Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does God chastise with storms and natural disasters?

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭b318isp


    Jakkass wrote: »
    They are not a Christian until they believe in the Gospel. Belief in the Gospel requires some form of repentance and acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. If we are not able to do this I would certainly question if someone was a Christian.
    I think any child could in theory do this, but in reality for a lot of people it tends to happen in their teenage years or later. I was 17 when I accepted Christ and what He had achieved for us on the cross, and I turned my life to Him.

    Does this imply that until children/teenagers personally accept the gospel they cannot be considered christians?

    If they just believed in God, what are they?


  • Options
    #63
    Donatello
    Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    b318isp wrote: »
    Does this imply that until children/teenagers personally accept the gospel they cannot be considered christians?

    If they just believed in God, what are they?

    If the fella has been baptised as an infant, he is a Christian. He's marked as one of Christ's. That dinny mean to say he is going to heaven. Even in hell, poor souls bear the indelible mark of baptism. To get to heaven you must die in a state of grace.

    Protestants will disagree with this, of course.


  • Options
    #64
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭b318isp


    But this doesn't agree with what Jackass has said: "They are not a Christian until they believe in the Gospel."


  • Options
    #65
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    b318isp wrote: »
    But this doesn't agree with what Jackass has said: "They are not a Christian until they believe in the Gospel."

    Well of course it doesn't. Jakkass isn't a Roman Catholic whereas Donatello is.

    Jakkass believes that Christians go to heaven, whereas Donatello appears to believe that some Christians are going to hell.

    Since this board has posters from many different denominations (and some from none) then you will obviously get a range of different opinions.


  • Options
    #66
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭b318isp


    And we're talking about a single definition of an entity = a christian in God's eyes, or more precisely, an interpretation by people of whom God considers one of his flock.

    In the context of the OP, if there is a belief that pre-adults that die in a disaster without believing in the gospel (Jackass) or being baptised (Donatello) are doomed under god, then it poses an ethical question on god. If they are not held as doomed, then it arbitrates both person's interpretation.

    [And this is without opening up the point of how a God considers all the other religions out there]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    PDN wrote: »

    Jakkass believes that Christians go to heaven, whereas Donatello appears to believe that some Christians are going to hell.

    That's an interesting way of putting it.


  • Options
    #68
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    b318isp wrote: »
    In the context of the OP, if there is a belief that pre-adults that die in a disaster without believing in the gospel (Jackass) ... are doomed under god

    I would be surprised if this is what JA is saying. Indeed, I seem to recall him stating his belief that people who are incapable of understanding the Gospel (whether it is by insufficient intellectual capacity or other reasons) are not automatically condemned as you have suggested.

    But there is a misunderstanding here. Hell - however one understands that - is not simply a place for non-believers. It is a place for sinners, those opposed to God. It is, in other words, a place for all of us. Everybody has been found wanting and it is only through grace that we are granted salvation.


  • Options
    #69
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭b318isp


    Is this not all very subjective? What I'm seeing is that it may be:

    - age related
    - gospel believing related
    - god believing related
    - intellectual capability related
    - level of sinning related
    - repentance related
    - level of grace related
    - baptism related
    - creed related

    There must be some queue getting into heaven. I wonder if there is a right of appeal :p.


  • Options
    #70
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    It is open to theological debate. But I assume all of us work of the axiom that there is an ultimate truth behind our beliefs and that we can know that truth even if we can't be sure about it.

    Some of those categories you propose I haven't seen promoted on this thread. For example, the "level of sinning" or "level of grace" to name a couple. Perhaps you can show me where these are discussed.


  • Options
    #71
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    b318isp wrote: »
    Is this not all very subjective? What I'm seeing is that it may be:

    - age related
    - gospel believing related
    - god believing related
    - intellectual capability related
    - level of sinning related
    - repentance related
    - level of grace related
    - baptism related
    - creed related

    There must be some queue getting into heaven. I wonder if there is a right of appeal :p.

    Yes, different people on an internet discussion board have different views. Remarkable that, isn't it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    PDN wrote: »
    Well of course it doesn't. Jakkass isn't a Roman Catholic whereas Donatello is.

