My wife brought this to my attention. I had heard about it previously but had forgotten about it. I have believed for a long time that the U.S.'s prosperity has been connected to it's relationship with Israel. Well, aparently many of the U.S.'s major disasters are related to our foreign policy with Israel as well (no big surprise to me).
Truth-or-Fiction has an article on Ten Major U.S. Disasters on Dates Significant to Treatment of Israel - Truth! The article is, "A list of ten dates on which there (were) important events related to Israel along with natural disasters affecting the United States. The implication is that the U.S. had better pay attention to decisions about Israel...or else" As the critics say "going through all the events in a particular span of years and finding apparent correlations doesn't mean they were connected." I don't know if i would fully agree with the critics about this under normal circumstances, but it also looks like we're living out number 11 right now.
Hurricane Katrina developed during or directly following the recent evacuation of Gaza Strip which was supported by the U.S. government. As a result of hurricane Katrina all of New Orleans is being evacuated and cleanup is going to take months to years with the costs into the billions.
A coincidence? Maybe, but i learned a long time ago that more often than not, coincidences rarely ever are. Just something to ponder for the day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
So your theory is that God sent Katrina to kill a couple thousand people in New Orleans in order to punish the U.S. for bad decisions about Israel? I'm just trying to make sure I understood you.
What i'm saying is that it's interesting that when this country (and others) support God's chosen people and stand for His promises towards them, they tend to be blessed. When they don't support God's promises for the Jews / Israelites, and encourage them to give up the land that God had provided for them, there tends to be problems.
If you want to interpret that as God sent Katrina to kill a bunch of people, then that's your interpretation of it. Personally, i said no such thing.
If you want to interpret that as God sent Katrina to kill a bunch of people, then that's your interpretation of it.
It's not my interpretation; it's what you're saying. What else do you mean by "interesting?"
The Jewish people are God's beloved and chosen people. Genesis 12:3 and 27:29 spell out how God feels about those who oppose His people.
What i did was to lay out some facts and the supposed correlation to those facts. You took those facts and the correlation and came to the conclusion that "God sent Katrina to kill a couple thousand people in New Orleans in order to punish the U.S. for bad decisions about Israel" It sounds like your view of God is that He is a vindictive God who is ready to knock someone around anytime they step out of line. Maybe that's the case. Maybe you're conclusion is right. I personally don't think so.
This is the way i see it. When at the end of WWII the U.S. and it's allies worked to support the Jewish / Isrealite people they were blessed of and in part protected by God. We wanted to help God's beloved and chosen people, and have continued to do so. Look at what happened in the Gulf War when we protected Israel and Jerusalem. As a result we have known an age of growth and prosperity to the point that we went from one pretty powerful nation, to one of the world's superpowers, to the world superpower. In that time we, as a nation (not everyone has done this by far), have turned our backs on God and rejected Him to set the pursuit of money, illicit drugs, sexual fantasy, science, education, and ourselves as the gods of our lives. Yet He continues to bless us for many reasons, in part because we continue to bless His chosen and beloved people. When what we say and do (as a nation) is no longer blessing His people, then we have chosen to reject His blessing on us. As a result of our choosing to reject that blessing, He pulls away part of that blessing and protection and lets us see and deal with the consequences to our own actions. Is He trying to kill thousands of people? No, absolutely not! Do we have to deal with the consequences of our own actions? Absolutely! We always have the choice to accept or reject Him... But if we reject Him and His chosen people we reject His blessing.
Do you see the differences in these two views? If you come at the facts and correlations with a view that God is a vindictive God, you will come to a vindictive conclusion. If you come at the facts and correlations with a view of God as a loving God who wants to bless His people but that will allow them to choose not to accept Him and His blessing, you come to a completely different conclusion. Am i right, or are you right? I hope and pray that i am right. All that i have seen, learned, and come to understand about God leads me to my conclusion. And i don't think that anything you can say is going to change that.
This is one of the problems with science and will continue to be a problem as long as people conduct science. Two people can take the exact same facts and correlations and come to completely different conclusions. Scientists will always come to conclusions ans as long as only one bias and mentality is taught to scientists by their teaches, and as long as scientists refuse to accept that that may be wrong, there will always be a problem.
I was just trying to get you to clarify what you're claiming.
Basically, you are saying that God did not protect us from this flood because of our recent relationship with Israel. I guess whether you call that vindictive or not is a matter of taste; I certainly wouldn't call it loving. Thousands of people are dead and He could have prevented it but chose not to.
