If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? James 2:16-17
A few days ago I retweeted a comment on my twitter profile which spoke to the idea that, because God loves everyone, Christians should strive to better emulate that love. I thought this was a great idea. After all, who can argue with love?
Apparently, I’m naive. Within moments, I received the following reply:
Does that include the 18000 children who die of starvation EVERY DAY? #GodIsNOTGreat
The hashtag at the end gave away the game from the outset. It refers to a rhetorically brilliant, yet factually dishonest book authored by the late Christopher Hitchens. The publication sought to undermine Christianity by painting it as a highly unethical, dehumanizing, barbaric faith which suppresses reason and provides motive for violence. In reality, it has simply become the backdrop for embittered anti-theists who use it as a rallying point to vent their rage against the Christian faith. I knew this, but I felt that the question itself was a valid one. I took the bait.
Yes, that includes them. Especially them.
From that point forward, the conversation degraded into angry epithets against a God who desires nothing more than to lavish his love upon us all. I ended the discussion with the block button, but the underlying question remained unanswered. How is it that starving children exist when a sovereign, almighty God claims to desire little more than to pour His love out upon humanity? It is a good question.
Imagine, for a moment, that God snapped His fingers and a surplus of food suddenly appeared which could end global hunger. Then, imagine that the people with money, power, and proximity decided that this surplus could have better uses than to feed the emaciated. The tables of the wealthy suddenly become glutted with delicacies, while 18000 children starve in their streets. Who do we indict for this injustice? God, or the greedy?
Here is the reality. On a global level, we already have more than enough food to end world hunger. In 2008, the United Nations released a report detailing that, for $30 billion a year, starvation could become a thing of the past. Furthermore, after ten years of this, the structures would be in place to allow for complete sustainability, thus ending the price tag forever. Altogether, the cost would be $300 billion over the course of ten years. Expensive? Certainly. However, let’s put this into perspective.
- In 2010, the United States spent $683.7 billion on our military. That’s more than double the entire expense for eradicating world hunger.
- Over 75% of the world’s resources are consumed by the wealthiest 20%. That means that only a quarter of consumable resources are available to be shared by 80% of the world’s population.
- It is estimated that in 2012, 30% of US corn production (FOOD!) will be used for ethanol production. This means that a full 30% of a viable food source will be used to fuel our vehicles, rather than feed the hungry.
I could go on, but I think the point is made.
All throughout Scripture, God places an extremely high emphasis on the need for His people to care for the poor. He has made the resources available. The indictment for starving children does not fall on God, it falls squarely on the shoulders of humanity. This is our doing, and part of being a people charged with the bringing forth of God’s kingdom is actively working to set it right. Which brings me back to the original retweet… if God loves everyone, Christians need to better emulate that love.
Chucky February 29, 2012 at 2:17 am
I completely agree. There’s still a theological question of pain/evil to be answered, but this is not a good example of it. There’s more than enough food in the world so that we all have enough. We could eradicate hunger if we wanted. It’s a point made over and over by aid agencies. But we, the wealthy of the world, have different priorities… and if Christians were Christian we’d stand against that.
camary1996 March 16, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Mark 14:7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
Deuteronomy 15:11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.
Jesus said the poor will ALWAYS be with us. He understood our true nature of selfishness will be the reason the poor will always be with us…..Even so He wants those who will and can to always strive to help the poor. Bless those who look out for the poor.
This all boils down to the big question about why God allows such suffering. I stand on Proverbs 3:5 Not to depend on my understanding of why God does what He does. I also hold on to this scripture:1 Corinthians 13:12. It tells us that we only know somethings now… but one day we will know everything.
Until then I’m going to live my life to please the Lord and try to be a blessing to whom ever I can and continue to pray for those who are poor and suffering.
Very good blog topic. God bless you!
Heather Tiger March 22, 2012 at 11:22 pm
I think the scriptures on feeding the poor here are right on in how we, as Christians, are to respond to the plight of the needy and poor. We are to be the hands and feet of Christ. However, while I do lean on God’s wisdom being higher than mine (humanity’s), this is a response that is left wanting. God has given us the resources to feed all people, but the brokenness of humanity has resulted in the sin of greed. Weundmundeunderstand
Heather Tiger March 22, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Sorry, glitch.. We can understand the problems and consequences of the sinful nature, which so often is the cause of suffering in our world. We have been given the gift of not only free will, but the grace to move beyond our sin and live a life of abundant love, pouring it back into this broken world.
craiglock March 16, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Excellent reply. God works through people… who choose to be filled with the spirit of Christ
Darren Lauser March 17, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Thank you for “liking” my dragon domestication post! Maybe you will like this one also. It ties in with this post you made.
http://WhenHisVoiceIsHeard.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/why-is-there-pain-and-suffering/
jlue March 20, 2012 at 5:30 pm
World hunger is a troubling reality. What do we do? Samaritan’ Purse is doing what many of us cannot do. They can use our support. http://www.samaritanspurse.org/
If we all send a small amount, it can go a long way. Little is much when God is in it.
T. E. Hanna March 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Samaritan’s Purse is a great organization. Franklin Graham is doing some great things over there. Personally, however, my organization of choice is the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR). They are astonishing in the level of relief ministry they provide, and 100% of your donations to them go straight to the field. All administrative costs are covered by the giving of the United Methodist churches, freeing donation money to be fully applied to their purpose.
remnantreminder March 22, 2012 at 8:19 pm
I am reminded of Cain who asked:
Am I my brother’s keeper?
We are commanded of the Lord to help others. How can we love our neighbor as ourselves and watch them starve? I am a giver and help as much as I can. I sometimes wish I could do even more.
Clint Lewey March 23, 2012 at 9:40 am
“Pure religion and undefiled is to care for the fatherless and the widows.” There is no doubt that looking after the needs of others is part of New Testament Christianity.
I would also add that as we fulfill the Great Commission, this care for the poor and needy would be the natural result. In other words, as we spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and establish local churches in every community, believers in those newly formed churches would be taught to carry the message and love of Christ to those around them. It’s a matter of Christ’s body being found in every place and every part of the world.
We must be faithful to be Christ’s ambassadors, and we must pray the Lord of the harvest that He would send forth labourers into His harvest.
I say all of this knowing there is so much I need to be doing for the Lord. Pray for me that I would be faithful in the Master’s vineyards.
jlue March 23, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Mr. Lewey is right. We should not worry about the “1%” or the “20%”. We are each just as accountable to God regardless of how much or how little we have. God can take our tithes and offerings and feed the multitudes if we are faithful in giving.
Jenny White March 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm
“Read :The Hole In Our Gospel” by Richard Stearn…..perfect for this post. And SO true. It’s an amazing read!
Jenny White
T. E. Hanna March 23, 2012 at 10:00 pm
I own it,actually. Great book.
PQ March 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm
I’ve just started reading “The Hole in the Gospel.” It appears from the introduction that the reality deals with the obedience of Christians rather than the character of our God. There is much we can do.
jonocingram April 1, 2012 at 1:56 am
Two quotes (because I often think others say it better than I can):
Ghandi said; “There is enough food for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed”. Perhaps Ghandi understood God’s economy better than much of the Western Church.
Shane Claiborne says: “We often ask, “God why don’t you do something about the poverty and injustice in our world?” And God says, “I did do something. I made you.”"
Peace
Jono
Anna Haugen April 3, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Coffee with Jesus had a comic strip recently that fits this post
http://www.radiofreebabylon.com/RFB%20Images/CoffeeWithJesus/coffeewithjesus287.jpg
Scott January 26, 2013 at 5:46 pm
If it’s true that “In 2010, the United States spent $683.7 billion on our military. That’s more than double the entire expense for eradicating world hunger”…
I wonder if the military and political powers worldwide would be grateful if all our military forces were re-assigned and re-tasked to be farmers.
In in ideal world everyone would be grateful, if only…
T. E. Hanna January 26, 2013 at 5:53 pm
I’m reminded of Isaiah 2:4
” He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
Magic March 5, 2013 at 2:16 pm
“Imagine, for a moment, that God snapped His fingers and a surplus of food suddenly appeared which could end global hunger. Then, imagine that the people with money, power, and proximity decided that this surplus could have better uses than to feed the emaciated. The tables of the wealthy suddenly become glutted with delicacies, while 18000 children starve in their streets. Who do we indict for this injustice? God, or the greedy?”
Im glad you think God is so weak that he couldnt prevent that from happening. The point of the question is really just to point out how your God can not exist. If god is all powerful, all knowing, AND all loving, then that situation wouldnt exist. He can be 2 of those things, but not all 3.
1. God can stop it, Wants to stop it, but doesnt know about it.
2.God Can stop it, Knows about it, and doesnt care.
3.God Knows about it, wants it to stop, and cant stop it.
Pick whichever one you want to worship.
*I suppose there is a fourth option. He is all three of those things, and thinks that the loving thing to do is to have them starve.
T. E. Hanna March 5, 2013 at 6:51 pm
There’s also a fifth way. God is all three of those things, but being good entails not enslaving all of humanity. So our free will is preserved.
Being free means that we also have the capacity to harm one another. We have the capacity to welcome evil into this world. These starving children are suffering because of the evil we have inflicted upon them.
The central message of Christianity is that evil is a part of our fallen world, and God takes that very seriously. Our story of redemption is a story of God rooting out evil, and creating and shaping a people in whom evil is being rooted out of. As part of this people, as participants in God’s story of redemption, we are called to actively work to alleviate suffering and become agents of healing in a broken world.
The great hope of Christianity is the eschaton, where evil is addressed in finality and that which is wrong has been made right. Evil doesn’t make Christianity incoherent, it affirms it entirely.
Your trifecta is known as the problem of theodicy, and it has been addressed over and over again since at least the fourth century.
Jake March 5, 2013 at 11:18 pm
Your post gives interesting insight into the relative ease in which the world could feed the hungry, assuming we could convince enough politicians, gather the resources, etc. However, it doesn’t answer the basic question that Christians have been tiptoeing around for generations: if God is great, why doesn’t he end the suffering of little children?
God creates sin. God creates hunger. Children are born into this world, not by their own will, but by his. They suffer. They die. If they reach the age of understanding and haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, they face an eternity in hell.
I think atheists have a hard time with Christians’ highly-creative replies to this question, because there is no other place in the real world where we justify this sort of diabolical cruelty.
If a wealthy father loves his son but lets him starve to death anyway, we would all agree the man is sinister.
And this is just one kid.
And the father didn’t create the sin.
And the kid is only killed, not damned to an eternity in hell.
Whether or not Christians neglect the hungry is irrelevant to the argument. Under no form of logic can God create sinners then punish children when the sinners sin.
18,000… every single day.
It breaks my heart. And if I had the capacity to end it right now, I wouldn’t blame it on Satan. I wouldn’t blame it on Adam or Eve. I wouldn’t blame in on Christians living in 2013. I wouldn’t ramble about original sin or hide behind the beauty of free will. I wouldn’t claim miracles were for an earlier age. I wouldn’t worry about showing off. I wouldn’t worry about people replacing faith with absolute proof. I wouldn’t hide behind my “mysterious ways.”
I would feed the children. I would include dessert. I would end their suffering.
I’m not a narcissistic person, but this makes me infinitely more benevolent than God.
I hope you don’t consider this “rage against the Christian faith.” It’s a problem I’ve had for a long time, and Christians still sidestep it or provide replies that have no basis in reality.
Thanks for starting relevant discussions!
T. E. Hanna March 5, 2013 at 11:54 pm
You raise some valid questions, but there are some assumptions in here that don’t align with Christian theology.
First off, I’m not sure where you got the idea that God created sin. God created a good world, and granted dominion of that world to us, entrusting us with stewardship under His authority. Sin is fundamental rebellion against that authority, and the result is chaos and evil introduced to our world. God did not create sin, we did.
Nor is God “punishing children.” The reality of a broken world is that bad stuff happens. It doesn’t always necessarily have a reason, that is just the reality of a broken world. Some things, however, are the direct result of our own selfishness and greed. Starving children is one of them. The suffering we inflict on each other is a hell of our own creation. So, God deals with this problem right at the root: by transforming willing people into the embodiment of self sacrifice and love we were intended to be. As Christians, we call that inner process sanctification, and the outer expression social justice. They are two sides of the same coin.
As to hell and salvation, you and I have very different understandings of the terms. Check out my article on ‘Hell’ and my article on ‘Soft Inclusivism’
Jake March 6, 2013 at 12:47 am
Let’s say that it’s possible to create an entire universe from nothingness without also creating sin. If we change every instance where I wrote “created sin” to “allowed sin,” this still doesn’t fix the problem. In the real-world example, the father isn’t murdering his son, he’s simply allowing his son to die by not intervening. It doesn’t change the fact that we would both call this man malevolent.
You’re still using church-talk here. Just for a minute, step outside everything you’ve been taught about this topic; all the little tricks and bible versus and loopholes. Can you find any comparison to the real world where a person allows children to starve to death and we call him “good”? The only way you can justify these actions by a benevolent God is to use biblical rhetoric and circular logic.
Here’s an example from your reply:
“So, God deals with this problem right at the root: by transforming willing people into the embodiment of self sacrifice and love we were intended to be.”
How does anyone who didn’t grow up in the church interpret this statement? Only a Christian who is defending God’s benevolence could come up with that statement and believe it! This is NOT dealing with the root of the problem. This is an absurd, round-about way of dealing with the problem.
A. God is all-powerful and benevolent, so to feed starving children, he allows sin, creates people, then finds those who are willing to sacrifice themselves, uses them to write blog posts about feeing the hungry, waits until enough Christians raise 300 billion dollars… AND THEN he feeds the children.
or
B. God is all-powerful and benevolent, so he doesn’t allow children to suffer.
The simplicity here is beautiful. Occam’s razor doesn’t always apply, but I’m certain it does in this case.
T. E. Hanna March 6, 2013 at 11:19 am
Except that you are skipping over incredibly important elements in order to simplify it like that. The coalescence of omniscience and omnipotence has the very real potential to create a sort of divine enslavement if applied in the way that you are suggesting. If God chooses to allow us to make free decisions – the only way that we could possibly make GOOD decisions – then He has to allow us to make bad decisions. Bad decisions, unfortunately, result in the way in which we inflict harm on one another. If, since He knows every hurtful, harmful decision we will ever make, He then chooses to prevent those decisions, the result is a removal of free agency entirely. We are no longer human. We are, at best, puppets.
I’m not saying that God sends people to make blog posts so that Christians can have fundraisers and eventually, one day, we might actually deal with hunger. I’m saying that God works on humanity, shaping us into people who actually care about starving children, and sending us to do real things about it right now.
It’s the reason that the overwhelming majority of charities are faith based. And, if you look at Christianity historically, you can see exactly how this has played out:
-The very fact that the poor and impoverished are valued as human beings finds its root in the Christian revolution. The Roman Empire, and all that was culturally embedded in it, viewed lower status individuals as disposable. In fact, you would lose status even by interacting with them. Christians, however, lived in a different way – they erased social distinctions, lived with the poor, shared their belongings with the poor, and elevated the treatment of the poor to one of the highest Christian virtues. Eventually, that changed culture. Our modern cultural valuing of the impoverished finds its origins in Christianity.
-The first hospitals created and formed for the treatment of all people, not just the elite, finds its origins in Basil of Caesarea in the fourth century, and it subsequently spread throughout Christianity. The fact that we have hospitals that care about the treatment of all people today owes its heritage to the Christian movement.
-Public education finds its origins in Sunday School, when Christians looked at the children planting and harvesting with their families and realized that they had no education, and so began using Sundays as a day to teach them to to read, to write, and basic mathematics. This grew into our current public school system.
-Christianity overturned the barbarism of the Roman Empire, ending gladiatorial games and the general devaluation of human life. In fact, so pervasive was this that, when Rome fell, the Christians were initially blamed for “having made Rome soft.” It was this accusation that led to the original penning of The City Of God by Augustine.
What I am saying is that we have to be free to make decisions. You’re not suggesting that God exert influence to address humanity’s problems, you’re suggesting that God fundamentally enslave humanity’s will so that we stop creating problems for ourselves. I would argue that, to do so, would be fundamentally unethical at the highest level.
Instead of enslaving humanity, God instead works with humanity to change humanity, so that these problems that we create for ourselves eventually stop being created. As He does this, He also instructs His people to actively work at alleviating the suffering of others. This concept of transformation on a personal level into persons governed by love and the outplay of that love on a societal level addressing the way that sin manifests in society (such as oppression, poverty, hunger), these are central elements to Christianity.
Jake March 7, 2013 at 8:33 am
I would never argue that Christians can’t be compassionate. You give some great examples of human benevolence… but can you see how dangerously close you are to atheism? We agree on everything you said, up until the point you claim it’s God behind man’s goodness. Even if most charities really are faith-based, it does not mean there is a god controlling the generosity. In fact, adding God to the equation only minimizes the goodness of the acts and complicates what should be a very straight forward philosophy. Instead of simply saying “Humans can be good,” we must now also explain how God can simultaneously spur human morality and damn people to hell (or, at the very least, reject people from eternity in heaven).
A few thoughts about “good will”:
A guard brings a prisoner outside the walls of a prison. He draws a circle in the dirt around the prisoner, then points a rifle at his head. “If you leave the circle, I’ll kill you.”
This is another real-world scenario that shows the absurdity of Christian rationalization. Technically, the prisoner can run away. He can go home to his wife, play with his children, marry another man… but if he does, there are severe consequences.
Do people in China have free will? Did slaves have free will?
The book of Leviticus is the big “but” in God’s version of freedom. “You are free to do as you please!*”
*But if you disobey your parents, you can be stoned to death.
(We can skip the discussion about how Jesus’ death overturned the law… we’re talking about the benevolence of God, and if you believe in the bible, you believe that—at one point in time—God condoned slavery and the bashing of infants’ heads).
If God only punished those who take away the freedom of others (stealing, murder, rape, etc), I could get behind your philosophy. But God—in both the OT and NT—creates arbitrary laws that restrict use of the free will he gave us, even when our decisions have no negative consequences on others.
This is NOT freedom.
Here’s the worst part: According to your initial argument, God—in his overwhelming goodness—prioritizes this horrific version of freedom over the health and happiness of children. Children suffer so we can be free*.
One final thought.
Your view of a world without free will lacks imagination! God created the whole universe out of nothingness and he could have done ANYTHING with humans! To say that we only have true happiness when we’re free may be true in the reality we currently live in… but couldn’t an all-powerful God create a reality in which his people are both free AND happy?
T. E. Hanna March 11, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Hi Jake!
Sorry for the lengthy period between replies, last week was a very busy week for me. You may have noticed that no new posts went up last week, either.
A few thoughts.
First, free will depicts our ability to choose freely, it does not mean that there are no consequences to our behavior. We very much affirm freedom of personal choice in the US, even to the point of maintaing a freedom of speech that can be used in some very destructive ways. However, we also place limits upon the usage of this freedom before such uses begin drawing consequences. Free will does not eliminate ethics. We do not simply choose certain behaviors, we also choose to invite the results of those decisions upon ourselves.
The laws of the OT are sometimes a bit odd to us, and for good reason. We are incredibly divorced from ancient cultural contexts, and things that would have made incredible sense to those participants of an ancient culture bear little meaning to us today. Worse, some of them come layered with modern baggage, and appear highly violent or unethical. Take, for example, your reference to stoning disobedient children.
This was not a command for disciplining children by bashing them to death with rocks. We see numerous commands throughout the Levitical law for raising children with discipline, but none of them advocate murder as a viable disciplinary choice. Not only this, but killing children was explicitly forbidden, particularly in light of a Canaanite backdrop which regularly sacrificed firstborn children to sate the wrath of the gods and protect future children in a time where infant mortality was abysmally high. In addition, I can not offhand think of any instances where children were stoned to death for disobedience, and I am certain we have disobedient children. The fact that the law you reference was an enigma that went against the other trends in Levitical law and practice tells me that there was more going on here than we may have access to.
This only builds when we take into consideration the commandment to “honor your father and mother, that you may live long in the land.” Honoring one’s parents was not simply a matter of being respectful, it was the means by which the elderly were kept alive. It was the responsibility of a son or daughter to care for their parents in their age, and refusal to take on this mantle was akin to parricide. Honoring one’s parents was tied to survival. I am much more akin to believe that the “disobedience” in the law you are referencing was tied to these survival understandings rather than simply an unruly child.
I would similarly reject your depiction of slavery (I am going to be dealing with this in depth in a series of articles next week) and ‘bashing in the heads of children’. I am assuming that your child bashing reference was to the Psalmist, who was lamenting the capture of Israel and having to watch as the invading armies murdered the Israelite children before his eyes. His lament wishes the same fate upon the invading nation, and was incredibly raw and incredibly human. It was not, however, an admonition from the almighty validating the brutal slaughter of infants.
I’ve also argued in the past that we see two instances of OT laws. We see the big picture laws, the laws that do not ever change, that reveal the full picture of what holiness looks like. The ten commandments are an example of this. These are laws which ultimately reveal to us just how far we are from righteousness.
Then, we see the laws that are very culturally specific, that come right down to where the Israelites are, and move them to the next level. These tend to change as Israel progresses, and we can often trace their development through the pages. These change because Israel changes, because God is leading Israel towards holiness, and the laws serve as the next step in that progression. They are usually very counter-cultural, but still operate within an Ancient Near Eastern framework.
All of that to say, I still would affirm that the OT presents us with the image of a benevolent God who takes sin, redemption, and holiness very seriously.
One last note regarding your comment on free will, and then I will close (as I know I have gone on long enough as it is). The idea that God could have created us to be happy without presenting us with the freedom to screw things up misunderstands the concept of creation from a Christian perspective. Creation wasn’t all about us, as much as we try to make it that way. Creation was about God. Love naturally desires to lavish itself on a beloved. We are that beloved.
Love, however, also seeks its return. In order for love to have any meaning, it has to be freely given. In order for it to be freely given, it has to be able to be freely rejected. The rejection of God has to be an option if a willing response to God is to have any meaning. Free will is a necessary aspect of a meaningful relationship with the Divine.
Jake March 7, 2013 at 8:52 am
Hmm… our discussion raises a question I never considered before…
Is there free-will in heaven? Will we have option to make bad decisions in paradise? If not… will we be puppets?
T. E. Hanna March 11, 2013 at 2:15 pm
This is a great question. I’ve been receiving a couple question on free will, so I am going to deal with these in a series of articles this week. I would anticipate the article in response to this question going up on Thursday.
Healing Wanderer March 16, 2013 at 5:02 am
Excellent article.
The situation is indeed getting worse with each day.
On the basis of my political-economical studies and my current research and analysis I fear that hunger will be the fate of most of us. I often use the analogy comparing our near future to the world Hunger Games.
Healing Wanderer March 16, 2013 at 5:16 am
I have recently visited a new atheist blog, where the authors were passionately attacking God’s moral character.
Funnily enough they were insulting someone whose existence they deny (???) In addition to this contradiction I found another one which I posted in a comment:
1) If we assume that we (humans) are infallible in our moral judgements then God who created us upon His image is necessarily infallible too.
2) If we are fallible (and we are) then we are simply not in the position to judge God’s moral character.
In their replies the atheists could offer nothing but a set of desperate logical fallacies, mostly evasive red-herrings and their continuing emotional “arguments”.
Healing Wanderer March 17, 2013 at 9:34 am
This article is so relevant that I would like to add another comment.
The more I research the topic the more I am convinced that God wants us to move towards an entirely novel system that will eliminate hunger and poverty on the planet. In an ideal case the believers and non-believers would join forces to achieve this.
Within the current political-economical framework the very best efforts to elevate suffering (charity, alms) only sustain this system, which meanwhile takes away the chance of survival from many other millions. One of the major issues in this regard is the one of the migrants. But the tendency towards a world-wide unemployment, lack of job opportunities, elimination of both a functioning market and social welfare, while the monopolies are increasing prices and lowering wages, and the unresolved starvation and extreme poverty in many areas which the unregulated globalised market triggers, is really alarming. As we know this “machine” accelerates with each day, and its only goal is to increase the profits for the private pockets of the mega-investors. I am aware this is not news – but it appears to me that not many are aware of the outcome of this trend.
The reason why I am awar is because I studied in several majors, including political science and economics, and have recently done relevant research on the topic. In addition, I recently found psychology-related information on another alarming fact: according to psychological studies most of those those who enter the political arena are pathological narcissists who simply do not feel or comprehend the concept of genuine love, selflessness, empathy, compassion.
Some of them do, but as I followed through several cases I realised that those politicians who enter the public sphere with a good will, are forced to change their ways, as if they are being threatened.
I have tried to approach these questions without becoming political but it is simply impossible. We can’t avoid the conclusion that we need to start demanding a new system if we would like to survive and would want to leave behind a sane and liveable place for our children.
Thank you so much for reading this. For more details please visit my blog at:
http://familyhurts.wordpress.com/
I would be gratified and honoured to see you there. Please let me know what you think.
Jake Vander Ark March 20, 2013 at 1:04 pm
(Hmm… it appears I can’t reply to your last comment? Is the thread too long? Sorry, I’ll continue it here.)
Sorry for the late reply! I promise, I have a good excuse: http://www.wedpics.com/album/MTc5ODM=
First, I need to apologize for the verse about dashing infant’s heads; you’re right, it’s a psalm and not really relevant to my argument that God is malevolent.
Again, you have proven that you have extensive knowledge on the history of the bible, and you have some creative answers to tough questions. Your response to the stoning of children is a pretty big stretch (and I could probably argue that a benevolent god shouldn’t approve of capital punishment for children under ANY circumstance), but let’s pretend your explanation is satisfactory. That was just ONE example of God’s arbitrary wrath! What about the rest?
God requires numerous animal sacrifices; the most explicit example is probably Exodus 29. I love a good steak… but can you find another real-world scenario where we rightfully worship someone who demands animal body parts to be waved around for “sanctification”?
In Exodus 31 God says we should put people to death if they disgrace the sabbath. If you work on the sabbath, you should be banished from your community… because God is good.
Remember Numbers 21:6 when God sent snakes to bite and kill the sinners? In real life, we call this “cruel and unusual punishment.” In Christianity, we worship the guy who did this.
Speaking of Number, 15:32 tells of a man picking up sticks on the Sabbath. God commands Moses to stone him, so they do.
Not only does the NT give us the most potent example of God’s incomprehensible sadism with Jesus’s death, but it also shows us that Jesus and the apostles both confirm and uphold many of the abhorrent stories and laws of the OT.
These are just a few examples of God’s epic cruelty. If you want 1,300 more examples, you can follow this link: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
My goal isn’t to make you justify 1,300 examples of God’s arbitrary wrath, but to use this massive list (and everything we discussed above) to ask the ultimate question: Why can’t Christians see the forest through the trees?
Christian theologians are so good at knocking down one tree at a time:
“God says we should stone children? Well, if we look at the time period…”
“Elhanan really killed Goliath? Well, if we add a couple words to this verse…”
“Women should not have authority over a man? Well, if we take a closer look at the translation…”
TAKE A STEP BACK! Instead of focusing on every single contradiction and justification, we need to look at the whole forest! And when we do, we realize just how insane this all sounds, ESPECIALLY to those who already have a rational explanation for morality and (on a larger scale) the origin of life.
At the very least, can’t we just call the OT laws “polemics” like Noah’s Ark? Why can we make the jump from “absolute fact” to “metaphor” with ridiculous stories, but not with ridiculous laws? Is it more likely there’s an all-powerful God who required the sacrifice of doves during a woman’s period than the story of Noah’s Ark?
Science and logic is finally forcing Christians to abandon literal interpretations of these stories… but what must I prove before you’ll abandon the rationale that a benevolent god can perform the heinous acts listed above?
And finally, you said: “The rejection of God has to be an option if a willing response to God is to have any meaning. Free will is a necessary aspect of a meaningful relationship with the Divine.”
If rejecting God was simply an “option” we wouldn’t be having this conversation. You can define hell in whatever way you want, but the bible makes it clear it’s a pretty bad place… and between this concept of hell and all the punishments we discussed above, rejecting God is hardly a valid option. For the millionth time: can you show me a real-world example where someone says “love me or die” and we call them “good”?
T E Hanna March 20, 2013 at 1:31 pm
A few responses.
First, I am not denying that there are things in the OT that we find troubling. That’s why I’m doing the series to look at some key examples and how we would understand them from an ancient world perspective. They biggest difficulty with them, I find, stems from our inherent divorce from ancient culture and ancient languages. The picture changes when the context does.
Let me also deal with two of your larger references.
Sacrifice. This isn’t about a god who revels in bloodshed. In fact, sacrifice depicts exactly the opposite. I deal with that here: http://ofdustandkings.com/blood-sacrifice/
“Love me or die”. This isn’t a god who says, “love me or suffer”. This is a god who says “you are destroying yourselves and I am trying to lead you back to life.” I deal with that here: http://ofdustandkings.com/hell-doctrine-of-a-loving-god/
Also, I would reject that science and logic are forcing Christians to abandon literal interpretations. Metaphorical interpretations have been normative for the duration of Christian history. The cultural shift to a hyper-literal reading came with the rise of fundamentalism in response to the rise of modern science. If science helps us to ascertain truth, as the thought went, then we should be able to read the Bible as a science manual. Only, the Bible was never INTENDED to be a scientific manual. What we are seeing today is a return to a more historically faithful reading, not an abandonment of literalism in a last ditch attempt to salvage the faith.
Jake Vander Ark March 20, 2013 at 5:59 pm
Does it concern you that the bible is not self-evident? That we must rely on humans (who often receive money) to tell us what’s literal and what’s metaphorical in the infallible word of God?
I think we’re going to keep going in circles if we don’t end this conversation soon. I’ll respond to your post about animal sacrifice by saying, “Isn’t there any other way? Why such disgusting symbolism? Do we really need to slaughter animals, rub their blood all over our body, and shake their dead limbs for God?” And you will reply with something culturally accurate that essentially dodges the root of the question. Then I’ll respond with “It doesn’t matter what this particular culture was doing during this particular era… God is still condoning murder of animals and humans.” To which you’ll reply, “I’m not saying the OT isn’t troubling.”
In the end, you can continue to knock down one tree at a time to appease other Christians who are also taught to ignore the forest.
However, I can’t get on board with your reasoning. I did this for 28 years, and I can’t do it anymore. I don’t worship Hitler for killing people for ridiculous reasons, and I won’t worship God for it either… especially when a deity is no longer necessary to explain the world. (The comparison to Hitler may seem like atheist hyperbole, but when you step back and look at the bible objectively, the Christian God is so much worse.)
If you think there is still knowledge to gain from this conversation, we can keep going! These are the questions I would still love direct answers to:
Do you have any real-world examples of benevolent people who act like the OT God? (Killing animals for sanctification, letting children die painfully when they have the power to stop it, giving someone freedom at gunpoint, etc.)
If a lack of free will turns us into puppets, are we puppets in heaven? Or are we allowed to perform evil deeds in heaven, as we do on Earth?
Do you think Christians should try to see the forest through the trees? Instead of teaching them to tackle these issues one at a time, can you provide a blanket explanation for all 1,300 acts of wrath from the link I attached?
And let’s throw a new one in:
4. If God’s version of morality changes with the culture, is it possible that God is actually okay with gays getting married, but he’s taking into account the current culture, much like he did with murdering children for failing their parents?
Thanks again for the interesting blog! Sorry we still can’t see eye-to-eye!
T E Hanna March 20, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Jake, I have no issues with our inability to see eye to eye, and I hope that, despite our different worldview assumptions, you continue to comment and challenge my perspectives on the blog. It was the result of questions like these that I first began really studying the old testament, and I am considering pursuing phd work on it.
Also, while I consider scripture to be the inspired word of God, I do not consider it inerrant. It was written by a particular people in a particular time recording a particular encounter with God as he reveals himself. I think those particulars are very important for understanding the text, but I also think there is very much a human element involved.
I’ll offer some brief responses:
1. We still see good people sacrificing animals today as they did in the OT. Animal sacrifice was connected with food VERY early on. The animal would be offered up to God, killed, cooked, and eaten. Every time a person says grace over a hamburger, they are functionally doing the same thing.
2. As far as children, things become substantially more complex when you add in omniscience and omnipotence. I think I addressed this in an article already, but if I didn’t, I will put one together.
3. I don’t think God ever offers us free will at gun point. I think we put the gun to our own head, and God provides us an alternative to pulling the trigger.
As to free will in heaven, this is already on my docket to deal with in my free will series. I’ll link to it when I’m done.
And as to the 1300 “acts of wrath”, I think there are some general principles – justice issues, sanctification issues, interpretive issues, etc – but I don’t think you can take 1300 events and combine them under one umbrella without seriously over simplifying them.
As to your last point, I’m actually an advocate for same sex marriage, and I’ve written a few scholarly papers defending this view exegetically in light of scripture.
T E Hanna March 20, 2013 at 1:36 pm
I just looked at the album. Congratulations!
CalebAnderson March 25, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Great post and message.
Randy The Atheist May 16, 2013 at 7:15 pm
You know, this isn’t about the blame factor or what humans are supposed to do to resolve hunger.
This is about the rationale behind a god who is claimed to help 45 year old Henry find his lost wallet instead of helping 4 year old Tia who starves to death instead. The deception is to lay blame to humans who do not do enough to help the starving children like Tia who eventually succumbs in her own feces.
If people claim that god can bend the laws of nature on their behalf for neat party tricks, then why must humans do a logistically impossible task to save millions of starving children – many of whom expire in unmonitored regions of deep isolated territories?
The answer is extremely simple – no need for mental gymnastics.
T E Hanna May 16, 2013 at 8:22 pm
I can appreciate your response, but I think the point here is being missed. Children are starving on a global level not because there is not enough food or resources for them, but because those food and resources are being withheld from them by human greed and gluttony. This is not a “logistically impossible task”, as the United Nations have laid out exactly the logistics required to make it happen, and the resources for it are plentiful. The source of their suffering, then, is not a result of insufficient resources, but the result of human sin. If that issue is truly to be dealt with, then what has to be addressed is the underlying cause; not be adding more resources to an already plentiful stock, but by dealing with the reality of human evil in a broken world. This is exactly what we see God doing, and it certainly doesn’t require any mental gymnastics to note that evil and greed are very real forces in our world.
This is not to say, however, that every aspect of suffering is the result of human causation. The image of the fall is precisely that evil and chaos infected the entirety of a previously good creation. Human ethics and relationships are a part of this, but so is the entire natural order. God’s response is redemption and, while the fullness of that restoration is still yet to be realized, the emphasis of the Christian hope is that all things are to be made new.