"If it's provable we can kill it."
How would you ease their pain?
Published on November 20, 2007 By EmperorofIceCream In Religion
I'm tired of you, you so-called 'religious'. You prate your pious nothings, endlessly quoting scripture you don't comprehend and expounding dogmas you have no understanding of. As I've said many times, your gods are delusions and your faith no more than over-anxious self-deceit.

So now I'm come to challenge you with a question. Christians may answer it. Muslims may answer it. Jews may answer it. Those who adhere to sects which are subsidiary branches of those three great streams of faith may answer it. Agnostics and unbelievers may answer it also, if they can. But primarily this question is directed toward Christians, Muslims and Jews - because those are the three peoples of the Book.

What real comfort has your faith to offer those who suffer innocently?

Let me tell you a story about my friend Susan, who died long before I ever left England and whom I loved dearly. Susan was a highly intelligent, thoughtful, able young woman. She had a keen mind and a quick understanding. At age 17 she was diagnosed with malignant tumours of the brain, that would certainly have killed her if not treated very aggressively. She was told that the surgery she was to undergo would save her life - which it did. She was not told that it would leave her deaf as a stone. She was not told that it would leave her with most of her face paralyzed and frozen into a drooling leer.

She died fifteen years later, her life (in one sense) a blighted wasteland of opportunites denied her and possibilities unrealized, having suffered continual pain throughout what remained of her time here.

There's endless sadness in the world, endless pain and misey, cruelty and suffering. Except for the fortunate few (among whom I count myself when compared to, say, a Darfurian, or a street-kid in Bogota, or some poor dumb brute tormented so that the eyes of women won't be irritated by their cosmetics), the unfortunate majority suffer endlessly in countless ways. How would you comfort them?

The Jesus of the New Testament didn't preach to the sick, he healed them. He didn't preach to the sinner, or tell the sinful man that his misery was his own fault and entirely to be expected - even when that was true. He forgave the sin. He didn't tell the harlot that her stoning was justified, or God's wrath; he defended her, rebuked those who would have killed her, and changed her life through the example of a love that actually did something other than talk.

Which is why I still like and respect the man, even if I no longer believe in the Divinity.

I left the Church because I grew weary of sermons that were no more than condemnation "uttered in love". I left because I was weary of people only too willing to follow the latest 'teaching' but not at all willing to do what their faith required of them - while knowing and saying all the right things and behaving exactly as if they were devout followers of their 'Lord'. Perfect replicas, with less life and faith in them than a rock or a tree.

So I don't want to hear what the Bible says. I already know what the Bible says, in infinitely greater depth and infinitely greater understanding than any of you will ever attain to. Not because I'm smarter than you or more holy than you or wiser than you. But because I read Scripture with my eyes open and you read it with your eyes shut. Because I read it wanting to comprehend what it says to me, while you read it the other way around - telling it what it says in order to confirm your base prejudice and low opinions as a faith worthy of the name. Whited sepulchres, all of you, full of filth you call praise and abominations you call worship.

I want to know what resources there are in your faith, your beliefs, with which you would comfort my friend Susan; or the man who loses everything through no fault of his own; or that man I knew at work last year, whose only daughter died in a car crash, just before Christmas, while driving the car he had given her as a gift for her sixteenth birthday. It sounds like a bad joke. But it happened.

By all means, use Scripture to illuminate your argument. But don't substitute Scripture in place of an argument. I don't expect any of the so-called 'teachers' I've encountered in JU to be remotely capable of satisfying these requirements and answering my question. But if you can I'll acknowledge and respect it. But I'm not such a fool as to think that, when I have conclusively demonstrated that all of you know nothing, understand nothing, and can do nothing, I'll receive similar courtesy from you.

C'est la vie, c'est la guerre.

I shall post my thoughts on this matter tomorrow (probably) as a response here. Why don't you do likewise?

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 21, 2007
My faith has changed over the years. Changed mightily and in ways I could never have predicted in the aftermath of my first great religious experience.

As some of you may know I was once a convinced Christian, a zealous Christian: as zealous, over-bearing and ignorant as the Christians that so earnestly debate the trivia of their dogmas here on JU.

