Tsunami was Gods Retribution?

Post by **Maria** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:18 pm

Weather is all connected. If you tinker with one area trying to fix something or punish or reward some tiny humans, you get repercussions throughout the whole system.

It really doesn't seem like an efficient method of reward and punishment unless one could accurately predict all the consequences of the interference. Which, I guess, isn't impossible for an omnipotent being- but surely there are better ways.

Post by **SirDennis** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:34 am

Frelga wrote:Well, I will mention in passing that obviously Christians and Jews do not agree on the Isaiah passages. Buy that's a millennia-old debate and I won't rehash it here.

But, but surely we can agree that this is a sound principle:

"Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" (the Isaiah 40:13 reference)

This, to me at least, warns against saying such things as "The tsunami that hit Japan last year was God's retribution against Atheists (his enemies)."

Post by **Lalaith** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:32 am

SirDennis wrote:Here's another passage that I think relates to the question, though it is subtle:

Matt 12:17-20

This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations. He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. (emphasis added)

The above refers to Jesus in light of a passage from Isaiah.

The questions from my previous post may be viewed in light of this passage as well. Any takers?

Well, I'm not sure what point you're going for. People/cities who didn't get to witness the direct presence of God, i.e., through Jesus himself and his miracles, will not be punished? Only cities/peoples that did will?

This is a complicated subject. God sometimes chose to punish cities/peoples (and I use those terms interchangeably because I think that's really what it means) in the past. He talks of future punishments in the Day of Wrath. Does he punish them now, in the present? Probably is my best guess, but I would add that I think that often takes the form of natural consequences from sin. And sin (or crime, if you prefer to think of it that way) draws more sin or more crimes. I think it's probably less about weather punishments.

But I won't presume to speak for God. Either way.

Post by **SirDennis** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:54 am

Yes, yes, this is a start and close to my reading as well.

I think there are some pretty firm ideas in the first passage (the one with the questions) but would really like to hear others' opinions before positing a sermon of my own. Assuming anyone is interested in the original question from a Christian perspective -- as the video Al posted (without further comment as usual

) appears to be speaking of the God of the Bible.

Post by **JewelSong** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:21 pm

I do believe that the original video was a fake.

That being said, I don't believe God "controls" the weather and uses storms/drought/floods/earthquakes/etc as "retribution" against real or imagined sins.

I believe ancient peoples needed explanations for why natural disasters happened (or why a particular year was fruitful) and God, of course, was the reason. Wait long enough and there's bound to be a year where there is excess flooding or a tornado hits...depending on where you live. If you are sitting on a fault line, you're gonna get earthquakes. If you're near the ocean and the ocean floor is unstable, well, you're bound to get a tidal wave. God's retribution has nothing to do with it.

Post by **Alatar** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:00 pm

SirDennis wrote:Yes, yes, this is a start and close to my reading as well.

I think there are some pretty firm ideas in the first passage (the one with the questions) but would really like to hear others' opinions before positing a sermon of my own. Assuming anyone is interested in the original question from a Christian perspective -- as the video Al posted (without further comment as usual ) appears to be speaking of the God of the Bible.

When people started quoting scripture I lost interest.

Post by **Frelga** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:52 pm

You started a thread on one of the fundamental questions about the nature of God. How could it be discussed except by addressing the Scripture(s)?

Post by **Lalaith** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:12 pm

That was my thought, too, honestly.

Post by **SirDennis** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:13 pm

Frelga wrote:You started a thread on one of the fundamental questions about the nature of God. How could it be discussed except by addressing the Scripture(s)?

We could I suppose, and open it up to include all the various traditions that deal with gods, or lack of gods or metaphysics in general. However, as the video appears to be speaking about the God of the Bible, I figured the Bible was a good place to turn for answers. Unless the thread was actually intended to be about "the crazy ideas some people have even in this [so called] age of reason." That to me is a much less useful conversation to have.

Post by **axordil** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:16 pm

Not so much crazy as nasty and vindictive. But one can support "nasty and vindictive" with spurious logic as well as with spurious interpretation of the scriptures of one's choice.

Post by **SirDennis** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:05 pm

axordil wrote:Not so much crazy as nasty and vindictive. But one can support "nasty and vindictive" with spurious logic as well as with spurious interpretation of the scriptures of one's choice.

Let's pretend that was not a slight against me, and also pretend I did not slap you across the cheek with my glove.

Rather I am choosing to believe that in your usual insightful, terse way you are pointing to the difficulty in appealing to scripture for authority if one is unfamiliar with them, disinterested in them, or otherwise hold them in contempt or disbelief.

However, since many of us have shown some interest and not a little skill in analysing texts, I thought that, again as the topic pertains to the nature of the God of the Bible, that we might all be inclined to try to discern what that book actually says.

Interpretation is not a matter of opinion as is popularly believed. It is either correct, or incorrect. If it is correct, it will line up with the rest of the text; if incorrect, it will not. What confuses the issue for many are religious doctrines that have no clear basis on scripture, and people who purport to be adherents who live in a way that clearly (to anyone with even cursory knowledge of the text) contradicts the text but call their own behaviour holy.

On that last point I am reminded of something Oxford philosopher and Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias wrote in his book Why Jesus? (2012):

In Europe, Christianity was abused when it was used for political power; In America it has been abused by using it for economic power. And today it is abused by its detractors who deny its power and remove it from any position of moral authority... The price paid for these distortions has been enormous. Gandhi roundly criticized the Christianity he saw practiced around him and advised E. Stanley Jones that if the message of Christianity were to make inroads into India, it would have to look more like Jesus than like his followers. That is, I am afraid, a very legitimate criticism to this very day, and not only in India. ... (p. 102-103)

Gandhi understood that one should at least know what the scriptures say before setting about criticising those who claim to follow them.