When God created us, He did so in His image. He did not require us to love and worship Him against our will. He created us to love Him by choice. With that ability to have choice comes an ability to make the wrong choice. With all choice, wrong or right, comes consequences. Sometimes that choice leads to blessing, sometimes it leads to destruction. The only way to know the right choice is to know His word and to know Him.
An example of that is King David. He sought God with all of his heart and as a result he was greatly blessed. However, he did not always make the right choice as seen with Bathsheba and her husband. David, by his own admittance should have lost everything, but God spared him. He lost the child and it created division in his home. But God in his love and mercy kept his life.
God is love. But He is also Just, Righteous, and Holy. And even love sometimes means that there needs to be sacrifice.
Many of the people who died were children. They did nothing wrong and didn't deserve to be killed. If God "removes his blessing," why does he remove it from the innocent children instead of the guilty parties?
God can spare a murderous adulterer like David, but innocent children don't quite measure up. Is that it?
Some were children, some were adults, some were the elderly. You would have hoped that the parents of those children would have heeded the warning and gotten their children out in time, or at least sent them to or with some friends.
The people had more than enough warning. Those that chose to stay did so at their own risk. Am i saying that i like what happened? No, absolutely not, but people die all the time. Death is a part of life. Do i fear death? Nope.
Unfortunately, oftentimes the people of a nation have to deal with the consequences of that nation's choice, which is why it is so important to be continually in prayer for the government and leaders of our states and nation. We must be willing to take a stand and pray for those leaders continually (even the ones we don't like).
Ultimately, i don't have all of the answers for you. If you really want to know what God thinks, ask Him yourself (with the intent of listening for/to the answer). You would be surprised at how He answers those who earnestly seek Him.
wow, can you really be this ignorant:
"The people had more than enough warning. Those that chose to stay did so at their own risk. Am i saying that i like what happened? No, absolutely not, but people die all the time. Death is a part of life. Do i fear death? Nope."
The people that 'chose' to stay had very little choice in the matter. If you find yourself without a job, car, money or material assets, you'll quickly find 'choice' a scarce commodity as well. Your opinion smacks of someone who has, at best, no experience with financial hardship. Worse yet, you may be one of those emotionally parsimonious christians who think poverty is a sin. I don't want to get into your theories on the chosen people and current events, as I find your latter days mentality unfathomable.
Wow Eric, you seem to be pretty judgmental and be making pretty big assumptions about me without knowing anything about me.
I grew up poor. Right now the population that i work with is mainly the poor/Medicaid population. This is one thing that i know about the poorer population. It doesn't matter who you are, you will find a way to do what is a priority for you. I have had friends of mine who's parents could not afford to pay the rent, and yet they could afford to go out and buy a brand new satelite dish. I'm not talking one of these cheap pay by the month things. I'm talking about when the satelite dishes were $2,000 each and took up the space of a shed. It doesn't matter how poor the population or person is that i work, with when some of the kids of poorer parents are put in inpatient counseling i can count on some parents to make it a point to come and see their kids even if the drive is hours away, while some who are only 30 minutes away always have an excuse/reason for not coming to see their kid. I can usually tell quite a bit about the problems the kid is having just by looking at whether their parents are willing to come for family therapy or not.
So when i say that those who make it a point to get out were very likely the ones that did, i am not speaking ignorantly. Be careful who you accuse of what around here. Stating your opinion is one thing accusing people of being something that they are not is something else entirely.
Do i acknowledge that the city/state should have done more to help the people leave? Absolutely! But are they the only ones at fault here? Not at all.
Wow, a lot of serious discussion here. I wish life was so black and white-unfortunately its not. We can speculate at reasons why things happen but until we come face to face with our destiny whether we believe in God or an alien race or whom ever created the world we can never know or fathom why things happen to people we love and care for. Unfortunately bad things happen and it usually doesn't seem fair or right. We have to live with decisions others make and the decisions we make-good or bad.
See this "Post a comment" page? That's what I'm doing right now. If you don't want comments posted, you can turn them off, or even delete mine. Till then I'll assume you want discussion, and are thick skinned enough to handle disagreements, or even accusations.
You're delusional about the people that stayed in NO. Your argument is that they didn't make evacuation a priority? Your commendable work with the poor not withstanding, this is not a question of cold medicine versus a six pack. This is life or death.
