Praise you in THIS Storm?

Last week a tornado ripped through central Florida, killing at least 20 people, and devastating several towns. Among the ruins were a number of churches; among the dead were some of their members. One of those churches, which was built to withstand 150 mph winds, was shredded by the 165 mph storm.

In one church building, 6 members were hiding out and 2 of them were killed when the Big Bad Wolf blew their house down (I'm sorry, "allowed" their house to be blown down - big difference there).

The pastor of one church said he was determined to have services on Sunday morning, " even if it means holding them in a muddy patch of grass near the church ruins."

I don't know about you, but if I was the pastor of a church that God just took a big celestial shit on, I wouldn't be so gung-ho about having services the next day. I might take a step back and say, "you know, maybe it's a hint that our sanctuary doesn't exist anymore."

I have read a few articles about the storm tearing apart the churches and I heard a story on CNN about it as well, and frankly, I'm disappointed with the level of journalism I heard. I thought reporters were supposed to ask the tough questions.

But where was the reporter asking that pastor, "do you think God was trying to tell you something?" or "Why do you think God allowed this to happen to you?" Not one reporter I heard was asking those tough questions.

Christians and Jews of the past would have immediately taken a great disaster like that and concluded that God was not happy with them. Anytime there's a disaster against God's people in the Bible, it's 90% of the time because of their sin. Why was it that throughout biblical times all those disasters were because of sin, and today no believer blinks an eye when God totally allows their church that hundreds of thousands of dollars of their offerings went into to get completely annihilated?

With modern Christians, those questions are just ignored. That's because, with them, God can't lose. If something good happens, it's God's blessing. If something bad happens, it's....well, it's not God's wrath. God is working for their good, and that's why he got rid of two members during the storm.

They believe God has absolute, miraculous power, and the same power that healed little Tommy of the flu, decided to hold off last weekend and allow two members who were trying desperately to survive by hiding out in the church to be killed by this storm for a good and loving reason.

I used that answer for years. Everything bad that happened to me was God's way of showing me a greater thing. God sat by, seemingly indifferent towards me, knowing full well I would give him the praise either way.

Casting Crowns has embodied this mentality in their song, "Praise you in this Storm":

I was sure by now, God You would have reached down
and wiped our tears away,
stepped in and saved the day.
But once again, I say amen
and it's still raining
as the thunder rolls....
I raise my hands and praise
the God who gives and takes away.

I'm sure there's a myriad of philosophical arguments and discussions about how God has the right to allow this kind of stuff, and how man is sinful and deserves it, blah, blah, blah. I'm not so sure. In fact, I don't buy it at all. If God is there, he's sick and twisted.

I can imagine one of his faithful singing that song while the roof is ripped from his house and his body is wrapped around a lightpole. Is this what God wants? I don't get it. I guess you just have to have faith.

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

As I was contemplating the virtue of faith. I realized that christians are holding on to a last strand of hope; for happiness, for peace of mind. I'm not saying that they couldnt find these things outside of religion, but their minds, they cant. So, when things like this happen, it isnt god that they are maintaining trust in, they are bound by a fear that if they acknowledge how fucked up their god is, all that is positive and allowing optimism in their lives will dissapear. I know alot of christians, and most of them are trying desperately to find happiness.

Anonymous said...

I guess God was just upset at this church for some reason. ;-)

Anonymous said...

No, seriously, how hard would it have been for an omnipotent God to stop this tragedy from happening? How hard would it have been? No excuses. Tell me.

Now answer me this; if all it took was a snap of his fingers, then why didn't he stop it? I am not held guilty for not stopping it because I had no knowledge of it as it was happening, and even if I did, I had no power to stop it. Aren't moral beings judged based upon what they know and when? And aren't moral beings judged by how much power they had to stop a tragedy? Yes or no? There is no moral excuse for God not doing anything about it...none. He is no father to those people involved, for a father, even a bad one, would not let his children suffer like that. Name me one!

What lessons are the people involved supposed to learn from this tragedy that were necessary for them to learn? Surely some of them went to hell.

Christian answers are all so ridiculous to me I don't have the words to express myself.

Dennis said...

I have read a few articles about the storm tearing apart the churches and I heard a story on CNN about it as well, and frankly, I'm disappointed with the level of journalism I heard. I thought reporters were supposed to ask the tough questions.

But where was the reporter asking that pastor, "do you think God was trying to tell you something?" or "Why do you think God allowed this to happen to you?" Not one reporter I heard was asking those tough questions.


Journalist are supposed to ask tough questions without crossing the line of bashing the people they are interviewing.

Christians and Jews of the past would have immediately taken a great disaster like that and concluded that God was not happy with them. Anytime there's a disaster against God's people in the Bible, it's 90% of the time because of their sin. Why was it that throughout biblical times all those disasters were because of sin, and today no believer blinks an eye when God totally allows their church that hundreds of thousands of dollars of their offerings went into to get completely annihilated?

I am struggling with reconciling your claim that you were once a pastor and this statement above that skips over the book of Job. There isn't a single person in the Bible who enduring more suffering inflicted by God than Job. Isn't the book of Job pretty clear that suffering isn't always a result of sin? Didn't God rebuke Job's friends who told him that his suffering was a result of sin in his life? Wouldn't Christians be wise to not make the same mistake Job's friends did?

Let's just hope friends and family of those church members that died don't see your blog entry where you use the loss of two lives as an opportunity to bash them and their church. Hatred has a way of tainting good judgment, doesn't it? Let me ask you a question Zac. Were you more compassionate towards people who were hurting when you were a pastor or are you more companionate now?

Anonymous said...

Dennis, there is no bashing going on with Zach's post, unless it's a bashing of a good omnipotent God.

Let's see, we point out that there are instances of suffering, and all a Christian can do is to claim we aren't compassionate towards those who suffered. Hogwash! Absolute Hogwash. We would've stopped that tornado if we could have, whereas your loving God did nothing. And since you worship this God, and since you'll be the first to claim God loves them and knows what he's doing, then it is YOU who are the uncompassionate one, if there is anyone who is here.

On the other hand, if we don't bring up any instances of human suffering then Christians would be pleased, because then they wouldn't have to answer for their God. They could sweep things like this under the carpet, so to speak. That's what you seem to be asking for here, and it's simply unreasonable. If I suffered like those people I would thank Zach for bringing it up.

Anonymous said...


