Anything that encourages rebellion against God's Word is evil. I do believe that the modern day rock/hip hop/ "country" music culture is evil to it's core. I ask you this, name me two songs in rock music that encourage sexual purity. It is of the flesh in my opinion. It does not glorify God. Can it be made to glorify God by giving it religious lyrics? That is another question altogether. No offense meant to anyone here. Just my :2cents:
From the context it would seem that the dust that God created man from was, indeed, the dust of the ground from the earth that God had previously made, namely the ground from which plants and trees come (vs. 6&9).
I am not at all certain (and in fact I am convinced that it is often quite the opposite) that one must reconcile what God's Word says with man's theories about the origin of the universe. That is, even if some reconciliation can be made, does not imply that reconciliation must be made. If Dr. Krauss claims a universe from nothing, that is without a personal, creator God, he has, in the Bible's estimation made himself a fool (see Psalm 14:1).
In this case one is not obligated to listen to a fool or follow in his ways. If Dr. Krauss claims a universe from nothing, that is by the direct, creative act of God, he has come closer to the truth but is still in no position to claim that man was made from stardust since he cannot know that with absolute certainty.
For remember that scientific research and conclusions are not infallible but mostly present a scholar's opinion or generally received opinion about something without being certain that it is true. Sometimes assumptions are made, for example, that similarity proves a common ancestor but this begs the question. It may be a helpful or useful explanation, but this does not make it true.
So may I ask: is there anything similar about stardust and 'earth' dust that may lead one to prefer the one over the other without knowing that for certain? Furthermore, what scientific evidence does he provide? Does it truly contradict the scripture's claim that we are made from the dust of the earth, or is another explanation possible?
I think that evolution is one of the single greatest apologetical tasks facing the church today. The problem is we don't realize how pervasive evolutionary thinking is, example. I was watching the movie "cloudy with a chance of meatballs" with my 8 year old daughter a few weeks ago or more and in the movie, spoiler alert!, a sattelite basically shoots up into the sky and rains down any kind of food you want.
But when it gets out of control and the inventor goes into the sky to stop it they discover that through a series of small changes and additions of food the sattelite has become "self-concious" and tries to stop them. This idea of small mainly physical changes that produce a whole new type of thing, self-concious verses nonself-concious, is evolutionary logic to its core.
So there I was amazed that they would seep this type of ideas into a childrens movie just to advance their worldview. Someone once said that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world that he didn't exist. I say that the second greatest trick the devil pulled was to realize that if he changes the way that we ordinaraly talk about things he can change how we think about things.
He is doing this for evolution in our societies, when two love struck, probably young people, talk about just happening to meet eachother, implying an almost random meeting, and being "perfect" for eachother is changing the way we talk into evolutionary ways of thinking. This change in talk softens the blow when they ask us to blindly accept evolution as truth when it is false.
It should be clear by now that often people are talking past each other when it comes to this topic. I think there is also a common misconception that just because an objection to evolutionary thought doesn't sound complicated or "educated", that it cannot be valid. All data only has meaning when it is interpreted. If you approach the data from a worldview that presupposes evolutionary ideas, then you'll likely come to a wrong conclusion.
Something we must also remember is that man is not morally neutral. He is corrupt and will not approach the topic of creation rationally and without bias, no matter how much he claims neutrality. The choice one has to make as a believer is this: do I follow an idea that is incompatible with the bible or not? If you believe the bible is true, then all data must be interpreted accordingly.
I also found evolution bizarre, and illogical, even as a child in a non-Christian home. A few of my childish queries below - may not be helpful, and perhaps advanced scientists with big degrees have better objections. But here goes:
1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?
2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?
3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?
4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.
5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?
6. Where are the missing links?
7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?
(YE stands for Young Earth Creationists)
Charlie, you are making the assumption that God set the age of the universe at 15 billion years and started it from that point. We know from Scripture that Adam was formed as an adult male. We do not know at what age God preset the universe, if it was preset at all.
However, let's ask the question, what if God had made Adam as an infant? If he were the first man who would be there to care for him, nurture him, feed him, teach him. It makes sense that God would create man and beast as adults. Did He not create the beasts to be fruitful (reproduce after their kind) in the Garden?
Now for the universe, if God started creation with a big bang and allowed the swirling gases to coalesce into planetary systems we have a problem with the text of Scripture, not just in day and night designations but with the order of creation itself.
Also keep in mind that YE Creationists don't want to disprove radiometric dating because it would prove their YE position (although probably a few believe this). Radiometric dating is flawed at its core and needs to be abandoned as a part of scientific theory.
YE gains nothing from knocking out another leg of the OE stool. But science does gain a modicum of respect back, especially in light of the utter failure of so called "peer reviewed science" in the Global Warming hoax.
The core fallacy of the argument and every worldview that would utilize it is that human beings possess an inherent righteousness or goodness within themselves, and that by their inherent worth or goodness; and that as such they cannot conceive that God would decree evil upon his human creation unless they first forfeited or earned his displeasure through evil of their own making.
The response to this argument has to be 'Go and read your Bible.' The OT particularly contains story after story of men, women, and children bearing the brunt of God's wrath against the sins of others. Think of the kids in Israel when they were taken captive by Babylon or the Assyrians. Or the children of the nations that Israel attacked? Or those firstborn Egyptian boys? If they are going to make the argument, they could dig up worse scenarios than an isolated child rape case and moreover, find them in the Bible!
It all seems beyond unfair, incomprehensible even, until you begin to see that men women and children are in fact without righteousness before God, without any kind of it, or any amount of it that he should recognize us and defer to our sense of well being. Absolutely Zero. We are nothing, less than nothing.
This is underscored to me by the fact that unredeemed sinners get lumped together with the devil and his angels at the judgment day; shows how much inherent righteousness people have apart from Christ.
I also want to respond to these folk that it is plain that for every instance of evil that God ordains in the world, they are each accompanied by a thousand mercies. Men are blind to them of course and do not recognize or give thanks for them.
I wonder if any of these folk have ever thought or said 'thank God it wasn't worse' because from their perspective that phrase shouldn't make any sense at all. Whereas we can say it at every instance of the day and marvel at God's multitude of restraining graces!
