1. Joined
    06 Jan '06
    Moves
    32476
    30 Jun '08 07:20
    Please bring to mind your image of God.

    Then, please tell me why he allows very small children to suffer and die ??

    (No one has EVER given me a plausible answer to this question)
  2. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148454
    30 Jun '08 08:00
    Originally posted by mazda9934
    Please bring to mind your image of God.

    Then, please tell me why he allows very small children to suffer and die ??

    (No one has EVER given me a plausible answer to this question)
    I do not know.
    Kelly
  3. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '08 08:37
    When I ask theists why does god lets innocent people suffer, I have heard some theists claim that “god is testing us” by that I assume they mean that god is testing our faith in his existence. But very young children and babies don’t know what “faith” is let alone have any faith to be tested so letting them suffer would not appear to make much sense -unless those same theist would claim that god makes them suffer to test the faith of the adults that love them in which case I would ask

    1, isn’t it very cruel for a god to allow harm to children for his own cause? -that would be reminiscent of terrorists harming child hostages for the benefit of their own cause.

    2, what about the very young children that are allowed to suffer that are not loved by any particular adults or are abandoned so no adults are aware of their suffering? -I mean, who’s faith would be tested there?
  4. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    30 Jun '08 09:41
    Then, please tell me why he allows very small children to suffer and die ??

    (No one has EVER given me a plausible answer to this question)[/b]
    we are all his children and we die.... i do not like children dieing as well as you but death is here and the rule is we all must die just the time in your life is the question.
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    30 Jun '08 10:213 edits
    Originally posted by mazda9934
    Please bring to mind your image of God.

    Then, please tell me why he allows very small children to suffer and die ??

    (No one has EVER given me a plausible answer to this question)
    Small children have suffered and died. That is a fact.

    Some have suffered and died because of the doings of older people. That is also a fact.


    IF God could not be the God of small children who suffer and die then He would be limited only to those who live a long life and don't suffer.

    Then some people would be left out of the experience and blessing of God in that particular difficult situation. But God should be all-inclusive, all-incompassing, and able to extend His wisdom and love to all kinds of very difficult situations.

    And when God has a much longer time to work with people than we may initially assume we can accept that thought little children suffer and die the do not fall off the map of God's great care.

    The story of those children is not over yet to an eternal God.
  6. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    30 Jun '08 10:22
    Originally posted by mazda9934
    Please bring to mind your image of God.

    Then, please tell me why he allows very small children to suffer and die ??

    (No one has EVER given me a plausible answer to this question)
    why do you allow small children to suffer and die?
  7. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    30 Jun '08 12:09
    Originally posted by mazda9934
    Please bring to mind your image of God.

    Then, please tell me why he allows very small children to suffer and die ??

    (No one has EVER given me a plausible answer to this question)
    Have you ever considered the possibility that the question is misleading?

    Could it be possible that it is man that is allowing innocent children to die?

    If one is an atheist, then blaming God for the death of innocent children is a mute point.

    If one is a theist, then the blame for the death of innocent children falls squarely on man.

    Feeding and caring and protecting innocent children is man's responsibility considering that is we who have the power and resources to do something about it. We are the ones that are allowing the unnecessary death by starvation and disease that it killing so many. Not to mention greed and war.

    We're willing to spend untold trillions on things such as going into space and fighting wars, when those resources would be better spent on caring for the children.

    Our priorities are screwed up if you ask me.
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    30 Jun '08 12:34
    Originally posted by josephw
    Have you ever considered the possibility that the question is misleading?

    Could it be possible that it is man that is allowing innocent children to die?

    If one is an atheist, then blaming God for the death of innocent children is a mute point.

    If one is a theist, then the blame for the death of innocent children falls squarely on man.

    Feeding a ...[text shortened]... d be better spent on caring for the children.

