The true nature of God

I don't have much time for a kook like Pat Robertson.  Most decent people don't.

But the good Christians who get frustrated whenever his caustic delusions gain traction have to understand something:

In the Bible, there's a whole lot of smiting going on.  Time and again, the tale has been told of civilization going astray and being wiped out by an act of God, to start over.  The fate of Sodom as well as the story of the flood in Genesis, are iconic examples of the destructive brutality of God's wrath, as it's related through the sacred text.

So, don't be surprised when even the unbelievers among us hear a creep like Robertson profess the intentions and motivations of God, and figure that matches pretty well with the image that even his own spokesmen have put out there.

Instead of taking issue with the messenger, perhaps the more rational among you should start taking issue with the message.

Comments

[Texas Canuck]

Most religious writings have copious amounts of natural destruction in them. The "Fear of God" was an excellent way of keeping folks in line. These days we know about tectonic plate movements, magma, drought and tsunamis, but to witness them is still scary. Imagine back in the day what the effect was.
Then there is the whole issue of man-made violence. It was never one big happy neighbourhood back then and the Bible and Koran are full of heads being lopped off, pillaging and such. No sending a sternly worded letter to the ambassador in those days. The trouble is that today there are still those who take these books literally, including the convert them or kill them part.

[Shane]

You knew I was going to pipe up...

I did wrestle as to what I could say in response, and the only thing I came up with initially was that it is simplistic and illogical to say stuff like, "The Bible has murder, rape, incest and larceny in it, therefore it's a bunch of inconsistent bunkum."

I could explain why there are stories of divine wrath but it wouldn't fit in a pithy comment. But trust me, give me 45 minutes and a cup of coffee and I can explain it clearly and logically.

The last thing I do want to say, and perhaps it is the most important: don't just Christianity by the nutbars. Judge it by its actions. Since the earthquake consistently I have heard from the Christians I know questions like, "How can we help?" They put legs to their faith. I will guarantee you that a month from now, if you were able to measure the per capita giving of Christians to relief efforts versus atheists, you will see Christians put their faith where their mouth is. And that speak to me of Christ, the foundation of our faith, not of fallible (to put it mildly) humans who claim to speak for the church.

[Bob Devine]

What did someone associated with a church do to you that you are so bitter about Christianity and its churches?

[Lady Cincinnatus]

You can stand in the face of a violent tornado or earthquake and scream that GOD is bad for creating something like a violent tornado or earthquake, but guess what...violent tornados and earthquakes exist and they can kill you. You can stand in the face of evil and scream that GOD is bad for creating something like evil...but guess what...evil exists and can kill you.

[Monnie]

WW,

Even referring to Robertson as a "messenger" implies that you think he really might have a "hot line to heaven".

The Old Testament does bear many accounts of violence and suffering, some through natural means, some done by the Almighty's hand, and some even by humans at His command.

In one case of that last, the Israelites were instructed to exterminate certain tribes that occupied the promised land into which they were about to enter. There is good evidence that one or more of those tribes was practicing CHILD SACRIFICE to the god Molech at the time, and so it just might be that the Almighty decided it was high time this was stopped.

The New Testament's message is more along the lines that everyone will die, and there is one hope of an afterlife through the Messiah.

Then there are the philosophical issues of universal laws, free moral agency, and time and chance, which we get into when we try to understand human suffering.

[Monnie]

WW,

One last thought.

Robertson's comments about Haiti led me to consider that small nation's history of suffering.

Pat thinks it's due to a pact with the devil.

I could make the case that it's a "perfect storm" of a long period of corrupt Marxist-type dictatorships leading to ignorance and poverty and lack of (or enforcement of) proper building codes, plus an EQ prone area.

Why is it, though, that the adjacent DR, sharing the same island, is and has been so much better off for so very long?

IS it possible that someone up there has something to do with Haiti's miserable condition?

[Patrick]

WW,
Pat Robertson's rantings belong with a disclaimer- Christians don't hold these particular views. We only pray and help anyway we can with our works and monetary support....Judgment is for God and He alone.
Ummm... For the record SOME wish to say that Rush Limbaugh said not to contribute...That is a falsehood protracted by political enemies and state-controlled/ drive-by media types.

[Wonder Woman]

Wow! I've got you all stirred up!

Just to clarify...I am not bitter about Christianity or God. I'm an atheist and don't even believe in God and I expect you have to believe he exists to hold a grudge against him. I am also not trying to imply that Christians are jerks, like Pat Robertson certainly is. An earthquake is an act of nature, like a tornado or hurricaine or cataclysmic asteroid. None of this requires divine intervention and I don't put much weight in the opinion of any who suggest it does.

What I was trying to say was that religion - any religion - opens the door to give kooks a platform for influence, because it portends to these kinds of events in the texts that all believers are told to hold dear. Those who complain that Pat Robertson even has a voice, have only the "good book" and his cherry-picked passages to blame. Because it is written and some believe, he holds influence. Without the words - and a believer's faith in them - jerks like Pat Robertson would be no more relevant than any other crazy in the street, screaming at the moon. But because we are told that God can and does do these things, when it suits his plan, it lends credence and legitimacy to any sheister claiming a hotline on God's plan.

[Lady Cincinnatus]

I agree that anyone claiming a hotline on God's plan, including Pat Robertson and Islam's Mohammad is a sheister. I still have to disagree with, "we are told God can and does do these things, when it suits his plan." There's no "being told" - just look around. God does do things when it suits His plan. He's doing them right now all over creation. Or am I to believe that Everything is just cause and effect or chance or luck or whatever you want to call it. Sorry, that takes more for me to believe. Evidence for a creative God is everywhere. How did you get the creative drive to read and write and build a blog and to even reason? Where did that come from? Just asking....

