Does God really *punish* nations based on whether or not they follow Christian values?

[TLK Valentine]

I think that's rather obvious. If asked in the way you put it here, I am certain that most of them would agree that God could do that.

However, none of the "Climate Change" wingnuts DO put it to them like that. Rather, they insist that a disaster is coming quite independent of what God wants and that everyone must agree to that. This is the issue as they've framed it.

So why is climate change happening?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm not just talking about climate change; I mean in general -- if one sees God or the devil behind every misfortune, how likely are they to recognize the consequences of their own actions?

About as likely as someone that sees the 1% or the oil companies or the Koch Bros. or racism or sexism etc. as behind every misfortune.

 

[RDKirk]

I think that's rather obvious. If asked in the way you put it here, I am certain that most of them would agree that God could do that.

However, none of the "Climate Change" wingnuts DO put it to them like that. Rather, they insist that a disaster is coming quite independent of what God wants and that everyone must agree to that. This is the issue as they've framed it.

I think you miss my point.

It should not be surprising that people who don't believe in God would not suggest that any natural event they witnessed would be an act of God.

What is surprising is that people who do believe in God steadfastly assert otherwise.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not just talking about climate change; I mean in general -- if one sees God or the devil behind every misfortune, how likely are they to recognize the consequences of their own actions?

Well, I've already posted Jesus' actual response to that question. His response was, essentially, "It's not because of their sin that the misfortune fell upon them, and it's not because of your 'righteousness' that something worse hasn't happened to you."

 

[RDKirk]

If nothing else, a lesson... from this revealing discourse between Abraham and the Lord, it is evident that it is dependent upon the number of righteous folk left living amongst the wicked whether God destroys them in one fell swoop or not. In this case, there was only four remaining righteous in Sodom, Lot and his wife and daughters, which wasn't enough to dissuade God's purging of that abominable homosexual society.

That may only be because Abraham didn't bargain low enough.

 

[Hetta]

So if God favors free will - the option to follow him or not - why would he now punish those who do not? Isn't hell intended to punish non-believers?

 

[Albion]

I think you miss my point.

It should not be surprising that people who don't believe in God would not suggest that any natural event they witnessed would be an act of God.

What is surprising is that people who do believe in God steadfastly assert otherwise.

No, now that I read this, I believe that I got the point all right.

So, here's my point--

You say that people who believe in God "steadfastly assert otherwise." I say that this is not so. I didn't miss your point; I consider it to be in error, that's all. If we are to continue on with this, I'm going to have to see some evidence that a significant number of theists believe that no natural disaster can possibly be the work of God.

 

[brinny]

A lot of people are saying God will punish America because of the legalization of same-sex marriage. My question is..what does this mean in effect? Does this mean that if we go to war our jet fighters will somehow stop working mid-combat? Our guns will jam?

Does it mean our economy will implode? China will take over the world?

But then the question is...how will China take over the world? I mean China is a basically atheistic state...why would God bless them with power?

I'm pretty interested in history and it looks to me like powerful states have risen and fallen and it didn't really have to do with whether or not they followed Christian values. It has to do with things like...whether or not they have natural resources...how good their generals are...if they can build a good economy...if they can hold their territory. So I just think it's weird to say that God is involved here.

Look at the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was pagan. It was one of the greatest powers in all of history. It eventually converted to Christianity, but it was around that time that it started to weaken (not saying there is a correlation, just pointing out that it's the opposite of what someone who follows the "God blesses Christian states" idea would think. If that idea were true...Rome should have become EVEN MORE powerful at this point).

Look at the Arabic caliphate...I mean they conquered a giant area of territory and built a prosperous cultural and scientific civilization...and they were Muslims. They eventually fell due to the Mongols and Turks...more pagans. Was God helping the pagans?

Look at the Ottomans. They too built a prosperous civilization...which was Muslim.

I mean how did the Chinese ever build powerful civilizations? They were Taoist and Confucian and Buddhist.

I just don't see where God is involved here.