Furthermore, your half-wit theories about God's chosen people and holy retribution shows how simple minded you are. You and Kim can quote chapter and verse till your blue in the face, but laying the countless deaths and the horror of Katrina at God's feet and interpreting it as retribution is beyond the pale. Don't try and mask it by saying it's "interesting". If you're going to claim divine providence and retribution, at least be honest about it.
Eric There's a difference between posting a comment and being insulting. As you mentioned the title says "Post a Comment On" not "Insult the Author Of" I have no problem with logical argument and expressed opinion. That can be done without insult.
Your argument was that my "opinion smacks of someone who has, at best, no experience with financial hardship. Worse yet, you may be one of those emotionally parsimonious christians who think poverty is a sin."
You attack me and call me ignorant when not only am i not so, but by doing so you bring that label upon yourself.
You then state "I don't want to get into your theories on the chosen people and current events, as I find your latter days mentality unfathomable". First of all, i never stated anything about the "latter days". I don't know who you are stereotyping me as or who you are so bitter against that talks about the "latter days" enrage you so, but that topic has never even been mentioned on this blog.
Also, if you don't want to get into my "theories on the chosen people and current events" than why are you posting comments about my "theories on the chosen people and current events". That is what this post is about.
Personally, agree with what Christie said "Unfortunately bad things happen and it usually doesn't seem fair or right. We have to live with decisions others make and the decisions we make-good or bad." That about sums it up.
I'll try and reply without undue damage to your feelings. My temper gets the better of me sometimes.
What I disagree with is the way you, Pat Robertson, and many 'born again' Christians look at the bible and draw conclusions that suit your agenda, and your interpretations of current events, scripture and history.
Statements like this one are what I disagree with:
"What i'm saying is that it's interesting that when this country (and others) support God's chosen people and stand for His promises towards them, they tend to be blessed. When they don't support God's promises for the Jews / Israelites, and encourage them to give up the land that God had provided for them, there tends to be problems."
I disagree with them for a few reasons:
1. One, I think you are using a literary device ("it's interesting") as a dodge to make your argument seem academic, when your central point is that Katrina was biblical revenge. Then you tell JA that he's seeing it as revenge, and you're seeing it as an absence of grace. I understand your point, but I think the distinction would be lost on those suffering in Katrina's wake.
2. In the new testament Jesus clearly cuts across racial and gender divisions. Is the God of the new testament the same as the Yaweh of old? I'm no biblical scholar, but I find it hard to believe that the Jesus protrayed in the new testament, who blesses a Gentile Wedding, and ministers to the rejects and dregs of society still has a "Chosen People" that are elevated above all. If you believe that's the case, why not convert to Judaism?
3. Everytime there's a natural disaster in the world, there's always a cavalcade of televangelists ready to presume that they know why it happened, who God was pissed at, and why you should send them money. You seem to be engaging in all but the last of these behaviors.
4. Why presume you know the root cause of a hurricane? Weather appears to be a chaotic system, so assuming a religous world view, God either set it in motion and left it to simmer, or is micromanaging it. Maybe the alternative to a hurricane in the gulf was more suffing elsewhere. I'm not saying I know, but neither do you.
Ah, finally something i can work with.
First, i am not Pat Robertson. I never have been and i never will be.
"'born again' Christians look at the bible and draw conclusions that suit your agenda, and your interpretations of current events, scripture and history." Historians and scientists do this all the time. There is no such thing as an unbiased human being. Just by looking at your posts it is very clear some of your biases. I am not biased, you are not biased, no one is biased. A lack of bias is impossible for any human being.
"when this country (and others) support God's chosen people...they tend to be blessed. When they don't support God's promises for the Jews / Israelites...there tends to be problems."
This is what the data shows. It comes from a website that attempts to find the truth or lack thereof from internet rumors. The website reported that these events and correlations are accurate.
1. OK... when i say "it's interesting" i'm saying it's interesting. I'm not saying it's academic, or attempting to use it as a dodge. I am simply bringing attention to it and telling people i think it's interesting. I think you're reading more into it than is there. When i refer to JA, JA and i have had long discussions on bias in science and i was attempting to point out to him how he can look at the data and see one thing while i look at the same data and see something else entirely. He has had difficulty accepting that science is full of bias, this was an example that i was using with him to support what i had said previously. There is a major difference between the two views posed.
2. Actually in Romans 11 it is shown that Israel is still Gods chosen people even though His gift is for all
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,[f] if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[g] as it is written:
“ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”[h]
3. I'm pointing out the data and the pretty obvious correlation. You can come to a different conclusion if you want to. I even stated that the critics say that "going through all the events in a particular span of years and finding apparent correlations doesn't mean they were connected." and i stated that "I don't know if i would fully agree with the critics about this under normal circumstances" I am not stating this as fact. This is very obviously an opinion and is relayed as such.
