djrafikie

Thats an extremely compelling argument J-S.

*claps*

aa5874

And according to the Bible, God knew that Herod wanted to kill His Son, so He told Joseph and Mary to go to Egypt, but left Herod to massacre all the babies 2 years and under.

Joan of Bark

Let's face it: we hold humanity up to higher standards than God. When human beings kill, or allow the death of, thousands of people, we condemn them. When God does far worse, he is worshipped and described as the most loving being in the universe. And we're supposed to ask this God for forgiveness from OUR sins? To hell with that, HE should be asking for OUR forgiveness.

God does not meet my standards for worship.

rhutchin

Then you do not have to worship Him.

It is possible that your evaluation of God's actions results from a blindness of sorts (maybe you are not seeing everything there is regarding those situations where you see God doing evil). Maybe you are only seeing part of the story. It is possible that God has allowed you to be blind.

rhutchin

Maybe the natural system determines the outcome. God does not have to choose. Mutation and genetics select those who will be blind, deaf, or dumb or anything else. We could call it an accident except that God knows these outcomes and allows them (except, perhaps, in those cases where people ask Him to intervene to change the natural outcome).

rhutchin

God has given people the freedom to serve Him if they want. Would you want God to force you to do what He wants you to do or do you like being free to do that which you want to do?

If you are unsure about what might happen in the future, do you want to be free to handle it yourself or to ask others (including God) for help?

How much freedom would you give up to have God help you without you asking Him for help? Should God intervene to control your thoughts so that you do not get the idea to do something that would be detrimental to you? Do you want God just to protect you from outside influences that would harm you (i.e., basically to make it so that no one could ever hurt you)?

rhutchin

Not really. Why cry over spilt milk. If a person is in a position where they could lose an arm or a leg, it would seem prudent to ask God for help before it happens. Shouldn't a person be free to ask God for help? If the person wants to take care of himself, shouldn't that person be free to do so even if it means that he loses an arm or leg or even his life?

The Evil One

I really don't see what any of this has to do with the post it was supposed to be a response to. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any point made here at all, just a string of questions about my personal attitude which I suppose are intended to construct some kind of Free Will Defence. Let me remind you, however, we are not talking about me: we are talking about God and babies born blind.

So let me repeat the question in hope of an actual answer: What exactly prevents God from intervening to help where it is needed, rather than only where he is requested to? And why does God not carry moral responsibility for failure to help in cases where he is easily able to?

Furthermore, how, in your model, does God avoid responsibility for failure to help in cases where he *is* asked to? (as I mentioned before, intercessory prayer doesn't work.)

Johnny Skeptic

But no matter what I say, your actual spilt milk will always be that once Adam and Eve ate forbidden fruit, it is acceptable for God to get even anyway that he wants to, no matter how awful his methods sometimes are. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God has transferred a sinful nature to every succeeding generation, thereby ensuring that everyone must sin at least some of the time. There is no place in the world where a person can live where God does not get even with people. I am referring to such things as hurricanes, tidal waves, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, innocent bystanders in wars, and being involved in a car accident when you are in the right. There are at least hundreds of other examples of this system that God set up that humans, and innocent animals, are not able to avoid no matter what they do. Regarding "Shouldn't a person be free to ask God for help? If the person wants to take care of himself, shouldn't that person be free to do so even if it means that he loses an arm or leg or even his life?", how does that apply to babies?

I am not aware of any benefits that such a system provides for God and for mankind, but I do know that one of the chief reasons why people refuse to become Christians, or give up Christianity, is because they know that God's frequently detestable behavior is unfair, and does not serve any legitimate purpose.

rhutchin

Get even???

Nothing changed as far as I know. God gave A/E the freedom to choose that which they would do. God gave people after A/E the freedom to choose that which they would do. How is it that God is getting even? Getting even for what?

I don't see why God has to transfer that nature to anyone. In genetics a corruption (mutation) is transferred naturally to children. I don't see why a similar corruption could not naturally transmit to A/E's children.

God is responsible for people getting hurt as an innocent bystander in a car accident! You seem to be in the camp that doesn't want to accept any responsibility.

That's fine. There are eternal consequences to those decisions. A person has to weigh one against the other, I guess. You could also be wrong in your evaluation of God.