Does might make right?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Your objection here seems to be that the child is to young to die.

My objection is that this sort of unnecessary suffering is not compatible with your claim that God is all loving. If one knows he can easily prevent or alleviate the needless suffering of another and yet fails to do so; then that demonstrates a lack of compassion on his part.

So if suffering is merely a result of deviating from God's perfect will, which is what I claim, then God should then have forced his will down our throats?

Originally posted by whodey
So if suffering is merely a result of deviating from God's perfect will, which is what I claim, then God should then have forced his will down our throats?

Huh? There are all sorts of logically possible ways that God could alleviate or prevent the suffering of this baby without "forcing his will down [anyone's] throat".

And your claim that all suffering results from deviating from God's will is nonsense, anyway.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Huh? There are all sorts of logically possible ways that God could alleviate or prevent the suffering of this baby without "forcing his will down [anyone's] throat".

So how would you go about it then?

Originally posted by whodey
So how would you go about it then?

Who cares about that? Do you agree that if I knew I could effortlessly prevent the suffering of another; suffering that is completely unnecessary for any project ends or greater good; that I would be incompassionate to not do so?

EDIT: God could circumvent this suffering in any number of ways. How about just making it such that the intestinal obstruction was never there to begin with?

Originally posted by LemonJello

EDIT: God could circumvent this suffering in any number of ways. How about just making it such that the intestinal obstruction was never there to begin with?[/b]

So God could prevent suffering, which is caused by sin and/or going against God's will, by simply preventing people from going against his will? It sounds as though you prefer a despot to rule over you.

Originally posted by whodey
So God could prevent suffering, which is caused by sin and/or going against God's will, by simply preventing people from going against his will? It sounds as though you prefer a despot to rule over you.

So by making it such that the intestinal obstruction was never there, God would be "preventing people from going against his will"? What are you talking about?

Originally posted by LemonJello
So by making it such that the intestinal obstruction was never there, God would be "preventing people from going against his will"? What are you talking about?

I think he's saying the obstruction was the person's own fault for not being Christian enough?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think he's saying the obstruction was the person's own fault for not being Christian enough?

Yeah, some neonates are so stubborn in their worldviews.

Originally posted by whodey
It sounds as though you prefer a despot to rule over you.

Yeah. A real despot. A guy with the audacity to remove unnecessary suffering. What a dick!

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
Oh, come now. You called God a monster the last I checked. Assuming he exists that is. So now you are backing down and saying that your are not qualified to answer my questions? I assume that if one were to stand in judgement over God one would at least have the qualifications for doing so.

I am not backing down as you falsely claim. I do not have to know what I would do if I was God in order to know whether his actions are right or wrong in my view. I do have the qualifications to stand in judgment over God when my judgment is one of comparing his actions to my moral code. But then you are just trying to worm your way out of it anyway by the erroneous claim that nobody is capable of criticizing God unless they are God.

So if God is loving then it would stand to reason that what he wills for us is what is best for us. Yet we then want to go our own way and ignore his will for our lives but then wonder why we suffer when we do go our own way. Do you see the irony at all?

Scenario:
A child is sick with malaria, in great suffering and near death.
If I treat the child then I am clearly relieving the suffering and avoiding the death of the child.

Am I therefore going against Gods will? Am I violating somebody's free will? Will the punishment for the sin in question be transfered somewhere else? If it is OK for me to treat the child then why is it wrong for God to do so? Would I not be a monster in everybody's eyes if I just sit back and watch the child die?

Originally posted by LemonJello
So by making it such that the intestinal obstruction was never there, God would be "preventing people from going against his will"? What are you talking about?

What am I talking about? I am attempting to convey that the will of God is paramount in avoiding suffering. If God is a God of love, what he wills for us is what is best for us and what we need. Therefore departing from such a perfect will should generate less than desirable consequences than what God's perfect will is for us. For example, the tree of knowledge in Genesis is a representation of man considering his own will above that of God's will. It is a step in the direction of independence apart from God. No longer must we conform to what God tells us to do or what God wishes. We will be our own moral agent and be accountable only to ourselves. We are free to do so, however, there is a price tag for this independence that we do not seem to wish to pay.

If we were unable to depart from the perfect will of God then could we consider ourselves to be free moral agents? If we were unable to depart from what God wills would we then not be simply an extension of God himself? Would creation not be akin to growing another hand, so to speak? To put it another way, in your relationships would you prefer ultimate control over those you love? What if you were able to remove all chances that the relationship could go awry? What if they were unable to reject you so long as you treated them fairly? If this is your position then why not just clone yourself and have at it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]I am not backing down as you falsely claim. I do not have to know what I would do if I was God in order to know whether his actions are right or wrong in my view. I do have the qualifications to stand in judgment over God when my judgment is one of comparing his actions to my moral code. But then you are just trying to worm your way out of it anyway by the erroneous claim that nobody is capable of criticizing God unless they are God.

What I am attempting to do is ascertain how God has gone awry by offering a better alternative. Is this not a fair enough question? For example, if you were God and the people of Noah's day were becoming increasingly wicked to the point of be continually wicked and something needed to be done to correct such wickedness, what would you do about it? Would you:
1. Avoid giving them the free will in the first place that inabled them to choose to become wicked beyond control?
2. Force them to stop being wicked by forcing them to align their free will with yours?
3. Ignore them and allow them to destroy themselves?
4. Kill them all with a flood?

What would you do or can you think of more alternatives?

Originally posted by whodey
What I am attempting to do is ascertain how God has gone awry by offering a better alternative. Is this not a fair enough question? For example, if you were God and the people of Noah's day were becoming increasingly wicked to the point of be continually wicked and something needed to be done to correct such wickedness, what would you do about it? Would yo ...[text shortened]... es?
4. Kill them all with a flood?

What would you do or can you think of more alternatives?

How exactly were they wicked? What specific offenses did they commit?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Scenario:
A child is sick with malaria, in great suffering and near death.
If I treat the child then I am clearly relieving the suffering and avoiding the death of the child.

Am I therefore going against Gods will? Am I violating somebody's free will? Will the punishment for the sin in question be transfered somewhere else? If it is OK for me to treat ...[text shortened]... o so? Would I not be a monster in everybody's eyes if I just sit back and watch the child die?[/b]

I will answer this by asking you a question. Should God be invited to intervene in this scenerio or should God simply run to the aid of the child without being summonsed? After all, did not God withdraw himself from man when man withdrew himself from God? Should God then force himself upon us only when a "good" outcome would result?

For me, this is why faith is important. Faith is merely an invitation for God to work. Faith is merely taking God at his word and saying, "Yes I agree, and I believe, and I invite you to work in this situation."

Originally posted by SwissGambit
How exactly were they wicked? What specific offenses did they commit?

Murderous, aldulterous, lying etc. Unfortunatly, not much is devulged in regards to the wickedness of the men and women of Noah's day, other than to convey the fact that their minds were fixed upon wickedness continually. Also, they mocked Noah to scorn for building the ark. Other than that, much is left to the imagination. Yet we stand in judgement over God who knew EXACTLY how wicked they had become.

The men of Sodom, however, are better understood. It was soon after the stangers that entered the city to visit Lot were followed to Lots house by the men of Sodom in order to gang rape them that the judgement against Sodom was renedered by God.