;)
Why Did God Destroy Sodom?
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology, News & Culture
Before reading the rest of this post, I ask you to first stop and answer the question: “Why, in your opinion, did God decide to destroy the city of Sodom?”…
Now, read the answer that God’s Word gives to this question, by way of the prophet Ezekiel:
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50).
If you are like the majority of American evangelicals, your answer to the question was probably something like: “God destroyed Sodom because of their sexual perversion, and more specifically, their homosexual activity.” Okay already. I agree that, among the “detestable things” the Sodomites did before God, their sexual immorality and homosexual activity is almost certainly included. However, is it not surprising to you that, for the most part, the majority of the reasons given by Ezekiel for the destruction of Sodom are quite a bit different from those typically assumed by many?
Along with most conservative Christians, I agree that abortion and the “right to life,” in general, are key issues that ought to steer our political views and social involvement. I also agree that homosexual activity (and sexual perversion in general) is an abomination before the Lord, which should not be encouraged and facilitated by the norms of society. However, I question whether, as conservative Christians, we are truly being faithful to a balanced view of Scripture when we don’t give at least equal billing, in our preaching, and in our political and social involvement, to the societal sins of arrogance, gluttony and indifference; and when we neglect to reach out in loving compassion to the poor and needy among us, and around the world.
Perhaps it is easier to point a finger at others than it is to give attention to matters that cut a lot closer to home. If God were to destroy America, what do you think would be his reason for doing so?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
David,
I think that all sin caused the necessity of the Atonement. There is no doubt about that.
Yet, some sin carries a greater consequence than do others in ones personal life and that of society as a whole. Sodomite behavior has lead to the destruction of the very fabric of many cultures. History will make that very plain.
God instituted family by eternal decree. Such things as divorce, abuse, any type of sexual perversion such as a drift toward embracing the life of a sodomite, catamite, or lesbian as common is of a destructive nature that leads to a rapid ripping of the very fabric of society itself. Some things simply cost more than others in the economy of God.
cb
David,
I should have added abortion and the destruction of the “innocence” of children to divorce, abuse, etc.
cb
David,
A agree with the point of your post but would also want to mention that “prophet” Jude also shared a primary reason for Sodom’s destruction.
“In the same way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions (NASB says “went after strange flesh”), just as they did, and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”
Jude 1:7 (HCSB)
David,
I agree that we need to expect more from our candidates than a pro-life, pro-traditional-marriage stance. People are too pessimistic about the possibilities of good government. We need to expect more than pro-life, pro-traditional marriage.
Several years ago I visited Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the holocaust memorial there. Within the grounds is the children’s memorial. It is entered by a walkway that spirals widely down into a large room in the ground. The room is lined by thousands of mirrors that reflect the light of a single candle, so that everywhere you look you see the image of millions of candles. While standing in the near darkness, a voice quietly calls out the individual names of one and one-half million children (the number killed in the holocaust).
I really fell apart in that darkened hall, not just over the children who were killed in the holocaust, but over the millions (over 43 million now) aborted in this country since the passage of Roe V. Wade. At the time, twelve years ago, I was anti-abortion, but pro-choice. That day I gave God my word that I would never be silent about those who have no voice.
I am not a single issue voter, but abortion is a deal-breaker with me.
I simply cannot bring myself to place any financial issue, whether health care or Social Security, above abortion on the voting scale. I’m with Cyle on this one. Abortion is just one of the factors that I use to determine the overall “direction” of a candidate. A pro-abortion Christian candidate versus a anti-abortion Muslim candidate would leave me in a real mess, though.
Not sure this is on topic with the original post, sorry.
Bernard,
This is a good discussion.
It’s a little off … but don’t get quite so bent out of shape as some do about being off-topic … so long as everyone is being respectful.
David,
In answer to your original post and question …
Sodom was not destroyed because of any single sin. The culture was sick. Like the human body, sickness always has multiple symptoms. Ezekiel 16:49-50 reflect an overall “diagnosis.” But most of us tend to understand and agree that runaway sexual perversion seems to be the consummation of a truly sick society.
Obviously, we have arrived at such a state of sickness in the United States. I guess the main difference from Sodom (praise God!) is that there remains not only a remnant of the faithful, but a multitude.
