The Worldnutdaily is reporting that a Scottish minister has written that the enormous tsunami that killed so many people recently was God's revenge on people for not keeping the Sabbath holy:
In the February issue of his church magazine, Rev. John MacLeod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland writes: "Possibly ... no event since Noah's flood has caused such loss of life by drowning as the recent Asian tsunami. That so many of our fellow creatures should have perished in so short a time, and in so awful a fashion, was a divine visitation that ought to make men tremble the world over."He continued: "Some of the places most affected by the tsunami attracted pleasure-seekers from all over the world. It has to be noted that the wave arrived on the Lord's day, the day God set apart to be observed the world over as a holy resting from all employments and recreations that are lawful on other days."
The tsunami, a series of tidal waves sparked by a subsea earthquake off Sumatra, arrived on Sunday morning, the day after Christmas, in countries including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Thailand.
MacLeod said: "To rule out the hand of God in this ... is to forget that He is in sovereign control of all events. If the sparrow falling to the ground is an event noted, and ordered, by Him, how much is this the case when the souls of so many thousands are parted from their bodies?"
The 74-year-old minister, now living in the London area after spending 35 years in Stornoway, Scotland, concluded: "Do not worldliness, materialism, hedonism, uncleanness, and pleasure-seeking characterize our own generation to a great extent and does not this solemn visitation in providence reminds us that He remains the same God still? God is no idle spectator of what is happening here in time and treats men with the sharpness and severity in order that they may know their vices."
These comments are apparently sparking a sharp reaction in the UK, especially from other Christians who find MacLeod's views barbaric. But I have to wonder why. I certainly think the notion is barbaric, but why would someone who accepts the truth of the bible think so? The bible is full of instances where God sends natural disasters, famine, pestilence, plagues and the like on the human race for failing to do as He commands. It even claims that he sent a flood that wiped out the entire human race and almost every living animal on the entire planet as a punishment for sin. I find all such suggestions to be barbaric, and would consider a God that does so to be barbaric; but why, if someone accepts that the God they worship has done this sort of thing innumerable times in the past, would a Christian suddenly find the idea to be appalling now all of a sudden?
- Log in to post comments
I think it would have to be because God promises, after the flood, not to destroy the world (or by implication, parts of the world) by such a nasty disaster ever again.
And then there was no need for Godly retribution: he claim down to Earth, in the form of Jesus, to save believers from their sins. If believers don't follow their own belief system, they are paddling their own boat to punishment. That's the fruition of free will. If you're Christian, that is.
The 1918 flu killed 80 times as many people all over the world, including a half-million Americans. Who was God angry at that time?
I wonder if this means that the Lockerbie crash, which occured on Dec 21, 1988 (The Winter Solstice) and took several lives on the ground in Scotland was Saturn's way of delivering some failure-to-worship punishment. The initial explosion was human caused for sure, but the subsequent trajectory was all gravity.
but the subsequent trajectory was all gravity
Gravity? Sigh! Fictitious forces like Gravity can be the downfall of all mankind.
The Worldnutdaily is reporting that a Scottish minister has written that the enormous tsunami that killed so many people recently was God's revenge on people for not keeping the Sabbath holy
Um, whose sabbath? Xian sabbath is on Sunday, Jewish on Saturday, and Muslim on Friday. For all I know, Buddhists' sabbath might be on Thursday and Hindus' on Wedneday.
Then there's the Americans' Almighty_dollar religion, for which there is no sabbath.
I think it would have to be because God promises, after the flood, not to destroy the world (or by implication, parts of the world) by such a nasty disaster ever again.
Well, the flood occurs in the 6th chapter of Genesis. After that flood, there are lots of instances of God sending plagues and disasters as punishment for sin, so that excuse wouldn't wash. More likely they would argue that such punishments ended with Jesus, who paid the penalty for those sins and therefore no more punishment will be sent by God until judgement day. But this is hardly the default position in Christianity. The Calvinists still believe that God preordains everything that happens, and fundamentalists are often heard to claim that this or that natural disaster is a warning from God or was sent as punishment for sin. And even if the argument was true, it would hardly seem to justify the outrage at someone suggesting that God would do what they themselves believe God did so many times before.
