Haiti has been a predominently Catholic nation. Whose Catholicism however, was always intermixed with Voodoo. And that might be the reason, if not for the earthquake, at least for the poverty of this country.

The great disadvantage or “curse” attached to Voodoo is that it, like all belief in magic, simply does not work. So that the more time you spend following it, the less able you are to learn more practical, functional ways of living and thinking, that finally bring real prosperity.

So in a sense, people are “cursed” by following Voodoo – or any form of belief in magic.

Here’s a discussion of the earthquake in Haiti with Dr. William Lane Craig.
He adresses the question of ‘why’ God would allow such a disaster and also touches on Pat Robertson’s comments. Quite interesting (no longer than 10 minutes)

http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/featured-audio-earthquake-in-haiti.html.

Paul Copan sent me this link.

@Dallas

The links I was referring to will be found under thelouvertureproject, webster.edu and blackandchristian.com

@ Dallas

I tried to post a response with some links but for some reason it is not showing up here. Maybe links aren’t allowed.

I’ll just give you 2 names for now: David Patrick Geggus and Leon-Francois Hoffmann.

Maybe you can google those along with Antoine Dalmas (the only historical source that exists) and also Jean R. Galin who wrote an article with the title “God, Satan, and the birth of Haiti”.

As far as the connection voodoo – Satan is concerned, of course it is possible to speak of repercussions of the practice in general, the question still remains whether it is fair and accurate to point back to what happened at Bois Caiman (if it happened) as a deliberate “pact with the devil” the way Robertson described it.

@John 39

On what basis do you say that one must be ordained a prophet to proclaim that an event is a judgment. I would only agree if one were attaching prophetic or apostolic authority to such a statement. Nowhere is the Scripture is there is general prohibition against drawing inferences about specific disasters. Pointing out particular places where the prophet/Apostle refuted a particular inference amounts to cherry-picking, because it ignores the majority of instances where the prophetic utterance confirmed the logical inference.

There is plenty of Biblical basis for drawing inferences based on interpreting facts within the framework of Scriptural principles. Second Tim 3:16 says that the Scripture is sufficient to equip us for every good work(i.e we can apply it’s principles to everything) Jesus rebuked the religious leaders for failure to make logical inferences. They could draw inferences about the weather from what direction the wind blows, but were unable to draw inferences from OT prophecies.

My inference is that the cataclysmic judgment of God is beginning to fall. Even if that weren’t the case, the Judge has always been at the door. Every time someone dies they are being summoned to judgment. If they have not repented of their sins, they face a fiery furnace as punishment for their sin. We need to teach repentance now more than ever. The grace of God is manifested within a background of judgment.

The argument that we can never make inferences about the judgment of God coupled with the presumption that God’s judgment has not fallen places one in the same boat as the skeptic. As ill-advised and ill -timed as Robertson comments were the talking points used against him are far worse.

@Josh 35

What historians dispute this? I have researched this in a number of places. The only places I have seen where this was disputed was on blogs written after Robertson’s comments by folks who have no credentials. Given the harsh treatment Robertson has received elsewhere on Wikipedia, it would seem odd that there is no reference to a dispute of facts among historians here if historian were disputing whether the events at Bois Caiman happened.

Robertson’s claims that it “was a pact with the devil” is his theological interpretation of the Voduo ceremony. It is based on passages such as 1 Cor 10:14-22 and other that regard idolatry as devil worship.

C. Machiavelli and Jason C appear to be on the same page. God is good because his nature / essence is good. Therefore, as Jason notes, whatever he does is “automatically” good. Good, because it flows automatically from a good nature. Machiavelli specifically points to the issue of “nature”, but such a concept was implied in Jason’s comment.

Moreover, God does not have a good nature because it is perfect. Could not something be perfectly evil? I suppose it depends on how one defines good and perfect. If they are perfect synonyms, then perfection equals good. But if they are not, then something can be perfect without also being good. Or good without being perfect.

In addition, omniscience does not automatically lead to doing good. Why would knowledge of everything lead to choosing only good? There is no logical or other connection. It’s not knowledge that inevitably leads to choosing goodness, but a good nature that does. One could be omniscient and evil, and thus be able to plan a maximally evil universe.

regards,
#John

Jason C

Just a quick comment on your statement:

“God cannot do evil because what he does is automatically good.”

This is incorrect theologically speaking. If God were to rape a woman it would be sin; there can be no doubt about that. If God were to lust, that too would be sin.

To introduce the theological perspective, God’s nature is perfect. God always operates within the limits of his perfection of nature. It’s not that whatever God does is “automatically good,” but God automatically operates within the limits of his nature, which is itself perfect.

Sin, by the way, is something that can only be performed by a non-omniscient being. An omniscient being sees the good as good and the bad and bad, and to chose the bad over the good would fall outside the limits of perfection. (credit belongs primarily to Richard Chevenix Trench for this distilling of passages within the holy scriptures)

CQ

The reasoning exemplified in Dallas’ comments, by Robertson, and by many Americans assumes that one can make a connection between a specific disaster and a specific sin, and that the connection is punitive: i.e., you do these sins and God sends this disaster as punishment.

However, aside from specific prophecies in the Bible where God tells his prophet(s) of such a connection (e.g., you have continually sinned, so you are going to Babylon), there is no warrant for that belief. Moreover, the Bible nowhere teaches that we can ever discern such a connection on our own.

And, contrary to Dallas’ inference, that was partly the point of Jesus’ story. Jesus’ point was that everyone dies (physically, and ultimately spiritually) because of their general state of sin. No one dies specifically because they are worse than other sinners. That is, the tower didn’t fall on the people of Siloam because they were worse sinners than others; rather, one could die at any time so one must repent now.

regards,
#John

Rick, remember that whilst God is good, he defines what good is.

God cannot do evil because what he does is automatically good.

In that respect he’s like the atheist who cannot be immoral because their wishes and desires define what is moral for them.

Of course God is supreme and consequently what he defines as good is good for us as well.