I think I took my first steps away from those endless and pointless debates after the death of my friend, Susan. After her cremation I went home with a question clanging in my head, a question I couldn't still or put aside. Why had her life been so pitifully and cruelly thwarted? It wasn't enough to think that the human condition has always been one of pain, and misfortune, and undeserved misery.

Every time I opened the Bible I was confronted by Job, and by the unending cry of existential agony that forms the core of the Lamentations of Jeremiah. And equally I was confronted by the entirely unmerited suffering of animals at the hands of Man -
whether through the infliction of vile tortures in the pursuit of money, profit; or through neglect, or through deliberate cruelty for pleasure.

Whether or not there is some sense in which my friend Susan could be said to have 'merited' her deafness, her disfigurement, and the isolation and loneliness they bred, there is no sense in which dumb brutes can be said to merit the torments they endure at our hands. They suffer for our convenience, our pleasure and our profit. Nothing more. And that's something I find abominably, hatefully wrong.

The more I looked, the darker became my vision. As I began to realise, in some tiny, miniscule degree, the endless weight of misery and horror and despair that makes up life my question took another form. If God is just, why do the innocent suffer so, while very often the guilty go free, make money, and live lives of ease and pleasure?

The Psalms are full of that question, repeated hundreds of times in different ways. And the answer is always the same: faith in the righteousness and justice of God. But I saw precious little of either.

I went to my pastor, and he couldn't answer me. I went to priests and vicars, and they couldn't answer me. I went to friends, and to people I respected, and they couldn't answer me. And finally it occurred to me that if an answer existed at all I would have to find it for myself. And it was in that moment that I freed myself from a kind of mental slavery, entirely characteristic of all types of Dogmatic Religion, in which I was unable to think for myself because I was fenced in by the opinions of people who knew as little, or less, than I did but who had taken to themselves the authority to forbid a believer the right to inquire of his God.

I rejected that 'authority' in the instant that I understood it, and was never its slave again. Much to the consternation of some, subsequently. So I began to study, and to think, and to piece together an understanding that let me say good-bye to my friend and move on.

The first principle of that understanding, which remains unchanged in me to this day, is that God is just, and no accusation raised
against God can or will be vindicated. As was said to Job "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?"

Jesus remains for me now the Archtype of a certain kind of devotion, power, and spiritual attainment which we can all reach - if we desire it enough, will it unwaveringly and without doubt - and are prepared to pay the price. What Jesus is not, for me now, is the Christ, the Messiah, the Saviour of the World. Jesus was a son of God, just as I am and you are.

Certainly he believed he died as a sinless Offering for the sins of the world, and for all I know his offering was accepted as such. And because that offering was made in perfect faith and obedience (as nearly perfect as humanity can achieve) it remains, as the more literate Christians insist, the exemplar of suffering innocence in
redemptive service of others.

And the words written about that sacrifice in the Gospels and Letters are true - but not for the reasons and in the way that Christians believe. God is one and indivisible and has no 'son', except in the way I've described, in the way that we are all 'Sons of God'.

After much study and thought, I found in these verses in Romans 8 the kernel of the answer I was looking for:

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in
hope,

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves,
waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.


If God is just, and if the creation is not only good but very good, then suffering has a place within it. And, before anyone tells me
that the creation was declared to be 'very good' before the fall of Adam and the supposed entry of sin into the world, let me say that
the creation contained and contains not only what is, but the possibility of what is to be. So that, just as the redemptive sufferings of Jesus were foreknown and foreordained so also was the possibility of suffering, and the reality of suffering as it would be experienced later.

God is the author of everything that is - and of everything that can possibly be - because nothing comes to be save by the will of God. Such things are impossible says the fool who does not know God; they are contrary to sound doctrine says the fool who thinks he knows God:

15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
(Psalm 139)

Suffering, the suffering of innocents, has a place in life. If it has a place it has a function. And if it has a function it has meaning. If it has meaning it can, as the words of Jesus do, speak to that void of confusion and doubt and assuage it by filling it.

If I'm to suffer then I would rather do it knowingly, consciously, and meaningfully, than in the ignorance of some poor brute for whom suffering is nothing but random terror and pain.

