Bodies lie in the rubble along Delmas road the day after an earthquake struck Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Wednesday, Jan. 13, 2010. A 7.0-magnitude earthquake, the largest ever recorded in the area, rocked Haiti on Tuesday. (AP Photo/Jorge Cruz)
Charlotte Spirituality & Health Examiner, Allen Bethea had this report about this weeks Haiti earthquake:
On Tuesday, January 12, 2009, the nation of Haiti was devastated by a earthquake of magnitude 7.0.
The US Geological Survey website is reporting the location of the quake as:
* 15 km (10 miles) SW of PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti
* 140 km (90 miles) E of Les Cayes, Haiti
* 145 km (90 miles) WNW of Barahona, Dominican Republic
* 1140 km (710 miles) SE of Miami, Florida
MSNBC is reporting over 3 million people are affected by the quake. Thousands of homes and other structures are damaged. The American Red Cross is has already released $200,000 in aid to Haiti. Those in the Charlotte area can go to the American Red Cross Greater Carolinas website, ,www.redcrosshelps.org and make a donation towards Haitian relief.
For Allen’s full story please visit his link. LINK
Evil calamities hit the regions wherever you live.
Evil calamities impact all of us in some way. Calamities hit all areas no matter where you live. The islands regions are faced with hurricanes and earthquakes, California has earthquakes and forest fires. Where I live in West Virginia, we face forest fires and floods each year.
When calamities occur, many are drawn to question their faith. But I have noticed that more questions come from those that have not experienced the calamity first hand, but rather from the outside onlookers. Those that have lived through the calamity and believe in God, rely upon that faith to pull them through.
Nonetheless, we must consider the questions posed by those that raise them. Some of these are very good questions that must be dealt with. One question which we always hear just after a calamity, is did God cause this evil to come about? An atheist puts it another way and asks, “If there is a God, why is there evil?” This is asked by the skeptic, not to understand so much, but to express what they see as a loophole in theology. I would like to look at this problem and see if this is only a problem for a believer.
First we need to answer the question as posed in the title of the article.
Did God cause the earthquake? Does God cause any evil?
Answer: Some would answer yes, God causes all things, while others answer God was not the first cause, but the second cause, by allowing it to happen. God is not the cause of any evil, but it is true that God allows evil to exist.
Amos 3:6... "Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?"
God's sovereignty over the world and the fact that evil exists does cause a issue, but not only in theology, he issue rests with all systems. But as believers of Gods sovereignty, one answer is not allowed. That being, ..."God had no idea the earthquake was going to happen".
He did know it would happen and allowed it even with full power to stop it.
Theologian John Frame says,
"It would be nice to have a solution to the problem of evil, but not at any price. If the price we must pay is the very sovereignty of God, the faithful Christian must say that the price is too high. After all, it is of little importance whether any of us discovers the answer to the problem of evil. It is possible to live a long and happy and faithful life without an answer. But it is all-important that we worship the true God, the God of Scripture. Without Him, human life is worth nothing."
So however we answer this problem of evil, (POE) the answer for the Calvinist will never be that God lost control and the earthquake just happen.
We also need to look at the atheistic argument of evil. Is the POE only a problem for the believer? Many theologians have addressed this with the answer being "no, It is a problem for atheist as well". Its a problem when the atheist admits there is evil. What makes "evil", evil and what makes "good", good?
Dr. Greg Bahnsen in his book “The Biblical Worldview” (Part I-VII:10; Oct., 1991) address this problem:
Accordingly, it is crucial to the unbeliever's case against Christianity to be in a position to assert that there is evil in the world -- to point to something and have the right to evaluate it as an instance of evil. If it should be the case that nothing evil exists or ever happens -- that is, what people initially believe to be evil cannot reasonably be deemed "evil" -- then there is nothing inconsistent with Christian theology which requires an answer.
What does the unbeliever mean by "good," or by what standard does the unbeliever determine what counts as "good" (so that "evil" is accordingly defined or identified)? What are the presuppositions in terms of which the unbeliever makes any moral judgments whatsoever?
Perhaps the unbeliever takes "good" to be whatever evokes public approval. However, on that basis the statement "The vast majority of the community heartily approved of and willingly joined in the evil deed" could never make sense. The fact that a large number of people of feel a certain way does not (or should not rationally) convince anybody that this feeling (about the goodness or evil of something) is correct. Ethics does not reduce to statistics, after all. Ordinarily, people think of the goodness of something as evoking their approval -- rather than their approval constituting its goodness! Even unbelievers talk and act as though there are personal traits, actions or things which possess the property of goodness (or evil) irrespective of the attitudes or beliefs or feelings people have about those traits, actions or things.
There are even further problems with taking "good" to be whatever evokes the approval of the individual (rather than public at large). Not only does this too reduce to subjectivism, it absurdly implies that no two individuals can make identical ethical judgments. When Bill says "Helping orphans is good," he would not be saying the same thing as when Ted says "Helping orphans is good." Bill's utterance means "Helping orphans evokes Bill's approval," whereas Ted's would mean "Helping orphans evokes Ted's approval" -- which are altogether different matters. Not only would this view make it impossible for two people to make identical ethical judgments, it would likewise (absurdly) imply that a person's own ethical judgments could never be mistaken, unless he happened to misunderstand his own feelings!
The unbeliever might turn, then, to an instrumental or consequential understanding of what constitutes objective goodness (or evil). For instance, an action or trait is good if it tends to achieve a certain end, like the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The irrelevance of such a notion for making ethical determinations is that one would need to be able to rate and compare happiness, as well as to be able to calculate all of the consequences of any given action or trait. This is simply impossible for finite minds (even with the help of computers). But more devastating is the observation that good may be taken to be whatever promotes general happiness only if it is antecedently the case that generalized happiness is itself "good." Any theory of ethics which focuses on the goodness of achieving a certain end (or consequence) will make sense only if it can establish that the chosen end (or consequence) is a good one to pursue and promote. Instrumental theories of goodness eventually must address the issue of intrinsic goodness, so that they can correctly determine what their goals ought to be.
Philosophically speaking, the problem of evil turns out to be, therefore, a problem for the unbeliever himself. In order to use the argument from evil against the Christian worldview, he must first be able to show that his judgments about the existence of evil are meaningful -- which is precisely what his unbelieving worldview is unable to do.
The Biblical Worldview is available at “Always Ready” © Covenant Media Foundation, 800/553-3938
So what is evil? It is the absence of good (God) as seen in the cute video clip that is said to be the words of Albert Einstein. See below link.