everything in the Scriptures. Jesus Himself was poor and He declared that it is only with great difficulty that the rich can enter God's kingdom. His apostle James compared the riches of the wicked to the fattening of cattle for the slaughter. Just where do you think that puts America and Europe and the whole of our decadent, yet wealthy, western society?

Since none of us are prophets none of us can say with surety why God brought this devastation on this particular country at this particular point in history. What we can say with certainty is that what happened was an act of God, for the Scriptures everywhere declare God to be in absolute control of what we call "nature".

We can also say with certainty what Jesus said, namely,

"Except you repent you will all likewise perish."

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Everything will right itself.
written by drobert, January 14, 2010
Everything will right itself in the end. While we cannot divine God's plan, we can pretty well assume Pat Robertson and his ilk will burn in Hell for eternity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPoWOw8Jm5w
Reality
written by drobert, January 14, 2010
Oh, and Pat Robertson seems to have forgotten that hurricanes have hit both sides of the island. What 'pact with the devil' explains the Dominican Republic's woes?
...
written by bamboo, January 14, 2010
There was no pact with the devil made by Haitian slaves. Pat Robertson took a story of an event and, with no investigation, declared his understanding of it to be "fact." His ignorance misleads the many who accept his pronouncements as the truth. Your readers would be better served by turning to the Christian Science Monitor for the news.

This is Robertson's third time (that I can easily remember) for blaming the victims of a catastrophe for the event: September 11th terrorist attacks, New Orleans/Katrina, and now the earthquake in Haiti. I hope that real Christians everywhere will rise up and no longer give Robertson a public forum or support for his ignorance and hate-speak.
Try this
written by brotherroy, January 14, 2010
Here is a thought. How about postulating that God, while sovereign, had nothing to do with this eathquake, at least nothing in the sense that God did not initiate, this natural disaster. Earthquakes, like tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. are naturally occuring events, when the conditions are right. There will be those who suggest that this is heresy, but those who suggest that God in any way causes such disasters have more to explain.
...
written by jbird, January 14, 2010
brotherroy speaks truth. Shifting plates under the surface of the earth=God's action/God's judgment? Count me out. . . . Stuff happens!
stuff happens but is God in control of the stuff?
written by Xenophon, January 15, 2010
Jbird and brotherroy, do you two doubt that God is omnipotent? If so, does omnipotence include the ability to stop tectonic plates from shifting too abruptly?
Robertson
written by boatman, January 15, 2010
I wouldn't put much thought into Robertson's comments, only a few years ago he was publicly endorsing an adulterer and gay pride parade marcher for U.S. president...not to hard to discern that the man has lost credibility.
Christians, where is the outrage?
written by Newsboy, January 15, 2010
Not toward Pat Robertson, bless his feeble heart, but Gary Cass and his shameful Christian Anti-Defamation League? Born-again believers saved by God's grace alone don't need creepy false-prophets like Cass to defend our faith.

Xenophon
written by brotherroy, January 15, 2010
As I said, God has nothing to do with the moving of tectonic plates, the weather patterns, etc. I don't accept this idea, as indicated in the article, that God punishes sin through natural disasters. In response to your question, "does omnipotence include the ability to stop tectonic plates from shifting too abruptly?" I believe that for most people the answer would be yes, and I would agree that the definition of omnipotence would demand that God does have this power. The real question is why, if God has this power, is it used in the ways we have seen? Or another possibility, does God not use this power? I can live with mystery, but to suggest that God either causes these events, or allows them to happen turns omnipotence into indifference at best. I don't believe that God is uncaring, and absolutely believe that God is with all humanity in all our our struggles and crises. But to make some meaning out of a disaster by assigning its origins to God I believe to be poor theology which grows out of the concept that God has special relationships with specific nations and punishes them collectively. Such collective punishment goes against the very nature of God who has individual relationships with all humanity. I am not saying that I have all the answers on this question, and I am well aware that the model for collective punishment and a view of God's omnipotence which claims God causes such natural phenomenon is found in Scripture, but I would contend that such a view is undeveloped and reflects a partial understanding of God.
brotheroy
written by Mark Osgatharp, January 15, 2010
brotheroy said:

"As I said, God has nothing to do with the moving of tectonic plates, the weather patterns..."

And,

"I am well aware that the model for collective punishment and a view of God's omnipotence which claims God causes such natural phenomenon is found in Scripture, but I would contend that such a view is undeveloped and reflects a partial understanding of God."