Indeed, the child rape argument is the anti-Calvinist's equivalent to Godwin's Law in debates. Sigh.
Trying to get God off the hook, as it were, by claiming God did not know what His creatures would do (open theism) or that God gives man libertarian free will only makes the situation more dire. Apparently God is either impotent (cannot see the future) or able, but unwilling to intervene (corridors of time foreknowledge argument) to prevent meaningless evil acts.
These tactics make good fodder for appealing to the hoi polloi, but they illustrate the shallowness of the anti-Calvinist's unstated assumptions. Remind these proponents that God, having a sufficiently moral purpose for evil, wills righteously what men do wickedly.
That being said, I think that both answers are right in a sense. This deals heavily with the compound and divided senses of God's will. I would HIGHLY recommend Webmaster's book on the subject The Two Wills of God.
So in a sense, Scott is right. The problem is, is that it is not that simple. To simply say that he is not the cause of sin is only half the answer. Matt goes into detail distinguishing this in his book.
1. God decrees sin. It cannot be denied that in a sense, this is a cause of that sin, for without that, sin could not happen. God predestines sin (cause), therfore sin happens (effect).
2. Man commits sin. It cannot be denied that in a sense, humans cause sin, for without these means, sin could not happen (God cannot sin). Humans act (cause), therfore sin happens (effect).
In a real sense, #2 is important to stress, because God has decreed that this is where responsibility lies. When people deny that God is in some sense the cause of sin, they are usually trying to free God from the responsibility of sin. This is admirable, but we must not go overboard. God is not responsible for sin, becuase he defines responsibility! He is the judge, law, and jury. We are not.
We know of God He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph 1:11). We also know “the LORD is upright . . . and there is no unrighteousness in him” (Psalm 92:15), and that “The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works” (Psalm 145:17).
What is the most evil thing that ever happened upon the earth (or in the entire universe)? Was it not the murder of the Holy One, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all that therein are? And yet of this it is written, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23).
God delivered and determined Christ to be slain. It will not do to say He but “allowed” it, for He determined it. Yet He is holy in all His works, and righteous in all His ways.
When what we call evil God means for good, His purpose overrules our categories and value judgments. In the eschaton, when all is said and done in this age, and we are on New Earth with Him, we shall see that all that happened we thought evil—experienced as evil—was not evil to Him as He worked out our glory and everlasting joy by it.
Note that this does not exculpate men who do evil, nor absolve them of responsibility for what they have done. But whatever God does truly is holy, just, and righteous. It is that His ways are not our ways, and they are too high above us to comprehend. So we trust Him. When we suffer, we trust Him. We may hold men accountable, and see them punished. But God we trust, for we know He loves us with an everlasting love (Jer 31:3). This is what godly men and women have helped me to understand. I think this is right.
Well, even if we couldn't think of examples in our minds, we would still be obligated to submit to the truth that it does because it is plainly taught in Scripture. But I can certainly think of countless ways in which such events ultimately work together for the good of God's people in His plan:
God may use a person's death by murder as the means to provide an opportunity for re-unification of that person's split family. Also, two people might speak to each other at a funeral who otherwise would not have, and the Gospel is shared and and accepted, and the new believer finds his church home through that person who initially presented the Gospel to him at the funeral. Or perhaps me losing my temper in public causes something to go through an observer's mind that God uses for a specific reason in their life that day or in another person's life through something they say as a result of their reaction to my sinful anger - and I might never even know He used it that way.
If God were to take a close relative or friend from me, perhaps it would teach me to truly make Him my full delight and strength in a way I otherwise would not have at the time. Or perhaps a young woman being raped makes her value her sexuality for the first time, so that she does not just go out and waste herself, which she otherwise would have done. Perhaps the death of an unregenerate soul is part of what God uses to make the family agree to try out church with some believing friends, and they hear the Word and some are converted - or perhaps they are not converted, and instead profess an even further rejection of the Gospel, and God uses their rejection to encourage a believer observing the situation who was feeling discouraged and that she had it so bad, but seeing the family's bitter rejection of the Gospel makes her realize how much she really has in Christ.
Perhaps a fatal accident on the highway that someone passes while driving makes him want to call his wife just to check on her, and it turns out that she is in trouble and he called just in time, and God had a specific purpose for her in continued living that He did not have for the person who died in the accident. Or God may use a parent being drunk their child's whole life to give that child extra strength and boldness that that will need in their coming years for challenges they will face - or perhaps even just one single event that was in a person's subconscious will have a similar effect on something they do someday that turns out to be significant.
I could literally go on and on all day off the top of my head. The point is that there are so many countless ways in which God can use all of life's situations, major events and seemingly minute, unnoticed details for the ultimate greatest possible good of His people and likewise for His glory, whether we realize them or not - in fact, since there are so many possibilities, we almost certainly do not even realize most of them for what they are at the moment, or even ever. But we are told in Scripture that they are all working as such, and as I hope I have showed above, there are literally countless ways in which God can accomplish that through such events - and furthermore, those examples I gave were only situations right off the top of my imperfect, sinful, finite, human mind; so how much more can God actually accomplish through every detail of life?
This used to be really difficult for me too. But I finally realized a couple things:
1) 100% of people deserve to spend eternity in hell for their sins. And hell is *infinitely* worse than any "heinous crime" you can think of. I would much rather be raped & tortured, rather than sent to hell forever. So when God ordains even "heinous crimes" to occur, those crimes are FAR less than what the victims actually deserve. If a victim is of the non-elect, the person will eventually be in much worse circumstances. And if the person is elect, then God will work all things together for the good of that person. The only person who ever received evil he *didn't* deserve was Jesus.
2) The murder of Jesus was the single worst "heinous crime" to EVER occur. Rape and torture are NOTHING in comparison to Deicide. And yet we know that God ordained the death of Christ for a VERY GOOD reason! God is greatly glorified, and billions of men receive justification, all because of the sacrifice of Jesus. So, if God can ordain the *worst sin ever*, then why is it difficult to believe that He ordains all others?
Those are just my :2cents:
In Christ,
Joseph
I think the question of Ordaining versus Permitting is dependent on if we believe God owes mankind something or not.