I mean the Dutch were a Christian civilization and they built a powerful trading empire...based on abuse of natives and trading slaves. Was God blessing them? I hope he wasn't blessing them in that...

It's very much just...civilizations who have natural resources, good economies, good armies, good generals etc. become successful and it seems to be independent of what religion they are following. That's the point I'm trying to make. They come and go...but that's just how it works!

Perhaps it depends on whether the nation is soooo abhorrent to God, that He is compelled to "vomit". THis would most likely apply to nations that clearly KNOW of God and His grace and STILL do abominably as a way to sorta' "spit in His face and stomp on His grace".

Perhaps that is what is meant by this:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" ~Isaiah 5:20

Thank you kindly.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Why would God punish a country he has no covenant with?
It is surprising just how many on the right ridicule those on the left for what the right claims is cherry picking violent weather patterns as proof of global warming when they obviously do the same thing when it comes to natural disasters as proof of their Gods anger with the world.

I am glad I'm not a virgin in the midst of an active volcano.

 

[Albion]

Why would God punish a country he has no covenant with?
It is surprising just how many on the right ridicule those on the left for what the right claims is cherry picking violent weather patterns as proof of global warming when they obviously do the same thing when it comes to natural disasters as proof of their Gods anger with the world.

I am glad I'm not a virgin in the midst of an active volcano.

FWIW, that doesn't make sense to me. Cherry picking weather patterns is one thing--selective use of evidence. Natural disasters as proof of God's anger is not the same for one very obvious reason. Despite the use of the word "proof" it is not possible to prove whether a disaster is the result of God's anger or not.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

"Does God really *punish* nations based on whether or not they follow Christian values?"

Yes.

God some Scripture to back that up buddy? Scripture that doesn't pertain to Israel?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, I've already posted Jesus' actual response to that question. His response was, essentially, "It's not because of their sin that the misfortune fell upon them, and it's not because of your 'righteousness' that something worse hasn't happened to you."

...because the sun shines on the good and the wicked, and the rain falls on the just and unjust alike.

 

[TLK Valentine]

FWIW, that doesn't make sense to me. Cherry picking weather patterns is one thing--selective use of evidence. Natural disasters as proof of God's anger is not the same for one very obvious reason. Despite the use of the word "proof" it is not possible to prove whether a disaster is the result of God's anger or not.

And, lacking a booming voice from the sky, there's really no way to tell these days what would and wouldn't be a result of God's anger.

That says a lot about wingnuts who will attribute the next hurricane, tornado, flood, etc... to God's apparent displeasure at abortion, gay marriage, Obamacare, etc... especially telling when "God" only ever hates the same things the doomsayers themselves hate.

 

[brinny]

God some Scripture to back that up buddy? Scripture that doesn't pertain to Israel?

Sodom and Gomorrah. (Would you like me to also post scripture?)

Thank you kindly.

 

[Armoured]

A lot of people are saying God will punish America because of the legalization of same-sex marriage. My question is..what does this mean in effect? Does this mean that if we go to war our jet fighters will somehow stop working mid-combat? Our guns will jam?

Does it mean our economy will implode? China will take over the world?

But then the question is...how will China take over the world? I mean China is a basically atheistic state...why would God bless them with power?

I'm pretty interested in history and it looks to me like powerful states have risen and fallen and it didn't really have to do with whether or not they followed Christian values. It has to do with things like...whether or not they have natural resources...how good their generals are...if they can build a good economy...if they can hold their territory. So I just think it's weird to say that God is involved here.

Look at the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was pagan. It was one of the greatest powers in all of history. It eventually converted to Christianity, but it was around that time that it started to weaken (not saying there is a correlation, just pointing out that it's the opposite of what someone who follows the "God blesses Christian states" idea would think. If that idea were true...Rome should have become EVEN MORE powerful at this point).

Look at the Arabic caliphate...I mean they conquered a giant area of territory and built a prosperous cultural and scientific civilization...and they were Muslims. They eventually fell due to the Mongols and Turks...more pagans. Was God helping the pagans?

Look at the Ottomans. They too built a prosperous civilization...which was Muslim.

