Why did the quake strike Christchurch?

Damn right. There's a word for such thinking: FOOLISH.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and propose that the quake struck Christchurch because of geological factors like seismic friction and release resulting in p- and s- waves distorting the ground and interacting with the specific composition of the bedrock upon which the city is built. Add in what looks like some unfortunately placed liquifraction incidences and possibly cost cutting in construction techniques and you get a terrible natural disaster.

But then I'm an evil atheist, blaming god seems so much more reasonable.

;-)

Most Christians may sigh with embarrassment at the views of some other Christians, but it must not be forgotten that in recent years senior churchmen have made equally bizarre claims. I recall, for example, the Bishop of Carlisle having something to say about the floods in Cumbria and the wrath of God. And as for AIDS ...

"We must cultivate our gardens".

Disasters are odd,

I was in New York on Sept 11th, I don't remember god being there, I do remember lots of people dong all sorts of great things for other people. In fact people did all manner of small things which make New Yorkers some of the most caring people on earth.

Afterwards lots of people said god was there, but he wasn't, we got to Friday and then then the god squad moved in ( well as soon as the bridges opened) and claimed it all for god.

Then we got the 'it was your fault'

Funnily I couldn't give blood, not because I was gay but because I was British and Mad cow disease was worse than Aids lol.

Dave: some people would say that all the people doing all the small things, the caring things, the loving things - that is God in action and not the 'god squad' stuff . If God is the love inside people -then the expression of that love in all the small things etc is God in action - but I appreciate that's maybe not how you or others understand God.

It always amuses and infuriates me in equal measures after an event like this when they pull a lone survivor out of a building where they've previously only found dead bodies and claim it's a 'miracle', praise the lord.

Yes, god went to all the trouble of killing hundreds of people and creating misery for thousands more just to perform a miracle and save a single person. Thank jebus.

Seems like god works in mysterious (and malicious) ways.

Oh come on peo9ple, the riddle of earth quakes has been solved. If you would just listen to the wise words of an Iranian cleric, the cause lies in that other group of people than gays that religions like to make miserable: women. It is they who cause earth quakes through their immodest ways of dressing and promiscuity:

https://www.startribune.com/91470174.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/iranian-cleric-promiscuou_n_543100.html

Although that theory was tested in the 'boobquake' experiment

https://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html

and results didn't support the clerics theory. How's that for a bit of empiricism, eh. :)

Some Christians may sigh with embarrassment but these peoples views are entirely consistent with how God is portrayed in the Old Testament.There is no "correct" view of God.They might be right, the moderates might be right, as an atheist I think they are both wrong and their continuing disagreement merely helps to confirm that there is nothing there.
Anyway why should people have to put up with public displays of skiing.

Such responses, though they certainly are ridiculous in some sense, make some logical sense when you view natural disasters as instances of the problem of suffering. The basic point is that there is a contradiction between the existence of events of net suffering and the existence of a God with the desire and power to stop such events. If they are unwilling to revise the premise involving God, then they must revise the premise involving the event in order to avoid the contradiction.

Yes, it's certainly not the response most of us would choose. I go into more details on the other options in a long blog post [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator], but at least the people we're criticising acknowledge that the problem of suffering is a real issue that requires some sort of amendment. Christians who aren't prepared to follow this kind of thinking need to defend their position some other way in response to the problem of suffering, and I'm not sure any of the other defences are any better.

Sorry William but your attempt to portray these people as aberrant is a little desperate. I would hazard that in the minds of most believers there is at least some measure of such thought, whether it's "theologically correct" or not. I would also hazard that most believers haven't really got the faintest idea about "proper" theology, because religiosity is not about that, and indeed, theology has connotations of intellectualism about it, and as such is worldly, suspect and has the whiff of Satan about it. Would that more religious people actually understood the theology of their chosen faiths. Then religion would not be so much of a threat (and yes, I do see it as a threat).

These two are Anglicans. Those nice, gentle, liberal Anglicans. I suspect that their views are symptomatic of the hardening of the religious line which has taken place in the past decade.

It seems to me that you keep kinda-sorta apologising for religion and make out as though you're merely being reasonable, a voice of fairness and moderation. Strike me down Mr Crawley but I don't believe you've really shaken it off. If that TV programme you made last year is anything to go by, in which you spent a long time talking but making no discernable point whatsoever, bizarrely entitling it "Losing My Religion", then it looks for all the world that you still kinda-sorta love it.

Nothing wrong with that but it would be nice if you came clean.

Will,

"Why did the quake strike Christchurch?"

That is the most ridiculous, unscientific and truly ignorant thread topic to-date.

Tectonic plates inside the belly of the planet move and shift. This causes disruption resulting in NATURAL DISASTERS such as earthquakes and volcanoes.

from the brilliant Melvyn Bragg podcast:

"Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss how the science of plate tectonics revolutionised our understanding of the planet on which we live."

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008q0sp

"America is getting further away from Europe. This is not a political statement but a geological fact. Just as the Pacific is getting smaller, the Red Sea bigger, the Himalayas are still going up and one day the Horn of Africa will be a large island. This is the theory of plate tectonics, a revolutionary idea in 20th century geology that claimed the continents of Earth were dancing to the music of deep time. A dance of incredible slowness, yet powerful enough to throw up the mountains and pour away the oceans."

Will shame on you for encouraging superstitious nonsense over practical, real, verifiable science.

LucyQ,

Read Will's post, then reconsider your words. He's merely pointing out that there are some rather extremist views out there with regards natural events likes this. He's neither condoning, nor encouraging such nonsense.

Natman

I did read the post and am furious at Will for even raising such a ridiculous topic. What is the point of encouraging the unsophisticated?

Eunice... Why do you have to downgrade ordinary genuine human compassion by suggesting that it's god that's doing the good stuff. And if god is inside us, then he was inside the people who flew the planes into the twin towers.

I can see where Will's coming from. Perhaps this pre-emptive strike, to get people discussing it , will embarrass some from drawing those conclusions & think twice before they lash out at parts of humankind they feel they can give a good kicking when a natural disaster takes place. Remeber, there are people here who believe the world is around 6000 yrs old so this place is a real meeting of minds- some bronze age, some medieval, thankfully the majority modern ( of all religious & non religious affiliations)

William, I can't understand why you even include these subjects because it just encourages the same old responses from the anti-God brigade.
It's just another platform for them to say the same old things over and over again.
They just love spouting off about something they know nothing about!

