Glenn Beck: Japan earthquake/tsunami `might` be a message from God

[The Green Goblin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/glenn-beck-japan-earthquake-god_n_835573.html

He`s not the only one either - after Tokyo`s governor expressed similar sentiments: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/tokyo-governor-tsunami-punishment?INTCMP=SRCH


Many believe that this is the last straw for Beck, and that Fox will be giving him his jotters soon enough. Imagine that though - someone being too controversial for Fox News! Blimey!

But the point of the post - personally, I think this is an absurd statement to make, insensitive and offensive, although also sadly predictable (bearing in mind the "God is so good" video linked to on here the other day which also mentioned that God was "grabbing the atheists of Japan by the shoulders and giving them a shake").

It achieves nothing, except to upset and antagonise. It`s also very easy to throw around your own interpretations of supernatural judgement when it`s not you that has suffered.

I am just wondering what other people`s thoughts on this are?

GG

[Saorsa]

a message from god :rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

Glenn Beck seems to be able to say whatever he likes. Increasingly nonsensical, racist, islamophobic, offensive, neo-fascist and more importantly, just stupid, ramblings.

But apparently, its the 'liberal' left that
can't handle debate and anything that dares to criticise the 'politically correct' status quo is banned by the elite.

[whiskyhibby]

Here is the antidote he does mention this odious person but is a bit extreme himself so beware!!

http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/keiser-report-episode-129/

[PeeJay]

It achieves nothing, except to upset and antagonise.
GG

Your statement is surely, wrong? There are many people in the US who believe him, who even take comfort from the fact that he says what he says - people who actually do believe it is a message from "Him".

If it was just Glenn Beck it would be bad enough, but it is the huge number of similarly deluded people that hang on his every word and people like him that worries me.

[--------]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/glenn-beck-japan-earthquake-god_n_835573.html

He`s not the only one either - after Tokyo`s governor expressed similar sentiments: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/tokyo-governor-tsunami-punishment?INTCMP=SRCH

Many believe that this is the last straw for Beck, and that Fox will be giving him his jotters soon enough. Imagine that though - someone being too controversial for Fox News! Blimey!

But the point of the post - personally, I think this is an absurd statement to make, insensitive and offensive, although also sadly predictable (bearing in mind the "God is so good" video linked to on here the other day which also mentioned that God was "grabbing the atheists of Japan by the shoulders and giving them a shake").

It achieves nothing, except to upset and antagonise. It`s also very easy to throw around your own interpretations of supernatural judgement when it`s not you that has suffered.

I am just wondering what other people`s thoughts on this are?

GG


It's not a Christian concept. At one point in John's Gospel the disciples ask Jesus why a certain man was born blind - was it something he did wrong, or was it his parents' fault? Jesus makes it clear that this isn't so - though he doesn't actually give them a detailed explanation of the origins and reasons for suffering.

I do remember that at the time of the 9/11 attacks a number of preachers (mostly American) came out with stuff like "Where was God on 9/11?" or "Is God speaking through 9/11?" and so on, many of them quoting Revelation 18, which is a prophecy of the fall of 'Babylon the great' under the final judgement at the end of the world.

The chapter goes into great detail about the conscienceless way 'Babylon' had traded commodities and people simply to increase her own wealth and prosperity. The chapter speaks of "the smoke of her burning" being seen from far out to sea, and how the city's luxury and power and arrogance would be "thrown down" suddenly, "in an hour".

Oddly enough, none of the preachers seemed to pick up that it was the World TRADE Centre that had been attacked and that the simplest and easiest way to apply the prophecy to the attacks might be to take NY and the WTC as Babylon and ask whether the Almighty might just be a little ticked-off with some of the things the US and her Western allies were up to at the time?

And before anyone weighs into me, I'm not saying that Revelation 18 prophesies 9/11. Nor am I suggesting that the people who died that day were really bad people whom God had decided to destroy.

I'm simply saying that a number of commentators and writers chose to interpret events in a way that gave them comfort, rather than asking the hard questions about why people might want to destroy the WTC, and whether the destruction might have been a response to, or a consequence of, something the US had done or was doing elsewhere in the world?

You'll conclude, I hope, that assigning God's 'judgement' on other people when something like an earthquake or hurricane hits isn't something for which I have much time or sympathy.

[(((Fergus)))]

The governor of Tokyo criticised his countrymen for egotism or similar, did he not?

The Japanese are not an unintelligent people. They know they live in a region with high incidence of earthquakes and tsunamis. Therefore: what possessed them to build 55 nuclear reactors dotted all around their coast? Two possibilities: a) they coldly calculated that the risk of nuclear disaster was one worth taking or b) they consciously or subconsciously believed that they were the masters of nature rather than the other way around.

Any others?

There have been recent moves to use "global warming" as a blanket under which to smuggle in new nuclear power plants in many countries including our own. In the short to medium term this disaster may do some good if it makes us reconsider our energy policy. There have been other disasters in the past, however, and they seem to have been forgotten.

[Twa Cairpets]

It's not a Christian concept. At one point in John's Gospel the disciples ask Jesus why a certain man was born blind - was it something he did wrong, or was it his parents' fault? Jesus makes it clear that this isn't so - though he doesn't actually give them a detailed explanation of the origins and reasons for suffering.

I do remember that at the time of the 9/11 attacks a number of preachers (mostly American) came out with stuff like "Where was God on 9/11?" or "Is God speaking through 9/11?" and so on, many of them quoting Revelation 18, which is a prophecy of the fall of 'Babylon the great' under the final judgement at the end of the world.

The chapter goes into great detail about the conscienceless way 'Babylon' had traded commodities and people simply to increase her own wealth and prosperity. The chapter speaks of "the smoke of her burning" being seen from far out to sea, and how the city's luxury and power and arrogance would be "thrown down" suddenly, "in an hour".