This blog has sunken to new depths of callousness and inhumanity. I will not blame an atheistic perspective per se for this shameless exhibition of heartlessness. Many a more decent atheist would be embarrassed by this posting. It’s the compassionless and irresponsible individuals who post this obscenity, supported by others, who are guilty of this repulsive buffoonery. You’re snickering giggliness before the disaster these people have suffered reveals an incredible shallowness in your being. To use this calamity as a springboard for a mocking discussion of God or destiny or whatever is simply . . . ! Words really fail me or are unprintable. In the face of such a tragedy neither rationalistic hair-splitting technicalities nor screamed denials can cover up such utterly tasteless facetiousness as "I’m disappointed with the level of journalism I heard. I thought reporters were supposed to ask the tough questions." Should they have asked the liberated Jews in Auschwitz such questions? Shame on you. It is not apologists for this mentality that are needed but straightforward apologies.

Anonymous said...

So Jose', which kinds of natural disasters do we have your future permission to highlight and expose God for what he doesn't do? Spell them out for us so we can know not to offend you. People die in them, you know. We are appalled that they do if a good God exists. We are appalled that this God does nothing for those people who continue to believe in his love.

We will not accept from you any unreasonable demands that we don't highlight some such events as these, since that would give you your cake and let you eat it too. We want YOU to come to grips with what you believe. Face it head on. Deal with it here and now. Don't skirt the issue by claiming we shouldn't highlight these events. It'll get you nowhere.

I see no reason why a reporter couldn't have asked, "What does this do to your faith"? Or, "why do you think God didn't spare you from this tornado?" I'm sure believers wouldn't be offended by such questions, and they'd have no trouble answering them.

Dennis said...

If I suffered like those people I would thank Zach for bringing it up.

Interesting way of justifying that.

John, if I could come up with an e-mail address where a person could send letters of encouragement to members of that church that was destroyed, would you send them a copy of Zac's post where Zach mocks their pastor and accuses the God they worship of shitting on their sanctuary? Would that be a compassionate thing to do?

Dennis said...

There is nothing wrong with asking why God allows bad things to happen such as what happened to this church. Where most Christians will probably be offended is when you take a real church and real people that died and use that as a platform to bash Christians and mock the pastor of the church.

Since you are having trouble grasping this, let's try reversing the roles.

Let's assume that a member within the circle of your atheist friends has died. How would you feel if a Christian took the death of your atheist friend and used it as a platform to make their arguments and while they were at it, they mocked the words used by your friends as you consoled each other? Wouldn't you rightfully accuse that Christian of placing his ideology above the compassion your dead friend, you, and your friends deserve?

paul said...

Dennis,
The consensus here is that there really is no God, the effort is to reveal that to people. Think of it this way, if none of those people had believed, they would not have hidden from God in Gods house and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

In a sense though, I think you and Jose may have a point. If we know there is no God, it might be nicer not to point it out at such an obvious time...I'm not sure. Sometimes the cure hurts. That is, it hurts if you're not God and cannot always affect a cure painlessly.

ZT said...

Hi everyone,
I am appalled in the same way Jose and Dennis are at the loss of life. I love life. I cherish it.

Why are you blaming me for being "heartless" when I am nothing of the kind? If you point fingers at anyone for being callous, you might think of pointing at the all powerful God who allowed this to happen.

My post made two points:
1) I think a journalist should have asked someone how this event affected their faith.

2) I think that natural disasters such as this should cause one to think about what God was thinking, and how one should react in response to it. It always happened in the Bible, why not now?

This is where theology is taken from the ivory halls and place into real flesh and blood moments. This is where Christian theology shows it's soft under belly.

I agree with both of you. These are some hard thoughts to consider, but please don't take your eyes off of what's really the point here.

The point is not about my apparent callousness- the point is about the one who allowed this awful tragedy to happen.

Anonymous said...


John, Zac, you just do not get it. It is not a question of argumentation and rationalization. It is a question of taste and tone. You do not have a reported ask the Amish families whose children were slaughtered by a lunatic, “Where was the God you believe in?” It’s an absolutely vulgar question in the time of tragedy. The only thing a human being should do at such a time is show compassion, offer condolences and be helpful. What happened to you John and Zac? As sure as I believe in God I believe the imago dei remains in you somewhere deep inside. But I have no proof or evidence to offer.

There is an entirely different way to broach such a discussion in a philosophy class and those that have not been totally desensitized should know how to do this. The photos and news of the calamity simply did not evoke real compassion from you. The author of the post only thought about making a mocking point. The tragedy was merely used as a springboard for a derisive commentary. People perceive this mockery, they feeel it. Reporters do not stand outside a funeral home to ask such callous and obtuse questions unless they are of that very nasty type who try to draw tears for the photographer. I strongly suspect Zac Taylor that you would not want to be that reporter who goes to those suffering people to ask the “tough questions” you talk about.

Now, I suppose you can say whatever you want on your blog but if you put your finger in a person’s wound and poke around to make a clever point you can expect a powerful reaction.

Anonymous said...

Here's where we all agree. The tragic loss of life is something we don't wish on anyone, and if we could help these people we would do so, although there is so much of it around the world we cannot always do so. We also agree that we can ask about the goodness of God on this Blog in light of such needless suffering. We can ask YOU those questions here on this Blog, so YOU answer them as a non-suffering bystander.

Where we disagree is about what questions some nameless reporter could ask. I have heard reporters ask really hard questions of people. It's not that Zach would personally ask these hard questions. It's about what a reporter would ask in the interests of knowing how a believer feels in time of suffering. And I suspect believers would have no difficuty answering them, so there's no offense.

You're just playing whatever cards you can to skirt the real issue here, and I expect you to deal with it. Why did it happen? Where was this good God of yours?

Listen, we are all human beings, and in the face of disaster we would all do and say about the same exact things, and you know it. Zach was not writing to them, so don't go off asking him to send this to any of them. They will never read this. He was writing to us. He wanted US to consider this tragedy in light of what Christians who read this Blog believe. That is the real context for what he wrote. Now deal with it.

Christians try to distinguish between the emotional problem of evil from other forms of the problem, but there is no hard clear cut line between them. It's more like a continuum. Sure, I'd like a hug, and encouraging words that I'll get back on my feet again, but part of what would comfort me the most is some measurable answers as to why God allowed me to suffer.

Why don't you send them an email, Dennis, telling them why God allows suffering, to strengthen their faith? If you could help them with their questions it would surely be appreciated. Why don't you compose that email and post it here, so I know how you would respond?

And as far as tough questions go, think about how Christians go into prisons and hospitals and food kitchens, when people are down on their luck, who tell them they are sinners deserving of hell, and that with God things will be better for them. Christians play on this fear to convert these people to a delusional fantasy world?

The most insensitive and uncaring person of all in this discussion is the Christian God. Admit it. At least I would have the good ethics to avert that disaster. So I am morally better than your God.