[mikey]

"Evidence" is an awfully strong word.

Things existing, and events happening, are neither proof nor disproof of the existence of a deity.

There are incomprehensibly large quantities of matter and energy in existence, and an incredibly vast number of ways for them to interact. Given that, "chance or luck" is really not that hard for me to accept.

At least I've seen matter and energy. They clearly exist in the real world. I've never seen any proof that God is anything more than a social construct - a means for interpreting unpredictable events in the world around us, and ordering cultures into workable forms.

XTC once sang, "Did you make mankind after we made you?". The balance of the evidence I see, says yes. Your milage may vary, and I for one appreciate everyone here being so civil in the face of such a hot topic.

[pete in Midland]

I've been waiting for the same level of strong disapproval that Robertson received ... to be aimed towards that nutcase leftwingwackjob Glover for his yammering about the earthquake being caused by us nonbelievers in the holy Global Warming Scam.

[Mikey]

Never happen, pete. His idiocy is fashionable.

[Monnie]

Mikey,

I understand you think that with a long enough time period all the matter & energy could interact in such a way that everything in today's universe could come to be without supernatural guidance.

I've seen several mathematical equations over the years attempting to numeralize all the known variables. The upshot is that the odds against all this occurring naturally are astronomical, even with a theoretically limitless length of time.

In fact, even the odds of a single living cell of any kind being structured and achieving life on its own are infinitesimal if not actually physically impossible. Then you have the Law of Biogenesis (life comes only from life) and the Laws of Thermodynamics to contend with.

With all due respect, I think being either an agnostic or a non-religious believer in a Higher Power is more intellectually responsible than being an atheist.

You & WW are obviously very bright people. Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that your life, strength, courage, vitality, and intelligence, and your beloved children, arrived on the scene by cosmic accident?

I'm reminded of the old canard about a roomful of chimps with word processors in a billion years accidentally composing a Shakespearean play, or the one about a fine Swiss watch forming itself in the earth as all the required elements spontaneously align themselves.

Neither of these scenarios (as simplistic as they might seem) comes close to describing the improbability of this vast complex interactive universe coming into existence all on its own.

[mikey]

'Cosmic accident' is no less believable to me than 'invisible deity', Monnie. I don't require the existence of a higher power in order to perceive and cherish all of the wonderful things in life.

[Monnie]

Mikey,

I understand.

The invisibility of a supreme being or beings is one of the classic philosophical problems of the ages.

I'm convinced that the laws of logic, biology, physics,and math, provide indirect evidence of the necessity of a supreme being.

I think many people assume that to so believe requires a specific religious affiliation.

IMHO, that being (God, Creator, whatever descriptor we use) must at some point make it clear what path we're expected to follow. I've personally long since forsaken the notion that we can look to an organization or person for this.

[mikey]

Well, on that last point we are certainly agreed!

[Wakefield Tolbert]

Greetings from the Deep South.

Great site you have Wonder Woman. And a wonder you are. :)

Two in one shot here, if I may, WW.

Epicurius:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neigher able nor wililng?
Then why call him God?"

Now your turn at the helm of theological ponderings:

"I don't have much time for a kook like Pat Robertson. Most decent people don't.
But the good Christians who get frustrated whenever his caustic delusions gain traction have to understand something:

In the Bible, there's a whole lot of smiting going on. Time and again, the tale has been told of civilization going astray and being wiped out by an act of God, to start over. The fate of Sodom as well as the story of the flood in Genesis, are iconic examples of the destructive brutality of God's wrath, as it's related through the sacred text.

So, don't be surprised when even the unbelievers among us hear a creep like Robertson profess the intentions and motivations of God, and figure that matches pretty well with the image that even his own spokesmen have put out there.

Instead of taking issue with the messenger, perhaps the more rational among you should start taking issue with the message."

_________________________

The stuff about Robertson being a jerk I understand, but the claim that the violence is ripe with violence and smiting?

Yes and then no. Context is key here.

Being a fellow conservative like me, you know all too well the advocacy elsewhere of bringing wide swatches of firery justice to some netheregions of the world's zits that need squeezing now and then.

God does not generally force His will. But when he did, yes, the results could be sour. Of course. But as to Epicurius, above, I would venture that the will to end evil by fiat or edict would make us automatons.

Is forced goodness really moral, then? No--no more than Windows XP dutifully obeys the keystrokes and commands.

Whence morals, Mr. Epicurius?? Hmmm.

Being forced to be good by omnipotent moral busybodies is not morals...that's...well....PCism....liberalism.....statism on earthbound matters.

As CS Lewis said (with apology to the Calvinists that might lurk here) without free will, Christianity would make no sense, as nor would the whole concept of forgiveness. If all is preordained, then yes, God could eliminate evil, but that is not what Scripture ever indicated. The world is a "fallen" place, and peopel have free choice every day of their lives.

This is akin to saying that since evil abounds (though not all the time, as there is goodness in the world too if we look hard enough) the whole "dog ate my homework" therefore God does not exist"

What is the dividing line then for saying that bad things must be removed. ALL bad things?

I didn't win the Powerball Lotto, so therefore God does not exist?

I didn't get into Yale--therefore God does not exist?

I got bullied at school and it rained the other day and Mum won't get me a puppy--therefore God cannot exist cuz the day ended in tears?

I got canned from my job and Dad had a heart attack and the people who tried to fix the van are jerks, so thus God does not exist?