The Ordaining people which I am a part of assumes that God owes mankind nothing, hence He can harden Pharoah and get him to do specific wicked acts by which God will glorify Himself by conquering. It is because God owes mankind nothing, that He could sent Lying Spirits in the mouths of prophets to deceive Ahab, likewise He can also send strong delusions that they may believe a lie. He can likewise speak in parables to shield the truth from then, least they be converted and their sins forgiven.
Permitting believes that God owes mankind something. This something that is owed, is to behave like a man and constrain oneself to the laws and ethics of which man are subjected to. Because mankind is not allowed to sin and is judged because of sin, many assume that God ordaining sin for His own purposes is like man sinning. So they take away the ordaining, and say that God permits sin, which is nothing more than a passive quasi ordination being made allowable by a loop hole.
Heck, but this thing is much more simple, if it is God's goal to manifest and to glorify Himself by exercizing His diverse attributes, of which one of these attributes is Justice, then it follows that God must make something liable for justice. Now if God makes something liable for His justice and executes His justice, how is that sin???????????????? "Endured with much patience the vessels fitted for destruction". God making something liable for such and such, and executing what that thing is liable for in no way impugns God.
People usually believe the permitting thingie because God becomes much more scary if He is an ordainer of all events, and that all events that He ordains are ordained for the sole purpose of glorifying Himself.
But a Scary God is a good thing for humans :D A Scary God puts them in their place and emasculates them, humbles them, and make them tremble, pricks there conscience and let them feel powerless.
This issue has recently come up within our family due to a wedding.... I agree with Exagorazo..... The scriptures and the Westminster Catechism does not condemn all dancing nor does it condemn all mix dancing... The matter "Lascivious" and "Promiscuous" Dancing.. Those Dances that act like sex or sexual acts out on the dance floor.... (Which throws out about almost every Modern Dance).. It is nothing more and or less then p0rnography on the Dance Floor.
But not every Dance between a Man and a Woman is Lascivious and Promiscuous. Some are quite innocent and folky... I agree that those who are not married need to be extra careful in chaste of heart when dancing. There is nothing wrong for married people to dance (Even Publicly) unless it is Lascivious or Promiscuous.
To dance or Not to dance is the question and I think Moderate Non Pornographic Dancing is allowed by scripture by Non Pornographic Music. Anything that outside of Marriage and not done privately by husband and wife that entices lust is to be avoided and forbidden by the Seventh Commandment... But I find it very hard to see how the old English Country Dance "Grimstock" entices lust or acts like a sexual act out on the dance floor....
Shockingly, My wife and I have been to a number of Reformed Baptist Weddings and have been SHOCKED by some of the Promiscuous Dancing that has taken place on the dance floor including Raggee Dancing and the NightClub Like Dancing.... It is a weakness that Reformed Baptist are going to have to come to grips with.. My wife and I never partook and left soon after the dancing started....
The Canaanites were exterminated as an act of divine judgment for their wickedness. God specifically set apart the Israelites to be his instruments of judgment. Yes, there is typology at work as well.
But God does not violate his own law just to make a theological point. It's contrary to his righteous nature to violate his law. It is similar to the case of the civil magistrate bearing the sword of justice. Man cannot take justice into his own hands. God has put in place the standards and rules.
He does not countermand his own law in order to enact the death penalty. He simply grants to the guilty party what he deserves, rather than granting mercy. In the case of the Canaanites, the entire people were executed justly for their sin, the same judgment we all deserve, even our children. The question you must ask, and what the Israelites should have been asking is, why am I still here?
Why have I not recieved the same punishment when I deserve the same judgment as the Canaanites? Why has God spared me? It is God who shows justice or mercy as he sees fit. Either he grants us the justice we deserve, or he lays what we deserve on Christ. He is perfect just and righteous with either option.
Moral isn't some sort of metaphysical absolute that never changes. Something is good simply because God says so.
We've discussed the issue here recently with the laws against incest. Adam and Eve's kids, Abraham and Sarah committed what God later told Moses was incest. But it became immoral only when God said it was wrong.
Also the Canaanite genocide. God said killing a child for the sins of the father is wrong, so it's wrong. In the specific case of the Canaanite genocide God told His people to kill small children, so in that specific instance killing a child for the sins of the father became good.
Something is good or bad because God say it is good or bad. There isn't any standard of morality that stands independent of God.
Somehow I knew the question of infants dying in infancy would be risen.
I always find it a curious issue, for it seems like most people who defend the view that all infants dying in infancy are elect, they do so on the grounds that God just has to do that (because He's so loving) and move from there. I don't know about members on this board, but that's how I've seen it with other people that I've met. The extreme weakness of this position is that it implies some general innocence in children -- what else would it imply? And what else could be so wrong? "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
But when we realize that God would be perfectly just in damning every single human on earth, including infants dying in infancy, then everything is put in proper perspective. Infants are conceived children of wrath, and it is God's right -- not his obligation -- to save them in His mercy. The default state of all infants is wrath.
I don't think we need to point out the fact that Scripture does not speak specifically on the issue. Scripture also doesn't say whether all left-handed thirty-year-old Asian chefs who die will be elect, probably because they're already understood to be sinners. We know that God can kill children who have not reached the "age of accountability" and that He does. Do we really need a specific passage that says, "God does not save every infant dying in infancy" in order to be swayed?
I don't know, sometimes I just get the impression that people (not all) say that there isn't enough Scriptural support either way because they don't want to say that God damns infants dying in infancy. It's easier to tell an unbelieving couple "I don't know" than to tell them the sad truth. But I don't want to impugn anyone who sincerely believes there is limited Scriptural evidence. I might just be more confident in my position.
Morality requires something that says we "ought" to do this or "ought not" to do that. This "oughtness" cannot be derived from something impersonal, like the impersonal machinations of the universe, for no impersonal structure can create obligation. Obligatory moral standards presuppose absolute moral standards, which in turn presuppose an absolute moral personality, that is, God Almighty.
Truly objective moral values require something personal that defines what is good and what is not good and necessarily implies an accountability to one's actions. Moral accountability, if there is no God, merely implies morality become vain, since our fate is irrelevant to moral behavior.
Now the non-believer will counter that the theist believes either something is good because God wills it or else God wills something because it is good. They will then claim that the first alternative is unacceptable, since it makes what is good or evil an arbitrary distinction, and the second alternative implies that the good is independent of God. Hence, they will claim moral values cannot depend on God, but instead something outside of God.