But I do not think that the references to gluttony, not caring, not helping the poor, sexual perversion, etc… were referring to any governmental failures. It was not referring to the structure of the society (government) but the fabric of it (the people).
Therefore, we will never conquer the ills in our society in a voting booth. Such victories are won by reaching one person and one family at a time with the transforming message of Jesus Christ. As go the people, so goes the government and leadership.
Everyone who has commented so far,
I do not “violently disagree” with what any of you have said. For me, it is not a question of “either-or”, but of “both-and.”
For instance, I just heard James Dobson say on the radio this morning: “I will never ever vote for someone who would permit the killing of innocent babies” (not exact quote). I think I am in agreement with him.
That leaves us with an interesting situation the way the up-coming presidential election is shaping up. What if it is a Clinton-Giuliani contest? Do we all abstain? I guess there is always the 3rd party option.
I especially agree with Geoff that the ultimate answer is not in politics. If the change does not come from the inside-out, the long-lasting consequences will be of naught. What we need is spiritual revival, starting in our own churches.
The point I am making, though, is, it seems to me there is a tendency to get so focused on certain issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.) that we end up neglecting other issues that are just as big of a deal for God.
david rogers,
i agree with cb, chris, and geoff on this one. and, i’d really have a hard time voting for anyone with a pro choice, pro homosexual agenda. if it comes down to a clinton v. giuliani contest, then i’d have to go with the fiscal conservative myself. i hate taxes being raised when they are so abused and misused today…plus, i pay enough. i cant pay anymore…thus, i almost always vote against the dems in the political realm.
david, i guess i look at it from a who would do the most harm to society in general kind of thing. i vote for the one who either best represents what i believe, or i at least vote against the one who i believe would be worse for society.
david
I have to throw this comment in. I think we need to be more optimistic about the ability of government to do good. It’s clear that we are not. The President’s approval rating is dismal and people approve of Congress just slightly more than they approve of the performance of the Colorado Rockies. If God is the one who sets the authorities in place, and He is, then we ought to be more excited about being in a country that allows us the opportunity to be a significant part of that process. My family recently campaigned for a godly man to be elected to the state senate. He won a significant election. My state just elected a godly man as governor. He is the youngest, and only non-white governor elected in the history of our state, and he is a committed conservative Christian. I absolutely believe that prayer is more powerful than the vote, but I also believe that to neglect to vote and to neglect to participate in the governance of our country is a failure of stewardship. And, I believe that if we remain pessimistic about government, we will not participate.
Cyle,
I am probably more pessimistic about government than most. That is WHY I participate. I haven’t missed a presidential election since I proudly (and to the horror of my parents) cast my vote for Ronald Reagan in my first eligible election in 1984.
I have very low expectations about what government could ans should do in our lives. Yes, there are bright spots. But we don’t need to place much “faith” in it.
Let’s do our serving and giving to the poor through the church, and fight the confiscation of our earnings for the government’s unhealthy efforts to do so.
David,
I do hope we do not have to vote between “the Clintons” and Giuliani, but if we do I will have to vote for Giuliani. I think in doing so we will kill far less babies than otherwise and at least Guiliani is not overtly trying to take my right to protect my family, my neighbor, the weak and my property away from me by disarming the public which could lead to genocide of any one or several groups other than the unborn.
cb
David Worley & CB,
From a Christian perspective, I personally like the term “compassionate conservative.” Of course, we cannot compromise on clear moral issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage. Also, I realize there are different theories on what is the most effective way of defending the rights of the underprivileged. Some argue that it is better done by private sector. And, some argue that a prosperous economy overall, with a bigger “pie”, is better for the poor than a depressed economy where the poor get “bigger slices of the pie.” Those are questions that are open for legitimate debate. What I think is not an option for us, if we are serious about being Christians, though, is indifference in the face of poverty and suffering, whether in our own country, or around the world. It is a very important concern in the eyes of God, and should be for us as well.
David,
What do you see the opposite of indifference as “looking like?”
At my church we literally feed and clothe the needy, especially children. We have an extensive local ministry for these ministries, including providing large volumes of food at reduced prices through Angel Food Ministries. But we don’t just “hand out money” as is so often the norm in North American church (and governmental)life. First of all, throwing cash at something is just too “easy.” Second, we don’t have the money to “throw” at anything. So we choose to be intentional and relational as we seek to meet needs.
