Haiti earthquake

[Barry]

Obviously the death toll is going to very high.
Perhaps we can think of the people of Haiti in our prayers.
Barry

[Amie]

Perhaps we can think of the people of Haiti in our prayers.

Amen. Am already.

Amie

[davo]

Yes it is a sad state indeed -- this seems almost as sad from Pat Robertson (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/pat-robertson-blames-haiti-suffering-on-pact-with-devil/story-e6frfku0-1225819075543)… makes you wonder??

[Lou]

It’s a terrible thing and they are so poor they have almost no inter structure to rely on. Pat Robertson shows his self righteousness often.

[Jotham]

Davo it's a shame isn't it. When i saw that on youtube the other day i was appauled . . . but not suprised. imo, PR is an embarrassment to the Christian community.

[Eric B]

Robertson is a classic example of what I call a "beneficiary" (as mentioned in the thoughts I've been sharing). Someone who has managed to get through this world of suffering with minimal expense, but rather has "made it" every bit as much as the secular government leaders and entertainers he might criticize. So people like that tend to think that their benefit status is some blessing from God for their faithfulness, or obedience or whatever. (Their secular counterparts think it's because of their "hard work"). Of course, the "faithful" suffer too, but then, it's a "test from God". However, the default state, it seems, for leaders like this is one of power and wealth (benefit). So all they do it look down on others like this, and try to blame some sin in their lives for their disasters. Just like him and Falwell and other fundies on 9-11 and every other catastrophe, even in their own country. It seems nothing ever happens to them, in their "heartland" locations. So they interpret that as the ultimate proof they are the "good guys" in this struggle of the good versus the bad. They thus become smug and engage in this form of confirmation bias whenever tragedy strikes someone else. Of fourse, the French and the rest of the colonizers are never pronounced as being under any curse for their slaver and other cruel acts. No, they've all prospered; showing it was God "giving" them all the land and labor they took. So of course, it's only those colonized people who are wrong ever punished by God for their sin. Think about it: they pray to Satan to free them, and this be in opposition to God, who must have directed the colonizers to enslave them; right, Pat?

But who would God have expected more from? Their demonism being so wrong; were they even taught about God by the good Christian colonists? Orginally, it was prohibited, according to many accounts. And once they did begin teaching them, it was skewed severely, simply in order to justify the slavery and colonization and subsequent discrimination. But conservative Christian leaders decided long ago that that wasn't sin. Only the departure of society from "traditional Christian values", by the society, which was actually rebelling against all the hypocrisy of that "Christian tradition".

So now, it's like the reward for serving God is comfort and ease in this life, and punishment for sin is calamity in this life. —as well as after this life. Or they'll say it's so "God can get their attention" so they can escape judgment after this life.

Still, the people do not know God (if they're making pacts with the devil).
So what good would be sending some calamity to them, killing millions (who then don;t even have any chance to repent or whatever). Who says it would even be interpreted as divine punishment?
Everybody cites the Old Testament, but that period is very different from now. For God was regularly manifesting Himself to Israel, and even the surrounding pagans! So when God sent either Israel or those other nations clamity for their sin; they all knew it was punishment. Who ever said that would continue into the New Testement and permanently on the earth? It's not in the NT! Could that be an assumption by people who see an easy justification for their benefit status in a world of suffering?

There is so much suffering in the world, and nobody but cozy conservative Christians themselves seems to see any sharp division between obedience to the God of the Bible and prosperity. Of course, looking at it this way points to the prosperity Gospel, which I don't think Robertson holds to, and many other fundamentalists who might think like this would also reject. Yet, it is very much the same principle.

[Paige]

Eric wrote:

It seems nothing ever happens to them, in their "heartland" locations. So they interpret that as the ultimate proof they are the "good guys" in this struggle of the good versus the bad. They thus become smug and engage in this form of confirmation bias whenever tragedy strikes someone else.

Actually, from my observation, when something negative happens to them, they then claim it's the devil doing it to them because they've been so successful for God.

So, with some there is no winning. If they decide they don't like your beliefs, or doctrine, then they will judge your life like this:
1. If something negative happens, God is punishing you.
2. If something good happens, the devil is leaving you alone because he has you firmly in his pocket already.

Whereas for themselves, since they know they are right:
1. If something negative happens, the devil has caused it because they've been doing too many good things for God
2. If something good happens, God is pouring on His blessings.

[Raggedy Anne]

It is painful to watch all the suffering. I would encourage those who can to open up their wallets to these who are "the least of these" - the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. So much pain, it's hard to cope with.

[Eric B]

Eric wrote:

Actually, from my observation, when something negative happens to them, they then claim it's the devil doing it to them because they've been so successful for God.

So, with some there is no winning. If they decide they don't like your beliefs, or doctrine, then they will judge your life like this:
1. If something negative happens, God is punishing you.
2. If something good happens, the devil is leaving you alone because he has you firmly in his pocket already.