Actually this is a false dilemma. God wills something because He is good. God’s nature determines what is good, hence the good is not independent of God, and His nature necessarily expresses itself toward us in the form of His commandments such that they are not arbitrary.
What if it were shown that the Bible systematically adopts a geocentric perspective? Would that be something to care about? God created the heaven and the earth on day one. The sun was made on day four. There will be new heavens and a new earth, but there will be no need for the light of the sun. From beginning to end the Bible rejects the natural man's deification of the sun as the source of light and life. God sets the sun it in its place. God moves it in its course. God can stop it in its course when it serves His purpose. The Bible systematically presents the same picture of the sun in relation to the earth, and never suggests anything different.
History, prophecy, law, poetry, all provide the same uniform view of the matter. Even the poetic descriptions only make sense on the understanding that the sun moves. There is never a hint that this is merely phenomenological language. It is reality as God has revealed it. That being the case, whence arises the suggestion that it is something other than literal? The suggestion comes from naturalistic science. A changing science at that.
A science which self-consciously proclaims its findings in terms of hypothesis and probability. A science which already accepts that alternate models might be just as valid. A science which itself is geocentric, since all its preliminary findings are based on observations of and from the earth. What then? Are we seriously being asked to exchange the reliability of the consistent worldview of the Bible in order to conform to the unreliable and ever-changing probabilities of this so-called "science?"
Maybe you missed my earlier post. When scientists measured the earth as it rotated, hurling towards a star and then away from a star six months later as it journeyed around the sun, expecting to see the velocity of the wavelengths of light less as it moves towards the star and more as it moves away ( velocity V being subtracted or added to C, the light speed), the EARTH DOES NOT MOVE. Period.
It was a big mystery for decades, until Einstein postulated the speed of light not changing even if the earth is moving. Time Magazine's Person of the Century Issue in 2000 featuring Einstein comes right out and says that his greatness was in being able to overthrow the conclusions of the geocentric experiments. This is all laid out in detail in the better Geocentric literature.
So as I said, the debate now comes down to the theory of relativity. Classical physics and how waves are measured is tossed into the dustbin of history in favor of relativity. There is no other explanation. Light waves do not behave like radar waves and the doppler effect you so nicely tried to explain to me. The earth is motionless, or relativity is correct.
I found this subject to be so enormously wonderful to my faith in biblical inerrancy that I passionately love it, and have spend a lot of time on other threads discussing the science in more depth. However, I think at this point unless sceptical people spend time on serious consideration of the subject ( Sagnac and Michaelson Morley on the geocentric sites is a good start) it is a waste of time to pursue it.
Einstein has deluded the masses as badly as Darwin has, and posting here is time consuming and not helpful. I am certainly not about to tackle the theory of relativity on Puritan board. But I do appreciate you trying to open my eyes.
Man I find the notion that the Earth rotates on it's axis (by the way were is this axis that heliocentrists speak of,has it been sighted?) absolutely Incredulous, Preposterous & Absurd.
If the Earth rotated on its imagined axis, its rotational speed at the equator would be 1,600 kph, thats more than bullet speed & not a single soul is swept off its feet, what about the windshere factor, the surface of the earth would be sand blasted, I dont need any scienfitic theories to cover these facts up, just the law of common sense tells me it cannot be so!
How is it that the north star is stationary to an observer if the earth supposedly rotates on its axis is it also in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth?
In GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the World does not rotate.
In GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the World does not orbit the Sun.
Hence, in GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the motions we see are real.
In HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, we are continually spinning at up to 1,039 mph about an axis, yet this is supposedly indiscernible.
In HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, we are hurtling around the Sun at 41.89x the muzzle velocity of an AK-47, yet this is supposedly indiscernible.
Hence, in HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, our perceived lack of motion is unreal and those motions that are real we cannot perceive.
These photos show that stars rotate around a stationary point, a star I think,in the nights sky, they appear as streaks in timelapse photography, the further they are from the centrepoint the longer the streak that the star leaves which would indicate that some stars travel a larger orbit at greater speed, if the Earth rotated around on its axis in a 24 hour period stars would appear as a single streak across the nights sky, would they not?
As my view from other threads has been raised, I think it is important to note that while discussion naturally gravitates to Joshua 10, it is more important for me to follow the cosmology of biblical revelation as a whole, which can only be understood as geocentric. The creation itself is geocentric; the poetic descriptions of the Psalms assume it; numerous phenomena in the histories and prophets only make sense on the basis of it; and there is of course nothing which suggests an alternate view. Moreover, science has done nothing to disprove it.
I feel no necessity to re-evaluate or reformulate biblical revelation in the light of hypotheses which themselves are undergoing continual re-evaluation and reformulation. I also see no need to attempt to alter the Bible to make it look credible in the eyes of the scientific community. There are pertinent philosophical considerations which limit the scope of empirical science, and allow us to hold to the biblical view even when it conflicts with the observations of men. Our aim should always be to let the Bible speak for itself, and to accept its message regardless of how it is judged by others.
Yes, anything God commands is moral. And he may tighten or loosen that which he enforces, or that which he makes explicit. But he has encouraged us to think of him as consistent through his revelation. If you and I would like to be consistent, but cannot be--not to the imposed standards from outside, or even to our own standards (hypocrisy)--God is able to be so, and wills himslef to be. If something changes, relative to man in the commands of God, then something has changed about us--either in our being or our circumstances. In any case, God is also in control of those changes, and he has a morally sufficient reason for everything he does, and all that he expects of us, at whatever time he calls for it.
God is TRUE to himself, and more than we're able to be. God keeps his Word, and better than any of us. He chose to make covenant, and bind himself to promises in order to show himself faithful. Again, this is something he is free to do; and if he has done, who dares to charge him with an inconsistency? That he was supremely free, and now he is not because he made a promise? This is trying to bind God with an absurdity. But it is an internal, voluntary constraint. If he denies himself, the world goes out of existence. He is the only constraint on his own freedom; but it is his WILL to act precisely as he has. There isn't some "higher standard" by which he is held. The absurdity is in the puny creature, who tries to render God impotent or irrelevant by language-games.
