The devil in Belgium
A man forced his way into a Belgian nursery Friday and commenced to knifing infants. By the time he finished, 6- and 9-month-old babies lay dead, along with a nursery worker who tried to protect them. Another 10 children received multiple stab wounds.
The town held a vigil, and as is common in the aftermath of such monstrosities, but people report that they don’t know why it happened. Many lesser journalists resort, in such moments, to the cliché “looking for answers.” Citizens in Salinas, Calif., are looking for answers after a string of shootings. People in Covina, Calif., are searching for answers after a man dressed as Santa went on a murder spree. Academics in Mumbai are looking for answers in the wake of the murderous rampage that briefly held world attention.
We are surrounded by evil, and to read the typical journalistic account, a good many of us have no idea its origin. We are conditioned to inquire whether the attacker grew up in an abusive home, or perhaps was fondled by his parish priest, or snapped under the strain of repressing his homosexuality. We are trained, in other words, to search for the origin of evil where it can never be found, which is in material causes. People knife babies because their souls have been twisted by the devil himself. The rest is just commentary.
But there’s no medication for evil, no policy change, no modification of machinery. The solution to the ravages of the devil is resistance in the presence of the Holy Spirit and within the protection of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. That’s a mouthful, and it’s indigestible for the modern materialist. Devil? The word’s so outdated that the Oxford Junior Dictionary recently deleted it. Children will find in its place words like “blog.” I suppose if the devil wants direct publicity in the future, he’ll have to open a Facebook account.
So we have this tragedy, and grieving parents, and a community with enough sense of the sacred to close down the profaned nursery. They know the blood of innocents has hallowed it, and they know further, as one man told a journalist, “We are broken.” There is the truth of things here after all, even as journalists will descend to search for answers.
We are broken. It is the truth of things, and embedded in it is the right question, which is: How might we be fixed? The answer is simple, and impossible for many, and grievous beyond that, because it doesn’t promise an end to murders and heartache, only salvation in the midst of them. But that, I suppose, is everything. It is certainly, in horrible moments like this, the only thing that brings hope. Pray with me that the parents of these little ones have such hope.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top44 Comments to “The devil in Belgium”
We are to blame for the calamities in the world, for the sufferings of dumb creatures, and for the diseases and torments of innocent children, for through the fall of man the beatitude and beauty of all creation has been marred. 0 Christ our God, greatest of innocent Sufferers! Thou alone canst forgive all. Forgive, then, all and everything, and grant to the world its primordial prosperity, that the living and the dead may rejoice and cry: ALLELUIA.
O Glad Light, Redeemer of the world, embracing the whole universe with Thy love: behold, Thy cry from the Cross for Thy enemies is heard: “Father, forgive them.” In the name of Thy all-forgiving love we make bold to pray to our Heavenly Father for the eternal repose of Thy enemies and ours.
Forgive, 0 Lord,
those who have shed innocent blood,
those who have sown our path of life with sorrows,
those who have waded to prosperity through the tears of their neighbors.
Condemn not, 0 Lord,
those who persecute us with slander and malice.
Repay with mercy those whom we have wronged or offended through ignorance.
O Lord of unutterable Love, remember Thy servants who have fallen asleep.
Save, 0 Lord, those who have died in grievous sufferings, those who were murdered, those buried alive, those who were drowned or burned, those who were torn by wild beasts, those who died of hunger or cold, from exposure in storms, or by falling from heights, and grant them all eternal joy for the sorrow of their death. May the time of their suffering be blessed as a day of redemption, for which they sing: ALLELUIA.
Recompense with the compassion of Thy infinite love, 0 Lord, all who have died in the full flush of their youth, who received on earth the thorny crown of suffering, who never experienced earthly joy.
Grant recompense to those who died from overwork, through exploitation or sweated labor.
Receive, 0 Lord, into the bridal halls of Paradise boys and girls, and grant them joy at the marriage supper of Thy Son.
Comfort and console the grief of parents over their dead children.
Give rest, 0 Lord,
to all who have no one to offer prayer for them to Thee, their Creator, that their sins may vanish in the dazzling light of Thy forgiveness.