Now deal with the real issues involved, since we'll have to disagree on what we do.

ZT said...

Do you see what you're saying? You're not responding to my points, you're responding to how I presented them. John has pointed this out several times today.

And I guess, to respond to your points that have nothing to do with my original points - if I was the pastor of a church that God just allowed to be destroyed by a tornado, and a guy from CNN asked me, "where do you think God was when this happened?" I would not feel offended. Ok?

You think its vulgar to ask this question the way I did. I get it - that's your opinion. You stated it. I said I don't feel the same way. The end. Thank you.

Now, how about responding to the ideas in the post? Where was God? Should this affect someone's faith in an all-good God? And the myriad other questions that this tragedy raises.

It's just a suggestion.

Anonymous said...

http://dailydish.typepad.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/on_god.html

Anonymous said...


I think we understand the so-called “real issue” you wish to focus on and which was no doubt the point of the Zach’s posting. This issue has been harped on over and over again on this blog. It is not a new issue and has been addressed for thousands of years.

“Oh, what a terrible God who does not do the things as we think best. Who doesn’t explain Himself to our full satisfaction. A God who some even think will damn us to eternal suffering. A God who allows so much suffering and does not reveal Himself plainly for all to see and faithlessly revere. How can anyone be so stupid as to believe in the existence of such a sadistic tyrant? I’m so happy to be free of that delusion.”

And on and on. Hello, we hear you!!

“So let us focus on that irascible, tyrant God once again and everyone totally ignore our insensitivity and callous statements. Let’s not go there. Forget that we suggested having reporters violate the grieving condition of people stricken by disaster. Forget our mocking tone and the actual words that we used. Don’t try to have us apologize for them in any way because we prefer complaining about that Christian God, whom we know does not exist, and this was an excellent opportunity regardless of whose feelings we might hurt. We are more moral than God, whom we don’t believe in. We refuse to apologize for anything we may have said when you believe in such a terrible God, whom we do not believe in.”

Hmm. I see.

Anonymous said...

Who cares about the so-called "emotional response" towards those people around here. This is an intellectual, philosophical blog. We're meant to ask questions like these. And so far, no satisfactory answers from the Christians except for how callous and heartless Zac is.

Of course Zac would act "better" to the survivors if he met them in person or came into contact with them. Until then, get over it. Zac's point still stands strong, whether he feels compassion or not for those dead people. Really, intellectually, this is irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

I detest the way reporters get their noses up close and personal to people and try to rip them apart during the most horrid circumstances. Usually it's done to gather ratings for the network, rather than discover the truth behind the story. I agree with Jose and Dennis that posing philosophical questions to survivors immediately following a terrible natural disaster is very crude and unfeeling.

The other reason reporters should not ask victim's about their opinion about god is that the events were entirely unrelated to any intelligent being. The tornadoes happened without the benefit of any intentional planning and to question anyone on god's involvement is more myth-making than journalistic fact gathering.

A warm supportive shoulder during a time of crisis will do more to recommend one's ideas than a blunt inquisitive examination.

The god of the Bible is an impossibility and the sooner reporters treat natural disasters with no reference to that imaginary being the better, in my opinion.

ZT said...

Thanks everyone for your comments. I would ask you to indulge me just one more time on this topic.

The more I think about it and listen to everyone, the more I am re-thinking whether a reporter should have asked a believer who just lost their church building.

It should be their fellow believers - family members and close friends. It should be those people who, when the time is right, say, "why do you think God allowed this to happen to us?"

Yes, I agree, this whole "problem of evil" debate has been discussed here. But here is a chance for us to think about it in a real life situation -- that has not been done. Some of you centered your entire criticism of this post on those two paragraphs that talked about a reporter. But even if you disagree with that, don't ignore the other points that the Christians themselves, biblically speaking, should probably be asking these questions.

And as we've seen from these comments, it can be difficult to face these questions when the wound is still open.

But imagine your child was murdered. The last thing you want to do is tell the police officer the details about what happened. The last thing you want to do is think about it when it still hurts so bad. But those are the moments that count the most for the investigation, are they not?

And, likewise here, what better time for these Christians to think about the kind of God they worship. Yes, it's difficult, and sometimes I hate to be the person here in a nice comfy living room posing those questions to people who are obviously hurting.

But they are questions that need to be asked--maybe not by a reporter, but by a true friend, and at the very least by the people who were the object of this terrible storm God allowed their way.

And if ever there was a time to ask these questions about God and evil, the time is now for those devout Christians in Florida who just lost everything because of a good and loving Father God.

Z Taylor, signing out.

Unknown said...

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. Suffering is a consequence of our own sin. We must bear the consequenses of our sin. However, God, in his wisdom and omniscience, uses suffering to strengthen his people. We see a perfect example of this in Job. God used Job's suffering to make his faith run deeper. God gives people the opportunity to learn, to grow through suffering. Job's lesson was that God is in blessings and in suffering. "He (God) delivers the afflicted by their affliction and opens their ear by adversity" (Job 36:15). People can always come out of suffering with more faith, trust, and knowledge. God even gives the godless a chance to trust in him, but "The godless in heart cherish anger; they do not cry for help when he binds them" (Job 36:13).

Jeremiah 29 11-14 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you," declares the LORD, "and will bring you back from captivity."

Unknown said...

I guess God was just upset at this church for some reason. ;-)

That was the fallacy of Job's three friends in the book of Job. Their understanding was that Job committed some sin and that God was punishing them for some reason (Job 4-31), but Job was blameless. God even rebuked the three friends because they were incorrect (Job 42:7). The point of the book of job is that God works through suffering (that we brought on ourselves) for good.

Martin said...

Well, I wondered how soon a Christian was going to turn up here and just start quoting scripture as if that meant anything. Let's see what Kevin's offered us:

"Suffering is a consequence of our own sin. We must bear the consequenses of our sin."

Ah, blame the victims. Nice. And you guys call us callous and insensitive. What "sin" do you think the people whose homes and lives were devastated by this tornado committed, that they deserved to have their lives devastated by a tornado? So far, the only picture you're painting of your god with this scripture is a god of pure, spiteful evil.

"God gives people the opportunity to learn, to grow through suffering."

So what lesson is it you think these people needed to learn by having their homes and lives devastated by a tornado, that they didn't already know? That it's a really shitty thing to have your homes and lives devastated by a tornado? Gee, thanks for giving us the opportunity to learn, dear Lord.

You're not doing your invisible friend any favors with these scripture quotes, Kev. How about setting aside the "Good" Book and telling us what you think?

Unknown said...

Martin,

Ah, blame the victims...

