Not completely unsuspected:
From here:
An earthquake struck the eastern portion of Venezuela on Friday with a magnitude of 5.6 according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The earthquake, which was 7 miles deeps, was approximately 235 miles east of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela. The earthquake is said to be of “medium” strength that caused panic but so far no reports of injury.
And here:
With all the earthquake tragedy going on, it doesn’t surprise many that there is some fear of another terrible quake shaking another city to the ground. According to reports locals in Oklahoma got a good shaking Friday morning when a earthquake struck.
The USGS confirmed the quake had a magnitude of 4.0. It hit around 9:18 a.m. about 3 miles northeast of Jones, OK. There has been no reports of injures or damage.
CFV5KQZQSYC8
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
Where’s Pat Robertson? Should we expect a prophetic interpretation?
Maybe for Venezuela, but surely not Ok. City.
Where’s Pat Robertson? Should we expect a prophetic interpretation?
Maybe for Venezuela, but surely not Ok. City.
Earthquakes in Venezuela and Oklahoma City #tcot #atheism #god- http://tinyurl.com/yd6ruer
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joel L. Watts and Abraham Varghese, Santa Claus. Santa Claus said: "Earthquakes in Venezuela and Oklahoma City | The Church of Je…" http://tinyurl.com/y87bezr On Santa Claus' 2010 List [...]
Earthquakes in Venezuela and Oklahoma City | The Church of Jesus … http://bit.ly/5HE7SN
"Earthquakes in Venezuela and Oklahoma City | The Church of Je…" http://tinyurl.com/y87bezr On Santa Claus' 2010 List
Well, isn’t this one of the signs of the times for which we should praise God?
This is biting sarcasm which I don’t do very often at all so don’t judge me by this one post alone. Again, it’s sarcasm, satire, a parody.
In case that link doesn’t work, here it is again:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/01/praise-god-for-disaster-in-haiti-isnt.html
Cheers.
Unfortunately, John, many people will see it as such instead of recognizing that when you sit your community on a fault line, things will happen.
Hey Joel, is this comment of yours supposed to be taken seriously? You do realize that in my book I destroyed such an excuse. [Hint: where on earth is a safe place to live?]
Tell you what. Show me you really care about the truth. Take the “Debunking Christianity Challenge.” Others are. Why don’t you? Start with my book. As I said, it won’t hurt anyone. If being better informed is its own reward it will be beneficial. See what you think afterward. Write a book about it and I’ll write the Foreword to it, no matter what you conclude.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/01/still-another-christian-takes-debunking.html
John, I really don’t know what to say about your first line. First, people are going to believe what they want, and no matter what, superstition plays a factor all too often. My point is that when you sit your community on a fault line or in a swamp which is periodically hit by hurricanes, then at some point, you have to accept the idea that natural disasters occur. Even biblical writers understood nature as a force which plays to its own music.
Regarding your challenge, what about you? Have you not thought to take up other methods of faith, such as apophatic? And why is is that fundamentalism is the natural course? Christianity was formed on fundamentalism, and yet that seems to be the thought of many atheists. How do you know God doesn’t exist? You seem to still view God through the lens of fundamentalism.
I have so many books to read now, that frankly, I don’t have much time. I might pick a book up once I finish my other books, and if I decide to, I’ll let you know. The first one, of course, will be your book, that I can promise you.
John, I did look at your Debunking Christianity challenge. My conclusion was that your strategy was simply to ask people to keep reading non-sequitors and claims made by mendacious and dishonest teachers with the hope that something sinks in. Christians have already been fed a steady diet of this for two centuries. Get a life!
Well, isn’t this one of the signs of the times for which we should praise God?
This is biting sarcasm which I don’t do very often at all so don’t judge me by this one post alone. Again, it’s sarcasm, satire, a parody.
In case that link doesn’t work, here it is again:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/01/praise-god-for-disaster-in-haiti-isnt.html
Cheers.
Unfortunately, John, many people will see it as such instead of recognizing that when you sit your community on a fault line, things will happen.
Hey Joel, is this comment of yours supposed to be taken seriously? You do realize that in my book I destroyed such an excuse. [Hint: where on earth is a safe place to live?]