    Our priorities are screwed up if you ask me.
    he is arguing that a benevolent god with the power to stop evil would do so. if god has the power to stop children from dieing and he doesn't do so then he doesn't exist or he is not benevolent.

    that's bullshlt. not only you are asking God to do something you are not willing to do but you are also asking him to do your job(our job). why not ask god to make us fly or be immune to diseases instead of inventing planes or medicine. you are lazy and insolent. "God, stop the bad people hurting the little children because it is too hard for me to do it".

    not to mention those children will go to heaven so yeah, it is very evil of god to let them die.

    god created us and the universe, gave us the strength and intelligence to alter the world. what happens on earth is entirely man's fault
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Jun '08 12:401 edit
    Originally posted by mazda9934
    Please bring to mind your image of God.

    Then, please tell me why he allows very small children to suffer and die ??

    (No one has EVER given me a plausible answer to this question)
    If you understood even the basics of typical theism, then you would be asking: "Why does God make us adults live and suffer?"

    If people who die in childhood get a short-cut to heaven then they are getting let off lightly. It of course raises the question as to why we cant be let off so easily.
  10. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    30 Jun '08 12:441 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    he is arguing that a benevolent god with the power to stop evil would do so. if god has the power to stop children from dieing and he doesn't do so then he doesn't exist or he is not benevolent.

    that's bullshlt. not only you are asking God to do something you are not willing to do but you are also asking him to do your job(our job). why not ask god to ma trength and intelligence to alter the world. what happens on earth is entirely man's fault
    not only you are asking God to do something you are not willing to do

    I don't completely disagree with you on your post on a whole, but on this you are wrong.

    How do you know he's not willing to prevent all children from dying? I'm willing to do that, but it's not within my power to do so, it is within God's power (assuming it exists and is all powerful et al).


    not to mention those children will go to heaven so yeah, it is very evil of god to let them die.


    Ummm.. yes it is. Despite their going to heaven, it's evil to deprive children of their right to live out their lives. If it's a good thing to die as a child and go to heaven then we should all consider ourselves lucky if we die ASAP so we can go to heaven. That's ridiculous.

    what happens on earth is entirely man's fault

    Not everything. 5 year olds getting lieukemia isn't man's fault. There are a host of things that are not man's fault. Our inability to cure diseases doesn't make those diseases our fault.

    I don't think it's god's fault either since he doesn't exist, but it's idiotic to blame people for the existence of these diseases just like it would be idiotic for blaming forest fires on the firemen who try to fight them.
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    30 Jun '08 13:18
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    not only you are asking God to do something you are not willing to do

    I don't completely disagree with you on your post on a whole, but on this you are wrong.

    How do you know he's not willing to prevent all children from dying? I'm willing to do that, but it's not within my power to do so, it is within God's power (assuming it exists and i ...[text shortened]... ould be idiotic for blaming forest fires on the firemen who try to fight them.
    depriving children of their life is not god's doing. so he is not responsible for them. just as a parent isn't responsible for his 20 year old son.

    if god's starts making decisions and actions for us, what does that leave us to do? sleep, eat and sleep again?


    "5 year olds getting leukemia isn't man's fault. There are a host of things that are not man's fault. Our inability to cure diseases doesn't make those diseases our fault. "
    i view it from a different perspective. deaths because of leukemia are our fault because we haven't figured out a cure yet. however let's be kinder about assigning blame and let's just say that everything that happens on earth can be influenced by man. we don't require god's help. so why should he give aid and encourage laziness in man? and encourage dependency and the need for a all powerful father figure to help us whenever we find things a little harder.
    a forest fire is the firemen fault. why did it happen? why didn't we prevent it? how can we quicker put it out in the future?

    the "sh|t happens" attitude doesn't encourage progress. Better say, yes, we assume blame and we will strive to never let it happen again.
  12. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '08 14:06
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    why do you allow small children to suffer and die?
    He also lets vast numbers of small children suffer and die across the whole entire world and does so because, like the rest of us, he is not “all powerful” and therefore doesn’t have the means to prevent such pointless suffering. “god” (if he exists) is supposed to be “all powerful” and so presumably has no such excuse.
  13. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    30 Jun '08 14:251 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Small children have suffered and died. That is a fact.