It is not just their specific sin, it is the sin that has been passed down from generation to generation since Adam and Eve. It is the sin that we were born with and it is the sin that we cannot wash clean ourselves, only through belief in Jesus. It is original sin.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

the only picture you're painting of your god with this scripture is a god of pure, spiteful evil

John 3: 17-18 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned."

So what lesson is it you think these people needed to learn by having their homes and lives devastated by a tornado, that they didn't already know?

God will show them where He wants them to grow, but it will be up to them to decide if they are going to reject God or put more faith in him.

Anonymous said...

Every one of us desrvre to be in that tornado

Anonymous said...

Romans 9 tells us that the reason evil exists is because God wanted to show His nature. He wanted to demonstrate His wrath and power. Unless evil existed, it would be impossible for a good God to show wrath, judgment and power.
There would be no need for mercy if evil didn't exist.

Anonymous said...

"Every one of us desrvre to be in that tornado"

Even a little girl with a bowtie on her head and flowery dress about to celebrate her fifth birthday?

ZT said...

Hi Kevin,
When you use the Bible to make a point, you also need to remember the entire Bible.

Yes, Job is one example where a man unjustly suffered because God likes to gamble sometimes. But there a numerous examples of how God took out his vengeance on his own people through death and natural disasters because they were in some kind of sin.

So, the question should still stand for these Christians who suffered - is God mad at us or is he making another bet?

Unknown said...

Hi Zac,

You are right, I should remember the entire bible.

God, in his omniscience, knows who is going to sin, grow, stumble, fall, etc. God doesn't exactly gamble with people. With every trail, God gives a way to stand under it, and he knows exactly how to help every single person in the world.

God has a righteous anger. We see obvious examples of this in Exodus. A specific example is the Golden calf in Exodus 32. The people disobeyed God and worshiped an Idol of Gold. His anger was merely to make the people repent, and worship him again. Then God, being the loving person he is, gave them another chance everything was "alright."

God wants everybody to be saved. He doesn't want to send anybody to hell, but he will if they do not believe. All we have to do is have faith in Jesus Christ.

Why I Don't Believe said...

Zac

As a journalism major, I am aware of some of the things that might run through a journalist's mind when reporting a story. Is the story newsworthy and are all the nalges you cover also newsworthy or relevant. To some, asking those questions might be relevant, but to the majority of the audience they are not. So to NOT ask them might be better suited to a wider audience. The journalists might also wish to be sensitive to the plight of those effected and not wish to cause undue distress. These questions would be suited to a program or publication with a religious bent.

As far as the Christian commenters who slagged you for making your post, they're just looking for mud to sling at you. Again, from a journalist's perspective, this blog is EXACTLY the arena to ask these questions. As someone else pointed out, one would not (and you didn't of course) say the things you did were you to meet the people effected or were they to read this blog. So don't be phased by their comments. Your critics here have nothing to say in response to the issues you raised and are just throwing guilt. Christians are most excellent at that! So on your behalf I give 'em hearty "F*ck off!!!" :)

Anonymous said...

**God wants everybody to be saved. He doesn't want to send anybody to hell, but he will if they do not believe**

Which 'hell,' though? Sheol/Hades or Gehenna?

That statement is also saying that God doesn't get what He desires, in the end.

ZT said...

Kevin- You said, "with every trial, God gives a way to stand under it, and knows exactly how to help every single person in the world."

I have no reason to believe that when innocent people are killed in these natural disasters, or when those 200,000 people in Indonesia just lost their homes to flooding. I think if God wants me to believe in him, he has some explaining to do before I'll believe what you just said above.

And Troy,
Yes, I conceded that there are good reasons a reporter may not ask those questions - although they are legitimate questions to ask, if not now, sometime in the future. Thanks for the comments from a real journalism major.

Anonymous said...

Kevin,

Quoting the Bible doesn't work on people who don't believe in the Bible. Please read Theresa's post titled "Unconvincing Arguments". I see that you have already commented in that thread, but it seems like you just did a Bible-quoting drive-by without reading anything. It's rude, and does nothing for your arguments. If you want people to think about what you write, please read what they wrote first.

Tommykey said...

Of course, if every building in the town except for the church was destroyed by the tornado, there is no doubt that many Christians would be proclaiming it a miracle and a sign from God.

José Solano said...


We didn’t throw any mud at Zach. We simply observed that he wallowed in the mire with his callous and mocking comments, and absurd suggestions. Theists, as well as the more sensitive atheists —thank you Lynda— are concerned with right and wrong and with just plain decency. As result we do produce, hopefully, a sense of guilt on people that have acted unethically. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen in this case any real sign of contrition or apology for the thoughtless and hurtful comments. On the contrary, we now have a budding journalist giving us, on your behalf, a "hearty F ---k off!!!" With his prosaic skills we can imagine what a colorful journalist he is going to make on the National Enquirer or other rag.

As for that God into whose hands it is a terrifying thing to fall, which you do not believe exist but are forever drawn to; well, if we have such a hard time bringing out a little apology from insensitive writers, what can we possibly do to impact the MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM who may not do as I want? — whom you do not believe in but I do. I emulate Job and put my hand over my mouth.

Anonymous said...

This post, and the replies, give me considerable problems. First, for those who would condemn us as heartless, we're here, wherever our 'here' is. We can debate these topics because we are hundreds of miles away. If we were there, we shouldn't be debating, we should be pitching in. We should be helping these people rebuild. (And if I were there, and they said that they thought rebuilding the church was a high priority, I'd pitch in with that. I am a humanist first and an atheist second, and I wouldn't feel the right to set their priorities for them, no matter how much I disagreed with them.)

As for the person who mentioned Auschwitz, the fact is that from the day of liberation there, there has been an ongoing debate in the Jewish community over precisely the question of "how did our god allow this to happen." Some religious Jews became secular because of it, some secular Jews found it necessary to reassert their 'Jewish identity' in a secular way, some were brought to reexamine their traditions and became religious. (Reporters didn't have to 'ask the question,' they did it themselves.)
As for the Christians who condemned the comments as 'heartless, I would have more sympathy for their position had I not heard prominent Christian pastors (representing, true, a loud but minority position) repeatedly claim that events such as Katrina, the Tsunami, the Pakistan earthquake, and even 9/11 were 'the punishment by God for our sins' (usually, for the American disasters at least, for our 'tolerance of homosexuality.')
(And this is not exclusive to Christianity either. I have read of imams and rabbis using the same argument, with one prominent -- but VERY unrepresentative -- rabbi even claiming that the recent conflict in Lebanon was God's way of preventing the Jerusalem Gay Pride parade.)
I particularly find Kevin's comments offensive, and his reference of the Golden Calf particularly inane.
"The people disobeyed God and worshiped an Idol of Gold. His anger was merely to make the people repent, and worship him again. Then God, being the loving person he is, gave them another chance everything was "alright." "
Oh, really. Everything was 'alright' for the people who survived. And as for the dead ones... (I suppose Kevin could claim that, that, that... Hmmm. Since they were sinning, -- at least some of them -- they weren't 'taken into heaven' so they weren't 'alright.' And, since the Judaism of the time did not accept an afterlife -- another late addition -- they didn't even have this consolation, as false as some of us might think it was. And those who were destroyed by 'God's anger' had relatives that survived, and however much they 'repented' I don't think everything was 'alright' with them.)
Kevin, what did you MEAN by 'alright'?

