Those who ask God why He struck with Haiti a quake are asking the wrong question: the question is why He didn't strike the rest of the world with a quake. It's not because the Haitians are any more wicked than the rest of us.

Frankly, I think it's silly to pretend that God doesn't direct the weather--or are you saying that when you get flooding in your house you don't mark "Act of God" on your insurance form?

TBG

An act of God. Okay, I will say that God does control everything and that, therefore, everything is according to his will. However, let me remind you that we ware against principalities and powers, not flesh and blood. Taking that into account, don't you think that when some bad things happen it is the devil attacking us and that we have a right to avenge it? Let me use the "house flood" as an example.

Suppose that you have just gained a new house. You're all exited because you know that God has blessed you. Unfortunately, when you had just moved into the house a flood came and ruined your basement along with allot of unpacked stuff. If you think, "act of God," then you won't want to give back to the enemy what he obviously took from you. "The devil comes to steal, kill, and destroy." Now, you say that the devil is God's devil. That is likely enough, but I think that God has given us the right to return everything to the devil that he gave us and with interest.

I gather from the comments thus far that most of us would not agree with Pat Robertson's (typically) insensitive remarks regarding whether the Haitians "deserved" the earthquake (apparently more-so than those who were not struck by an "act of God" ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5nraknWoes

When stuff like this happens, I question even more (than usual) whether God is a "Personal God", micromanaging the weather and our personal lives. At times like this, I definitely lean more towards a "Deist" (God started the Universe then took a vacation), or a Hindu (God embodies both Creative and Destructive forces) type of position.

But whether or not I can reconcile a "Good" Deity with horrible things happening to people indiscriminately, I don't think I can ever countenance the "blame the victim" approach of Pat Robertson (or those Hindus and New Agers that subscribe to a misguided interpretation of Karma).

GB

Wish I could say more in response to everyone's material, but it's getting late. 'Tis likely I'll share more tomorrow. Just a quick reminder here ...

Now, you say that the devil is God's devil. That is likely enough

Well, um ... unless you believe the Devil created himself, the Devil is obviously God's creation -- and thus, God's Devil -- and thus, it's much more than "likely," it is.

but I think that God has given us the right to return everything to the devil that he gave us and with interest.

Scriptural source for this, please?

And dude, again I wonder and feel I must ask: are you sure you're not more worried about whacking on the Devil than focusing on God?

It's quite clear from Scripture that Satan can do nothing without God's permission. He had to ask God to do anything with Job. God sent an evil spirit to torment Saul after he rejected him as king. He even sent Paul a demon (or ailment, which ever way you wish to look at it) to keep him humble as a thorn in his flesh. With the later two examples, you can see that Satan is really not much more than God's messenger boy and he doesn't even know it.

But that being said, Satan and demons are still beings that are not to be taken lightly because they do have an incredible power that we as mere humans cannot hope to compare. It is only through the Blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit living in us that we have the authority over them.

Now can demons wreck havoc? They can do something with the natural, but I doubt weather is something God allows them to meedle with. I don't see a Scriptural basis for them causing a tornado or an earthquake. This is like CS Lewis comment about searching for a demon behind every bush. It's not good. But are they active and searching? Absolutely. Deeming them myths is equally dangerous.

But regardless of whether demons are a part of a disaster or not, if we view it as though it was from God, we will benefit in the long run. Nothing takes place without God's permission, even if he does not do it directly. God did not inflict the torment on Job. Satan did. But Satan could not do it without God's permission (in this case encouragement). I think Job knew that it was Satan's doing, but he viewed it as though it was from God, and that is part of what gave him the strength to not curse him. I will concer with others that said the Haiti earthquake was not caused by God. But he certainly allowed nature to run its course. Why? Does it matter? Do we have to know the reason why God is running the universe his way and not ours? We are not in control, Satan is not in control, but we know God is and he has a purpose and a plan for absolutely everything that takes place for good or ill.

I seriously doubt 220 meant you ought to give up any sense of adult responsibility, wagga. Are you sure you're not reflexively reading an extreme view, which someone claiming to be Biblical told you before, into 220's more-Biblical reminders of gratitude to God and lack of overarching worry about the future because He is running it?

Too right I did! I did see something of the sort before responding: This bloke! Apart from the utterances of Abu Bakar Bashir or some of Taj El-din Hilali's "mistranslations", I have yet to see anything more sanctimonious and hypocritical coming from a so-called holy man. That sort of thing gives TeleEvangelists a bad name.