So brotheroy admits that the Bible teaches that God controls nature but he thinks that for some reason he knows better. This is the essence of Baptist modernism and demonstrates that the Baptist modernists in fact do not believe in the authority of Scripture at all nor the God of the Scriptures and of Christ.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
The Power of God
written by Bobby McCord, January 15, 2010
Mark, by now you should know that brotherroy has no faith in the power of God and has no faith in the Word of God. Both are irrelevant to his religion and moral views. Those of us who believe in the Power of God and Word of God are legalistic Pharisees in his view. God is in control of everything, and God does have a purpose for everything He does. The problem comes when people like Pat Robertson or Brotherroy pretend to know what His purposes are. If the earthquake in Haiti is a judgement of sin and false religion, America better hold on because this nation is full of sin and false religion, some of which believe they can be saved and still love the world and reject God and His Word.
...
written by kenmassey, January 15, 2010
I agree with one thing Mr. Cass says: "A simple reading of the Bible shows how God uses natural disasters to further his purposes." If you're satisfied with that simple reading, keep tuning in to Robertson and Cass.
As expected
written by brotherroy, January 15, 2010
Mark Osgatharp: I appreciated your observations in your earlier post that no one is certain as to why God brought this disaster at this time and place. And I am glad to have helped to establish the essence of Baptist modernism, in your view. The question remains however, and that question is the question of theodicy, namely if God is all powerful and all good, why is there such suffering? There are many answers to that question. Any free-will defense limits the power of God, either because God did not have the power to begin with, or because God has limited Godself by granting the free-will of other beings (humans). Do I believe that God's power is self-limited, yes. This can help to explain the moral evil which exists in the world - namely that we cause harm to ourselves and others and this is the price for free will. God is there and does care, but does not override our free-will,(otherwise there is no "free" will) even as God works in conjuction with, leads, and brings together human actions which can respond to the evil we generate. The original article had to do with the role of God in natural disasters. Again, I would argue that the same type of conditions apply. Through creation, God employed specific processes and laws, leaving them in place as the initial acts of creation were completed, thus allowing the natural realm to be governed by what we typically call the laws of nature. Can these laws and forces of nature be overridden by God's power, yes. Are they? Rarely, it would seem. In spite of popular usage, I would contend that the phrase "acts of God" is incorrect. These natural disasters are just that, natural. I assume (realizing that is dangerous) that you might argue that God caused the earthquake, but that we cannot know why. While I appreciate the humbleness of conceeded that God's way our not our ways, there could be no decent reason why God would cause such disasters.(Feel free to offer some). We look for reasons, but the effort is misguided. To suggest that the reason is a "mystery" is, in this case, a cop out. In telling ourselves that there must be a reason, we can feel better in holding onto our belief that God is absolutely sovereign. On a separate note, you accuse me, without knowing me beyond meager postings on this site, of not believeing in God or Scripture. That is your perogative, but I would hope that on a Christian website that we might be able to refrain from passing such judgments. I am willing to leave that to God.

To Bobby McCord: I would not call you a Pharisee, perhaps a legalist, but not a Pharisee. Pharisees get a bad rap. They were the progressives of their day, believeing that the Torah was so important that it applied to everything, believing in new doctrines, and were willing to concede that texts must be interpreted and applied, even developing new texts to that end. Were some legalists? Of course, legalism is always a danger. But I would not call you a Pharisee, they were more enlightened in their views. I do not pretend to know God's purposes, I don't. But I am willing to live with an understanding of God which need not be blamed for natural disasters, but who is there to help pick up the pieces.
...
written by KT2005, January 15, 2010
I also have disdain for Patterson because his so called prophetic gifts have been proved wrong in the past. . . something that is never to happen to a true prophet. Here is one concern I do have. How would evangelicals attribute a natural disaster to God’s wrath?

New Orleans was devastated by hurricane and her sin is well known to the world, yet no respectable evangelical/SBC leader dared suggest God was angry. Now a nation with voodoo in its past and present is shattered by an earthquake. Patterson alone makes a fool out of himself by suggesting there is spiritual meaning behind the quake.

My point is the Bible is very clear that the Almighty is God of the storm (Ez. 13:13, Luke 8:25, Matthew 27:54). If the sexual immorality of Mardi Gras and voodoo fail to invoke the wrath of God, I don’t know what does.

Southern Baptists have now placed themselves in a position where no matter how wicked a city is, a natural disaster visited upon that place is never called God’s wrath.

So is this earthquake the wrath of God? I don’t know. I’m a simple believer not a prophet. Yet as a believer I know this. God judges the nations in justice and punishes sin (Amos 1 & 2). Since the heavenly Father is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow, seeing God behind a storm/earthquake is a real possibility. So what should our public response be? I recall Dr. Al Mohler’s sermon text after 9-11:

Luke 13:1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

The perils of this life is nothing compared to the Hell God has prepared for the unrepentant in eternity. Sermons like this fell out of favor with Southern Baptists long ago. All the more reason why repentance and prayer for our convention January 31 is so desperately needed.