In reality, many of the “programs” and “ministries” intended to relieve poverty do nothing more than exacerbate the problem by creating an inherited cycle of dependency. And that, to me, seems much worse than indifference. (You know, the whole “give a man a fish -vs- teach him to fish” proverb.)
Is more needed? What must we do?
David,
History says I need no reminder that we as Christians must be serious about dealing with poverty and suffering. Nor do I think Vol (David Worley) does either.
I also see the reality of what Geoff Baggett has stated in his second parahraph about many of the “programs” and “ministries” intended to relieve such things yet only cause more.
The gospel of Christ does not enable us as beggers upon our fellow man. The gospel frees even the most poor to become servants of others. We as believers are called upon the “give a cup of water” in the name of Jesus be that water be given from a crystal vessel or a dixie cup.
Therefore I ask as did Geoff. Is more needed? What must we do? If we follow Christ we must be servants, but we must be servants according to the model presented by Christ revealed in Scripture.
cb
Geoff:
Your question is a the same question I would ask, namely, “What can we do to actually help?” . . . “To what extent is ‘throwing money’ at a problem ‘helping’?”
When I compare various neighborhoods in the cities of the USA, it seems to me like their is a correlation between very unstable families and poverty. I didn’t say there is a ’cause and effect’ relationship, but there may be. I don’t know if poverty is causing the other problems or if poverty is the result of other problems.
If poverty is not the root cause of urban problems then ‘throwing money around’ is not going to help.
Geoff,
From all I can tell, I think what you are doing there at Crossroads Fellowship is a great example of the “opposite of indifference.” If evangelicals across the country would follow your example (not to infer there are not many who already do), I think we would be in much better shape in regard to being obedient to what God expects of us.
Geoff & CB,
What more is needed? I think I would reply with another question: What more could be done? While there are still needy people in the world (forever, according to Jesus), there will always be more we can do.
The question, as I said on my last comment, is do government programs, in the long run, truly help or hinder the poor? Personally, I don’t think the answer to this question is black and white. The problem, in my opinion, is when we use the excuse that many programs are wasteful and unproductive as a cover for our indifference.
Roger,
I totally agree with you that the root of the problem goes way beyond poverty in and of itself. But, in the meantime, especially in the two-thirds world, there are many who are dying of hunger. Once again, I don’t think the answer is “either-or”, but rather “both-and.”
David,
Pointing out the fact that many programs are “wasteful and unproductive” does not mean one is using that fact as an “excuse” and a “cover for our indifference.”
If it is the truth (and it is true) then it is simply telling the truth. To use the word “we” as you did is, as I think someone has already said, painting with too broad a brush. Geoff was simply presenting what they do which, frankly, is much more than many others. His question was valid within context.
Also, the context of the Text you referenced (Matt. 26:11) presents the fact from the very lips of Jesus there is something more important than bread for the poor. He actually made reference to that more than once in the gospels.
To give a cup of cold water with one hand, compassion and true pathos with the other and the love of Jesus shared from the lips is the proper way.
Government programs leave off the pathos and the love of Jesus and merely “splash” a little water on people leaving them still with dry tongues. Jesus had and has a better way.
May of our missionary programs have been too busy handing out bread without sharing the Bread of Life to really make a change. A full belly burns in Hell just as does an empty one.
Another thing our mission efforts have been guilty of is to become engrossed in “maintaining the compound” of the mission rather than fulfilling the mission. Sometimes I think maybe we should just put the compounds up for sale, take the money, buy bread and trucks and give away the bread and share Jesus with no strings attached and no expectations that can be put into a report back to the “Really Big Compound” in Richmond and just see what God does.
Of course, the curse of cb is that he has always been a radical and says too much for the “Keepers of the Compound” to allow to be said out in the open.
Bottom line, David, some of us are not indifferent and the word “we” is just not applicable. Some of us are just tired of the game and long for the real thing and are making efforts to do it.
cb
CB,
When I use the word “we”, I am referring to American evangelicalism in a general sense. Of course, not every individual, or sub-group, is just like everyone else. I am pointing out what seems to me to be a general trend, though. I am also pointing out a Scripture passage (Ezekiel 16:49-50) that, in our context (once again, the word “our” here does not necessarily refer to every individual or sub-group), does not seem to get a lot of emphasis. But it is what the Word of God clearly says. Like all of Scripture, we must each consider the message for us as individuals, and if not convicted of any particular sin, let it convict those who may be in need of conviction.
