Suffering for the Sins of the World

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't see it as her fault at age 10 but she's trapped in the mire.  

 

I'm not particularly proud of you either John....js.

And why is she trapped in the mire, Ed?  Whose fault is it?  Who has both the ability and the willingness to set her free?

[Edgarcito]

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Exactly.  Because all of jesus' "suffering" and "taking on the sins of the world" did absolutely nothing to assuage the actual suffering from the sins of the world.  The innocent are still subject to the horrific brutality of the evil; and the consequences of untold malevolence inflicted upon the heads of children.  We've now gone full circle back to the opening post of this thread, 15 pages ago.  Whatever "suffering" jesus endured was obviously not enough to quench the blood lust of your bloodthirsty god; so he allows children to continue suffering as a result of the same Sin.

 

The suffering of jesus for the sins of the world has made absolutely no demonstrable, practical impact on the suffering from the sins of the world.

 

Children starve, through no fault of their own; children die, abused and abandoned because of sins they never even dreamed of committing.  Meanwhile your god does absolutely nothing to prevent it; preferring instead to sit on his lofty, laurel-lined throne proudly proclaiming that he's already suffered for the sins of the world...

 

...as if that is going to comfort a little girl who is struggling to breathe from underneath a bloated, middle-aged IT technician from Idaho, who had to swallow 6 little blue pills just to get hard enough to rape her.

I don't have the answers John.  Keep doing what you think you need to do.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 

Hebrews 13:8

 

So, DB, if jesus is god, then god cannot change, per his word.  This means that if the god of Genesis was not omniscient, then the god of those later verses in the bible could not have been omniscient either.  Ditto that for omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent (which goes back to the question of how god could not have known where Adam and Eve were hiding if god was literally already there with them).

 

This also goes back to Ed's claim that jesus became sin.  Well, no he didn't; because if he is holy today, then he was also holy yesterday, and he will be holy forevermore.  He is the same as he ever was; and he cannot change.

 

Personally, I never doubted that jesus was god while I was a christian; nor did I doubt that the bible was the inerrant and infallible word of god.  Obviously, I've found significant problems with both doctrines since then.  But, having firmly believed them previously comes in mighty handy now in arguing against them.  That's one reason I am always so impressed by your counter-arguments and posts.  I can tell they come from a True Scotsman.

Well thank you RNP! I always enjoy your posts as well. And this thread especially between you, @Edgarcito, and @walterpthefirst has been very interesting. You and Walter have both made great points.

 

There is another scripture in Malachi that we liked to use to show how God didn't change. 

 

Malachi 3:6

For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

 

So in the old testament scripture says that the Lord changes not. In the new testament it states that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Those were always a couple of my personal go too verses when preaching against homosexuality. (I mean no offense by saying that. It was my past. I am no longer against homosexuals.)

 

But going back to a point you have made several times in this thread about God being evil. If God could be deceptive in Genesis 3. Then it stands to reason God can lie. I know the scripture says he doesn't but wouldnt a liar say the same thing? Which means everything God spoke could either be a deception or a lie. That would explain why prayers of the faithful go unanswered despite his promises. 

 

John 14:13

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

 

Like you said. Either the Christian God is a deceptive, lying, manipulative, Evil P.O.S. or he doesn't exist. 

 

Either could be true. But the latter is more likely. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Who has both the ability and the willingness to set her free?

 

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't have the answers John.  

But you do have an answer to this question, don't you, Ed?  And the answer is "Not god," isn't it?  Because if god had both the ability and the willingness to set her free, he'd have done it already.  That she is still in that horrific situation demonstrates that god either does not have to power to rescue her, or that he just doesn't want to. 

 

You know this, which is why you consistently try to turn the situation around onto humanity.  You take the responsibility away from god; and claim that god has given that responsibility to us.  You say, "oh, it's humanity’s responsibility to rescue her and relieve her suffering; that's why we got the holy ghost and all to help us."  But this childishly naïve explanation overlooks the plain truth that those of us who have the willingness to set her free, do not have the power to do so; and those who do have the power to set her free, are not willing to. 

 

Now, if god is omniscient, he should have known all along that this solution was never going to work out.  Because sexual slavery is built on the two deadly sins of Lust and Greed, both of which stem from Desire, which is exactly what god had already corrupted Eve with before he put her in the Garden.  These two sins prevent her from being set free by those with the power to do so.