I had a specific point to make in re the original post, but the comments have taken me in a different direction, so I'll put that in another comment.

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Unknown said...

Heather, great question,
Im sure you know this, but Sheol and Hades are the same place. It is the non-permanent place or temporary address of the disembodied souls of dead. It is not the grave or sepulcher, nor is it the eternal location of the souls of the dead. It is split into two parts, one for the godless, and the other for the righteous.
Gehenna is known as the lake of fire and is most often what people are meaning when they say hell. Hell is a general term that is often used to refer to either Gehenna or the torment side of Hades, both by those who know the basic difference between these two specific places and by those who do not.

To answer your actual question, the answer is both. People who are sent to the torment side of Hades will eventually be sent to Gehenna. Meanwhile, the people who are sent to the paradise side Hades will be sent to heaven. This will all happen on Judgment Day.

All people have the ability to reject God, and, unfortunately, many people exercise that ability. The bible says in Matthew 25 that the sheep (the righteous) will be separated from the goats(the godless), with the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. This implies that not all people will be saved.


Zac,
I know, it is a terrible world that we live in. Suffering and death are part of the curse of sin on the world. We brought this all on ourselves. The bible tells us to be on guard. It says that the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night (Revelation 16:15). We do not know the date of our death or the date of Judgment Day. It is better that we put our faith in Jesus always so we will always be prepared.

Even though all of these bad things happen, God is there to help us through it. Here is just one example of God helping the people of Indonesia. http://www.lcmsfoundation.org/Newsletter/06-15-06/06_Mission.html


Benny,

I understand your point, but the only way to know God is through the bible. We are by nature spiritually blind, dead, and an enemy of God. God has to reveal himself to us. There is no possible way for a fallible human to think this up. Christianity is the only religion where the supreme deity gave up his own son just to save his followers. In other religions, people must work to try to be saved.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14

Anonymous said...

My original point was going to be:

Isaac Asimov, in an essay (sorry, don't have the exact reference hand), made the point that the first post-Gallilean scientist to, in effect, challenge the theistic way of viewing the world was not Darwin but Benjamin Franklin.
Before Franklin, lightning was seen as an 'Act of God' in a very literal sense. It was 'God's weapon,' to smite those he wished to, for whatever reason -- and the commenters here have discussed some of the reasons he was assumed to have.

Given that premise, the only rational response to a thunderstorm would be to gather in church and to pray that God would spare you and the community. (And it IS a rational response to the premise.)

UNFORTUNATELY, Churches were frequently built with tall, pointed steeples or spires directed to the heavens, at times deliberately built to be the tallest structure in the vicinity. (And, my point, not Asimov's, towns would compete to show their piety -- and 'civic pride' to build even taller steeples.)

I assume that all of you are sufficiently aware of the true nature and action of lightning to realize the consequences. The church-goers, rather than protecting themselves from God's wrath, in fact INCREASED their danger of being the victims of the storm. (And, sorry for the snarkiness, but I am sure the survivors were also the victims of the sniggering of the church-goers from neighboring towns who must have pointed out that they HAD to have been comitting some form of evil for God to strike them when they were in church.)

Franklin, by demonstrating that lightning was a natural, not a Divine phenomena, didn't just challenge their belief. He created a device that would protect not merely the unbeliever, but would equally protect the church goer who denied his premise. (Much as today's medicinal discoveries that come from an understanding of genetics equally protects the evolutionist and the creationist.)

The relevance of this little 'parable' should be obvious, even to the Kevins among you.

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

ZT said...

Jose,
You are just taking this way to far, my brother. You are totally blowing this out of proportion. It's a legitimate question. "Where was God?" "Why did he allow this?"

You don't like the timing, and you don't like the idea of a reporter asking the church leader about it. That's all. And that's fine, I understand that and if you look through my comments to you, I've never really argued with you about that. I even conceded that maybe a reporter isn't a good person to ask, but at the very least these Christians should be asking these questions to themselves.

All I know is that if I was a Christian in that situation, I would be asking some serious questions about my faith, ok? I would want to think about where my God was, and the kind of God I worship.

This is there the problem of evil rubber hits the road. This is where it matters most. This is where this question is most pertinently asked. And I hope I have helped someone in Florida who went through this terrible tragedy by being honest about this situation.

If ever there was a time to ask these questions about God and evil, the time is now for those devout Christians in Florida who just lost everything because of a good and loving Father God.

Call it heartless all you want. In fact, why don't you post a few more brainless comments about how heartless it is?

Anonymous said...

Kevin:
Some of your points fascinate me -- and only partially because I know how many equally sincere Christians would dispute you on them.

Let's take just two. Few Christians I know of would accept your argument that there is a 'temporary resting place' for the souls of the dead previous to the last Judgment. (As I said on another post, this idea is closer to the Zoroastrian idea of an afterlife than any biblical one I know of -- perhaps you can give me a Biblical reference backing this up.) In fact, if you accept this, what of Christ's words to the 'good thief,' "This day shall thou be with me in Paradise." Of all the souls that had existed, is this the only one such an exception would be made for?

If, for that matter, the MAIN component of Paradise is the "Beatific Vision," -- and again I'll ask you to provide Biblical references for other descriptions (I can quote many from the Qur'an but not from the Bible) does this mean that even the most innocent soul is still punished by being forced to wait until the final judgment by having this blessing denied to him. If not, what is the difference between the 'paradise side' of Gehenna and Heaven. (And, if you take the first view, who is being punished more; the person who knows he is to eventually to receive a great gift but it is withheld from him, or the person who knows and must reconcile himself to never receiving the gift.)