Instead of mocking Patterson for saying this quake is the wrath of God, I would rather Southern Baptist leaders discredit Patterson by revealing past false prophecies he has uttered. Then I would like us to stand up and say: We love the people of Haiti and want to help them the best we can, but we also must warm people to pay attention to the fact that God can punish sinful people in such a manner. This, in my mind, is a balanced position. To come out against Patterson without making this important distinction is to comfort the world who believes God never punishes any nation for anything.

brotherroy
written by Bobby McCord, January 15, 2010
I am glad that you are so impressed with yourself. You have elevated your opinion higher than God's Word. Without your supreme opinion we would never know what God's Word really means. I see now that I must be wrong because it seems that everyone who disagrees with the almighty brotherroy is wrong. Again, I am not here to please you and don't care what you think about me or anything else as far as that goes. Come down off your high horse and read God's Word instead of trying to explain it away. God is in control before the disasters, in the disasters, and when the disasters are over. When all the smoke clears and the dust settles only those who stand with Christ on the authority of God's Word will be standing. Those who are not trusting in Christ alone for their salvation are already living in judgement, earthquake or not.
...
written by More Moral, January 15, 2010
A god that punishes millions of people, 90 percent who are Christian, including thousands of children, visitors from other countries, relief workers, and anyone who happened to be on the island, because of ...what? Writings of dubious origin of a Bronze Age tribe living in tents in a desert?

reply to brotherroy, part 1
written by Xenophon, January 15, 2010
Thanks for taking the time to write a reflective response to my questions on God's omnipotence. These are certainly disturbing questions both intellectually and personally. I do agree that at some point there is a mystery to the "problem of evil" as you point out as did Gabriel Marcel. I would place the mystery at a different point than you seem to do.

I have to disagree with your speculation that God limits his own power so that we can have free will and nature can function mechanically. As I was commenting about an article on Calvinsim, there is no good reason to believe that if God is omnipotent, God must control our minds for us to do his will. Something like the Invisible Hand, as Adam Smith put it in regard to the marketplace but I am extending the concept more broadly, could be at work so that what we freely choose to do dovetails with God's plan. I think your theodicy falls into the same error as does the Calvinist, though will a reverse application, in believing that for God to exercise his sovereignty , he must limit our free will. I think the Bible clearly teaches that God is at work in human affairs, both individually, at the national level, and throughout the course of history. For example, was it a coincidence that Jesus was born when he was so that the Roman Empire controlled Israel and that Caesar Augustus ordered a census just as Jesus was about to be born so that his Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah's birth found in Micah 5:2? Do you think that God had to take over Caesar Augustus' mind for a time to get him to order a census? Or did God take over Joseph's brothers' minds and cause them to do evil to get them to sell Joseph into slavery? Did God not want Joseph to be sold into slavery to set him up as the prime minister? Joseph seems to have a good understanding of how God works when he said, "What you intended for evil, God intended for good..." (Genesis 50:20). Or how would we make sense of Romans 8:28 if God were not in full control of human and natural affairs?

It is highly unlikely that these things just work out for themselves if everything is just running on automatic pilot in a fallen world. Afterall, humans are corrupt by nature and the natural world suffers the effect of the Fall. If you think human affairs simply work out consistently due to natural moral law, this sounds more like Karma than Providence. If it were Karma, then we might very well conclude that natural disaster is the result of a specific set of wrongs that people are having pain inflicted on them for.

As for nature running on its own after God set it up to run by natural law, there are a number of problems here as well. First, while I do believe in natural law and that God set up laws to provide order to the universe, I do think the mechanical Newtonian model has proven to be inadequate in accounting for all of the phenomena that we experience. Einstein's account has provided more fruitful accounts of natural phenomena and is quite different from the mechanical model. If you check out Hegel's philosophy of nature, he provides the outline of an alternative view of the natural world that is consistent with the Einsteinian paradigm and with God actively controlling every detail of the universe (I realize that Hegel's overall understanding of God is not orthodox, but on this point I see his view of God as compatible with an orthodox view). On this view, purpose is reintroduced into our understanding of nature as well as a divine presence holding nature and its laws in place. As I am sure you know, there are many biblical passages that clearly teach that God created and controls nature. Otherwise, we have something more akin to Deism, and that is more consistent with an indifferent God than the theistic conception of God that characterizes Christianity.

reply to brotherroy, part 2
written by Xenophon, January 15, 2010
Why does God allow suffering and pain? First, since we are sinners, there is nothing unjust about God allowing us to suffer. Second, given that we are by nature turned away from God, we tend to have to be prompted to turn back to God. As C.S. Lewis observed, God whispers to us in our pleasures but pain is "God's megaphone" as he calls out to us in our indifference to him. Solomon observed that we learn more in the House of Mourning than the House of Mirth in Ecclesiastes 7:2-4. There is something about pain that deepens us and makes us more empathetic with other humans. God always has a purpose in our suffering. While God is not a humanitarian who seeks only our pleasure and happiness in this world as we know it, he is also no sadist. He inflicts pain on us or allows it for a purpose that will turn us to him or deepen our relationship with him and each other. As I touched on in my first post, we do not always know why God allows what he does, but we do know that it will always be for our long-run benefit if we respond properly. Job never knew in this world why God allowed his suffering, but he trusted nevertheless and was rewarded for his faithfulness. After the time of Christ, we do not always see things work out for us in this world as we might like for it too, but God will always reward us when we trust him in our pain. We have to keep in mind that this is a fallen world and we are being saved out of it. Pain is part of our preparation for eternity and loosening our grip on this world that is passing away. So, when tragedy happens, we are to look to God and trust in him as Jesus taught in Luke 13 when he asked if those Galileans Pilate had butchered unjustly or those the Tower of Siloam fell on were more deserving of death than anyone else. The answer is obviously, no.
...
written by jbird, January 15, 2010
Mr. X, I so admire your erudition and consistency--I simply can't agree with you--place me on the Far Left of Baptist Modernism--which is not a fun place to be, but seems to correspond best to such a pain-filled world. I sometimes think of G-d as hearing the desperate pleas of suffering people, wanting to reply, "Folks, I'm doing the best I can!" I think we all ought to do our best to help G-d, who I perceive to be always on the side of love, hope, faith, healing, joy, and beauty.
Questiions for jbird
written by Xenophon, January 15, 2010
Jbird, how would you address the issue of God's omnipotence? Given your latest post, how would you deal with David Hume's criticism of theists' claim to seeing God's Hand in Creation by noting all of the destruction and pain in nature and human affairs and then asking if what we see is not evidence of an incompetent or baby deity? Let me also ask you, is all pain intrinsically evil?
...
written by Ariel, January 16, 2010
"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, (gluttony) and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before Me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. Ezekiel 16:49,50