Hidden in those few verses in Romans 8 is the key.

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.
19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
21 that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

The whole of the creation was subjected to the frustration of its being - the harmonious functioning of the whole - by its creator so that not only the Sons of God might be redeemed but the whole of created reality. That redemption is most cleary expressed by the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is a perfect type of the death we all must undergo; and also the perfect type of the resurrection of Life within ourselves (and through us in the world) that we may all achieve.

The suffering of the innocent is not punitive because no fault has been committed by them. It is not remedial, because, again, there is no fault to be remedied or the sufferer would not be innocent.

It's participatory. It participates in and echoes the great cry from the Cross that immediately preceded the death of Jesus, that cry which was the herald of the redemption Jesus promised to his companions: Father, why have you forsaken me.

And when I grasped the fact that the blood and tears of the innocent are the same blood and tears that were shed by Jesus, I was set free, as I am free today, even though my conception of Jesus has changed radically. I found that I could absolve God - since God suffered first. And even now, when my understanding is so greatly changed, I can say that the divinity within, that which in me most closely resembles the archetype of the perfectly self-realised man represented by Jesus, still cries those same words from the cross of our humanity: why have you forsaken me? And I can say that the blood and tears of the innocent call to some great change in the nature and understanding of Man, some change that the shedding of blood and of tears facilitates and will bring about.

I don't say that the comfort I have found will comfort others in the same way, or at all. It might well be too mystical and
impractical. But I will say this. It is a spiritual principle, rather than a merely practical act. It is deduced from the words of the Book and from the inner workings of my faith, and it's the comfort I would offer someone who needed no practical help but a new way to understand and a new way to be.

And on those grounds, I say that I have satisfied the conditions of my own challenge.
on Nov 21, 2007
I'll try to answer your question to the best of my ignorant understanding.

What real comfort has your faith to offer those who suffer innocently?


1. In Torah (as you know) I see the orphans, widows, poor, etc being taken care of. The poor wore a specific colored tallit in order to beg honorably (if necessary can expound later). The widows and orphans were given the corners and gleaning rights to the fields during and after harvest.
2. The falsely accused were given sanctuary cities where they were protected by the Levites.

Although times are different I look to these examples as how to comfort others today. I really try not to look down on people but to look at them with compassion. Not just giving some money to the stranger with a "HUNGRY" sign to feel satisfied with my good deed for the week. I'll ask if they would like me to take them some place to get some food and buy it for them. I'll hear some of the most amazing stories from these people. I often will pick up a hitchhiker and give them a ride especially if I am going their direction. Again some crazy stories you'll hear from them too. Some admittingly, I wish I didn't know.

I am not saying such things to gloat but to help understand my meaning.


There's endless sadness in the world, endless pain and misery, cruelty and suffering. Except for the fortunate few (among whom I count myself when compared to, say, a Darfurian, or a street-kid in Bogota, or some poor dumb brute tormented so that the eyes of women won't be irritated by their cosmetics), the unfortunate majority suffer endlessly in countless ways. How would you comfort them?


In Hebraic thought the down trodden are to given to humble us not them. As I mentioned before it is a common Torah principle to help the poor. So many stories in the Bible that show helping those that you see struggling in this life. Good Samaritan, the several stories of hospitality (Abraham, Servant to Laban's house, etc), and other examples of how I am to be.


Which is why I still like and respect the man, even if I no longer believe in the Divinity.


I know many Orthodox Jews who consider Yeshua/Jesus as the best Jew that ever lived. I see Jesus as being a Jew being the ultimate Torah keeper. What I don't see is a new religion.

I left because I was weary of people only too willing to follow the latest 'teaching' but not at all willing to do what their faith required of them - while knowing and saying all the right things and behaving exactly as if they were devout followers of their 'Lord'. Perfect replicas, with less life and faith in them than a rock or a tree.


I left because what I read and what they said were two different things.

A quick story as an example. I was attending a Church of Christ for awhile. One Sunday they preached specifically at me because I didn't attend three times a week and I loved to go for a run on Sunday afternoons. It was a brutal 45 minutes sitting there with all eyes directed towards me. After wards in their pompous demise they asked me what I thought of the service. I responded telling them, "I am closer to G-D when I'm running on those trails then I'll EVER be in this church building." With that I shook off the dust of my shoes vowing never to return.