 

So, your god cannot be omniscient, if he didn't know how bad of an idea this was.  He's obviously not omnipotent, if the sins of Lust and Greed are more powerful than he is.  And his intentional corruption of Eve demonstrates that he is not omnibenevolent. 

 

What are you left with, Ed?  An ignorant, powerless, hateful god?  Or no god at all?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Lol. Amen. Don't use that one much anymore. 

 

Yeah, I get it. We can drop it. But about my question that does pertain to the topic. If there are 3 separate beings that were present during creation. Would that change the argument any?

 

Also, this kind of goes back to an evolutionary tale of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. When you read Genesis. God seems to be taken by surprise. Like he didn't know what had happened when he walked into Eden that day. 

 

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

 

So either God in genesis wasn't omniscient or he was being slightly deceptive. Acting like he didn't already know. And if was being deceptive, would that not be considered guile? Which causes a whole other issue because biblically thats not supposed to be possible. 

 

2pet 2:22 KJV

Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

 

2 pet 2:22 NIV

Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth

 

DB

 

Well, there might be an evolutionary way of understanding god's apparent shortcomings, DB.

 

If the bible has evolved from polytheistic beginnings to a monotheistic NT, perhaps the ancient polytheists had a poor grasp of what omniscience was and how an omniscient god would behave.  Very ancient gods used to be highly localized, bringing blessings and curses upon particular tribes or small nations.  So, these gods were like more superhumans, with great powers to bring the rains, or a rich harvest or victories over neighbouring tribes.  

 

People brought up in this kind of mindset might claim that their god created everything, but they wouldn't be adept at thinking through what omniscience would mean in terms of a god's behaviour.  Therefore, in their holy texts they might write that a god could be surprised at the actions of certain mortals.

 

This wouldn't be an actual shortcoming of that god or an indication of deceit on the god's part, but more of a failure of the writer to fully understand what all-knowledge actually means.

 

If you look at my dialogue with the Redneck Prof about god running an experiment in Eden, even the Prof had difficulty getting his head around the concept of omniscience.  He thought that god might have to confirm the outcome of the his experiment by running it through from start to finish.  But a truly omniscient god wouldn't need to confirm anything. 

 

So, if highly intelligent modern man who lives in a technological society struggles to understand omniscience, how much more so would a bronze-age man who is used to thinking only in parochial concepts struggle to portray the actions of a properly omniscient god?

 

Of course, this is just conjecture on my part.  What do you think?

 

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

But you do have an answer to this question, don't you, Ed?  And the answer is "Not god," isn't it?  Because if god had both the ability and the willingness to set her free, he'd have done it already.  That she is still in that horrific situation demonstrates that god either does not have to power to rescue her, or that he just doesn't want to. 

 

You know this, which is why you consistently try to turn the situation around onto humanity.  You take the responsibility away from god; and claim that gid has given that responsibility to us.  You say, "oh, it's humanity’s responsibility to rescue her and relieve her suffering; that's why we got the holy ghost and all to help us."  But this childishly naïve explanation overlooks the plain truth that those of us who have the willingness to set her free, do not have the power to do so; and those who do have the power to set her free, are not willing to. 

 

Now, if god is omniscient, he should have known all along that this solution was never going to work out.  Because sexual slavery is built on the two deadly sins of Lust and Greed, both of which stem from Desire, which is exactly what god had already corrupted Eve with before he put her in the Garden.  These two sins prevent her from being set free by those with the power to do so.

 

So, your god cannot be omniscient, if he didn't know how bad of an idea this was.  He's obviously not omnipotent, if the sins of Lust and Greed are more powerful than he is.  And his intentional corruption of Eve demonstrates that he is not omnibenevolent. 

 

What are you left with, Ed?  An ignorant, powerless, hateful god?  Or no god at all?

 

 

Hebrews 9 through 12 talk about the reasons behind the lack of immediate return.  People being made holy, discipline, before returning to shake what can be shaken.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me stop you at the bolded part as I felt compelled to do that having almost this scenario on the farm/ranch I lived on.  My wife had invested in a mixed bag of chicks to be an experience for our kids and the groups that would come out to the house as a field trip.  My wife raised butterflies for release.  In the process, it was a good learning experience for young kids to come understand the butterfly cycle.  Again, she had purchased a bunch of mixed chicks by mail to put out there so the children could watch the chickens while they were there.  Moving forward, we lost many to coyotes but had one big black shiny rooster still left with a couple others.  So, my second daughter was maybe two years old or three maybe.  She wanders out in the yard and waddles by this rooster, and I am there watching.  Both cross paths and then she waddles away laughing...and I'm thinking to myself, wow, that rooster didn't react.  And just as I was thinking that he runs towards her and spurred her in the back and knocked her down.  Seems harsh but I shot him with a shotgun and then stomped on him before I put him in the burn barrel and later burnt him up with the trash.  I knew the rooster had the potential.  I would have stopped the spurring had I known it was happening.  And I killed the rooster for the act.

 

To our questions,

 

1) Was mine.

2) God and Adam, unless you are a modern feminist, then Eve handles her own shit.

3) I allowed the crossing of paths, but it was the rooster's fault.

4) God allowed it, but it was the serpent's deception.

 

Thank you for responding Edgarcito.

 

1)  I agree.  The responsibility and the fault would be entirely yours.  You and only you had the ability to prevent harm, but you didn't do it.

 

 

2)  Here, I cannot agree with you. 

God's role is identical to yours in the scenario I gave you, the one with the rattler and your daughter.  Changing my lethal scenario to your non-lethal scenario of a rooster is inadmissible here.  That is not the challenge I gave you.  You have modified it to take the 'sting' and the life-or-death seriousness out of the scenario that was presented to you.

 

Changing my scenario to resemble what actually happened on your farm/ranch doesn't help us tackle what happened in Eden.  I couched the scenario in terms of Texas garden for your benefit, so that could more easily relate to what is described in Genesis.  But you still need to think through the consequences of my scenario as I described it to you.  That's because my scenario is a much more accurate parallel to the events described in Genesis than your modified rooster scenario.

 

But of the three people you mention (god, Adam and Eve) which one knew in advance that Satan would zero in on Eve? 

Which one had the power to confine the fallen angels in chains, where they would be kept until judgment day?

Which one of these three knew how to tell good from evil and to recognize a lie for what it really is?

 

So, please answer question #2 again, this time using my original scenario and also taking into account the three question I've just asked above.

 

Thank you.

 

 

3) Your given answer applies to your modified rooster scenario and not to my original rattlesnake vs daughter scenario.  Therefore, you have effectively dodged the question that was put to you.

 

Please answer the question that was given to you, as it was written Edgarcito.  Thank you.

 

 

4)  So, god allowed harm to come to his daughter, even though he had the foreknowledge, power, opportunity and means to stop it.  Since Satan is pure evil, his role in this is unsurprising.   He intended harm and by god's inaction, was allowed to harm Eve.

 

But how do you explain a loving, caring and compassionate father allowing his vulnerable and innocent child to be harmed as something good?

 

Could you please explain how god's inaction is 'good'?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

27 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Hebrews 9 through 12 talk about the reasons behind the lack of immediate return.  People being made holy, discipline, before returning to shake what can be shaken.

Sure, that's a convenient little lie y'all tell yourselves so that y'all can make yourselves more comfortable with the evil god allows to occur.  But what's any of it got to do with the 10-year-old sex slave, Ed?  Or the little boy who is starving to death?  Are they supposed to take heart and be comforted by the thought that the god who won't feed, shelter, or protect them in this life, is going to discipline good ol' Edgarcito over there in Texas?

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Sure, that's a convenient little lie y'all tell yourselves so that y'all can make yourselves more comfortable with the evil god allows to occur.  But what's any of it got to do with the 10-year-old sex slave, Ed?  Or the little boy who is starving to death?  Are they supposed to take heart and be comforted by the thought that the god who won't feed, shelter, or protect them in this life, is going to discipline good ol' Edgarcito over there in Texas?

That’s what it says…the inspired answer to your inquiry.

