He Lives: Haiti's Misery provides fodder for Pat Roberston

I first heard about Pat Roberston's remark about the disaster in Haiti that came yesterday. David wrote:

Pat Robertson, on Haiti,

They made a deal with Satan.

Robertson reports that "Haiti" said to Satan: "We will serve you [Satan] if you get us free from the French." According to Robertson, Satan responded: "Okay, it's a deal."

Here is the video. The money quote begins around the six minute mark of the video.

I can't believe Roberston could be that stupid. Bad things don't happen to people because they made a deal with Satan. The truth is Haitian rebellion from the French happened because God allowed it and America was blessed by their freedom. Remember they bankrupted Napoleon to the point that he had to sell the Louisiana territory to the U.S. effectively doubling it. Besides loosing Haiti and loosing to Russia weakened Napoleon enough so that the British could win and start their own empire for the next 100 years! The Haitian War for independence was a watershed event that was pivotal to world history.

I think Roberston thinks that Haiti must have done something really wrong for all the horrors, not just the Earthquake, that they deal with. He thinks that God is punishing them. That makes no sense. Why don't we just see what Jesus had to say about this.

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." - Luke 13: 1-5

He Lives: Haiti's Misery provides fodder for Pat Roberston

The Nature of Morality part 2 of 2

As I talked about in part 1, I had been dialoguing with Beechbum about the existence of God and it ultimately came down to whether or not morality is an objective reality or depends only on what we as people agree on. I promised to respond to his point that marriage and ultimately adultery are not universal because of a handful of cultures do not accept marriage as we have in western culture. He pointed to two cultures as an example: the Na of China and Kung San in Africa. 

I checked out Kung San of Africa but I could find not example of marriage being unrecognized. All i could find was references to wedding rites. Sorry, but if you have wedding rites, private or public, your society recognizes marriage.

The Na of China (also known as the Moso)  is a lot more complex. Describing their society as not recognizing marriage is a little dishonest. They don't have the institution as we have come to define it.  Added to the myths and misunderstanding about them has not made the situation any clearer. The best resource I found on the internet was a pdf file written by Tami Blumenfield in which she attempts to debunk the myths. She points out that while to our western minds doing away with strict monogamous legal contracts, which is what marriage has become here, would promote promiscuity and abandoned children but the Na have little of that. I think that in evaluating their customs it leads us to view our own ideas of what marriage is and what it should be.

It seems to be that what the Na have is not marriage if you define marriage as a legal contract obliging a man and a woman to one another for a lifetime. But given that most of the children see and interact with their fathers, and the fathers are obligated to support the children and the children's mother, describing the Na as without "fathers" is a lie.  Of course they have fathers. Also that men have lattitude to have multiple families and women in their lives is not unheard of. The difference between polygamous societies and even our own with the Na is that the man is not legally liable to any of the women. She is free to be with who ever she wants. That's not marriage but it is what we call "an open-marriage" without the baggage of  legalistic or monogamous expectation.

Some of the articles I read seems to look at the Na system as a good one. But what does the Bible say is the ideal?  I know many will point to the polygamy illustrated in the Old Testament but never does the Bible neither condemn nor confirm that polygamy is good for people. Given the context of the Na, the system does not fall apart completely in a matriarchal world where the needs of the group/family are more important in the individual. In no way would this work in our patriarchal and selfish society. I'm not sharing my wife with anyone. In the culture shown to us  in the Bible, polygamy was allowed because some women would have had no means of support or protection if they were not married.  But I think one example shows us why it's not the best situation. Remember Jacob had four wives and according to Genesis between the wives and their children fighting, I doubt Jacob had a moment peace! No thank you.  Beechbum even admitted that it is best for a child to have father and mother in the same household...even the Na actually have that  although the households share the men.

The thing I noticed was that the ideal that all cultures really strive for is a man and a woman together in the same household with children...at least part of the time.  They all  go for it and all fall short without God. Why? Because it is a universal decree for the Creator, but because of sin, we can't do it perfectly without God. Much more could be said but the conclusion of the research I have done shows me that adultery is still wrong in every culture. The Na can break up and hook up with one another but there are still rules that govern their behavior. Rults that show that they still feel jealousy and want consistent and reliable mates even if they don't have a word meaning  "jealousy". So back to what the Bible says about the ideal. Let's end with what Jesus said.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Matthew 19: 3-12

See? We were never meant to divorce our wives for any and all reasons. The Old Testament was clear on that even as Jesus demonstrated. Marriage was meant to protect men and women not subjugate women or classify them as property! One man - one woman - is the best and moral structure for a marriage.

Sources:
Shunya's Notes: The Na of China
A Society Without Fathers And Husbands: The Na of China
A World Without Fathers and Husbands
Moso
THE NA OF SOUTHWEST CHINA: DEBUNKING THE MYTHS
Tribes in the Kalahari desert South Africa

Strong Earthquake Hits Haiti - Sphere News

We all need to pray for the people of Haiti. We are talking about huge earthquake in the place in the western hemisphere least able to handle it. My father-in-law lives in Port au Prince and my wife still has much family in the area. There is still no word from them yet, but we will keep praying and beleive God that He will make everything workout. I have found the following news article that sums up what we know thus far. Following it are some videos.

Strong Earthquake Hits Haiti - Sphere News

Hazakim

I've posted a few articles about Hazakim on the blog. I love their music. It's not just good hip hop...it's awesome music. More important than that their message straight from God. They boast clever uses of language combined with sound exegesis. These two videos are based on two songs from their latest album. I can't wait for the next album!







Hazakim - more Info

Why I am Not a Roman Catholic

Alan Kurschner has posted a great article on the Pros Apologian blog on why he isn't a Roman Catholic. He quotes Tim Staples, a Roman Catholic apologist, saying thus:

"The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific."

Kurschner is not taking Staples out of context. Dr James White actually played the comment in context on his webcast recently! Tim Staples actually said this. I don't think it's fair to say that that all Roman Catholics believe this way or would agree with Staples, but from what I understand it is the official view of the Pope and what is taught from the Vatican. I vehemently disagree. Totally not Scriptural. It's important because this is the core of the Gospel that we are admonished and commanded to teach. Staples is postulating a different Gospel. In rebuttal, Kurschner printed Isaiah 52:13–53:11. Staples is not the only one who teaches this. Some Protestants do too. Norman Geisler wrote something similar in his bid to redefine the Calvinism/Arminan debate in his book Chosen be Free. God really wanted to drive the point home that is by Jesus' death our sins are atoned for and by his Resurrection we are justified!

Jesus' sacrifice was complete and perfect for all who their faith in Him! I like how 1 Peter 3: 17 - 19 puts it!

It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison

I've heard that James White will soon debate Tim Staples January 28 at 4pm MST on Purgatory and I hope it will help those who have not recognized that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins and the only offering that has any power to save us. It will most certainly come up.

Why I am Not a Roman Catholic

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Various Resurrection Related Issues

Mariano has written a great post about various issues related to the Trinity and Resurrection. I've really enjoyed his series about the Trinity and I know that if you have any desire to know if the doctrine of the Trinity is correct and Biblical, Mariano's articles are a great place to begin your research! The issues discussed are:

Importance of Resurrection
Resurrection is Physical
Resurrection Prophesied and Witnessed
Who Resurrected Jesus?

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Various Resurrection Related Issues