Oddly enough, none of the preachers seemed to pick up that it was the World TRADE Centre that had been attacked and that the simplest and easiest way to apply the prophecy to the attacks might be to take NY and the WTC as Babylon and ask whether the Almighty might just be a little ticked-off with some of the things the US and her Western allies were up to at the time?

And before anyone weighs into me, I'm not saying that Revelation 18 prophesies 9/11. Nor am I suggesting that the people who died that day were really bad people whom God had decided to destroy.

I'm simply saying that a number of commentators and writers chose to interpret events in a way that gave them comfort, rather than asking the hard questions about why people might want to destroy the WTC, and whether the destruction might have been a response to, or a consequence of, something the US had done or was doing elsewhere in the world?

You'll conclude, I hope, that assigning God's 'judgement' on other people when something like an earthquake or hurricane hits isn't something for which I have much time or sympathy.

As always a reasoned, sensible response from the better face of christianity...

But it got me thinking.

It does strike me that if you align yourself with a fundamental/evangelical/literal view of the bible, the view that Beck and others espouse makes absolute, perfect sense, regardless of how appaling it may seem to the more rational. Great swathes of the Old Testament, and large parts of the New (especially Revelation) can very, very easily be adapted to fit any disaster, be it a Tsunami or 9/11. I read Revelation again recently because it is so staggeringly at odds to the rest of the bible, and I could make all kinds of things fit with a bit of selective thinking.

You're right of course that people will interpet events in a way that gives comfort, but they also interpret events in a way that matches their world view, be it religious or political. With the likes of Beck and odius counterparts Rush Limbaugh having vast influence, the dissemination of the view that it is Gods will and that somehow the Japanese deserve what they're getting is not a fringe view.

With belief in the more fundamental tenets of christianity (such as young earth creationsim) running at around 40% (according to Gallup (http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/12/gallup-poll-on-young-earth-creationism.html)), the political impact of people who align themselves with the likes of Beck is huge.

Its scares the crap out of me that people who actively believe in the imminence of the apocalypse and the rapture can have a genuine impact in and (If Palin ever gets in) ultimate control of the USA.

[lapsedhibee]

The governor of Tokyo criticised his countrymen for egotism or similar, did he not?

The Japanese are not an unintelligent people. They know they live in a region with high incidence of earthquakes and tsunamis. Therefore: what possessed them to build 55 nuclear reactors dotted all around their coast? Two possibilities: a) they coldly calculated that the risk of nuclear disaster was one worth taking or b) they consciously or subconsciously believed that they were the masters of nature rather than the other way around.

Any others?

There have been recent moves to use "global warming" as a blanket under which to smuggle in new nuclear power plants in many countries including our own. In the short to medium term this disaster may do some good if it makes us reconsider our energy policy. There have been other disasters in the past, however, and they seem to have been forgotten.

Can't remember now who it was that claimed the collective consciousness of a civilised Western state is only 30 years. His/her point was that after three decades have elapsed, we are prone to repeating mistakes, however disastrous, as if they had never happened in the first place. Three Mile Island was 32 years ago. Expect a movie shortly titled The Brazil Syndrome.

[clerriehibs]

Its scares the crap out of me that people who actively believe in the imminence of the apocalypse and the rapture can have a genuine impact in and (If Palin ever gets in) ultimate control of the USA.

It should scare the crap out of most decent prople.

But, with the likes of Palin, it's cause and effect surely; if she gets in, the apocalypse is very likely imminent ... so why shouldn't she believe in it?

[The Green Goblin]

Your statement is surely, wrong? There are many people in the US who believe him, who even take comfort from the fact that he says what he says - people who actually do believe it is a message from "Him".

If it was just Glenn Beck it would be bad enough, but it is the huge number of similarly deluded people that hang on his every word and people like him that worries me.

A fair (and scary) point. You`re quite right.

GG

[Sir David Gray]

This is a difficult one for me.

I believe that the universe was designed by God and I believe that everything in the universe, including Earth, was designed by God.

Earth was designed with tectonic plates in its crust, the movement of which causes earthquakes to occur, so I would say that earthquakes are caused by God.

However, I won't pretend to know whether the recent earthquake in Japan, or any other earthquake for that matter, has happened as a result of God's wrath against a particular nation because I don't think any of us are in a position to make that judgement. The same goes for other weather related events such as hurricanes or tornadoes. Earth has been designed by God in such a way that allows these natural phenomena to occur but I don't think anyone can say with any degree of certainty that they've happened because God is angry or that He wants to punish a nation.

Maybe God does make earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes etc. happen because He wants to mete out punishment but I don't believe it's something that any human being can claim to know about or fully understand and I think it's wrong of Glenn Beck, and people like him, to try and suggest otherwise.

[The Green Goblin]

It's not a Christian concept. At one point in John's Gospel the disciples ask Jesus why a certain man was born blind - was it something he did wrong, or was it his parents' fault? Jesus makes it clear that this isn't so - though he doesn't actually give them a detailed explanation of the origins and reasons for suffering.

I do remember that at the time of the 9/11 attacks a number of preachers (mostly American) came out with stuff like "Where was God on 9/11?" or "Is God speaking through 9/11?" and so on, many of them quoting Revelation 18, which is a prophecy of the fall of 'Babylon the great' under the final judgement at the end of the world.

The chapter goes into great detail about the conscienceless way 'Babylon' had traded commodities and people simply to increase her own wealth and prosperity. The chapter speaks of "the smoke of her burning" being seen from far out to sea, and how the city's luxury and power and arrogance would be "thrown down" suddenly, "in an hour".

