I’ve been drafting this post for a couple days in my head while at work, which is not an uncommon thing for me to do (carrying boxes isn’t that mentally engaging, after all). One of the things that tires me is hearing people speak for God. They claim to know what He’s thinking, what He’s up to, and why He’s doing it.
Conveniently, He always says that they have been right all along, by the way. Isn’t that nice of Him?
I’ve actually wanted to write the post for some time, but it hasn’t been particularly timely. The recent controversy over John Hagee gives me an excuse. He, after all, is one of the offenders who needs to be rebuked.
John Hagee claims to know that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans to punish the city for its perversion. That view, by the way, was also shared by Repent America and a number of other prominent speakers for Christendom.
Of course, then there’s David Dolan suggesting that Katrina was punishment for US pressure on Israel to make peace with Palestinians.
Need I even mention the infamous charge that the 9-11 attacks were the result of the ACLU’s actions?
I would like to see Evangelicals stand up to this kind of nonsense. We should stop putting up with it just because we sometimes like the people saying it, or don’t like the targets. I’m not a big fan of the ACLU, but I don’t buy the argument that God let the 9-11 attacks happen because of the ACLU. Moreover … neither Pat Robertson nor Jerry Falwell had any business saying that that’s what happened.
There is only one type of person capable of speaking for God directly. That would be a prophet. If you’re not getting your words directly from God, then you’d better be basing your argument firmly on Scripture. And that, by the way, is not what these people are doing.
They might pretend that they are, by asserting that God has punished cities and nations with violence and catastrophe. But, first of all, let’s work our way through some of that …
In regards to Katrina having hit New Orleans because of its perversions, that charge is dismissed very simply. Bourbon Street was relatively undamaged. I’m pretty sure that part of being omniscient and omnipotent is having good aim. If God was trying to wipe out the decadence and perversion in New Orleans, He wouldn’t have taken out the churches in Buras, LA and left the strip clubs on Bourbon Street.
When God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah, I don’t think that He was really aiming for Tyre and Sidon.
As for why God would hit New Orleans to make a point about foreign policy … well, … apparently He was in a kind of subtle mood when He slung a hurricane at the Gulf Coast.
On the other hand, yes, God is sovereign. He can use the weather or other people (even evil ones) to express His judgment. However, there is no passage in the Bible — anywhere — that says bad things won’t happen unless God is angry with you.
The only reason why these people are able to get away with this kind of thing is that too many Evangelicals aren’t studying our Bibles. We’re listening to anyone on television or the radio who will tell us what to think. We know that certain things are bad. Something bad happened in the general vicinity of the people who are doing these bad things. So, we accept the premise that God was after them.
We live in a world that has been affected by the Fall. Natural disasters happen. If you want a deep spiritual meaning to each individual one … you’re out of luck. God never promised that. If you want a profound meaning to them all as a group, I can help you there. There is redemption and salvation at the end of all of this.
This, ultimately, is the profound evil being committed by these charlatans. They are taking the focus off of the real meaning of Christ and salvation, and focusing on the short term. Jesus didn’t come and die to beat the ACLU or People for the American Way, or the Democratic Party. He came to redeem the world from its sin. When preachers focus on the worldly, the short-term, and the material, then they are betraying the purpose of our faith.
When believers let it happen, we are being grossly negligent. We are demonstrating our own ignorance.
What are we supposed to think of people who speak in God’s Name but not for Him? That’s simple. From Deuteronomy 18:21-22 (NIV, courtesy of Biblegateway.com):
You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
The visions of your prophets
were false and worthless;
they did not expose your sin
to ward off your captivity.
The oracles they gave you
were false and misleading.
There is a lot of money to be raised and fame to be had by opposing groups such as PAW, the ACLU, or whomever else. It doesn’t hurt, sometimes, to get the troops riled up by pointing to some sign that God’s wrath is on your side.
That doesn’t make it honest, and it certainly doesn’t make it God-glorifying.
Evangelicals must be aware of what people are saying, and discern who is telling the Truth and who is lying. We must be vigilant about calling liars and false prophets what they are, even if they are attacking those whom we don’t like. God’s wrath is not a debating device to be tossed around whenever it’s convenient. Those who believe that God exists and can be wrathful should not be putting up with it.
June 1, 2008 at 7:29 am
Quote from post:
John Hagee claims to know that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans to punish the city for its perversion. That view, by the way, was also shared by Repent America and a number of other prominent speakers for Christendom.
_______________________________________________
Hi
The Hurricane and others catastrophic disasters are a natural phenomena and hence everybody should help to alleviate the human suffering.
