18 Oct '09 20:41>
Originally posted by SwissGambitI suppose you have not read about the end of the millenial reign then, eh?
[b]People will still have free will in the new world, yes? And yet they will not commit evil deeds.
Originally posted by mazda9934The Bible paints an image of an awesome and somewhat mysterious God that seems somewhat aloof at times but at the same time one that loves us enough to send us his Son to die for us in order for us to have relations with him once again.
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)
Originally posted by zafartimeI did read your post fully, and I think you're confused. The opening poster is asking why does God allow very small children to suffer and die. That's not the same as asking why does God give us free will. I realize you think that in answering the latter you are somehow answering the former, but I think you are wrong on that account. If a neonate suffers and dies with some medical condition, I see no reason to think its explanation has anything genuine to do with the subject of human free will. Somehow you think you can just drop the phrase 'free will' and I'm just supposed to think that you are addressing explanation of natural illness, but that really doesn't make any sense to me.
if you read my post above fully you should see how I arrived at that question.
Originally posted by whodeyAgain, what does extolling the virtues of free will really have to do with the question at hand?
The Bible paints an image of an awesome and somewhat mysterious God that seems somewhat aloof at times but at the same time one that loves us enough to send us his Son to die for us in order for us to have relations with him once again.
As for why children have to die, we all have to die at some point no matter our age. This fate was sealed when man fel e greatest point of interest. Any other endevour is like playing tic tac toe with yourself.
Originally posted by whodeyI had at one time, but I forgot. But really, the name of the place does not matter. Many christians believe in some final destination for the saved - a heaven or new world - without sin. Whatever you choose to call it, the question remains - why didn't God just create that place at the start?
I suppose you have not read about the end of the millenial reign then, eh?
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis is why I like SwissGambit's posts.
I had at one time, but I forgot. But really, the name of the place does not matter. Many christians believe in some final destination for the saved - a heaven or new world - without sin. Whatever you choose to call it, the question remains - why didn't God just create that place at the start?
Originally posted by Lord SharkAlthough he has admitted that he doesn't know, that admission does not equate to the answer being inscrubtable. God's ways are above our ways, to be certain. However, this simple query has been responded to time and again.
And that, as far as I'm concerned, is a response that has integrity.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy don't you go ahead and flesh it out for those who do really want the truth.
Although he has admitted that he doesn't know, that admission does not equate to the answer being inscrubtable. God's ways are above our ways, to be certain. However, this simple query has been responded to time and again.
It is not that the answer is unavailable--- it's more a case that those who ask the question don't really want the truth.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI disagree that the response given, time and agan, has been adequate. For example the free will argument given above on this thread is full of holes, but when they were pointed out, no adequate defense was offered.
Although he has admitted that he doesn't know, that admission does not equate to the answer being inscrubtable. God's ways are above our ways, to be certain. However, this simple query has been responded to time and again.
It is not that the answer is unavailable--- it's more a case that those who ask the question don't really want the truth.
Originally posted by BadwaterIn one episode, they discovered that the transporter could make people young again. And yet there was no excitement over this new path to immortality.
It's like the transporter on Star Trek - if you have a device that is transmitting individual molecules like the transporter is, why aren't you using that in sick bay? Do you realize what can be corrected in human illnesses with a functioning transporter??
Originally posted by Badwater======================================
This is why I like SwissGambit's posts.
This is a basic theological question. It's not intended to be a slam or a refutation or be anti-Christian or whatever - it's just simply a theological question that deserves an answer.
It's like the transporter on Star Trek - if you have a device that is transmitting individual molecules like the transporter is, y? Do you realize what can be corrected in human illnesses with a functioning transporter??
Originally posted by LemonJelloTime, time and time again this answer has been put forward. It's kind of like the kids yelling from the back seat: "Are we there yet?" Only in this case, we've been there since before they started asking.
Why don't you go ahead and flesh it out for those who do really want the truth.