Australian Pastor Blames Prime Minister for Causing Disasterous Floods as God’s Vengence

It appears Pat Robertson is not alone speaking for God in the use of nature to punish the sins of man. A Christian pastor in Queensland, Daniel Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries, has announced that the devastating floods in Australia are actually divine judgment against Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd because he “spoke against Israel” in December 2010.


Nalliah is upset because, while in Israel, Rudd insisted that the government should allow international inspectors into its nuclear facilities — a position consistent with demands made against Arab countries. He also called for a halt on new Jewish settlements.

God, according to Nalliah, decided to flood the country in response. Call me skeptical, but wouldn’t it have been easier for God to smite down Rudd or guarantee that England beats Australia in tomorrow’s cricket match?

Nalliah previously successfully defended himself against of charge of inciting hatred against Islam under Victoria’s then-new religious vilification laws. As a critic of those blasphemy laws, I am glad to see such acquittals even for irresponsible or obnoxious speech.

He also previously declared that the “Black Saturday bushfires” were revealed to him as divine punishment in”prophetic dreams” for Victoria’s decriminalization of abortion in 2008.

Source: Reddit and NineMSN

74 thoughts on “Australian Pastor Blames Prime Minister for Causing Disasterous Floods as God’s Vengence

  1. EVERYONE SHOULD HEED THE WARNING THAT THERE IS TO BE A DAY OF JUDGEMENT. Even Atheists SHOULD HEED THE WARNING.
    My friends have had dreams about all the natural didasters in the world before they happened. and they happened. The Day of Judgement WILL HAPPEN SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

  2. Oh, well. It was a peace sign in ASCII text. Forgot that this site’s commentary strips out double spaces.

  3. “You do not have defend your views by berating or insulting me with superlatives”

    gbk,
    I think a fair comparison of our various posts would result in your being deemed both aggressor and insulter. I’m well aware of what being a Hindu means and that is not being monotheistic, so your response begs the question. You have a rather over-inflated opinion of yourself and the scholarship of your profession, as do most of the social sciences including my own. Your writing clearly indicates that you are using your studies and scholarship to confirm your pre-judgments about monotheism. I’m only trying to explain to you that you’re putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Your atacks on monotheism as the central perpetrator does present much evidence that would support your theory, however, your insight is flawed. All organized religion is but the rationalization for bad behavior and the human will to power, that is the real cause of the misery and depradations of humanity.

  4. If you think of me as a religious apologist than [sic] you are reading what I write with a pre-judgment that precludes making a coherant evaluation.

    A “pre-judgment that precludes . . . ,” what a phrase!

    Your frequent use in this thread of my “pre-judgments” and assumptions of my “preclusions” are becoming humorous – especially seeing how your use of these descriptions typically precedes my “misunderstandings,” my either being “dumb” or “egotistical,” or my new lack of “coherent evaluation.” The pattern of my failure to understand is obviously apparent.

    If you don’t agree with my perspective just say so. You do not have defend your views by berating or insulting me with superlatives – it can just be your opinion.

    .” My perspective is based on the fact that I don’t come across too many (your pick of the litter) “Hindus,”

    Talk about taking something out of context! You only quote the first half of my quote of yours, fail to address the rest, and then ramble on with the following which I never claimed, or otherwise even mentioned, and in your self-serving way arrive at a conclusion:

    “Aren’t there about a billion Hindu’s in the world and hasn’t there been constant clashes occurring between them and Moslems, with nuclear undertones. Hinduism last I heard was a polytheistic religion and the Indians have not been slackers in the area of religious intolerance and warfare with their Moslem neighbors. The guilt is equal on both parts of that equation.”

    Just as an aside, your understanding of Hinduism as polytheistic is in error. Vedic Hinduism is henotheistic, (see Noss, David S. A History Of The World’s Religions, ed. 11, ISBN 0-13-099165-1).

    Then you half-quote again and answer with the proverbial “all religions are fucked” response:

    “We do agree for the most part but I would replace monotheism with “organised religion of any stripe.”

