Christians: Natural disasters as punishment for unbelief?

[Glaurung]

Please explain how you think dying of smoke inhalation in a wildfire, drowning in tsunami, being crushed by a collapsed building in an earthquake, or getting sick with cholera - or watching a loved one go through these things - are "a means of reparation for sin?" Are you saying that God values human suffering?

In and of itself, not at all. But in the grand scheme of Divine Providence He allows it. For example, an early death which may seem senseless in isolation may have very well have happened in that person's last possible state of grace. (And thus, last possible chance for salvation). Perhaps in another case an indifferent person moved by compassion for others affected by a natural disaster offers his help and performs good deeds he would have never otherwise performed. Deeds which at his judgement will turn out to have clinched his salvation.

Suffering is a bad thing. But it is not so bad that God cannot bring about a greater good from it viewed sub specie aeternitatis. We on earth have only the minutest part of the whole picture. Ten trillion years from now, every bad you have suffered on earth will be but a trivial memory.

The second part of this is that as both individuals and societies increasingly refuse to acknowledge God, the more God will withdraw His protection both individually and collectively. The world (particularly the secular west) has embraced the same lie Eve embraced; that the human can act as God decide good and evil. God is allowing us to run with that for now, but it won't last forever. I don't have confidence in the long term survival of western civilization at least as it stands now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In and of itself, not at all.

Then they can't be reparation.

Reparation is when you compensate for wronging someone by giving them things of value. If they don't value what you give, then it isn't reparation.

 

[Glaurung]

Reparation is when you compensate for wronging someone by giving them things of value. If they don't value what you give, then it isn't reparation.

Whilst you can't give God anything He needs (after all, God dosen't need your salvation) you can nonetheless satisfy the demands of His justice though suffering. And this isn't optional.

Penance is more efficacious on earth than in Purgatory, which itself is better than punishment in Hell. But one way or another, every sin one commits will be redressed. All three involve suffering.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whilst you can't give God anything He needs (after all, God dosen't need your salvation) you can nonetheless satisfy the demands of His justice though suffering. And this isn't optional.

Penance is more efficacious on earth than in Purgatory, which itself is better than punishment in Hell. But one way or another, every sin one commits will be redressed. All three involve suffering.

So you think that the suffering inflicted by natural disasters is just? Edit: that if someone is killed or injured in a natural disaster, they deserved it?

 

[Glaurung]

So you think that the suffering inflicted by natural disasters is just? Edit: that if someone is killed or injured in a natural disaster, they deserved it?

If from a potential evil no greater good could be derived, it is not permitted to occur. God allows evil and suffering only to a certain extent. If God were to give evil a completely free hand humanity wouldn't last very long.

And it is not so much that if someone dies in an accident or a disaster they must have deserved it. But by allowing whatever tragedy to occur a greater good is ultimately gained. That good may not ever be knowable in this life. For example, a salvation ensured by an early death is just one possibility. As I have stated before; God has promised no one a full lifetime here on earth. There is no promise anywhere in revelation that you will see tomorrow. The only thing you are promised is eternity, either in the direct presence of God or banished away from it. We are not here to be happy in this world, we are here to determine if we want to be happy in the next.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If from a potential evil no greater good could be derived, it is not permitted to occur. God allows evil and suffering only to a certain extent. If God were to give evil a completely free hand humanity wouldn't last very long.

And it is not so much that if someone dies in an accident or a disaster they must have deserved it.

So they didn't necessarily deserve it?

Please explain how inflicting undeserved punishment on people is "justice."

But by allowing whatever tragedy to occur a greater good is ultimately gained.

So when a tsunami kills a town full of people, it's all for the best?

That good may not ever be knowable in this life. For example, a salvation ensured by an early death is just one possibility. As I have stated before; God has promised no one a full lifetime here on earth. There is no promise anywhere in revelation that you will see tomorrow. The only thing you are promised is eternity, either in the direct presence of God or banished away from it. We are not here to be happy in this world, we are here to determine if we want to be happy in the next.