"And Abraham drew near, and said, "Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fity righteous that are therein? Genesis 18:24

And the LORD said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes."
Genesis 18:26

And He said, "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
Genesis 18:32

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; and He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. Genesis 19:24,25

And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Genesis 38:7

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Exodus 20:3

Thou shalt have not make unto thee any graven image.
Exodus 20:4

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and EARTHQUAKES, in divers places. Matthew 24:7

Jesus described the things mentioned in the last verse as similar to labor pains. We've had three major earthquakes in rapid succession and events in the news tells us His return is imminent.

We've had 2,000 years to repent and accept Him as Savior. This time, He's coming as Judge. Are you ready? The issue in this thread seems to be (as always) everyone balks at being called a sinner. Even 'innocent' little babies turn into monsters when you take their binky away, hit and bite their playmates and don't have to be taught to say "NO!!" Yes, sin is our natural state. Hell is real, it's forever and very soon, the free gift of salvation will be withdrawn. PLEASE, if you're not 100% sure you're going to heaven when you die, say a prayer right now something like this:


...
written by pjerwin, January 16, 2010
okay, let me get this straigbt. Moderate, progressive, and liberal Baptists will defend to the uttermost preachers and theology professors who teach that the Bible is not true, but only contains truth, that the substitution atonement of Christ is divine child abuse, and that Jesus Christ probably did sin, yet are utterly intolerant of what Robertson said? Give me the strength. you are to be pittied.
...
written by Ariel, January 16, 2010
Here's the rest of my post:

If you're not 100% sure you're going to heaven when you die, PlEASE realize that Jesus is the only way to get there, (Jesus saith unto him, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” ) then say a prayer something like this:

Dear God,

I realize I'm a sinner and that there's no way I can pay for my sins myself. I'm so sorry for hurting You and all the other people in my life! Thank You Jesus for dying in my place on that awful Cross. I believe you died for my sins, were buried and rose on the third day to give us eternal life. Please be my Savior and show me how to live for You from now on. I'm trusting You to take me to heaven when I die. Thank You. Amen.

If I'm right and you're wrong, you have everything to lose. Jesus spoke much more about hell than He did heaven. Please read the New Testament!
jbird
written by Bobby McCord, January 16, 2010
Do you honestly believe we are serving a God who is doing the best he can and is coming up short so He needs our help? Wow! You do not have Faith in the same God I do. My God is creator God, sustainer God, almighty God, Holy God, all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful. He doesn't need our help and does not need our approval or understanding. What He does want is our Worship and for us to have Faith in Him alone. As Job said, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him." When we figure out God is everything and we are nothing without Him, then we will be in a place of Faith. We can question the plan of God but we must never question the Power of God.
a type of hedonism is a sticking point on these controversies
written by Xenophon, January 16, 2010
One of the assumptions that I suspect that liberal Christians rely on in coming to many issues including the "problem of evil" is that all pain is intrinsically evil and should be ameliorated as much as possible or completely done away with if possible. Atheist attacks on monotheism make the same assumption in arguments such as the following that date back to ancient times:

If God is good, then he will alleviate all suffering.
If God is all-powerful, then he will do so.
We experience pain, so God is either not good or not all-powerful.
Therefore, there is no God.

The problem here is that the first premiss is highly questionable. First, pain inflicted on the guilty in proportion to the wrong they have chosen to do to others redresses the wrongs done to the innocent. This restores a cosmic balance in the moral universe. We can see this principle at work when God said that he was pleased to bruise Christ. Consider this passage from Isaiah 53:

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities."

Of course, Jesus was completely innocent, but he became our "scape goat" to relieve us of the condemnation of our sins that we have freely chosen to commit. For those who do not accept Jesus' sacrificial death, they will bear the full force of God's wrath against the evil they have embraced. That is why God is at peace with people being banished to Hell. Justice is being carried out.

When we see justice done on earth, there is a satisfaction at seeing the guilty suffer in proportion to what they deserve. In fact, the guilty can even find relief from the inner torment of guilt in their punishment that they intuitively recognize that they merit.