Oddly enough, none of the preachers seemed to pick up that it was the World TRADE Centre that had been attacked and that the simplest and easiest way to apply the prophecy to the attacks might be to take NY and the WTC as Babylon and ask whether the Almighty might just be a little ticked-off with some of the things the US and her Western allies were up to at the time?

And before anyone weighs into me, I'm not saying that Revelation 18 prophesies 9/11. Nor am I suggesting that the people who died that day were really bad people whom God had decided to destroy.

I'm simply saying that a number of commentators and writers chose to interpret events in a way that gave them comfort, rather than asking the hard questions about why people might want to destroy the WTC, and whether the destruction might have been a response to, or a consequence of, something the US had done or was doing elsewhere in the world?

You'll conclude, I hope, that assigning God's 'judgement' on other people when something like an earthquake or hurricane hits isn't something for which I have much time or sympathy.


Great post - real food for thought and thanks for thinking about it and replying. I wondered about the bit in bold though, and this was really the question my original post was trying to get at: why do people say such things so publicly?

See, I understand that somebody`s religious belief could logically lead them to a conclusion that in a world where God has influence, such disasters on a large scale could rationally (in the context of that belief) be interpreted as acts of God or something to do with God.

It`s been that way since prehistoric times - the early peoples seeing the northern lights or storms and so on, and claiming that their "Gods" or whatever deity they worshipped were angry or vengeful or handing down a judgement or punishment because of something the people had or hadn`t done etc.

But comments made en masse to worldwide internet and tv audiences about the events in Japan being not just an act of God, but more crucially that those events were somehow the fault of the people/victims themselves is where the problem is for me.

My post is not actually an instinctive attack on people who believe in God or even those who believe privately that God (whom, incidentally, I don`t believe in) had something to do with it. It`s the act of sitting from an unaffected, safe, powerful position and, whilst people are dying and suffering and mourning and starving etc. in huge numbers, claiming callously that the victims only have themselves to blame. That`s where I have a problem. How is it that people who are so powerful and influential are allowed to say such things more or less unchecked? And how is it that so many of the same people who are so insensitive and ignorant and misguided hold so much of the power?

GG

[The Green Goblin]

This is a difficult one for me.

I believe that the universe was designed by God and I believe that everything in the universe, including Earth, was designed by God.

Earth was designed with tectonic plates in its crust, the movement of which causes earthquakes to occur, so I would say that earthquakes are caused by God.

However, I won't pretend to know whether the recent earthquake in Japan, or any other earthquake for that matter, has happened as a result of God's wrath against a particular nation because I don't think any of us are in a position to make that judgement. The same goes for other weather related events such as hurricanes or tornadoes. Earth has been designed by God in such a way that allows these natural phenomena to occur but I don't think anyone can say with any degree of certainty that they've happened because God is angry or that He wants to punish a nation.

Maybe God does make earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes etc. happen because He wants to mete out punishment but I don't believe it's something that any human being can claim to know about or fully understand and I think it's wrong of Glenn Beck, and people like him, to try and suggest otherwise.

Thanks for replying. Just wanted to say for the record that I hadn`t read this post before I posted my previous post. My point being, that I anticipated and acknowledged what your position on it turned out to be in my post before actually reading yours. :wink:

GG

[Twa Cairpets]

This is a difficult one for me.

I believe that the universe was designed by God and I believe that everything in the universe, including Earth, was designed by God.

Earth was designed with tectonic plates in its crust, the movement of which causes earthquakes to occur, so I would say that earthquakes are caused by God.

However, I won't pretend to know whether the recent earthquake in Japan, or any other earthquake for that matter, has happened as a result of God's wrath against a particular nation because I don't think any of us are in a position to make that judgement. The same goes for other weather related events such as hurricanes or tornadoes. Earth has been designed by God in such a way that allows these natural phenomena to occur but I don't think anyone can say with any degree of certainty that they've happened because God is angry or that He wants to punish a nation.

Maybe God does make earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes etc. happen because He wants to mete out punishment but I don't believe it's something that any human being can claim to know about or fully understand and I think it's wrong of Glenn Beck, and people like him, to try and suggest otherwise.

The (to my mind) ultra-simplistic view of Glen Beck is one of moral certainty.

It must be difficult for a Christian such as yourself, who has to come up with a rationalisation or at least an accomodation as to why a divinely planned planet would deliver such devastation. It's actually a much harder position to defend than Becks is, as it can bee seen as subjective analysis of (what to the fuindamentalists) is very clear biblical prophecy.

If you believe God is all-powerful, has a plan as laid out predominantly in Revelation and created the Earth perfectly, it is an absolutely correct logical conclusion to assume that natural disasters are a direct intervention of God. It is even easier to defend from that perspective than human based badness like murder, torture etc, as that can be put down to evil influences or corruption by the Devil. Unless Satan has his hand on tectonic plates, then it is harder to come up with a non-divine explanation unless you assume that God is happy to let thousands of people die through an apparent design flaw.

On other debates on similar subjects I've taken the view that God either is or isn't real, there cant be a grey area. This thread isn't an atheist/believer debate, and shouldnt become one, but the point is the same.

If you believe God created the Earth, and he knows whats going to happen in the future, then acceptance that tsunamis, earthquakes, etc and the death tolls caused are part of His plan must be part of it, because if its not then either His creation isnt perfect or He doesnt have control. From a biblical perspective, the Old Testament is chock full of Gods wrath for disobeying commandments (of which there are 600+, not ten), and Revelation in the New Testament isn't shy about describing whats going to happen.

I suppose the point is that Becks view, odious, evil and wrong though it is in the eyes of atheists and many believers, is logically the correct view for Christians to take without having to make allowances for God allowing bad things to happen.

[(((Fergus)))]

The (to my mind) ultra-simplistic view of Glen Beck is one of moral certainty.