[Astreja]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

...You take the responsibility away from god; and claim that gid has given that responsibility to us.  You say, "oh, it's humanity’s responsibility to rescue her and relieve her suffering; that's why we got the holy ghost and all to help us."  But this childishly naïve explanation overlooks the plain truth that those of us who have the willingness to set her free, do not have the power to do so; and those who do have the power to set her free, are not willing to. 

 

Exactly.  This is Management 101 stuff:  You cannot delegate responsibility unless you also delegate the power to fulfill those responsibilities.  Obviously Edgarcito's god-thing isn't a particularly good judge of who should or should not have power in the real world, and can't be bothered to take it away from the exploiters and give it to those with the will and desire to help.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, Astreja said:

 

Exactly.  This is Management 101 stuff:  You cannot delegate responsibility unless you also delegate the power to fulfill those responsibilities.  Obviously Edgarcito's god-thing isn't a particularly good judge of who should or should not have power in the real world, and can't be bothered to take it away from the exploiters and give it to those with the will and desire to help.

The story does say that it will get worse.  Did I miss that interpretation?   In those days?

[Edgarcito]

38 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Thank you for responding Edgarcito.

 

1)  I agree.  The responsibility and the fault would be entirely yours.  You and only you had the ability to prevent harm, but you didn't do it.

 

 

2)  Here, I cannot agree with you. 

God's role is identical to yours in the scenario I gave you, the one with the rattler and your daughter.  Changing my lethal scenario to your non-lethal scenario of a rooster is inadmissible here.  That is not the challenge I gave you.  You have modified it to take the 'sting' and the life-or-death seriousness out of the scenario that was presented to you.

 

Changing my scenario to resemble what actually happened on your farm/ranch doesn't help us tackle what happened in Eden.  I couched the scenario in terms of Texas garden for your benefit, so that could more easily relate to what is described in Genesis.  But you still need to think through the consequences of my scenario as I described it to you.  That's because my scenario is a much more accurate parallel to the events described in Genesis than your modified rooster scenario.

 

But of the three people you mention (god, Adam and Eve) which one knew in advance that Satan would zero in on Eve? 

Which one had the power to confine the fallen angels in chains, where they would be kept until judgment day?

Which one of these three knew how to tell good from evil and to recognize a lie for what it really is?

 

So, please answer question #2 again, this time using my original scenario and also taking into account the three question I've just asked above.

 

Thank you.

 

 

3) Your given answer applies to your modified rooster scenario and not to my original rattlesnake vs daughter scenario.  Therefore, you have effectively dodged the question that was put to you.

 

Please answer the question that was given to you, as it was written Edgarcito.  Thank you.

 

 

4)  So, god allowed harm to come to his daughter, even though he had the foreknowledge, power, opportunity and means to stop it.  Since Satan is pure evil, his role in this is unsurprising.   He intended harm and by god's inaction, was allowed to harm Eve.

 

But how do you explain a loving, caring and compassionate father allowing his vulnerable and innocent child to be harmed as something good?

 

Could you please explain how god's inaction is 'good'?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

No, I would have killed the snake immediately and not allowed exposure.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

No, I would have killed the snake immediately and not allowed exposure.

 

You would have protected your daughter from harm.

 

So why didn't god do the same and protect his daughter from harm?

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

29 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, there might be an evolutionary way of understanding god's apparent shortcomings, DB.

 

If the bible has evolved from polytheistic beginnings to a monotheistic NT, perhaps the ancient polytheists had a poor grasp of what omniscience was and how an omniscient god would behave.  Very ancient gods used to be highly localized, bringing blessings and curses upon particular tribes or small nations.  So, these gods were like more superhumans, with great powers to bring the rains, or a rich harvest or victories over neighbouring tribes.  

 

People brought up in this kind of mindset might claim that their god created everything, but they wouldn't be adept at thinking through what omniscience would mean in terms of a god's behaviour.  Therefore, in their holy texts they might write that a god could be surprised at the actions of certain mortals.

 

This wouldn't be an actual shortcoming of that god or an indication of deceit on the god's part, but more of a failure of the writer to fully understand what all-knowledge actually means.

 

If you look at my dialogue with the Redneck Prof about god running an experiment in Eden, even the Prof had difficulty getting his head around the concept of omniscience.  He thought that god might have to confirm the outcome of the his experiment by running it through from start to finish.  But a truly omniscient god wouldn't need to confirm anything. 