Another thing that turned me from Christianity is how they are blindly more into legalism (ie control) than the Torah observant Jews. I'm not referring to the followers of Talmud, Mishnah, Chabalah, etc.. I'm sure you know what I mean?

Thanks for asking these toe stomping questions. I'm not sure if you n LW will celebrate Thanksgiving tomorrow but if you do I pray it is blessed!
on Nov 21, 2007
I'm not referring to the followers of Talmud, Mishnah, Chabalah, etc.. I'm sure you know what I mean?


Talmud and Mishnah I'm familiar with, but Chabalah not at all. I googled the word and the results indicate it has something to do with 'injury' or 'destruction'. So I find myself a little perplexed. But I certainly understand your point about legalism, and the impulse to control others, which is particularly rife (in my experience) within Pentecostalism. But perhaps I simply had a bad experience.

I'm very much in sympathy with the OT depiction of God's sympathy with the poor, the defenceless, the widow and the orphan. It seems to me that it has less of a taint of moralism about it.

I left because what I read and what they said were two different things.


Couldn't have put it better myself.

There's something congenial to me in both Judaism and Islam. They're both fierce religions, whereas if Christianity ever had any ferocity of spirit to it then it was lost long ago. The dove and the lamb are not the two heraldic beasts most likely to stir my spirit.
on Nov 22, 2007
Your dear friend Susan is a very sad story. There are oft times I have found there are not words to describe the situations God allows in our life. We are left to a tears, a hug and prayer that God will gird us up as we stand upon His faithfulness.


Question
"What real comfort has your faith to offer those who suffer innocently?"

I have often thought emperor of the nearly 50,000,000 babies that have been torn to pieces, ripped from the safety of their mothers wombs. I have prayerfully sought to understand such vile sin against the innocent.. http://www.repentamerica.com/gallery/theamericanholocaust ... yet very little cry for this innocent victim. Why would God allow such?

His thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways. When the finite mind of humanity tries to understand what and why God allows something the human understanding is left to confusion of thought. The three friends of Job are an excellent example of such.

As far as humanity is concerned, we are only left to trust the Potter. Hath not the power of the potter over the clay. Who are we to say how and why? God's will is perfect and sovereign, best leave it to Him.

What about His own sacrifice. He who knew no sin became sin for us. If thou be the Son of God, tell us who smote thee. The innocent suffering for the guilty. Release unto us Barabbas. A murderer, insurrectionist and robber. The innocent for the guilty. What real comfort has your faith to offer those who suffer innocently..... He who for the joy that was set before Him despised the suffering, the shame and the guilt of all His creation. His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts.

The dove and the lamb are not the two heraldic beasts most likely to stir my spirit.


Based upon this deduction would you might consider the Lion? "Behold your adversary as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour."

Then again your most noble emperor there is always the Lion of Judah? Two lions with very different substance.......

If the dove and the lamb do not stir ones spirit, one day the Lion of the tribe of Judah will. For when He returns He will return not in humility and as the suffering prophet but as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Hamartano

on Nov 22, 2007
They lived their lives

It was such a pity that Job never had a copy of the scroll of Isaiah.

Aeryck.
on Nov 22, 2007
.



on Nov 22, 2007
GOD: Why NOT you?


Suffering is an integral part of all of our lives and the reason for it is discovered not in concourse with man, but in concourse with God.

A friend of mine who died of leukemia, in his early twenties, suffered not only physically but emotionally and spiritually. His face would swell up like a big brown ball, and cold and insenstive ones who call him 'lion face'.

Inspite of his suffering, he had found in God comfort. These are the words he found most comfort in. 'My Grace is Sufficient' Job found comfort in these words, 'The Lord has given and the Lord has taken, blessed be the name of the Lord.'

In your suffering there are surely positive and comforting words that you will find to make sense of it. That is personal, something God has taught you.

Your honesty is terrifying.

