Letter on NSS Newsline here.
I awoke this morning (Thursday 14 January) to the struggled musings of John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, on the Today programme. He was attempting to reconcile the supposed existence of a loving, omnipotent God with the tragic events in Haiti. The only appropriate response he was able to muster was that he could offer "nothing which makes sense of the horrors". Had he paused at that point, then he would, at least, have been intellectually honest. But, no, he meandered onwards to utter several irrelevant, rambling, and borderline absurd opinions... read on.
Programme available for a short time here. I share the frustration of the author of the letter - what on Earth is Archbishop Sentamu on about (process theodicy?)?
Pat Roberston has a different view on Haiti: "True story...". At least Robertson's explanation is clear.
I awoke this morning (Thursday 14 January) to the struggled musings of John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, on the Today programme. He was attempting to reconcile the supposed existence of a loving, omnipotent God with the tragic events in Haiti. The only appropriate response he was able to muster was that he could offer "nothing which makes sense of the horrors". Had he paused at that point, then he would, at least, have been intellectually honest. But, no, he meandered onwards to utter several irrelevant, rambling, and borderline absurd opinions... read on.
Programme available for a short time here. I share the frustration of the author of the letter - what on Earth is Archbishop Sentamu on about (process theodicy?)?
Pat Roberston has a different view on Haiti: "True story...". At least Robertson's explanation is clear.
Comments
I listened twice to these incoherent vacuous ramblings without having a clue as to what Sentamu was trying to say. His words were indeed insulting, both to the suffering people of Haiti and to the intelligence of his listeners. John Humphreys was far too polite; he should have echoed F.E Smith's admonition to Mr Justice Darling: "If your lordship would be pleased to use what your lordship is pleased to call your lordship's mind..."
If this is the best intellectual material the Church of England can muster for one of its highest offices, its days really are numbered.
What utter tripe these self-appointed spokespersons of God talk! They are mentally ill.
How pompous do you need to be to believe that what we need in this situation is Your Grace babbling nonsense on the BBC?
After the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004, there were Islamic fundamentalists roaming amongst the grieving and the dead in Aceh trying to turn people to Allah using the same premise.
Regards, Paul.
Chris Roslan
Spokesman for CBN
Not only are they attempting to re-write history they are trying to, one again shift the blame/attention. The biggest problem I have is the typical "you didn't watch the whole thing therefore you're taking the statements out of context" garbage. The problem for Robertson and his 700 Club ilk that entire segment is available on YouTube!
This is no different than his idiotic comments just after the attacks on September 11th in the U.S. During his interview with Falwell he agreed with every statement Falwell made. When the backlash came he tried to claimed that he hadn't and didn't share Falwell's opinion. Then the video surfaced and he used his face time, not to apologize, but to attack those people who "sit around recording everything he says to try an use against him".
Pat Robertson is a TOOL BAG.
Science cannot ask the 'why?' question.
Religion can ask the why question.
It is like having two equally valid ways of producing knowledge.
Good point. We all know that science can't answer the "why?" question. If we want to know why the earth shook in Haiti we shouldn't listen to any drivel about "tectonic plates" and the "build-up of stress along fault lines." We just need to ask people like Robertson who are authorities in the only field suited to deal with that kind of question.
A little further down it says, "Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters - presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for 'making a pact with the devil'. Earthquakes and tsunamis are caused not by 'sin' but by tectonic plate movements, and tectonic plates, like everything else in the physical world, are supremely indifferent to human affairs and sadly indifferent to human suffering. Those of us who understand this reality are sometimes accused of being indifferent to that suffering ourselves. Of course the very opposite is the truth..."
Here's the URL:
http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/
A good contribution I thought and shows that non-believers should get on the radio more often.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/81595442.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUqEiaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
The real mystery is how Sentamu can spout solid gold gobbledygook, yet still hold the confidence of other Christians. Have they put their brains on stand-by, so that they are ready to swallow any old waffle?
An additional factor with Sentamu could be tokenism.
"Well, for the Christian, you've got to see the God who is very much like Christ like, and in Him there is no unChrist likeness."
Sentamu is the second most senior clergyman in the Church of England. He said the above in a very considered way. Are you saying that Christians hear this and make some sense out of it? I think they turn their ears off. This is, after all, a much kinder explanation than saying they make sense out of nonsense.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Poem_on_the_Lisbon_Disaster
Point out what people like Robertson are saying and you are damned for attacking extremists who are not representative of the vast majority of moderates.
Produce arguments against the beliefs of the vast majority of moderates and you are damned for attacking people who should be your allies in the fight against extremism.
Atheists should really just shut up. That would please so many people.
One of the most distressing manifestations of this in the dreadful scenes from Haiti we are now witnessing on our TV screens are the pathetic bereaved people who utter thanks to God for their own preservation, whilst not stopping to ask why he didn't also save their families, friends and fellow citizens.
Doubtless Sentamu and Robertson will come up with some crass reasons.
Why does God allow natural disasters?
Alister McGrath gives an explanation 'Suffering is the price we pay for being alive. More than that, it is the price we pay for being human. ….. To eliminate suffering is to eliminate life itself”'
Eliminate Auschwitz? That was the price the Jews paid for being alive.....
MCGRATH
'Suffering and glorification are part of, but represent different stages within, the same process of growth in the Christian life.'
You have to admire the imbecility of such remarks, showing that a lot of hard work has been put into coming up with them.
People suffer so they can become better Christians. Suffering is part of the growth pattern of Christians.
So why do non-believers suffer?
1. Life is suffering.
2. Suffering is rooted in attachment.
3. Suffering can be alleviated.
4. There is a path to the cessation of suffering.
I am not a Buddhist, but I find it difficult to disagree with these statements. The Christian muddle comes about through an insistence on an omnipotent God, and the belief that an individual can reach heaven (ie end suffering) through faith in Jesus.
Buddhists don't particularly believe in God, nor in heaven. Also they don't distinguish between my suffering and yours. And they don't preach. It is quite difficult for a non-Buddhist (assume perhaps a 21st century Westerner from a liberal democracy) to be offended by Buddhist beliefs.
On the other hand, Christianity is about a personal salvation through faith in God. It is egocentric, and its adherents are encouraged to proselytise. Essentially they want non-believers to feel bad. That in turn helps believers feel good. However, if you are non-believer, you don't have to play along, if you don't want to.
This is a very long-winded answer to "So why do non-believers suffer?". The message to Christians is don't be a non-believer or you will suffer after death. I'm sure it's meant to be personal and inward, in which case it is harmless to believers and non-believers alike. However the message can get twisted to if you are not a believer we are going to make you suffer now. This of course is not so good, the pious hunting down the impious for sport.
In reality we all suffer, it is part of life. You can try to help the people of Haiti now, which we would all judge to be an unselfish act, or you can pray for your future salvation, which is an act rooted in fear, egocentricity and superstition.
'God is deeply pained by our suffering, just as we are shocked, grieved and mystified by the suffering of our family and friends'
Somehow McGrath knows the mind of God......
And McGrath knows there is suffering in Heaven. God is pained.
So when you get to Heaven, expect to suffer. Even God suffers in Heaven.