Your second point seems to be that there is no rational way to understand God, that it can ONLY be done through the acceptance of the Bible. The problem with THIS is that this means that there is no rational way to choose the Christian Bible over the other books that make the equivalent claims, e.g., the Hebrew Bible without the New Testament, whether or not the Apocrypha is included, the Qur'an -- which claims that it is the true message that was taught by Jesus, Moses, Adam and Noah as well as by Mohammed, the Avesta, supposedly given to Zarathustra directly by God (Ahura Mazda), or even the Book of Mormon, supposedly revealed to Joseph Smith by God and translated by an Angel. (Interestingly enough, it is only the latter that comes with a 'legal attestation' since every copy includes a copy of a sworn affidavit by people who claim to have seen the 'brass tablets.')

If there is no RATIONAL way of choosing between these books, then the only reasonable argument is that the choice is made on faith that God grants or withholds, which leads to the Calvinist predestination paradox. (How can God punish someone for not having something He, and only He, could have given them?)
Either that, or you fall into the Islamic position of holding that faith is an inherent part of human nature, that we are all born Christians -- even those who have never seen or heard of the Bible. (This is why some Muslims hold that no one 'converts' to Islam, that in fact they merely 'revert' to something they knew in their hearts from birth. Again, why is your position -- if this IS your position -- more credible than theirs. (Remember, you have said that faith is not a rational thing, is not something one can reach on one's own, so you cannot argue from history, attestation, or even from the fact that the Bible is at least coherent, and that the Qur'an is not. Nor, for that matter can you dismiss the Book of Mormon on the grounds that the language used shows that it is a 19th Century attempt to 'write biblically,' as shown by Smith's starting almost every other paragraph with "And it came to pass that..." Nor can you dismiss either on the grounds that they are scientifically implausible without submitting your own book to the same test -- a test which you would deny.)

I am, seriously, awaiting any response you have to these two points.

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

billf said...

Kevin said:

"Christianity is the only religion where the supreme deity gave up his own son just to save his followers."

It still blows me away when I see this. Jesus knew he was god, and new he was going to be resurrected, and knew he was going to heaven. There are tens of thousands, maybe millions of people in awful pain every day. Many of them linger on for months and years with no escape from their pain. How was Jesus's really bad weekend special?

How does the giving of a blood sacrifice, regardless of who, absolve us of sin? How is this alleged christian blood sacrifice any better than the Aztecs?

Why can't they see how silly this all is?

Sorry for going kind of off topic here.

BillF

Anonymous said...

Kevin,

I did know that about Sheol/Hades. Hades is the Greek Translation for 'Sheol.' However, I don't see them as the same place (yes, I'm familiar with the Bible). Sheol is used in the Hebrew Bible as a place where everyone goes, yes, but there's no benefit to either group. It's translation is 'the grave,' 'the pit,' the region of the dead.' Gehenna is derived from the valley of Hinnom, which was a huge garbage dump that had an 'unending' fire in order to keep down the smell, and to burn everything up that was put there, such as bodies. In most instances used, it seems to be used in a metaphoric sense. Yes, there are places that use 'eternal fire' or 'eternal punishment,' but the word 'eternal' is used in the sense of showing a period of time until God's purpose is completed. And God's purpose is to eventually be all-in-all, and His biggest desire is the salvation of all.

The thing with using the sheep and goats analogy to explain people's ability to reject God is the way Jesus determined who was who. The sheep were those who fed/clothed/help those in need (Jesus), while the goats were those who didn't. And each group of people asked when they did this for the people/Jesus. So where they consciously aware of accepting/rejecting God? Each group did *everything* the same except that portion of serving God unknowingly.

Anonymous said...

I wish God would make me all knowing so that I could come up with a reason why He might have let this happen.

Anonymous said...

**Many of them linger on for months and years with no escape from their pain. How was Jesus's really bad weekend special? ** I think one of the arguments is that he was literally carrying all the sins of every person, which was agonizing for him. I think.

That, and some argue that God turned His face away while Jesus was on the cross because God can't stand the sight of sin -- which was also agonizing.

Anonymous said...

Bad argument
Christ died only for rhe elect

Why I Don't Believe said...

Reply to Jose...

With his prosaic skills we can imagine what a colorful journalist he is going to make on the National Enquirer or other rag.

You really are a petty bitch no?

It feels like church all over again with you here Jose.

Anonymous said...

I have always found it very amusing to read the infantile scibblings of finite brains trying to describe the nature of an infinite being (which is one of the attributes they claim for their god). Humility is suppose to be a Christian virtue yet so few Christians prove they possess it.

Anonymous said...

Islam and Christianity both perpetuate terrorism. In the West Islam perpetuates physical terrorism aimed at smashing the physical fabric of a liberal society, and Christianity perpetuates spiritual/emotional terrorism aimed at dulling critical thinking and unbiased morality. Either terrorism is inexcusable.

Anonymous said...

It is a wonderful thing for infinite glory to shine forth, it is proper that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete. All parts of His glory should shine forth, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. Thus, it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, His authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed.Also there would be no manifistation of God's grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardened.

Anonymous said...

If God is good and has designed the world then why would there be massive storms in His good creation?
Scientific evidence shows that earths rotation rate has a great effect on the number and intensity of storms the planet produces. If the rotation rate slowed down by two hours per day there would be fewer storms. If it speeds up storms would would increase and become more devastating. What if storms and hurricanes were eliminated all together? Would the world become a better place?
Earth receives alot of benefits from massive storms.
1. Sufficiant rainfall to water the earth. Parts of the earth rely on heavy storms to supply for lifes basic needs.
2. Plant fertilizer from lightning. Nitrogen fixing by lightning converts some of the nitrogen in the air into a form that plants can use for food. Without it many plants could not thrive. And plants are the foundation of the food chain.
3. Pruning of forests by strong winds. In addition to fires, winds uproot weaker trees and open up the forest canopy for a greater diversity of plants and animals.
Drought-breaking rainfal. Severe storms such as hurricanes provide immediate, ample water supplys to end years of drought.

Earth's rotation speed is fast enough to provide the just-right quantity and magnitude of thunderstorms to sustain a rich diversity of life.
Maybe we should research and learn better ways on how to protect ouselves from such devastating storms and not say God doesn't care or that He doesn't exist.

Anonymous said...

Also planetary scientist tell us that if events such as theese didn't occur earth would not maintain the delicate balances of atmospheric and other environmental conditions that are mandatory for human life to exist and survive.

Anonymous said...

The blood sacrifice of Christ was different in that it was infinite punishment. When we sin we not only sin against a human being but we also sin against God. God is infinite in value. Sining against a being that is infinite in worth would demand infinite justice. Only Christ could have paid that price because He was both God and man. Infinite Justice

Anonymous said...