4. "Why presume you know the root cause of a hurricane?...so assuming a religous world view, God either set it in motion and left it to simmer, or is micromanaging it."
As i said previously, i brought out the data and the correlation that appears accurate and put them together. I also pointed out two different theories that fit the data and correlation and explained why i believe one is right and the other is wrong. This is the way of science and research (and is actually better than what most science / research studies do). If you have a problem with it you will have to bring it up to the scientific / research community. (Wow i'm actually defending the scientific / research community... sort of)
>>First, i am not Pat Robertson. I >>never have been and i never will >>be.
I didn't call you Pat Robertson, nor did I assume you were 'born again'. I asserted that you were among those that that want to find divine cause for a natural catastrophy. Last year Robertson tied the wave of hurricanes to scripture. I hope you don't think I'm being overly broad in pointing out that you're doing something similar.
On to your thoughts on bias. Yes, historians view history through the lens of their cultural backgrounds, but they remain open to new sources. Scientist do this as well. Science in particular is quite open to new ideas, provided they are born out by observation. Look at the progression from the Aristolean world view to Newtonian physics to General Relativity to Quantum phenomenon.
"This is what the data shows. It comes from a website that attempts to find the truth or lack thereof from internet rumors. The website reported that these events and correlations are accurate."
I'll assume that you understand that a coorelation doesn't imply causality. If you want to read the coorelation that way, you've stepped from the realm of proof into faith. And if your faith/belief/reading of a particular version of the bible/intuition leads you that way, fine.
I'll leave the analysis of Romans 11 to you, but as your reading a translation of a translation of an account written at least 30 years after Jesus' death, and as Jesus isn't at this point saying that God will extract revenge on the foes of Israel, I remain unconvinced. It's theology, so it's safe to say that you have your reading, and I have mine.
If you'd really like to get into your reading of scripture, we can talk about how many times what you're quoting has been translated, which texts were excorcised and which were destroyed, and all the conflicts between various parts of the old and new testament. I'm not suggesting that you should subject your doctrine to that sort of scrutiny, but if you're going to use the bible to prove something, then I think it becomes valid to discuss its origins.
"3. I'm pointing out the data and the pretty obvious correlation. You can come to a different conclusion if you want to..."
That's just it, correlations don't drive conclusions. They're not a causal chain. I wouldn't make a conclusion based on a coorelation.
"...As i said previously, i brought out the data and the correlation that appears accurate and put them together. I also pointed out two different theories that fit the data and correlation and explained why i believe one is right and the other is wrong. This is the way of science and research (and is actually better than what most science / research studies do). If you have a problem with it you will have to bring it up to the scientific / research community. (Wow i'm actually defending the scientific / research community... sort of) "
No, actually this is not "the way of scientific research".
You haven't proved, and you haven't shown two theories of anything. You have a hypothesis based on a coorelation. The scientific method would require you to devise an experiment to prove this hypothesis. I don't want to envision how one would go about such a macabre experiment, and I'd argue it's an untestable hypothesis. Please don't claim that in refuting your methods I'm throwing out the scientific method.
I'm late to the conversation, but suffice to say that I'm in total agreement with Eric's posts. Linking unrelated coincidental events smacks of mysticism and synchronicity. Next you're going to tell me that there's a correlation between the Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the Moon. Ha-ha-ha. You talk about presenting facts. You're not presenting facts. You're cherry-picking events to fit your theory. That is a big-time violation of scientific method. But don't let facts, logic or reason get in the way of a good story. :-)
No correlation doesn't state causality. Correlation implies the possiblity of causality, and when correlation is used, it brings the author and reader to conclusion. The author or reader can decide to reject that correlation as they can with the "conclusions" (which are oftentime more about correlation of theories and studies than actual fact) of science and history. After all, how many of those who write the history books were present for say, the writing of the constitution. The only fact that they have is the different writings of the people of the times (or the times thereafter) that they bring together to create a picture of the actual events. They take the viewpoint of different people and attempt to create facts from those viewpoints. Some of those facts may be correct, but some are bound to be incorrect. Thus multiple historians often disagree about the same events. Thus correlation is a common tool for historians.