It always happens after a natural disaster. There are those who jump and praise God for someone who has miraculously survived. There are also those ‘Christians’ who unfortunately connect it to some judgement of whatever group are not on their Christmas list at that particular moment. Then there are the anti-god people who love to taunt believers (and I can almost hear the whine in their voice as they express it), “If God is a God of love why does He allow this or why didn’t He stop it.” Both of these positions are at either extremes of the spectrum.

What annoys me is that there is a silence from the hierarchy of the churches as they seem to be lost for an answer too. If they read and believed their Bibles from Genesis to Revelation they would have an answer. They would have to admit that man and creation have ‘fallen’ from the state in which God created it. But then they would have to admit that there was a literal Adam. Then they would have to admit that he disobeyed God. They would have to conclude that we are all in the same boat and need God’s help. They should know, as we are told in Romans, that creation also ‘groans and travails in pain’ because of this fall.

Hence we get earthquakes, tsunami, hurricanes, etc, etc, etc. If anyone happens to be under a piece of masonry when it falls, as a result of the law of gravity, then unfortunately they will lose their lives. The Lord Jesus in Mark gives an example of the Tower in Siloam falling. The 18 who died as a result were not sinners ‘above all men’, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that God should put His hand out and stop the falling masonry. Where would He stop these miraculous acts? Just for the really big disasters? Any family who has suffered a loss would have the right to question these selective miracles.

If you don’t believe in God then don’t blame Him because for you He doesn’t exist. If you do believe in God then thank Him that He has prepared a better place for us and even if we are washed away or run over we will enjoy the new Heaven and the new Earth.

Ah William, just like I remember from Jordanstown, plenty of talking without a desire to give a personal opinion. Whats so wrong with the idea of punishment? If we believe teh Bible, we believe that we are all deserving of punishment because we are all sinful. The truth is we all are faced with punishment, its an unavoidable death. Anyone asking questions of God are complaining about death coming sooner for people than they belive it should, still most of the questioners and you yourself, still avoid the question of what we do about what follows the inevitable - death.

Blog about what saves souls William, regardless of earthquake or heart attact on deathbed.

I agree with your thoughts and comments, Luxfuit and Clive.

Of course, theodicy is only really a "mystery" for those who cling to the quaint old medieval notion that the gods are "perfect". If the gods don't actually *exist*, or if they are subject to the same lapses in corporate governance or health & safety as the rest of us, then there really is no problem.

The human mind is very prone to teleological thinking: "why" did something happen? framed with the assumption that the something was *planned* with a purpose in mind.

Oddly, the god of Job is perfectly capable of being a capricious scallywag - however badly Job may feel he had been handled, it was far worse for his dead children, and they didn't get any biccies after bathtime. As a piece of ancient fiction, Job is pretty good (I have heard it argued that it was written as a piece of drama - a play).

But if earthquakes and plagues are really evidence of divine wrath (and hey it's biblical, kiddies), then god really needs to get a life. Or a life coach. It is people who do good for one another, when this unfeeling unthinking universe throws adversity at them. Not the gods. And this is another area where crazy beliefs actually do cause harm.

Jesus apparently had some comments to make on the Tower of Siloam. Much as the notion of "repentance" is a bit silly, you have it there in red letters that natural disasters are not sent to punish.

Ah, Lucy, Lucy! :-)

Far be it from me to want to be “unscientific and truly ignorant”, but please, consider your own words, or at least the ones you so admire from Melvyn Bragg (he is good, I agree) but, “continents... dancing to the music of deep time”. Dancing, Lucy? Really? “The music of deep time”? Really?

Come on, Lucy, away with this “superstitious nonsense”.

Ah Newthornley, my plagiarist friend. The anti-God brigade "know nothing about" the things they shout about? That's nice coming from the self-same person who plagiarised a lump of creationist guff from somewhere about the Earth's magnetic field, feeling all clever, and thinking it somehow supported - no, proved I think you said - a young-earth position. Guffaw.

While I'm at it. Last September a survey in the US found atheists and agnostics did better by far than their religious counterparts in a religious general knowledge test. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that Jews and Mormons did best among the faithful, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 respectively.

On average, non-believers and agnostics scored 20.9 out of 32, while religious respondents averaged 16.5.

I strongly suspect similar results would be replicated here.

Patrick: I am not downgrading human compassion at all - if anything the complete opposite. We have the ability to choose how we respond or react in any situation and how we live each day. Those choices can come from love (God) or that which is not love. The people who flew into the twin towers were not coming from love (God). However, it is true that they still have God or love within them - as to my understanding the essence or core of every human being is love. However, it is part of the human condition that we don't know that, don't live that, and live as if we are separated or disconnected from it and as such evil can then be manifest through the human person. We are potentially capable of much more than people realise - but we have to make the choices that bring that forth. God is made manifest through the expressions of the human person that are coming from gentleness, from love.

Clive: there is much wrong with idea of punishment. First it is not true - God does not punish. THus it is a lie and it is one that is very harming to everybody who believes such a lie and to those who perpetuate it and who impose it upon others. Nobody that i have met or known who knows God would say that God punishes - it comes from people adhering to stories in the bible out of fear and also ignorance of God's true nature. To live in fear of punishment is to bring consequences on the physical body that are not good for it.

Likewise - death is not to be feared - it is but another stage in the journey of life and whilst it is the end of the physical body for this incarnation it is not the end of the spirit or soul. That does not mean life is cheap - because to my understanding everything has a consequence. We tend to focus on our little story and our little lives here and now without realising there is a much much bigger picture - and this is only one part of it. The fear of death/punishment stops people from living - how crazy is that! End up dead - just existing - before your dead!

As for quakes - yes there are the explanations of tectonic plates etc etc that explain the how it all happens but if one accepts that all of life is interconnected, that all is one (as science would affirm), then we are not divorced from all that goes on. Nothing happens in isolation.
If we are all interconnected and all is one - then the question beckons what is our role in it? Perhaps we should stop blaming God ( who does not punish) and look at what we are doing and how we are living that might in some strange perhaps not yet understood way be playing a part in such disasters. I appreciate most of you will poo poo this and say it is rubbish etc but follow the logic - either everything is interconnected and we have a role or it is not and we don't. Science would say everything is interconnected - ergo we have a role, a part to play in all that happens - strange and way out as that may seem.

@ 22.
Apologists often have more acquired knowledge, but for the believer, the amount of knowledge doesn't translate into the amount of faith necessarily.