At the same time, when you use the word “we” in relation to “maintaining the compound,” is it possible you are doing the same thing you seem to be accusing me of? Just a thought.
David,
I really think “we” should sell the compound because “our” mission efforts have become engrossed in maintaining the compound.
I actually did not accuse “you” of anything. I had hoped maybe you would agree which would be the ultimate conclusion to which one would come to having read and implimented your post into practice. I guess I was wrong there.
cb
CB,
When I wrote the word “accuse,” I didn’t feel good about it. But, I needed to go somewhere, and was in a hurry, and ended up clicking the send button anyway. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I am sure I could have found a better way to express myself. If this were to evolve into a personal conflict between you and me, that would be the furthest thing possible from my original intention.
Having said that, after reading over your last 2 comments, I am wondering if maybe I am not understanding you very well. If you think it might be helpful to explain what you mean a little more, that would be great. If you prefer to just drop it, I am fine with that as well.
Blessings,
David
All (or most, at least) -
I find it interesting and even disappointing that a discussion of Sodom denegrates into a discussion with overtones of missionary condemnation. Sounds a lot like many of my non-Christian associates who blame the evils in many third world countries on the presence of American missionaries.
I find it terribly unjust.
Sorry – the proper word would have been “degrades”, not “denigrates”.
David,
You said, “What more is needed? I think I would reply with another question: What more could be done? While there are still needy people in the world (forever, according to Jesus), there will always be more we can do.”
And I quite agree. I guess I am more of a “do” sort of guy. So much of what I see in the media today (stuff like Bono of U2 “talking” about poverty, aids, etc…) seems to be nothing more than talk to me.
The problem really seems so big that it is almost insurmountable. So we tend to withdraw into helplessness in the face of such monstrous problems. But if the church … the local church … as the people of God would step up, get their hands dirty, and take REAL action to meet needs, then it would change EVERYTHING.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s a lot like the old starfish on the beach story. We cannot possibly help everyone and fill every belly every day. but we can help, one person and family at a time, without creating the cycle of dependency.
THAT would be an incredible step in the life and testimony of the church. A lot more hands up, and a lot less handouts. A lot more needs met, and a lot fewer boycotts and protests.
Anyhow … just a few random thoughts …
Geoff,
I agree with you as well. I think the main thing we, as believers, can and ought to do is just as you say, “step up, get our hands dirty, and take real action to meet needs.”
I also think that giving to causes such as IMB World Hunger fund is not a bad idea. And something good might even be accomplished every now and then by Bono and U2.
Isn’t it possible that as the financial resources of mission organizations decreases, the percentage to “maintain the compound” increases, making the efficiency seem disparate?
My opinion on Bono is that he uses his celebrity status very well to advance awareness. “Getting his hands dirty” would accomplish more in the lives of a select few individuals, but less globally.
As a matter of fact, we’re wasting a lot of words and time debating this on this blog. How many of us have helped a poor man since this post?
Talking about it between Christian brothers is no less “just talk” than what Bono does.
David,
I do not have a desire for a conflict with you and I would like to speak more of this and I guess I failed to illustrate properly what I intended to say. But, first I will do a little housekeeping with Bernard if I may? Thank you.
Bernard, I am not blaming our missionaries for anything. Our missionaries are the best in the world. Period. I have worked with them, taught them, housed them sent them, rescued them and financially supported them greatly. I was speaking of missions methodology relating to effectiveness with David. My words have not been wasted here. There are certain things that need to be visited about how we do missions as Southern Baptists. I was in no way attacking David. If I had been it would have been easy to see. If you would like to attack me. That is fine. Let’s rock. Do not come in the back door. Call me out, plain and simple. If you would like to contribute to this conversation, by all means do so, but do not define this as a fight or an attack. If this were a fight it would not be worthy of warriors. I have not even called David one name.
