God's Judgement and Pagan Nations

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 6 2005, 04:42 PM']And, if we apply your theory faithfully, every non-human disaster is an actively willed chastisement from God. If someone's toaster short-circuits, and their 5 children burn to death, the family was being chastised by God; we better show up at the funeral and shout it from the rooftop, lest they miss out on the chastisement. If St. Thomas Aquinas gets whacked in the head by a low-lying tree trunk, and dies soon afterword, God must've placed that branch low to chastise him.
[right][snapback]713565[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well You see I am a pesky medievalist who believes all those silly church teachings of the Middle ages, and so I believe that there was an angel appointed to that very storm and that it's path and strength was appointed by that angel. So No I reject the Idea that any thing in nature is Random in the since a modernist would propose. All storms come because they are sent, the evil of a storm might be allowed inorder that some other good might come or the other good might infact be the goal of it and the seecondary evils just the double effect of the storm, but all Natural disasters happen by the will of God alone and therefore for a reason.

Now your as for the women and her five children --- it is a seriously flawed analogy, a toaster is a product of man not of nature so it would come under man made disaster, that said no that would nnot be a chastisment to them, they are dead, no purification can come from that unless it was in the pain of beingburned to death, which is of course possible, however it could be a chastisment of her husband, or someone else who loves her and her children but not to them. Funny that you bring up St Thomas A. as he would certianly attribute natural disasters to an act of God.




[quote]No, *we* know no such thing.

If you have received a special revelation of God telling you his business, do what you see fit with that knowledge.

As is my right, I reject your private revelation, tooth and nail. [/quote] I fail to see the need for any private revalation, unless you concider a basic understanding of sin to be a private revelation.

[Era Might]

[quote]Well You see I am a pesky medievalist [/quote]

Well, therein lies our difference. I'm a Roman Catholic.

Nice to meet you, though.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Hurricanes are climactic phenomena. They're hardly mysteries.[/quote]


Really! you haven't studied meterology very much have you-- hurricaines are quite mysterious, what is happening we have a good grasp of, why it happens not so much.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 6 2005, 05:13 PM']Well, therein lies our difference. I'm a Roman Catholic.

Nice to meet you, though.


[right][snapback]713625[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well while the rite you belong to is meaningless in this discussion I too am a Catholic of the Latin rite, I just actually believe the Teachings of the Latin rite though out the century's and not what my modernist CCE teacher may have taught me. Try educating yourself abit more about the teachings of the Church for oh say the ENTIRE 2000 years of Her existance not just the modern liberal clap trap spewed forth by the heretics which dominate the religious education of this country.

[Era Might]

You never fail to wrap discussion in drama and scary words, Don John. That's why I love you.

I do find it apropos, however, that the Pope, and every other Bishop for that matter, didn't feel the need to announce the great "chastisement" that is supposedly Hurricane Katrina. He offered comfort and aid. His name is Benedict, fortunately, not Pope Frown I.

I guess it's up to the Lay Magisterium [TM] to keep the real truth going.

Edited September 6, 2005 by Era Might

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 6 2005, 05:19 PM']You never fail to wrap discussion in drama and scary words, Don John. That's why I love you. 

I do find it humorous, though, that the Pope, or any other Bishop, didn't feel the need to announce the great chastisement of Hurricane Katrina. His name is Benedict, fortunately, not Pope Frown I.
[right][snapback]713643[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I don't quite now what that means, but why would the Church comment on it the chastisment is accomplished, it would kind of like going to the guy with the bullet in his chest and saying " i told you not to tic that guy off"

[Era Might]

Well, when God chastises, he does it for a reason. If the people who were chastised don't know it, it kind of defeats the purpose.

[Don John of Austria]

ooops incomplete double post

Edited September 6, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

Did you read son of angels post, I thought it was fairly good. But you are of course wrong the Bishop of New orleans started to say something verymuch along these lines when the TV abruptly cut him off and switched to a protestant minister who would say what they wanted to hear. It started with a statment that while this was bad it wasn't the worst thing that had ever happened the Crusifixion was the worst thing that had ever happened and got less PC by the second.... He wasn't on very long. That said Chastisment doesn't require understanding simply the act of enduring the hardship can and as a Catholic I believe [i]is[/i] a means of purification Of course the dead may not have known when they died, thaat they where being chastised but they know now, unless of course they where smiten which would mean they certianly know that.

Edited September 6, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 6 2005, 05:19 PM']I guess it's up to the Lay Magisterium [TM] to keep the real truth going.
[right][snapback]713643[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ouch, I'll have to remember that one.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 6 2005, 05:45 PM']Ouch, I'll have to remember that one.
[right][snapback]713681[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


why it's just the cry of someone who can't make an actual arguement to support his position. Remember the Magestirium is not something that just sprung up, what was said 1000 years ago is just as valid and true as what is said tomorrow.

[Jaime]

Here's something for the chastiser theorists.

If this was the chastisement from the Almighty. Why did the full wrath lay waste to only the poor?

New Orleans has 24% of its population under the poverty line. The people that were able to get out had money.


So what are we saying here? God chastised the poor?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 6 2005, 06:06 PM']Here's something for the chastiser theorists. 

If this was the chastisement from the Almighty.  Why did the full wrath lay waste to only the poor? 

New Orleans has 24% of its population under the poverty line.  The people that were able to get out had money. 
So what are we saying here?  God chastised the poor?
[right][snapback]713718[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well Jamie comig as someone most would call poor, who lives in what most would concider a poor nieghborhood ( the hood anyone?) I can assure you the poor sin also. In many ways in the modern world they sin more, that just is how it is. And lets be realistic, no one in Urban America who isn't homeless is really poor, not like the poor of the past.

That said many of the rich have suffered, they after all had more to lose.

[Jaime]

Missing the point.

The rich were able to get out. The poor who couldn't are going through hell.

So if this was truly a chastisement of God, if you made enough money, you could get a pass on it?


Faulty logic.

[son_of_angels]

hot stuff,

When I say chastisement, I mean that it was an act of love and correction by God. How do I mean that? First in that he offers to everyone, old and young, rich and poor, the glory of the cross and that alone. Second in that all suffering comes as a result of sin, either our own, or anyone else's.

I say this in reference to the Cross, for "in it alone I glory." No one would say that his suffering came about as a direct result of Christ's own sin, for he had no sin. Yet still it came about because of sin, our own sin.

Katrina came because of sin, bearing with it the full Will of God, just as the cross (however horrid in sight) came about with the full Will of God. Those who suffer, suffer because of sin, and God cannot allow sin to go unrequited.

What does this mean? It means that for those who have hope, the hope which Christ has given us by his grace and love, catastrophe is love, correction, and the Cross. It is His way of laying on us the penance of the world, and so joining, with Mary the Co-redemptrix, the mystery of Christ's Passion. Suffering MUST have meaning to those within the Hope of Christ.

To those without hope, it is a "sign of contradiction," to borrow a phrase. Those who have no hope will have less, and will find themselves at the end of life's ability to preserve them. Remember Christ's words "To those who have, more will be given. To those who have not, even what they have will be taken away." For them, suffering must be an admonition to leave everything, take up their cross, and follow Him.

Enough of this "active" and "passive" will nonsense. Here is where I get controversial. There are very few cases, and in those cases God is given a specific prophetic voice, biblically, where God's active will is known. It is better to simply accept that "God's ways are not our ways." We do not understand his active will, nor can we.

However, to try and defend God by saying it is his "passive" will is modern silliness. Is it not still God's will? And is his will, passive or active, not still perfect? We don't need to know what is God's active and passive will is, for we cannot understand even enough of our universe to understand what WE are, or where our will begins and ends. Who will map out the mind of God?

We need only know that God's will is God's will, and our will must be for God's will above all.

"Take up your cross, and follow me."

Edited September 6, 2005 by son_of_angels

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 6 2005, 06:14 PM']Missing the point. 

The rich were able to get out.  The poor who couldn't are going through hell. 

So if this was truly a chastisement of God, if you made enough money, you could get a pass on it?
Faulty logic.
[right][snapback]713729[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I didn't miss the point, the innocent often must suffer with the guilty. And anyone could get out, the poor could get out as much as a rich man, agian, you could just WALK! Oh no walking is a sign of degradation isn't it, I mean just because it was good enough for Christ and the apostles and for just about everyone in history, the poor of new orleans where some how prevented from it. And so i guess your denying the Babylonian Captivity was a chastisment as well because if you where rich enough you could have escaped the Babylonians? The rich always are more likly to escape, they are rich. And agian you miss the point, God Chastens those who He is offering redemption to, so the poor would be more likely Chastised, those who escape, who suffer not, have no oppertunity to unite their suffering with that of Christ, they are less likely to be saved and their suffering in the next life ( even if they are saved) will be propotionally greater. So the fact that the rich might have had a better chance of getting away is really not an issue. There is no faulty logic here except yours.

[son_of_angels]

I think this topic needs to continue to be discussed, so here's a bump!

[Jaime]

Here's the thing.

Nowhere are you going to find in scripture a chastisement that you could get a pass on because you had enough cash. And trying to justify this belief is quite honestly, ridiculous.

I'm not a believer in the whole global warming thing. But at least they have an argument that you have to think about.

[quote]why it's just the cry of someone who can't make an actual arguement to support his position. [/quote]

Funny I was thinking the same thing about your chastisement theory.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 7 2005, 11:11 PM']Here's the thing. 

Nowhere are you going to find in scripture a chastisement that you could get a pass on because you had enough cash. And trying to justify this belief is quite honestly, ridiculous. 

I'm not a believer in the whole global warming thing.  But at least they have an argument that you have to think about. 
Funny I was thinking the same thing about your chastisement theory.
[right][snapback]715073[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Agian Jamie do you even understand what Chastisment is?

[Jaime]

I may be the only one in the conversation that does. Others just use chastisement as the easy answer. Its like trying to comfort someone who lost a loved one by saying "Its God's will".


Nothing that you have stated is anything but personal opinion DJ. Please show me somewhere scripturally or theologically that states that one can avoid the Chastisement of the Almighty if you have enough cash on you. You won't be able to. Chastisements from God are not something that can be avoided.