Tell you what. Show me you really care about the truth. Take the “Debunking Christianity Challenge.” Others are. Why don’t you? Start with my book. As I said, it won’t hurt anyone. If being better informed is its own reward it will be beneficial. See what you think afterward. Write a book about it and I’ll write the Foreword to it, no matter what you conclude.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/01/still-another-christian-takes-debunking.html
John, I really don’t know what to say about your first line. First, people are going to believe what they want, and no matter what, superstition plays a factor all too often. My point is that when you sit your community on a fault line or in a swamp which is periodically hit by hurricanes, then at some point, you have to accept the idea that natural disasters occur. Even biblical writers understood nature as a force which plays to its own music.
Regarding your challenge, what about you? Have you not thought to take up other methods of faith, such as apophatic? And why is is that fundamentalism is the natural course? Christianity was formed on fundamentalism, and yet that seems to be the thought of many atheists. How do you know God doesn’t exist? You seem to still view God through the lens of fundamentalism.
I have so many books to read now, that frankly, I don’t have much time. I might pick a book up once I finish my other books, and if I decide to, I’ll let you know. The first one, of course, will be your book, that I can promise you.
John, I did look at your Debunking Christianity challenge. My conclusion was that your strategy was simply to ask people to keep reading non-sequitors and claims made by mendacious and dishonest teachers with the hope that something sinks in. Christians have already been fed a steady diet of this for two centuries. Get a life!
Thanks Joel. By the time you get around to reading it you might as well pick up my second published book coming out at the end of April too, titled: “The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.” Surely you’ve seen the advanced blurbs for it:
http://sites.google.com/site/thechristiandelusion/Home/blurbs
Point of clarification though, I went through several versions of Christianity. From a 17 year old Bible thumper, to an evangelical, to a moderate, to a liberal, to existential deism, agnosticism, and finally agnostic atheism (which, at best, is all anyone can claim). These later stages blended in with each other and I cannot specify at what date I stepped into the next one, but a few of them lasted for years, like liberalism and deism and agnosticism. And I can and do argue against each stage, having fully accepted them for a period of time. It’s just that I’ve narrowed the focus of my blog and books to evangelicalism for a good reason; that is the most prevalent faith and the most pernicious one to be found in America where I live.
I have read dozens of books representing every stage too, and none of them could hold me in their respective stage. So the DC challenge is to read the opposition, like what I present in my books, for you to consider these arguments for yourself.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible religions, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Hi Looney!
John, I completely understand why I dismiss Islam, etc… and I completely understand why I dismiss atheism had to the very real fact that God is.
Thanks Joel. By the time you get around to reading it you might as well pick up my second published book coming out at the end of April too, titled: “The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.” Surely you’ve seen the advanced blurbs for it:
http://sites.google.com/site/thechristiandelusion/Home/blurbs
Point of clarification though, I went through several versions of Christianity. From a 17 year old Bible thumper, to an evangelical, to a moderate, to a liberal, to existential deism, agnosticism, and finally agnostic atheism (which, at best, is all anyone can claim). These later stages blended in with each other and I cannot specify at what date I stepped into the next one, but a few of them lasted for years, like liberalism and deism and agnosticism. And I can and do argue against each stage, having fully accepted them for a period of time. It’s just that I’ve narrowed the focus of my blog and books to evangelicalism for a good reason; that is the most prevalent faith and the most pernicious one to be found in America where I live.
I have read dozens of books representing every stage too, and none of them could hold me in their respective stage. So the DC challenge is to read the opposition, like what I present in my books, for you to consider these arguments for yourself.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible religions, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Hi Looney!
John, I completely understand why I dismiss Islam, etc… and I completely understand why I dismiss atheism had to the very real fact that God is.
Just let me know if and when you get my book. We could discuss it back and forth on our blogs if you wish. Other blogger would be interested in chiming in.
Cheers.
I’ll do that, John.
Just let me know if and when you get my book. We could discuss it back and forth on our blogs if you wish. Other blogger would be interested in chiming in.
Cheers.
I’ll do that, John.
The book looks interesting. Might just fetch a copy too.