David, I have been wondering for some time if we do, as Southern Baptists, need to consider new ways of developing a better way to do what I will call a “full compliment” of missions, for a lack of a better term. Sometimes I think we are hobbling the horse. Let’s talk more.
cb
One more thing, Bernard, since you have asked. I have helped several and will do more tonight.
cb
CB – This isn’t my idea of fun, okay? I’m going to step away from this. I’m not trying to pick a fight and I’m going to leave before I get accused of it.
All – Y’all continue as you choose. It’s obvious that CB and I are a bit fractious, for whatever reason, so it’s best if we don’t both participate in this discussion, and probably in most others. We don’t seem to compliment each other very well. Thus, I’ll find more friendly skies and leave CB to these
I wish all of you the best, and I hope that whatever the real question is here gets answered to everyone’s satisfaction.
Peace.
In Christ,
Bernard
CB,
Fair enough. Why don’t we go back to where we were before this digression.
First, I did not mean to imply that pointing out the fact that many programs are “wasteful and unproductive” necessarily means one is using that fact as an “excuse” and a “cover for our indifference.” I only meant to say that is a possible pitfall to be avoided, that’s all.
Next, regarding my use of the term “we”, I have already explained myself.
Next, I agree Geoff’s question was valid. I hope I did not insinuate otherwise.
Next, I also agree there is “something more important than bread for the poor.” Once again, I don’t see it as “either-or”, but rather as “both-and”, though. You are correct, that is the context of Matt. 26:11. However, when you add in the broader context of Matt. 25:31-46, the emphasis on the Christian duty to not neglect the poor becomes quite clear, in my opinion.
The best option, as you indicate, if I understand you correctly, is to help the poor from a standpoint of “agape” love motivated by the grace of God, offering true spiritual riches along with material help. It is true that government programs fall short in this respect. However, that does not mean, from my point of view, that we should oppose all government attempts to help the poor. The logical consequences of such a view would leave the poor in a much worse conundrum, albeit temporal, than they are in now.
It is possible I am in agreement with you about “maintaining the compound,” but I am not completely sure I am following the metaphor you are making here. If you point out some practical ways in which you believe we are overly engrossed in “maintaining the compound” and some practical steps for “giving away the bread, and sharing Jesus with no strings attached,” then maybe I could understand better what you are trying to say.
Once again, when I said “we”, I did not intend to classify you among the “indifferent.” Sorry if it came across that way.
David
David,
I certainly agree with your post. I have noticed and noted the passage in Ezekiel several times.
I personally think in reading Romans 1 that sodomy is a judgment on a nation on its own. Jeremiah the prophet stated that “Your own sins will judge you”, and the acceptance of sodomy by our nation will be our undoing. It seems to be a final element of warning before judgment really falls.
T.A.
Tim,
I think you make a great point. Yes, some sins often are tied together with other sins, and consequences of other sins. And, acceptance of sodomy does seem to be pretty far down the downward spiral.
At the same time, I don’t think that should lead any of us who may be clear in our condemnation of sodomy to “relax” and “breathe easy,” if, at the same time, we may be guilty of arrogance, gluttony, and indifference.
David,
I’ll be back.
cb
David,
That was just too short. You deserve a proper answer. Especially due to the fact my absence will be directly related to the topic of your post.
I have to go and help many poor people from LSU deal with the pain of loss as the SABANATION destroys their hopes of national glory. So many of them have come to the CAPSTONE with great hope in their hearts only to be crushed just a few hours from now. It is my duty to help them deal with the agony they are about to go through. I will talk to you later. I must not be indifferent to their coming sorrow.
“-)
cb
CB, That’s just funny.
David,
The point I want to make is that maybe we need to explore a new paradigm for missions development. I know we are looking at the possibilities and the advantages of rethinking associational missions in North America. The “church model” of associational work wherein churches support and finance the “ministries” of the association is not working. Why do we need an associational pianist, choir director, Sunday School director, etc?
In short many associations are divesting themselves of buildings, property and the extra “compound maintenance personnel” and developing financial and support ministries to help churches do the work that Jesus mandated the churches to do rather than the reverse which is not in the GC.
With that in mind, I have been wondering if it would be possible to develop a new way of doing international missions also. Could we become more effective by divesting ourselves of buildings and property and do more church planting with personnel presently working to keep compounds maintained? Administrative personnel would develop support and financial methods for planting churches and work “hands on” with new church planters in their assigned areas.