The issue isn't obligations on God; it's about you backing up your claims about God. It's all fine and good to say that God has no obligations to humanity, but you're claiming that he's behaving in accordance with certain principles when you describe his actions with terms like "good" and "justice."

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Just watched ab interview on the German version of the Catholic channel EWTN, where the interview partner stated that God sends natural desasters as punishment for people leaving the faith and that "we" should revert and "believe harder". The formal topic was Jonah and the whale. As Jonah was thrown into the water to appease the sea, in the same way God becomes appeased by people converting/reverting to Christianity after natural disasters. The last part is my interpretation, but it was the only way I could make sense of her. So, Christians, do you think that God punishes unbelief by sending natural disasters?

Nah. In the US, the Bible Belt seems to be hit more often than not.

If God punished unbelievers, why is it that we always hear on the news of floods, fires,
& tornadoes taking out the churches, but never bordellos or bawdy movie stores?
I think this speaks to what God favors.

Yeah, it's like New Orleans after Katrina, the water line goes right up to the ever-partying Bourbon Street and stops.

(When God wants to smite but gays send up magic rainbow force field)

I remember many years ago reading a private revelation wherein it is revealed to a mystic that natural disasters are often permitted by God both as a means of reparation for sin as well as an opportunity for merit by good deeds.

I believe that if God is in charge of it at all, it's only because the weather is part of the life processes of the planet. Don't want bad weather, don't live on the planet.

To deny God's Providence in all things is to deny His sovereignty and power.

Given that historically Yahweh didn't have all that power because El assigned Him the Hebrews and He was a Sea/War God and is just a really irritable district manager with water powers ...

which is incoherent considering His omniscience and His omnipotence.

There really isn't any real evidence to suggest He ever was. We see claims that are largely unsupported.

The world (particularly the secular west) has embraced the same lie Eve embraced; that the human can act as God decide good and evil.

God made us in His image and then gripes we look like Him. It's not our fault if He doesn't like what He sees in the mirror.

I don't have confidence in the long term survival of western civilization at least as it stands now.

Secularizing appears to strengthen societies, not destroy them.

I mean, Israel was supposedly run by God Himself, and look at its history. It's like He's TRYING to kill them all off every other page.

Whilst you can't give God anything He needs (after all, God dosen't need your salvation) you can nonetheless satisfy the demands of His justice though suffering. And this isn't optional.

Sure it is, because God writes the rules and those rules change with every passing whim.

And it is not so much that if someone dies in an accident or a disaster they must have deserved it. But by allowing whatever tragedy to occur a greater good is ultimately gained.

I get the impression that a lot of people skip over the parts of Job where God berates his friends for saying such tripe.

 

[Glaurung]

Please explain how inflicting undeserved punishment on people is "justice."

I have already explained this, it is not always punishment. Punishment can be a component of it but there is also the greater good derived by Providence. Not everyone who dies violently, gets sick or what else have you is necessarily being punished personally. If a person dies in a state of grace said person will gain infinitely more than what they have lost. There is nothing you can suffer here on earth that God cannot compensate millions of times over. If however a person dies in unrepentant mortal sin then said person is only reaping the wages they have sowed. Romans 6:23. God is in no way obliged to keep obstinate sinners alive to a ripe old age, yet alone the just.

So when a tsunami kills a town full of people, it's all for the best?

The end result of history, when God ends this world, will be that the good derived from all that has happened will outweigh the evil. Revelation 21:4

How much suffering and evil is partly up to us. One of the consequences of sin is the gradual lifting of God's protective hand. Never totally, but to a degree God is ignored or even scorned. And western civilization in particular is most definitely scorning God. Fatima, Akita, ect... We've been warned.

The issue isn't obligations on God; it's about you backing up your claims about God. It's all fine and good to say that God has no obligations to humanity, but you're claiming that he's behaving in accordance with certain principles when you describe his actions with terms like "good" and "justice."