@ peterm2

Poetic language and metaphors are how we describe experience. Those small, often ineffectual words, struggle to convey to others emotional experiences. No magic or religion is required.

As for you Will Crawley, I am regretting sending your blog piece for inclusion at RDF:

We should be thankful to Charles Darwin
https://richarddawkins.net/articles/594530-we-should-be-thankful-to-charles-darwin

God Eunice. You can't half cook up some twaddle in that head of yours.

"I appreciate most of you will poo poo this and say it is rubbish etc but follow the logic - either everything is interconnected and we have a role or it is not and we don't. Science would say everything is interconnected - ergo we have a role, a part to play in all that happens - strange and way out as that may seem."

Science would also say we're pattern-seeking apes and we're somewhat hardwired to make connections that plainly are not there.

I've just read that four Amish children were swept away and drowned when their horse-drawn buggy toppled in a flooded creek. The rest of the family of nine escaped.

Now, were they gay children? Did one of their elders suggest homosexuality does no harm? Or could it be that God was angry because if every couple had nine children we wouldn't have room to turn on this planet?

These questions are every bit as valid and equally as callous (did you see what I did there?) as the one posed above.

About face : 'God Eunice' - I like it!! lol :-)

No worries AF - I was going to write I'll await the onslaught....
Anyway - you may be an ape but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - I actually think you are much much more than a 'pattern seeking ape'!
See I even have a higher opinion of you than you do of yourself! Must just be that hard wiring again.....or maybe there is more to this connection business than we realise? I was just following the logic.... you can diss it if you like ....doesn't mean it is actually twaddle - although I fully appreciate how it can seem like twaddle! Sure - sounds nuts - but hey what if there's actually something to it??

Maybe you just have a lower opinion of apes than me. :-)

Lucy

”Poetic language and metaphors are how we describe experience.”

Yea, I know, but it is odd, is it not?

Because they’re not dancing Lucy. They’re... perhaps you can give us a word, or words, to describe the impersonal movements of the earth.

And the words are small and ineffectual - are they? Is there something more to this than rocks?

I mean you seem to be happy to impose personal characteristics on rocks - why would you want to do that? Why, Lucy? Tell me *why*. And tell me *why* you *want* to describe experience.

The earth isn’t dancing, Lucy. Time isn’t playing a tune. The skys aren’t singing, you can’t hear colour, and you can’t taste sound.

That would be, ‘most ridiculous’, most "unscientific". #11

Wouldn't it?

Are you saying that people describing scientific processes aren't allowed to use literary devices?

My good man, why not pray tell? Is metaphor to be disallowed when describing a natural process? The language must be dry and dull. Wouldn't want to heighten anyone's sense of wonder at the heights of knowledge we've scaled in science now would we?

No, best keep the flowery language for religious talk, where the more obscurantism there is the better, lest people start seeing it for what it is.

In fact - what a good idea. Since religion is in the business of purveying its own version of Truth, why don't we say what's good for the goose is good for the gander and take all metaphor out of the Bible too. I call for a new edition in plain, technical English, where all devices such as metaphor and allusion are banned.

Let's get rid of those parables for a start shall we?

Eunice;

"...it is true that they still have God or love within them - as to my understanding the essence or core of every human being is love. However, it is part of the human condition that we don't know that, don't live that, and live as if we are separated or disconnected from it and as such evil can then be manifest through the human person."

Just reminded of something Mother Teresa said, that;

"There is good in everyone. Some people hide it, some neglect it, but it is there."

Mother Teresa. A fraud. And a cruel one at that. Friend of "Baby Doc" Duvalier of Haiti - a brutal dictator. Revelled in her saintly press image. Revelled too in the undeserved respect that faith unfortunately makes the gullible confer on people like her. Neglected to hire nursing staff for her absolutely brutal care homes who could work extremely expensive medical machinery donated to her foundation. The machinery which could have eased the awful conditions some of the children in her "care" was left to fall into disrepair - wasted - in a word.

Preached that suffering - particularly of the children in her charge - would bring them closer to her god, a god she only pretended to believe in herself. She put that in writing. And all the while she wasn't too slow to clear off to avail of the very best medical care the US could offer when she found herself in need of it herself. Suffering was the abject children of Calcutta she had chained to beds in her homes, rocking back and forth in their own excrement. This is all documented, thanks to undercover reporters and whistle-blower nurses because she was none-too-keen to let any outsider see the conditions in those homes.

No wonder the Devil's Advocate was removed when she was being sped along for beatification.

What an old crow!

The "Devil's Advocate" you refer to was, was it not, Christopher Hitchens?

The beneficiaries of Mother Teresa's work (in which she was helped by literally thousands of volunteers from all over the world, who saw all the conditions in her institutions) are so numerous - i happened to meet a little girl in a primary school in my home town in Britain who was rescued from abject poverty in India by Mother Teresa herself. But it's no wonder the anti-Catholic brigade are't her biggest fans...

No, Theophany, I'm talking about the advocatus diaboli as had been employed by the Church since the 16th Century to argue against canonisation, not the wink-nudge joke invitation to Hitchens. The office of advocatus diaboli was removed to all intents and purposes because JP2 went on a saint-making spree unmatched by any pope in history. But you knew that, didn't you.

About Face, hi,

and good evening my dear fellow (just to keep in step with the literary style already adopted by your good self), I presume you are addressing #30; I wouldn’t want to go making a chronological mistake, that would be a terribly prosaic failure.

Anyway, my responses to Lucy work, and I’m sure you know this, at variety of levels.

Part ‘wind-up’, part cynical, part curiosity, and part serious.

Lucy, by her own admission #13, is ‘furious’ with William, for asking the question, "Why did the quake strike Christchurch?" I’ll not quote any more, it’s all available on #11, but apparently the answer to the ‘why’ aspect of this question, if it is framed in any way other than that which is geological, makes this thread, ”the most ridiculous, unscientific and truly ignorant thread topic to-date”.

God or no God, she leaves no room for "Why?" Why did this happen to us? Why were so many ordinary lives plunged into extraordinary darkness? Why were they allowed to die?” For her answer to each and every question is the same, and we can read that in #11 as well.

And then, having said all this, I’m to read about the earth (no, sorry, the Earth) dancing, dancing! And dancing to the music of time no less. (Would that be the beat of time? The rhythm? Harmony? Tempo, perhaps? Meter?) Read about the earth dancing, and not bat an eyelid. Make no comment when the language of an altogether different experience is used to describe and explain and illuminate the very event which provoked this thread in the first place, and by someone who objects to it.