I do not have a specific plan with detail in mind. I just have questions as to the possibilities. I know North American mission efforts to plant churches will do much better if local associations explore the benefits of the “support model” rather than the church model now in use which takes so much personnel, money, and a compound to maintain. I think the question: “What is the association good for?” can be answered by changing the function of the association rather than making an excuse for its existence and using guilt to enforce church support.
Those are my thoughts. Is this possible on an international level? How far outside reality am I?
cb
CB,
My impression is that, for the most part, the IMB on the field has far less administrative infrastructure than the associational missions system in the States. I know that in Spain, for example, we closed down our office about 10 years ago.
Of course, there is always a need for some administrative infrastructure. But, once again, my personal impression is that, for the most part the IMB does a pretty good job at being good stewards of this.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
In my short-term work overseas, it’s been my experience that the IMB has done away with the “compound” structure or mentality. There is always a central office in a major city, but beyond that the missionaries are simply spread out, living among the people, and engaging unreached groups. Even the central office folk are “hard to find” at times because they travel so much.
I think that our IMB is an excellent picture of good stewardship in a rapidly changing world.
David,
Back in the 70′s and 80′s (my time of personal experience) I would have had great evidence. It is for that reason I now couch my thoughts as questions. I am seeking to know.
Geoff,
Are you saying that many administrative folk make their office in their vehicles? If so, I am glad to hear that news. I have not been out of the States for a good while now. I will say that much of what I saw back in the years mentioned did concern me greatly.
cb
I don’t know about having their office in their vehicles. There will always have to be a functioning office (for organizational and logistical purposes). I was in the IMB Mission in Lima, Peru, this past year. It was very humble … pretty “bare bones.” A few small offices, one small conference room, telephone and internet. I experienced the same thing in Nairobi a few years back. There was no extravagance or waste. None at all. I was amazed at the work they were doing with the resources they had. But the missionaries seem to stay on the road. That’s my point. They’re always on the go and doing the work. I admire their passion and am thankful for their sacrifice and service.
Geoff,
All of that is good to hear. I realize there is going to some form of an office. My point was in asking you if they were moving so much they did not stay in an office so much.
cb
That’s the impression that I got. Of course, I just caught a “snapshot” view. But It usually takes a number of days on e-mails, contacts, etc… I quite assume that our folks remain on the go most of the time.
CB,
From what I have been able to gather since the time I have been with the IMB (since 1994), there has been some definite administrative streamlining.
I think you guys might be real surprised if you knew how many abortions have taken place with those attending conservative evangelical churches over the past 30 years.
Admittedly there are less abortions now in the US as a whole mainly because of availability of ultra sound technology and the societal acceptance of single motherhood.
My point in all of this is that we have work to do in our churches. We have people sitting in the pews who think they are saved because they said the sinners prayer but have never been regenerated.
We also have people in our churches in serious need we must seek out and attend to.
So why is our focus society in general? We are to spread the gospel and take care of those in our churches, too. As we see in Acts.
Seems to me so many churches want to show the community how nice they are as Christians but that single mom who comes needs help with her utility bill or car maintenance.
As to the election, it could very well be God’s will that Hillary is President. We get the leaders we deserve. It rains on the just and the unjust.
And don’t forget how many ‘evangelicals’ voted for Bill Clinton…the second time.
God did not destroy the cities because of homosexuality. The strange flesh that they speak of is suggests the sin of men violating angels. The cities were destroyed due to “gang bag” and inhospitality which was in Genesis 18.
Therefore there is no argument against the so called homosexuality other than that it occurred before God destroyed the cities he already had his eyes on. If you read the passage then you would know that homosexuality is one of the minor sins considered as the reason for the cities destruction.
A.A.
GOD IS UNKNOWABLE NO ONE CAN KNOW GODS THOUGHTS FIRST HE IS ETERNAL HE KNOWS THE PAST THE PRESENT THE FUTURE NO MAN NO WOMAN HAS EVER SEEN GODSCIENCE SAID NOTHING CAN MOVE UNLESS SOMETHING MOVES IT THIS PROVES GOD THERE CAN BE MILLIONS OF EARTHS BESIDES THIS ONE YOU MAY LIVE AGAIN ON ANOTHER EARTH ALL IN ALL ITS JUST LIKE THE TWLIGHT ZONE.
how do you know that God is unknowable?