There's all kinds of different standards of atheistic "morality," including cannibalism and Naziism. So, what complaint does the questioner have against such individuals or societies? He has none. He operates under a "might-makes-right" ultimate philosophy, which is guided only by what he hopes is a mindless evolutionary process that has selected him and his genes to triumph over lesser creatures, and lesser humans. If he is right about the world, then it makes perfect sense for him to get to the top of the heap, and try to live like an absolute monarch, impregnate all the women in his power, kill all his rival males (whoever he cannot make his obedient soldier, farmer, or slave-drone).
Saying there are untold "kinds" of Christians or Christian morality, is like saying there are as many "maths" as there are answers given to a given problem. The implication is that there is NO yardstick, there is NO subordination of a reader to an author's text because there's no such thing as successful communication of meaning. That is an absurd expectation, and it defies common sense and human experience. It is possible to analyze texts for their intrinsic meaning, as well as getting closer or farther away from that meaning. It is possible to agree to what a text means, while disagreeing with its content, or another analyst's judgment as to its worth. It's possible to gain consensus between several people, or even a majority of them, at least for a time. It is possible to analyze all of this, and to come to a "moral" conclusion on the whole.
In the end, you can expose the ridiculous bias of persons who simply "don't like" what the Bible has to say; as well as persuading the truly searching person that most of us have the tools (if not the will) to study the Bible for the message it contains. No one is really interested in the hater's biographical reasons for not being a Christian or accepting the Bible's message or morals. The student of Scripture is interested in the content of Scripture for what it says about itself. I am concerned for truth, and not interested in pluriform contrary opinions from those who may not share my passion and method of getting there.
Good question. I would say that God always has the right to take or give life. His will in the given situation is reflective of His never changing, sovereign right over His creation. It's not possible for God to be guilty of murder because He always has the rights over His creation's lives.
To answer what you asked about exegesis I would say that any verses proclaiming His sovereignty are stating this. God always does what He (the perfectly wise, just and holy God) wants. Calvin said that the universe is the "theater of the glory of God" and so God's actions in the universe are the displaying of his nature.
*My point was that God's infinite and immutable nature make accusations of arbitration nonsensical. If God's own nature defines right, wrong, and justice, and is unchanging then assigning a term like "arbitrary" to Him seems blasphemous. Their (Non-christian's) use of the word arbitrary seems to indicate that they see God as a peer who happens to be a bigger and stronger bully not the perfectly wise and holy God.
There is no biblical rule that requires abstinence from "cinema."
There are, however, biblical principles and commandments that apply to movie going as to many areas of life.
There is much pop culture worldly garbage marketed as entertainment that a Christian ought abstain from.
Is the content geared toward profanity? Blasphemy? Mockery of what is good? Glorification of what is evil?
Is spending the money on it good stewardship?
Is spending the time attending, talking and thinking about the movie good stewardship of time?
One aspect of sanctification will be less tolerance of the profane, more care in spending money, more concern about idleness, less concern about amusing oneself, and more concern about what is true, good and pure.
I brought something like this up on another forum in regard to the film "Pulp Fiction." To my thinking this film is an example of the decadence of our society. Aside from the vulgarity and profanity, which is ubiquitous, there is homosexual sodomy and numerous scenes of mayhem. The killers are portrayed as charismatic characters who are attractive to "the world."
A man is accidentally shot in an automobile when it hits a bump and this incident is portrayed as comic relief, this scene invariably brings laughter from the audience. I've read that a society can be judged by its art. If stuff like this is not emblematic of a sick society what is ? There was a time when I enjoyed the film BTW. I wouldn't watch it today. your mileage may vary.
OTOH, I think of Shakespeare and with the exception of the filthy language of our day, there are some parallels in terms of violence. I suppose these stories do portray fallen man in a relatively accurate depiction of what he is capable of. Than there are films that are uplifting, such as, The Sound Of Music, Lilies Of The Field and that sort.
Isn't it true that after we become Christians we only then begin to see the disparaging way that Hollywood portrays Christians? I think of films such as "Zulu", an oldie that most may not remember, but there are many more examples. At my age (63) having spent the majority of my life 'walking according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air', putting off 'the old man' and putting on the new, I now would sooner devote my free time to focusing on things above. What communion has light with darkness. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing."
God's person defines truth and what is right. Something is right simply because God says it is. He defines truth. To go beyond that is to make him less than God. It is man's duty and pleasure to discover what God has already defined.
Well first off a thing is right or wrong simply because God's says it. Do we christians locate the source of that rightness or wrongness in God's unchanging charector? Yes but what we know of that charector is revealational in nature and always anthropomorphic. We cannot use reason to probe the depths of God. We can faithfuly start with his revealation to us and move from there. Also we must say yes God can declare murder to be right, but he has covenantly bounded himself in the covenat of works (or creation). Remember that God can do whatever he wants because he wants to. Does he bound himself in covenants to mankind? Yes, so he will no more "change" his mind on murder being wrong than he will flood the earth again.
I do not object to appealing to his immutible charector, only that appeals alone tend to abritraraly bound God for some logical or metaphysical reason. God is no more bound by logic than he is bound by creation. Now murder is one crime that he gives his reasons for in the Nohaic covenant but he is under no obligation to give any reason whatsoever for his descissions regarding anything. That I think is the best response to the Euthryphro argument, and Ryft gave an excellant response to it as well.
None of these studies are neutral. All such studies fail to take into account the Doctrine of Original Sin and that all of us are capable of the most vilest of crimes. Brain deformity doesn't determine which of us is capable of and may become a serial killer. Every person is capable of that. The article also fails at acknowledging that how we think, repetitively, has been shown to change the structure of our brain.
Or in other words, a person can have the "abnormal" brain of a psychopath by thinking as a psychopath. The idea that ADHD can somehow be a precursor to psychopathy shows the outright denial of a Biblical starting point and support of the false evolutionary view of mankind and his mental processes. The most one could say is that certain brain injuries can change behavior. But that was never the issue.
My original question about psychopaths had to do with whether or not a psychopath was such because of his constant rejection of God or if not, how would his behavior change after salvation. Would his ability to have empathy change, or would he strive through prayer to "fake" empathy out of obedience to God. To assume that most or all behavior of psychopaths is due to their having a brain disorder is without evidence.
