Sometimes the poor and disenfranchised do get caught up in God's punishing earthquake:
"Getting caught in fallout" is much, much different than being the focus of the wrath. Haiti is a whole nation of poor and disenfranchised people. biblically speaking, that would exempt them from any wrathy scariness of God.
Yes, it is written that Jesus spared and condemned. It is also written that God spares and condemn people both great and small. Their merciful examples does not suggest that they will always allow all of the innocent to escape harm and danger in every circumstance.
Read above. Why in the world would God act outside God's precedent and bring such destruction upon someone who is already being systematically destroyed? The answer: God would not.
Yes, God brought about this devastation through the Roman Empire.
Well, this is a 180 degree departure from Pat Robertson. In Pat's scenario, God would have destroyed Rome for their nefarious, pagan ways and spared Jerusalem.
Additionally, I don't believe that for a minute. God didn't "work through Rome to destroy Jerusalem."
Further, Jesus alludes to that in the Gospels which, incidentally, were all written post-destruction. It's not a prophecy. It's an allusion.
I don't know what passage that you are referring to about God retreating somewhere. Because I read no scriptural passage where God retreats.
There is no one single passage. Read the context.
[FONT="]After Babel, God was no longer made visible to all humanity. Throughout the Old Testament account, God retreats further and further into humanitys background. The last person to whom God was said to be revealed was Samuel, in the temple. The last person to whom God was said to have appeared was Solomon. The last public miracle occurred on Mount Carmel, when Elijah had a showdown with the priests of Baal. Gradually, the prophetic experience of God becomes one of visions and dreams. After Hezekiah, the experience of God is largely one of personal experience.[/FONT]
The author does have to state that because the cause of the disaster may not have been the focus of his message. Many people of his day probably knew that God causes natural blessings and destructions according to the circumstances; and thus, they may see no need to remind everyone of the author of every natural event. They have the Holy Tanakh to remind them that God is the author and controller of these events.
That's improper exegesis. That's not why the author does that.
Just because you said it doesn't make it true. I trust what is thus written in the Holy Scriptures more than someone's opinion.
Fine. You find one single instance where God
specifically brings down wrath upon the poor and disenfranchised -- making them the very target of God's wrath -- not just the "fallout" -- and we'll talk.
I didn't know that. I don't know you. Therefore, I spoke in general and make my observations from what I read from your responses; I stand by this statement.
Your generalization is incorrect. I'm a witness to the contrary. Stubbornness is a poor substitute for steadfastness.
"And there are some Christians who do not read all of the Bible. " ---- OneThatGotAway
No, it didn't get away. I told you that I am a Christian who has read all of the Bible, and that I know specifically of several others. None of us see it your way. Your generalization is incorrect.
Again, I didn't know that you were one of them.
"I am not saying that is you; but just simply saying that there are those kinds of Christians out there in churches today. " ---- OneThatGotAway
No, you said specifically that every Christian who has read the Bible knows...
I said that I am one of them, and since I am included in the set of "every Christian who has read the Bible," that renders your generalization moot.
No, I am not wrong, because I did not know that you were one of those Bible-reading Christians. Just because your friends call you that doesn't get published in my area. My experience has shown me that there are Christians out there who do not read their Bible. Furthermore, there are Christians out there who don't read all of the Bible. And even yet, there are some Christians who pick and choose which Scriptures they like (out of context) while ignoring the others. Again, I don't know if you are those Christians because I don't know you. Therefore, I am not wrong.
Now you've been made aware. You may be able to say "most," or "many," or even "the ones I'm aware of," but to say "all" -- especially after you've been made aware of ones that do not fit your statement, smacks of stubbornness. A truly wise person will change his mind when further details are brought to his attention that renders his first theory incorrect.
[FONT="][/FONT]