When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

[columbusdude82]

 When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?
by Thomas Sutcliffe, Independent
Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/thomas_sutcliffe/article2730465.ece

Published: 03 July 2007

On the face of it, the Bishop of Carlisle and the young man who staggered blazing from that Jeep at Glasgow Airport on Saturday afternoon don't have a lot in common. The Right Reverend Graham Dow is a grey-haired man with a twinkling smile, rarely armed with anything more lethal than a crozier.

That wannabe martyr - his 72 expectant virgins currently tapping their fingers impatiently in Paradise - had a head wreathed in fire and a Molotov cocktail in his hand. The Bishop of Carlisle is a diocesan bishop in the Church of England, not a sect commonly associated with acts of terror, while the as-yet-unnamed jihadi is, one guesses, an adherent of Wahabi Islam, a sect which very much is. And yet, on a spiritual level, it seems that they do share one thing. They both believe in a vindictive God.

We already know how this belief was translated into action in the case of that young man at Glasgow Airport. He was prepared to incinerate young children and women and Muslims - anybody, frankly, who was unlucky enough to be on the other side of the entrance doors when he crashed through them. In the infamous words of a Christian zealot - "Kill them all, God will know his own".

The Bishop of Carlisle's expression of retribution took a much milder form: he expressed the view that the recent floods in the north of England were a sign of God's displeasure, not only at our environmental fecklessness but also at our wilful refusal, as a society, to discriminate against homosexuals.

"This is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way," he said. "We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation."

Some of us are reaping it a lot more directly than others, of course. Take Ryan Parry, a Sheffield schoolboy who was drowned last week. Or Michael Barnett, who got his foot stuck in a drain in Hull and succumbed after a four-hour battle to save him. Quite why these two people, and their grieving families, should have been singled out to bear the brunt of God's judgement isn't clear - and by yesterday afternoon, the Bishop's spokesman was busily back-pedalling. But he didn't explain away the Bishop's remark that the problem with "environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate".

The logic of this seems to suggest that God is prepared to kill innocent people in order to get his message across. And if the Bishop is right, it isn't just us that God is disappointed with. He's furious with the people of Pakistan, where serious flooding has left 900,000 homeless, and Afghanistan, where 80 have died in recent storms, and Kansas and Texas, too, where floods have devastated communities and left people homeless. Then again, with a killer this "indiscriminate" about collateral damage, only a bishop could be sure what the message is.

Of course, there are important differences between the bishop and the Glasgow attacker. The bishop restricts himself to condoning the actions of a terrorist God, while the human fireball appointed himself as a direct tool of divine wrath. It's hardly a distinction to be sneezed at in these dangerous times. But it's not quite enough to quell the sense that the bishop finds himself in a distant intellectual kinship with the suicide bomber - both worshippers of a God who communicates through the deaths of innocents.

[columbusdude82]

I just read this article a few minutes ago. It strikes me as having a good deal of substance, and raising questions that the religious crowd tend to shy away from.

If natural disasters are really the vengeance of this petty, angry God, and if he gets his message across by means of indiscriminate killing of innocents and heartless "collateral damage," doesn't that make God the worst terrorist ever?

And why do the faithful have to strain their imaginations to find such problematic explanations for natural disasters, when the real reasons are staring us in the face? (Earthquakes: movements in the earth's crust, floods: too much rainfall, etc)

[24Hourpro]

God does not cause every natural disaster. That is a presupposition in your article.

Nobody is an innocent and we are all responsible, in part, for bad things that happen because we bring sin into our world.

[columbusdude82]

God does not cause every natural disaster. That is a presupposition in your article.

No, I do not presuppose that. Assuming you are right, which natural disasters does God cause? Why? Does he pick his victims with care or does he murder at whim? What about the other natural disasters? Why won't he stop them?

[24KT]

Great Article!!!   

[Butterbean]

In the infamous words of a Christian zealot - "Kill them all, God will know his own".

Curious as to who said that and in what situation.

The Bishop of Carlisle's expression of retribution took a much milder form: he expressed the view that the recent floods in the north of England were a sign of God's displeasure, not only at our environmental fecklessness but also at our wilful refusal, as a society, to discriminate against homosexuals.

"This is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way," he said. "We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation."

Just because "a bishop" says this doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

Then again, with a killer this "indiscriminate" about collateral damage, only a bishop could be sure what the message is.

Obviously a facetious statement and one meant to titillate people that disapprove of "religion." 

Obviously I don't think God is an indiscriminate "killer" but I do find the sarcasm in the last part of the statement appropriate.

Nobody is an innocent and we are all responsible, in part, for bad things that happen because we bring sin into our world.

agree

No, I do not presuppose that. Assuming you are right, which natural disasters does God cause? Why? Does he pick his victims with care or does he murder at whim? What about the other natural disasters? Why won't he stop them?

Sin coming into the world w/Adam and Eve began the possibility/probability for natural disasters.  Doe God "cause" some of them?  Maybe...maybe not.  No one can presume to know...not even some "bishop." 

If God does cause any, or chooses not to stop some, He is free to take whomever He wants. 

[columbusdude82]

Sin coming into the world w/Adam and Eve began the possibility/probability for natural disasters. 

False.
Our planet is a few BILLION years old. Adam and Eve are fictitious people from an allegorical story, as most churches teach nowadays. Let us suppose, for an instant, that they actually existed, and were homo sapiens like us. To be charitable, let's say they lived 10,000 years ago.

So what you are saying is that for the entire, 4 billion or so year history of our planet, there was never a "natural disaster" until the last 10,000 years or so, an instant in the lifetime of our planet.