O Lord of unutterable Love, remember Thy servants who have fallen asleep.
Report comment to moderator
Uh. There is absolutely nothing wrong or unbiblical about “looking for answers” to why someone would knife a bunch of infants.
Tony, did you ever consider knifing some infants before you became a believer? Why not? Were you not in the same world as the guy in Belgium, faced with the same eternal enemy?
There aren’t always “reasons” to be found in all cases, but in the majority there are.
You say we can’t medicate evil. That’s true. But we can medicate to correct physiological defects in the brain, which can in turn give rise to delusional and sometimes violent behavior.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
While I actually do agree that real evil has a deeper source than human brokenness, it seems to be kind of a cop-out to suggest that there are never proximate causes.
Mental illness is a real thing. It can be diagnosed and treated. Psychological scars are real. To suggest that someone snapped into violence as the result of years of fighting against the ripples of childhood trauma is a valid possibility.
As BuddyGlass notes, all of us are imperfect. Fallen into sin in the Jewish/Christian formulation, and other religious strands have their own ways of thinking about it, but all of them agree that we’ll never be perfect. But as imperfect as we are, most of us do not go on killing sprees, or become rapists or commit the other crimes that rightly horrify us when we hear of them.
There often ARE answers to be found, more specific and immediate than the general diagnosis of ‘fallen.’ There’s nothing wrong in looking for them.
Report comment to moderator
the problem is either solvable or unsolvable, or both, duty is ours, results are the Lord’s
Report comment to moderator
IOW, if the tornado blows down your house, don’t lose your faith, realize that God wants the “light to shine in the darkness”, take the first step towards repair, and head to Wal-Mart, start with a new supply of underwear, (that is from a family in Kansas, who learned by experience)
Report comment to moderator
If there is a God who is really the kind of GOD we need, (And I believe there is) then that GOD would have created a perfect world and not be personally accountable for any flaw minor or major. Any and all real flaws, whether physical, emotional, psychological, relational, etc. would be the fault of someone other than GOD. All of us seem to have a mixture of good and evil in our selves. And the Devil and his minions seem to be the only reasonable explanation for all that is anti-good. While few people can truthfully say “the devil made me do it”, (for we are personally responsible) the Devil is at the very least the cheerleader of all evil, and the one who conspires to keep us from any joy in GOD. I believe this is the basic story of the Bible. And, while the Devil (inspiring our sin) is the Father of all wrong, GOD is the only real remedy for any and all flaws in our lives. The Bible’s story of the Flawless Jesus defeating the Devil and rescuing anyone who trusts Him is the only hopeful explanation for the wars that rage within and around us.
Report comment to moderator
And there are some that would just like to watch the world burn.
Report comment to moderator
Surely God is good to Israel,
To those who are pure in heart!
But as for me, my feet came close to stumbling,
My steps had almost slipped.
For I was envious of the arrogant
As I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
For there are no pains in their death,
And their body is fat.
They are not in trouble as other men,
Nor are they plagued like mankind.
Therefore pride is their necklace;
The garment of violence covers them.
Their eye bulges from fatness:
The imaginations of their heart run riot.
They mock and wickedly speak of oppression;
They speak from on high.
They have set their mouth against the heavens,
And their tongue parades through the earth.
Therefore his people return to this place,
And waters of abundance are drunk by them.
They say, “How does God know?
And is there knowledge with the Most High?”
Behold, these are the wicked;
And always at ease, they have increased in wealth.
Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure
And washed my hands in innocence;
For I have been stricken all day long
And chastened every morning.
If I had said, “I will speak thus,”
Behold, I would have betrayed the generation of Your children.
When I pondered to understand this,
It was troublesome in my sight
Until I came into the sanctuary of God;
Then I perceived their end.
Surely You set them in slippery places;
You cast them down to destruction.
How they are destroyed in a moment!
They are utterly swept away by sudden terror!
Like a dream when one awakes,
O Lord, when aroused, You will despise their form.
When my heart was embittered
And I was pierced within,
Then I was senseless and ignorant;
I was like a beast before You.