Aeryck.


on Nov 22, 2007
How anyone of even moderate intelligence can convince themselves that the religious impulse, which is as old as humanity, persists because it's nothing more than a source of hope entirely escapes me. Most of those who suffer hope for relief in their present circumstances, not in some future lala land of bliss. Because life hurts now, or hadn't you noticed? And the three great faiths that draw their inspiration from the Book teach that there is no hope of relief in this life. No hope. What they actually offer to the convinced believer is pain, and travail, and persecution.


Well if we want to be moderately intelligent (and who does, really, there's nothing so terminal as moderation) then we'd acknowledge there's a 'god' centre in the human brain, which incidentally explains why people believe in all sorts of things, from cliches to science. We've got to fill that hole somehow, and mystical gods make as much sense as anything else - particularly if you've got a touch of the dramatic about you.

The three great faiths offer their salvation in the next life - you get the hope that things may get better while you're alive, insyallah/if God wills it, but no matter what else happens things will be better on the other side. What they actually offer to the convinced believer (or at least do in their purest forms) is salvation, pleasure, contentment and a kind of exquisite boredom that's presumably supposed to be attractive.

Oh yes, certainly religion persists because it has nothing to offer but hope.


Okay, maybe I was being a little melodramatic, but you have to admit the challenge is pretty melodramatic. Religions have other things to offer - a sense of community, self-indulgence, something to do on the weekend, occupations for pedarests and the insufferably noble/hypocritical, rules to not live your life by etc - but hope's the most significant one in my view.

Personally I'm going to put my faith in flippancy and the belief that whatever created this world has a sense of humour. It's more fun to laugh than to slum it in misery/start thinking depressingly bad things are exciting and positive. Depression is far too 2007-emo.
on Nov 22, 2007

It was such a pity that Job never had a copy of the scroll of Isaiah.


Dear Simon,

I have spent much time meditating on the book of Job and come to the same conclusion every time. Job saw everything as coming directly from the hand of God. Job was resigned to this view and even when God rebuked him, in the closing words from God, Job repented.

The Muslims call this being resigned to the fate of Allah.

I chatted to the father of a man called Job, a Muslim and found that our beliefs in this regard were identical. I told him about Jesus and how Jesus had done something to put and end to the perpetuation of death and ergo. disease.

Jesus is not just the dispenser of how to deal with suffering, or how to handle your daily insomnia. He has given us far more than that. Problem is there are parts of the Bible that not even the most astute scholar (as you say you are) will openly reject because their hearts are not like Jobs, they only accept part of what God says, the rest they edit out and by that I mean 'Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God.' - The one of whom Isaiah wrote...Isaiah 51, 52, 53, 54....Rabbi (ex) Max Wertheimer as one of the original students of Mary Baker Eddy as well as teaching Christians the truth of Judaism, until while reading the book of ISAIAH the eyes of his heart were 'dug out' and he began to realize that the one whose beard was plucked was in fact Jehovah. Here is the link : From Rabbinism to Christ.

Aeryck.

on Nov 22, 2007

The three great faiths offer their salvation in the next life - you get the hope that things may get better while you're alive, insyallah/if God wills it, but no matter what else happens things will be better on the other side. What they actually offer to the convinced believer (or at least do in their purest forms) is salvation, pleasure, contentment and a kind of exquisite boredom that's presumably supposed to be attractive.


This ONE view. Keep in mind that this life goes by very quickly and one day you will be knocking on heavens door, so don't knock it. Making comments about what it is like to be a Christian (experientially) without being one, is the same as writing about war and never having been in one.

Aeryck.





on Nov 22, 2007

This is a discussion thread, not a pulpit from which you are invited to 'save souls.'


Sabrina,
Simon and yourself use JU as a programme to preach your hate message against Christianity, and Simon's last two articles have been 'sermons of hate', with the emphasis on the word SERMONS. Dialogue is one thing, but then you must be prepared to stand up and be counted and not hide behind cliches like, 'I used to be a Christian', as if that is enough to qualify one to make an accurate assessement about what that life really means.

Simon and yourself have both admitted that you did, with the emphasis on the word DID, the Christian life to its fullest, yet you claim now that you stole Simon from Jesus. I can only conclude that you had the BIG EXPERIENCE but then fell away, having only SAMPLED, but never bathed in the life of Christ.