The book looks interesting. Might just fetch a copy too.
John, thanks for pointing the book out (The Christian Delusion). I ordered it and will read it thoroughly! Being a Christian teacher, I like to be up on these things.
Thanks Loony! You interest me.
But remember what I said in the introduction to the book you just ordered:
“As the editor of this book I envisioned it as an extension of my previous one titled, Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2008), which I think of as essential background reading for the chapters in this one. All the themes in this present book expand on issues raised there. I personally think this book delivers a powerful blow to conservative Christianity, especially when combined with its predecessor. Someone has to tell the Emperor he has no clothes on. These two books help to do just that.”
Have you read the blurbs for my previous book?:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-i-became-atheist.html
As you should know by now, I’m no intellectual slouch.
Cheers.
John, I hadn’t read the earlier blurb, but Amazon did encourage the buying of both books. I may get that too, but Julian (Against the Galileans) and Porphyry (Against the Christians) are also on my reading list. Gotta start with the Debunking Christianity classics!
The classics? Damn, I forgot to add the classics. Too bad about Celsus, right? I’m collecting a bibliography of works critical of Christianity for another anthology, so based on my research it will take you a while before you get to the 21st century books, but best of luck. In reading them I have found that the arguments on both sides continually get better and better.
John, I am a bit skeptical (yes, I am a skeptic!) regarding the “better and better” on “both sides”, but will happily keep reading.
What do you think a classical Stoic philosopher would make of modern arguments against Christianity based on the idea that God is cruel?
Stoicism was historically prior to Christianity except what we find in Marcus Aurelius’s “Meditations,” but from what I remember he never specifically criticized Christianity and it’s not known how well his work was circulated after his death.
In any case, the argument from evil keeps having more and more force as our moral sensibilities continue being heightened. Christians themselves didn’t come to a consensus of the view that God was perfectly good until Anselm. So until that time the argument from evil wouldn’t have had as much force. But with that conception of God we’re seen that as our notions of morality has evolved so also is it repugnant to more and more people what we find in the world and in the Bible, especially the OT. To answer these recent skeptical attacks Christian philosophers are continually being forced to come up with better responses, like Plantinga’s “free will defense” in light of J.I. Mackie’s logical argument (which blows both Epicurus and Hume’s arguments out of the water); Hasker’s argument that gratuitous evil is not incompatible with a perfect God; Wykstra’s CORNEA defense in the face of Rowe’s arguments; and finally the skeptical theist position of Howard-Snyder. So this debate keeps getting more and more sophisticated on both sides.
Thanks for that response. There is much that you wrote that I agree with, although I would switch “moral sensibilities continue being heightened” to “moral sensibilities continued being lowered”. This phenomenon was noted by Polybius: The final stages of the degeneracy of the first Greek democracy was one of a lack of piety towards the gods, combined with “each man’s livelihood depended on the property of his neighbor” and finishing in total moral degeneracy. Those who are narcissistic tend to find arguments that they are victims of the nasty gods compelling too, and they have a very strong belief in charity (a heightened sense of morality?), as long as it is someone else who is compelled to do the giving and they are primarily beneficiaries. Of course the argument from evil was mentioned in Mark 1:24.
I will have to leave the other arguments off, since I have read Anselm’s writings, but not much of the others. My main impression regarding Anselm is that he is arguing beyond the limits of human understanding.
John, thanks for pointing the book out (The Christian Delusion). I ordered it and will read it thoroughly! Being a Christian teacher, I like to be up on these things.
Thanks Loony! You interest me.
But remember what I said in the introduction to the book you just ordered:
“As the editor of this book I envisioned it as an extension of my previous one titled, Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2008), which I think of as essential background reading for the chapters in this one. All the themes in this present book expand on issues raised there. I personally think this book delivers a powerful blow to conservative Christianity, especially when combined with its predecessor. Someone has to tell the Emperor he has no clothes on. These two books help to do just that.”
Have you read the blurbs for my previous book?:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-i-became-atheist.html
As you should know by now, I’m no intellectual slouch.
Cheers.