 

So, if highly intelligent modern man who lives in a technological society struggles to understand omniscience, how much more so would a bronze-age man who is used to thinking only in parochial concepts struggle to portray the actions of a properly omniscient god?

 

Of course, this is just conjecture on my part.  What do you think?

 

 

 

I personally believe that there was a lot of evolution in the bible. And I think that the omni powers of God were probably no exception. 

 

But to keep from going on a rabbit trail. Ill respond to that question my thread in general theological issues tomorrow. Headed to a bar for the rest of the night with my son. Hes never been and we are taking him tonight. 

[Edgarcito]

25 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You would have protected your daughter from harm.

 

So why didn't god do the same and protect his daughter from harm?

 

 

Has been a big question through centuries I gather Walter.  Ed from Texas is going to magically have the answer?

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Has been a big question through centuries I gather Walter.  Ed from Texas is going to magically have the answer?

 

No.

 

Ed from Texas, is going to compare the morality of his IMMEDIATE act of protection of his daughter from harm with the morality of god's lack of action to protect his daughter Eve from harm in Eden.

 

I'm logging off now, but come tomorrow I'll be interested to hear what Ed think's of god's morality in comparison to his.

 

Good night!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

That’s what it says…the inspired answer to your inquiry.

Except that it is neither an answer, nor is it particularly inspired.  It's a cop out and a pathetic one at that.

 

Rosa Maria was a vibrant seven year old, the youngest of 3 children.  He parents were Ana Maria and Diego.  Diego worked 2 jobs to make sure his family had enough; and Ana Maria cleaned houses when she could to give a little extra to the kids.  Alejandro and Mateo, Rosa Maria's brothers, spoiled her with everything they had, constantly spending their allowance money to buy her candy, extra food, even clothes.  Alejandro even got suspended from school once for beating up an older kid who had pushed Rosa into the mud and ruined her dress. 

 

Rosa Maria enjoyed going to Mass on Sundays; and the family gatherings on Sunday afternoons when all her aunts and uncles and cousins would fill the house with hearty laughter, love, and fun.  Her dream in life was to become a school teacher; and spend her time off in the summers volunteering to help other children in less fortunate areas learn to read and write.

 

She was kidnapped in broad daylight while walking home from school.  She spent the next three months being trafficked between 4 different states and enduring unimaginable brutalities at the hands of countless men.  It was reported by one of her traffickers, who was later caught and testified, that on one occasion, Rosa Maria was raped and sodomized approximately 15 times in less than 6 hours by a group of 8 men.

 

Her death was ruled a homicide made to look like a suicide.  It was determined that she had been dead less than 2 hours when she was found by a passer-by.  Forensic evidence determined that she had the DNA of at least 3 assailants on (and in) her person at the time of her death.

 

Her killer has never been found.  Her traffickers, with the exception of the one, remain at large, perpetuating the same atrocities on countless other innocent, powerless children.

 

Look at her, Ed.  Say her name.  And then tell me that you really believe god allowed that to happen to her just so you could feel like you were being made holy.  

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Except that it is neither an answer, nor is it particularly inspired.  It's a cop out and a pathetic one at that.

 

Rosa Maria was a vibrant seven year old, the youngest of 3 children.  He parents were Ana Maria and Diego.  Diego worked 2 jobs to make sure his family had enough; and Ana Maria cleaned houses when she could to give a little extra to the kids.  Alejandro and Mateo, Rosa Maria's brothers, spoiled her with everything they had, constantly spending their allowance money to buy her candy, extra food, even clothes.  Alejandro even got suspended from school once for beating up an older kid who had pushed Rosa into the mud and ruined her dress. 

 

Rosa Maria enjoyed going to Mass on Sundays; and the family gatherings on Sunday afternoons when all her aunts and uncles and cousins would fill the house with hearty laughter, love, and fun.  Her dream in life was to become a school teacher; and spend her time off in the summers volunteering to help other children in less fortunate areas learn to read and write.

 

She was kidnapped in broad daylight while walking home from school.  She spent the next three months being trafficked between 4 different states and enduring unimaginable brutalities at the hands of countless men.  It was reported by one of her traffickers, who was later caught and testified, that on one occasion, Rosa Maria was raped and sodomized approximately 15 times in less than 6 hours by a group of 8 men.