It must be difficult for a Christian such as yourself, who has to come up with a rationalisation or at least an accomodation as to why a divinely planned planet would deliver such devastation. It's actually a much harder position to defend than Becks is, as it can bee seen as subjective analysis of (what to the fuindamentalists) is very clear biblical prophecy.

If you believe God is all-powerful, has a plan as laid out predominantly in Revelation and created the Earth perfectly, it is an absolutely correct logical conclusion to assume that natural disasters are a direct intervention of God. It is even easier to defend from that perspective than human based badness like murder, torture etc, as that can be put down to evil influences or corruption by the Devil. Unless Satan has his hand on tectonic plates, then it is harder to come up with a non-divine explanation unless you assume that God is happy to let thousands of people die through an apparent design flaw.

On other debates on similar subjects I've taken the view that God either is or isn't real, there cant be a grey area. This thread isn't an atheist/believer debate, and shouldnt become one, but the point is the same.

If you believe God created the Earth, and he knows whats going to happen in the future, then acceptance that tsunamis, earthquakes, etc and the death tolls caused are part of His plan must be part of it, because if its not then either His creation isnt perfect or He doesnt have control. From a biblical perspective, the Old Testament is chock full of Gods wrath for disobeying commandments (of which there are 600+, not ten), and Revelation in the New Testament isn't shy about describing whats going to happen.

I suppose the point is that Becks view, odious, evil and wrong though it is in the eyes of atheists and many believers, is logically the correct view for Christians to take without having to make allowances for God allowing bad things to happen.

Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect? Tsunamis and earthquakes are not in themselves disasters, they are merely natural phenomena. The disaster is that people choose a lifestyle whereby, when the earthquake or tsunami occurs, they are negatively affected by it. In a similar way, a person who dies of sunstroke or exposure does not die form a natural disaster but because of the human decisions that led them on a path to such inhospitable conditions.

Contrast with the behaviour of animals who are ruled by instinct rather than a sliding scale of reason and who are known to move out of tsunami/earthquake/volcano regions before they occur, i.e., there are no "natural disasters" in the natural world, only selectively in the human one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4136485.stm

In addition, don't forget that the biggest disaster in Japan is still unfolding. Gd didn't suddenly decide to create a second tsunami of radiation, some people in Japan - or perhaps it was America that was making the decisions back then - decided in their wisdom to build a ring of nuclear reactors around the coast of one of the most earthquake/tsunami-prone countries in the world.

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/glenn-beck-japan-earthquake-god_n_835573.html

He`s not the only one either - after Tokyo`s governor expressed similar sentiments: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/tokyo-governor-tsunami-punishment?INTCMP=SRCH


Many believe that this is the last straw for Beck, and that Fox will be giving him his jotters soon enough. Imagine that though - someone being too controversial for Fox News! Blimey!

But the point of the post - personally, I think this is an absurd statement to make, insensitive and offensive, although also sadly predictable (bearing in mind the "God is so good" video linked to on here the other day which also mentioned that God was "grabbing the atheists of Japan by the shoulders and giving them a shake").

It achieves nothing, except to upset and antagonise. It`s also very easy to throw around your own interpretations of supernatural judgement when it`s not you that has suffered.

I am just wondering what other people`s thoughts on this are?

GG

I think that, if you believe in God, and the teachings of the Bible, there is nothing abnormal about what this madman has said.

edit: At least in the way that this guy's followers do.

[Twa Cairpets]

Where to begin...

Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect? Tsunamis and earthquakes are not in themselves disasters, they are merely natural phenomena. The disaster is that people choose a lifestyle whereby, when the earthquake or tsunami occurs, they are negatively affected by it. In a similar way, a person who dies of sunstroke or exposure does not die form a natural disaster but because of the human decisions that led them on a path to such inhospitable conditions.

If you are hit by a 10 metre wall of water moving at 70mph then the cause is the tsunami and the effect is instant death. It is utterly fatuous to suggest that a tsunami or an earthquake is not a disaster when/if it affects people. Your comparison with sunstroke is odious. The logical progression of your point is that is the fault of those living in Japan for living there, presumably including babies and kids?


Contrast with the behaviour of animals who are ruled by instinct rather than a sliding scale of reason and who are known to move out of tsunami/earthquake/volcano regions before they occur, i.e., there are no "natural disasters" in the natural world, only selectively in the human one.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4136485.stm

Really? There are no natural disasters in the natural world? So humans aren't subject to the vagaries of events in the natural world? Your argument is entirely disprovable - do animals not die of starvation in severe winters? Do animals who have this "sixth sense" not have the same sense when it comes to getting eaten by predators (an equally natural process)?

From a religious perspective, presumably, taking your argument, God designed humans not to have this instinct deliberately, and therefore denied them the opportunity to have this animalistic early warning system. As it apparently exists with other creatures, it means that it was a deliberate act of omission of a creator not to give humans this ability when He designed life. If you're a fundamentalist, this makes sense and is fine.[/quote]


In addition, don't forget that the biggest disaster in Japan is still unfolding. Gd didn't suddenly decide to create a second tsunami of radiation, some people in Japan - or perhaps it was America that was making the decisions back then - decided in their wisdom to build a ring of nuclear reactors around the coast of one of the most earthquake/tsunami-prone countries in the world.

And the point here is...?

The point I think youre making is that one of the terrible things that could happen is man made. This does not mean that the precursor of this event (i.e the huge earthquake and the massive tsunami) is equally the result of man. If you die as a result of the earth just doing what it does its your fault. If you die as a result of doing something man has done to try to harness nature, its your fault.

If you're right, it doesnt lend much credence to the notion of a benevolent Creator if you ask me. But its just peachy if your a Glen Beck-style fundamentalist.

[easty]

The (to my mind) ultra-simplistic view of Glen Beck is one of moral certainty.