I mean how did the Chinese ever build powerful civilizations? They were Taoist and Confucian and Buddhist.

I just don't see where God is involved here.

I mean the Dutch were a Christian civilization and they built a powerful trading empire...based on abuse of natives and trading slaves. Was God blessing them? I hope he wasn't blessing them in that...

It's very much just...civilizations who have natural resources, good economies, good armies, good generals etc. become successful and it seems to be independent of what religion they are following. That's the point I'm trying to make. They come and go...but that's just how it works!

Well all know the unbridled horrors God unleashed to destroy the Netherlands after they made same sex marriage legal...

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

FWIW, that doesn't make sense to me. Cherry picking weather patterns is one thing--selective use of evidence. Natural disasters as proof of God's anger is not the same for one very obvious reason. Despite the use of the word "proof" it is not possible to prove whether a disaster is the result of God's anger or not.

Sorry. I was being sarcastic, there.
It's a testament to the practitioners of true faith in any issue as to how lenient they are when determine what they consider proof.

 

[Winepress777]

That may only be because Abraham didn't bargain low enough.

Notice that the Lord cut off the communication, or he might have been so bold, who knows? But there wasn't even five righteous. Why would not God destroy an infestation with only four righteous? Their souls are saved in any case, and the earth is purged from the sodomite abominations. That is our only solace

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Notice that the Lord cut off the communication, or he might have been so bold, who knows? But there wasn't even five righteous. Why would not God destroy an infestation with only four righteous? Their souls are saved in any case, and the earth is purged from the sodomite abominations. That is our only solace

Good grief. Read your Bible. You are mixing Abraham with Lot. Lot was the one is Sodom, not Abraham.

That being said there is no real prof that Sodom and Gammora was destroyed because of Homosexuality. The group that came to lot's house was a rape gang, because they demanded lot give them the visitors. I believe that the Bible states they were wicked cities and that's why they were destroyed. It could be that they were doing all kinds of inhuman acts based on the groups readiness to forcibly rape people. uman rights were not their strong suit and Lotts attempts at giving his own daughters u to those animals shows a great deal about the value he placed on his own family and to women in general. What a godly man he was. LOL!

 

[Winepress777]

Good grief. Read your Bible. You are mixing Abraham with Lot. Lot was the one is Sodom, not Abraham.

That being said there is no real prof that Sodom and Gammora was destroyed because of Homosexuality. The group that came to lot's house was a rape gang, because they demanded lot give them the visitors. I believe that the Bible states they were wicked cities and that's why they were destroyed. It could be that they were doing all kinds of inhuman acts based on the groups readiness to forcibly rape people. uman rights were not their strong suit and Lotts attempts at giving his own daughters u to those animals shows a great deal about the value he placed on his own family and to women in general. What a godly man he was. LOL!

Of course Lot was the one in Sodom. I do read my Bible. And it was Abraham that God spoke to. I copied and pasted the scriptures. Please read them before responding without knowing what was said. And thanks for your personal ideas, but don't waste them on me. The entire city was destroyed because All but four were righteous is the point, don't even try to argue it. Please try to keep up or I will put you on ignore.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Of course Lot was the one in Sodom. I do read my Bible. And it was Abraham that God spoke to. I copied and pasted the scriptures. Please read them before responding without knowing what was said. And thanks for your personal ideas, but don't waste them on me. The entire city was destroyed because All but four were righteous is the point, don't even try to argue it. Please try to keep up or I will put you on ignore.

I am not one to shirk my responsibility to myself and others to be the person I wish to be and to acknowledge being wrong. Now that I think about it I was wrong in what I said about the sequence of events and doubled down on my wrongness in the way I responded to your post. I wronged you and embarrassed myself. I apologize wholly to you and to the board.

As far as you saying the entire city was destroyed because they couldn't find four righteous men, it doesn't say what they were doing to not be righteous. I didn't argue the point, I simply stated that there was nothing to connect homosexuality to the destruction of either city and that, my friend is not wasted on anybody unless assumptions based on personal interpretations have become the basis of empirical truth.