Theirs Is An Angry God

Who Would Jesus Hate?

Published on June 3, 2008 By Larry Kuperman In Religion

One of our members has written an article that offers the thesis that banning prayer in schools somehow led to a rash of school shootings. In fact, the author quotes God as saying "I am not allowed in schools." This is the All-Powerful diety speaking, mind you. If there is any sense to this article, full of "reap the whirlwind" it is that the shootings could have been prevented had not the All-Merciful wanted to send a message.

Usually I do not respond to this kind of non-sequitur (because my momma told me not to talk to crazy people) but this theory, that God causes or at least permits bad things to happen to punish people because America has become increasingly secular, requires a response.

First of all, the blogger that wrote the article showed a blatant disregard for the loss of life of children. I have linked to the original blog post and nowhere will you find any expression of sympathy for the death of children. I certainly realize that she was not the author of the original article, but she chose to reprint it. But feel free to point out any acknowledgement by the blogger of how much pain was caused by these shootings.

It is not an isolated blogger who says this type of absurdity. This same creed of hate is spewed by prominent evangelists such as Rev. Jerry Falwell, Rev. Pat Robertson, and of course, John Hagee.

On September 13, 2001, on the 700 Club, Falwell and Robertson explained the destruction of the World Trade Center as follows:

JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

Not to be outdone, Pastor John Hagee explained Hurricane Katrina as follows: "New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God” because “there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.”

Think about this for a moment. Most of the kids that have been shot is schools were Christian. As far as I know, no one in the World Trade Center on September 11th had any particular affiliation with the ACLU or any abortion group. Most of the people who lost their lives as a result of Hurricane Katrina were not gay. God must have very, very bad aim if he makes these things happen.

Pastor Hagee acknowledges that it is only his perception, his vision of the world and of God that makes him see things this way. Why, I ask, would someone chose to worship a God that kills little children to express his disagreement?

In his latest remarks, Pastor Hagee has said that God allowed/caused the Holocaust to happen because he wanted the Jews to return to Israel. Somehow he manages to avoid the fact that Zionism predates the Holocaust by 60 years and was basically a movement of Secular Jews. (I know that some will disagree with me, because history, like science, is "just a theory.") When God wants to send a message he kills 6 million Jews, 3 million Russian Prisoners of War and another 2 million Slavs. Props to John McCain for finally saying that Hagee and his ilk are crazy.

(Note to God in case you are reading this. If you want ME to go somewhere, send me an email, okay?)

I know that you can find support for this kind of superstitious thinking in the Old Testament, that book that was written by men who lived 2500 years ago and thought that the world was flat and the Sun went around the Earth. God murders all the people in Sodom and Gommorrah, down to the littlest child. He sends bears to tear apart children because they make fun of a bald prophet. But why would anyone living in the modern world buy into this crap? Haven't we, you should excuse the expression, evolved a bit?

Secularism is to blame for all the ills of the world? Explain this. Europe in the early 14th Century was almost completely Christain. It was an age of unquestioned faith. In 1315 the Great Famine wipes out millions of European Christians. In 1347 the Black Death wipes out a third of Europe's population (while the people pray in churches.)

There is no rhyme or reason to the idea that God caused school shootings, or the World Trade Center attack, or Hurricane Katrina or the Holocaust in order to steer people toward or away from a particular way of thinking. In order to accept such an idea you have to embrace the idea of an Angry God who has only contempt for human life. And that is just plain sick.

Comments (Page 3)

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 11, 2008

That's because you are ignorant of the world and too dishonest to remember something shown to you a week ago.

and when you resort to name calling you're only proving you've lost the debate. I've given you lots of stuff but you choose not to listen. On my blog a while ago I showed you how evolutionists have used origins in their studies and you continue to say evolution is nothing about origins even thou I've given you journals and quotes to prove you wrong.

My son is a scientist with a 4.0 average in his post grad work. He's a Christian and a Scientist. It can be done.

Leauki

on Jun 12, 2008

you may want to check your history books. Many of the very early and most popular scientists were Christian and they were very helpful to society in their discoveries.

And that contradicts what I said how?

and when you resort to name calling you're only proving you've lost the debate.

Actually, when you started lying it was obvious that you lost the debate. I was merely sick and tired of just accepting that you lie in a debate.

And I'm talking totally diff species like a tomato coming from a watermelon, not a poodle coming from another species of dog. That's what evolution teaches and it's never been proved. Even Darwin himself said there would have to be fossils that could prove out his theory and guess what? None have been found.

Evolution doesn't claim that the change happens so quickly. Evolution claims that it takes a very long time. What we can observe in the lab is how lifeforms can change over short time. We extrapolate from there.

If you showed me how a god created one animal, we could extrapolate from there that he could also create an entire world, and we would have ourselves a scientific theory based on observed evidence.

Incidentally, your ignorance is showing again. The fossils have been found and Zoo (remember him?) has linked to articles describing the findings in detail in the past.

As usual, you ignored the links, waited a few weeks, and then pretended that you were never told.

And then you are upset when somebody refers to that custom as lying.

Well, if you don't want to be called a liar, don't lie.

When you claimed that honesty is a "Christian" principle and not a secular principle, you insulted all atheists and all non-Christians, me included.

May I ask which part of the Bible told you that you were allowed to insult Jews and Muslims and atheists AND lie when it is convenient?

no, because you brought up killing children in his displeasure after you quoted the sun moving around the earth (which wasn't true.)

Actually, I did none of those things.

My son is a scientist with a 4.0 average in his post grad work. He's a Christian and a Scientist. It can be done.

Never doubted it. But he will have to use better explanations that "G-d did it" when somebody asks him how the experiment worked.

(I hope he is not the penguin dude.)

I never doubted that a Christian can be scientist. Here my case was that a Christian shouldn't lie.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 12, 2008

KFC posts #29

You are absolutely correct KFC.

Evolution Theory, (molecules to mankind) aka Darwinism, claims that one kind of species evolves into a completely different kind of species (reptiles into birds) over a long period of time. In order for that to occur there would have to be thousands of thousands of transitional forms. Yet, in truth, thus far, no fossils have been found of these transitional forms.

The fossil record has proved to be a bust for Evolutionist's "molecule to mankind" theory, but they resist the fact that the missing links are still missing.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 12, 2008

Evolution doesn't claim that the change happens so quickly.

We know that.

Evolution claims that it takes a very long time.

Oh, yes, we know this too.

What we can observe in the lab is how lifeforms can change over short time.

Agree. This is called micro-evolution aka change within the same species....We've ONLY observed how lifeforms change within the same species.

Never once have we observed a creature of one kind of species changing into a completely different creature from a different kind of species.

What we can observe in the lab is how lifeforms can change over short time. We extrapolate from there.

"Extrapolate" is deriving something from known facts, is it not? But Evolution theory is not derived from "known facts"....and that's the conundrum. Evolutionists started with a fairy tale claiming through Darwin's deity, Natural Selection, that molecules evolved into mankind. Almighty God was replaced with Evolution and Natural Selection (Naturalism) became Supreme. That lie gained scientific legitimacy and the world's institutions and morality experienced a turning point in history.

Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, showed the extent that Evolution "molecules to mankind" replaced God as Creator. He wrote, "I can see no reason for doubting that all are coordinate terms of nature's great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will."

If you showed me how a god created one animal, we could extrapolate from there that he could also create an entire world, and we would have ourselves a scientific theory based on observed evidence.

As Creation scientists have, start by reading Genesis 1. You see we believe GOd's Word is the Truth and we extrapolate from that...and develop a Creation Theory that the fossil record, particularly the Cambrian Explosion supports.

Leauki

on Jun 12, 2008

Darwinism claims that one kind of species evolves into a completely different kind of species (reptiles into birds) over a long period of time. In order for that to occur there would have to be thousands of thousands of transitional forms. Yet, in truth, thus far, no fossils have been found of these transitional forms.

There are no fossils of transitional forms.

A "transitional form" would imply that there are two species that should be species and one or more types of animal that are "transitional" between the two. According to Darwinism, however, that is not what happens. Birds and dinosaurs and any life form between the two have exactly the same claim to being their own species and none of them are a "transitional form".

But there are fossils of species now extinct that have evolved from previous species and into modern species. They share features with both their ancestors and their descendants. They have been found. We can see them.

I believe you want the Archaeopteryx.

A fossil was discovered a few years after Darwin published his theory. Darwin's theory predicted that an animal like the Archaeopteryx existed (to allow for evolution of birds via it) and they found such an animal indeed. No Creationist has ever predicted correctly that some animal must have existed, I think.