It must be difficult for a Christian such as yourself, who has to come up with a rationalisation or at least an accomodation as to why a divinely planned planet would deliver such devastation. It's actually a much harder position to defend than Becks is, as it can bee seen as subjective analysis of (what to the fuindamentalists) is very clear biblical prophecy.

If you believe God is all-powerful, has a plan as laid out predominantly in Revelation and created the Earth perfectly, it is an absolutely correct logical conclusion to assume that natural disasters are a direct intervention of God. It is even easier to defend from that perspective than human based badness like murder, torture etc, as that can be put down to evil influences or corruption by the Devil. Unless Satan has his hand on tectonic plates, then it is harder to come up with a non-divine explanation unless you assume that God is happy to let thousands of people die through an apparent design flaw.

On other debates on similar subjects I've taken the view that God either is or isn't real, there cant be a grey area. This thread isn't an atheist/believer debate, and shouldnt become one, but the point is the same.

If you believe God created the Earth, and he knows whats going to happen in the future, then acceptance that tsunamis, earthquakes, etc and the death tolls caused are part of His plan must be part of it, because if its not then either His creation isnt perfect or He doesnt have control. From a biblical perspective, the Old Testament is chock full of Gods wrath for disobeying commandments (of which there are 600+, not ten), and Revelation in the New Testament isn't shy about describing whats going to happen.

I suppose the point is that Becks view, odious, evil and wrong though it is in the eyes of atheists and many believers, is logically the correct view for Christians to take without having to make allowances for God allowing bad things to happen.

Great post.:agree:

[lapsedhibee]

If you are hit by a 10 metre wall of water moving at 70mph then the cause is the tsunami and the effect is instant death. It is utterly fatuous to suggest that a tsunami or an earthquake is not a disaster when/if it affects people. Your comparison with sunstroke is odious. The logical progression of your point is that is the fault of those living in Japan for living there, presumably including babies and kids?

Looking at the same point from a different direction ...

If a house is built in a flood plain, and the house floods repeatedly, and becomes uninsurable, and subsequently plummets in value, wouldn't you say that either the people who built the house, or the people who bought it to live in, or both, are to some extent responsible for the ensuing economic loss?

[easty]

Looking at the same point from a different direction ...

If a house is built in a flood plain, and the house floods repeatedly, and becomes uninsurable, and subsequently plummets in value, wouldn't you say that either the people who built the house, or the people who bought it to live in, or both, are to some extent responsible for the ensuing economic loss?

Is that the same point from a different direction?

Personally I would say it was completely the fault of the people who built and, subsequently, bought the property. But as I don't believe in god as the creator and architect of this world then that's not surprising.

If you are religious, if you do believe that He is the creator, He is the architect then you have to accept the He is to blame for floods. No? You can't pick and choose.

[lapsedhibee]

Is that the same point from a different direction?

Perhaps. If you find yourself in an area where waves are likely to hit the coast at a height of 10 metres, either without notice or with so little notice as makes no difference, there may be an argument that you should not live or work at sea level, and if you do you are, to some extent, contributing to your misfortune when waves do hit.

I understand that this is the biggest earthquake ever to hit Japan, but I also believe that scientific understanding of tsunami is long established.

This is not, I think, to say that children have been to blame for their own death.

[Sylar]

Looking at the same point from a different direction ...

If a house is built in a flood plain, and the house floods repeatedly, and becomes uninsurable, and subsequently plummets in value, wouldn't you say that either the people who built the house, or the people who bought it to live in, or both, are to some extent responsible for the ensuing economic loss?

Quite a well utilised argument in the field of hydrology actually, that there is no such thing as a flood :agree:

The natural system of a catchment goes through periods of excess flow and reduced flow patterns - it only becomes a flood when it interacts with man, and that only occurs because man has chosen to build in proximity to the aesthetics and resource bearing body of water.

There isn't much in the way of choice in Japan, as the centre of the country is very mountainous and large scale development to support the population is only possible in coastal regions.

As someone who has been brought up on scientific principles and studied natural phenomena in the form of hazards, climate and tectonophysics, I find it very difficult to fathom this "God" argument as a causal factor. The dynamics of weather, earth processes and hazards might not be wholly predictable, but there is a very good understanding into their nature, evolution and behaviour and the very notion that "God" created the recent mass shift of the Earth's crust (which is perfectly explainable) and resulted in the transfer of seismic waves into fluid waves is completely ludicrous.

As is the very notion of "design" and "creativity" within the Universe, but that's for another thread.

[Twa Cairpets]

Looking at the same point from a different direction ...

If a house is built in a flood plain, and the house floods repeatedly, and becomes uninsurable, and subsequently plummets in value, wouldn't you say that either the people who built the house, or the people who bought it to live in, or both, are to some extent responsible for the ensuing economic loss?


Perhaps. If you find yourself in an area where waves are likely to hit the coast at a height of 10 metres, either without notice or with so little notice as makes no difference, there may be an argument that you should not live or work at sea level, and if you do you are, to some extent, contributing to your misfortune when waves do hit.

I understand that this is the biggest earthquake ever to hit Japan, but I also believe that scientific understanding of tsunami is long established.

This is not, I think, to say that children have been to blame for their own death.

Hang on. There is a massive (and wrong) assumption here, and that is that everyone has a choice as to where they want to live. They don't. People might be desparate to move or leave an area, but cant because of any number of reasons - family ties, employment opportunities, negative equity, fear of change - anything.

If people find themselves by choice, accident or circumstance living in an area at risk of some potentially devastating natural phenomenon, you're seeming to suggest that "tough, they knew the risks". On a very clinical level, you're right, but on any other practical, moral or human level this view is very very wrong.