Pain that is not particularly deserved can also be salutary as we bond with others in shared suffering. As I pointed out above, pain can turn us to God as well as deepen our relationship with him and allow us greater insight into the suffering of other humans.

In short, the hedonistic, utilitarian, humanitarian view of pain overlooks or rejects the justice and benefits of pain. I see this view as grossly inadequate and shallow. It is certainly at odds with the God's perspective on pain that is disclosed to us in the Bible.
...
written by pjerwin, January 16, 2010
I'm not sure your analysis is correct, Xeno. It’s actually more characteristic of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements to see pain, loss, infirmity, disease, etc. as evils with their source being Satan and his minions: the powers, principalities, thrones, rulers, authorities, dominions, world forces of this darkness, spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly realms. These are to be prayed against, cast out, authority claimed over in Jesus’ name, declared not to be, etc. They believe that it is never God’s will that any believer be ill or infirm or poor, and if one happens to be in such a state, it is declared a matter of the strength of one’s faith.

Unlike that belief system, the “progressive” position often sees suffering and oppression, even when self-induced, as a badge of honor and even a mark of spiritual superiority. If you haven’t suffered like they have, you can’t speak to their experience and your experience is no match for theirs. Suffering is almost sacramental and redemptive, in a way. In fact, the whole approach to preaching in that system is to search your passage of Scripture to find out who the suffering or oppressed person is, help your congregation identify with that person by illustrating how they have suffered in the same ways — identifying the perpetrators of their oppression in reference to the person with power in the Scripture passage — and then help them celebrate the fact that the Lord will reward them for their suffering, deliver them some day, and punish those responsible for their oppression.

Somewhere in there, however, you’ve got a lot of people who feel guilty because they haven’t had to suffer. They go through all kinds of histrionics to demonstrate that either they really can identify — or that at least they care. They rail against injustice and intolerance and do, as you say, demand amelioration or redress or restitution. Where the Bible suggests that God might have a hand in causing or allowing someone’s suffering or oppression, then that part of Scripture be damned: it cannot be God’s Word.
reply to pj
written by Xenophon, January 17, 2010
I appreciate your thought-provoking comments, PJ. There is really no question that many atheists take the tack that I outline above. Here is a little ditty from Epicurus laying out the basic line of attack that continues to this day from rabid atheists such as Christopher Hitchens:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

If you take a look at the posts on this article by jbird and brotherroy, they seem to take the same basic approach to the "problem of evil," so-called in the literature, as Epicurus with the twist of denying or at least fudging on God's omnipotence. Their comments as well as other reactions liberals on this site have had to some of my positions prompted my last post. So, I stand by my analysis.

As for the comments you made about Charismatics and progressives, I agree with what you said as far as it goes. I have attended Charismatic churches in Atlanta and they have distanced themselves from some of the excesses that you have touched on that are present among a lot of other Charismatics. So, not all Charismatics fall into this error. I also do not see that Charismatics take this aversion to human suffering to the extreme that hedonists do. Most accept that there is a Hell and accept the atoning death of Jesus for example. Most seem to accept rather conservative views on crime and punishment. I would have to really study what the more serious Charismatics say on these issues to give a fuller answer. I am not sure exactly where they stand on the problem of evil. Afterall, Pat Robertson who got us into this controversy is a Charismatic.

As for liberal Christians, I see what you are saying in your comments above. I think there is a lot truth here, too. But I think that liberals are more ambivalent about suffering and the disadvantaged than your comments allow. Also, there is a range of views among liberals. Before commenting more about what I understand about liberal views toward suffering, I would prefer to wait for some liberals on this site to weigh in and comment on both of our comments before I go any further. I hope to hear from jbird and brotherroy some more as well as anyone else who has any reactions to our posts and these issues generally.

Thanks again for your comments. I found them quite stimulating.
...
written by bamboo, January 18, 2010
Reply to Xenophon
I'm discouraged that you refer to the questions Epicurus raises as a "ditty". Intellectual questioning is a sign of an engaged brain. I would think that any God that endowed creatures with a brain expects them to use it, and would be disappointed if they didn't.

What is left for anyone to say? I'm happy for you that you were born into a literate environment. You were thus able to read about Jesus, and have the opportunity to be saved. God also gave you a book that must be read without interpretation. Therefore, with faith, you will be saved and, quoting your Bible, will always be right. I know what you think will befall those who by choice do not share your faith. I cannot imagine what you think will come to the poor unfortunates who have no opportunity to know your personal savior.

I am still concerned that one of your religion's esteemed reverends has slandered a people, and implied that this human catastrophe is God's wrath against them. It is still my hope that your members and leaders will stand up and take away his mean-spirited pulpit.
reply to Bamboo
written by Xenophon, January 18, 2010
Thanks for your comments, Bamboo. I have to say that I am amused that you seemed to take offense that I termed Epicurus' verse laying out his attack on theism as a little "ditty." I was being irreverent, but if one is an atheist, what is there to be reverent about? As I think you can see from my comments above and on other articles on this site, I do take truth claims seriously. In fact, I think you are right that God gave us reason to discover the truth. As you may know, John Milton made this very argument in his Christian defense of free speech in his tract, *Areopagitica" writing: "As good almost kill a man as kill a good book; who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye." The Bible itself urges us to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15), and to "Come let us reason together, says the Lord" (Isaiah 1:18).