You keep insisting on seeing things only in terms of their immediate effects on earth, as if those are the beginning and end of all things. But those effects don't matter nearly as much as the spiritual effects that arise from whatever God allows. Sin must be redressed because God is uncompromisingly just. Sometimes that means permitting suffering on earth as an opportunity for penance. Sometimes it means allowing it as an opportunity for doing good, which itself also redresses sin.

You could almost think of it as a pair of scales. If sin starts to tip things too far on one end, God permits whatever He wills to balance it on the other. Penitential suffering, faith and good deeds are all means to that re-balancing. It is only in trial that we earn merit. The important type, the merit we keep for eternity.

 

[metis]

Everything is under Divine Providence, nothing is an accident.

So, iyo, does God plan and order miscarriages and serious birth defects? How about tsunami's that kill children and other innocents? the Holocaust?

There's a difference between God planning and making every thing happen versus a God who set out the basic plan and then let's us make Earth our own through our free will.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

I think it was the now departed pastor Jerry Falwell that once claimed HIV/AIDS was a punishment from God due to homosexual sexual immorality.

Then later major storms hit and if memory serves pastor Pat Robertson claimed those were a punishment from God.

I think too often such people are wrapped up in the fear paradigm that was inserted into scripture before the Reformation so as to persuade obedience, contrition, and conversion among those who refused to believe. But let a tornado wipe out a town and how many are then willing to change their mind?

It's like the primitives when our people dwelt in caves. Ignorant simple minds made deity out of lightening because they knew not from whence it came.

Hundreds of thousands of years later we have millionaires in a pulpit promoting the same kind of thinking.
What such proponents of a weather god exacting vengeance don't appear to realize, or maybe they do, is that they're in that same breath used to proclaim, our God is angry and that's why he drowned your family, also are living so as to die and be in the presence of that tantrum trumpeter for eternity.

What fun! When a war broke out in Heaven before the world came to exist, imagine the future when such pastors arrive and have nowhere to go as they think live with that mass murderer they defended while on earth.
Who is to save them from that if "he" gets mad in Heaven? If war can be waged there is it really paradise?
That's why those I've encountered who claim they are "bible literalists" have not a clue as to the image and likeness they're creating for themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have already explained this, it is not always punishment.

But you said that it sometimes is. You also said that people in natural disasters don't deserve what happened to them.

Punishment can be a component of it but there is also the greater good derived by Providence. Not everyone who dies violently, gets sick or what else have you is necessarily being punished personally.

But you did say that it sometimes is punishment.

If a person dies in a state of grace said person will gain infinitely more than what they have lost. There is nothing you can suffer here on earth that God cannot compensate millions of times over.

Like the Andrea Yates approach: kill kids before the age of accountability and you guarantee them entrance to Heaven.

If however a person dies in unrepentant mortal sin then said person is only reaping the wages they have sowed. Romans 6:23.

I thought you said that the victims of natural disasters didn't deserve what happened to them. Have you changed their mind?

God is in no way obliged to keep obstinate sinners alive to a ripe old age, yet alone the just.

It's not a matter of imposing obligations on God; it's a matter of getting you to back up your claims about God.

The end result of history, when God ends this world, will be that the good derived from all that has happened will outweigh the evil. Revelation 21:4

... so any evil can be justified?

How much suffering and evil is partly up to us. One of the consequences of sin is the gradual lifting of God's protective hand. Never totally, but to a degree God is ignored or even scorned. And western civilization in particular is most definitely scorning God. Fatima, Akita, ect... We've been warned.

So you are talking about collective punishment.

You keep insisting on seeing things only in terms of their immediate effects on earth, as if those are the beginning and end of all things. But those effects don't matter nearly as much as the spiritual effects that arise from whatever God allows.

Assumptions about what an invisible God will reward or punish after we're dead can be used to justify any sort of atrocity.

But I think you're forgetting something yourself: if your God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then God can achieve any positive outcome without any particular negative side effect. This means that negative impacts of God's actions can't be excused by being packaged with some greater good. The negative is avoidable, so the decision to include is has to be justified on their own merits.