Rich:
You raise an interesting point, especially because I grew up Catholic, and hence with an acceptance of Purgatory. I still believe that if you accept a Hell, you need to have such a place of temporary punishment for those who have committed some sins, particularly minor ones. (In fact, I am working on an article for another blog in which I discuss this, I'll post a reference to it if I finish it and it gets posted.)
I was only arguing against the concept suggested by Kevin that there are two resting places that all souls must await the Last Judgment in. That is not merely incredible -- of course, I find the whole concept of an afterlife incredible -- but contrary to any Christian thinking I was aware of, and I do wish he'd explain his basis for it.

Anonymous said...

So many of the apologies for the Problem of Evil forget that God is supposed to be omnipotent. They claim things like "Earth receives alot of benefits from massive storms" and "planetary scientist tell us that if events such as theese didn't occur earth would not maintain the delicate balances of atmospheric and other environmental conditions that are mandatory for human life to exist and survive." However, if God is omnipotent, these are not limitations on him; he could maintain a viable Earth with or without massive storms. Similarly, arguments such as "there would be no manifistation of God's grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardened" indicate that God is not omnipotent, as he could not "manifest his goodness" without first making evil.

The arguments also ignore God's omniscience. For example, "Suffering and death are part of the curse of sin on the world." But God knew that, if he put Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in Eden with the Tree of Knowledge, they would sin out of ignorance (as they had no knowledge of Good and Evil yet). He knew that he would respond to this sin by condemning generations of innocents to terrible evil (for some reason--I didn't eat the apple, dammit). But he still set things up that way. I don't put my toddler in the same room as my circular saw, no matter how sternly I warn him not to touch it.

Anonymous said...

So what your saying is that it would have been better if God would have created the universe without these laws of physics.

Anonymous said...

**Only Christ could have paid that price because He was both God and man. Infinite Justice** The problem I have with that view is that so often, it seems that this viewpoint constantly emphasizes the infinite justice at the expense of infinite love.

That, and we're constantly told that we're finite, under this viewpoint. So how could a sin we commit be infinite? Plus, God should also have infinite understanding, in realizing that if humans are inherently sinful, they don't always control their "sin nature." And for someone to whom this viewpoint doesn't make sense, or they have a problem with it on compassionate grounds and see it as an evil act (sending millions to hell for a lack of belief) ... shouldn't God understand, in His infinite wisdom, that a finite being may not be able to accept this because it doesn't make sense?

Anonymous said...

So how could a sin we commit be infinite?

Well, the way I've heard it put is like this.
Some things have higher value than others. Dogs have a higher value than a worm. Humans have higher value than a dog. Murdering a worm isn't as bad as murdering a dog. Murdering a dog isn't as bad as murdering a human. If I steal something worth 100000000 dolars the punishmet is worse than if I steal something worth 2 cents.
Since God is infinite in worth and value then when I sin against Him I deserve infinite punishment.

Anonymous said...

**Since God is infinite in worth and value then when I sin against Him I deserve infinite punishment.**

But that still leaves a finite being held up to an infinite standard. That also doesn't take into account man's inherent sinful nature. An infinite punishment is put into place for a man who is fallen. You're saying you deserve punishment for something that is in your nature, and something that you will inevitably do. It's like taking a child who was genetically designed to like cookies, putting a cookie in front of that child, and then punishing the child for eating the cookie.

Anonymous said...

So what your saying is that it would have been better if God would have created the universe without these laws of physics.

According to the Bible, God can choose to disregard these laws whenever he wants (i.e. miracles). He could either keep the laws but intervene to protect his people, or he could change the laws so that his creation was maintained but natural diseases and disasters would not occur. That shouldn't be too hard for him; he is omnipotent, isn't he? He can do ANYTHING, right?

Anonymous said...

So it's unfair to punish a finite being for commiting a sin that deserves infinite punishmet?

I don't know they tell me that I'm genetically predisposed for alcohol but I don't think it has ever forced me to drink. You can put alcohol in front of me but I don't think It completely forces me to drink it

Anonymous said...

So it would be better if he did do it that way instead of the way He does it

Anonymous said...

I've been thinking about something. If the laws of logic apply to reality that would mean that reality would be free from contadiction. But reality is full of dissagreement and contradiction. Would that mean that the laws of logic don't corraspond to reality?

Anonymous said...

**So it's unfair to punish a finite being for commiting a sin that deserves infinite punishmet?** It is if you're holding up someone to a standard they're never going to be able to meet. God is telling this person, "You'll never be able to match up to me." It doesn't matter that there was an 'out' provided through Jesus. That's not the point.

**I don't know they tell me that I'm genetically predisposed for alcohol but I don't think it has ever forced me to drink. ** But there are a lot of other factors going on in that situation. It's not a main part of you. Whereas the argument for sin is that we've all inhereited it from Adam/Eve and it's the strongest aspect of us. We're never told we're half-good, half-sinful in this system. We're told we're sinners, stained with sin, wretched before God's sight. And sin has also been described as a wrong thought against God. So what about an instaneous emotional reaction? Like hatred? People can't just 'decide' how they're going to emotionally react at all times. They can try and decided how they're going to act, but sometimes the emotion's just too strong. How many people have killed in a moment of blind rage, feeling like they were unable to control themselves? Or a 7 or 8 year old who already fully comprehends that hatred is wrong, yet still has moments where s/he honestly feels s/he hates his/her parents? Your example above only focuses on action.

Anonymous said...

So it would be better if he did do it that way instead of the way He does it

Absolutely. Which leaves a few options.

A.) He's not omnipotent, so he can't prevent the disasters

B.) He's not omniscient, so he doesn't know when the disasters happen

C.) He's not omnibenevolent, so he doesn't mind being a right bastard sometimes

or the simplest option

D.) He doesn't exist, so lay off Him already

Chris Knight said...

Zac,

In the song that you used for this article, It says that God is who He is no matter where we are. In other words, God is still God in my comfort and in my misery.

In Daniel...the young men were about to be thrown into the fiery furnace and they say to the king "If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up." (Daniel 3:17-18)

My comfort does not change the goodness of God. My entire life could be a storm like Daniel's, the question is how do I react during the storm.

Anonymous said...

My entire life could be a storm like Daniel's, the question is how do I react during the storm.

But isn't the question also what kind of God do you serve? If your God isn't benevolent, then why do you serve him? Because he is powerful and you fear his wrath? That's not morality, that's conditioning. You think suffering at the hands of a brutal God makes you righteous? Seems more like it makes you a victim.

Unknown said...

Sorry for the late response, I did some heavy duty research this weekend related to your questions.