I have pointed out one of the flaws in Epicurus' argument above in challenging the Pleasure/Pain principle that his ethics and his theology are based upon. He is also not considering that the possibility that God created the world perfectly with no suffering, but endowed humans with free will and a clear and significant set of alternatives so that they would freely choose to love and be in relationship with him. We chose wrongly as we exercised our free will and are reaping the consequences of our decision to turn our backs on God. On this view, evil is a privation or a lack of the Good that we moved away from as we acted freely but foolishly (and perversely since our motive was to dethrone God and become gods ourselves). That is why I mentioned above that it is not unjust that we suffer.

Your second paragraph sounds like you might be stumbling into the genetic fallacy. Remember that it is irrelevant how we come to know the truth. I was taught that the sun is the center of the solar system. I have never independently verified that claim, but does how I came to believe it have anything to do with its truth or falsity?

As for people who have not heard the Gospel, Paul observes in Romans 1 that all have a basic knowledge of God. So, no one is without this knowledge. It is not so much an inferred knowledge as it is an immediate perception when we observe our natural surroundings that we see that there is a Creator in a way similar to simply seeing beauty. The philosopher Wittgenstein termed this phenomenon as "seeing as." People who have not heard of Jesus are not condemned for rejecting a Savior they have not heard of. If they are open to God, then God will find a way to get the Gospel to them, so that they can consummate a relationship with God.
Best Letter to the Editor
written by mcskinny, January 18, 2010

This Letter to the Editor appeared in a minneapolis newspaper. I saw it on a blog and thought it had a lot of thought and theology in it.

"Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll. You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.

Best,
Satan "
...
written by singer2, January 18, 2010
Bamboo--I'm sure you realize that there are thousands of believers who are not locked into a Bible "that must be believed without interpretation." The Conservative Resurgence was a manifestation of a fundamentalist right-swing, and the ultimate result was the eventual omission of the concept of the priesthood of the believer---For us, the moderate Baptists, that concept is a bedrock---we don't have to interpret the Bible in the same manner advocated by more dogmatic, conservative believers, nor must we interpret it the way our pastors say we should. It makes a personal relationship with a loving God all the more treasured, as evidences of his word become guideposts for our lives. It helps us accept tragedies and go on, knowing that God loves us, without trying to figure out what we did wrong to make things happen. Pat Robertson's gaffs and Rush Limbaugh's showtime meanness are unrelated to our faith, for we are neither proof-texters nor right-wing Republicans. We are believers, and we live, worship, and work in the spirit of Christ in our communities and on our mission fields.
question for Singer
written by Xenophon, January 18, 2010
Singer, do you believe that God could have stopped the earthquake from occurring or could have prevented the deaths and injuries of thousands resulting from the quake? How would you deal with Epicurus' verse that I quoted above?
fuller reply to PJ
written by Xenophon, January 18, 2010
I regret that the liberal Christians have not touched our two posts on their views and attitudes. I agree with what you say about liberal Christians, but I would add to it a bit. If they simply saw suffering as developing those who have suffered greatly relationship with God and with other people by deepening the spiritual character of each individual who suffers, I think they would be more open to our understanding of why God allows us to suffer. But I do think they do see something like what you describe but they somehow do not integrate what they observe into a complete picture of human suffering. That seems puzzling to me.

For example, I cited Hegel on another matter above. In a completely unrelated discussion to his philosophy of nature that I appealed to above, Hegel very insightfully describes the power relations between people. He sees that as people interact, one person tends to become dominant over another, one way or another. Hegel dubs the dominant person as the "master" and the less powerful person as the "slave" whether or not they are what we would think of as literal masters and slaves.

Hegel analysis does not stop here. He observes that over time as slaves are subjected to drudgery, humiliation, and lost opportunities, the so-called slaves move closer to nature and to other people forging deeper and more intimate relationships as they suffer. At the same time, the master sits back and relaxes from his triumphs. His ease and arrogance leads him down a personal road of subtle deterioration and alienation. In the end, the slave develops in a way that the master is blocked from even being aware of.

Marxists and feminists have taken up Hegel's analysis and have applied it to relationships between the social classes and the sexes respectively. They see the ultimate resolution to this dynamic as culminating in a more equal social framework. But instead of realizing the development that minorities, women, the poor and working classes have paradoxically attained, the left's emphasis seems to be on equalizing people's condition and achieving a superficial sense of happiness here on earth. The left sees the so-called development and accomplishments of the bourgeoisie as illusory, but then many of them strive to work the so-called slaves into the same social setting that they see the superficiality of at other times.

The left's focus seems to be on their own moral outrage when the contemplate the cruder and oppressive aspects of the master-slave relationship. As you point out, their rage even turns inward as they irrationally feel guilty for sharing the same skin color or gender with other people who have oppressed others or broaden 'oppression' to simply having more money and status than others. On the other hand, they do recognize that the poor, women, and some minorities are closer to others and to their own humanity living a more authentic life. They see these aspects of personal development, but just cannot say that the tragedy these people have faced and responded to well turned out to be "blessings in disguise."