    Jakkass believes that Christians go to heaven, whereas Donatello appears to believe that some Christians are going to hell.

    Since this board has posters from many different denominations (and some from none) then you will obviously get a range of different opinions.

    The argument pertains heavily to what a Christian is. Fanny Craddock provides a good clarification to my argument. I believe that if people are not given the opportunity to hear or comprehend the Gospel that they won't be condemned. I could be wrong, but I can only trust God's judgement in this.

    I don't deny that my argument is very much from a Reformed / Evangelical perspective.


  • Options
    #73
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    For the 9 people who believe God uses natural disasters as punishment:

    Do you believe all natural disasters are punishment? If the answer is no, how would you determine whether or not a disaster was a direct punishment?


  • Options
    #74
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    PDN wrote:
    Jakkass believes that Christians go to heaven, whereas Donatello appears to believe that some Christians are going to hell.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    That's an interesting way of putting it.

    +1


  • Options
    #75
    indioblack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,937 ✭✭✭indioblack


    Does God chastise with natural disasters?
    Take the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
    Does this mean that a large number of Japanese - and presumably Japanese only, deserved to be corrected, punished, paternally disciplined on that day.


  • Options
    #76
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭b318isp


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Some of those categories you propose I haven't seen promoted on this thread. For example, the "level of sinning" or "level of grace" to name a couple. Perhaps you can show me where these are discussed.

    I took the grace bit from yourself, and added the creed and sin myself as I would understand that some may factor these in (e.g. are Buddists afforded the same viewpoint as Christians?).


  • Options
    #77
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    OK, so you weren't offering an accurate summation of the views expressed. To add to this, I think you may have misunderstood what I said because I never mentioned anything about "levels" of grace.


  • Options
    #78
    b318isp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭b318isp


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    OK, so you weren't offering an accurate summation of the views expressed. To add to this, I think you may have misunderstood what I said because I never mentioned anything about "levels" of grace.

    Fair enough, it was an interpretation of "Everybody has been found wanting and it is only through grace that we are granted salvation." I extrapolated that not everyone is granted grace, but I suppose it is binary - there are no levels of grace given, you either are granted it or your not.


  • Options
    #79
    doomed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 491 ✭✭doomed


    Depends on your choice of god.

    I prefer a god who expresses displeasure through sarcasm. Natural disasters are just so showy. Its not big and its not clever.


  • Options
    #80
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I was watching this video of D.A Carson on suffering:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21MquBWfag


    It's long but from 1hr 24 minutes he deals with natural disasters. He looks quite in depth at how Jesus responds to people asking him the Galileans mistreated by Pilate or the Tower of Siloam falling over. People ask him if this is God punishing them moreso than anyone else. Jesus' response is repent or you too will likewise perish. Even if we don't experience a natural disaster if we choose to live apart from God we will nonetheless perish in the end. I think Jesus' approach is the best. He's not saying that they are punished any more so, but nonetheless they are being punished. The wages of sin is death. It is because we have turned from God that we will die, but we have the chance here and now to decide our eternal destiny.
    Luke 13:1-5 wrote:
    Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”


  • Options
    #81
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Cheers, I'll check that out. When he isn't annoying me (I can't say I care for his style) I quite like what Carson has to say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    virmilitaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 560 ✭✭✭virmilitaris


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Disasters may have multiple purposes: warn some to get right with God before its too late; kill others as punishment; take others home to heaven; change the plans of leaders; etc.

    I'd just like to point out my utter contempt at what you just said and I'd also like to ask you to give me permission to use this quote from you as an example of why theism is so dangerous to society and why I despise theists with such beliefs.

    Also, free will@ the quoted tripe. I don't even know what to say if you can't see the contradiction.


  • Options
    #83
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Your tone is not helpful. I suggest you take the righteous indignation elsewhere.