Post by **axordil** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:21 pm

No slight against anyone in thread intended.

But what I was really pointing out was that nasty diatribes against strawmen and other easy targets can come from any religious subtext or none at all.

As far as correctness of interpretation...one assumes then, no one has it right, or people would have settled on the one that works for everyone. This is from someone who grew up with a "my way or the highway" interpretation of Scripture, mind you.

Nowadays I'm more of a reader response critic when it comes to religions and their sacred texts. Last I checked, books and scrolls don't get up and do things, but people do.

Post by **SirDennis** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:57 am

axordil wrote:No slight against anyone in thread intended.

But what I was really pointing out was that nasty diatribes against strawmen and other easy targets can come from any religious subtext or none at all.

As far as correctness of interpretation...one assumes then, no one has it right, or people would have settled on the one that works for everyone. This is from someone who grew up with a "my way or the highway" interpretation of Scripture, mind you.

Nowadays I'm more of a reader response critic when it comes to religions and their sacred texts. Last I checked, books and scrolls don't get up and do things, but people do.

So there I was doing a little volunteer painting at an emergency food bank on this very raining afternoon. Most of the clients walk to the mission so quite a few of them were drenched as they came inside. I have to admit that when one fellow who looked like he just fell in a lake walked through the door I thought to myself, "geez isn't life hard enough that the guy should also have to put up with this kind of weather?"

Now that doesn't mean that I was thinking God had anything to do with the fellow's state; but I guess it did mean I wondered why it seems like some people never seem to catch a break. And, if God controls the rain, why wouldn't he have picked another day, a day when the food bank wasn't open, to drench the town?

Of course I realized immediately that it was just raining, and it probably had absolutely nothing to do with when the food bank was open or God's purpose for people who rely on it.

Anyway, back to your post Ax. Are you saying that natural disasters are the result of something -- probably the way humans exist on the planet -- but that certain people try to blame it on the victims for their own nefarious reasons? In other words, is the straw man in this case an opinion about "God's Wrath?"

If so, I think that your idea may have much merit. I'm a little slow on the uptake, and long winded apparently.

Post by **axordil** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:11 am

I think natural phenomena are natural, but that much of the "disaster" part comes from poor human decisions, or at least uninformed ones. Blaming the victims has an uncanny tendency to follow the agenda of the blamer, whatever that agenda may be, but the bad decisions are not always on the part of the victim.

Post by **River** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:28 am

Well, if the non-believers can have a say...

The Stoics had it right. Nature happens. That's just a risk every living thing faces. The risk can be calculated. If you have the resources, you can prepare. If you have the freedom, you can even just choose not to live in a certain area. But no matter how hard you play the probabilities, there's still a chance nature will have the proverbial last word.

SirDennis wrote: However, as the video appears to be speaking about the God of the Bible, I figured the Bible was a good place to turn for answers.

Yeah, I figured that was the deal too.

Post by **Alatar** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:06 am

Frelga wrote:You started a thread on one of the fundamental questions about the nature of God. How could it be discussed except by addressing the Scripture(s)?

Very easily. I do it all the time.

Post by **SirDennis** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:09 pm

Alatar wrote:
Frelga wrote:You started a thread on one of the fundamental questions about the nature of God. How could it be discussed except by addressing the Scripture(s)?
Very easily. I do it all the time.

Al, are you trying to take some kind of moral high ground here?

This is a discussion (well that's doubtful now) referring to the protagonist of a certain text. People (and by people we mean one guy, namely me) posted some parts of that text to consider in light of the question. Do you believe that to be restrictive in some way, or insensitive to the beliefs of others?

Or is it that as soon as someone with a smattering of practical knowledge of the subject starts in with "Well the Bible says this and God says that..." your holy roller (aka bible thumper, jesus freak, left-legger) detector triggers a brain fart causing you to shut down?

If you wanted to talk about the science of weather vs superstitions about the weather (a perfectly valid and potentially interesting topic) the video you shared was needlessly controversial. It was misleading, I believe deliberately.

Post by **Alatar** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:46 pm

You really do think I'm a troll don't you? Bizarre.

Its nothing of the sort. I posted this in a "Look how nuts some people are" kinda way. I was a little disturbed that posters on this site were supporting their position with quotes from an ancient book written by men, for men and treating it as if it were actually the spoken word of God. I genuinely find that unnerving. Its easy to dismiss random whack jobs on the internet, but when people you respect start doing the same thing it hits closer to home. I can't really say any more without violating the rules of this site, and this forum. In fact I may have already done so. I shall bow out, and leave you to your assumptions about my trollish nature.

Post by **yovargas** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:59 pm

Sorry, Al, it looked very trollish to me too. It's not like you were unaware that, yes, many people, some of who post here, do indeed take the Bible very seriously.

Post by **nerdanel** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:32 pm

At the same time, in Al's defense, he posted a video to make (implicitly or otherwise) certain points of his choosing, then quietly left the thread without commentary when the discussion veered in a direction that he was apparently not interested in going. Only when he was called out for not commenting more in this thread did he express the view that he didn't want to participate in a very scripture-based discussion, as is certainly his prerogative. It seems like it might be just better to let people depart from a thread quietly when they just decide that it's no longer appealing to them, for whatever reason.