There are (or have been) thousand and thousands of "transitional forms" (in the sense that they were species that evolved from and to other species), but not all of them left fossils, of course. It is extremely rare that a dead animal becomes a fossil and it is more likely to happen, of course, with animals of which there are many.

This means we probably won't find fossils of unfit species that died out quickly.

The longer a species survived, was fit enough for the world, the more likely we are to find fossils of it.

The Archaeopteryx displays many features common to birds and dinosaurs.

But why am I telling you? You don't understand any of this. Or you might just claim, in a few weeks, when this thread is forgotten, that you were never told of the Archaeopteryx.

I _wish_, I really wish that the "Christian principle" of "honesty" would help us here.

(I will continue bringing that up until the local "Christians" here apologise for insulting all other faiths by claiming that honesty is a "Christian" principle as opposed to a universal principle followed by many or all religions.)

Leauki

on Jun 12, 2008

"Extrapolate" is deriving something from known facts, is it not? But Evolution theory is not derived from "known facts"....and that's the conundrum.

And here we go with your lying again.

The fruit fly experiment IS a known fact.

From it we KNOW that fruit flies can evolve into to species (groups that cannot interbreed).

From that FACT we can extrapolate that both species of fruit flies, if they are fit to survive as species, will continue to change independently of each other, leading, over a long time, to more and more drastic changes.

Why do you pretend that you weren't told about the known facts?

Is it too difficult for you to remember?

Leauki

on Jun 12, 2008

Agree. This is called micro-evolution aka change within the same species....We've ONLY observed how lifeforms change within the same species.

Actually, it was observed how fruit flies evolved into two different species.

Never once have we observed a creature of one kind of species changing into a completely different creature from a different kind of species.

Yes, I agree that we have not yet observed a species evolve over millions of years.

But we have observed the following:

1. One species can become two species in very few generations.

2. Species change over time.

3. We have fossils that show animals that share features with previously existing species and later species.

These FACTS lead to the theory that animals evolve over time into different species that are quite different from each other.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 12, 2008

lula posts:

"Extrapolate" is deriving something from known facts, is it not? But Evolution theory is not derived from "known facts"....and that's the conundrum.

Leauki posts

Yes, the fruit fly experiment is a known fact.

But what did it prove? NOT MACRO-EVOLUTION theory that's for sure....for it started out with fruit flies with certain characteristics and ended up with fruit flies with different characteristics. That's been my point all along. They sarted out with perfectly good working fruit flies and ended up with mutated fruit flies that were good for nothing.

Why do you pretend that you weren't told about the known facts?

Is it too difficult for you to remember?

I've always maintained that the fruit fly experiments did not prove or even give evidence of macro-evolution in the Darwinian sense. Bottom line: The experiment started out with fruit flies and ended up with fruit flies.....As far as proof or known facts or evidence of macro evolution, the experiment was a total bust.

But, if you want to pretend the fruit fly experiments are known facts that give evidence to Darwin's molecules to mankind theory, then, you've come up with the wrong conclusion. Sorry about that.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 12, 2008

I don't know why Leauki you accuse us of lying. We are giving you the truth. It is you who have your ears covered up because of your biases.

There was a letter to the editor today in my newspaper. FYI The writer said this:

"Evolution is NOT a scientific theory as a sophomore learns in biology class by applying the scientific method. A theory is something that can be proved over time and replicated. Evolution does not meet these requirements and thus is classified as a hypothesis or an idea.

Over 100 years ago, spontaneous generation or biogenesis (life rises regularly from non-life) was accepted in the scientific community and thus the general population. SP (spontaneous generation) was based on superficial observation; fruit flies come from banana peels, maggots from manure, bees from dead horses and rats from soiled rags. Disbelievers in SP were ridiculed.

SP was discovered by the careful experiment of Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860) and others. They demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that SP was a false teaching.

But ideas die slowly-the obituary for SP was premature. Insidiously spontaneous generation returned in the guise of evolution-life comes from non-life. Today disbelievers in evoution are ridiculed. Neither of these ideas are based on TRUE Science.

Today evolutionists talk about gradual spontaneous generation (life comes from non-life) only it takes millions of years."

