Admin webmdave Posted September 9, 2006 Admin Share Posted September 9, 2006 By John W. Loftus People in Biblical times defended God against the problem of evil by blaming themselves and their own sins for the natural disasters that God sent on them. They believed God controls all natural happenings (Ex. 12:23,29,30; 32:35; Num. 11:33; 16:46-50; 25:18; 2 Sam. 24:15-16). Why don?t very many Christians today use this same response to exonerate God for natural disasters? In ancient times, disasters were usually explained in only one way: God was upset with people because of their sins. And that?s the explanation we find most often in the Bible, although there are a few notable exceptions (Job; Luke 13; John 9). But even here we see a God who could do anything with the world of nature that he wanted to do without regard for the ordered world and laws of nature. In Job for instance, we see the Biblical answer for the problem of evil in the first two chapters. The answer was that God is testing us with disasters and he allows Satan to do us harm so that he might be glorified from our actions. That is a sick answer to the problem of evil, and here?s why: Medical ethics will not allow us to experiment on human beings with life threatening procedures, nor with procedures that might cause other serious complications. And they certainly don?t allow us to experiment on anyone involuntarily. But this is what we find God doing to Job, presumably because he?s God. In Luke 13:1-5 we find Jesus commenting on why a couple of disasters took place. Were these people worse sinners than those who escaped the particular disasters? Jesus? answer is an emphatic, ?No!? His point says nothing at all against the culturally accepted view that our sins cause disasters. He only says that these people were no more guilty than those who didn?t suffer these disasters. So apparently everyone deserves the disasters that occur, it?s just that some do not experience what their sins deserve. In John 9 Jesus? disciples asked him who sinned that a particular man was born blind. His answer was that neither he nor his parents sinned. But even so, his being born blind still had a purpose, ?that the work of God might be displayed in him,? and then it says Jesus healed him. So his ?purpose? in being born blind was for him to later be healed by Jesus. Many Christians would agree with Rabbi Daniel Lapin who tried to explain God?s goodness in light the Indonesian tsunami that killed a quarter of a million people. In the process of arguing his case he said: ?God runs this world with as little supernatural interference as possible.? Now how does he know that? Such a belief was not shared by most all ancient people before the rise of the repeatable results of modern science. So why don?t they argue the way Biblical writers would argue? Let me suggest that it?s because they are modern people after all! And let me also suggest that early Christians would have condemned modern Christians who simply say, ?bad things just happen.? For them, even the very dice cast from a man?s hand is controlled by God. (Pr. 16:33). But surely, the punishment for sin by God cannot account for everyone who ever died from a tornado, a hurricane, a fire, a flood, an epidemic, or a famine. Many innocent people have died. The distribution of disease and pain is not related to the virtue of those punished. Besides, I simply cannot understand that even if many people today are sexually immoral, for instance, that such sins deserve such punishments. Can you hear God saying this: ?Oh, you had an affair, so your punishment is to lose your children as a result of Katrina.? What did these children do wrong? ?Or, you are a homosexual, so I will make you a paraplegic the rest of your life, and later cast you into hell.? And so on. The so-called punishments simply do not fit the ?crimes.? Just look at our own ?selfish? system of punishments, and compare that with the kind, caring father/God?s punishments. Our punishments are kinder and gentler. They?re civil. The punishments of God in the Bible are barbaric. http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2006/09...e-this-way.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dualaces123 Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Good question. You said, "So apparently everyone deserves the disasters that occur, it?s just that some do not experience what their sins deserve." You hit the nail on the head right here. You have to remember what Christians believe: All people have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and therefore deserve His wrath. Christians believe all people (including themselves) deserve Hell. In this way, it is definitely fair to say that we all deserve to die (via natural disaster or anything else) at every given moment. Intriguingly, we even believe that it is God's grace that we aren't all killed instantly. Christians, typically, usually view natural disasters as God restraining some of his grace. However, we would say that it is not necessarily a particular sin, or sinner (say, Adultery or Hitler) that brings about natural disasters. All people in all places of the world are under the condemnation of God, so it is incorrect to say that the incident in New Orleans is particularly tied to the sin of that city. Some Christians have made that mistake and it is not what Christians have historically believed (see, for example, the Jesus illustration that you gave). "Many innocent people have died." This is where the Christian would disagree. We happen to believe that all stand guilty before God even if they are found comparatively "good" or "innocent" among fellow men. "The so-called punishments simply do not fit the ?crimes.?" Again, the Christian would disagree at this point. I would present an argument for it, but I will refrain at this time. Suffice it to say, if God actually did create the universe, then he is free to make whatever rules he wants, and establish whatever consequences that he likes. Furthermore, if God actually is the ultimate standard of justice, then all punishments do fit the crime and it is your standard of justice that is off. I understand that you do not believe that God is the creator or is the perfect standard of justice (or that He even exists!). However, you are using an argument that assumes the authority of the Bible and assumes the existance of God and so I am responding within the framework of your argument even if it is not in the framework of your worldview. Hopefully that made sense. Feel free to ask me to clarify if I left more questions than answers -mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Ask you to clarify? Who the hell do you think you are? You commit yourself to the looney bin with "all people have sinned..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dualaces123 Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 He asked a question about Why "Christians" don't argue a particular way, and he himself cited biblical quotations. I see no reason for you to get upset about a Christian answering and citing a bible verse. There are pleanty of things to get upset about in the world, this is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts