Pat Robertson has been under fire by Christians and non-Christians alike after his divisive comment over the reasons why the destructive earthquake hit the helpless country of Haiti. The televangelist asserted that the death toll is due to a historical pact that the Haitians made with the Devil and that the pact has cursed the island and all who live on it. His message of doom and gloom represents Christianity as an enemy of the world. His kind of Christianity is the kind that most want nothing to do with.
Robertson was dealing with an issue that Christians have gotten wrong for centuries: our need to oppress others with the labels and words we use. A lot of the language within churches tends to be exclusive and pervasive, like the word "sinner," a word used to differentiate those who will not be saved from those who will. But what if that word doesn't mean what we think it means?
We need reasons why things happen. If we don't find them, we feel like that event or moment has no value or purpose. If someone close to us dies in a car accident, we think we need to blame someone to justify our pain; we want a reason why we have to grieve. If our six-year-old son wins an award at school, we want to know why, so that we can celebrate. Our experience of life seems to be a series of explanations, and if there are moments for which we have no explanation, our tendency is to forget them or find creative means with which to explain them away. We're not really good with mystery. We say we are, but we really just want to know how mystery works and how to make it work for us.
Mystery can be painful. Not knowing why your husband died on the operating table could ruin you for life. Or why a tornado hit your house and not the one next door, or why war parades itself across our television screens. Not knowing leaves us helpless, confused, and weak. Well, that's what we're taught to believe. We begin to look inward at our frailty and ask the question "Why?" We start with, "Why did this happen? Where did this come from?" Then comes the "Why me?" You see this process occurring with Job, a popular character in an ancient story in the Jewish Tanakh and Christian scriptures.
Job essentially loses everything he could -- his house, cattle, health, marriage, children, and respect from his friends. And he begins to ask "Why?" which then leads to "Why me?" Why? seems to always lead to the Why me? Then, according to the author of the story, the divine responds to Job's inquiries by pointing to creation and the origin of that creation. Now, if you just read this story without a background in Christianity, or if you've been inundated with Christian theology all your life, you might assume that Job is being reprimanded by God. What we don't get is the tone in God's voice or the Hebrew language that is used. When the divine responds to the laments of a depressed Job, God begins by asking, "Where were you when I?" Most would read that as a frustrated retort to Job's line of questioning. Yet, when translated directly from the Hebrew, it sounds more like this: "I was there when ... "
The first rendering seems almost accusatory, while the second seems laced with drips of compassion. The author was trying to make sense of why humanity is frail and couldn't come up with a viable answer. So, to better understand our condition, this author had to give it a name and an origin. The Hebrews were storytellers, and the story always says something more than what seems obvious. Consider the traditional and popularized version of the story of the Garden of Eden, which was created to explain the origins of pain, ageing, and why we are so frail.
Freud posited that the Adam and Eve experience was more about maturity and learning, and that all decisions have a direct cause-and-effect clause invisibly attached. And so, what we have is a story of two teenagers who are learning what it is to make beneficial decisions, even ones that might hurt. And the fruit is the metaphor for the process of making and learning self-sacrificing decisions. Freud goes on to say: "The process of maturation occurring in the incidents around the tree describes, in an abstract way, the splitting of the human consciousness into the limited context of conscious thought and the underlying all-aware unconscious."
There are some within the New Age movement who would say that the story is about enlightenment, but also about an introduction into dualistic thinking. And so the story about the Fall of Man becomes about how we lost the awareness that we were always connected with the divine. And so then, in that instance, sin becomes about accepting dualism as reality and about how we are somehow permanently disconnected from God. But, what if that wasn't even what the story was about?
I think Christians may have to accept that sin isn't the reason why we're frail. That frailty isn't even an enemy. That frailty is simply on the journey with us. To teach us, hold us, cry with us. And to transform us into whom we are meant to be. This last point is important to understand because "sin" isn't pathological. The Hebrew word for sin is chait, which, when modernized, suggests not making it to one's destination. The word directly refers to personal potential. And so sin isn't what's inherently wrong with us; it's the process whereby we learn to live out who we are meant to be. It is about how we can grow rather than how we are impeded. It's about who we are becoming rather than who we once were.
This is an invitation to those who, with the word "sin," would unintentionally but aggressively cheapen our experience of life and the divine within it: maybe we can agree that we might have got it wrong. And that we might have got it wrong for thousands of years. And that's okay, because life is about maturing and moving on and learning to make self-sacrificing decisions. Maybe the best such decision we can make now is to let go of what we have been taught to hold onto so tightly. Maybe we need a clean-cut divorce from some of our theological standpoints. Maybe we need something new -- a figurative death and resurrection. Because, honestly, the word "sin" in its orthodox context just isn't working anymore and isn't helpful at all.
In its correct context, sin is about who we are becoming. So maybe we need a new word. Maybe something like our "unrealized potential," or our "energetic momentum," or even our "embryonic future." Any of these might be a better offering in light of these new discoveries.
Whomever you might believe in that exists beyond the clouds above, that being wants the best for each of us, doesn't desire poverty, desires that humanity work together, and desires peace and for us to live life as a process of discovery of whom we are meant to be. The more we focus on that and less on what sin is or might be, the more we discover what it is to be human.
Follow George Elerick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/atravelersnote
We should thank Robertson and Beck. They have reminded us that we crave -- no, DEMAND -- sane Christianity, and that actually there are many millions of us who profess it.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Was Haiti Punished for Sin?
I have always been puzzled as to why many religious people enjoy portraying G-d as executioner-in-chief and are always finding reasons to justify human suffering.
Christian views on sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theologians, meet my friends the Unicorn-ologists, and the Fairy-ologists.
"The Christian Mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were obliged to let him out again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is then introduced into the Garden of Eden, in the shape of a snake or a serpent, and in that shape he enters into familiar conversation with Eve, who is no way surprised to hear a snake talk; and the issue of this tete-a-tete is that he persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind.
[. . .]
After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have supposed that the Church Mythologists would have been kind enough to send him back again to the pit; or, if they had not done this, that they would have put a mountain upon him (for they say that their faith can remove a mountain), or have put him under a mountain, as the former mythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women and doing more mischief. But instead of this they leave him at large, without even obliging him to give his parole- the secret of which is, that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, ALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness of the Christian Mythology?"
- Thomas Paine / The Age of Reason
I'll take the thoughtful, ethical atheists any day over bible thumping so-called Christian zealots. The atheists don't try to scare others with their beliefs. They don't use fear to get their way... and sadly, that's exactly what uneducated Christians do. Clean up your own backyard and quit peeking over into everyone else's. In the end, you're responsible for your own soul, not mine. That's free will... you know, that thing god supposedly guaranteed all humanity? If Big Sky Daddy wants to drag me to hell for exercising mine, so be it. My business, not yours.
The article's author and some others have offered a definition of sin, "to miss the mark", which is in fact absolutely correct. Dr. Bob Cook, of "The King's Hour" radio broadcast, was the first I heard teach this truth.
But let's be clear in our understanding of this... Just what mark did we miss? The goal is the Holiness of God. To sin is to fall short of *that mark. Many commandments has God given us in His laws and also through the Messiah Himself. But there is only one Person in the world who has ever lived their life to perfection, fulfilling the law (of God) and walking in complete holiness and obedience to His will. That Person was & is Jesus of Nazareth.
Every other man has "missed the mark" and ended up in unholy corruption of spirit, which is an evil condition. Because evil cannot dwell in the presence of God, the act of missing the mark is a real big miss! So we ought realize the severity of this "missed mark" we have had our attention drawn to by those who have presented that definition.
And also we ought to seize hold of the provision God has made for this falling away into sin, which is total and complete forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus' death and resurrection again to life. Those which such faith wear *His righteousness, which never for one moment fell short of the glory of God.
You know, that was *very easy to say, however it must be noted that there are a *multitude of New Testament texts that advise us of God's wrath which is to come. Not to mention an entire Old Testament, with illustrations such as the Ark of Noah, the judgment of Sodom and Gommorah and others, which all point to that same wrath.
Your claim that all scriptures regarding the punishment of Hell for those who reject the blood of Christ that was shed *for them, was "added by the CHURCH" is very lame, weak and unfortunately unsubstantiated.
You are not going to be able to successfully remove the truth of God's scriptures that reference judgment against those who rebell against Him. --ms
So what's going on here? What's the trick?
It's the fact that people like Pat Robertson were obsolete centuries before they were born.
Well, that's almost it. If all truth be told, then it would have to be stated that people like Pat Robertson were obsolete millenia before they were born.