Could God have accomplished whatever purpose he wanted without killing thousands of people in a tsunami? If God is all-powerful, the answer is "yes." This means that you can't excuse the tsunami on the grounds that it's necessary to achieve God's purposes.

The ends can't justify the means if the ends can be achieved without the means in question.

Sin must be redressed because God is uncompromisingly just. Sometimes that means permitting suffering on earth as an opportunity for penance. Sometimes it means allowing it as an opportunity for doing good, which itself also redresses sin.

But we're talking, among other things, about collective punishment and inflicting punishment on the undeserving. Both of these things are contrary to justice.

You could almost think of it as a pair of scales. If sin starts to tip things too far on one end, God permits whatever He wills to balance it on the other. Penitential suffering, faith and good deeds are all means to that re-balancing. It is only in trial that we earn merit. The important type, the merit we keep for eternity.

So you do think that when suffering occurs, it's because God wills it?

 

[Glaurung]

So, iyo, does God plan and order miscarriages and serious birth defects? How about tsunami's that kill children and other innocents? the Holocaust?

This is a fallen world and suffering is an inescapable reality of that fallenness. This fallenness is God's consequent will; consequent of the first sin. This is not to say that a fallen world in and of itself pleases God, yet alone miscarriages, birth defects and tsunamis; nevertheless the potential for grace in all sufferings exceeds the evil of those sufferings. If we would but entrust ourselves to God.

There's a difference between God planning and making every thing happen versus a God who set out the basic plan and then let's us make Earth our own through our free will.

My claim isn't that God plans for bad things to happen. God does not will evil in the antecedent. My claim is that God permits evil in the consequent and that He is in perfect control of this evil. God determines what can happen and to the extent it can happen. Nothing whatsoever can happen without His permission.

 

[Glaurung]

Like the Andrea Yates approach: kill kids before the age of accountability and you guarantee them entrance to Heaven.

I don't know who this Andrea Yates is, but the difference is that no human being has the right to take the lives of others. God does have the right to take human life. He has the right to permit its end. We are creatures, God is God and as such He can summon whomsoever He wills to judgement at any time.

I thought you said that the victims of natural disasters didn't deserve what happened to them. Have you changed their mind?

I said that individual death by tragedy is not necessarily an indication of God's displeasure. The rain falls on the just and wicked alike. But God's allowing of natural disasters can indeed be in part a consequence God's just vengeance. Sin has consequences, one of which is a degree of withdrawal of His protection.

so any evil can be justified?

God can permit any evil insofar as He can bring about a greater good. It may not be His will that evil should exist, but were He to completely prevent it, it would defeat the purpose of this life's trial. No crown without the cross.

So you are talking about collective punishment.

God can and has punished collectively. Nevertheless, He judges each and every person individually. A civilization which spits in God's face will eventually suffer civilizational reprimand (be it natural disasters, famines, outbreaks, war, or even, eventually, collapse). But in so far as the individual is concerned, he is called to account for his sins alone.

But I think you're forgetting something yourself: if your God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then God can achieve any positive outcome without any particular negative side effect. This means that negative impacts of God's actions can't be excused by being packaged with some greater good. The negative is avoidable, so the decision to include is has to be justified on their own merits.

It is justified, because a world with evil and suffering is better sub specie aeternitatis than a world wherein God completely prevents it.

It is better that human beings are given the freedom to decide their own eternity. It is a good thing that humans can suffer and be tried. It is good for human beings to experience the depths of suffering so that they learn of their utter poverty and helplessness, their utter dependence upon God for their every breath. The cross is a good thing because for those who pick it up and put their trust utterly in God will find themselves inheriting an eternal and unsurpassable happiness in heaven.

You can either trust that God knows what He is doing and submit to His will, or you can insist that you know better and forever reject His will for your own. You are here precisely to make that choice. You wouldn't be the first to say no to God, a third of the angelic host made that same decision.

The ends can't justify the means if the ends can be achieved without the means in question.

God has chosen the best possible means for His ends, which if we so choose is our eternal happiness with Him in heaven. No matter how bad this life gets, it's a mere speck in eternity. Seventy, eighty years (on average) isn't a long time. You'll be old and wondering where all the years suddenly went sooner than you think. I'm not saying that this life is easy, but with a strong faith in God I need not fear any hardship. It is temporary.