I do appreciate that when Victoria had bad bushfires at the beginning of last year, that it wasn't only us Aussies who chipped in to help, and that we have every reason to be glad that people sympathised overseas as well. But when a would-be terrorist openly thanked Allah for those bushfires afflicting 'sinful' Victoria, I was somewhat more glad he wound up in prison where he belongs. Along with the firebug who started the bushfires.

Biblical balance is key here, as stargazer said. And the passages about how God owns everything and how we must trust Him don't in any way deny other passages about strong work ethics, etc. Scripture contains both "do not worry" and the Book of Proverbs, after all.

I thought that balance in semantics and perspective were the problem stargazer was addressing, not Biblical knowledge. Maybe the fact I tend to see things through Australian eyes for example.

given Jesus' strictures about the wealthy and the poor in several parables and teachings,

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I have a hunch (please let me know if it's wrong!) that the Virtuous Poor Myth may be a factor.

I was referring to the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16: 19-31) as well as your reference to the camel and the needle's eye. Sorry, I see what is written and it seems as clear as crystal. Lazarus has a miserable life because of the neglect of the rich man, and after his death the rich man spends as miserable a time as did Lazarus in life. And vice versa for Lazarus, who was having a ball in Heaven.

As for the Haitians [. . .] I think they are more deserving of God's grace and mercy than anyone I can think of.

Whoa, wagga -- by definition, no one can ever "deserve" God's grace and mercy. We all by our sinful nature deserve little but Hell. That includes me, you, Haitians, Australians, Americans, anyone.

Exactly. And yet at the moment I can't think of anyone in the world more deserving of our compassion than these people, who are co-religionists by the way, and I suspect that the God we both worship would agree with me. Remember my earlier reference to bushfires? Whilst again I mentioned that overseas help was appreciated, Australia, overall, is a country with the mechanisms for recovery set in place. After all, there already have been disastrous bushfires again this summer. Just as there will also be Red Cross appeals for aid in places like Haiti. But does Haiti have such mechanisms in place? I think not, especially as their hospital was also flattened.

I think it's important to watch our language. We already have enough people who believe (and worse, act) as though they deserve anything from God. It's likely part of the religious hypocrisy you keep citing. Knowing we deserve nothing from Him, and yet He chose to save His people anyway, leads to humility and loving focus on His truth.

Precisely. We should indeed watch our language. I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Never have two peoples been so divided by a common language" Sometimes what seems quite normal to some people in USA, with their automatic right to free speech, might seem somewhat too vehement and overstated elsewhere. Maybe vice-versa?

Did you catch Black Glove's reference above to the Tower of Siloam?

Funny, I thought it was The Old Maid's reference. And yes I got the picture loud and clear, but not necessarily the way you saw it.

Of course, this does not deny the need to help the poor and suffering in this Old Earth. But relief work, giving to the poor, etc., should be part of a Christian's ministry that is concentrated on eternity, not just the here and now. It would make no sense for Christians only to tend the temporary wounds of a spiritually dead person (Ephesians 1-2).

Quite so. Relief work is the order of the day, isn't it? Eternity is Arthur Stace's word which he penned all around Sydney's footpaths, and is something we must consider. But when disaster strikes the here and now matters too.

Remembering that is even more important than believing in a six-day creation. However, a question for thought: how can evolution believers say that death and suffering, as in Haiti, are wrong?

Because they are as wrong as Pat Robertson's miserable remarks about Haiti, the least fertile third of Hispaniola, existing in the rain-shadow of the Dominican Republic. How can creationalists like him blame the Haitians, themselves, let alone the 1804 foundation of their country, rather than their possibly neglectful government, the likes of Papa Doc Duvalier, bad harvests, little mineral wealth, hurricanes and now the earthquake? Isn't it a lack of investment, cheapskate workmanship, poor infrastructure and systemic failures that made matter even worse than they would have been?

Here is your scripture:

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:10-12

This clearly tells us what we fight against. We fight against evil and all the evil powers. So, when evil comes into your own life, we have a right to fight against it because... that is what we as Christians fight against. This scripture doesn't say that when evil is around that we are to lie down and play dead because it is God's will... does it?

Does Pat Robertson ever say anything non-controversial/insensitive? I really have to wonder if the man gets on TV and says these things just for the attention since it's the only way anyone ever pays any attention to him. If a tornado or fire were to destroy his home, would he get on television and declare that it's God's judgment on him for his sin? I rather doubt it.

Indeed, every time I try to convince my more Atheist friends that there might be something to religion, and that Christianity itself has much to offer, we either get some sort of "religiously" inspired terror attack (like an Underwear Bomber ), or Pat Robertson speaks .

Though I must admit, I have on occasion found myself watching early morning rebroadcasts of Robertson's "news" program on CBN (I'm a sucker for whacked conspiracy theories ).

GB

I thought that balance in semantics and perspective were the problem stargazer was addressing, not Biblical knowledge. Maybe the fact I tend to see things through Australian eyes for example.

In this case, wagga is more nearly correct (I was thinking that the two perspectives on the issue of daily "stuff" weren't as far apart as it may appear at first blush, and that the differences were due in part to differing perspectives and ways of expressing oneself).

But then I went and followed it up with a Biblical example, so I can see how the good Dr Ransom drew his conclusions. My apologies to you both for being unclear.

I think this post from The Old Maid (the small vs the petty) has some excellent thoughts on this issue.

I agree with your observations about Mr Robertson, GB. Not only is he disregarding historical and environmental reasons why Haiti is so poor (as wagga notes above), I suggest his theology is suspect as well. He seems to have forgotten the old line, "there, but for the grace of God, go I" - that all of us "made a deal with the devil" through Adam and therefore (apart from the saving grace of God) are as much under condemnation as anyone else. Disasters such as this are great opportunities for believers to show grace - both in word and in action - rather than condemnation.

Wagga and Watz, I don’t mean to annoy either of you — that is, unnecessarily! — but I’m starting to see a common thread that ties your approaches (so far as you’ve said them) together.

Both of you have (again, so far in these discussions) only emphasized Beating the Bad Guys much more than Loving the Lord Your God with All Your Soul and With All Your Heart and With All Your Mind, the greatest commandment (Matthew 22: 34-40).

The second commandment, Jesus said, is love your neighbor. (As for fighting Satan and his works specifically — that gets hinted at elsewhere, and is important, but isn’t in the Top Two.)

Wagga, pretty much everything you’ve said in this thread — and I’ve enjoyed a lot of it! — nonetheless is based on Fighting Hypocrites. Jesus had a lot to say about the evils of hypocrisy. But His main message was this: you are guilty before God, so repent; believe in Me to save you. (More on this below, especially about the eye of the needle and such.)

Watz, Jesus had a lot to say about whacking the Devil. He cast out demons, made it clear the Devil was real, that sort of thing. Absolutely, we struggle not against flesh-and-blood enemies, but spiritual forces in the heavens — i.e., Satan and demons. Fencer had some great things to say about that — I’d thought he would! But as Fencer suggested, focusing overmuch on Satan is not helpful.

And that’s not how you defeat the Devil anyway. Find in Ephesians 6:10-12 any mention of a Christian’s “right to return everything to the devil that he gave us and with interest.” Frankly, watz, that is just silly tough talk. If I were the Devil I’d laugh at how seriously you had taken my overly exaggerated power, silently urge you to keep thinking about me rather than the Savior Who is working in your life even through my evil deeds, and then send a host of demons at you to go root up any self-righteousness, or bitterness against family members, or legalistic attitudes, or cliquish I’m-in-a-secret-society behaviors, or whatever, that still reside in your heart personally.

(At least that’s what the Devil does to me. Are you the exception to this?)

Do I yell at him, pay him special attention, make my whole Christian experience — or most of it — about him? No. Like Paul and other apostles encouraged, constantly in the letters to the churches, the battle lies within. When we resist the Devil, fight our own sinful impulses, and turn continually to Christ and use the “sword of the Spirit,” the Word of God, that is how Satan’s efforts are defeated. And it would be arrogance indeed to claim that something like a disease, or suffering or whatever, is only the Devil’s will, and therefore we must beat it back.

Nothing takes place without God’s permission, even if he does not do it directly. God did not inflict the torment on Job. Satan did. But Satan could not do it without God’s permission (in this case encouragement).

Amen times ten. Watz, please listen to this other side of the truth that Satan is bad and we must be aware of him and etc. Cut out the middle man. Instead of seeing every wrong as primarily from the Devil, ask as the Apostle Paul did (and Job should have): what is God trying to do here? That is how we grow — not demanding our “rights” as saints of God, or failing to see God’s sovereignty, or anything like that.

Remember Paul’s thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12). It was caused by a “messenger of Satan.” Paul pled with God to have it taken away (note too that he didn’t cuss at the Devil or demand the evil one leave alone this very important saint of God). But God declined. He used the “thorn in the flesh,” causing Paul great suffering, to magnify His grace in Paul’s life. So who caused the thorn in the flesh? In one sense, it was caused by the “messenger of Satan,” whatever that means. But in a greater sense, God ordained/allowed/caused it, for His own glory and Paul’s growth.

Unless your worldview can deal rightfully with such truths in Scripture, it’s overdone on one side and imbalanced. Again, please read the PM I sent you in which I encouraged balance. Otherwise, anything you say here will be just spinning your wheels, don’t you think?

Methinks I’ll take wagga’s comments in reverse order, for variety as well as the sake of prioritization. Wagga, are there any movies, TV shows, books, songs, etc., that you really like? I mean, really like to the point where you are familiar with the stories behind their creation, the reasons for the author/movie-maker’s/artist’s work? If so, I must ask: does it irritate you, just a little, when people gush over how much they also love whatever-it-is, and then proceed to describe only half the story, maybe getting the details wrong, having no real clue what it’s all about, and very likely describing Peter, or Edmund, or Legolas or Aragorn simply as “that cute guy with the hair, ya know”?

That’s the way I feel, reading your responses — a lot of which saw right past what I was trying to say. Mind if I show you how?

Necessary disclaimer: I am not here denying the importance of beating back hypocrisy in Pat Robertson, or the guy who told you that you shouldn’t work to support yourself, or the way Australians look at things, and things like that. I’ve seen firsthand religious hypocrisy and bad teaching in action. But I hope to Heaven I’m not orienting my life around it, and thus overcorrecting into equal or worse sins and self-righteousness (such as, if I were to decide I hated Pat Robertson for making Christians “look bad” and crowing about how much more loving I am than him, the “good cop” believer as opposed to his “bad cop”).

Because they are as wrong as Pat Robertson's miserable remarks about Haiti, the least fertile third of Hispaniola, existing in the rain-shadow of the Dominican Republic. How can creationalists like him blame the Haitians,

Egads — Pat Robertson isn’t a creationist. Do some more checking. He mocks young-earth creation. And that’s one of his minor bad and un-Biblical beliefs. Let’s get that straightened out.

Haven’t you gone off on a tangent here anyway?

I’ll re-ask the question: if you believe evolution, then there is nothing wrong with something like an earthquake because God has worked over billions of years of evolving and extinction, with death and disease. Defend this Biblically. Why should I say it’s a terrible thing if this is the God of the Bible, who allowed such a cruel process of developing life? I’m merely saying: creation believers can explain this Biblically, but Christians who allow for evolution (though they may still be Christians) cannot.

Quite so. Relief work is the order of the day, isn't it? Eternity is Arthur Stace's word which he penned all around Sydney's footpaths, and is something we must consider. But when disaster strikes the here and now matters too.

Never said it didn’t — again, I think you’re assuming that if I’m saying something on one “side” (i.e. an eternal perspective about the future), then I’m denying the importance of the present Earth. Not so. Scripture is both/and, not either/or, about the importance of things like God’s love and His holiness, and His work now and in the future.

I’m not denying the need to help Haiti at all. Why imply otherwise? Just pointing out another side of it. I’m not sure how it is in Australia, but in my country we have professing Christians running around all over the place talking about “social justice” and helping people’s wounds, not caring about their spiritual deadness. Do I want to base my entire Christian outlook, who I make donations to, etc., only on that Problem? No way — but if I see someone else only basing things on a Problem, I’ll suggest a little perspective that I hope to God is based on Biblical balance.

Funny, I thought it was The Old Maid's reference. And yes I got the picture loud and clear, but not necessarily the way you saw it.

The Black Glove mentioned it here; that’s what I was talking about. So I’m curious: how did you see it?

Understanding that culture, no different from ours when it comes to questioning why God would allow sin and suffering, helps us see: Jesus’ statement was shocking to “modern sensibilities.” I’m guessing that if He had been there, He would have helped the suffering, maybe healed those who had faith. Yet Jesus didn’t just heal people, or preach some kind of quasi-Marxist message. He taught Himself and urged people to repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand — the most loving thing He could do.

Precisely. We should indeed watch our language. I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Never have two peoples been so divided by a common language" Sometimes what seems quite normal to some people in USA, with their automatic right to free speech, might seem somewhat too vehement and overstated elsewhere. Maybe vice-versa?

Perhaps so, but in that case we should try to find common ground, especially if we claim to be Christians. If so, we must see the language of Scripture first for what it meant to its original hearers, and not impose our cultural biases onto it. That applies to the American (and Australian, perhaps?) emphasis on victimhood (though this is legitimate in many ways) as opposed to Jesus’ reminders that even the victims have a bigger problem: their own sin and the need to know they cannot save themselves from it by following rules. They need repentance and faith in Him alone.

Exactly. And yet at the moment I can't think of anyone in the world more deserving of our compassion than these people, who are co-religionists by the way, and I suspect that the God we both worship would agree with me.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. All people are “co-religionists” — the only difference are the names, or whether they even use a name or get more organized or else by default “worship” themselves and their own goodness and things like that.

In the human sense, yes, absolutely let’s help them however we can! And in a deeper sense, we must not overcorrect one way or the other: the Robertson-esque “I know why God allowed this to them” or else “they’re basically good people and they don’t deserve this disaster.” We all by our natures deserve God’s wrath, which is way worse than an earthquake. It sounds harsh, when not explained in the context of Scripture, but that is the distilled truth. Thank God He doesn’t permit earthquakes everywhere on Earth, and that He delays His final judgment so more people can be saved.

I was referring to the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16: 19-31) as well as your reference to the camel and the needle's eye. Sorry, I see what is written and it seems as clear as crystal. Lazarus has a miserable life because of the neglect of the rich man, and after his death the rich man spends as miserable a time as did Lazarus in life. And vice versa for Lazarus, who was having a ball in Heaven.

Again about seeing past cultural biases and understanding something the way its original hearers would have: Jesus’ disciples did not have the same “greedy rich exploit the poor” mindset that many Americans (and I would guess Australians) have. I’ll briefly address the camel-and-needle’s-eye part, as described in Mark 10: 23-37.

Question: why were the disciples amazed that a rich person couldn’t get to Heaven (verses 24, 26)?

Question no. 2: did you read verse 27? Jesus says that with God, a rich person could get to Heaven. In effect, with God, through Whom all things are possible, a camel could pass through a needle’s eye. Scripture isn’t a series of isolated thoughts, though many Christians often treat it that way. This narrative, like others — including the Lazarus story — often have points we see right past.

Other verses truly are about how the love of possessions can lead to sin (1 Timothy 6:10). To learn that lesson, we can refer to those passages. But Mark 10 is not about that.

Did the disciples think like a lot of us do: that of course, the money of the rich gets in the way of true goodness and spiritual concerns? If they did, why were they “exceedingly astonished”? Instead they would have nodded their heads, like we often do. Yes, that ugly Donald Trump, living it up, buying whole island chains during coffee breaks — he’ll never get into Heaven.

Rather, to Christ’s disciples, the “rich” was not our perception of a greedy uber-capitalist Bernie Madoff. To them, rich people were religious scholars, people who cared for the Earth, community pillars, recyclers, good people who gave to charity and helped the poor. Their wealth enabled them to be more spiritual than thou. Without the pressures of a 50-hour-a-week job, they had more time to be spiritual and donate to all the worthy causes.

Jesus took direct aim. In effect, He said that it would be easier for a literal camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for anyone uber-“good” to enter the Kingdom of God.

Finally, the Pat Robertson stuff.

Too right I did! I did see something of the sort before responding: This bloke! [. . .] I have yet to see anything more sanctimonious and hypocritical coming from a so-called holy man. That sort of thing gives TeleEvangelists a bad name.

Oh, I suggest you’re actually far too optimistic about televangelists, wagga. Maybe you didn’t see a spat of recent stories in American media about Benny Hinn, the fake “faith healer.” His lies and false prophesies and “healings” have led directly to people’s wasted lives and more suffering, sometimes from diseases (such as blindness) that could have been cured.

I think of Robertson a little differently. It’s too easy just to yell at him for being a jerk. Rather I hope to remember: there, but by the grace of God, go I. (Immediate EDIT: turns out I was incidentally repeating a point made by the good stargazer while I was writing this!) I’d be way worse than him if not for God. Picking on Pat Robertson, or Benny Hinn, or Joel Osteen or whatever, is too easy. They’re great big huge targets and they keep making themselves even worse with their continual, unrepentant false teaching and out-of-context Bible references. If I make any of them the Villain to Avoid and stop there, congratulating myself for seeing the obvious, that is useless.

I think an equal problem to Pat Robertson’s self-righteous announcements is making equally self-righteous pronouncements against him — playing the “I’m the good cop” Christian game, trying to elevate ourselves in the world’s eyes. But instead of falling into the same sin of spiritual arrogance, we ought to plead: Mr. Robertson, you ought to first, get off the TV and come back and renounce false “prophecies”; second, understand that in the deepest sense, anything that happens is according to God’s will! Make it clear God does hate sin and suffering, but that He allows it — like the tower disaster in Luke 13: 1-4 — to remind people to repent!

So there we are, full-circle. A Christianity based on Fighting the Bad Guys has its priorities all wrong. It becomes about being so much better than those bad people, or I’m awesome because I’m fighting the Devil, rather than about Christ and His sacrifice for wretched men. And there’s a risk even that I’ll do the same thing myself, if all I ever did was pick on people on the internet, such as in this very thread! That’s why I hope you’ll see here, not just Picking on Bad Guys, but glorifying God.

The chief end of man is not “to be outraged by devils and be appalled by them forever.” The famous Westminster Catechism says instead: “the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” Battles against bad guys, of the Devil, are only part of a Christian’s work. The point is Christ and Him crucified — the Gospel, how it changes us, and giving Him all the glory we can.

Fencer for Jesus wrote:

Now can demons wreck havoc? They can do something with the natural, but I doubt weather is something God allows them to meedle with. I don't see a Scriptural basis for them causing a tornado or an earthquake. This is like CS Lewis comment about searching for a demon behind every bush. It's not good. But are they active and searching? Absolutely. Deeming them myths is equally dangerous.

On the one hand, one of the Left Behind novels (yes, them again -- they've got a quote for everything, usually an odd one) has a church leader stating in very clear words, "God gave control of the weather to Satan long ago." (TOM's insta-reaction: cite verse, please?)

On the other hand, what about those lovely verses in Job where God tells Job about the storehouses of the rain and snow? If God ever gave control of the weather to anyone else, it would have to be after the conversation with Job. Which, by the way, wouldn't qualify as all that long ago. But again, there's a difference between actively doing something and not stopping it. ("Not stopping it" needn't necessarily even involve "before" and "after." Would it?)

On a third hand, Tolkien had that argument with himself in Fellowship of the Ring: "Has Bombadil the power to defy Sauron? Not unless such power is in the very earth. And yet we have seen that Sauron can torture and destroy the very hills." Reminds me of the verse quoted above foes not of flesh and blood.

On the fourth hand, Sauron was a follower of Aule, the angel of the forge and could have done what he did with either tech or magic, or both.

I guess I'm more focused on the fact that the disaster victims need our response more than an explanation.

(Oh, and I think TBG and I both quoted the tower at Siloam; we must have cross-posted.)

EDIT: Just found out that the majority-Christian Haitian nation also lost their archbishop, who died in the quake.

wagga: I'm sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention. But you and TOM keep misreading me. Thank you, Dr. Ransom, for the gracious defense. My point was

gratitude to God and lack of overarching worry about the future because He is running it.

I'm currently unemployed ... with mounting school and credit card bills. I'm currently living out of a suitcase ... temporarily housing with a modern-day Uncle Scrooge. But I'm learning that God can and will supply all my needs according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus [Phil 4]. I'm learning that God is able. There is nothing impossible with Him. I can't, but God can. Isn't that the definition of faith? I thank God every day for waking me up in the morning, giving me permission to breathe, and putting food on my table. I thank Him for my ten-year-old car. I thank Him for a Pentecostal mother, for being reared in a Christian home. [But Christian doesn't equal Pentecostal. ] I thank Him for a less-than-perfect church and pastor. Thanking God for life, food, clothes, housing, job/employer, money, car, church, etc--whether or not I have them--I recognize the ultimate source.

Whilst my 'earnings' - after the ATO has taken its proper share - might belong to God, I do hope I am left with a bit of pocket money to pay the bills with. Otherwise I really would be in deep doo doo. And by the way, a good definition of slavery is to work for nothing, unless one is only working on a voluntary basis.

Moses and Elijah and many other Old Testament saints worked for nothing. Jesus' disciples worked for nothing. The apostles in Acts worked for nothing. Remember the lame man at the temple gate called Beautiful? What did Peter tell the man before he [in the name of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit] healed him? "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk" [Acts 3]. Many of Christ's faithful servants ever since have worked for nothing, depending on donations--sometimes which they don't even ask for--to continue the ministry. George Mueller is probably the most famous example. Yes, their work is voluntary. But they're also slaves--of Jesus Christ. They live and work by faith in Him alone.

"I pray God makes you see and embrace godly womanhood" ... I wasn't referring to roles, to a woman's place in society. I was referring to discovering and embracing who you are in the sight of God, not who the world or the devil says or wants you to think you are. I was referring to finding your identity in Jesus Christ alone. But guess what? I'm still working on this. I think many Christian woman are. I'm still daily learning what godly womanhood means and learning to embrace it. Please watch this video. Jesus loves you!

Regarding creation and evolution's vastly different views on the value and status of women, I want to share a few articles.
1. "The history of the teaching of human female inferiority in Darwinism"
2. "London Times reports that the Bible is not anti-female: is this news?"

Satan as God's "messenger boy" ... thanks, Fencer. I like your and Dr. Ransom's thoughts on Job 1. But although so many of you mentioned what Satan did to Job weather-wise, no one seemed to notice that this is the only place in the Bible where Satan is given credit for controlling the weather. The rest of the Bible points to God as the One truly in control, as TOM mentioned of Job 38-41. Can we assume God has allowed Satan to have partial control over the weather at other times and places in history, and even today? Maybe. But again, Satan doesn't control the weather. God does. Whatever control any creature has over anything is God-given. Jesus told Pilate after His trial, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above" [John 19].

I'm not going to credit Satan with the earthquake in Haiti. God allowed it to happen. Why? Maybe to punish evildoers, but certainly not in the way Pat Robertson implied. Haiti is no more or less deserving of punishment than the rest of us. Maybe to give sinners an opportunity to wake up to the reality of eternity and repent before it's too late. Maybe to sanctify His people in Haiti and give them greater opportunities for sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. If this tragedy opens the door wide to the gospel in Haiti, hallelujah! It is in affliction that people sense their need for God and feel led to pray. Tragedy, like pain, is God's wake-up call, His megaphone [thanks, C. S. Lewis]. Tragedy and pain mean God still cares and is willing to intervene on our behalf, for the purpose of drawing us to Him. So maybe we should see the earthquake in Haiti as God's compassion. "Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone" [Hosea 4]. I think this is the last thing we want to happen to any of us, even if as wretched sinners we deserve it. So our first response to the people of Haiti should be a God-given compassion for their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. [It's odd to me that the earlier discussions on God's will and His role in this world's evil should suddenly have a concrete example. ]

Jesus says that with God, a rich person could get to Heaven. In effect, with God, through Whom all things are possible, a camel could pass through a needle’s eye.

I love this. It dawned on me this morning that so many things, not just salvation, are impossible with man for the simple reason that finite man cannot do anything outside the finite. It's impossible with man because man can't. "Impossible" is finite man reckoning without an infinite God. Of course with God nothing is impossible!

A little more about the spiritual warfare issue. I will remphasize that Satan and his demonic minions are very active in our world, but they are not behind everything. I listend to a sermon by Marc Driscoll (Pastor of Mars Hill) about spiritual warfare. He and I agree that there are three fronts: the lust of the flesh, the desire for the world, and the fronts of the devil. Reality is clear: we usually don't face only one of these at time. Marc Driscoll painted this picture that seems farily accurate. Satan is like a fisher, searching for whom ever he can catch. The things of the world is the bait. That is what we seek to replace the gap that sin created. And our flesh is the hook.

The reality is most of our battles do not directly involve demons. We have enough to handle with our own sin and the things of the world. All Satan needs to do is put it before us and go do something else. We get his attention when we learn not to bite but he is also a clever foe and knows how to disguise his bait so we won't recognize it in time. That's what trial and error is for. So we can learn. But the real way to determine what is Satan's bait or what is real food is not to identify the bait. We have a guideline in the Bible that tell us what is good and what is bad. The Bible does have a bunch of do's and don'ts, mostly don'ts because it is faster to list the things you can do than you can list the things you can. But we have all we need to know to determine what is of God and what is not. Rather than trying to figure out all the forms Satan can tempt us, we can use a reverse process to know what to take and what not to. If you know the truth, it doesn't take much to figure out what isn't. Start there and it makes your life a lot easier.

That being said, Ephesians 6 is not much about offense. For the most part, spiritual warfare is defense. You're dealing with your own issues, your own temptations, and your wordly culture day in day out. The only way to avoid it is to be a hermit and even then you still can't avoid it all. Satan is like a lion looking for any weakness he find. And he knows how to look. So we have to viligant and be alert at all times.

But at the same time, just standing there an letting the enemy hammer away at you until you break is simply not wise. The only example I can think of someone doing this was Jesus at the crucifixion. And Jesus did this so we wouldn't have to. I am not talking about being defensive and belligerent. I'm talking about being bold and standing up for the truth. Being on the offense in the spiritual warfare field is not about beating up the devil or getting revenge for what he has done. "Revenge is mine!" says the Lord. It's not our job to get back at the devil. But when the enemy comes in and tries to force us into positions where we 'can't' do the will of God, that's when we make a stand.