John, I hadn’t read the earlier blurb, but Amazon did encourage the buying of both books. I may get that too, but Julian (Against the Galileans) and Porphyry (Against the Christians) are also on my reading list. Gotta start with the Debunking Christianity classics!
The classics? Damn, I forgot to add the classics. Too bad about Celsus, right? I’m collecting a bibliography of works critical of Christianity for another anthology, so based on my research it will take you a while before you get to the 21st century books, but best of luck. In reading them I have found that the arguments on both sides continually get better and better.
John, I am a bit skeptical (yes, I am a skeptic!) regarding the “better and better” on “both sides”, but will happily keep reading.
What do you think a classical Stoic philosopher would make of modern arguments against Christianity based on the idea that God is cruel?
Stoicism was historically prior to Christianity except what we find in Marcus Aurelius’s “Meditations,” but from what I remember he never specifically criticized Christianity and it’s not known how well his work was circulated after his death.
In any case, the argument from evil keeps having more and more force as our moral sensibilities continue being heightened. Christians themselves didn’t come to a consensus of the view that God was perfectly good until Anselm. So until that time the argument from evil wouldn’t have had as much force. But with that conception of God we’re seen that as our notions of morality has evolved so also is it repugnant to more and more people what we find in the world and in the Bible, especially the OT. To answer these recent skeptical attacks Christian philosophers are continually being forced to come up with better responses, like Plantinga’s “free will defense” in light of J.I. Mackie’s logical argument (which blows both Epicurus and Hume’s arguments out of the water); Hasker’s argument that gratuitous evil is not incompatible with a perfect God; Wykstra’s CORNEA defense in the face of Rowe’s arguments; and finally the skeptical theist position of Howard-Snyder. So this debate keeps getting more and more sophisticated on both sides.
Thanks for that response. There is much that you wrote that I agree with, although I would switch “moral sensibilities continue being heightened” to “moral sensibilities continued being lowered”. This phenomenon was noted by Polybius: The final stages of the degeneracy of the first Greek democracy was one of a lack of piety towards the gods, combined with “each man’s livelihood depended on the property of his neighbor” and finishing in total moral degeneracy. Those who are narcissistic tend to find arguments that they are victims of the nasty gods compelling too, and they have a very strong belief in charity (a heightened sense of morality?), as long as it is someone else who is compelled to do the giving and they are primarily beneficiaries. Of course the argument from evil was mentioned in Mark 1:24.
I will have to leave the other arguments off, since I have read Anselm’s writings, but not much of the others. My main impression regarding Anselm is that he is arguing beyond the limits of human understanding.
Looney, I wrote about the changing moral sensibilities in WIBA. Genghis Khan would make Hitler out to be a bleed heart liberal. Okay, that’s an overstatement. Just think feminism, slavery, inquisition, witch hunts. Think Odysseus or Judges 19-21 too. Civilized western democratic people would not stand for this. When America conquers a land we try to help them rebuild, unlike Alexander the Great or Caesar Augustus. We don’t steal it like we did in Manifest Destiny.
Although, when threatened we can all revert back to our animal natures.
Cheers.
John, it is true that sensibilities change over time. Cyrus was into nation rebuilding also. On the other hand, the western Democracies stood by while Stalin killed more people than Genghis Khan did.
My claim is that the arguments against God based on the existence of evil only make sense to a particular modernist culture that is limited to the US and western Europe.
Your last sentence might be right.
Looney, I wrote about the changing moral sensibilities in WIBA. Genghis Khan would make Hitler out to be a bleed heart liberal. Okay, that’s an overstatement. Just think feminism, slavery, inquisition, witch hunts. Think Odysseus or Judges 19-21 too. Civilized western democratic people would not stand for this. When America conquers a land we try to help them rebuild, unlike Alexander the Great or Caesar Augustus. We don’t steal it like we did in Manifest Destiny.
Although, when threatened we can all revert back to our animal natures.
Cheers.
John, it is true that sensibilities change over time. Cyrus was into nation rebuilding also. On the other hand, the western Democracies stood by while Stalin killed more people than Genghis Khan did.
My claim is that the arguments against God based on the existence of evil only make sense to a particular modernist culture that is limited to the US and western Europe.
Your last sentence might be right.