Replies

The argument on this forum put forward by yourself and others was that it is "sick" (your word) to believe that God would punish a nation as a whole for the sins of a portion of its populace.

Wrong. That is not the argument at all.

The disagreement is with sanctimonious self-righteous people who claim to have some devine knowledge of a correspondence between some horrible crime, such as the murder of 3,000 innocent and unsuspecting civilians..and some sin or sins they decide this act is punishment for.
And the fact that they point their fingers at those things which just happen to be their pet peeves.
Big surprise.

The idea that anyone would exploit such a horrific crime against so many humans as an opportunity to push their personal agenda is warped and meanspirited.

Get's a little stickier when you find yourself on the other side of the table from old Abe, doesn't it Buckoo?

I didn't disagree with Lincoln at all.
I disagreed with your unbalanced and inaccurate application of his words to this situation.
Saying a nation is suffering for it's own doing is not the same thing as blaming a nation for an attack by murdering terrorists.
A distinction which seems to have gone over your head.

Ah, I see. So only you can divine when a national tragedy is a punishment from God and when it isn't. Falwell can't, but you can. Sounds like you have a flaming case of sanctimomy yourself. By the way your distinction is senseless. In both cases the "sin" for which the punishment is claimed to be visited is America's. Slavery (I assume) in one case, and abortion, homosexuality, etc, in the other. The only distinction is the vehicle for delivering the punishment. Are you suggesting that God would never use a "non-American" source for exercising his wrath. If so, please explain where this amazing new "theology" comes from. If it's a civil war, it's a punishment from God, if it's a terrorist attack it isn't?