Nevertheless I am continually with You;
You have taken hold of my right hand.
With Your counsel You will guide me,
And afterward receive me to glory.
Whom have I in heaven but You?
And besides You, I desire nothing on earth.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
For, behold, those who are far from You will perish;
You have destroyed all those who are unfaithful to You.
But as for me, the nearness of God is my good;
That I may tell of all your works.
Report comment to moderator
I forgot to note that the above is Psalm 73.
Report comment to moderator
Here is the reason that Kim De Gelder murdered the infants:
Much points to De Gelder drawing his inspiration from The Joker, the terrifying persona in the Batman films, when he caused the bloodbath at the childcare centre Fabeltjesland in Dendermonde on Friday.
There’s not only the correlation with the way he painted his face white and his eyes black and coloured his hair orange, but also judging from data detectives found on De Gelder’s computer during the past weeks.
De Morgen also points to the fact that Heath Ledger, last interpreter of The Joker, was posthumously nominated for an Oscar on the same day of the crime. One day earlier, 22 January, was the first anniversary of Ledger’s death. Another bizarre resemblance is that Gelder is an anagram for Ledger.
Report comment to moderator
Nicely said Tony.
I often wonder about the phrase “the prince of the power of the air” in Eph 2:2. I assume the definition immediately follows, saying he is the spirit that works in those who are disobedient. So then by air he means the spiritual realm.
However, in this information age where media is on the air, so much of it being shaded truth or outright lies, I pause to take note. I have a theory that every evil act is preceded by a lie, some untruth that is believed to be true. Hitler probably told him self that he was doing good, advancing the “fittest” race. Terrorist ideology is a lie. War thrives in a culture of lies.
This boy Kim De Gelder found something he identified with “on the air” in Heath Ledger’s character. The Joker was perhaps more honest than most evil men. He did evil purely for the sake of evil. Kim De Gelder may have seen something admirable in that character, who killed purely for the pleasure of it.
Jesus explains this lust for evil. “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.”
This child of disobedience fulfilled the desires of his father the devil.
Note that I am not blaming the media for the acts of a killer. Killers bear the full responsibility for their actions. However, I have noticed that the entertainment media targeted at teens has a very dark side that is getting darker. Teens throng to horror films which have no plot other than gratuitous murder.
The prince of the power of the air is having a field day.
Report comment to moderator
“people spoke of their shock, outrage and sadness”
Incomprehensible. Just incomprehensible. Thousands of babies are murderered in the womb every year, but as soon as they exit the womb and become visible and cute, their deaths become this big existential tradgedy.
Let’s all be glad that the parents of these victims will not be “punished with a baby” as Barack Obama would have it.
Report comment to moderator
Interestingly, Satan does not appear to be the source of all evil in the Old Testmaent. When he appears at all, it is as sort of a prosecuting attorney (for Job, or against Jeshua in Zechariah 3.) In some cases, he appears to be acting at God’s behest (harmonizing 2 Samuel 24 with 1 Chronicles 21, which tell the same story but differ on whether Satan or God told David to conduct the census.) The word ’satan’ is also applied to humans now and then, to describe them acting in opposition to something.
There’s a break of around 400 years between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New. (A lot of what happened in that period is documented in other writings, but not in the Bible). By the time of the New Testament, we find a lot of new ideas. The dead no longer just descend into Sheol, they are separated for salvation or damnation, for example. And now there is a much more dualistic belief where God is seen as wholly good and Satan as wholly evil. (Contrast the many parts of the OT where God declares he creates both evil and good.)
What do you suppose happened between Malachi and Matthew to make these changes?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
You ask: “What do you suppose happened between Malachi and Matthew to make these changes?”
In a nutshell, I answer: “St. Augustine and his progeny.”
However, your post sets up false dichotomies (or at least extends false dichotomies set up by others).
Further, you make a number of, at best, misleading statements:
(1) You imply that Satan only appears in the Old Testament in a prosecuting attorney role. You leave out Satan’s role in the Fall.