It seems to me that if you believe that God inflicts punishment on people for not doing what He says, you can hardly feign outrage when someone suggests that he did so in some particular circumstance. Even if that suggestion is wrong, it's only a matter of timing and application, not a subject for outrage.
You've hit on the division amongst Christians of the 'liberal' versus the 'fundamentalist'. In many ways I have more respect for the fundamentalists, who actually believe the words in their holy book, because they are at least being the more consistent; whereas the liberal Christians would like to have it both ways e.g. "God is the only power in the world, but He didn't cause the earthquake though, because [blah blah blah].."
It is interesting trying to find out which parts of their religion the non-fundamentalist Christians actually believe; it tends to change subject to scientific advancements and according to fashion.
2 opposing views on this article in the hootsmon. (Thats "the scotsman" newspaper to the rest of you):
"Tsunami Did it not occur to the Rev John MacLeod (your report, 10 February) that the vast majority of the victims of the tsunami were Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims? As such, they were unlikely to have been breaking the "Sabbath" rules as he suggests. Some religious views can be extremely dangerous, if not arrant nonsense.
Ian Thow ELLON, ABERDEENSHIRE"
And this piece:
"Brave The Rev John MacLeod is a brave man in stating that it was God's hand in the tsunami disaster. But he is merely voicing what many of us feel in our hearts, but are too afraid to stand up and be counted.
Elizabeth Everill BROUGHTON, PEEBLESSHIRE"
Argh, and I thought the UK was well on the way to being a "liberal" society. Maybe not.
Let alone this:
"Irrational view
I WOULD be interested to hear what Alistair McBay's idea of the "facts" actually is in regard to the truth of Christianity (Letters, 7 February). Where exactly does he get the idea that Christianity is mythological or superstitious?
How easy it is for the secularist to claim that Christianity is myth. There is nothing more irrational and prejudiced than making a blanket statement about Christianity without one scrap of evidence or factual claim to back such an assertion. If Mr McBay were to examine the truth claims of Christianity in detail he would realise that those of us who believe have good reason and rationale to do so.
I understand if Mr McBay does not want to believe or have faith in an all-powerful God, but to wipe and debunk the whole of Christendom by playing the "myth card" certainly shows a lack of understanding and knowledge.
STEPHEN ALLAN
Riverside Place
Dundee"
I could suggest that the idea that Christianity is based on as much of a myth as any other religion comes from looking at the available evidence, but its kind of hard to shoehorn it all into a hundred words written to a newspaper.
It seems that science and confabulation are pretty much the same thing.
Paul's letter ot the Colossians 2:16-17
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
But what did Paul know, anyway?
Um, whose sabbath? Xian sabbath is on Sunday, Jewish on Saturday, and Muslim on Friday.
Just to note, as a former Baptist and Episcopalian, the Christian sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. Sunday, as noted "correctly" in the article above, is "the Lord's Day", or the anti-Sabbath. At least that's what I learned as an Episcopalian.
Of course, most Christians don't even understand this distinction, so it's understandable to confuse the two. And as an atheist, I must say that I don't care much.
Also, to be precise (as we now use a 24-hour clock and not the setting of the sun to mark our days, and as I am victim to it every week living in what is, allegedly, the largest Jewish community in the world, Boro Park), the Jewish sabbath is Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.
To other matters.
I, an Objectivist and atheist, find it interesting (although expected) that Rev. MacLeod lists "pleasure-seeking" among the dastardly sins for which the tourists were killed. I guess merely trying to be happy is a sin. Also, was God's aim so bad that he had to kill thousands upon thousands of natives as well? Or was he killing them simply because they were Muslim?
"These comments are apparently sparking a sharp reaction in the UK, especially from other Christians who find MacLeod's views barbaric. But I have to wonder why. I certainly think the notion is barbaric, but why would someone who accepts the truth of the bible think so?"
Most Christians in the UK don't believe the Bible is literally true. They obviously differ in the way they interpret it, and some rely on the Old Testament/New Testament distinction, but even so there aren't many who believe in the Flood story, for example.