"Please don't claim that in refuting your methods I'm throwing out the scientific method." I concede this point. You are correct. You are also correct that when using the scientific method what i have brought forth are hypothesis and not theories.
"I don't want to envision how one would go about such a macabre experiment, and I'd argue it's an untestable hypothesis." Maybe, maybe not. The United State government is bound to make a decision that is not in the best interest of or directly opposes the nation of Israel. When that happens simply watch the news over the weeks following the event. If there is a major disaster / catastrophy / etc. than it brings more support to the notion that this hypothesis may be accurate. Actually, if you had decided to do this prior to the beginning of August, you would already have your results.
Something that really does surprise me about your argument is that first you bring in argument based on the Bible...
"2. In the new testament Jesus clearly cuts across racial and gender divisions. Is the God of the new testament the same as the Yaweh of old? I'm no biblical scholar, but I find it hard to believe that the Jesus protrayed in the new testament, who blesses a Gentile Wedding, and ministers to the rejects and dregs of society still has a "Chosen People" that are elevated above all. If you believe that's the case, why not convert to Judaism?"
...so i responded to your Biblical arguments citing the passage in Romans 11 that supports what i have said and conflicts with your argument, to which you criticize me for bringing scripture into the picture. I'm sorry, i must be missing something here, but it seems to me that there is a problem. If you are going to argue using the Bible, than you don't criticize the use of that source just because someone proves that your Bliblical argument is not clearly thought out or is proven wrong. That makes for a very poor argument on your side and brings your ability to continue the debate appropriately into question.
I'm beginning to become concerned. No wait, in truth i've been concerned the entire time. First you come in making unfounded accusations of me, criticizing me, and calling me inappropriate names for not having the same view as you. Then you criticize me for looking at facts and correlations (something that history and science do all the time) and drawing conclusions from those correlations and facts. Added to that you cite sources and criticize me for using the exact same source as you because i was able to show that the source had more support for my claims than yours. What next? Will you claim that because i admit that i am biased (just like everyone else) that what i have to say must be unfounded or inadmissable? I really hate to say it, but the more i listen to your arguments the more i wish JA was the one posting these arguments so that we could get around the pettyness and have a real discussion.
By the way. I want to set the record straight. I don't believe that these correlations are 100% accurate and totally proven facts. As i stated before. This is all very "interesting" and that while they seem to be coincidences, "i learned a long time ago that more often than not, coincidences rarely ever are." and that this is "Just something to ponder for the day."
you're either up for a debate or your not. wishing you were debating someone else is moot. If you can't or won't understand my responses than I'm either not clear, or you don't want to understand them. Either way, there's no point in debating you. I'm done.
As for my rudeness, if I offended you, I'm sorry. When you wrote this:
"Some were children, some were adults, some were the elderly. You would have hoped that the parents of those children would have heeded the warning and gotten their children out in time, or at least sent them to or with some friends."
It incensed me. My sister in law, undergoing chemo in Metarie, LA, in Jefferson Parish, was only able to evacuate because friends of hers offered her a ride. She was lucky. Others were not, and your opinion that they didn't make it a priority to get out is the most ludicrous thing I've read on your blog.
As i have said. I have no problem with debate. It is the unfounded accusations, name calling, and criticism for using the exact same sources as you are using that i don't appreciate. None of those are debate, and all three of them have been primary tactics in your "debating". So if you define that as debate and want to say that i'm not interested in debating than i will fully aggree with you.
I can and do understand much of your arguments, and i can/could tell that they were based out of anger and not logic. I attempted to work around this and keep attempting to bring the debate back into focus, but under the circumstances i can understand why you were having such a hard time with that.
That quote on the children, adults, and elderly was in response to a completely different set of circumstances / arguments and was not meant in the manner that it came across to you. For that i appologize. In part i understand the loss (no one can really, fully understand without going through it themselves), and how emotional it can be. Perhaps when the subject/situation is not of such a personal and sensitive nature we can return to debating.
By the way, i will lift your sister-in-law up in prayer (as i have for those stuck in this catastrophy) that she recovers well and quickly. Keep in mind that research shows (not that i place a whole lot of merit in research) those who are going through a difficult time medically tend to do better and recover faster when they have people praying for them (even when they don't know about it). So if you believe in any god at all i recommend that you keep her in prayer. If you aren't religious in any way, it still doesn't hurt (and will actually still very likely help her) to lift her up in prayer.
I appreciate you adding my sister in law to your prayers.
As for the rest of your response, I won't be drawn back into a debate, or a debate about a debate.
Post a Comment