You are saying that the earth's crust was not moving (so there were no earthquakes), it was sealed to all magma (so there were no volcanic eruptions), the climate was mild all over the planet (there were no ice ages, no large storms, no tornadoes, no tsunamis, no heat waves, ...), there were no floods, etc etc etc

Then all of a sudden, in the last instant of the earth's existence, two people ate from a tree, so the earth instantaneously developed plate tectonics, weather phenomena, and all that. Yeah it makes perfect sense doesn't it!

Besides, who determines what a "natural disaster" is? If any one event in the earth's history can be called a disaster, it is the collision of an asteroid with the earth about 65 million years ago that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now that was definitely a "natural disaster" for the dinosaurs, but it was a tremendous blessing for our mammal ancestors, who were no longer appetizers for T-rex.

Our friend Colossus_500 says that until the fall of Adam and Eve, lions and other such carnivores didn't eat humans. Homo sapiens have been around for about 150,000 years. Other similar species (homo habilis, homo ergaster, etc) have been around for 4 million or so. Presumably, lions didn't eat any of them for all that time, but when that naughty woman ate from a tree, the cats suddenly developed a taste for human flesh. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

When will people learn that:
1. Sin does not cause earthquakes, plate tectonics does.
2. Sin does not cause plagues, germs do.
3. Sin does not cause floods, intense rainfall does.
...

[Butterbean]

False.
Our planet is a few BILLION years old. Adam and Eve are fictitious people from an allegorical story, as most churches teach nowadays. Let us suppose, for an instant, that they actually existed, and were homo sapiens like us. To be charitable, let's say they lived 10,000 years ago.

So what you are saying is that for the entire, 4 billion or so year history of our planet, there was never a "natural disaster" until the last 10,000 years or so, an instant in the lifetime of our planet.

You are saying that the earth's crust was not moving (so there were no earthquakes), it was sealed to all magma (so there were no volcanic eruptions), the climate was mild all over the planet (there were no ice ages, no large storms, no tornadoes, no tsunamis, no heat waves, ...), there were no floods, etc etc etc

Then all of a sudden, in the last instant of the earth's existence, two people ate from a tree, so the earth instantaneously developed plate tectonics, weather phenomena, and all that. Yeah it makes perfect sense doesn't it!

Besides, who determines what a "natural disaster" is? If any one event in the earth's history can be called a disaster, it is the collision of an asteroid with the earth about 65 million years ago that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now that was definitely a "natural disaster" for the dinosaurs, but it was a tremendous blessing for our mammal ancestors, who were no longer appetizers for T-rex.

Our friend Colossus_500 says that until the fall of Adam and Eve, lions and other such carnivores didn't eat humans. Homo sapiens have been around for about 150,000 years. Other similar species (homo habilis, homo ergaster, etc) have been around for 4 million or so. Presumably, lions didn't eat any of them for all that time, but when that naughty woman ate from a tree, the cats suddenly developed a taste for human flesh. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

When will people learn that:
1. Sin does not cause earthquakes, plate tectonics does.
2. Sin does not cause plagues, germs do.
3. Sin does not cause floods, intense rainfall does.
...

You have faith that your beliefs are correct and I have faith that mine are correct

[columbusdude82]

No. With all due respect, I have EVIDENCE from all the great accomplishments of science, and you have faith in the inerrancy of a fairly recent (2 thousand or so years old) book. There is a TREMENDOUS difference.

Are you denying plate tectonics, evolution, geology, the fossil record, molecular biology, and the germ theory of disease?

[Butterbean]

No. With all due respect, I have EVIDENCE from all the great accomplishments of science, and you have faith in the inerrancy of a fairly recent (2 thousand or so years old) book. There is a TREMENDOUS difference.

Are you denying plate tectonics, evolution, geology, the fossil record, molecular biology, and the germ theory of disease?

Due respect returned......

Where did you get your information?  If not from your own discovery/experience then from books?  How old are they?  Who wrote them?  Why do you accept them as true? 

[columbusdude82]

I see... Well, let's pick one. Do you think disease is caused by germs or the wrath of God?

If the latter, then when you get sick, you must not go to the doctor, because that would be an attempt on your part to circumvent the judgement of God.

If the common cold is a punishment from God, then the next time you get it, don't take any medications. Just pray to God to forgive you and cure you. If it progresses to pneumonia, you will have your answer...

[Butterbean]

I see... Well, let's pick one. Do you think disease is caused by germs or the wrath of God?

If we go back to the beginning, I believe God created a perfect world and I believe disease is caused by sin entering the world.   Do I believe God could "cause" someone to have a disease if He chose to?  Yes.  But in general I'd say it was from a course of instances which would involve "germs" as you say and including viruses, lifestyle choices which include what we eat and drink etc. etc.

If the latter, then when you get sick, you must not go to the doctor, because that would be an attempt on your part to circumvent the judgement of God.

If the common cold is a punishment from God, then the next time you get it, don't take any medications. Just pray to God to forgive you and cure you. If it progresses to pneumonia, you will have your answer...

Would you then conclude we should never cut our hair or mow the lawn or rebuild a town that was destroyed by a tornado?

I guess I don't understand your logic here.  Have you been exposed to "Christian Science?"

[columbusdude82]

I believe disease is caused by sin entering the world.  

False. Disease-causing agents, like microbes and bacteria, have been around for hundreds of millions of years before complex multicellular organisms like plants and animals. For many hundreds of millions of years before the first hominids, plants and animals have suffered from disease. Over the past few million years, the early human-like apes suffered from all sorts of diseases (and we have their remains to prove it).

It follows that disease by far pre-dates humans and their creation myths, so it could not have been a result of them.

Ergo, disease is not caused by sin. QED.