Jim and Heather,

I apologize for the confusion. By "alright," I merely meant that God had forgiven the Israelites and he continued to guide them. It is a theme in the Exodus that the people would rebel against God, then they would be punished, then they would repent, and then God would forgive them, then they would have God’s blessing and guidance. By no means were the people alright that died by God’s righteous anger, but that is the path that they chose by worshipping the idol.

Christianity has not been a progression since its formation. It has been constant since creation. Right after the fall, God had already promised a messiah to save the world (Genesis 3:15). The afterlife has been in Judaism and Christianity since the beginning too. Sheol is referenced several times in Genesis and Job, arguably the two oldest books in the Old Testament. Genesis 37:35 says “All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him.” Job 19:26 states “And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God.” We see some other references in Genesis 42:38 , Job 7:9, and Job 11:8.

The term Sheol has a variety of meanings such as “abode of the dead”, the “underworld”, “the common grave of mankind”, or “pit”. In the Old Testament (OT), it is described as a very deep pit (Job 11:8), it is also understood as the abode of the dead (Genesis 37:35). Hades is the Greek translation of the world sheol in the Septuagint in the New Testament (NT), or the greek translation of the Hebrew bible. We see in the NT that Hades is split into two parts, paradise and torment (Luke 16). Hades is the intermediate state between our death and Judgment Day. When we die, our souls and bodies separate (2 Corinthians 5:8). We will face a “pre judgment” and be sent to either paradise (Today, paradise is called heaven) or torment to await the actual Judgment Day . Our souls will be united with Christ (Phil 1:23). On Judgment Day, the bodies and souls of all the dead will be reunited (I Corinthians 15:53). Revelations 20:13 says that Death and Hades will give up the dead that were in them and were judged. Revelations 20:14 describes the second death, that is, the wicked being thrown into the lake of fire. Revelations 21-22 describes that there will be a New Heaven and a New Earth on Judgment Day. The righteous will spend eternity with God.
Gehenna, just as Heather said, the name means “Valley of Hinnom.” During the intertestamental period, a metaphorical understanding of Gehenna as the place of judgement for the wicked emerged. This understanding meant that the people could make the distinction from “Valley of Hinnom” to hell.

There is no rational way to come to or learn about God naturally. We are by nature spiritually blind, dead, and an enemy of God. We can rationally accept the bible as being an accurate document (the 20,000some manuscripts of the bible, archeology, fulfilled prophecies, no errors/contradictions, secular sources that confirm the bible, etc.). We cannot, however, choose to believe on our own. All the credit goes to God. The Holy Spirit works in our hearts to make us believe. In a passage in Revelations, God is described as knocking at the door of our heart. Revelations 3:20 “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.”

We are all predestined to go to heaven. We can see this in Matthew 25 with the parable of the sheep and the goats. Verse 34 states “Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.” Then in verse 41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” The point here is that the kingdom was prepared for US, and the eternal fire was prepared for the DEVIL and HIS ANGELS, not us. Humans reject him naturally, but Christians have been born again (John 3:3-7). This invitation does not extend to just a select few, it is for the entire world. Just let him work, you will be amazed at what he can do.

Unknown said...

Bill, great question,
Jesus’ time on the cross is something that we cannot comprehend. Jesus’ agony extended beyond the intense physical pain on the cross. He took on the sin and blame of the world and God turned his back to him. Jesus was experiencing hell on earth. He even cried out “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” To put this in perspective, Jesus was so stressed out and scared that he actually sweat blood. Today, the term is called hematohidrosis. Again, we can understand the physical pain that he was feeling, but we cannot begin to fathom the spiritual pain he experienced on the cross. Jesus suffered this for humanity, for you, me, your neighbor, everybody. He did this so that you can spend eternity with him in heaven. That is true love.

billf said...

Kevin:

Thank you so much. I did not realize that this was another one of those god works in mysterious ways things.

My thinking was that a blood sacrifice was wrong and pointless and did not make any sense. You know, the same way that it was wrong and pointless and did not make any sense for the Aztecs to do it. Instead I now see that blood sacrifice *does* make perfect sense .

I am going to have to rethink this whole atheism thing.

BillF

Anonymous said...

Kevin,

I appreciate that you researched and answered that in full-depth. I do understand why you see it the way you did. I don't agree, especially in the use of Gehenna, because I don't see it as a literal, eternal resting place, in the context of the Bible.

However: you still didn't address the nature of choice in terms of Matthew 25: both the sheep and goats were doing the same actions, *except* for helping other people, which in turned was helping Jesus. And those that helped did not know that was a requirement, which questions how one can 'let God work' when one isn't aware of serving God in the first place. Unless you're saying that the sheep did those actions because the Holy Spirit was working in them -- but again, the sheep's actions had nothing to do in terms of belief.

**the 20,000some manuscripts of the bible, archeology, fulfilled prophecies, no errors/contradictions, secular sources that confirm the bible, etc**

There are many scholars who would disagree with you, such as the Johinne Comma (I may be spelling that wrong), or some manuscripts saying that Jesus was angry while others said he was compassionate, no physical evidence for a mass Exodus of the Jews from Egypt, the adulterous woman John not found in the text of manuscripts, but in the margins.

**We see in the NT that Hades is split into two parts, paradise and torment (Luke 16). ** Was that the point of the story, or was the point of the story that the rich man's actions were wrong? If the point of the story is just to inform people on the concept of Hades, then what did the poor man do to enter the paradise side? What did the rich man reject, other than the obligation to care for the poor man?

**The afterlife has been in Judaism and Christianity since the beginning too** Scholars would disagree with this, as well.

**We are by nature spiritually blind, dead, and an enemy of God.** In phrasing it this way, you will have a lot of people wondering what part of humanity was created 'In God's image and likeness.' Because the only element of humanity mentioned there is the sinful one -- did God create anything good about you? A part of you that isn't an enemy of God?

**He took on the sin and blame of the world and God turned his back to him. Jesus was experiencing hell on earth.** Do the gospels actually say that? That God turned his back on Jesus? Because while one gospel has Jesus in agony, another has him calm on the cross. It also seems to contrdict Jesus's statement of saying, "Love your enemy."

Anonymous said...

Billf,

I also don't understand the blood sacrifice requirement. But if you want to know how it originates Biblically, a large part of it is pulled from Hebrews 9:22, which reads: "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." This is cross-referenced to Leviticus 17:11
"This is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. " The problem with just using that phrase is due to what the preceeding phrase says. Lev 17:10

"And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people."

What the two verses say together is that the reason why you can't eat blood is because it is used to sprinkle on the alter. The verses do not say that atonement is only possible through a sacrifice of blood.

So that's where the idea comes from, but I can't answer why evangelicals say it's the only way we can be forgiven.