My latest article addresses people like yourselves who resemble the News Person who writes a column about war, but has never been to war. I suggest you promote your Chaos Magick, and Kaballah and leave the preaching of the Gospel to those who actually are living this life in the Spirit.

Aeryck.

on Nov 22, 2007
Well if we want to be moderately intelligent (and who does, really, there's nothing so terminal as moderation) then we'd acknowledge there's a 'god' centre in the human brain, which incidentally explains why people believe in all sorts of things, from cliches to science. We've got to fill that hole somehow, and mystical gods make as much sense as anything else - particularly if you've got a touch of the dramatic about you.


Who would want to be moderately intelligent? Someone who wasn't but was self-aware enough to wish that he might be. And certainly there is, as you say, a 'god-center' within the brain that scientists can observe and even manipulate. But what's frequently passed over is the fact that knowing how a thing works is not remotely an explanation of why it works. Hence the inability of these same scientists to postulate an evolutionary explanation for the first appearance of this 'god-center' and its continuing relation to human life and experience.

The three great faiths offer their salvation in the next life - you get the hope that things may get better while you're alive, insyallah/if God wills it, but no matter what else happens things will be better on the other side. What they actually offer to the convinced believer (or at least do in their purest forms) is salvation, pleasure, contentment and a kind of exquisite boredom that's presumably supposed to be attractive.


Certainly I agree with you that Christianity, Islam, and to a lesser degree Judaisim, are directed toward an 'after-life' - the Medieval Catholic Church in particular emphasised the heavenly reward as just compensation for the righteous man who suffered at the hands of the unrighteous in this life. The poor become rich, the rich become poor and, as Augustine said, the righteous would be able to voyeuristically enjoy the sufferings of the damned for all eternity.

And? Pay attention to what you are required to do - which is to offer comfort to the living in the here and now from within the resources of whatever passes for your faith. Not post facetious diatribes that are barely related to the topic. As to drama in religion (as opposed to the low comedy of most presentday Christian observance) it's lack is a serious impediment to the development of real spirituality in an individual. Why else is it that those religions other than militant Protestantism and the severer sects of Islam all go out of the way to excite a sense of difference and awe in their rituals? Both Protestantism and salafist Islam are iconoclastic forms of religion - more of the intellect than the spirit - and violently in revolt against the richer symbolisms of other religious experiences.

Melodrama too has its place. I profess and am happy to admit to a certain cartoonishness in my religious imagery - something that derives from my love of the prophets of the OT and the Book of Revelation. You think the melodramatic has no place in religion? Go read Ezekiel's account of his 'siege' of Jerusalem. Ezekiel was always one of my favourite prophets - God's first performance artist.

I admit your response irritated me. It's barely on topic, it's everything I stipulated I didn't want to see, and it's posted in a spirit of self-satisfied irrevence that I've always disliked intensely. But while it's meretricious nonsense it's not uncivil, so I shall let it stand.
on Nov 22, 2007
ME: (wallowing in self-pity) Why me, God?GOD: Why NOT you?


In many ways, this is the most serious and challenging response to my own argument that's yet been posted.

Why not you, or me?

Which is where the inescapable shadow of Jesus falls across my life, once again.

1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?
3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
(Luke 13)

There's nothing in the words of Jesus that prevents that question from being asked - or which provides an immediate and readily comprehensible answer.

Not so long ago there occurred something that was a parallel in contemporary terms with what Jesus says in this passage. A family were sat at breakfast together. And in the sky above them the pilot of a small plane lost control of his aircraft - which plunged into the house of this family, sat at breakfast, killing all but one small boy, who suffered horrible burns.

Unless you repent, you too will all perish. But repent of what? I doubt that everyday American family considered they had much to repent of - and for all I know, they were right. Let's say they were. The commonest response of a Christian to such a situation is immediately to suppose that those who suffer in such ways are subject to some hidden sin, known to God, but unknown to the sinners involved.

In conceptual terms, this is no different to the impulse that led to the legal trial of animals for murder, or arson, or criminal malice, that occurred in Medieval times. Flocks of starlings were tried in absentia, found guilty, and excommunicated. Pigs, not being able to fly, were brought into court, assigned defenders at public expense, and tried for homicide. When found guilty, they were executed in the same way as human criminals.

