(October 22, 2013 at 8:59 am)John V Wrote: ...
Sorry, I took OP at his word that he was really asking a question and wanted discussion. If not (and he kudoed your post so I take it he agrees), I'll go.

Nah! People kudo for many reasons.
He probably just appreciates feeble attempts at puerile humour.

Carry on.

(October 22, 2013 at 9:17 am)Rationalman Wrote: Quoting bible verses does not lead to a discussion or answer my question. Unless of course I was talking about bible verses, which I was not.

I have to disagree. You're talking about god, and in the Christianity section. I think the Bible is fair (and generally necessary) to use.

---

(October 22, 2013 at 9:32 am)StuW Wrote: Because it is generally used when trying to demonstrate the idea of sin and hell aren't realistic, whereas these children are real and are demonstrably suffering.

No, it's used to charge that the idea of hell is immoral, the reasoning being that finite sins are incomparable to everlasting suffering. You need to disagree with this, or explain why the converse (temporal suffering is incomparable to everlasting happiness) is not true.

Quote:I don't like repeating myself so..
Dick.. Highest order of

What would you do? Note that I'm not saying prayer instead of normal health care.

(October 22, 2013 at 9:32 am)John V Wrote: 1. You've just demonstrated how unimportant and insignificant life itself is to the atheist crowd.

2. This scenario is a tiny, tiny fraction of abortion. I would accept it as a practical compromise if it meant the end of abortion as routine birth control.

Which is it, John? Since you would compromise on this, it must mean you don't care about these lives either. You can't have it both ways. Either it's murder or it's not murder.

Quote:So, you think killing a child preemptively is good, but letting the child live and having hope is evil.

What I think is that this decision is up to the family who faces such a terrible scenario. It's not up to you or me to make such a decision for them.

And given that, I don't think making the decision to have such a child is evil, although I made a bet with myself after my last post that you would try to twist my words this way (and I win!). It's not up to me to judge what other intelligent people do with their own bodies.

Many such children never get old enough to know what hope is. They're babies in terrible pain until they die. That's all they'll ever know of life- pain. You clearly think it's OK for abortion to happen under such a circumstance. Me, too. But it isn't up to either one of us.

(October 21, 2013 at 9:42 pm)catfish Wrote: The anwser is that you appear to want a skydaddy babysitter...
Life is not fair, just deal with it.

That's a terrible defense for an omnipotent god.

No one is saying that god should babysit, but why would a god who is responsible for the existence of everything allow little children that have done nothing to deserve it to suffer? If god allows it, it either must be necessary, or god is cruel. What necessity does such suffering provide?

(October 22, 2013 at 10:16 am)Faith No More Wrote: What necessity does such suffering provide?

I know the answer to this one. OK, um, "We can't know the mind of God so he must have grand purpose for it."

(October 21, 2013 at 5:46 pm)Rationalman Wrote: Surely a god that loves everyone (which has been claimed by certain christians on this forum) would not let this happen

Unless they somehow deserve it? What could those children have done to deserve such suffering I wonder.....
But this is a genetic disease, they can't have done anything to deserve this.... right?

Answers please, i'm fed up with people dancing and dodging around this question

I guess we forgot that 2/3 of the angels fell, and that these demons (the word demon meaning "tormentor") are on the earth running amok because the original sin.

(October 21, 2013 at 5:59 pm)Rationalman Wrote: Fancy that, you can cure something you can't see (like cancer) with prayer, but you can't heal amputees. I wonder why....

(October 22, 2013 at 10:37 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I guess we forgot that 2/3 of the angels fell, and that these demons (the word demon meaning "tormentor") are on the earth running amok because the original sin.

Provide evidence for angels. Provide evidence that 2/3 of them fell. provide evidence that they are tormentors. Provide evidence that they are on Earth. Provide evidence that original sin actually occurred. Provide evidence that that's why demons run amok.

Hint: The words of an ancient book of mythology aren't evidence.

Oh- and your video is bullshit. If you want to be that gullible, by all means go for it.

(October 22, 2013 at 8:59 am)John V Wrote: Why? What's wrong with the logic? You omitted the next line, regarding atheists' claims that temporal sins are insignificant compared to eternal suffering. Are you saying that position is meritless? If no, how is this not special pleading and an appeal to emotion?

I'd say it was omitted because, as usual, your comparison is entirely invalid: in the latter case, the eternal suffering after the temporary sin is set up as some kind of justice, and inherently, a finite crime cannot entail infinite punishment by the very definition of what justice is intended to achieve. The reason we argue that is because your desperate need to turn an inherently unjust act into a just one is dishonest, and we feel it needs correcting.

In the former case... there's simply no reason to inflict this kind of pain from birth. There's no purpose it could serve, no good it can accomplish, and so by the bounds of your theology there's no reason why your god should design such a thing into the world to begin with... and yet, there it is.

At least in the latter case you present some pretense as to why infinite suffering awaits; in the former, all you can do is shrug and seek to minimize the pain of individuals who are completely innocent and cannot possibly deserve the pain they're getting now. It's just callousness; these aren't human beings to you, because they don't serve to benefit your arguments, and so their suffering? Meaningless.

Which I find particularly interesting, given the importance your religion places on the temporary- not to mention willing and fully conscious- sacrifice of Christ, and the pain involved there...

(October 22, 2013 at 10:51 am)Esquilax Wrote: Which I find particularly interesting, given the importance your religion places on the temporary- not to mention willing and fully conscious- sacrifice of Christ, and the pain involved there...

Which didn't last even close to as long as the pain suffered by the babies in question. Crucifixion (over in a few days) or my skin ripping off constantly for months until I die of infection? Jesus had it easy compared to these babies.

(October 22, 2013 at 10:51 am)Esquilax Wrote: In the former case... there's simply no reason to inflict this kind of pain from birth. There's no purpose it could serve, no good it can accomplish, and so by the bounds of your theology there's no reason why your god should design such a thing into the world to begin with... and yet, there it is.

Claiming that God allows human suffering here on earth only to be free of it in Heaven is like that joke about the guy who likes to hit himself in the head with a hammer, because it feels so good when he stops. The point being in both scenarios is that there is absolutely no point in causing needless pain & suffering in life, regardless of whatever kind of paradise may await after death.