(2) You state that “the dead no longer descend into Sheol, they are separated for salvation or damnation.” You ignore Christ’s resurrection, as well as the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
(3) Finally, you state that God declares that He created both evil and good. Please post up some citations– and do not include citations where God declares that He created PERSONS who DO evil and PERSONS who DO good. Otherwise, please rephrase your statement accordingly.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Jonny:
1. Satan has no role in the Fall according to the text. The story in Genesis simply speaks of a cunning serpent. It’s later Christian interpretation that says the serpent is Satan; the text does not say or imply anything to that effect.
2. That’s what I said. In the Old Testament, Sheol was the realm of the dead. Without distinction. In the New Testament, there’s a clear belief in a heaven and hell (as your examples both attest.)
3. Old Testament statements of God claiming to be the source of all, good and evil alike, are numerous. Just a few examples:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)
Who has commanded and it came to pass, unless the Lord has ordained it? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)
There’s a very clear difference in theology. In the OT, God declares himself sovereign over all. If good things happen to you, God is giving them. If evil things come to you, God is the cause.
Even the concept of sin is different. Human sin in the Old Testament is purely their own rebellion. Only in the New Testament and laters is there a stated belief in an outside spiritual power goading them in that direction.
Augustine is a good guess, but not correct.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Augustine is not such a good guess since I asked specifically about the intertestamental period.
And let’s not forget the “evil spirit from the Lord” that tormented King Saul on so many nights.
Report comment to moderator
Some wil point out that “evil” in some OT passages refers to bad things happening rather than to immoral behavior. While that’s a bit debateable in some cases (the genocide of the Canaanites for example) it is true God is not portrayed as creating sin against Himself.
But neither is the Devil shown doing that either. When humans sin against God, it’s their own internal weakness, rebellion or blindness that is the reason, not an outside tempter.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
As St. Hilary of Poitiers says, “Scripture is not in the reading but in the understanding.” Thus, I believe that I am correct when I answer “St. Augustine” because the foundation of the West’s understanding of Scripture is almost entirely Augustinian. Even its translation of Scripture reflects Augustinian presuppositions. The understanding you reflect, although even a bit more twisted than St. Augustine’s progeny might have it, is Augustinian in nature. in other words, nothing really “happened” between Malachi and Matthew to “change the theology.” What happened was that the West (a) for many years had recourse almost solely to Augustine as an interpreter of Scripture (because of simple linguistic issues), (b) as all humans will be, Augustine was “off” in a number of areas, (c) lost contact with the deep river of the Church Fathers as a whole, and (d) ended up getting out of the river and into the swamp whereby God is, in fact, rendered the cause of evil. Aquinas, Luther, and the Reformers go to great pains to find avenues whereby God is not the author of evil, but I believe they are ultimately unsuccessful because of their Augustinian underpinnings.
Further, I think you are either unaware of distinctions in the words you are throwing around so loosely (Sheol without distinction, etc.) or are intentionally playing semantic games. If it’s the latter, maybe that’s OK if you’re trying to string along a sola scriptura-type for some theoretical “fun,” but it’s really not conducive to serious discussion of the matter with folks who prefer to go beyond the surface of the words. If it’s the former, I would suggest that you seek education on the matter from somewhere other than the Web.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
What happened in between Malachi and Matthew is that the Jewish culture and religion became increasingly influenced by and intermixed with Zoroastrianism, the predominant religion in Persia at the time.
Zoroaster taught that there is only one god (in contrast to the polytheism common in the Middle East at the time) called Ahura Mazda. The god is opposed by the force of evil, Angra Mainyu.
It was during the time that the two cultures were intermixing that the idea of the devil or Satan as a force of evil (rather than simple opposition or testing) became adopted into Judaism and, thus, transplanted to Christianity.
I bring this up because from my (Universalist) perspective, it’s a textbook example of how religious beliefs change and evolve, and do borrow from one another. (Many Christians believe in a spiritual heaven where the saved live as souls; this idea comes from the Greeks and actually contradicts the New Testament, and yet is widespread.)