  • Options
    #84
    Robert ninja
    Registered Users Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭Robert ninja


    @virmilitaris This is an open forum. Anything anyone posts (that's not removed from breaching rules) is available to be used by anyone. That said, it is polite to ask if you are going to quote someone directly but all you really needed to ask (if you wanted to be polite) is can you cite the post for commentary reasons unrelated to the topic elsewhere, the rest is just high-and-mighty talk that really wasn't needed. I know what ya mean and I even slightly agree but just cool it, K? We're all human beings in here, no need to treat each other like dirt... get enough of that in life as it is.

    And I'll say again, if someone posts on a forum like this they're using their free speech but the only trade of is that people can ridicule what you say (which is great imo) and so you can go ahead and cite anyone you want without permission.


  • Options
    #85
    virmilitaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 560 ✭✭✭virmilitaris


    Its quite funny what one can get away with saying if they are saying it in the name of their god.

    That quote could have come from fred phelps with little or no editing.

    I didn't attack wolfsbane I attacked his post which i find to be utterly despicable.

    Imagine saying the above to someone who lost their child or their wife or husband in the Japanese tsunami. Its disgusting and I will not say otherwise.


  • Options
    #86
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I didn't say you attacked anybody. I said that the righteous tone of your post was unhelpful. Cut it out, OK?


  • Options
    #87
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    I don't know.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I didn't say you attacked anybody. I said that the righteous tone of your post was unhelpful. Cut it out, OK?

    Tone may be so, but he's bang on.


  • Options
    #88
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    Tone may be so, but he's bang on.

    I'm not questioning whether virmilitaris is right or wrong. Rather, I said that virmilitaris tone was unacceptable. That should be the end of it.

    Let's be clear, Wolfsbane didn't say that the Japanese disaster was retribution from God. As far as I can see, he said that God might use natural disasters for some end - which is answering the question asked by the thread. So all this talk of Fred Phelps and the Japanese disaster is a red herring. It is simple: No more haughty replies. Thanks.


  • Options
    #89
    virmilitaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 560 ✭✭✭virmilitaris


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Let's be clear, Wolfsbane didn't say that the Japanese disaster was retribution from God. As far as I can see, he said that God might use natural disasters for some end - which is answering the question asked by the thread. So all this talk of Fred Phelps and the Japanese disaster is a red herring. It is simple: No more haughty replies. Thanks.

    There was no red herring, I was replying to what he said. I quoted him directly using his language and I'm fully aware he said 'may.

    He said
    Disasters may have multiple purposes: warn some to get right with God before its too late; kill others as punishment; take others home to heaven; change the plans of leaders; etc.

    Are you suggesting that
    Disasters have multiple purposes: warn some to get right with God before its too late; kill others as punishment; take others home to heaven; change the plans of leaders; etc.
    Is any worse ?

    Can I ask how you come to the conclusion that me mentioning the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami as an example of a natural disaster is an incorrect application of what wolfsbane said ? Does the term natural disaster not apply to what happened ? Was wolfsbane using some other definition of natural disaster which excludes the island of Japan ?


  • Options
    #90
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    virmilitaris wrote: »
    Can I ask how you come to the conclusion that me mentioning the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami as an example of a natural disaster is an incorrect application of what wolfsbane said ? Does the term natural disaster not apply to what happened ? Was wolfsbane using some other definition of natural disaster which excludes the island of Japan ?

    Do you expect me to speak for WB? I don't know his mind. Unlike you, I don't know that he thinks that the Japanese disaster was a colossal judgement from God. The quote doesn't allow me to form such an opinion. But you assume he does mean this and get all hot and bothered in the process.

    Given that you move from understanding "God may use disasters..." to "God caused the Japanese earthquake and tsunami" without much evidence leads me to believe you want to understand his words to mean this.

    While I personally struggle with some of the conclusions reached from a Calvinist perspective, I suggest we both wait until WB explains what he meant before further venting takes place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    virmilitaris wrote: »
    He said ........

    Are you suggesting that ......... Is any worse ?

    Yes.

    To say that disasters may serve a purpose is very different from the second statement which implies that every disaster serves such a purpose.

    So, Wolfsbane's comments made no reference to the situation in Japan, simply to whether any disasters could ever be seen as serving a divine purpose.


Advertisement