The Canaanites, Amorites, etc, were a particularly wicked people that God had been patient with (see Genesis 15:16).
Instead of destroying them with a natural or other disaster, God decided to make an example of them in the judgment being inflicted on them by His people with the iron sword.
This pointed forward typologically to the judgment and mercy that God's New Covenant people would inflict on the whole Earth by carrying out the Great Commission with the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.
We all deserve death, having sinned in Adam or also by actual transgression. Another reason why God would have wanted the children to be killed was to show forth the completeness of the judgment and overthrow of these desperately wicked nations (pointing to the complete overthrow of the Earth by the spread of the Gospel) and so that Amorites, etc, growing up among the Israelites would not be a snare to God's people.
Thankfully God's people in the New Covenant are not called upon to carry out such a task.
Sadly young children and babies die in God's providence in this sinful and cursed world all the time, in various ways. I leave the ultimate destiny of particular babies and children with God.
(LawrenceU): Isn't it amazing how deeply Darwinistic thought has infiltrated the worldview of so many. Even those who would eschew Darwinism fall prey to its fruits. Barring some accidental killing of a man, goring would imply intent in the Scriptural illustration, an animal that kills a man should be dispatched. And, an animal that accidentally kills a man twice should as well. Cetaceans are intelligent creatures, for animals. But they are animals. This orca, killer whale, did not accidentally kills that trainer. It knew exactly what it was doing. It is one of the same techniques that is used on seals, a prey animal. Beware of what 'animal expert' you listen to about that behaviour. Those infected with animal rights tendencies will excuse it, not admit that it was a normal behaviour, and somehow blame humans; just like they have each time before.
In my post above, I was not alluding to anyone on this board, per se. I was addressing the fact that animals will respond as animals, tame or not. When that response results in the death of a human, the animal should be killed. Animals are not sacred. They exist to glorify God and serve man. When they cease to do that they do not deserve to live. That may sound crass and cruel. I assure you I am not. I have pets, have raised all sorts of animals. Trained dogs, horses, and other animals. That experience also teaches me that there is a distinct gulf between animal and man.
(TimV): If we have dominion over the earth and it's creatures, we can do whatever we want with them, within the bounds of Biblical law. And those laws prevent cruelty, like regular weekly rest on the Sabbath, not restricting feed while working, etc...I can enjoy fish in my big tank, tarantulas from South America, my pet boa constrictor and seaworld mammals without having a guilty conscience. And I can think it's pretty cool that the South African navy took out a couple Soviet military transports using trained dolphins in Luanda harbor.
(Peairtach): The putting down of animals, however valuable, when they kill humans is an important reminder of the sacredness of human life more to all humans rather than to animals, who don't usually read the newspapers. It is the way God wants us to remove blood-guiltiness and the potential for further loss of life in such cases. The whale should be humanely put down, inspite of the foolishness of human beings trying to play games with such creatures.
With the massive erosion of respect for the sacredness of human life in the West, e.g. the abortion holocaust, assisted suicide, euthanasia, allowing properly proven murderers to live, letting the whale live will be a very minor sin to add to the West's blood-guiltiness, and will not even be a footnote in the doom of the West.
I agree that such whale circuses are probably less than necessary and that we can enjoy seeing whales in all sorts of better ways, e.g. DVD, in God's providence today.
And to the question, the Canaanite genocide, it is one of those cases where something is good just because God says it is good. God can say in one place that Abraham can marry his half sister, and in another place that someone can't marry their half sister.
Christian doctrine is that no one is allowed to punish the sins of the father on the son. So under Biblical law, the Canaanite genocide was sin, as babies were killed. But it was a case of God telling someone to do something He normally forbids people to do.
It is against God's law to strike a man who has done nothing to you, but in this case the Law was trumped by God setting it aside, as by definition something is good simply because God says it's good, not that there is anything inherently good about an action.
So, the answer is that genocide is forbidden in Biblical law. And that's the truth, even though God once commanded genocide.
A huge topic and lots of pre-suppositions and assumptions are made in these kinds of discussions. Also, not having formal theological training, my response is more limited.
First of all, in reality, anything the God of Heaven, our Creator, sustainer and governor of His universe does is not up to the subjective character evaluation of His creatures. He isn't to be compared with false religions imagined by some of His rebellious, fallen creatures. If we don't start with that, the discussion cannot be congruent.
If man's intellect is the center of all things, such an evaluation cannot be congruent.
The starting point really is the sovereignty of God (versus the sovereignty of man).
If man's mind is at the center, God will be judged "unfair" by lesser evaluation of man's ego. (This is why the "five points" or "doctrines of grace" are a wise point to draw out, explain, debate, and discuss with both believers and nonbelievers alike. God really likes it when we "get it" that we are not really the center and measure of all things. That's where Christian growth really begins).
The sixth commandment, "do not kill" is in words that are more carefully understood as "thou shalt not murder." Nations engaging in war are obviously not in view here (otherwise God would not have commanded Israel into battle so many times).
Self defense is a biblical concept that we could draw out here. In no sense (despite the wicked imaginations of the killers, liars, God mockers who planned 9/11) was their attack self defense. A good case can be made it was not even in accord with their own religion.
In the end, there is something that we, as fallen, self-centered human beings do not want to accept. It is very understandable in light of what God has revealed to us about our nature, through Scripture. We do not believe has a right to do with us, as His created beings as He sees fit. That bothers us...
Whether it is God Almighty's right to reserve a sabbath day unto himself for us to worship,
Reserve a portion of our material income to give back to Him as offerings,
Or His right to give or take life as He alone pleases.
Infants aren't anymore innocent than adults. All have fallen short of the glory of God. Having original sin throws one into hell just as fast as one who has original sin and actual sin. The level of hell they experience might be different, but no one is without original sin. If God doesn't choose every adult for salvation, what makes us think He chooses every infant for salvation? We might think that they deserve heaven because they look innocent and are so very cute, but they too have a depraved nature and deserve hell just like the rest of us.
I love this question.
Let me ask you one in turn: when was the first time that you learned how precious water was?
Was it in the shower? The lake? A rainy day?
Or was it the first time you were desperately thirsty with no water in sight?