I also bring it up because in cases of humans committing acts of pure evil, it’s better, I think, to not write it off as “the devil” rather than trying to understand what drove the person to it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Coincidentally (?) enough, this just posted up today which actually takes on a couple of your Scripture quotes directly. I think you may find it of interest (HT to Endyblue for sparking my interest in this site): http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/loving-an-angry-god/
I was unsuccessful at finding the full text of St. Basil’s Homily IX “That God is not the Cause of Evil,” but it is well worth the money to purchase and digest it if you are truly interested in the topic. St. Basil can say it oh so much better than I can.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying God is the source of evil. I was saying the view of just what is the source of evil changed fairly radically between the Testaments.
Report comment to moderator
19-
SteveG,
Your explanation all sounds really nice and pseudo-scholary, but it is not consistent with either Scripture or the Fathers, if you’ll take the time to study and digest them.
Your explanation is a textbook example of the victory that easy and unfounded conjecture often claims over slow and patient study in our modern world of “explain it right now.”
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Of course it isn’t consistent with “the Fathers.” It’s totally consistent with Scripture and documented history, though. I have oversimplified it for the sake of making the point, but it’s factual.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
The Fathers saw no disconnects between the OT and the NT in these areas but, rather, saw a seamless continuity between the two. I have offered, as an example, St. Basil’s writing. I think you can find it equally scattered throughout other Fathers, particularly St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximus the Confessor, etc. Thus, to say that it’s consistent with Scripture but not with the Fathers is to create an oxymoron.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
The Fathers, as early Christian apologists, found it necessary to explain and defend the Scripture. The Scripture itself shows some distinct, but undocumented, theological evolution during the four centuries or so between testaments.
The transformation of Satan from God’s prosecuting attorney to God’s enemy and source of evil is only one of the changes … the separation of the dead into saved and damned, the idea of a final battle between God and Satan, of a final judgment of humans and a few other things have direct parallels in Zoroastrianism — and not in Judaism prior to the influence of Zoroastrianism.
So I say that it is not consistent with any apologist who denies the influence, but it is indeed consistent with what Scripture actually records. No oxymoron there.
Report comment to moderator
I’m at a loss Jonny. Why do you elevate the church fathers to the level of scripture?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I think the apparent dislocations between OT and NT are really only problematic if you question the authenticity of the canon, whether it is, as Paul writes, “God-breathed.” In which case it might be best just to shelf the whole project, eat, drink, and be merry.
If we view Scriptures as the unfolding of history culminating in the revelation of Christ in triumph and glory, then it would be odd to find in them a static set of documents. Are the examples you point to best taken as proof of a polluting influence on the thinking of NT writers, or as revelation? In other words, does the NT account of Satan as a prowling lion seeking whom he will devour contradict the image of him as accuser and tempter in the OT? Does the OT account contradict the NT account?
What I’m trying to tease out is whether you aren’t mistaking revelation for incoherence.
Also, I don’t think I was claiming, as you put it (#3), that “there are never proximate causes.” My point is that there is a deeper battle here than proximate causes can allow.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
Well as you know, I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. I approach it as a scholar (albeit an amateur one) rather than a believer. I do believe there are elements of inspiration within it, and as a record of one culture’s developing understanding of the divine, it contains spiritual truth.
But I see it very much as a cultural artifact as well, and as such it reflects the influences of various threads. Religious systems are always evolving and, often, incorporating aspects of other religions.
It seems to me absurd to say (1) The Jews who wrote Job and Zechariah and Samuel saw Satan (or more correctly, “the Satan”) as an instrument of God, serving as a prosecutor (accusing Job, or in Zecharia, accusing Jeshua) and (2) the Jews and eventually Christians who wrote the New Testament saw Satan as God’s enemy and the source of all evil and (3), during the centuries between testaments there was much intermingling between the Jews and the Zoroastrian Persians BUT (4) any resemblance of the New Testament theology and the Persian is mere coincidence and no indication of influence.
Which is not to say that it might not also be true revelation. But the evidence is that if it is revelation, it came to the Jews and early Christians by way of a different religion’s beliefs rather than direct from God.