To an extent the culpability of those killed is immaterial - it happened, and they are dead. To me, no-one (divine or otherwise) is to blame - this couldnt have been stopped, and nature delivers horrifying stuff every day. Since the earthquake, around 13,500 children will have died of malaria - every bit as much a part of nature as an earthquake or tsunami, but we dont have headlines on this or claims of heavenly provenance because its simply not newsworthy, because its mundane and because anyone claiming the death of children - through the bite of one of Gods creations - is part of Gods plan to destroy those of no faith, or gays, or sinners of another flavour would be thought of as sick, ill and evil.

[lapsedhibee]

Hang on. There is a massive (and wrong) assumption here, and that is that everyone has a choice as to where they want to live. They don't. People might be desparate to move or leave an area, but cant because of any number of reasons - family ties, employment opportunities, negative equity, fear of change - anything.
Everyone doesn't have a choice, but perhaps one of the richest societies in the world could organise itself differently and more safely (I'm including here the possibility that a different organisation might result in less wealth). Your examples are not all equally convincing - 'can't move because they suffer from fear of change' ... wtf? :wink:


If people find themselves by choice, accident or circumstance living in an area at risk of some potentially devastating natural phenomenon, you're seeming to suggest that "tough, they knew the risks". On a very clinical level, you're right, but on any other practical, moral or human level this view is very very wrong.

Haven't even clicked on the Glenn Whatsisface link, as presume it's a nutter claiming that excess water's been sent to thoroughly cleanse a country of Homo Sexuals and so froth, but even in more sober heads introducing the idea of personal responsibility in this area might be considered to be highly moral, rather than slighty immoral as you suggest. I'm not saying "tough", but I am saying that the state of Japan knew that large earthquakes were inevitable, and since Japanese people are notoriously well educated, most citizens would have known too. I'm still not entirely sure there's any real difference between continuing to live in a geological danger zone, and suffering the almost inevitable consequences of that, and continuing to smoke, and suffering the almost inevitable health consequences of that. Maybe sounds ludicrous to say so, but I'm really, really not sure there's any essential difference.


To an extent the culpability of those killed is immaterial

Agreed.


- it happened, and they are dead. To me, no-one (divine or otherwise) is to blame - this couldnt have been stopped, and nature delivers horrifying stuff every day. Since the earthquake, around 13,500 children will have died of malaria - every bit as much a part of nature as an earthquake or tsunami, but we dont have headlines on this or claims of heavenly provenance because its simply not newsworthy, because its mundane and because anyone claiming the death of children - through the bite of one of Gods creations - is part of Gods plan to destroy those of no faith, or gays, or sinners of another flavour would be thought of as sick, ill and evil.



As someone who has been brought up on scientific principles and studied natural phenomena in the form of hazards, climate and tectonophysics, I find it very difficult to fathom this "God" argument as a causal factor. The dynamics of weather, earth processes and hazards might not be wholly predictable, but there is a very good understanding into their nature, evolution and behaviour and the very notion that "God" created the recent mass shift of the Earth's crust (which is perfectly explainable) and resulted in the transfer of seismic waves into fluid waves is completely ludicrous.


Since someone in the kafflick church churlishly refused to look through Galileo's 'scope it's been popular to bask in some sort of dichotomy between religion and science, but I don't see it that way. God created a surfeit of water which oftentimes spills on to the land in an unfortunate way, but he did so for a purpose - so that man would, eventually, after reaching a suitably advanced stage of scientific evolution, have an abundance of material with which to pursue homeopathy.

[Twa Cairpets]

Everyone doesn't have a choice, but perhaps one of the richest societies in the world could organise itself differently and more safely (I'm including here the possibility that a different organisation might result in less wealth). Your examples are not all equally convincing - 'can't move because they suffer from fear of change' ... wtf? :wink:

Perfectly valid example. You and your family have lived safely in a village on the shore for generations. Its not diffcult to imagine that the fear in moving over-rides the concerns surrounding staying. Your point is as daft as saying soeone living in a crime and drug ridden crap hole somewhere has the choice an opportunity to move out. Its just a ludicrous stance to take.

Maybe all those guys in Ethiopia should move because, hey, they know they're living in a country where there is a ludicrously huge chance of dying of starvation. They should just get up and go live in somewhere a bit lusher where they can plant a carrot or two.


Haven't even clicked on the Glenn Whatsisface link, as presume it's a nutter claiming that excess water's been sent to thoroughly cleanse a country of Homo Sexuals and so froth, but even in more sober heads introducing the idea of personal responsibility in this area might be considered to be highly moral, rather than slighty immoral as you suggest. I'm not saying "tough", but I am saying that the state of Japan knew that large earthquakes were inevitable, and since Japanese people are notoriously well educated, most citizens would have known too. I'm still not entirely sure there's any real difference between continuing to live in a geological danger zone, and suffering the almost inevitable consequences of that, and continuing to smoke, and suffering the almost inevitable health consequences of that. Maybe sounds ludicrous to say so, but I'm really, really not sure there's any essential difference.

Bonkers. "The almost inevitable consequences". Well, no, thats not true is it. High risk is not equal to inevitability. Millions of Japanese have lived for hundreds of years and not died of a tsunami. Million swill have made a choice about smoking. The fundamental difference is one is an active choice to do somethig deliberatley and demonstrably harmful, the other isn't.


Since someone in the kafflick church churlishly refused to look through Galileo's 'scope it's been popular to bask in some sort of dichotomy between religion and science, but I don't see it that way. God created a surfeit of water which oftentimes spills on to the land in an unfortunate way, but he did so for a purpose - so that man would, eventually, after reaching a suitably advanced stage of scientific evolution, have an abundance of material with which to pursue homeopathy.

Apparently the less you pray or believe in God the more powerful he becomes.