God is glorified in the destruction and judgment of the reprobate. *gasp* "What? How?!"
Let us remember that there is not one attribute of God that lacks in glory or is more glorious than the other. He is God, He is one, and ALL of Him is glorious.
When the reprobate is destroyed and condemned, who do you think will witness this? Why, the elect, of course!! How much greater will his mercy seem when we see what we're saved from? How glorious will God be to us when we see His holiness and righteous stand against iniquity?
Everything God says, does and stands for is glorious in equal measure.
We could never appreciate our salvation (water) without witnessing judgment and condemnation (thirst).
Sometimes, the penalty-statement is a maximum, and not a mandatory penalty. The task of law-interpretation and law-application was one of wisdom, and not a job of accurate third-grade reading skills.
In the most obvious of rape-cases, the criminal was liable to death, see Dt.22:25. But, on the other hand, if the story was he-said/she-said and the case was inconclusive, there was a way to obtain a modicum of justice in a murky situation.
If God--who knows all things--was willing for those children to perish, he had a sufficient moral-justification for it. He did not always so command it; in fact, he made provision at times for mercy. Oddly (to our sentiments, at times) sometimes death (and swift at that) is mercy. Frankly, if an Israelite just left the city and its dead, with a few orphans wandering around in the desolation (hard to bear the thought, yes?) all would likely be dead soon anyway; or enslaved by some other party.
Suppose a case where all able-bodied persons are combatant, and all such persons are judged of God as irreparably corrupt. Stipulated: all of these adults deserve to die, and the warfare is just. Whose responsibility is it to care for their offspring? The Israelites? Why? If at times, when permitted of God, some of these were spared and taken care of by Israelites (not the case in e.g. 1Sam.15:3), this too was mercy; and, importantly, the kindness was not deserved.
We tend to gauge conditions in an ancient setting--or even in some other, rougher part of the world today--by our local standards: be that in sanitation, cuisine, justice, warfare, servitude, etc. We tend to like those parts of our own system that seem to have some sanction of God by loose conformity with our interpretation of the ancient world as we engage with it in the pages of the Bible. We are quick to make absolute connections with more than the moral-law, as if that were a simple task, and unconnected with time or place.
Life was (and sometimes still is) nasty, brutish, and short; mainly on account of sin and a resultant reduction of civility to a minimum. Bridges between societies are notoriously difficult to build and maintain; however much of an ideal it may be. The Ancient Near East was a place without much civility. Societies kept their standards and law within them; but beyond them was a world of conflict. "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable."
Such was the chaos into which God saw fit to introduce a new nation, a covenanted people; while at the same time he judged the Canaanite society to be unfit to remain in the world. God personally had brought more, and more complete, ruin on an entire world--of men, women, and children--only a few generations prior by a flood. Drowning is a frightful and painful way for anyone to die.
God takes numerous children out of this life, who "have no knowledge of right from wrong." Is he evil or unjust for it? If we (rightly) say "No," then if he determined for Israel to be his instrument at one time in world history, he does not need any more justification than his commandment. I have proposed some rationalization in the above commentary, but do not mistake that for theodicy. God needs no such rational defense for his morally perfect will.
It may not be murder that is at the heart of the issue with these games. It can be. It can also be lust. There are many kinds of lust other than sensual lust. People lust after many things besides the opposite sex. People lust after the rush they get when playing a game, or the fear factor in a scary game, or the one upsmanship in games, the pride of your skill in killing in the game.
These games are sin playgrounds. Everything is virtual except the sin in your heart. There aren't real bad guys or good guys, it is all a sham for entertainment. When this is what we seek as entertainment it should give us pause. We can and do suppress the truth from ourselves in unrighteousness when it comes to pet entertainments.
Just so you don't think I don't know what fun it is, not so long ago my husband and I were playing Gears of War together system link on our two Xboxes. We both shudder at the money we spent on it all now. We sold all our games that would sell less than a year ago. Thankfully God convicted us at about the same time and we have been trying to redeem the time ever since.
I would answer the question with this statement: Those who break the sabbath DO DESERVE to die. In fact, those who dishonor their parents ought to be stoned to death. Those who tell little 'white lies' deserve to spend eternity in Hell. God would be perfectly just in punishing us with the severest torment for breaking his Sabbath, BUT God has instead, sent His Son into the world to save sinners... to reconcile them back to himself. The work of our High Priest, Jesus Christ has changed everything. My sin is the reminder that I need a savior. My feeble attempts to better myself ALWAYS ends in my utter failure and a feeling of wretchedness but I am in Christ and there is now NO CONDEMNATION.
Say what you want about the covenants and theocracies and historical theology but the goal of every discussion that involves falling short of God's glory should be directed to the Cross. Why don't we kill sabbath breakers? Because the Cross changes everything.
(tellville): Now, it seems to me, a consistent Baptist would acknowledge that Babies dying in infancy go to Hell, including the children of believers. I (currently) don't see any Biblical evidence that seems to suggest otherwise (God does have the freedom to save some infants and not others, but where does the Bible even bring that up?) Personally, I have no problems with infants going to Hell as I believe the Biblical doctrine of Total Depravity and children are just as much under the wrath of God as I am, whether the children are mine or someone else's.
(matt01): I attended a evening chapel at The Master's College where Dr. MacArthur opened the floor to questions. One of my classmates stood and asked about the state of her daughter, who had died in infancy. Dr. M. assured her that all infants go to heaven. As a Reformed baptist, I would disagree. We do not know, nor can we know what the Lord determines for those who die in infancy. While I would hope that these children spend eternity in the presence of the Lord, I know that they may just as easliy receive the same reward that the unreached people receive upon death...
Pergy, it's not just the immorality of the actors. That is just one very small aspect In my humble opinion. It is the sickening images, profanity, blasphemy, senuality, and every type of vice that is paraded before your eyes with these activities. It is the time that is sunk into these types of leisure activities. It is the money sunk into them. (finger pointed at myself while listing these)
Can that time and brain space be redeemed?? Since stopping much of those activities, (this has been a long process, I am down to only a very few Austen type movies, I still really like movies) I am haunted now occasionally by images of things from movies and I pray the Lord would wipe them from memory. I have sifted through my movies twice now and am about to do a 3rd sweep. Each time I was getting rid of them based on content, and each time I was more and more sensitive to that content.