I do believe, for the record, that there evil influences and that some are supernatural/spiritual. I am not convinced that there is a single entity that is the root of all of it, nor do I think that the idea is original to Judaism/Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I suppose if the scriptures didn’t come from God then they had to come from somewhere, be it Aristotle or Zaruthushtra or indigestion, and so parsing them out as an exercise in cultural anthropology can be enjoyable for some. Incidentally, it seems that if we are to go that route, we have to consider the possibility that the cause of similarities between Zoroastrianism and Christianity runs the other way (I know the former claims to be far older, but if I’m not mistaken their earliest texts come from the 4th to 6th century).
Still, it seems a far less interesting question than pondering how a weakling god who only manages to glimmer through parts of the errant Scriptures, and who was incapable of telling and preserving his story in a single vessel, managed to cobble together the universe in the first place. In short, it seems that belief in a Creator God who loves his creation logically implies a Communicator God, which in turn implies that one of these churches is right, i.e., the vessel by which God came to be known by His people. The little-bit-of-truth-here-and-there philosophy (an entirely modern creation suited to the post-modern mentality, arguably) seems to have an altogether different kind of Being in mind, one who is elusive and aloof, and hardly worth the trouble of seeking out in the first place. What good is there to man in searching out a god, in other words, who doesn’t care all that much about being found?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
You say “I approach it as a scholar (albeit an amateur one) . . . . It seems to me absurd to say . . . .”
The Church Fathers lived, breathed, moved, and died amidst a pagan culture. The spoke and wrote the languages of Scripture and pagan texts. They understood the similarities. They understood the dissimilarities. They did not see any incongruity between OT and NT nor did they see any need to “change” theology to make things fit. As to “influence,” you’ve made some fundamental assumptions in this regard that are not necessarily warranted from the evidence, as Tony points out.
Given I’m no scholar and that you’re already pretty entrenched in your assumptions, I’ll leave it to you, the amateur scholar, to work it out with the Saints, whom you should find are no academic slouches.
Report comment to moderator
Kay,
Please re-read my posts. If I have done such a thing, it was not intended.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Tony: Still, it seems a far less interesting question than pondering how a weakling god who only manages to glimmer through parts of the errant Scriptures, and who was incapable of telling and preserving his story in a single vessel, managed to cobble together the universe in the first place. In short, it seems that belief in a Creator God who loves his creation logically implies a Communicator God, which in turn implies that one of these churches is right, i.e., the vessel by which God came to be known by His people. The little-bit-of-truth-here-and-there philosophy (an entirely modern creation suited to the post-modern mentality, arguably) seems to have an altogether different kind of Being in mind, one who is elusive and aloof, and hardly worth the trouble of seeking out in the first place. What good is there to man in searching out a god, in other words, who doesn’t care all that much about being found?
That’s a fair point. I think the answer depends largely on who God is (or who the gods are) and why the relationship is important.
Christian theology says that knowing God, and Christ, is necessary for salvation from sin. If that is true, then there’s a strong argument to make that a clear and inerrant communication is necessary. But if that’s the case, it raises more questions than it answers. Primarily, why would God give the true revelation only to one tribe, allow false religious to flourish unchecked around the world while slowly striving with his chosen stiff-necked people until the fullness of time for Jesus, and then count on fallible, weak human beings to carry the light of Christ into a hostile, big world. No mass communication, not even rapid transportation.
At the very least, God could have sent prophets into every culture, every false religion, to state plainly that a man called Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and everyone should cease their false ways and await Jesus’s missionaries. That would be a true miraculous prophecy.
That question, more than anything, is what pushed me out of exclusivism and into universalism.
Anyway, lest I digress too far … if salvation through Christ is the most important reason to seek and know God, then Biblical inerrancy, and a bright line of division between revelation to the Jews and early Christians vs. influences from other cultures is important.
But what if it’s not? What if God is actually not separating sheep from goats? What if God’s reaction to human sin is not judgment but compassion, as a doctor for the sick? I know there are ample arguments for why Christians believe God’s judgment and even hell are necessary, but they are all premised on a specific idea of who God is; if God is, in fact, not like what Christianity believes, at least not so far as sin/judgment/redemption are concerned, then those arguments don’t hold up.