I'm tempted to ask... why?

And I'm interested, "flowery language", is it obscure, or is it heightening?

We have Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa's order) in our diocese.They are a wonderful, joy-filled, group of women.
One of my children volunteered at a hospice they have in another diocese.They do much good.God bless them.

About Face

My goodness. 35! 36! We're almost.... dancing!

The "anti-Catholic brigade"? Those people who know a fraud when they see one? She was exposed as an out-and-out fraud. She was fraudulent in her faith and she was fraudulent in her much-vaunted and mythologised "compassion". She was nothing of the sort. She was a wizzened old wench of a nun as vicious as any of the other repressed old crows in any of the Magdelen Laundries. Or those that raised my mother (I was brought up Catholic you see - and far from being "anti-Catholic" I'm very even handed in my contempt for religion).

30. At 7:31pm on 25 Feb 2011, peterm2 wrote:

Lucy

”Poetic language and metaphors are how we describe experience.”

Yea, I know, but it is odd, is it not?

Because they’re not dancing Lucy. They’re... perhaps you can give us a word, or words, to describe the impersonal movements of the earth.

And the words are small and ineffectual - are they? Is there something more to this than rocks?

I mean you seem to be happy to impose personal characteristics on rocks - why would you want to do that? Why, Lucy? Tell me *why*. And tell me *why* you *want* to describe experience.

The earth isn’t dancing, Lucy. Time isn’t playing a tune. The skys aren’t singing, you can’t hear colour, and you can’t taste sound.

That would be, ‘most ridiculous’, most "unscientific". #11

Wouldn't it?"
*****************************
Actually, some people do have their senses rearranged uniquely.Sounds produce colors, etc.I heard an interesting report on that on the radio.I'm sure you can google the subject.
There's quite a bit of truth in poetry sometimes.

"I wouldn’t want to go making a chronological mistake, that would be a terribly prosaic failure.

I wouldn’t want to go making a chronological mistake, that would be a terribly prosaic failure."

Eh? A "prosaic failure"? Are you sure you understand what you're saying? It doesn't much look like it.

And the rest of your posting is as clear as mud too. Why don't you commit yourself to making a positive point if you've found something to criticise the girl about instead of rather unlettered, vague, rhetorical, erm, questions. Are they questions? It's kind of difficult to tell.

Say something, and then we can move on.

Good man, About Face, blame me.

I found it: "synesthesia." Hearing colors, tasting shapes, etc.

About Face

I make a comment to Lucy #30.

You make a comment #31. It is addressed to no one but on the basis of... never mind.


mscracker

"There's quite a bit of truth in poetry sometimes."

I agree.

On the question of Mother Teresa, Malcolm Muggeridge has a lot to answer for. Hitchens writes about how he catapulted her to stardom.

Back in 1969 a BBC camera crew used new Kodak film to capture images in the House of the Dying. They doubted whether the film would be of any use because the House lacked sufficient light - but the new film was good and it worked a treat. When Muggeridge saw the film he blurted out:

"It's divine light! It's Mother Teresa. You'll find that it's divine light, old boy."

Pity he didn't think that it was just better quality film and leave it at that.

The Bible is full of stories of occasions when the Chosen People rejected Go'ds Law2s and were punished for it. Why should Australia and New Zealand , countries which have become the most heavily secularised and materialistic countires on the face of the planet suffer a similiar fate, especially while celebrating sexual perversion?

Its not the Bible that is foolish.....God's Word has never changed, its we who have changed and at a very high price. The Wages of Sin is death.

Padraig: the wages of sin is not death - death is not a punishment! Yes - everything we do has consequences that we bring upon ourselves but it's not punishment by God - that is impossible. God, love, divine love does not punish - it's just nonsense to perpetuate such a lie. It is amazing how people can contort and twist an all-loving God into some sort of archaic monster that punishes people!!

Instead of blaming God for everything bad that happens - why don't we look at our own loveless ways of living first and correct those? Then you might just find God ain't so bad afterall!! :-)

Padraig, you've eaten prawns and bacon And worn mixed fabrics, yeah?

Aaaah, Helio, but has he drank wine up the graveyard? Doesnt sound like it.

At least you've proved 'my' point..mr aboutface...I didn't need to use anyones quotes this time. You obviously like the sound of your own voice considering the amount of comments on this particular blog.

This blog, contents and comments, makes my skin crawl. Faith, your name is fear.

I have always been a little struck by the irony that the major religious
Media/BBC Commentator in this part of the world, Mr William Crawley has, in fact lost his own Faith and that as his blog shows, this in no way interferes in his apparent ability to judge , what I suppose for himself is a purely fictional entity might or might not do.

As they say in sport, 'If you are not playing the game to not make the rules!'

However in a more general se4nse those who adopt a morally realativist, Libneralist viewpoint amongst the varying Churches have generally experienced a huge downturn in membership with people like our William heading for the doors.

On the other hands Churches that adopt a Scriptural/Orthodox framework of believe are burgeoning in numbers. There's a lesson here I think?

First you say, 'God does not punish!'

Then you say, 'God does not bother'

Then you say, 'What God?'

Newthornley,

"At least you've proved 'my' point..mr aboutface...I didn't need to use anyones quotes this time. You obviously like the sound of your own voice considering the amount of comments on this particular blog."

What are you on about? I wasn't aware you'd made a point. And you didn't use anyone's quotes last time. You plagiarised. Remember? Dimwit.

Tell you what I've noticed in my short time here; the people who have some understanding of science or tend towards liberalism - the ones who have some sense - all write in crisp, clear prose. The religious ones (excepting Andrew and perhaps Eunice) can't half mangle a sentence though. Or follow an argument.

What could it mean...?

Of course, Liberals are smarter than other folks, write better prose and are far more logical. I could tell this from your posts as soon as I read them, About Face.

This must be wonderful for you AboutFace, I am sure your friends and family , neighbours and aquaintances are very,lucky to know you.

You are right to be proud of yourself.

God Bless and good luck to you. You are a really, really rare and wonderful human being and a credit to our species.

Thanks.

Padraig

Yet again the 'liberal' Church is painted as the source of all evil and the conservative Church is blossoming, bursting at the seams. My question is, what with?

One such group is Maciel's Legionaires of Christ. One of the most wicked men to walk the corridors of the Vatican, protected for years by your 'conservative' prelates.

And I love how you and others on here wallow in your orthodoxy and wear it like a badge. You werent very orthodox when the Church of Vatican II asked you to grow up and become thinking, critically aware adults, were you? You and your friends refused to budge and have undermined progress in the Church ever since.

And if the conservative church is blossoming, it certainly isnt here. We have an SPX church right next door and they regularly get as many as twenty people on a Sunday!

Vatican II happened whether you like it or not and it changed things forever. Our hands were set on the plough and there is no going back. Those who do wish to return to the halcion days of being spoon fed and throwing their power of reason out of the window, will become an increasingly small group of weary wullies.

And the scriptures you think you have a monopoly on - especially the Gospel - would rip the conservative church to shreds. You do NOT have Christ.

And for a Church which has appointed conservative after conservative Bishops and Cardinals over the last thirty years, a Church which has all the money and power, it is actually falling apart. Again, an indication that you do not have Christ.

Aboutface

Just to correct you on a matter. You give the Vatican too much credit. The devils advocate was not thrown out for the benfit of Mother Theresa's sainthood. It was far more sinister than that.

It was stopped for the beatification of Escriva who founded Opus Dei who in turn were given a special prelature for bailing out the Vatican Bank. They bought his elevation. The corruption was even more wicked than you suggest. Had there been a devils advocate, the dodgy Escriva wouldnt have got passed first base.

@Crawley

Blaming your readers for misunderstanding your point is a little desperate. It's your responsibility to make yourself clear. I didn't share LucyQ's interpretation but feel that the post is provocatively ambiguous. Try harder or fail more.

William's comments (on this thread and others) are perfectly clear.

He raises questions, he provokes discussion and I would have thought he was at liberty to do just that.

@Peter 59

I agree with you and Will that Lucy got the wrong end of the stick, but, to use a bit of a meta - metaphor, I think you're barking up wrong tree having a go at her about figures of speech. You might have had a point if she was saying that all the world's a stage and earthquakes are caused by over exuberance in the mosh pit. As it is, you're coming over as a tad boorish.

@ Will_Crawley - At you too! I said that there is absolutely no need to fire up the less than sophisticated by even raising the topic.

Rome Jelly Bean,


There have been good men and bad men in the past who have had a Liberal worldview just as there have been good and bad man who happen to have a more Conservative world view. I do not for a minute suppose that because someone happens to have a different perspective than mine they are either worse or better than mine, having given up all such illusions in my earlier years as I recommend you do yourself.

I believe also that it is foolish as you constantly do to argue from particular cases to the generality (as you do in the case of the Legionaries of Christ and the attendance at one particular Church) the particular is the particular and the general is the general, in evincing proof of a general theory you need far more proof than a single example. Match general theories with general proofs.

But at least you did not evince an extraordinary display of self conceit such as AboutFace displayed, whcih is very welcome.

Padraig

Your post 62 seems to be backtracking from your earlier post. I'm glad you clarify your stance.

However, please dont make sweeping statements like conservative groups are flourishing therefore...... and then have the gaul to criticise me for using the same logic you used.

I do not 'always' jump from the particular to the general (yeh I did philosophy) but rather I like to expose some of the claptrap peddled on here as orthodox catholicism. I like to back up my arguments by giving examples.

The Legionaires are by no means an isolated example. Would you like me to start listing the more unsavoury behaviours of Opus Dei?

The conservative elements within our church have a lot to answer for and instead of becoming insulting to people on here who ask legitimate questions, maybe you could put your obvious intellect and years of experience to genuinely seeking the truth about some obnoxious goings on in our beloved church.

Personally, I am of the belief that 'God's judgement' is best left to God. If bad things happen to good people, it's because they are free agents within God's creation. They get to choose what they do, for good or evil. If we all got only what we deserve, why would we do right for any reason other than personal profit?

The Futilty of citing individual 'examples' Jelly bean is that we could go tweedledum and tweedledee citing our own particular examplesuntiul Alice returns through the , 'Looking glass'.

Similiarly using insulting name calling phrases such as 'Orthodox clap trap' will produce nothing but fiery breath down the nostrils and a lot verbal table tennis insults ad nauseum. Its adolescent and I am sure beneath us both.

To cite general examples of Liberal decay I cite the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches in the USA both very iberal and both having huge down swings on membership.

Please no particualar, pull it out of the hat 'examples' or name calling in any reply posts , I haven't the time.

All I'm saying Padraig is it's striking that you and your ilk (all stripes) don't seem to be able to string a sentence, and the non-believers are by far more articulate. When I say 'liberals', I'm not talking about liberalism within your church either, I'm talking more about people who seem to be more liberal in the wider political sense. People within the churches can squabble and bicker away. It seems to be their wont.

But an inability to write suggests an inability to think. My cards on the table, it just makes me suspect that religious people are probably in the main more than a little thick. If not thick then ignorant. And why I think it might be important to say that is because religious people hold quite inordinate political power. I always thought one of Dawkins' strongest points in The God Delusion was one of the most simple ones made at the beginning of the book, that about the undeserved respect religious people get.

Added to that, it is religious people - almost always - who I am assailed by in pretty strong terms. It is pea-brained religious ethics which underpins the "thinking" and gives justification to the more thuggish elements who would do violence to me.

So Paddy. I'm afraid the gloves came off quite some time ago as regards religious people for me. Pre-Dawkins, although I don't deny I applauded his efforts loudly when he took the gloves off himself. You'll get no undeserved respect from me.

If as a conservative Catholic you would agree with your infallible pope in his barmy - never mind insulting - assertion that my orientation towards members of my own sex is "born of an intrinsic moral evil", then forgive me (good Christian) for retorting that while you can say what you want, you're not worth listening to because you are somewhat thick and/or ignorant.

So I freely admit I have an axe to grind on a personal level. More generally I've come to find religion a pretty thoroughly loathesome phenomenon for any number of good reasons which need not be repeated here that have led me to conclude that it is overwhelmingly a source of harm in the world.

So what do you want? Do you think I should be doffing my hat?