[lapsedhibee]

Perfectly valid example. You and your family have lived safely in a village on the shore for generations. Its not diffcult to imagine that the fear in moving over-rides the concerns surrounding staying. Your point is as daft as saying soeone living in a crime and drug ridden crap hole somewhere has the choice an opportunity to move out. Its just a ludicrous stance to take.

Maybe all those guys in Ethiopia should move because, hey, they know they're living in a country where there is a ludicrously huge chance of dying of starvation. They should just get up and go live in somewhere a bit lusher where they can plant a carrot or two.

You're mibbe not grasping that Japan is a rich country, and Ethiopia isn't. Everyone in Japan isn't rich, but Japan is. "The fear in moving"? Wot you on about? Don't Japanese people move house? You're also not grasping the difference between an individual beng able to afford to do something, and the society in which he/she lives being able to do something. A Leith Junkie may not be able to afford the train fare to the Isle of Wight, but Edinburgh Council could afford to round up all the Leith Junkies, transport and dump them there. This could be afforded even if the Junkies had a fear of moving.



Bonkers. "The almost inevitable consequences". Well, no, thats not true is it. High risk is not equal to inevitability. Millions of Japanese have lived for hundreds of years and not died of a tsunami. Million swill have made a choice about smoking. The fundamental difference is one is an active choice to do somethig deliberatley and demonstrably harmful, the other isn't.

Japan knew that a very large earthquake was going to happen, sooner or later. Wouldn't you say that an offshore earthquake was almost inevitably going to produce a damaging tsunami, sooner or later? What is your evidence that there have been no Japanese tsunami casualties for, quote, "hundreds of years", please?
Your position seems to be that smokers freely choose to damage themselves, ignoring the question of addiction, but that people in general are not free to move out of the area in which they were born? Or something akin to that. Extraordinary, if I've understood it aright.

[lapsedhibee]

Apparently the less you pray or believe in God the more powerful he becomes.

Not sure about that but didn't Skinner demonstrate with his pigeons that intermittent reinforcement's a more powerful tool for establishing particular behaviours than continuous reinforcement? So if God is the experimenter and us yins are the pigeons, and She wants us to believe, then She's adopting the right strategy in only responding intermittently to (eg) nightly requests to be kept safe from natural disasters.

[(((Fergus)))]

Where to begin...


If you are hit by a 10 metre wall of water moving at 70mph then the cause is the tsunami and the effect is instant death. It is utterly fatuous to suggest that a tsunami or an earthquake is not a disaster when/if it affects people. Your comparison with sunstroke is odious. The logical progression of your point is that is the fault of those living in Japan for living there, presumably including babies and kids?



Really? There are no natural disasters in the natural world? So humans aren't subject to the vagaries of events in the natural world? Your argument is entirely disprovable - do animals not die of starvation in severe winters? Do animals who have this "sixth sense" not have the same sense when it comes to getting eaten by predators (an equally natural process)?

From a religious perspective, presumably, taking your argument, God designed humans not to have this instinct deliberately, and therefore denied them the opportunity to have this animalistic early warning system. As it apparently exists with other creatures, it means that it was a deliberate act of omission of a creator not to give humans this ability when He designed life. If you're a fundamentalist, this makes sense and is fine.



And the point here is...?

The point I think youre making is that one of the terrible things that could happen is man made. This does not mean that the precursor of this event (i.e the huge earthquake and the massive tsunami) is equally the result of man. If you die as a result of the earth just doing what it does its your fault. If you die as a result of doing something man has done to try to harness nature, its your fault.

If you're right, it doesnt lend much credence to the notion of a benevolent Creator if you ask me. But its just peachy if your a Glen Beck-style fundamentalist.

You've missed the point of what I was saying. I tried to make it as clearly as I could. I don't think I could make it any better.

[Twa Cairpets]

You're mibbe not grasping that Japan is a rich country, and Ethiopia isn't. Everyone in Japan isn't rich, but Japan is. "The fear in moving"? Wot you on about? Don't Japanese people move house? You're also not grasping the difference between an individual beng able to afford to do something, and the society in which he/she lives being able to do something. A Leith Junkie may not be able to afford the train fare to the Isle of Wight, but Edinburgh Council could afford to round up all the Leith Junkies, transport and dump them there. This could be afforded even if the Junkies had a fear of moving.

I am grasping that perfectly and still your point is bonkers. How would the Isle of Wight responed to busloads of Begbies arriving. Villages and communities rise around resources and work. The resource and work are on the shore, and the interior of Japan is not particularly habitable for large parts as I understand it.

Presumably anyone living in San Francisco is equally culpable for their own deaths if and when a quake hits there?


Japan knew that a very large earthquake was going to happen, sooner or later. Wouldn't you say that an offshore earthquake was almost inevitably going to produce a damaging tsunami, sooner or later? What is your evidence that there have been no Japanese tsunami casualties for, quote, "hundreds of years", please?Your position seems to be that smokers freely choose to damage themselves, ignoring the question of addiction, but that people in general are not free to move out of the area in which they were born? Or something akin to that. Extraordinary, if I've understood it aright.

Didnt say the bit in bold, read it again.

Youve not understood it right, because if I did suggest that, I'd be loopy.

[Twa Cairpets]

You've missed the point of what I was saying. I tried to make it as clearly as I could. I don't think I could make it any better.

I'd love you to have another go. I've re-read your original post and I'm struggling to see how I could interpret it in any way other than I did.

[lapsedhibee]

Presumably anyone living in San Francisco is equally culpable for their own deaths if and when a quake hits there?
Wouldn't necessarily say 'culpable' because that's perhaps a legal term. I would say that IF they're particularly concerned about geological safety, they shouldn't live there. If they were born there, they should move away. If they weren't, they should stay away.



Didnt say the bit in bold, read it again.

