Does God punish people through natural weather events?

[JimR-OCDS]

I've asked you about a specific historical drought which was the subject of a specific prophecy by Elijah.

I've looked through your posts again, and you never refer to this event or this prophecy.

You only say two things:

1. That natural disasters happen all the time and it would be wrong to call them all punishments. But, as I've already explicitly said, I'm not talking about disasters in general I'm talking about one specific one. Despite that, you've never addressed this specific event.
2. That attributing any disasters to God is a mistake of "tribal theology." But, as I've already noted, the Book of Kings certainly does seem to attribute this drought to God. Therefore to say that doing so is a false conclusion of "tribal theology" is to say that the Book of Kings is just a bunch of mistakes. Furthermore, you can find similar statements throughout the prophets like Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Amos. So if you are going to throw out the Book of Kings on this ground, it looks like you'd also have to throw out the books of Prophecy as well. If you do that what are you left with? Now it could be that you don't believe that these books are just full of mistakes of "tribal theology," but if so it is impossible to know about it because you have repeatedly refused to give your interpretation of these books.

Instead of directly addressing my questions you content yourself with insulting me, saying that I am a fundamentalist who is incapable of understanding anything. But you know what? Even though that is false, I'd rather be that than someone who throws out whole books of scripture.

OK, no insult intended, my apology if you were offended.

It's good to read the introductions to the various books of the Bible, where a proper perspective is given.

Here's one part from 1 Kings;

The Books of Kings can be approached in several ways. They contain history and are an important source of information about the Israelite kingdoms. They are also narrative that calls for careful reading; historical accuracy is sometimes sacrificed to the demands of compelling characterization and dramatic tension. Most importantly, both historical presentation and narrative creativity are shaped by a particular religious worldview.

It's why the Catholic Church is the only authority on interpretation of Scripture for us.

Did Elijah prophesy about the drought ?

Yes he did.

Did he attributed it to God's wrath ?

According to the Scripture, he did.

That being said, the book is still written from the tribal theological perspective where God punishes and rewards accordingly.

This flies against the God of unconditional love, compassion and mercy.

But, again, seek out a Catholic Theologian to help you with this, but heaven forbid, don't attribute the current disasters to being God's wrath because of the sins of mankind.

Jim

 

[MoonlessNight]

So there we have it: according to your interpretation the greatest of all prophets was absolutely wrong about what God wanted.

If that's true, how could we trust the word of any prophet? After all, the greatest one, one so great that he appeared at the Transfiguration, blew it. So how are we supposed to trust Isaiah or Jeremiah or Amos or any of the others? Maybe they were also relying on mistaken tribal theology in their pronouncements.

That's an absurd reading of scripture, quite possibly a heretical one. It's doubly absurd to put forth that position as if it was the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

For the others in this thread, this is precisely the reason why I spoke up originally. My position is that if God so chooses, He can use natural disasters as a punishment, and that scripture tells us that He did in certain limited situations in the past. I am not claiming that all, most, or even a large number of natural disasters are punishments from God, nor am I saying that we should condemn those who suffer in natural disasters as "getting what they deserved." I'm simply saying that our best source for sacred history, that is to say scripture, tells us that there were natural disasters which were punishments.

Jim's position is that God would never use natural disasters as punishments, and if any bit of scripture says that God did, you must understand that scripture is lying to you. This line of thinking would require you to disbelieve a large portion of all the historical books of the Old Testament, and all of the prophets. Job might be out too. Perhaps we can keep Psalms, Proverbs, the books of Solomon and Sirach, but the rest of the Old Testament is out.

For those reading along, which of these viewpoints do you think is more dangerous to the Catholic faith?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So there we have it: according to your interpretation the greatest of all prophets was absolutely wrong about what God wanted.

If that's true, how could we trust the word of any prophet? After all, the greatest one, one so great that he appeared at the Transfiguration, blew it. So how are we supposed to trust Isaiah or Jeremiah or Amos or any of the others? Maybe they were also relying on mistaken tribal theology in their pronouncements.

That's an absurd reading of scripture, quite possibly a heretical one. It's doubly absurd to put forth that position as if it was the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

For the others in this thread, this is precisely the reason why I spoke up originally. My position is that if God so chooses, He can use natural disasters as a punishment, and that scripture tells us that He did in certain limited situations in the past. I am not claiming that all, most, or even a large number of natural disasters are punishments from God, nor am I saying that we should condemn those who suffer in natural disasters as "getting what they deserved." I'm simply saying that our best source for sacred history, that is to say scripture, tells us that there were natural disasters which were punishments.

Jim's position is that God would never use natural disasters as punishments, and if any bit of scripture says that God did, you must understand that scripture is lying to you. This line of thinking would require you to disbelieve a large portion of all the historical books of the Old Testament, and all of the prophets. Job might be out too. Perhaps we can keep Psalms, Proverbs, the books of Solomon and Sirach, but the rest of the Old Testament is out.