    You miss my point – that monotheistic religions are, and have been, defining the political and social structure of state interaction for millennia. To look upon history as a means to justify the current rampage of monotheistic barbarity is to miss this point and to casually dwell in the confines of historic complacency.

  5. “juxtaposed with apologist thought concerning the same subject.”

    gbk,
    If you think of me as a religious apologist than you are reading what I write with a pre-judgment that precludes making a coherant evaluation.

    .” My perspective is based on the fact that I don’t come across too many (your pick of the litter) “Hindus,”

    Aren’t there about a billion Hindu’s in the world and hasn’t there been constant clashes occurring between them and Moslems, with nuclear undertones. Hinduism last I heard was a polytheistic religion and the Indians have not been slackers in the area of religious intolerance and warfare with their Moslem neighbors. The guilt is equal on both parts of that equation.

    “Exactly so. It’s great that we agree on this. So, given this statement of yours, would you agree that historical changes in monotheistic thought have been brought about by economic, political, and cultural pressures over time as opposed to “truths” and that the paradoxes presented by said ecclesiastical adaptation have contributed to the hindrance of humans not evolving “enough”

    We do agree for the most part but I would replace monotheism with “organised religion of any stripe.”

    “Could it be that monotheism places a “toughest/smartest male” above us all and that most people accept the “pyramidal structure” represented “via various henchmen and allies” in the guise of priests, pastors, bishops, popes, and rabbis due to fear of ostracism?”

    C’mon gbk, this is true of all organised religion and has been so throughout history. You don’t think anciet Sumer and Egypt behaved in the same way. You think that India today is any different in organised religious tyranny, then is let’s say Iran?

    “the unfortunate nature of humans to coalesce into pockets of “us vs. them” for reasons that are typically based on assumed superiority of religious belief.”

    This is where we differ. You ascribe the “us vs. them behavior” to religion. I see religion as one of the excuses given to justify the innate “us vs. them (strongest rules)behavior.” To me this is true of political philosophy’s also. I see this as a matter of humans not having evolved enough from their “apelike beginnings” and developing a socio-religious structure to avoid seeing the truth of our condition. With all humanity’s vaunted progress and intelligence, we are still in the main ruled by our genetic and social inheritance and thus differ but little from the Apes we think we’ve risen above.

  6. “instead is a region much like what Jared Loughner described as where “conscience dreaming” can occur.”

    Brian when I mentioned the mental state of reverie what was occuring with me was something like “conscious dreaming.” I would sit up in bed intending to get up and perform some act, such as brushing my teeth and find myself sitting for 15 minutes thinking about various aspects of things that were related to the initial intention. My wife observing this found it to be spooky and she would wake me from it and I’d get up.
    During my transplant I was given a steroid known to induce psychosis in certain people and its effects wore off gradually. Also I was getting Percocets to deal with the pain.
    Consequently I was lost in space. Both my wife and daughters observed me in my hospital bed having conversations with people who weren’t there. you might say that I have a strong sense of where you are coming from. It is often a scary place to be in but I glean from your writings that you seem to cope well with your condition and I congratulate you on the innate strength of your personality. I worked for six years with people suffering from Axis I disorders and was to some extent able to get their thought process and appreciate their struggle.

  7. RE: Mike Spindell, January 14, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    [begin quote]
    Gyges & Buddha,
    Thanks guys, but you don’t know the half of it. From Oct. 2009 until my first operation in August (artificial heart device) my heart was failing rapidly. One of the effects of this, which I am now only coming to terms with is that as your heart fails the oxygen supply to your brain is diminished and can cause psychological effects. Many people on the site, including you both recognize that there was a change in my writing, an angrier tone mixed with a lessening of my capacity to write clearly. My wife saw it and would tell those close to us that I was not acting like the man she married. I was confused alot and also found myself in the psychological state known as reverie.

