I do wish to correct one thing about my reply, FWIW. My reference to Job was more along the lines of "Why bad things happen to good people" and rereading it I don't think that's as clear as I would like to make it ... Romans is a more relevant book on the subject of the outworking of sin in the flesh. The spiritual influences on world events can be apprehended more fully from Ephesians.
I know, you weren't wondering, but just in case you were. :) - Publius On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> wrote: > You know more about the Bible than I do. I am not that interested in all the > details which while interesting when I do read some of it I don't read it > often. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Publius Maximus" <[email protected]> > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 12:41 PM > Subject: Re: [OT] Glover: Haiti is punishment for Copenhagen failure > > >> Nick: >> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Pat Robertson is a religious nut. The only difference between him and the >>> jihadists is he is not actually strapping on bombs and going out to kill. >> >> Actually there are a lot of other differences, but I think his >> presentation of the idea is not accurate or in any case, grossly >> oversimplified, and so I don't particularly defend his statements, as >> he is something of a hypocrite and has as much to fear from the living >> God as any Haitian stumbling through the devastated streets of Port Au >> Prince. >> >>> >>> If you do believe in God, then take heart that the Bible says he will >>> never >>> destroy again after wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah. >> >> You are conflating that event with his promise never again to wipe out >> all flesh, specifically by flood, after Noah's Ark (whence those >> pretty rainbows). He promised worse than Sodom & Gamorrah, >> particularly for various so-called churches, whose hypocrisy he >> detailed in Revelation. >> >>> So where does that leave >>> Robertson? Who would be then responsible for the Haiti earthquake? I say >>> it >>> is a random, natural event that we have no control over. Prayer or >>> otherwise >>> will have no effect on these events either before or after. >> >> I'll let this one pass since people simply won't hear the truth about >> divine wrath, or the outworking in the flesh of sin hidden in the >> heart, etc., and it's pointless explaining these kinds of things when >> Job does a fine job of it as well as any other book in Scripture, with >> a happier ending. >> >> This is one area where people go bonkers and talking to them is like >> dodging hand grenades, particularly when they have unrepented sin in >> their own hearts. >> >> - Publius >> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Publius Maximus" <[email protected]> >>> To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:29 AM >>> Subject: [OT] Glover: Haiti is punishment for Copenhagen failure >>> >>> >>>> http://bit.ly/5YnuzH >>>> >>>> - - - >>>> >>>> OK, at least Pat Robertson's rather, shall we say, "controversial" >>>> argument about God being miffed with the Haitians for making a pact >>>> with the Devil was arguably somehow relatable to the catastrophe at >>>> hand. >>>> >>>> Why on earth, pray tell, would Gaia punish Haiti for Copenhagen's >>>> failure with an earthquake? Wouldn't a category 15 hurricane hitting, >>>> say, Denmark be more in line with Global Warming theosophical >>>> principles? >>>> >>>> (I note instead they got a blizzard, right there at the conference. A >>>> clue, for those with eyes to see...) >>>> >>>> - Publius >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, >>>> under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object >>>> of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to >>>> subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign >>>> powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of >>>> them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be >>>> avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose >>>> situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful >>>> and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] >>>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