If God is just the innocent do not suffer. If God is unjust, then there is no hope for any of us and we all suffer under a tyrrany that is both infinite and eternal. Which is a prospect no mind or soul can tolerate. Therefore in all such instances of inexplicable and seemingly unmerited tragedy there must always be some hidden element of culpability. Those who suffer, suffer for their sins - even when they have no idea what those sins are.

Hence the unmitigated bigotry and callousness of Christians.

Why not you? Why indeed. And once again I'm confronted by the shadow of Jesus, that perfect type of innocent suffering to whom many sins were attributed by those who ought to have known better and did know better. 'Jesus Christ the God' is to me now unmitigated nonsense and a form of blasphemy. But Jesus the man is an endless mystery and an endless challenge. "The best Jew that ever lived", as Adventure-Dude said. Not merely the best Jew - the best man. Who went to his death, I'm firmly convinced, sincerely believing that he offered his life for all of humanity, to free them from their sin.

But what's sin? Not particular acts, because the range of acts considered 'sinful' by different cultures is enormously diverse. And there is no diversity in the justice of God. God, so I believe, is one and not many. Therefore Its nature is unitary, whole, and unchanging. Therefore the judgments of God are unitary, whole, and not particular. So that the very diversity of 'sin' is evidence that, in the sense of particular acts, there is no such thing. 'Sin' in this sense, has existence only in the minds of men.

But there is, throughout both OT and NT, a consistent rejection and condemnation of a certain attitude, a certain type of character, and certain motives. Those who exploit are condemned. Those who practice deceit are condemned. Those who arrogate to themselves the good things of the world and refuse them to others, because those others are not as they are, are condemned.

Sin is not the act of a man. Sin is the man himself.

What is there then to repent of? The state of being human, as being human is presently understood - especially here in the West, in the heartlands of Christianity. Sin is not an act. Sin is a man, and the character of a man. And it may be renewed through comprehension of the words of Jesus, through acquaintance with those words, and with the character of the man who spoke them.

But that's no guarantee that the God who sent the best of all men to suffer and die, as an example of what even humanity may achieve when it is fully itself, will not also send you to suffer and die - as a testimony of the fact that (if nothing else) no man is spared the attentions of God - and that those attentions are often terrible.

Why not you? Why not me? Which is why I often pray (yes I pray, as in the sense of supplication, even though I've often decried the practice) that I should know the true fear of the Lord - which is unfailing strength in him that believes. Because I know that I could very well suffer all those things that I, as a human being like any other, might well fear. Not that I be spared them, but that I should have strength to endure them, and to transcend them.

Why not me?

But unless you repent, you too shall die.
on Nov 22, 2007
His thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways. When the finite mind of humanity tries to understand what and why God allows something the human understanding is left to confusion of thought. The three friends of Job are an excellent example of such.


What about His own sacrifice. He who knew no sin became sin for us. If thou be the Son of God, tell us who smote thee. The innocent suffering for the guilty. Release unto us Barabbas. A murderer, insurrectionist and robber. The innocent for the guilty. What real comfort has your faith to offer those who suffer innocently..... He who for the joy that was set before Him despised the suffering, the shame and the guilt of all His creation. His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts


To offer the commonplace shibboleths of a faith are not to defend that faith. Nor are they a source of comfort to those who are in need of the uncommon insights of that faith. I will say this of the Tent-Maker, as I will say it of the one he claimed as his Master; neither of them dealt in the platitudes of the everyday.

You remind me of the Pharisees who told Jesus that it was unlawful to heal the sick on the Sabbath. You know the law, but you have no understanding of grace, or of mercy, or of compassion. And, just as I did while I was a 'Christian', you'll find you repel those that you seek to comfort and instruct. Because the truth is not with you, no matter how much you tell yourself that the reverse is true.

Let it be said of you that you sought the truth honestly - but that you becamed darkened in your mind, thinking that your own imagination was the source of all inspiration. A delusion in which you are not alone.
on Nov 23, 2007
How does anyone read hate into this article?
3 Pages1 2 3