But we're talking, among other things, about collective punishment and inflicting punishment on the undeserving. Both of these things are contrary to justice.

Everyone gets what they deserve, at judgement. For the good, God will compensate everything.

So you do think that when suffering occurs, it's because God wills it?

In the consequent, He has permitted it.

 

[metis]

This is a fallen world and suffering is an inescapable reality of that fallenness. This fallenness is God's consequent will; consequent of the first sin. This is not to say that a fallen world in and of itself pleases God, yet alone miscarriages, birth defects and tsunamis; nevertheless the potential for grace in all sufferings exceeds the evil of those sufferings. If we would but entrust ourselves to God.

Why would God punish an innocent child because Grandpa and Grandma sinned?

I really don't perceive "original sin" in that context but more along the lines of "what goes around comes around" plus that sin affects more than just the person who sinned and that this can affect others in society, possibly for generations.

My claim isn't that God plans for bad things to happen. God does not will evil in the antecedent. My claim is that God permits evil in the consequent and that He is in perfect control of this evil. God determines what can happen and to the extent it can happen. Nothing whatsoever can happen without His permission.

Here's where we agree as I do believe we have "free will", so if we do evil it's because we chose that option and not because God programmed us to do it. After all, if God had planned all, then why are we even here discussing anything.

IMO, God made the world at least somewhat incomplete so it would then become ours, thus we can make it better-- or worse.

 

[Glaurung]

Why would God punish an innocent child because Grandpa and Grandma sinned?

If the child is in a state of grace then death is nothing to fear, yet alone a punishment. And in the temporal sufferings of those who loved the child are opportunities for grace.

I really don't perceive "original sin" in that context but more along the lines of "what goes around comes around" plus that sin affects more than just the person who sinned and that this can affect others in society, possibly for generations.

It is Biblically revealed truth that death entered the world though Adam's disobedience. Clearly it was the (consequent) will of God to permit this. Unless you maintain that God was simply not powerful enough to have prevented the fall of His own creation should He have so chosen.

Here's where we agree as I do believe we have "free will", so if we do evil it's because we chose that option and not because God programmed us to do it. After all, if God had planned all, then why are we even here discussing anything.

God has perfect knowledge of the future not because He has predetermined the free actions of beings but because He is omniscient and outside of time. God's providence has already taken our wills into account.

IMO, God made the world at least somewhat incomplete so it would then become ours, thus we can make it better-- or worse.

It isn't incomplete, it's fallen. But we can indeed make things better by submitting to God's will for us. That means His public recognition and the following His commandments. Civilization refuses to do that and in a mad rush enshrines sin as a lifestyle or right. If the accepted Marian apparitions are to be believed then we are staring down the barrel of some very painful times ahead.

But in these dark times there is a positive. Where sin abounds so too does grace.

 

[metis]

Sorry, but I gotta be very brief.

If the child is in a state of grace then death is nothing to fear, yet alone a punishment. And in the temporal sufferings of those who loved the child are opportunities for grace.

Then is it acceptable for me to murder the child because (s)he's in a state of grace? Sorry, but I don't accept the idea that a loving God kills innocent people. If nothing else, it's certainly a terrible example to set for us.

It is Biblically revealed truth that death entered the world though Adam's disobedience.

Only if taken literally, which I don't.

God has perfect knowledge of the future not because He has predetermined the free actions of beings but because He is omniscient and outside of time.

I find myself not having the pay grade to make such judgments. OTOH, I feel that God is Love and Truth because it's too hard for me to picture God any other way.

It isn't incomplete, it's fallen.

Then God caused it to be "fallen", which makes not one iota of sense to me.

Anyhow, have a most blessed mass and weekend as I gotta go.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yep, under the guise of "original sin".

BTW, with both Jewish and Christian theologians, the concept of "original sin" is very controversial with all different takes on this, often even within denominations.

