OK, going to take a step back here. The question, "Is it an act of God?" was I think meant to be somewhat of a rhetorical one. In a more literal sense I think it means, "Was this Really a completely Natural occurence?" Rishodi? Because natural disasters, phenomena, occurences or whatever you want to call them have come to be known in general as "Acts of God."
And now many people are beginning to believe that these things may not be so natural after all. Because of man's influence the impact of "Natural" disasters is much more severe than it would or should be.
These questions are significant whether or not you believe in God, obviously. But if you do believe in God and furthermore, if you believe in what the Bible says, these questions take on a possibly greater significance. Because the writer is saying we should have done more to prevent the impact this disaster had on the poor and the environment itself. And for believers, and maybe everyone else too, our failure to minimize the impact of this disaster was a sin.
I don't know how much sense that makes but hey, I gave it a shot. If anything, maybe this speaks to an earlier thread about biblical principles. And how surprise, the Bible does actually contain some teachings besides marriage and abortion as many might prefer us to think. It talks much more about taking better care of the poor and a bit about being more environmentally responsible.