Apart from that they have a moral and spiritual aspect also. They serve as a warning to the humans of the consequences of denying a ProphetMesssenger. This way these soften the hearts of a people to accept the guidance given by GodAllahYHWH with sincerity. GodAllahYHWH says through Muhammad:
[17:16] He who follows the right way follows it only for the good of his own soul; and he who goes astray, goes astray only to his own loss. And no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another. And We shall never punish until We have sent a Messenger.
[17:17] And when We intend to destroy a township, We command its people who live in comfort to adopt the way of righteousness but they transgress therein, so the sentence of punishment becomes due against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.
[17:18] How many generations did We destroy after Noah! and thy Lord suffices as Knower and Seer of the sins of His servants.
http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=17&verse=14
Jesus had prphesised for his SecondComing; Muhammad had also phrophesised for Coming of JesusIssaMessiah which has taken place in the metaphoric form of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908. The Christians and Muslim are humbly advised to accept this DivineGuide for peace of the world ; so much needed in this planet.
I respect your faith whatever it is. One could differ with me happily with good reasons.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
June 1, 2008 at 9:46 am
“One of the things that tires me is hearing people speak for God. They claim to know what He’s thinking, what He’s up to, and why He’s doing it.”
Do you find this at all contradictory to later assertions such as;
“If God was trying to wipe out the decadence and perversion in New Orleans, He wouldn’t have taken out the churches in Buras, LA and left the strip clubs on Bourbon Street.”
and
“When God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah, I don’t think that He was really aiming for Tyre and Sidon.”
and
“If you want a deep spiritual meaning to each individual one … you’re out of luck. God never promised that.”
Are you not claiming to ‘know’ of your god’s intentions in each of the examples above?
If he is omniscient and omnipotent, as you say, don’t you feel a little disappointed that he let it happen at all? I mean, he stood by and let all those people die and thousands of families now suffer daily as a result of losing loved ones.
If he’s omnipotent then he could have prevented it from happening, but he didn’t. Just as he doesn’t stop 30,000 deaths in Africa every day from starvation, nor does he prevent global conflict and the various other forms of human suffering in this world.
If he’s omniscient, he knew all along the ramifications of his actions, and was well aware of the suffering involved, nullifying any chance of his supposed omni-benevolence shining through.
Words such as omniscience and omnipotence come with very large price tags as far as substantiation goes, especially when combined with omni-benevolence.
You could, on the other hand, just use Occam’s Razor and say that a god is entirely unnecessary, and then do some reading on plate tectonics.
June 1, 2008 at 11:28 am
I reject Occam’s Razor because I believe in God. It’s called faith.
As for why He lets things happen … He’s already covered that. Sin has consequences.
If you’re trying to convince me of atheism, then just move along. I’m not interested.
There is no promise of omni-benevolence, and certainly not “benevolence” as defined by fallible human standards.
June 1, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I don’t think rejecting Occam’s Razor is the best idea, since it is useful in plenty of circumstances (for example, when people are peddling conspiracy theories).
That aside, this is a great post!
June 1, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Let me clarify … I reject it as an argument in relation to God’s existence. In many cases, yes, it’s a useful device.
June 3, 2008 at 12:47 am
“I reject Occam’s Razor because I believe in God. It’s called faith.”
No, you are using “argument from incredulity”. Faith is merely belief without evidence. Religion convolutes its meaning in order to avoid answering the heavy questions. It is simply a poor replacement for the phrase “I don’t know”, which, by the way, is a perfectly acceptable answer to offer. You claim to know things that you don’t (such as ‘my god exists’) and then attempt to qualify this supposed knowledge by using the word faith. Every premise you posit from there on is based on your god actually existing, which you have not and cannot show, rendering the validity of your propositions nil. Ordinarily this wouldn’t even be something worth thinking about, but Christians assume that this should be the foundation for the creation of moral sets, consequently leading to expectations of legislators to govern based on these principles. Does it bother you that you place so much credence in something that is so integral to your life, with not a single shred of empiric evidence? Are there any other aspects of your life that you do not try to follow rationally? Why have you made an exemption for this aspect? If you were charged with a crime would you expect the judge to use logic and reason when handing down a decision, or would you expect him to inject a modicum of his own brand of “magic sky pixie” into the equation?
“As for why He lets things happen … He’s already covered that. Sin has consequences.”
You sound as if you are claiming to know what your god thinks again. I thought this was your problem to begin with. How can he already ‘cover that’ when you can’t even show that he ‘is’? By the way, exactly what are the consequences? I’ve sinned (by the definition I assume you choose to apply) my entire life, and yet I don’t feel as if I have suffered as a result of committing these sins. Or are you saying that I will not suffer for these sins until after I die, cast down into the fiery pits?
“If you’re trying to convince me of atheism, then just move along. I’m not interested.”