If God, is in fact bigger than any religion, and able to meet humans where the humans are without requiring them to believe in Christ first as a pre-condition, then a world full of holy books that contain pieces and glimpses of the truth but without any of them having a lock on the one true truth makes perfect sense.
There are arguments either way, but for me, the existence of many religious traditions and no sign of the Christian God who wills that none should perish giving any of them a heads-up about Christ other than the ones who lived in Christ’s place and time, is for me a strong cases that the universalist view is more likely the right one.
Report comment to moderator
Nicely said, Tony. “Still, it seems a far less interesting question than pondering how a weakling god who only manages to glimmer through parts of the errant Scriptures, and who was incapable of telling and preserving his story in a single vessel, managed to cobble together the universe in the first place.”
SteveG, if God is capable of communicating and he has, then why would you assume you are smarter than he is, placing your faith in your own imagination rather than him. I am always surprised how many people have stronger faith in stuff they just make up than the infallible Word of God.
I am also amazed that people who hate the Bible think they know so much more about it than Christians do. If you want to read about Satan in the Old Testament, begin reading in Isaiah 14:12 about Lucifer and Ezekiel 28:12 on the demon who was in the Garden of Eden.
If you want to see his work, follow the plight of the Jewish people throughout history. The diabolical hatred of a single people who are still a people after thousands of years for no reason other than their association with God cannot be explained except by a supernatural hatred.
Report comment to moderator
xion: SteveG, if God is capable of communicating and he has, then why would you assume you are smarter than he is
I don’t.
The question is not whether I’m smarter than God. I’m not. The question is whether the Bible reflects the one and only true revelation of God, or is largely a human creation.
Your question just assumes as fact that the inerrantist view of the Bible is correct and so anyone who doubts it is questioning, not the humans who believe it, but God himself. That’s fallacious.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Isaiah may well be the most misinterpreted book of the Bible. Isaiah 14:12 is not about Satan. Isaiah 14:4-23 (including 12) is a long taunt to the King of Babylon. It is basically saying ‘you thought you were even bigger than God, and look at you now.’
(The only way to read is being about Satan is to assume the writer interrupted his long tirade against the king to make an entirely unrelated theological statement with no transition either into it or back out of it. Which, obviously, makes no sense.)
Ezekiel 28:12 is part of a prophecy for and about the King of Tyre. I’m not sure what the reference to his having been in Eden means, but there’s nothing in there about a demon. It just says he had favor until his greed led him into sin.
Report comment to moderator
I am also amazed that people who hate the Bible
Perhaps you should find someone who fits that description to argue with. I don’t “hate the Bible”, I just disagree with your view of what it is, and I am really tired of being lied about by people who are apparently unable to figure out the difference between those two.
Report comment to moderator
#36 No, it’s not hate. You dismiss the book as a set of ridiculous myths and then insist that your knowledge of it is superior to millions who believe it. But it isn’t hate.
You say that Isaiah is the most misinterpreted book of the Bible. Base on what? Again you cite your own interpretation as more authoritative than any other. How do you know?
I am not going to argue with you about whether an “anointed cherub in the garden of God” is actually what it says it is since you don’t care what the words actually say anyway. You are only interested in your own personal mythology which you have created to explain away a book that you “don’t hate”.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I swore to myself yesterday that I was not going to talk so much here on WMB, and I am reneging already. Although I disagree with some of your presuppositions as I’ve stated earlier, I really appreciate what you said, here:
“What if God’s reaction to human sin is not judgment but compassion, as a doctor for the sick? I know there are ample arguments for why Christians believe God’s judgment and even hell are necessary, but they are all premised on a specific idea of who God is; if God is, in fact, not like what Christianity believes, at least not so far as sin/judgment/redemption are concerned, then those arguments don’t hold up.
If God, is in fact bigger than any religion, and able to meet humans where the humans are without requiring them to believe in Christ first as a pre-condition, then a world full of holy books that contain pieces and glimpses of the truth but without any of them having a lock on the one true truth makes perfect sense.”
