I've been told that good blogs are short. I don't often write short. And I've been told that many times my blogs are over people's heads. I don't write easy. So I'm going to try to take an extremely sticky question and write a response to it that is both brief and easy to understand. It's a good experiment. Let's see how I do.
Q: "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
A: They don't (with the exception, of course, of Christ).
(Hint: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3:10-12).)
Whew! That was tough. I think I got everything in there I needed to. Short enough? Clear enough? You be sure to let me know!
19 comments:
You mean they can't use that as an excuse? :-) Very good, short post. The truth is, without bad things, we'd never learn to cherish the good. Mankind needs bad things to happen, because he never learns.
It was good as well...
I agree when I'm reading that short is good. But when I'm writting it's a different story. My "edit post" section is filled with unpublished posts because at some point in the middle I decide this is too long and nobody's going to read it.
When I'm speaking with people about the Lord (normally at work) and am confronted with the question about good people and bad things I will always tell them I have a better question: Why does God allow good things to happen to bad people. That, I think, is the more appropriate question and many times I see a light bulb come on in their head.
I agree, generally... shorter is better.
Also, I agree with your short, clear answer.
you're kidding right? then explain Job.
i mean... you've read the bible right? what kind of stupid are you, the ignorant kind or the willfully ignorant kind?
Excellent! Come in anonymously and roll out unkind, uncalled for insults. That ought to make your case for you, eh?
Job was a sinner. With the singular exception of Christ, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There is none good. Because God provides a means of escape, a path to salvation, does not mean that God is obligated to humans.
Since the underlying question, "What about Job?", seemed a valid question, I allowed your comment and respond to it. I won't allow or respond to another one if it's this kind of mean-spirited attack. I'm always glad to talk about ideas. I don't need to tolerate personal attacks.
Oh, and if you think that trotting out Job with this kind of venom makes you more Christian, think again. (I'm not saying you think that. I simply said "if".)
Job is a wonderful story, anonymous. Have you read it? Take a minute and read Job 33:14-28. Elihu, speaking in the spirit, points out that bad things happen to show us that our souls are in danger of destruction.
Anonymous,
I told you I wouldn't allow another response if it's this kind of mean-spirited attack. Your second response 1) didn't respond to the responses you got and 2) was another mean-spirited attack.
Read the "over-arching meta-narrative" of the Bible before you complain about how Job is understood. The Bible repeats over and over that all have sinned. It is a fundamental biblical truth that all men are sinners. Now, you may choose to read Job as sinless when it says "blameless", but you'll have to correlate that with all the other passages in the Bible (not just Job) that say "there is none good but God" -- oh, wait ... that was Jesus who said that.
There are a couple other points in the book of Job to consider, such as Job's demand that God give him an answer -- Job 31:35 -- and notice that God has His say. He does not commend Job. He says, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2). That is not, "Hey, Job, you're right ... you are completely sinless.
But like I said, if you come in anonymously and spout off without respect, don't expect me to post your comments.
P.S. By "didn't respond to the responses you got" I meant that you still come in as "anonymous", thinking somehow that anonymity gives you the right to be unkind, and that the approach is NOT kind despite the command that we defend our beliefs with "gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15-16). If, for instance, you had said, "I disagree with your understanding," we might have been able to talk. "You're stupid and willfully ignorant" puts an end to any conversation. Those (and the reference Jim gave) are the parts you never responded to.
well i appologize, thank you for laying out my own anger. my anger is really hot on this issue because it really drives a wedge between me and religion. you see, i was raped. i refuse to believe that there's anything i could have done that would warrant that response from God. I can't believe that everything that happens is the will of God. Process Theology has helped me out tremendously in this regard. (and for the record, i wasn't drunk, dressed slutty or anything like that.. it was a big burly guy taking advantage of a small woman).
so my anger wasn't really directed at you. i remain anonyous because you wouldn't know me anyway. i'm just a nice Anglican girl who stumbled on this blog post from Jim's site.
sorry if i offended, but i feel you're misreading because you're priveledged enough to do so. those of us who have had completely random acts of violence committed upon them have another view.
Anonymous,
I'm sorry for your ... what's the right word ... ("misfortune" seems so incomplete) ... terrible experience.
I just wanted to make clear two things. First, no one is "privileged enough" to either misinterpret Scripture or, more to the point, claim that "nothing bad has ever happened to me." While levels vary and our understanding varies, all of us have been subject to events that most of us would consider "unwarranted", "something bad happened to a good person", or, as you put it, "random".