Yeah, the Eastern Orthodox Church has a different take on it than even the RCC.

 

[Jainarayan]

(When God wants to smite but gays send up magic rainbow force field)

Actually I think that's Thor and Heimdall wrasslin'.

 

[Glaurung]

Then is it acceptable for me to murder the child because (s)he's in a state of grace? Sorry, but I don't accept the idea that a loving God kills innocent people. If nothing else, it's certainly a terrible example to set for us.

It would not be acceptable for you to kill anyone because you are a creature: you do not have the right. God however does have the right. Life belongs to Him. We are creatures who exist on the sustaining will of God.

Only if taken literally, which I don't.

Original sin is the only doctrine of Christianity which is completely provable. This is a world of suffering, death and decay. Further the tendency of man to evil is ubiquitous. I know if I were to give free reign to my lower impulses I would devolve into a pretty terrible human being quite quickly. Everyone would. And while there is good and beauty in this world (it is still God's creation) it is nonetheless on the whole a tragic, brutal place. It is only in the modern world with all our wealth and technology that we have been able to somewhat insulate ourselves from this terrible reality.

find myself not having the pay grade to make such judgments. OTOH, I feel that God is Love and Truth because it's too hard for me to picture God any other way.

God is also wrath and justice. In Scripture, God had no qualms in killing masses of people when provoked. Even in the New Testament He strikes Ananias and Sapphira dead on the spot for lying about their donation. It may not be comfortable but God is to be feared. Proverbs 9:10. It only shows God's patience with us that He does not immediately strikes us dead when we commit mortal sin. (Which as implied in the name, is what it actually deserves in God's eyes).

Then God caused it to be "fallen", which makes not one iota of sense to me.

In a sense, yes. God could have prevented it but He did not. He let Adam and Eve sin. God is either omnipotent or He is not. And if He is omnipotent is also in complete control.

The question isn't whether God is in control, it's whether to trust Him or not. I do. I trust that He knows what He is doing. As God told Job: "Where wast thou when...."

Anyhow, have a most blessed mass and weekend as I gotta go.

You too.

 

[metis]

I'm back!

Actually when I posted yesterday and said I'd be out until Monday, I forgot that it was only Friday-- a "senior moment" indeed.

Original sin is the only doctrine of Christianity which is completely provable.

It depends on how one may define it, and Catholic theologians and many clergy are "privately" all over the map on this. Even Augustine struggled with this, thus involving the issue of "predestination", which clearly relates to what we're discussing.

In Scripture, God had no qualms in killing masses of people when provoked.

I simply cannot accept that concept of God for reasons already expressed as I'm not a scriptural literalist nor a believer in biblical inerrancy. The scriptures are a means to an end, not the end unto itself, and the Church teachings reflect this. IOW, we are not Protestant fundamentalists nor J.W.'s.

He let Adam and Eve sin. God is either omnipotent or He is not. And if He is omnipotent is also in complete control.

I believe God likely could have compete control if He wishes, but it's also clear to me that He often doesn't. An example of that is found in Job whereas He lets Satan have his way to test Job.

But notice your first sentence above, namely that "He let Adam and Eve sin". Notice the implication of this in that it is Adam and Eve's "free will" that's allowed and that God didn't force Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit by exercising His "complete control".

Anyhow, I think this discussion points out one thing to others outside our Catholic faith, and that is we personally can and do often differ, and Catholic theology very much allows for that. What we cannot do, however, is to formally teach something that we may personally believe that contradicts what the Church actually does teach. An example is when I taught the RCIA program, as it was not my opinions that I taught because I was not chosen to do that when our former priest selected me to co-run the program.

Even when I rejoined the Church this last summer, I told the priest that I have always had questions and will always have questions because of my science orientation, but what I can do is to commit myself to the Church. He not only accepted me back but he also said he'd like to see me back teaching the RCIA. I told him that I would consider that, and then he added "But you want to take this one step at a time.", which affirmed.
Anyhow, your comments on the above are more than welcome, but I probably won't take this any further unless you have a question.

Take care, my friend.