Whereas for themselves, since they know they are right:
1. If something negative happens, the devil has caused it because they've been doing too many good things for God
2. If something good happens, God is pouring on His blessings.
Yeah; I left all that out, though I certainly thought of it. What you mention would be apart of the "confirmation bias" I identified above. It's also a fundamental attribution error. They shift the attribution of the same type of events to different reasons t suit their argument.
Still, what I meant is that nothing really serious usually happens to someone like this. Someone elsewhere mentioned a hurricane that hit Virginia Beach, but that did not do as much damage, and apparently not to him at all (His empire is a bit more inland in the city).
Still, if it did happen, it would now give them more solid proof that they are like the suffering prophets in the Bible. Otherwise, people like Robertson seem to hold the "attacks" from the liberals, godless, Communists (back in the Cold War) as their "persecutors". He once described all these "forces" as being like "termites" destroying the country!

[Barry]

It is painful to watch all the suffering. I would encourage those who can to open up their wallets to these who are "the least of these" - the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. So much pain, it's hard to cope with.

Anne if you know of a reliable charity to help out in this direction do please PM me it.
Or if anyone else has a thought in this direction that could be helpful.
Thanks
Barry

[Me Again]

Barry et al.,
I would highly recommend the Salvation Army. While I may not agree with its theological stance, it's administration is amongst the least expensive in all the charitable world. Most of its "soldiers" make less than $25,000/year. The Executive Director is also paid somewhere in that range.

Many other charities, like Red Cross, have executives that make millions - literally. When I give, I want the money to go to the people who have a need, not rich lawyers (like Elizabeth Dole was) who sit in plush offices.

that's jmho,

ed

[Me Again]

Oh, another good charity is the Children's Hunger Relief Fund, whose admin costs are less than 2 or 3%. IOW, every dollar you give, at least $0.97 cents of it will go directly to the people.

[Barry]

Thanks a lot for he info Ed.
Barry

[Raggedy Anne]

Thanks a lot for he info Ed.
Barry

Hi Barry -
Yes, I agree with Ed. I remember that RedCross thing years ago with CEO Elizabeth Dole - it left a bitter taste in my mouth. I decided to give to UNICEF this time around. Hope it was not a bad choice. I wanted to not put it off since this is a time sesitive emergency.
Eric wrote:
So they interpret that as the ultimate proof they are the "good guys" in this struggle of the good versus the bad. They thus become smug and engage in this form of confirmation bias whenever tragedy strikes someone else.

Yes, Eric - isn't that just so irritating. SMUG indeed.
Anne

[Barry]

Interesting points Anne.
I'm trying to get my Credit Union in on it on the convenience factor.
I hear several people are asking them about it but I don't know what charity they would chose if they chose to do something.

I wonder how much of the immediate problems are logistical. I would think there are both immediate and long term needs.

Just some thoughts
Barry

[Me Again]

No offense Ann, but UNICEF is a part of the United Nations, and they are well known for their corruption and graft. They have no agency that oversees their doings until after the fact, and then nothing is done. The "oil-for-food" program which was run by Kofi Annon's son, who walked away with millions, is one example. It wasn't until later that Paul Volcker investigated and found the corruption. That I know of, nothing ever came of it.

Many other charities (like Salvation Army and CHRF) are overseen by agencies that hold them accountable. They are audited on a timely and frequent basis. There are many others besides the two I recommended that do the right thing and are accountable to oversight. It's best to be careful.

Of course, anyone can turn out to be a crook, even in good organizations, so I think that ultimately, unless you have the wherewithal to fly down there and give directly (doubtful, right?), we have to trust that someone will do the right thing.

[Raggedy Anne]

Well, here is what UNICEF says about itself and about that situation in Haiti
http://www.unicef.org/

I know there are plenty of people who are suspicious of anything connected to the UN, thanks to the right wing spin machine.

[Me Again]

that's fine Ann. I meant no disrespect. I was just trying to be helpful.

I'm not sure about any "right-wing spin machine," but even CNN, not known for its right wing politics, reported on the corruption in the oil-for-food scam. Alas, as I said, we can only trust that those people that we give our money to will do the right thing - whether it's the UN or World Vision.

[ozark]

I love what the Salvation Army said on their home page. "We combat natural disasters with acts of God."

Btw, the Salvation Army, before it was taken over by dispensationalists, had a very positive outlook. It was formed in the early years of US history when the much more positive Post Millennialism was the dominant viewpoint. Yes, there was such a time!

Also, Pat says that God has judged Haiti, but his organization is sending relief. In that case, wouldn't sending relief be opposing God? And many Christians, missionaries, etc. died in this disaster. Did God kill them, too?

[Amie]

Haitians react to Robertson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN_goSKPCaM&feature=youtube_gdata

[Cathy]

Hi everybody,

I really appreciated all the information on different charities here. Bruce and I wanted to give but were hesitant about which charity to give to. After reading the posts put up, I feel good now about the group we chose. Thank-you all for the help :)

Cathy

[Paige]

I've got another one for consideration:

http://mcc.org/

Paige