I would ask that you not paint “Christianity” with such a broad brush. You and I have had this conversation before and, if you checked out my link in #20, I hope that you realize that not all of Christendom, even today, believes in the god that you depict here. Further, not all of Christendom buys into a god who saves solely by mental assent and is constrained by the bounds of his specific revelation. Although these concepts are relative newcomers in the history of the Church and perhaps “logical” from the perspective of one who wishes to anthropomorphize (and, therefore idolize) a conception of god, these concepts (originating with Augustine, the Scholastics, and the Reformers) are neither necessitated by Scripture nor consistent with the historic interpretation of Scripture by the Church. To be clear on the other hand, however: (a) it does not follow that the recognition by a person of the Truth of Christianity necessitate the recognition of all other religious beliefs as completely devoid of any pieces and glimpses of Truth nor (b) does the rejection of a transactional, anthropomorphized concept of god does not warrant the dogmatic teaching of universalism by the Church, for such would ignore the existence of free will with which God endowed mankind.
In the course of your scholarly pursuits, you might add the book “Christ the Eternal Tao” to your reading (http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Eternal-Tao-Hieromonk-Damascene/dp/1887904239). Before I get jumped on, here, solely for recommending a title that includes both Christ and Tao, I’ll at least say that you will find no syncretism or universalism therein but simply an honest Christian appraisal of ancient Chinese religious beliefs and a recognition of the many good things found therein.
Cheers.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Read the entire chapter in Isaiah, not just the verses you want to see in isolation. It is clearly labeled as a message to the King of Babylon, and those lines come right in the middle of it. There is no interpretation needed; in context, it’s quite clear these are words of mockery addressed to a man who thought himself greater than God.
I did say the Ezekiel passage is harder to understand. I don’t know what the references to Eden are about. But (1) that passage too is clearly identified, this time as a message to the King of Tyre, and (2) the passage says the ‘anointed cherub’ was in God’s favor until he sinned. That is true of everyone and does not imply that this is Satan.
I am not “interpreting” anything in either of those passages. I am just reading the whole context and not wrenching a verse or two into isolation so I can claim it means something other than what the text clearly states that it is, as you are.
Further, I never said the Bible is “ridiculous myths.” And I am not going to be put into the position of defending an opinion I don’t even hold.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, you said: No, it’s not hate. You dismiss the book as a set of ridiculous myths and then insist that your knowledge of it is superior to millions who believe it. But it isn’t hate.
Well no, it’s just disagreeing with you and them about what kind of document it is. (Apart from the “ridiculous myths” part, which comes from your own imagination and nothing I’ve said.)
Interesting point though … in the two examples under discussion here, it seems you don’t believe the Bible. The words of the text say that these are messages to kings. You don’t believe that … you say they are descriptions of Satan.
You say that even though the text itself does not say that. You say that even though the text actually identifies them as being something far different.
In what way do you “believe the Bible” when you tell me that this bit from Isaiah is in fact not what Isaiah himself says it is?
Report comment to moderator
Jonny: Thanks for the recommendation. I don’t know all that much about Tao myself, but it sounds worth a look.
Just to briefly respond to the point about free will … If universalism is seen in a Christian context, the most common formulation I’ve seen, and the one with the strongest backing from the New Testament and the early church Fathers (pre-Augustine) is that one must indeed accept God’s grace in order to be redeemed, but God holds the door open as long as necessary until all souls do. (”The Inescapable Love of God” by Thomas Talbott is a good, detailed explication of this view.)
A broader, non-Christian universalist view simply holds that whatever our fate after death is, it’s the same for all of us.
I do wonder though if the free will argument for the necessity of damnation is really all that strong. None of us asked to be born, but no one objects that our free will is violated by being born. Why should be any more of a concern in the question of whether, or where, we are reborn?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I don’t like the tone I used in #33 or #37. I was cranky. No excuse. Sorry about that.
We disagree about pretty much everything, but I respect your inquisitive spirit. I think God does as well.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Thanks for saying so.
I don’t mind being disagreed with. Given the purpose of this site, I expect most people here do disagree with me. I just don’t care for having positions “assigned” to me that I don’t actually hold.
Report comment to moderator
Judging by the silence, I guess no one wants to move on to the polytheism in the Bible’s creation stories?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!