Originally posted by @sonship How do you know that that is the only thing a child might be suffering from?
The pharmaceutical industry loves people like you.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke Why would a perfectly loving God, who is also all powerful, allow such a child to suffer?!
If you can't see the incompatibility then quite frankly you're an idiot. (And to create a new thread to highlight this only compounds the idiocy).
There are only 3 possible explanations:
1. God does not exist.
2. God may be perfectly loving but lack ...[text shortened]... s all powerful) but doesn't care enough to intervene. (is not all loving)
I go with number 1.
What if:
God exists.....but....we have no way of really knowing who He is or WHY He does and doesn't do things.....which would make sense to us.
Originally posted by @dj2becker According to Ghost an innocent child dying of cancer is incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God, leading to the inescapable conclusion that such a deity does not exist.
So my first question to Ghost is why is a child dying of cancer incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God? Because he says so?
Perhaps because if one entertains the thought that this Christian is real, then the nature of the universe surely must be evil.
Originally posted by @dj2becker According to Ghost an innocent child dying of cancer is incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God, leading to the inescapable conclusion that such a deity does not exist.
So my first question to Ghost is why is a child dying of cancer incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God? Because he says so?
Why does God allow the malignancy of Progressivism to exist?
Originally posted by @sonship Those are not the only possibilities.
4.) There may be a need deeper than just the physical one to which God is giving attention.
This is an admittance of GOAD's option number 2. God is not all powerful; in the example of Fanny, God was not able to have those hymns created AND not let a person go blind.
Originally posted by @great-king-rat This is an admittance of GOAD's option number 2. God is not all powerful; in the example of Fanny, God was not able to have those hymns created AND not let a person go blind.
Literally, not - all - powerful.
It's OK, I'm sure you have more power than he. 😵
Originally posted by @dj2becker How can a loving God allow cancer to exist
This should be an easy question to answer by christians. But it isn't.
There are many answers, and many of them are mutually exclusive.
Not even the christians agree among themselves.
Originally posted by @vivify If I had the power stop a child from getting cancer but didn't, what would you think of me? That I'm a good loving person?
Christians give a pass to their god for things they'd normally find evil. A fancy titles such as "Alpha and Omega", and grandiose mythology of "holiness", infallibility, etc., somehow turn his flaws into mystical, magical qualitie ...[text shortened]... asically a god—and that they deserve to die for opposing him—excuses his murderous dictatorship.
The mistake you make is comparing God to yourself, sure you would do things differently to God but you are not God and you do not see things the way He sees them. God is the creator and sustainer of life and you are not. Do you know everything that God does? Sickness and disease are a result of sin. Sin is a result of free will. Would you rather be a robot and have no free will? God has a cure for sin and for the Christian there is hope after death. If a Christian has to account for cancer, so do you. How do you account for it? What hope do you have for a child that dies of cancer. From your perspective there is no hope it's all doom and gloom.
Originally posted by @vivify Learn what a strawman argument is before using it to evade a post.
You are erroneously arguing that because a human that is loving would not let a child die of cancer God is not loving if He lets a child die of cancer. God is not a human and cannot be compared to one.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke Why would a perfectly loving God, who is also all powerful, allow such a child to suffer?!
If you can't see the incompatibility then quite frankly you're an idiot. (And to create a new thread to highlight this only compounds the idiocy).
There are only 3 possible explanations:
1. God does not exist.
2. God may be perfectly loving but lack ...[text shortened]... s all powerful) but doesn't care enough to intervene. (is not all loving)
I go with number 1.
False dilemma.
4. No one can fully understand God's ultimate plan, no one can assume that a child dying of cancer does not have some sort of greater purpose.
5. Cancer is the result of sin which is a result of free will.
4. No one can fully understand God's ultimate plan, no one can assume that a child dying of cancer does not have some sort of greater purpose.
5. Cancer is the result of sin which is a result of free will.
Originally posted by @dj2becker 5. Cancer is the result of sin which is a result of free will.
Of course # 5 is the correct answer.
The child in his own will chose to have cancer and die. Why? Because he has done some sin that is mortal. Yes, indeed, the child is in its own free will dying in cancer.
And therefore children without sin, and without free will, will live and prosper and getting strong and make it into adulthood. Every adult is without sin and without free will, and the proof of this is of course that there are adults.
How can a loving God allow cancer to exist
29 Sep '17 14:44
Back to Top