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!