    The weird thing about diminished mental capacity and the onset of psychological difficulties is that one is not really aware of it as it is happening and me always priding myself on my self control and focus, didn’t understand that I was somewhat cuckoo, to put it gently. Also Physicians don’t tell you that with your heart failing your brain might be affected. I wasn’t dangerous to anyone but myself since I retained enough control not to lash out at those close to me. Here, however, I was ready to fight. I write this not as a confessional, but as an apology to those that I might have responded to with harshness that was not merited. It just goes to show that age, education and intelligence doesn’t preclude that life should be until the end accepted as a learning process.
    [end quote]

    #############

    Folks who have not lived through an experience, such as may be named, “profound dementia,” will have no actual inner life experience allowing understanding living a profound dementia process by having lived it.

    I have a hunch that much the same may be true of an episode of mild physiological brain change, as I allow you, Mike, have described very well.

    My own experience with the realm of dementia, from mild to profound in some friends, acquaintances, and family members, informs me that there are two main dementia pathways.

    One pathway removes self-awareness faster than other aspects of self and such folks tend to be rather oblivious to what is happening.

    The other pathway, and I knew a young girl who developed a profound dementia following an encephalitis episode who, like me, was vividly aware of the changes and unable to do anything to compensate.

    Either pathway, aware or unaware of the dementia, can end with the dementia healing to some extent, all the way to almost as though the dementia never happened; or end up progressing until the brain no longer has the motor skills necessary for continued life.

    People who are aware of the dementia and the deteriorating brain function also have a choice of pathways, though the dementia may remove the choice from any aspect of sentient will. One such pathway is rejecting the dementia experience and another is accepting the dementia experience.

    For myself, as the dementia began, I was aware but unable to articulate (talk about) it. I took the path of accepting the dementia as being the path my life neither could nor should avoid its taking. I embraced the dementia experience as a learning experience which I needed to understand no better than I understood it.

    I embrace and affirm every aspect and detail of my life, as my life happens, as my life is given to me. I have always done so. I have no clue as to how to do otherwise, and hence take neither credit nor debit for this way whereby I find myself living my life.

    If there is a specialized brain region in which the cells are capable of the experiences of blame, shame, guilt and any other form of what I guess would be “fault-finding,” I am likely to guess that the cells for that part of my brain were never formed.

    The late Kim Peek (on whose life the movie “Rainman” was partly based) had a part of the usual human brain structure not present, according to what I have learned. Kim Peek came to this world with “agenesis of the corpus callosum” (sometimes abbreviat ed to “ACC”).

    Biology may be simple. To the extent that personality is a function of the mind and the mind is a function of the brain, changing the brain may change personality.

    Instead of a brain area which can process fault, blame, guilt, punishment, retaliation, revenge, and such, what I find my brain came with instead is a region much like what Jared Loughner described as where “conscience dreaming” can occur.

    I went through one of his You Tube items, the 3 minute and 47 second one, was able to download it, and go through it many times until the pattern of words began to make intelligible sense to me.

    I am not silly enough to suggest that the intelligible sense his writing made to me has any trace of similarity to any meaning of Jared.

    I learned the skill of developing a way to make intelligible sense of floridly psychotic words because a sequence of medical blunders gave me inpatient psychiatric hospital roommates whose ability with florid psychosis way outpaced what I have a hunch Jared Loughner experienced, and I did so merely in order to stay alive by not unduly distressing my roommates.

    And yet, I have my own experience with and understanding of “conscience dreaming.” As I have been able grasp Jared’s words, I find I have always been a “conscience dreamer,” and I find his conjecture of 5 percent or less of people being “conscience dreamers” corresponds very well with my experience.

    Yet I differ in one utterly profound respect from Jared Loughner. I never retaliate, I never plan retaliation, I never entertain retaliation in any way other than to be sufficiently aware of the possibility of retaliation as practicable, so as to effectively rule it out of my life.

    I am truly grateful for all that I have learned from this Jonathan Turley Blawg, I am grateful for every word I have read, and for the participation of every participant.

    Perhaps some recent Scott Adams’ Dilbert strips will be informative.

    The January 9, 2011 last panel text is, “Have you ever noticed that clarity makes people angry?”

    That sometimes seems so to me, even, occasionally, in terms of the process of the Turley Blawg…

    That strip is for sale on the dilbert[dot]com web site… I have the original newspaper page saved in my paper-form archives.