Am i the only person to notice an uncanny resemblance between these threads and Hanna-Barbera's late '60s cartoon classic 'Wacky Races'? Could they by any chance be related? We could all rename ourselves after characters from the series, listed below - with Will Crawley as the 'Race Announcer';

1 Dick Dastardly and Muttley in the Mean Machine 00 (The double 'O'/ The Double Zero)
2 The Slag Brothers in the Bouldermobile
3 The Gruesome Twosome in the Creepy Coupe
4 Professor Pat Pending in the Convert-a-Car
5 Red Max in the Crimson Haybailer
6 Penelope Pitstop in the Compact Pussycat
7 Sergeant Blast and Private Meekley in the Army Surplus Special
8 The Ant Hill Mob in the Bulletproof Bomb
9 Lazy Luke and Blubber Bear in the Arkansas Chuggabug
10 Peter Perfect in the Turbo Terrific
11 Rufus Ruffcut and Sawtooth in the Buzzwagon
12 The Narrator/Race Announcer

No takers?..oh dear.

Grokesx

Yes, perhaps I have come across as a bit boorish, although I’d have preferred it if you’d just said, ‘deliberately provocative’! :-) #21 was no more than a tongue in cheek, “Really?!” As I said a few comments back, it was part wind-up, but maybe it got out of hand.

There is, though, a serious side to this and other tragedies. Even when we know the facts of the matter there is still the haunting question, “Why?” Not that I’m suggesting that being a Christian/religious makes it easier; often, and William noted this, ‘faith’ makes the why “particularly pointed”.

Whether the earth is dancing to the music of time, or of God, earthquakes are less than agreeable, as are those who us tragedies as ideological sticks.

Just shows what an arrogant imbecile you are aboutface.
Have a nice aday!!

I and my 'ilk' are 'thick, 'illogical', 'an embarassment', 'illiterate', 'inarticulate', 'unscientific etc, etc, etc.

Dick Dastardly indeed.

Well its been an interesting and rational debate. I'll leave you scientific, articulate and logical folks with whoever Dick Dastardly is to insult each otehr and work it all out..somehow.

Bye.

Newthornley.

I must agree. He appears to love being arrogant and nasty to Christians.

Padraig

"Please no particular 'pull it out of the hat' examples or name calling in any reply. I dont have the time."

Eh, Padraig, you dont get to tell me what I can or cannot say in my reply. This aint Sunday School.

I do love your attempt at control though. Posting two examples of where liberal churches have depleted then telling me that it would be childish of me to give examples of the failings of conservative churches.

You are too tired????

Why is it every conservative catholic on here comes over as arrogant, holier than thou, dismissive of anyone who has the temerity to question them and just plain umpleasant?

That really hits the nail on the head about why a return to a conservative church will never work. Its not really the theology or spirituality. Its just that nobody really likes you.

As a Christian, It's right for us to challenge the extremes. The only people who are "thick, 'illogical' & 'an embarassment' " as Padraig put it are the individuals who (in any society) put forward extreme, unhelpful, divisive claims.

It's no different from those individuals who "say" they stand for Muslim beliefs,people like Abu Hamza, who somehow claim they are the default muslim and reflect standard Islamic thought- they clearly don't and in any society it's good to call out those who bring what they represent into disrepute

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

AboutFace- you're rudeness and code of conduct towards others is totally unneeded. You're obviously very eloquent and intelligent but alot of your decent points are obscured by your hostility and vitriole. I had a friend once who was Aspergers- very similar in style to the way you write- if that's the case I can understand somewhat, but if it's not ,this place is just going to turn into a shouting match with you in it- where no-one gets to hear what anyone else says through the insults

Aboutface: I am liberal, I know some science, I can write in clear prose and whilst my views are pro God I am not religious as it is traditionally understood - for example I don't belong to any church, I don't follow the bible but have some knowledge of it and I don't call myself Christian or buddhist or hindu etc So your assumptions/observations are not quite accurate!! :-)

I understand your condemnation of religion and I also recognise how it has been a force of evil in the world -creating and promoting separation amongst the one humanity. Yet many will also say it has been a force for good. How can something be a force for evil and a force for good?? Perhaps the good that is done is just the goodness that is in the hearts of the people......despite the teachings that promote
separation/condemnation/judgment. That said I recognise there is wisdom in many of the traditions and their teachings but the problem is in my view they are not complete, not whole - as in there are flaws, falsehoods, untruths, lies, evil etc also contained there. Hence they can be used to perpetuate evil or good......and as such the source of them has to be questioned. FOr me a true source, would contain wisdom that pertains to the whole of humanity and the human condition that can be universally recognised as true, that resonates as true with people, makes sense and would be a whole package, complete in its entirety and is consistent with a God who is love.

Padraig:** First you say, 'God does not punish!'

Then you say, 'God does not bother'

Then you say, 'What God?' **


First you say: God does not punish, GOd is love

then you say: God always bothers, God is always love, no matter what I do

then you say: I am made in the image and likeness of God, I am love also

then you say: it is my own lovelessness that causes much of my suffering

then you say: What God can I do to heal my lovelessness, that I may be the love that you are and serve all with that love in all that i do....

here endeth this evening's sermon! :-)

I'll await another AF bashing.....


Theo:
there's only one chick so do I get to be Penelope Pitstop in her compact pussycat??.....miaow

Is helio red max or the professor? - prob a cross between the 2.....lol

I am surprised that I have not yet heard of a "miracle" story to come out of Christchurch, but perhaps the miracle is in the accompanying photograph. The church is standing. Mine eyes have been opened!

When the Chilean miners were trapped the "miracle" aspect was milked for all it was worth. In a recent serialisation of a book about the rescue it was revealed that a request for rubber dolls was rejected on the grounds that the men could not have one each, and shared dolls would have resulted in squabbling. Perhaps God approves of collapsing a mine shaft and imprisoning miners but objects to rubber dolls?

PS.....**What God can I do to heal my lovelessness, that I may be the love that you are and serve all with that love in all that i do.... **

should read - What God can I do to heal my lovelessness, that I may be the love that you are and that I am and serve all with that love in all that i do...


Also I asked - How can something be a force for evil and a force for good?? - this applies to humans also who can be a force for evil or for good.....but that's a different story.

You know, the posts here seldom convey civility or charity.In the States the majority of blogs/forums end up with a chorus of personal insults.
The BBC posts are more literate but seem to still arrive at an end point of personal attacks.Which is dissapointing.And limits conversation.
I also wonder about the original subject-the supposed Christian website, in Utah of all places.When I tried to look at it yesterday it was shut down.What is the evidence that it was legitimate in the first place?Just wondering.

mscracker

The posts on here often display civility, thoughtfulness, understanding and sometimes even humility and forgiveness.

We are all just having a day off the holy stuff, is that okay?

Anyone want to answer William's original query? ie why did god kill all these folks?

Padraig, you wrote

"However in a more general se4nse those who adopt a morally realativist, Libneralist viewpoint amongst the varying Churches have generally experienced a huge downturn in membership with people like our William heading for the doors.

On the other hands Churches that adopt a Scriptural/Orthodox framework of believe are burgeoning in numbers. There's a lesson here I think?"

Hmm, argumentum ad numeri. Please tell me, if you think that sort of argument is valid, then why are you still a christian? The number of adherents of Islam is growing much faster at the moment than that of christinaity, and has been for some time, and will continue to do so for at least a while. Possibly overtaking christianity as the religion with the most adherents in very few generations from now. Is there not a lesson there too then that points against christianity and in favour of islam, in the same way as in your liberal vs. conservative christianity argument?

Or does the argument from the number of followers only count when it is convenient to you?

Dear RJB,
Yes, sometimes they do, but in this particular group of posts I might be reading a rather mean spirited American blog-which is not what I'd hope to see in the BBC.
You all can do better than that.

mscracker

Dont mean to offend but if all the posts were as "reasonable" as yours, there wouldnt be any blog!

paul james,

God didn't, a combination of tectonic plate movements, geological vibrational phenomena and poor construction in an earthquake zone did.

If you want to bring god into it, we should start with establishing -which- god. I'm sure the local Maori don't think it was the Yahweh/Jehovah/Elohim combination that judeo-christians follow.

But Natman, surely the Theistic Tectonic Theory posits that goddidit?

William,
I'm sure that you can give an answer to this, and maybe I missed it in your original post, but in the interests of fair comment, what 'Christian' group are you talking about? I looked for a weblink, but couldn't find one.

As someone involved with looking after a flock of believers, I have to say that the majority of what I've read on this thread is deplorable. At the moment I have members of our congregation who's friends have died, their house is about to collapse,they are miles from home and the last thing they need are ivory tower self-righteous pontifications with the pastoral sensitivity of a brick. They want to know that people care about them, and that God cares about them. So we text and talk and pray and care for them as best we can.

I appreciate the assertion that God cares may raise some hackles but the challenge of suffering isn't to simply ask 'Why?' (EVERY religion - even secularism, atheism and humanism struggle with this) the challenge of suffering is to trust God even when we don't know the answer 'why?' So in answer to the question of 'why the earthquake?' the wisest and most Biblical answer is simply "I don't know. I'm not God."

Southoftheliffey,
You're absolutely right of course, but why, when ever there's a disaster Religious leaders can't resist blaming a natural occurance on human sin?
Whatever heirachy there is needs to make sure there's a code of conduct that doesn't insult humanity in this way

I'd like to posit that just because a lot of people share an opinion on something, that does NOT make that opinion moderate, or wise, or virtuous. Lots of people agreeing on X does NOT mean that X is not extreme. I would go further and say I think the organised religions of the old faiths are all extreme, particularly in the light of the knowledge we have about ourselves and our world and the universe now. There are only greater and lesser degrees of complicity and assent. So we have Eunice, who might just be quite close to myself spiritually, who couches her terms of reference to that very human feeling in religious language which I would avoid, right through to the ones everyone here can recognise as being just plain extreme.

Religious belief (as in the Big Three) needs must depend on a degree of denial or ignorance or stupidity. It simply does not stand up. This is not to deny that there is a religious impulse in humans, nor a spiritual one (and the distinction is correct to make, I think). But I would absolutely assert that it is wrong for one individual to moralise at another merely on the basis of some feeble-minded inculcating of the "law" as set out in some ancient book. Or indeed anything extrapolated from that book - which is what Catholics do in condemning homosexuality, abortion and contraception (don't give me the now-condoms-are-allowed line).

If an individual says to me, "I choose to interpret my own spiritual feeling by means of Christianity", I would, reluctantly, say fine, albeit with the rejoinder that I think they are being lazy. But you never get that from people - not matter how "cafeteria Christian" they are, because the means by which they interpret their spiritual impulse hijacks that impulse and makes unreasonable demands of them. You must always go one step further. You must affirm. And that puts people in a position where they can justify ignorant prejudice by simply quoting their book.

I think the onus on these people, if they are to moralise like this, is to be well aquainted with the arguments against their position - deeply. That is only to ask for good manners. It is how debate works. That to me would mean that these moralisers should really pay more attention to the intellectual and moral progress we have made since their arguments had their hay-day.

The upshot of that would be civility. It would mean that if someone really understood what they were on about, they could only say "I still choose to interpret my spiritual feeling using Christianity", but they would be a lot quieter about it, and be regarded as somewhat eccentric. Or else they would possibly reject it, having discovered that we are morally and ethically more advanced now than we have ever been. Or else they would keep beating their drum and be seen much more readily as the loons they appear to me to be now.

I am not sorry for saying that traditional religious belief in this day and age just seems ludicrous to me. Some other sharp tongued rational people have likened it to comfort blankets and fairies at the bottom of the garden and what have you, and while I can see how it might alleviate fear, it seems to me far more analogous to masturbation, frankly. Except masturbation isn't so extreme.

Whether the earth is dancing to the music of time, or of God, earthquakes are less than agreeable, as are those who us tragedies as ideological sticks.

On such an intemperate thread as this, it's nice to say, I wholeheartedly agree.

It is worth bearing in mind that Port-au-Prince cathedral was a more or less levelled in the devastating 'Grande Tremblement' in Haiti. The bishop was killed as were over 150 parishioners. On that note the bishops body was retrieved and given a dignified burial yet there are still over 120 bodies in the rubble. I wonder why the church has not done more to give their parishioners a fitting and decent burial.
Whilst i do not want to take away from the loss of life in NZ, (300 or thereabouts), it's worth remembering that 300,000 people were killed in Haiti and the rebuilding of the country will take years/decades.
Here's a photograph i took just under a month ago which illustrates the devastation......

https://www.flickr.com/photos/23386031@N00/5409833626/in/set-72157625952626958/

Southoftheliffey: this is a blog where people explore ideas, exchange views, new theories, stretch boundaries of understanding, rehash old stuff, give opinions and even pontificate if they so wish. I'm sure if people on here were to offer pastoral care it would not be of the ilk on this thread. This thread is not providing pastoral care to those bereaved of lives or homes - the title of the thread is not - what would you say to someone who lost a relative or a home in an earthquake? If it was I expect the answers on here would be very different.
You may not know the answers or have answers and that's fine. However, I feel it is important not to just stick one's head in the sand, throw up our arms and say "Goddidit" or equally that we have nothing to do with what goes on in the world as a whole. Ancient wisdom and science are coming together on that - we do have a role in all that happens. I for one would prefer to know what that role is and what I can do about it rather than dig my head in the sand and hope or pray it doesn't happen to me which will prob not make a lot of difference and not advance us one iota - we each are the masters of our own soul, our own destiny - hard as that may be for people to swallow - especially when something that is perceived to be 'bad' happens. It is by understanding the true impact of our choices that we may be able to make different ones and perhaps make a real difference.