I suspect that those on the left are blocked on fully appreciating the role suffering played in development of those who have been disadvantaged or even overtly oppressed is because they find the humiliation and infliction of pain so distasteful that they simply cannot stand to see anyone to suffer for whatever reason. They also might believe that saying such things as blacks being enslaved was beneficial for the slaves and descendants of the slaves as chauvinistic and exculpatory for the slave-owners and their descendants. Such admissions might also compromise efforts to achieve equality and lessen suffering in the long-run for all. Finally, admitting the benefits of suffering would compromise the left's political agenda in reshaping society.
...
written by pjerwin, January 20, 2010
You know, Xeno, I believe you're over-thinking the issue. Here's the bottom line: the Bible explicitly describes God doing in other circumstances just what Pat Robertson attributes to God with regard to Haiti. In my experience, Robertson has not proven to be a trustworthy prophet, but just going by Scripture, one cannot say any more definitively that God DID NOT do than that He DID. It is not clear. Could God have done it? Sure. Could it have been a purely natural event? Sure. Could someone other than God have done it, some malevolent power, principality, dominion, authority, or ruler? Sure. Could God have had nothing to do with it? No. He had to have at least allowed it -- unless one believes He is either omnipotent or omniscient or neither, in which case, as Harold Kushner put it in When Bad Things Happen to Good People, He couldn’t help it, “He can’t do everything, but He can do some important things.” For “moderates,” liberals, and “progressives,” they have two problems to deal with: 1) their disdain -- deserved or not -- for Pat Robertson (and as someone wrote, "his ilk"); 2) their disdain for the Scriptures that detail such circumstances. The do not believe either and they dismiss both. I find highly suspect their ability to recognize truth at all.
...
written by pjerwin, January 20, 2010
CORRECTION: "...unless one doesn't believe He is omnipotent or omniscient or believes that He is neither."
...
written by pjerwin, January 20, 2010
Note also that the Haitian Ambassador who appeared on the "Rachael Maddow Show" addressing Robertson's comment did not question the veracity of the story Robertson cited, but only said that the U.S. got the Louisiana Purchase, and Latin and South America gained their freedom, as a result of what they did. QUOTE: "So, what pact the Haitians made with the devil helped make the U.S. what it is."
...
written by pjerwin, January 20, 2010
The official website for "Celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the Haitian Revolution" (Haiti: the First Black Republic in the World), has a section titled, "The History of Haiti and the Haitian Revolution" in which Haitians placed the following account:
A man named Boukman, another houngan, organized on August 14, 1791, a meeting with the slaves in the mountains of the North. This meeting took the form of a Voodoo ceremony in the Bois Caiman in the northern mountains of the island. It was raining and the sky was raging with clouds; the slaves then started confessing their resentment of their condition. A woman started dancing languorously in the crowd, taken by the spirits of the loas. With a knife in her hand, she cut the throat of a pig and distributed the blood to all the participants of the meeting who swore to kill all the whites on the island...
While there is no mention of "the Devil," there is mention of the woman "taken by the spirits of the loas." Loa are deities subordinate to the greater god Bondyè. Since Bondyè does not get involved in human affairs, Voodoo worship is directed to the Loa. If one takes Scripture seriously, with whom would these spirits be identified? And if they are nothing more than mute idols, who does Scripture say is behind idols?

The point is, if Haitians believe this event happened and share it as truth, what should others make of it? Should Pat Robertson be condemned for his understanding of it?
I agree
written by Xenophon, January 20, 2010
PJ, I agree with your last two posts on this issue. I think it is a real possibility that Haiti is incurring God's wrath for their embracing voodoo and rejecting God and his laws. I think it is a possibility that New Orleans was flooded for a related reason. I suspect that my hometown of Atlanta was flooded recently because of their giving themselves over to greed.

But it would be presumptuous of us to make these pronouncements with certainty since it is possible that God's purpose in bringing about these disasters was not exactly for these reasons. We do know that the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations of the ancient Hebrews was because of their rejection of God and their embrace of idolatry, even though there was a faithful remnant in both kingdoms, since God through his prophets Isiah and Jeremiah explicitly said that was God's primary reason for the invasions and deportations.

In the case of Haiti, New Orleans, Atlanta, and other places that have recently been afflicted by natural disasters, God might not be pouring out his wrath on these places as much as he is more mercifully inflicting pain on them as a corrective and as a way to open their hearts to him. For example, in Jeremiah chapter 5, God speaking through Jeremiah makes the distinction between his inflicting pain for correction in order to prompt his people to return to him on one hand and divine judgement on the other. When people ignore warnings God provides them through his word, his prophets, conscience, escalating to God inflicting pain on those who are acting out of ignorance or foolishness, then God may move, and he did in the case of Judah in Jeremiah's time, to judgement.