 

Her death was ruled a homicide made to look like a suicide.  It was determined that she had been dead less than 2 hours when she was found by a passer-by.  Forensic evidence determined that she had the DNA of at least 3 assailants on (and in) her person at the time of her death.

 

Her killer has never been found.  Her traffickers, with the exception of the one, remain at large, perpetuating the same atrocities on countless other innocent, powerless children.

 

Look at her, Ed.  Say her name.  And then tell me that you really believe god allowed that to happen to her just so you could feel like you were being made holy.  

 

 

Dude, you’re sick.  Go get help.

[freshstart]

38 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Dude, you’re sick.  Go get help.

Ed, I'm afraid you are the one that condones and excuses this sort of tragedy on behalf of the god you worship.

Please don't pretend not to understand that the reason John posted such a repulsive story is to illustrate this point.

[midniterider]

So Ed is apparently repulsed by God's will. Roger that. 

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 9/15/2022 at 10:30 PM, freshstart said:

I see your point, but I don't know that that is entirely fair to say that "all we do is talk." There are many indirect ways to fight injustice, and as somebody pointed out, just paying taxes is one of the ways to contribute.  But when there is an underground network of human traffickers, its hard to know (as well as overwhelming to consider) how to have a personal impact. When I was working for a Christian organization, I traveled to Guatemala serveral times to assist a missionary organization in helping to build homes, distribute food/clothing, and assist in fitting/distribution of wheelchairs for people who needed them. I was overwhelmed by the level of poverty I saw. Ultimately I ended up sending a monthly gift to help children go to school - and never stopped-  even though I disagree with the organization's proselytizing. Its a drop in the bucket but I like to think a lot of people contribute in small ways like this, helping children to get an education and avoid these terrible tragedies. Plus the apathy is not confined to wealthy westerners. I feel like a lot people in countries affected the most by child sex trafficking turn a blind eye.

 

Yes, I made an unfair comment.  I meant to say all SOME of us do is talk about it.  And at the time I was thinking more about world hunger.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Dude, you’re sick.  Go get help.

Are  you talking to yourself Ed??

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Hasn't this conversation run its course?  Why not talk about why God would let Satan torture Job to prove a point?  That is something god suposedly did on purpose.  No question about it.  

[Astreja]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

The story does say that it will get worse.  Did I miss that interpretation?   In those days?

 

I guess your god wants it to get worse.  I guess your god didn't actually care about Rosa Marie either, Ed - just another pawn in a Byzantine, inscrutable mess of a "divine plan."

[walterpthefirst]

Edgarcito,

 

On the back of what the Professor has told us about Rosa Maria, I'm going to carry forward the story of what happened to your daughter in your Texas garden after the rattlesnake had finished with her.  We can come back to the comparison I asked you to make, later in this thread.  This comparison.

 

Ed from Texas, is going to compare the morality of his IMMEDIATE act of protection of his daughter from harm with the morality of god's lack of action to protect his daughter Eve from harm in Eden.

 

Anyway, here's how things go down in your garden Ed, after you failed to protect your daughter.  She didn't die immediately, but the venom spread through every cell in her body, corrupting and changing them.  Worse than that, she underwent a personality change.  She used to look at you with love and adoration in her eyes and would run to greet you every time you returned home.  But now she's terrified of the sight of you and runs and hides from you.  She can't bear to look at you.

 

So, what do you do next?

 

You pick up the shotgun that you should have used to kill the rattler and you turn it on her.  You are disgusted by the changes the venom has made to her body and her mind and you can't bear the sight of her.  You no longer want her, either in your presence, nor in your garden.  

 

You order her out of the garden and you make sure that she leaves, with your gun trained on her back as she walks away.  If she shows even the slightest inclination to stop or turn back you'll open fire.  Then you pay for guards to patrol the entrance to your garden on a 24/7 basis so that she can never return.

 

And sure enough, you never see or speak to her again.  She eventually dies of the snakebite that you could have prevented, had you wanted to.

 

 

So, who is responsible for allowing the rattlesnake into the garden in the first place?

 

And who, therefore is ultimately responsible for your daughters fate?

 

Who's fault is this?