    Being an engineer, I also highly recommend the three-strip sequence of January 11 through 13, 2011. I have long known and understood that being an engineer is a terrible social disease. My wife and I may be of that which rarely happens…

    Only, it is not my wife who is the other engineer, it was her dad, yet I believe she apparently carries something of the engineer genetic defect, though perhaps only in the form of partly recessive phenotypic expression.

    There is genetics engineering and there is engineering genetics.

    I cannot any longer prove to myself that I am completely incapable of using words that might allow someone else to understand my research well enough to actually be able to tear it to shreds of utter nonsense. So, I am working at stringing words together like popcorn intended to become a tree decoration.

    If I do not make the effort, I cannot fail in making the effort.

    The effort is of usefully sharing what may be named, “A Theory-in-Use of the Cause, Purpose, Cure, and Prevention of Human Destructiveness in the Form of Prolegomenon.”

    Please, if the words appear in public, if you can crush the ideas, or crush their written form, I beseech you to do so, and also, please do not crush me.

    Please do not copy, even merely symbolically, the overt recent combative conduct of Jared Loughner or other such murderous conduct.

    I, personally and subjectively, experience such conduct as infinitely, terribly, horrible, far beyond my present power of words to tell.

  8. Just as you confused me with Tootie through cursory reading, you confuse my ideas with the same superficial understanding.

    I never confused you with Tootie, and your assumption of my cursory reading is merely that. As to your claim of superficial understanding (on my part, I assume) I simply saw in this thread the dichotomy of blind adherence (Tootie) juxtaposed with apologist thought concerning the same subject. It’s a circular argument that has been propagated for much too long.

  9. The problem here is a failur to communicate.

    I don’t see a problem; we are communicating through the belabored process of commentary on a blog that you and I highly respect. We could probably meet and talk for twenty minutes and have a much clearer understanding of our own unique word usage and the meanings behind them. Unfortunately, these postings are the means available to us; so let’s try to whittle down the assumptions we both make in reading our respective responses.

    I’ve never defended the use of religion as a means of oppression or self aggrandisement.

    This is true – you haven’t, not that I’ve read – but in this thread you have defended “religion” despite its history of oppression and self-aggrandizement – which is a very different statement.

    However, your limiting of the spectrum to monotheistic religions through the ages does expose a certain prejudice.

    My “limiting of the spectrum to monotheistic religions” is due to the reality of realpolitik as it exists now, and some millennia prior. It is not a prejudice, it is an observation.

    My first post in this thread specifically stated: “It is time for the monotheistic adherents (Judaic, Christian, and Islamic) to quit terrorizing the world with the split hairs of their evolving beliefs for political gain.” My perspective is based on the fact that I don’t come across too many (your pick of the litter) “Hindus, Hellenists, and Buddhists,” (and to add my own) Mithraists, Zoroastrians, and Jainists keeping the world on edge as they involve us all in wars politically sustained by claimed differences of deist superiority. I only see the three monotheistic traditions doing this.

    1. You think I’m defending monotheistic belief. Hardly the case.

    I don’t accuse you defending monotheistic belief; I simply “accuse,” “call you out,” pick your phrase – of apologizing for it. There is a difference.

    The problem is that we have not evolved enough to get past our former heritage . . .

    Exactly so. It’s great that we agree on this. So, given this statement of yours, would you agree that historical changes in monotheistic thought have been brought about by economic, political, and cultural pressures over time as opposed to “truths” and that the paradoxes presented by said ecclesiastical adaptation have contributed to the hindrance of humans not evolving “enough to get past our former heritage?”

    2. You ascribe to monotheism all the evils of religious thought extant in history, which to me indicates pre-judgment.

    This is just not true. I have never ascribed to monotheism “all the evils of religious thought extant [through] history.” Not even close.

    Yours is the problem with many in the “social sciences” and that is that you try to make complicated that which is so simple. Great Ape society is run by the toughest/smartest male and flows down pyramidally via various henchmen and allies.

    It’s not “my problem” – I know that power is simple – and that most people adhere to this structural assumption. The question is why?

