Earthquake in Chile: God’s Wrath

Revelations 6: 12 He opened the sixth seal, and a great earthquake occurred…

At last count, the 8.8 earthquake that hit Chile today had killed almost 300 people. This, one must assume, is because they or their ancestors obviously did something that angered God. We know this because, in the wake of the Haitian earthquake, Pat Robertson explained to the world that earthquakes were a sign of God’s disfavor. (see video at bottom).

As we all know, Haiti is an evil, godless country that worships Satan through its national religion, Voodoo.  Granted, to believe this blessed revelations by Mr. Robertson we will have to set aside some troubling details… like the fact that Voodoo practitioners don’t believe in Satan.  Regardless, according to Robertson, the Haitians sold their souls to the devil in exchange for freedom from the French.  (I mean really, who can blame them?  How much brie and baguette can one nation abide?)

But now we have Chile…

Chile gained their independence from Spain, not France.  Instead of a revolt, the Chileans went at it with an old-fashioned, blood-and-guts revolution in 1810.  It took thirty years of killing, maiming, and slaughter before the nation finally gained its independence in 1840.  By comparison, the Haitians only fought for fourteen years.  That’s half the time. (Apparently it pays to have Satan on your side, though I still say they got ripped off.  If I’m selling my soul, I want a quick win, dammit.)


By all accounts, the Chileans did not have Satan on their side.  To make matters even more confusing, Chile is a staunchly Christian nation.  At last count, over 53 percent of the populous were actual, practicing Protestants.  Like, real protestants… the ones that actually go to church every week and really believe the crap— er, doctrine.  Of these, 17% of them are Evangelical Christians; Robertson’s ilk.

Why, then, would God be mad at them?  What could these people possibly have done to stir the ire of the Almighty to the point where He wreaked vengeance on them?  I have two theories…

My first theory is the more esoteric of the two, and attempts to reconcile Pat Robertson’s revelations with the state of Chile: The Chileans are paying the price for religious tolerance. It only makes sense. You see, while many of them are good, God-fearing Christians, they have allowed religious tolerance to seep into their culture. The nation is chock-full of Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses… even Baha’Is. This, one might assume, would be more than enough to annoy a jealous and temperamental Evangelical God.

My second theory, while more succinct, is the better thought-out of the two: Both earthquakes were random acts of nature.  (I understand how radical this approach might seem to the Evangelicals out there.)  This theory exonerates both Chileans and Haitians, and places the blame for these earthquakes solely on the capricious nature of tectonic shifts and the unpredictability of sudden plate movements. Of course, for this theory to be true, Pat Robertson would have to be a malicious, self-centered moron that needs to be smacked upside the head with a deluxe, hardcover edition of The Origin of the Species.

I am leaning heavily toward theory two.

Align=center

Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Comments

4 Responses to “Earthquake in Chile: God’s Wrath”
  1. Anita says:

    Is your point that A) Pat Robertson is an idiot, therefore his religion is suspect,
    B) All religions are suspect because Pat Robertson is an idiot; therefore buy my book, The Heathen’s Guide to World Religions. C) I’m angry with people like Pat Robertson because they distort Jesus’s original message or D) I’m angry, and stupid statements by people like Pat Robertson–which Haitians never hear or Haitian-born Americans and Canadians dismiss immediately–really get my goat and make me dwell on the futility of all religions when I would better spend my time helping Haitians but that takes a lot of thought and energy and it’s simpler to worry about minor lunacies?

  2. William Hopper says:

    I see you did not take the logic course when you were at Queen’s.

    Pat Robertson is an idiot. This has nothing to do with the fact that his religions is suspect.

    I don’t give a damn about “Jesus’ original message”. Anything he might have had to say is long lost in antiquity, editing, and politics.

    Had you checked the main page of the website before posting you might have noticed that it now has a big red box at the top with the words “Non-believers Giving Aid: Support for the Haiti Tragedy and Beyond.”

    And finally, it is nice to see that you agree Christianity is a minor lunacy.

  3. Anita says:

    I had seen that part on your website. To give to Haitians is one thing. To do so to rack up recognition for atheists is another. There’s nothing wrong with giving a donation to a church-sponsored program there or a program not affiliated with any religion, for that matter. They can use all the help they get. Ergo, the link is a silly one.

    My point is that Pat Robertson’s “revelations” don’t need reconciling or consideration and your time is better spent elsewhere doing something that helps the world. Choirs of angels will sing when you do one small useful task compared to writing about one person who’s got it wrong.

    Pat Robertson’s comments on the video were the lunacy I referred to. You consistently lump all Christian religions together, which is simply not right. Wherever they differ, you should attempt to see which one is right.

  4. William Hopper says:

    First off, all Christians believe in a Christ. So yeah, they are all the same in this regard. Otherwise they would not be Christians.

    There is a hell of a lot wrong with giving to a church sponsored program there. More than I’d care to get into for now. (At the tip of the iceberg is the percentage of monies that actually reaches the needy when using a church fund).

    And I AM helping the world. There are 5 major religions. Reduce that to zero and you’ll have saved billions of lives.

    Your definition of right is simply “that which you believe”. There is no yardstick or measure you can use to assert any religion is better than another. They all do good and bad in pretty much the same portion (more bad than good imo). Your only claim to superiority is the belief that what the Vatican says is true. A belief in any other seat of faith is equally viable (or equally inviable). More importantly, they are all pretty much the same when it gets down to it… they all rest their authority on unproven and unprovable faith.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree