In your world, the child is dying, full stop. Phrases like "the most horrendous and painful cancer imaginable" are called qualifiers, which have no place in a world ruled by nature and "the fittest". People die softly in their sleep, or cruelly over prolonged periods. That's the reality you have accepted. Life does not care whether you have inoperable cancer or are the healthiest person on earth. But now you're trying to load it emotionally to make your point. That's already inconsistent.
What are you chatting about? C20 claimed that if you want to see god you should go outside and look at nature: fish swimming, butterflies coming out of cocoons etc. I merely pointed out that this should then be all encompassing, and asked why he left out the side of life that isn't quite as tender and beautiful. Your post is worthless to that, changes nothing and answers nothing. Instead you try and turn this round upon me as if it were I who made the claim.
You then do a flip turn right at the end with:
If you want to credit Him with your suffering, you must also credit him for your life, happiness, and everything else you have received.
When that's all I'm saying. If
you want to credit him with with all the happiness and everything else, you also need to credit him for the suffering - being that he is the creator of everything.
When you get a free moment, make note that I never said life cared one way or the other, nor did I ever mention "my world". I was asking a religious man why he neglected to mention the other side of the coin.
C20 said to go and look outside if you want to see god. Brain tumours, malaria and so forth are an aspect of that, and as such I asked why he left those out of his statement.
In other threads I have seen c20 mention several times that god makes us suffer for a reason, and that "every good father rebukes his child" and other statements of that nature. Given that according to C20 this is the case, I wonder why he failed to mention it here, instead trying to pass it off as all positive, when it is not like that.
I apologise if it was in any way my fault that you didn't understand my post, but I have a feeling it was more to do with emotion, and a sudden need to respond to something that you didn't sit down and digest in full first.
Maybe you want us to be emotionally biased against God, like you are
I am about as emotionally biased against god as I am emotionally biased against the loch ness monster. They're both fictions, and as such your claim is moot. Instead, if you take the time to digest the post, you'll see I asked a question to a religious man about why he neglected to mention the bad side of life after having said "all you need to do is look outside". That bad side is as visible, if not more so, than the good side - and yet it was swept under the carpet. I asked why.
You still confuse life (not to mention: your perception of it) with God.
Where do you get off on saying "confuse", when it's quite clear you didn't even take the time to digest my post, and as such have completely lost the point of it. Who's confused?
Further to which, having been told that all one needs to do is look at life, there is no confusion that can arise. Life includes everything from fish swimming, to bowel cancer. Why neglect one side after having said all one needs to do is look at life? Who's confusing life with god in a biased manner?
That was the problem with our very first discussion as well, if I recall. You feel wronged because you have not experienced God's love, and that's your "case" against Him.
You're quite clearly.. 'lost'.
A) a person cannot be wronged by a non existant being.
B) What I asked was that from a religious persons point of view, is how they reconcile the fact that some people go through severe tragedy, and call out for god to which they never get a response.
You seem to be confusing the issue and looking at everyone as a believer, without actually realising that sometimes people argue from the opposite perspective, in order to get a better understanding of the opposite perspective.
But even if you reject God for all He is and promises, it still doesn't make sense to blame the world's suffering on God to justify yourself.
In the bible we see god saying he creates evil, he makes people blind, etc etc etc. How would it not make sense, considering:
A) It came out of the horses mouth
B) He created everything, yes.. even pubic lice. As such a large part of that suffering could only have come from god.
C) With what do you think you can only look at one side, (the peachy clean stuff), while happily ignoring all the suffering - especially having read the bible which is full to the brim of god displaying his anger, wrath and jealousy. It is there for all to see, some just choose to ignore it completely, and then dare try and blame that on everyone else.
I asked a question which I would like C20 to answer. You quite clearly didn't even understand the post, and perhaps didn't even read it, and as such I would ask whether you could just leave it to him, or whether you could go back, read it again, and then try again.
The thing is, you're doing exactly that which you accuse me of. You have a coin, and refuse to look at one side of it even though that side of the coin is still there.
(quick turn around and say sorry. Believe in what Jesus will say on your behalf.)