    Could it be that monotheism places a “toughest/smartest male” above us all and that most people accept the “pyramidal structure” represented “via various henchmen and allies” in the guise of priests, pastors, bishops, popes, and rabbis due to fear of ostracism? That most people are so busy getting by day to day (not just now, but historically also) oblivious, or grudgingly acceptant of the fact that their actions sustain a theocracy that oligarchs manipulate?

    Or do you mean the ecclesiastical structures inherent in monotheism used to sustain the “toughest/smartest male?” And in the resulting societal apologists that perpetuate them; that provide the ecclesiastical with a path of evolving thought, that usher the ecclesiastical through changes of economic, social, and cultural need? You have to do better than your Great Ape, toughest/smartest male analogy if you want to address the “problem with many in the ‘social sciences.’

    Where I think you misapprehend is in discounting these simple facts of basic structure and trying for a macrocosmic view that misses the point.

    These “simple facts of basic structure” are not so simple in my view. And your presumption of my misapprehension in “trying for a [macro] view” brings your own “pre-judgment” to light as a macro view is necessary given the world population, the antagonism of states, and the unfortunate nature of humans to coalesce into pockets of “us vs. them” for reasons that are typically based on assumed superiority of religious belief.

  10. GBK,
    The problem here is a failur to communicate. I’ve never defended the use of religion as a means of oppression or self aggrandisement. However, your limiting of the spectrum to monotheistic religions through the ages does expose a certain prejudice. Hinduism, Helenism, and indeed Buddhism (to name a few) have also had their roles in spreading death and destruction. Where I think you misapprehend the situation is that

    1. You think I’m defending monotheistic belief. Hardly the case.
    2. You ascribe to monotheism all the evils of religious thought extant in history, which to me indicates pre-judgment.

    “Do you really think that human society is as simple as “constructed pyramidally, like the Great Apes?”

    Yours is the problem with many in the “social sciences” and that is that you try to make complicated that which is so simple. Great Ape society is run by the toughest/smartest male and flows down pyramidally via various henchmen and allies. That the social structure bears many complexities does not erase this simple fact. Human society is constructed on the same basis, modified also by other complex interactions. While I recognise the complexity of the interactions, I can’t forget the simple fact that power rules all. We have passed through the need that one has to be the toughest/smartest to be on top, nevertheless
    whether we look to one man/woman, or more oligarchic behavior as is the case today, we are still looking at 1% controlling the lives of 99%. Religion is just one of the methods of control and is of itself not inherently the root of the problems.

    The problem is that we have not evolved enough to get past our former heritage and we’re just smarter and more skillful animals.
    Now in your extensive travels no doubt you might find the rare, small society that has actually evolved beyond this scheme, but that proves little except that we humans have the capability to
    evolve.

    Where I think you misapprehend is in discounting these simple facts of basic structure and trying for a macrocosmic view that misses the point. The fact that humans are aware of their own deaths (as you know there are othe species with that awareness but perhaps without the intelligence to ruminate over it) perforce pushes them to look for meaning in their lives. Religion is but one option in that search.

    “I haven’t seen any temples, churches, or mosques constructed by Great Apes or any primate.”

    This is another example of you being disingenuous and frankly downright snotty. If you with you vaunted experience can turn my words into that implication, then you are either dumb (which I highly doubt)or so caught up in your own egotism that rather than reading and comprehending, you go off half-cocked with incorrect pre-judgments. Just as you confused me with Tootie through cursory reading, you confuse my ideas with the same superficial understanding. Being smug I not only unattractive, but is also ultimately self-defeating.

  11. Mike,

    However, I added that just to let you know that you’re not dealing with someone talking off the top of his head.

    I never assumed that I was “dealing” with someone talking off the top of their head; not for a second. I apologized for “lumping” you in with Tootie, and my post containing this apology was sincere. I also regret my use of the phrase “calling you out” since it appears to have affronted you. That was not my intention.

    I’m little practiced with posting in commentary of blogs, and as such I falter in the use of lexicon that must be employed to maintain accurate communication in the absence of vocal tone, facial clues, body language, etc.; however, my phrase of “self-serving” still stands.