Pat Robertson might not have intended to say that Haiti has moved past the point that ancient Judah had freely chosen to move after repeated warnings, but he seemed to imply that Haiti was under God's judgement. That presumption is what I think was unjustified. While God is definitely behind this earthquake and has a purpose in inflicting it on the people of Haiti and people visiting or working there, and his purposes at any point can be multi-variant, I think it is very possible that this is God's "wake-up call" to Haiti in order to reach out to the people who have turned to Satanic influences in his mercy, not in judgement.

Pat Robertson has done much more than a lot of his critics to actually assist people in Haiti through his Operation Blessing. I think Pat was premature though to imply that this earthquake was definitely God's judgement on Haiti (God's warnings and correction can feel like his judgement in the moment though). Even if Pat is correct, his timing in laying out his thoughts about what God's purposes might be in this disaster was ill-timed. What the people there now need is help, not condemnation.
...
written by pjerwin, January 20, 2010
Jim Denison wasn't very careful, himself, in his criticism of Robertson. He wrote: "Robertson's history is a bit fuzzy: he claims that this 1791 event occurred during the reign of Napoleon III, who didn't come to power until 1848. What about the event itself?" Robertson actually said, "They were under the heel of the French, uh, ya know, Napoleon III or whatever..." I'm no Robertson apologist, but if Denison actually watched the segment he could have easily done better on this.

And how did Denison handle the Voodoo priest’s prayer at the Voodoo ceremony? “Europeans saw Boukman's rejection of ‘the white man’s god’ as a rejection of the God of the Bible. When he prayed to a different god, they claimed that he prayed to the devil.” Again, if he prayed to anything/anyone but the one true God, the God of the Bible, he was praying to an idol or what lies behind an idol, a demon. “So what do we know for sure?" Denison asked. "There was a ceremony on August 14, 1791 that sparked the rebellion in Haiti. It probably involved the ritual slaughter of a pig and incorporated Voodoo traditions. Nothing more can be known with certainty.” Except, of course, that Voodoo is a syncretistic religion, mixing East African Religions with Roman Catholicism, much like mixing the worship of Ba'al and YHWH; just asking for trouble.
...
written by pjerwin, January 21, 2010
Xeno wrote:
PJ, I agree with your last two posts on this issue. I think it is a real possibility that Haiti is incurring God's wrath for their embracing voodoo and rejecting God and his laws. I think it is a possibility that New Orleans was flooded for a related reason. I suspect that my hometown of Atlanta was flooded recently because of their giving themselves over to greed.
Hold on, partner. You've gone further than I did. I didn't say that I agreed with Robertson, I didn't say that I believed God was pouring out His wrath on them, I just said that those who castigate Robertson are disingenuous for doing so given all the available information. One can easily see how he would have reached his conclusion.
...
written by pjerwin, January 21, 2010
How about an article titled "Religious Left Leader Defends Haitian Voodoo Priest's Prayer as Possibly Biblical." Now that's shocking. When I open my copy of Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament and find prayers addressed to their various creator and sustainer gods, am I to suppose that they may actually be praying to the one true God of the Bible even when I know who they have in mind? Ridiculous. On the other hand, neither Cass nor Mohler endorsed Robertson's statement, but only said that the theology behind it was basically biblically sound.
sorry but...
written by Xenophon, January 21, 2010
I am sorry if I misunderstood what you said, PJ. I thought you said that it was a possibility that Pat was right that God was punishing Haiti for their turning away from him and to Satan. Here is what you said above:

"Robertson has not proven to be a trustworthy prophet, but just going by Scripture, one cannot say any more definitively that God DID NOT do than that He DID. It is not clear."

That is what I agreed with you on. Nothing more, nothing less.
...
written by pjerwin, January 21, 2010
When you said it was possible, that was fine, but when you said, "I suspect that my hometown of Atlanta was flooded recently because of their giving themselves over to greed," I couldn't go with you. I don't suspect, I only acknowledge the possibility.
those were my comments, PJ
written by Xenophon, January 21, 2010
My comments about Atlanta and New Orleans were my own. I did not intend to attribute them to you.
...
written by pjerwin, January 21, 2010
No offense taken; just wanted to clarify. :)
To Live
written by Xenophon, January 25, 2010
A Chinese film from 1994 entitled "To Live" based on a novel by Yu Hua presents a surprisingly Christian perspective on life as it follows the main character through the Chinese Civil War, the rise of Communism, and the horrors of the Great Leap Forward. As we follow the upheavals, disappointments, and tragedies that plague his life, the viewer sees that as the protagonist responds to what life has dealt him, this is the way to embrace life for the wild ride that it is.

The film dispels the false sense of security that wealth and peace have led us in the West to fall into. We are not in Heaven free of all suffering and heartaches. We are not floating along on a bed of ease. When we have lessened suffering in an overt sense, we have discovered that a sense of ennui creeps in destroying our vitality and prompting us to turn to wilder and more extravagant diversions to relieve us of our profound sense of boredom leading us to drift away from each other and from God. Suffering is really a gift to turn us back to God and to each other given that we are in a fallen condition living in a fallen world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Live_(film)

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.