You become calloused to the sin paraded before you. As you get rid of it and leave only your daily work and reading in the Word of God you become less and less calloused to it and you cannot stand it to be in your sight. I think this is the way it should be.
What communion hath light with darkness?
You tell me Pergy, can you view the things bolded below and not be a partaker in them? If the principle that Christ set forth that if you just look a woman with lust that you have commited adultery, or if you hate someone you are a murderer, if that holds true, how on earth can we pay with our kingdom resources to sit in front of the filth that we sit in front of when we watch even a tv commercial?? How can we not be partaking of it?
We are ingesting it with our minds and our hearts and emotions that are toyed with by the content in the movie to move us to love, hate, jealousy, and every type of emotion with the characters of the movie. Even if it isn't real we still love, hate, and have jealousy in our hearts and minds. You still lust an object before your eyes which is the very definition of idolatry.
I think we lie to ourselves and suppress the truth if say we can sit through that and not be touched.
If it isn't true, then it doesn't work. Science is the study and categorization of creation as per Genesis 2. If Scripture teaches something, then science should be bound by that teaching along with every other discipline. If geocentrism is correct biblical teaching, then Christians ought to do science from that perspective. If, on the other hand, Scriptural language does not contradict other models, then the Christian is free to use them.
Your sort of argument asks the believer to step out of his beliefs. This is an impossibility unless one's reasoning ability is so defective that it is somehow able to disconnect properly basic presuppositions, e.g., God exists, from themselves. My mind is unable to apprehend God without being compelled to honor Him. It is not sufficient to hold that there is a God that we all ought to honor and adore, unless we are also persuaded that He is the source of every good, and that we must seek nothing elsewhere than in Him.
What good is it to speculate some sort of God who has cast aside the care of the world only to amuse Himself in idleness? In short, what help is it to know a God with whom we have nothing to do? Instead, our knowledge should serve first to teach us fear and reverence. With it as our guide and teacher, we should learn to seek every good from God, and, having received it, to credit it to His account.
How is it that even the thought of God penetrating your mind is not accompanied by the immediate realization that since you were created by God, you have been fashioned and bound to His command by God's right of creation, that you owe your life to God? In other words, by owing your life to God, whatever you aims in life are, whatever you do, they all ought to be attributed to God.
If this is true, it certainly follows that your life (your aims and acts) is wickedly corrupt unless your life is disposed to God's service given that God's revealed will ought for us to be the law by which we live. You cannot behold God clearly unless you acknowledge Him to be the originating source of every good. Given this, the desire to cling to God and trust in Him becomes apparent, except for the fact that man's depravity seduces His mind from rightly seeking God.
God gave the command to stone people in the OT. Stoning was not an immediate death, but took some time usually. This seems to prove that we are not always obligated to dispatch the guilty as quickly as possible or with the least amount of pain.
Thus we see in some Christian kingdoms some criminals were killed by decapitation or hanging, but some especially heinous cases were killed by drawing and quartering, impalement, or other slower and more painful means to stress the evilness of their deeds. These kings and executioners were not necessarily evil men who inflicted these cruel deaths and these deaths, too, were examples of just justice despite their cruelty.
And if we are allowed to kill convicted terrorists for their crimes, and to kill them in dreadful ways and not always in the most painless manner possible, we are allowed to inflict some lesser pains upon the guilty in order to save the lives of our soldiers and civilians.
God decreed/ordained The Cross, the most evil (yet the most good) thing that has ever or will ever be done, child rape should look like nothing in comparison. They should be objecting to The Cross before they object to child rape, but that is what man-centered theology does, it totally skews things.
Okay, how to answer this one:
Wives are to submit. US laws say a wife has one vote as well as her husband.
Wives are to obey their husbands - unless they are commanded to do something immoral. Presidential elections invovle many moral/philosophical/religious issues.
What if someone insists on telling their wife who to vote for, or forbids their wife from cancelling out their vote due to voting for a different person?
What if a wife insists on voting in a way opposing her husband?
What advice would you give such a couple?
---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------
p.s. a follow-p question: Should women have been given the vote in the first place?
I am so very grateful that the Lord who is sovereign over all led Columbus to accidentally discover this land. Providentally the European diseases he inadvertantly brought with him served to weaken the numbers of the savages that they were not able to overcome the various European groups that came across the ocean. I am particularly grateful for men like Cortez who liberated countless numbers of the poor wretches from the vile Aztecs. Likewise, Pizarro was God's instrument against the Incas.
("Suppose you were witnessing to an atheist and you shared with him Romans 1:18-32. If he insists that he does not know God, that he is not suppressing any truth, and that there are many reasons for doubting God's existence, then what do you say to him? Do you present the transcendental argument?")
Just tell him you are an "a-atheist" and do not believe in atheists, thus shifting the burden of proof to him.
[The OP wants his fiancee to give up her medical career to homeschool their future children]
Jessica, with all due respect, your focus is on the desires of the wife rather than godliness. Two things. She is to submit to her husband. He is to love her and live with her with understanding. If his convictions dictate that his children be taught at home and hers dictate that she pursues a career then she is blatantly disobeying God and distorting her priorities. If he sees a way to faithfully train their children without compromise and still provide for her to pursue being a doctor then great. But if he leads she must follow. And submission leaves absolutely no room for resentment in the heart of the wife. If she is resentful then she is resentful toward God.
As a reformed christian I am cautious to cite satan's direct presence and participation but if there were any moment in my life where the EXTREME vibe of evil and perhaps his very personal up-close snarl were in my ear, it would've been in West Hollywood last summer; sodomites the nation over congregated to flaunt their rebellion with parades and get drunk and have orgies in the name of their fallen desires.
New to LA I was ignorant of this satanic ritual and ventured into that part of town on the eve of excessive debauchery; I had never prayed audibly in public until that night but wickedness was literally in the air. it was to be felt and it was to be escaped from.
I do not say this with sarcasm when I tell you I expected to see satan come around the corner twirling a baton as he prepared the parade to march.
Because of the sheer density of evil, one so condensed it had an actual tangible spirit that ran through the unruly crowd, I am inclined to think the devil was in attendance that night.