    No contradiction at all. Since you claim knowledge later on perhaps you’ve never heard of Reconstuctionist Judaism as formulated by Rabbi Kaplan. Though I’m not a follower Rabbi Kaplan was for years a faculty member of the Jewish Theological Seminary in NYC, probably the leading center for Conservative Judaism in the US.

    My response to this is in my original post, relevant words in bold:

    “It is time for the monotheistic adherents (Judaic, Christian, and Islamic) to quit terrorizing the world with the split hairs of their evolving beliefs for political gain.

    Read the words: evolving beliefs, split hairs, political gain. Rabbi Kaplan’s theology by definition is a perpetuation of an ancient theme that has evolved due to cultural, economic, and political forces. This can be said of all human thought; but few hark back to authority of deity as often as adherents of monotheism.

    All of us humans must perforce discover our own sense of the meaning of life and learn to cope with our inevitable deaths. They are almost infinite ways of doing this and as long as one group doesn’t try to impose its beliefs on others, let them do so.

    Exactly–there are infinite ways to make “meaning of life;” so why should the non-subscribers to any theism be held hostage to the current (as in the last two millennia) political and economic strife imposed by the dogmatic thought of monotheistic religions.

    You say “as long as one group doesn’t try to impose its beliefs on others, let them do so.” My argument is–Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have imposed their beliefs “on others,” for so long that any other thought processes are ignored, or viewed as aberrations. To refute this is to deny western history.

    To me this is a rather facile point of view and gives me pause to wonder if your thesis is over influenced by your pre-judgment.

    My thesis focuses on creation myths, the progress of religious complexity vs. needs of economic and political stability–and human health given the cultural need of rectifying the ensuing economic and political structures with the creation myths.

    Facile it might be to you, but I came to this outlook through fifty-five years of life, introspection, much more reading than Campbell, Frazer, et. al., living in many cultures and countries, and an innate sense of curiosity of why definitions of right/wrong vary so much. I’m sure I carried my “pre-judgments” with me, but I have tried every step of the way to not do so.

    If you are to be a cultural anthropologist than you should understand that human society is in the main constructed pyramidally, like that of the Great Apes. It is less about philosophy and religion and much more about struggles for power.

    This is laughable. Who are you to tell me what I “should understand” if I’m to be a cultural anthropologist? Do you really think that human society is as simple as “constructed pyramidally, like the Great Apes?” I haven’t seen any temples, churches, or mosques constructed by Great Apes or any primate. Religious beliefs play a huge part in cultural constructs, and most exist to grant authority to a select few protecting their position of economic advantage. You do not see the correlation between power and religion though you admit that human society is about “struggles for power.”

    I try to approach my understanding of culture through human actions (history), influences of deist thought upon history, the actions sanctioned by deist thought, and the evolving shift of said in justifying actions in history. It becomes recursive very quickly (over the course of millennia) and leaves an open mind very confused. The only consistent thread I’ve ascertained is the apologist writings of monotheistic adherents.

  12. Gyges & Buddha,
    Thanks guys, but you don’t know the half of it. From Oct. 2009 until my first operation in August (artificial heart device) my heart was failing rapidly. One of the effects of this, which I am now only coming to terms with is that as your heart fails the oxygen supply to your brain is diminished and can cause psychological effects. Many people on the site, including you both recognize that there was a change in my writing, an angrier tone mixed with a lessening of my capacity to write clearly. My wife saw it and would tell those close to us that I was not acting like the man she married. I was confused alot and also found myself in the psychological state known as reverie.

    The weird thing about diminished mental capacity and the onset of psychological difficulties is that one is not really aware of it as it is happening and me always priding myself on my self control and focus, didn’t understand that I was somewhat cuckoo, to put it gently. Also Physicians don’t tell you that with your heart failing your brain might be affected. I wasn’t dangerous to anyone but myself since I retained enough control not to lash out at those close to me. Here, however, I was ready to fight. I write this not as a confessional, but as an apology to those that I might have responded to with harshness that was not merited. It just goes to show that age, education and intelligence doesn’t preclude that life should be until the end accepted as a learning process.

Comments are closed.