It seems nothing changes. You are the one believing the lie Leauki. Not us.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 12, 2008

But there are fossils of species now extinct that have evolved from previous species and into modern species. They share features with both their ancestors and their descendants. They have been found. We can see them.

I believe you want the Archaeopteryx.

A fossil was discovered a few years after Darwin published his theory. Darwin's theory predicted that an animal like the Archaeopteryx existed (to allow for evolution of birds via it) and they found such an animal indeed. No Creationist has ever predicted correctly that some animal must have existed, I think.

There are (or have been) thousand and thousands of "transitional forms" (in the sense that they were species that evolved from and to other species), but not all of them left fossils, of course. It is extremely rare that a dead animal becomes a fossil and it is more likely to happen, of course, with animals of which there are many.

This means we probably won't find fossils of unfit species that died out quickly.

The longer a species survived, was fit enough for the world, the more likely we are to find fossils of it.

The Archaeopteryx displays many features common to birds and dinosaurs.

But why am I telling you? You don't understand any of this. Or you might just claim, in a few weeks, when this thread is forgotten, that you were never told of the Archaeopteryx.

Suffice to say, the claim of the Archaeopteryx fossil as being a transitional form between a reptile and a bird has been thoroughly rebutted...and I'm not about to hijack Kuperman's blog in going back and forth with you on that.

If you accept it, it must be on pure Evolutionist faith.

SanChonino

on Jun 13, 2008

I'm not about to hijack Kuperman's blog in going back and forth with you on that.

Umm . . . a bit too late for that. You all hijacked koop's blag ages ago, and neither you nor KFC have truly addressed his OP.

Leauki

on Jun 13, 2008

Suffice to say, the claim of the Archaeopteryx fossil as being a transitional form between a reptile and a bird has been thoroughly rebutted

I understand that given your knowledge of how science works you really do believe that it suffices to say that something has been rebutted.

We can leave it at that.

In the meantime scientists, working with the theory of evolution, will continue to make discoveries every year, create new medicines etc., while "Christians" who work with the "theory" of Creationism will never be able to produce anything useful using that "knowledge".

lulapilgrim

on Jun 13, 2008

neither you nor KFC have truly addressed his OP.

I have.

Kuperman wrote at the beginning of his OP:

If there is any sense to this article, full of "reap the whirlwind" it is that the shootings could have been prevented had not the All-Merciful wanted to send a message.

And near the end he wrote:

There is no rhyme or reason to the idea that God caused school shootings,

In my #16, I told him he had come to the wrong conclusion, reiterated my point and then summed it up in #28.

God's revenge or anger didn't CAUSE the school shootings. People do evil to one another (sin) which is a rejection of God and His commands and God doesn't cause us to sin.

This is what I meant when I wrote:

WE decided to kick God and His eternal values and social principles as guidelines for moral living out and We decided to install our own atheistic/secular humanist values in its place. (This is the sowing part. )

The results (the fruits) of secular humanism in our various institutions are in.

What is happening in our lives today with the forces of Secular Humanism in charge is far different from what was happening in our lives then before 1963 when the family, the state and Chistianity were all in harmony.

In my blog I was trying to make the comparision....of sowing and reaping the fruits of Christianity (God in our lives) vs the unhappy fruits of Secular Humanism (God out of our lives).

lulapilgrim

on Jun 13, 2008

Kuperman writes:

There is no rhyme or reason to the idea that God caused school shootings, or the World Trade Center attack, or Hurricane Katrina or the Holocaust in order to steer people toward or away from a particular way of thinking. In order to accept such an idea you have to embrace the idea of an Angry God who has only contempt for human life. And that is just plain sick.

I've already said that Almighty God didn't cause the shootings, nor did He cause the WTC attack, or the Holocaust. As for Katrina, can man cause hurricanes? As for hurricanes, cyclones and tornadoes, we never know when our ticket to ride is up, so be ready at all times to meet your Maker.

Almighty God loves human life...but He doesn't force His love and grace on us nor does He force our love for Him. He created us. He gave us life and only He can take it.

What God has great contempt for and will absolutely not abide is evil or sin. The school shootings, the WTC attack and the Holocaust were all the evil sins of man upon another.

As a Catholic, I believe God inflicts punishment on those persons who deliberately and maliciously disobey His commands. Those punishments are mitigatable in this life, retributive in Pugatory and unrequitable in Hell.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!