What's wrong with this logic?

A man who blames God for not answering his prayers immediately, needs to thank God for not punishing him for his sins immediately. 

The logic presented in the statement:

"A man who blames God for not answering his prayers immediately, needs to thank God for not punishing him for his sins immediately."

contains several logical issues and fallacies:

1. **False Analogy**: The statement sets up an analogy between two scenarios that might not be comparable. Blaming God for not answering prayers and the concept of immediate punishment for sins are not necessarily parallel or directly comparable situations.

2. **Non Sequitur**: The conclusion that one must thank God for not punishing immediately does not logically follow from the premise of blaming God for not answering prayers immediately. The reasoning does not establish a clear causal link between the two actions.

3. **Appeal to Fear**: The suggestion that a man should thank God for not punishing him implies a threat of punishment, which is an appeal to fear. This does not constitute a rational argument.

4. **Red Herring**: The statement distracts from the original issue (the timing of answered prayers) by introducing a different issue (punishment for sins). This sidetracks the argument instead of addressing the original concern.

5. **Assumption Fallacy**: It assumes that the man has sins that deserve immediate punishment without providing evidence. This is based on an assumption rather than logical proof.

6. **Moralistic Fallacy**: The statement assumes a moral position that the man should be grateful for something negative not happening, which presumes a moral obligation that may not be universally accepted.

Overall, the statement combines several logical fallacies and poor reasoning methods, diverting from a rational discussion of why prayers may not be answered immediately and instead suggesting an unfounded moralistic perspective.