Ryan: to me using the language of sin is an insult to humanity. I prefer choices and consequences. And it is rather naieve to think that our choices do not have consequences for us or on the world as a whole. If religion ditched sin and started talking in terms of choices (eg loving, non-loving) and consequences I feel more people would hear it without loading them up with guilt etc. and be able to appreciate that we do have a role in all that happens.

AF: the religious language I use is God and son of God, soul & spirit - that's probably about it unless you include words like reincarnation. Is it possible you are avoiding it because of all the baggage there is around those terms for you based on your upbringing and experiences of religion rather than what those words actually mean? I say that because a number of years ago I could not use the word God - it would stick in my throat and just not come out - for the same reason. It was only when I dealt with all that crap and knew what God really is and the real meaning of that word which has been so bastardised that I could then use it with ease. As for son of God, soul and spirit - I use them with an understanding of what they are and what they mean - not willy nilly sloppy spiritual stuff and not as in religion either. And I may not have mentioned son of God since you appeared but this refers to every human being - not just JC as has again been bastardised by religion.

ps - i also use CHrist - again not as used in traditional religion and not in reference to Jesus specifically but in reference to what it is......

The Christian cleric speaking of the Christchurch earthquake on this morning's programme said:

"To attribute all of that to God would be to play cruel games."

It would appear that some Christians will give credit to God for all good things in the world but prefer to leave him out of the equation when the proverbial hits the fan! Why don't they just get this God-nonsense out of their heads and start trying to make sense of the world. As Heliopolitan said somewhere: 2 and 2 still makes 4 whether you are a theist or an atheist.

Moochin Photoman - While you cite the Haitian tragedy and juxtapose it with the other natural disaster NZ, people are well advised to remember the logistics of why so many died there and that is due to overpopulation and deforestation.

NZ has a small population of educated people. That does make a difference in numbers of those in harms way. The last major earthquake on the Pacific Coast of North America was in San Francisco early in the last century. That was followed by a tremendous fire that gutted the city. SFO is still on the San Adreas Fault Line as is Vancouver and other cities. Something will hit our west coast again and thanks to better building codes hopefully the loss of life will not be so extreme.
Those who live on the Pacific Coast here take the inevitable in stride and prefer to live there than in say Regina where the temperature yesterday with windchill was -40C. Oh yummy. Van was also named the number 1 city on the planet to live in this year too although I find it particularly boring and can only cope with a couple of days before pining for the east again.

I'm not sure the relevancy of your comment LucyQ as regards the education of the Kiwis in relation to the Haitians. The legacy of deforestation goes back to the colonial days. People tend to forget that Haiti was the second country to break free of colonialism after America.
There were many many problems facing the country before the earthquake, corruption and political ineptitude being the primary problems which meant that there was not investment in the infrastructure.
I agree with newlach's comment 95 above. Having seen such devastation at first hand and heard the stories i really cannot see gods hand at work anywhere. And when the church doesn't offer the same dignified burial to their parishioners, well thats just another reason for me to avoid organised religion

southoftheliffey,

"...the challenge of suffering isn't to simply ask 'Why?' (EVERY religion - even secularism, atheism and humanism struggle with this)..."

Two issues with this statement - secularism, atheism and humanism aren't religions. If you're in the 'atheism is a religion' camp then it's the same as saying being bald is a hairstyle, or glass has a colour.

Secondly; atheism doesn't ask why with regards suffering. In this instance the causes are fairly clear - it was an earthquake.

Here is a link to yet more fantastic debate. The topic is After Life:

"The possibility of an afterlife has challenged believers and atheists alike for centuries. Because its very nature defies conclusive definitions or proof, it remains a heated topic for debate and exploration. This debate is moderated by the Editor-in-Chief of the Jewish Journal, Rob Eshman.:

https://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=802338105001

Christopher Hitchens is eloquent, intelligent and indefatigable in raising the points of the false claims of religion. Sam Harris speaks as a Neuroscientist. There is no argument offered by the promoters of religious superstition that cannot be effectively refuted by Hitchens and Harris. What a tag team of intellect.

I might add that Hitchens is suffering from cancer, that dreaded dis-ease and yet he still wipes the floor with the preposterous claims by clerics. Hitchens and Steve Jobs and many others have suffered tremendously, far more than the story of the bad Jesus day and yet that utterly absurd fairytale is repeated, told as if fact based or even worthy of acknowledgment.

The people of NZ are suffering from the calamities of 2 back to back earthquakes, natural disasters and the recent mining one, a man made tragedy. Wishing strangers well as they face adversity is a nice gesture.

On a personal note, our son and his girlfriend survived being stranded in the floods of Rockhampton. They saw a lot of tragedy first hand. His dad and I really glad that they didn't move on as planned to Christchurch as a double dip in natural disaster situation would be even more stressful for our family.

Eunice, I should have put *in their view*. Although I do believe there is sin: People abusing others -financially, physically, mentally.

I think there has to be partial understanding of how some clerics and the religious draw their conclusions. We live in a world that is alive in its own way and we apply a sentience to that. We also have a tendency to think everything around us relates specifically to us personally, and when bad events happen, after the shock of it, people can be left asking why have I been affected.

The difficulty is, the clerics who react in this way, to this type of natural event reflect their own personal inner world & more often than not, it's sex in all its forms - Gays, Gay sex, women, female immodesty. These men betray their own sexual repression as if it's univeral. Clearly, sex and the difficulty many people have in expressing it is a problem, but the reactions of clerics speak volumes for their internal world and not of God and how God relates to the external world. You would have to be tripping or deranged to think our thoughts and actions affect the sun, clouds, wind, rain, storms- but the sad fact is people treat God and religion like it gives them some control at the helm. That they can control the weather/environment with good thought and deed and be blessed in this way