Not sure what point you were making then, other than that those millions who didn't die in previous tsunamis didn't die in them. Earthquakes and tsunamis are common in the area. If you know that they kill people and that you are a person, you can easily conclude that you may be killed. If on the other hand you reason that because your parents never got killed and neither did their parents or grandparents and therefore you are relatively safe, then, well, that's just no very bright.

Anyways, apologies to the OP for straying so far off topic. Beck's comments: no more offensive than any other Care In The Community case whose rambling insights pass through your ears as you walk down the street. Or the yapping of an averagely intelligent dog. The wifie on the same site who reckoned a wee bit radiation might be good for you actually did ok, eliciting an admission from the anchor chappie that it was some sort of professional duty for him to always report the worst case scenario. Coverage of this disaster on UK tellybox seems to have been quite responsible, at least inasmuchas (so far) I've not seen anyone shove a microphone in front of a grieving parent and ask them to describe how they felt as their child was washed out of their arms and gone.

[Twa Cairpets]

Wouldn't necessarily say 'culpable' because that's perhaps a legal term. I would say that IF they're particularly concerned about geological safety, they shouldn't live there. If they were born there, they should move away. If they weren't, they should stay away.

If this isnt a wind up that I'm missing, then that to me is a staggering position to take.


Not sure what point you were making then, other than that those millions who didn't die in previous tsunamis didn't die in them. Earthquakes and tsunamis are common in the area. If you know that they kill people and that you are a person, you can easily conclude that you may be killed. If on the other hand you reason that because your parents never got killed and neither did their parents or grandparents and therefore you are relatively safe, then, well, that's just no very bright.

Prior to the current situation since 1900 an estimated 150,000 (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/world_deaths_sort.php)Japanese have died as a result of earthquakes, almost all of them in the 1923 Great Tokyo Earthquake. The population of Japan is currently 127 million (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:JPN&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+japan), so lets conservatively say in that time period there have been 225,000,000 Japanese alive (my guesstimate, but fair I think). That would mean that 0.06% of deaths in Japan in that time have been caused by earthquakes.

Mayber the equivalent number of Japanese who have been killed in car accidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate) over the last twenty years or so are euqally not very bright?


Anyways, apologies to the OP for straying so far off topic. Beck's comments: no more offensive than any other Care In The Community case whose rambling insights pass through your ears as you walk down the street. Or the yapping of an averagely intelligent dog. The wifie on the same site who reckoned a wee bit radiation might be good for you actually did ok, eliciting an admission from the anchor chappie that it was some sort of professional duty for him to always report the worst case scenario. Coverage of this disaster on UK tellybox seems to have been quite responsible, at least inasmuchas (so far) I've not seen anyone shove a microphone in front of a grieving parent and ask them to describe how they felt as their child was washed out of their arms and gone.

Are you meaning Ann Coulters interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FNFF61E_Dg&feature=player_embedded)on Fox with Bill O'Reilly? It's a bad day when that buffoon of a man is seen as the moderating factor. For a fairly thorough explanation of why she is blithering keech, PZ Myers on Pharyngula / Sceinceblogs (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/will_radiation_hormesis_protec.php) does the job. Ann Coulter is a dangerous woman - Brian Dunning does a pretty good skeptical analysis of her scientifc approach here (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4069).

lapsed, if the Beck, coulter and O'Reilly opinions really were justthe ramblings of the loony, I'd be with you. But they're not. They are mainstream commentators in the US, transmitting to millions of uncritical believers reinforcement of their religious and political stances.

[lapsedhibee]

Maybe the equivalent number of Japanese who have been killed in car accidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate) over the last twenty years or so are equally not very bright?
In my view, if you drive a car and die in a road accident, you bear some of the responsibility for your death. Sometimes other people also bear some of the responsibility. I presume that those walls which were purpose-built to protect Japanese towns from tsunamis, but which were not high enough to do so, could have been built higher. In this country there would have been people arguing (as they did when London airport was snowbound) that you shouldn't spend money to guard against a once-in-a-lifetime event. It's one argument, not the only argument. I don't know whether the Japanese authorities weighed additional cost against potential loss of life - my guess is they probably would have done.



Are you meaning Ann Coulters interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FNFF61E_Dg&feature=player_embedded)on Fox with Bill O'Reilly? It's a bad day when that buffoon of a man is seen as the moderating factor.

:agree: Coulter blethered alright - confusing 'minimum' with 'maximum' at one point (not good for arguing a scientific case) - but the bloke was worse.

lapsed, if the Beck, coulter and O'Reilly opinions really were justthe ramblings of the loony, I'd be with you. But they're not. They are mainstream commentators in the US, transmitting to millions of uncritical believers reinforcement of their religious and political stances.
Wouldn't disagree with that, but isn't it all an inevitable consequence of democracy?

[Twa Cairpets]

Coulter blethered alright - confusing 'minimum' with 'maximum' at one point (not good for arguing a scientific case) - but the bloke was worse.

Wouldn't disagree with that, but isn't it all an inevitable consequence of democracy?

No, because we dont have that situation in any other First World democracy.

The likes of Beck and Coulter and Sarah Palin would be seen in the UK as dangerous, laughable nutters. In the US they portray themselves as the voice of morality and decency. And hundreds of millions of them fall for it hook line and sinker.

[Onceinawhile]

So if natural disasters such as Tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes are gods way of showing displeasure at the human race...

Does that mean that the UK is at the head of morality.

I don't remember the last time someone from the UK died from a "natural disaster".

(maybe someone can show me otherwise)

[The Green Goblin]

Anyways, apologies to the OP for straying so far off topic.

No need whatsoever. It`s a very interesting discussion going in a direction to be expected. I am enjoying following it. I`ll weigh in again soon.:wink:

Cheers,

GG