There will always be reasons not to check it all out. An infinite number. It'll start with the dinosaurs then move on to the ark then flash back to the ancient pagen religion comparisons then onwards to infinity and beyond as Buzz Light Year would say. The truth is still out there though. But, there will also be a few in a group who give the whole group a bad name. One day when that hospital EKG machine flat lines and we all breathe our last breath .. then we will find out if it was all a myth or not.
See also: Numbers 21:6. Snakes are used by God as punishment for disobedience
Exodus 7: 8-13 Aaron's staff used as a snake
The point is that he is a liar and the father of lies. He has come to rob, kill and destroy, but Jesus came to SAVE.
...says it all with this post. All *truth, that is. 100%
--ms
Once I was blind but now I see.
Once I was lost but now I'm found.
Thank you Jesus.
When considering sin, consider the aftermath of God's(*1) historic judgments against it.
1. Adam & Eve's Rebellion in the Garden ... Banishment from the Garden of Eden
2. Cain's murder of his brother Abel ... Banishment of the remaining society
3. Habitual, continual evil of Men ... Flooded Earth and the destruction of life
4. Egypt's rebellion against God's command ... The ten plagues of Egypt
5. Israel's construction of the Golden Calf ... 40 yrs banishment to the wilderness
6. David's adultery with Bathsheba ... The loss of his newborn child
7. Solomon's straying after other gods ... The loss of the majority of Israel's Kingdom
Sin and evil are inseparable because sin is in fact rebellion against God who is Righteous. Sin comes at an incredible price.
We must face sin for what it is an turn from it. In doing so we find a forgiving God whom years *after King David's sin spoke of him as being perfect in His sight.
--ms
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
(Psalms 103:12 KJV)
A more accurate statement, according to the Bible, would be that sin and humanity are inseparable.
It is true that all men are born in sin, separated from the Heavenly Father. (It is also true that the power of the Adversary can be totally broken through faith in Jesus of Nazareth.) In the lives of the latter, it is possible to have a victory *over sin and the resultant death that follows it.
The purpose of my statement linking sin & evil together, is because in this conference there is an ongoing attempt to re-define Sin from being evil, into some sort of self-improvement program.*1
So I linked sin & evil through historic fact, though that should be obvious based on the judgments of God.
-- ms
---
*1 - And as Morton Kondracke in his McLaughlin Group days would say, "For reasons which I do not understand."
One of those damn.ed if you do and damn.ed if you don't scenarios.
Sin had to happen in order for the "banishment"/ pro-creation and within this pro-creation there was in.ce.st with the children of adam and eve.
Seems like one could label god's "aftermath" behavior as sins toward humanity.
hm.mm.mm...
Are you trying to say that this concept just doesn't exist? Actively choosing to go against His will? Or are you REALLY saying that God doesn't exist? Or that Jesus' sacrifice is not real? Or that we are not answerable to God? That the concept of being held accountable is a fallacy? I do not understand your point at all in this article.
The funny thing with the human mind is that we can make stuff up that is nonsensical. We can blithely talk about the "squared circle", we can make up fictional stories, stories about people that are not true or embellish ones that are. It doesn't take much to begin ascribing drought, pestilence, and human suffering to some kind of mythological being.
The theology of Christianity makes sense. That God (our Creator) who because of His Holiness and perfection cannot be in our sinful presence created a way for us (His creation) to be able to spend enternity with Him makes sense. And that is by the blood of His Son, a one time sacrifice for sins, that we have a choice of accepting. Accepting His love. If we do, and we love Him in return, we will be saved. If we reject His love, He will reject us. All of these other philosophies are just speculations, nothing more. They are just a bunch of endless "maybes". What I just described has the Bible to back it up. A book that has credentials (and the blood of martyrs) to support it's authenticity and truth.
To promote / espouse this philosophy without anything to back it up but your own thoughts is, I feel, highly irresponsible. cont...
On the other hand, if Jesus was a mere human, like us, than his life and suffering make some kind of sense. He was persecuted and prosecuted for being against the prevailing theologies of the time. He was a man and scholar searching and perhaps finding a way of explaining life and all of its vicissitudes. How to deal with the materialistic world (remember "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" or words to that effect). I would put Jesus in the same category as the Greek philosophers who trying to understand the material world and develop an ethic to deal with it. Also in line with the Buddha who predates Jesus.