    Some have suffered and died because of the doings of older people. That is also a fact.


    IF God could not be the God of small children who suffer and die then He would be limited only to those who live a long life and don't suffer.

    Then some people would be left out of the experience and b ...[text shortened]... he map of God's great care.

    The story of those children is not over yet to an eternal God.
    “…And when God has a much longer time to work with people than we may initially assume we can accept that thought little children suffer and die …”

    Firstly, It is generally considered to be unacceptable for a human to allow little children suffer and die
    when he/she just needs to lift a finger to stop it. So why shouldn’t we considered it to be unacceptable for a “god” to allow little children suffer and die when he/she just needs to lift a finger to stop it?

    Secondly, if for one day I let a child suffer terribly when I only needed to lift a finger to prevent all that suffering, would you consider that to be acceptable if I then took good care of the child for the rest of the child’s life? I don’t see how you can believe that that will excuse the unnecessary suffering I allowed to be inflicted on that child even if it was for "one day".
  14. Joined
    01 Feb '06
    Moves
    994
    30 Jun '08 14:33
    Originally posted by josephw

    If one is a theist, then the blame for the death of innocent children falls squarely on man.

    How does that work for a baby that dies due to no fault of man such as cot death syndrome?
  15. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    30 Jun '08 14:48
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    depriving children of their life is not god's doing. so he is not responsible for them. just as a parent isn't responsible for his 20 year old son.

    if god's starts making decisions and actions for us, what does that leave us to do? sleep, eat and sleep again?


    "5 year olds getting leukemia isn't man's fault. There are a host of things that are not m ...[text shortened]... ter say, yes, we assume blame and we will strive to never let it happen again.
    depriving children of their life is not god's doing. so he is not responsible for them. just as a parent isn't responsible for his 20 year old son.

    I agree, it's also not necessarily man's fault. Childhood cancer isn't god's fault because god doesn't exist. It's also not man's fault.

    If god exists, has the power to do something and doesn't, then yes, I question his ethics. Just like I would question the ethics of a parent who sat back and did nothing when their 20 year old son died of a terrible disease if they had the power to alleviate their pain somehow.

    This supposed god has different standards because of its abilities. If I could cure cancer, I would because it's the right thing to do. I don't think that I should make everyone else find their own cure to not give them an excuse to be lazy. God apparently could cure cancer, but refuses to.

    if god's starts making decisions and actions for us, what does that leave us to do? sleep, eat and sleep again?

    Not allowing a cure for a disease isn't the same as making our decisions for us.

    I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Please argue against an argument that I actually made.

    deaths because of leukemia are our fault because we haven't figured out a cure yet.

    No they are not. What is at fault is the thing that causes it, it's not the fault of someone who can't cure it.

    Leukemia is noone's fault other than god's for allowing it to exist (if god existed). Unless you can find evidence that man created leukemia.

    a forest fire is the firemen fault.

    That's just idiotic. I'm sorry, but it is idiotic to blame anyone for something that they are not the cause. Firemen are not the cause of forest fires and it is idiotic to suggest that they are.

    why didn't we prevent it? how can we quicker put it out in the future?

    Good questions and these are not reasons why the fireman is at fault. They are things that we do need to work on.

    the "sh|t happens" attitude doesn't encourage progress. Better say, yes, we assume blame and we will strive to never let it happen again.

    I'm not claiming the "sh. happens" attitude. I'm saying we attribute blame where it does lay (i.e. on the cancer cells, not the doctor, on the fire, not the fireman) and yes we strive to never let it happen again.

    I agree with the working on never letting it happen again and I have NEVER said anything against that. The problem is that you don't blame a fireman for a forest fire (unless he actually lit it) and you don't blame doctors for cancer when they are the ones fighting to cure it!
Back to Top