For those reading along, which of these viewpoints do you think is more dangerous to the Catholic faith?

That's your interpretation of what I posted, but you've misunderstood.

Jim

 

[Michie]

 

[Michie]

So there we have it: according to your interpretation the greatest of all prophets was absolutely wrong about what God wanted.

If that's true, how could we trust the word of any prophet? After all, the greatest one, one so great that he appeared at the Transfiguration, blew it. So how are we supposed to trust Isaiah or Jeremiah or Amos or any of the others? Maybe they were also relying on mistaken tribal theology in their pronouncements.

That's an absurd reading of scripture, quite possibly a heretical one. It's doubly absurd to put forth that position as if it was the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

For the others in this thread, this is precisely the reason why I spoke up originally. My position is that if God so chooses, He can use natural disasters as a punishment, and that scripture tells us that He did in certain limited situations in the past. I am not claiming that all, most, or even a large number of natural disasters are punishments from God, nor am I saying that we should condemn those who suffer in natural disasters as "getting what they deserved." I'm simply saying that our best source for sacred history, that is to say scripture, tells us that there were natural disasters which were punishments.

Jim's position is that God would never use natural disasters as punishments, and if any bit of scripture says that God did, you must understand that scripture is lying to you. This line of thinking would require you to disbelieve a large portion of all the historical books of the Old Testament, and all of the prophets. Job might be out too. Perhaps we can keep Psalms, Proverbs, the books of Solomon and Sirach, but the rest of the Old Testament is out.

For those reading along, which of these viewpoints do you think is more dangerous to the Catholic faith?

You might as well try to nail a piece of jello to the wall.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So are you expecting the end of the world to come on September 23 ?

There are a bunch of Christian fundamentalist point to this date as the end as punishment from God, as shown in the Book of Revelation.

I'n pretty sure I'll be using my new snow plow this winter.

Jim

 

[Michie]

Lol! *shakes head* when all else fails I guess...:lol:

 

[MoonlessNight]

So are you expecting the end of the world to come on September 23 ?

There are a bunch of Christian fundamentalist point to this date as the end as punishment from God, as shown in the Book of Revelation.

I'n pretty sure I'll be using my new snow plow this winter.

Jim

Could you at least attempt to actually address what I am saying? Your position seems to be nothing more than "MoonlessNight disagrees with my interpretation, therefore he will agree with any cockamamie interpretation I've heard about." That's obviously false and extremely uncharitable.

I might as well say that since you believe that the prophets were not accurate, you must necessarily also believe that the evangelists were not accurate and so you must not believe that Christ is risen. I wouldn't say that, of course, since nothing about your position implies that you would also endorse that heretical position. But it would be consistent with your lack of charity for me to do so.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Could you at least attempt to actually address what I am saying? Your position seems to be nothing more than "MoonlessNight disagrees with my interpretation, therefore he will agree with any cockamamie interpretation I've heard about." That's obviously false and extremely uncharitable.

I might as well say that since you believe that the prophets were not accurate, you must necessarily also believe that the evangelists were not accurate and so you must not believe that Christ is risen. I wouldn't say that, of course, since nothing about your position implies that you would also endorse that heretical position. But it would be consistent with your lack of charity for me to do so.

You're asking me to accept your Scripture verse you used about Elijah on Mt Carmel, as proof that God punishes people.

I told you, being a Carmelite, that verse was never used as God punishing people.

Hope this helps.

Jim

 

[LivingWordUnity]

You might as well try to nail a piece of jello to the wall.

I heard Dr. Phil use that expression recently on his show.

 

[Michie]

I never watch it. My mom has always said it though.

I heard Dr. Phil use that expression recently on his show.

 

[bill5]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that God never punishes people through natural weather events.

I would, if by "never" we mean he never does that now, not meaning throughout history (but IMO that is also debatable).

 

[bill5]

Droughts happen naturally all the time, just like floods, hurricanes and tornados and they're not punishments from God to make people conform, but rather the consequence for the sins of mankind since day one.

Jim

Or maybe they aren't "consequences" at all, they're just simply natural occurences.

Jesus never said that about it.

? You know that how?

Not everything Jesus said/did is in the Bible. In fact, the Bible itself tells us that (as if we should need to be told such an obvious fact).

 

[LivingWordUnity]

You know that how?

"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all." - Jesus (Lk 17:26-27)

Not everything Jesus said/did is in the Bible. In fact, the Bible itself tells us that (as if we should need to be told such an obvious fact).

I was discussing what Jesus said in the Holy Bible about the flood in the time of Noah. Jesus taught about the flood as a literal event. There's no reason to believe that Jesus would have contradicted himself outside of what he said about it in Sacred Scripture. Jesus is God, and God never contradicts himself.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Jesus referred to the flood story, because the Jews in his presence, knew the story.

The flood story as many parts of the Old Testament are meant for teaching purposes, and not for
historical fact.

Jim

That's a dangerous view on the judeo christian narrative. Undermining Christ's own words are blasphemy so be careful.