Faulty logic exists whether you attempt to lend it tacit approval or not. There have been over 10,000 gods created by mankind in the last 10,000 years. You are an atheist in respect to each and every one, except of course for the one you arbitrarily chose. I’ve just decided to reject your proposition on the same grounds that you have used to reject their propositions. I’m here in the hope that other readers may see this and pick up a real book for a change; a book that perhaps reflects reality as it actually exists.
“There is no promise of omni-benevolence, and certainly not “benevolence” as defined by fallible human standards.”
Funny, I hear your religious cohorts prattle on about the love of your god all the time (meanwhile watching millions die every year, supposedly because of him “moving in mysterious ways”). Are you saying that they have no idea what they’re talking about? If they cannot define his benevolence, because they are mere mortals, how can they possibly even know that his benevolence exists at all? In fact I would extend this to include the inability of the religious to define what it actually is that you mean when you use the word ‘god’.
It’s quite sad that we as a species waste so much time and effort on fairy tales.
June 3, 2008 at 8:02 am
It’s nice to know that you think you’re so much smarter than all of us believers. Thanks for sharing.
Sigh … I guess I should answer, even though you’re hijacking the thread. This post, you will note, was written from the underlying assumption that God exists.
Oh, well.
You define my argument has having no value because you confidently assume that God doesn’t exist, simply because you can’t prove it.
Your definition that faith is a poor substitute for saying “I don’t know” is faulty, but the fault lies in a few places. First and foremost, you apparently presume that human logic is the highest virtue. I reject that premise, as well. There are things that we don’t know and won’t understand. I am more than okay with that.
The difference between the believer’s response to that and the unbeliever’s is that the unbeliever simply dismisses that which he can’t know.
You asked:
Does it bother you that you place so much credence in something that is so integral to your life, with not a single shred of empiric evidence?
I answer:
No. First of all, what you call “empiric evidence” does exist in my life. I know God’s presence.
Secondly, this is another one of those times when I will answer, “It’s called faith.” While you say that I’m not acting rationally, I point out that it’s irrational to refuse to acknowledge something as important as a Creator simply because He doesn’t fit into your logic system.
God doesn’t play by human rules.
I appreciate your assumption that Christians don’t read. It’s laughable, but nice to see your prejudices on display. You know, my wife and I have real degrees from real colleges. We even studied sciences and stuff … I’ve read “The Origin of Species,” “The God Delusion,” “The Communist Manifesto” (at least three times), and a number of other books that you probably assume I’d never touch.
As to reality as it actually exists … That’s what the Bible is. Unlike books which assume that God isn’t real, it addresses His purposes and what He’s done.
As to your last point trying to catch me in a contradiction … you’re entering territory in which you don’t have the knowledge to argue competently.
That sin has consequences, and that among the consequences of the Fall is the violence of nature. This is based Biblically. Since no passage exists that says anything about the 9-11 attacks or Hurricane Katrina specifically, my point stands that there is no specific indication of why they happened.
As to benevolence … As I said, God never promised to live according to your standards.
A side note … a great many people believe in what you call “fairy tales.” Nothing short of profound arrogance could be behind your derision of us. You will note that I refer to atheists as atheists or unbelievers, which I think you’ll agree are reasonable terms. I don’t refer to you collectively as “stupid people who deny God” or even as “heathens,” or anything uncomplimentary.
Why, if you feel that your position is so logically inviolable, do you feel the need to insult us repeatedly?
June 5, 2008 at 12:47 am
Logically speaking, if something cannot be proven empirically, does that prove its non-existence? I believe I understand what Wickle means by the empiric evidence in his life. But since the testimony of that experience is not easily packaged into the scientific method, is something that is not (to our point of understanding) provable, disproven? That as well is logically unsound to me, and is very arrogant to say that your metaphysical belief in the non-existence of God is more logical than my metaphysical belief in the existence of God. Prove either is the truth using only the empirical methods and information we have now, and perhaps you can stand on the footing you think you have. Your disbelief is also faith.
You say you do not feel any suffering for your sins because you do not understand. Do you ever look back at younger, less wise days and think, “If I only know then what I know now?” A person doesn’t apologize when he does not know he has hurt someone. Sin hurts us and those around us. God forbids it because he loves us, and it creates an eternal separation between us and Him because sin cannot enter His holy presence. Romans 6:23 says “The wages of sin is death…” This is a spiritual death, an eternal separation from God. Not because He is mean, but because He is holy. But the verse continues, “but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” How does our God show his benevolence? Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were sinners, Christ died for us.” We all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and yet God does not want us to be apart from Him, He wants a relationship with each of us and Christ was willing to give His life that we may have that relationship. He created you because He loves you and has a plan and purpose for you. (Jeremiah 29:11)
I know that man has created many religions in his search for God, but is it not possible that the God of the Bible did create us and not the other way around? There have been atheists in the past who, while trying to discredit Christianity, have come to be Christians themselves. Two of the more famous ones are C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel. Both are authors and may be able to answer some of your questions from your point of view.
June 5, 2008 at 10:50 pm
A terrific post and one that has certainly generated passionate comment. Far too many Christians rely on others for feeding. As far as natural disasters, we know from what God says in his Word that He does use them for various purposes. (Isaiah 45:7) However, we are not always privy to the details of his plans, but rather Agents of his on a “need to know” assignment, strangers and aliens here on earth. As you say, unless speaking as a prophet ahead of time, best not to speculate presumptively.
June 5, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Karen - thank you so much. You said that eloquently.
June 6, 2008 at 7:32 am
Some people misuse Occam’s Razor. The principle, when used correctly, states that when you have two explanations, and one includes exactly the same information as the other but adds some extra stuff, and both explanations fully explain the data, then there’s no reason to believe the one with the extra stuff. Postulating a creator certainly does go beyond explaining the world in purely naturalistic ways. But the question isn’t whether the theory involves more. It’s whether everything can be explained fully just with naturalistic elements, and that question turns on a whole bunch of questions not addressed here. So the argument against theistic explanations is question-begging unless you’ve already established that there’s nothing a theistic explanation contributes.
Theistic explanations do contribute something unavailable in a naturalistic explanation. Naturalistic explanations can explain in terms of material causes (what something is made of) and efficient causes (what moves something else to do something). It can’t explain in terms of final causes (the purpose for which it happened) except when a rational agent intends something. Naturalism allows for that when human beings intend something but not for natural disasters or other natural occurrences. They can explain what physical events led to the occurrence of the hurricane, but whether that is a complete explanation depends on whether there was a purpose. If God exists and is sovereign, then there was. If God doesn’t exist or is helpless to control such things, then there wasn’t. But that question isn’t settled just because you can give an account of what efficient causes led to the hurricane’s occurrence.
Thus using Occam’s Razor in this instance is thoroughly question-begging and philosophically inappropriate. Such an argument is an assumption (or if you will an act of faith) that there is no God, not an argument that there is no God.
June 6, 2008 at 7:40 am
I do think there’s something to the worry of contradiction here. I’m pretty firmly on your side against those who postulate specific reasons God must have had for allowing this hurricane. We don’t know what those reasons were. But it’s because of that that I’d hesitate at some of your reasons against the explanations being offered. We do know that scripture speaks of God bringing judgments against sin, sometimes through natural disasters.
Your argument doesn’t allow for that to happen in a city outside the capital city when the decision was made in the capital city. Yet in the Bible God does things exactly like what you here say he wouldn’t do. When Hezekiah was king, most of Judah was conquered by Assyria, and it wasn’t until he repented and began to depend on God that the Assyrian army was turned around. The only major city that was spared was the very city where the evil decision-making originated.
On the other hand, there is some kind of conclusion we might be able to draw. God knew how people would respond, and some of the response to Katrina has been thoughtful, reflective, and repentant. I think we can safely conclude that those who have considered their ways and repented of sin in its aftermath were among the ones God intended to send a message to. I don’t think that goes beyond scripture. If there was anything that the president might have repented of during this time, that would then include him. If there was anything that someone who was involved in the New Orleans decadence repented of, then it would include them too.
June 7, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Hmmm … I didn’t mean to say that there was anything that God wouldn’t do. What I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t be putting words into God’s mouth. I think that Hagee et. al. do exactly that.
I will concede that it’s possible that God could wipe out New Orleans because He’s upset about our foreign policy … but I’m not convinced that this is the case here.
We’re running into the same kind of problem as the Israelites did. When they were told to cross the Jordan, they refused. When they heard God’s rebuke, then they decided that they should go to Canaan. It didn’t go well when they decided to make up their own rules.
July 24, 2008 at 10:29 pm
God is love, love is pure. Love has no boundries, no hesitation, no doubt. There is no judgement, no animosity, and eternal forgiveness. God is a part of all of us, as we are a part of God. Life is God’s perfect expression of love, we are all a part of the devine and therefore, we are all perfection in God’s eyes. True faith is beleiving in one another and loving one another. True faith is knowing we will thrive in the light of love, that all are welcome in the arms of our Lord and that we are all one in the eyes of the Lord
July 24, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Well, Cristine, let me just take a wild guess here … You’re not citing a Biblical perspective on things, right?
There might have been a little bit of judgment involved.
September 1, 2008 at 9:00 am
[...] more note … I’ve commented before about people trying to announce political reasons for various natural disasters. A Focus on the [...]