Second, for future reference, if you approach the conversation with that rather than anger, it is very easy to have a conversation. I can always discuss things with people who disagree with me strongly as long as we do it amicably. (Evidence Dagoods, a regular commenter, who is also a self-avowed atheist commenting on a self-avowed Christian blog.) Difference of viewpoint is not a problem.
"First, no one is "privileged enough" to either misinterpret Scripture or, more to the point, claim that "nothing bad has ever happened to me." -Stan
I'd say here's where your whole misunderstanding stems from. What we're going to argue here is degrees, because I agree with you in concept. But who can say "Bad things happen only to bad people" but those who have enough to eat, aren't being oppressed, and have some choice in their location.
Please read today's post. My point is not "Bad things only happen to bad people." My point is "There are no good people." I am not drawing a cause-and-effect line.
And I disagree that only people who are "well off" can say that. I read of a woman in Africa. She had lost her legs and was living in a cardboard box. She was excited to go to church. Someone said, "People in America aren't as excited as you are to go to church." She replied, "That's because we need Jesus more." She recognized her sorry condition, didn't see it as "unjust", and agreed that she needed Jesus ... without having enough to eat or having a choice where to live.
but a cause-and-effect are called for here... it's the Torah Doctrine of Retribution which you're setting up and that was used by the prophets to explain why Israel kept getting over-run by other empires.
so if a hurricane wipes out Florida or a twister or whatever natural disaster happens, is that God's will? Is that God's punishment for sinning?
See? We can have a friendly discussion on a difference of opinion.
My post made no cause-and-effect correlation. To me, the original question ("Why do bad things happen to good people?") is like asking "Why are all green people poor?" My response: "There are no green people." "Oh," someone replies, "so there is a correlation between non-green people and being poor?" No. There are no green people.
No, there are no good people. That's my point. No further. End of the post. No further correlations made.
There is the fact that all people are bad, and there is the fact that all bad people deserve justice, but the biblical version of justice may or may not be temporal.
Note, by the way, that your method of interpreting the Bible and my method are fundamentally different. As such, it is unavoidable that you and I will come to different conclusions. You believe it to be a man-made, nice-to-have book. I believe it to be a God-breathed, authoritative book. We will, by necessity, disagree on what it means.
"You believe it to be a man-made, nice-to-have book. I believe it to be a God-breathed, authoritative book. " -Stan
that is an assumption on your part. I very much believe the Bible to be God-breathed, that's why I am so insulted that you and John J. both totally misread Job.
Okay, so I get that there are no good people. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. So let's just cut out the good people part of the question and ask "Why do bad things happen?" Why was I raped, why did Katrina happen, or 9/11 for that matter?
I apologize. I thought that's what you told me. I thought you said it was written by men and, therefore, prone to error. (Note: The more accurate statement on your part would be that Jim and I disagree with your understanding of Job. To claim ours is a misreading is to claim absolute knowledge.)
As to the specifics -- "Why was I raped?", etc. -- here's what I said in the more recent entry and what I'll stick to: "If you want to get to specifics -- 'Why did this happen to me?' -- I'm afraid I won't be much help. I'm not good at guessing at those things ..." I may be arrogant in the view of some people, but I am not arrogant enough to suggest I know God's motivation in everything He does or allows. I did specifically say that I won't "assume 'It's the judgment of God'" because people in the Bible made the same assumption ... and they were wrong.
I know Job, it's my fav. book of the Old Testament. So I still say that you and Jim are misreading it. It would help if you would go back and read the whole thing. It's an interesting read as it refutes the prosperity gospel preached by Joel O. and his ilk.
I'm happy that you're not arrogant enough to think that you know God's motivation! That's a blessing as there's too many other people (preachers included, esp. them!) that think they know God's will and say things like "Not only is this punishment for your sins, here's what specifically!"
I'm happy you didn't go down that route and are critically engaged with God's word. Blessings to you, I think we have some what of a better understanding now.
There, see? It is possible to have a friendly and useful conversation with someone with whom you disagree without becoming belligerent.
(By the way, it would be a mistake to assume that I came to my conclusions regarding Job by not having read the whole thing. ;) On the other hand, I have no use for the prosperity gospel at all. :))
Post a Comment