Here is an example. Juarez, Mexico is under a 2-year drug cartel war in which over 4,000 executions/murders have taken place. Obviously confronting the cartels with military force has done little. The Mexican goverment has already tried that and the cartels have shown they have no respect for the police or the military. Going out and try to drive out the devil is also not going to work. He has been invited in by these people (unwittingly in most cases) and has no reason to leave. But we can go on the offense in the spiritual sense by going after the enemy's targets: the people. We can give them the Gospel and give them hope. Obviously only God can change the hearts, but if people are turning to God, they are not falling for the grip of the enemy. Revival has been happening in Juarez, and you may notice that in the last few weeks four of the highest ranking cartel members throughout Mexico have been brought down. The media says its the army, but I've seen first-hand that it's the people turning back to God, and God is using the military forces to bring the cartels down. This is an example of offensive spiritual warfare: evangelism.

It's tough and we will find ourselves defending ourselves far more often than not, but having a Scriptural basis on what both the offensive and defensive side of spritual warfare and the balance between the two sides is a good thing to have. We are in spiritual warfare very frequently, but most of the time, we don't realize it. As for Haiti, it doesn't matter who actually caused it. We know God allowed it, but the enemy is going in there to beat down the victims and those involved even more and God is coming in to give comfort and hope. And we are the tools used for that. Which side are you on? Neutrality doesn't exist in spritual warfare. You are on one side or the other, and if you think you can sit on the fence, you will find yourself in the middle of the battle being hit by both sides, not on the sidelines watching. I fight for the King of Kings and I will go wherever he calls me. I hope that made sense.

I’ll re-ask the question: if you believe evolution, then there is nothing wrong with something like an earthquake because God has worked over billions of years of evolving and extinction, with death and disease. Defend this Biblically. Why should I say it’s a terrible thing if this is the God of the Bible, who allowed such a cruel process of developing life? I’m merely saying: creation believers can explain this Biblically, but Christians who allow for evolution (though they may still be Christians) cannot.

OK you are on. But not until January 26th, a public holiday, as I'm booked up until then, and won't be on the boards for a while. Meanwhile, could you please investigate which Biblical references support 1. A round Earth and 2. Galileo's assertion that the Earth and all the other planets orbit the Sun? You know as a fact that the Earth is round or cigar shaped, and that Galileo discovered the truth.

Egads — Pat Robertson isn’t a creationist. Do some more checking. He mocks young-earth creation. And that’s one of his minor bad and un-Biblical beliefs. Let’s get that straightened out.

Huh!? I can't believe Pat Robertson has a socialist/atheist background with links to mining, with a sceptical view of any religion and who therefore mocks young earth creation. Oh ok, if you insist. I'll agree that I have shared too many prejudices about TeleEvangelists from America to be particular enough about their beliefs. And you are right. I never heard about Benny Hinn whoever he is. He probably would be booted off the premises and told to get a proper job should he come door knocking around our way.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. All people are “co-religionists” — the only difference are the names, or whether they even use a name or get more organized or else by default “worship” themselves and their own goodness and things like that.

Including people like Abu Bakar Bashir or Taj el-Din Hilali? How do you feel about sharia law?

(Oh, and I think TBG and I both quoted the tower at Siloam; we must have cross-posted.)

Yes you might have done. I saw your quote which referred to the Tower of Siloam events directly. TBG's quote was 'What did Jesus say when people told Him of natural and man-made disasters? He said, "repent lest the same happen to you." ' Without a text reference or a hyperlink I didn't connect this saying with the Tower of Siloam since it is also applicable elsewhere in the Bible. Even Abu Bakar Bashir tells us miserable infidels from Down South to repent.

wagga: I'm sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention. But you and TOM keep misreading me....I'm currently unemployed ... with mounting school and credit card bills. I'm currently living out of a suitcase ... temporarily housing with a modern-day Uncle Scrooge.

Maybe we were both misreading each other. I had no idea you were unemployed, otherwise I would not have been so insensitively dismissive of your concerns. I'm sorry for that, and wish you all the best for getting another job and more suitable accommodation soon.

]Moses and Elijah and many other Old Testament saints worked for nothing. Jesus' disciples worked for nothing.

Not altogether. Most, if not all of Jesus' disciples had a trade to turn to when necessary. Peter and the sons of Zebedee went fishing, and others could turn their hands to a day's work if necessary. Even some of Jesus' parables, like the one about the men who were all paid a denarius a day regardless of how long they worked, show Jesus knew a bit about the labour market and how it worked in those days. I'm also saying that any volunteer work or work experience you do will look good on your resume. And when I, and all my family found themselves out of work in 1991, Isaiah 48: 10 was the Biblical reference that helped me most.