Answers to prayers?

[Gordon]

My original statement wasn't intended to imply that abstinence from procreative sex is an offence. Please note that I also mentioned the way in which men and women compliment each other, which is not dependent on their having children. The offence, which may not be deliberate but is still an offence, is in the rejection of the natural order for a sexual relationship to take, which is one man + one woman for life.

Who says it is an offence, and on what basis should we believe them to be correct?

[Leonard James]

Who says it is an offence, ...

People who are unable to think for themselves and just follow instructions.

...and on what basis should we believe them to be correct?

We shouldn't, because they aren't correct. They are seriously misled.

[torridon]

My original statement wasn't intended to imply that abstinence from procreative sex is an offence. Please note that I also mentioned the way in which men and women compliment each other, which is not dependent on their having children. The offence, which may not be deliberate but is still an offence, is in the rejection of the natural order for a sexual relationship to take, which is one man + one woman for life.

Who is to say what the 'natural order' is and how can we differentiate between natural order and cultural norm ? Homosexuality is part of the natural order - it occurs at a persistent consistent level across cultures and across times and occurs in many mammal species so it probably is a phenomenon selected by nature.  I'm not sure pair bonding for life is natural with humans, as studies show that attraction starts to wane after a couple of years and many people end up staying together against their natural instincts due to cultural and social expectations. I'm not sure monogamy is natural in humans - sexual dimorphism, particularly the fact that males are larger than females is often an indicator that polygamy, with males having hareems, is our natural option.  Maybe what you see as natural is not natural at all, but really just our current cultural zeitgeist.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

We are still waiting for an answer to the contradictory positions Hope has taken then.

Could be a long wait.

[Spud]

Who says it is an offence, and on what basis should we believe them to be correct?

Well there are natural (edit: logical?) boundaries that determine who is a suitable spouse. A man can't marry his sister, even if she is too old for the danger of having children with genetic disorders to apply. It doesn't need anyone to say it is an offense, it just is.

[Spud]

Who is to say what the 'natural order' is and how can we differentiate between natural order and cultural norm ? Homosexuality is part of the natural order - it occurs at a persistent consistent level across cultures and across times and occurs in many mammal species so it probably is a phenomenon selected by nature.

True, but who is to say it is not akin to an asymptomatic pathology in nature?

[Spud]

We're asked to believe in a God who's omnibenevolent, yet gives cancer to babies.

We're asked to believe that this God is omnipotent, yet sits on his hands as tsunamis rush towards villages of innocent people.

In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.

[jeremyp]

What is 'theological reasoning'?

It's pretending imaginary things are real and then making up sophisticated nonsense to hide their non-existence.

[jeremyp]

In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.

Do you realise how horrible that would be? You're claiming that an innocent person can be murdered to "teach a lesson" to other people. Are you crazy?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.

Probably one of the most deranged and morally contemptible posts we've had here for a while.

Then your god would be a sociopath. Odd too don't you think that the people who need to "realize their sin and (are in) need of salvation" also happen to live together in villages that happen to be in the path of tsunamis and the like, whereas those in, say, tsunami-free Leicester presumably then live blameless lives.

[Spud]

Do you realise how horrible that would be? You're claiming that an innocent person can be murdered to "teach a lesson" to other people. Are you crazy?

It is exactly what happened at the cross. What about Joseph, then. He suffered so that people would be saved from the seven year famine, as well as coming to know God.

[floo]

In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.

Sick and then some, if that were true!

[jeremyp]

It is exactly what happened at the cross.

It's one thing for God to do it to himself. It's another thing to do it to an innocent child just to set an example to its parents.

And for the record, I'm not the kind of snivelling weasel that would let another person take the punishment for my crimes, whether he is God or not.

What about Joseph, then. He suffered so that people would be saved from the seven year famine, as well as coming to know God.

We are talking about murdering somebody to teach  another person a lesson. If you can't see the moral repugnancy of that act, you really need to lie down and take a long hard look at yourself.

[floo]

It's one thing for God to do it to himself. It's another thing to do it to an innocent child just to set an example to its parents.

And for the record, I'm not the kind of snivelling weasel that would let another person take the punishment for my crimes, whether he is God or not.
We are talking about murdering somebody to teach  another person a lesson. If you can't see the moral repugnancy of that act, you really need to lie down and take a long hard look at yourself.

I agree.

[torridon]

In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.

So we have got this whole penal reform thing wrong then ?  Instead of focussing on rehabilitation rather than punishment of offenders we should just kidnap their children and torture them to death.  That would reduce crime levels and bring criminals to their senses.  I don't see myself signing up to become a follower of this god any time soon.

[Owlswing]

In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.

The parents prayed to him to save their child and his answer was to allow the child to die to teach them lesson!

I cannot find words that the Moderators will allow to remain on this Forum to express my opinion of this God or of your attitude Spud, you are beyond reprehensible and that is the most I can say without the risk of being censored. 

[Aruntraveller]

The parents prayed to him to save their child and his answer was to allow the child to die to teach them lesson!

I cannot find words that the Moderators will allow to remain on this Forum to express my opinion of this God or of your attitude Spud, you are beyond reprehensible and that is the most I can say without the risk pf being censored.

It is indeed a strange, bizarre and unsettling opinion. How some people actually square the circle they enclose themselves in is a complete and utter mystery to me.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

In the instance in the OP, God may use the death of the child to cause the parents to realize their sin and need of salvation.

Blimey.

You made this post nearly three hours ago. If you had a time machine and could travel back three hours would you still post that comment, now that you have had time to reflect on it?

[Brownie]

It was an ill-thought-out, insensitive, crass comment and I doubt Spud would have made it had he thought  about it.  At least I hope not.  The test is, would he actually say that to someone who had lost a child?  Sometimes I think Spud must be about 12, only a kid would make such tactless statements.

[ippy]

Hope the following was a part of the response you've had from Gordon, post 248 on this thread:

"All you are saying here is that people are different: again, so what! You can certainly believe what you like, Christian or otherwise,  but you don't get to choose your own facts, so if you have some facts that are beyond the realms of science then do tell us more, and if they really are beyond science tell us how you identified them in the first place".

When it comes to the root of your strange beliefs it's at this and exactly similar points, your arguments fall flat on their face; this is always the point where you're unable to give any form of a sensible answer so you duck out and appear elsewhere a few days later.

I don't suppose there's any chance of an answer to the underlined part of this post? It could become a new branch of science, had you thought of that Hope?

ippy   

[wigginhall]

It is indeed a strange, bizarre and unsettling opinion. How some people actually square the circle they enclose themselves in is a complete and utter mystery to me.

Yes, it is genuinely baffling.  I suppose it's a bit like the defence of the genocides in the OT - if it's in the Bible it must be good and true.   But then there's a bypass of morality, so that such Christians appear to be defending murder and cruelty, and at the same time, condemning gays!  I've no idea how that works in their own inner world - cognitive dissonance, I guess.   It makes Christianity seem very attractive, of course.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Hope, Vlad et al.

Have you seen the mod board suggestion by me?

Happy to engage. What say you?

[Spud]

It's one thing for God to do it to himself. It's another thing to do it to an innocent child just to set an example to its parents.

The parents prayed to him to save their child and his answer was to allow the child to die to teach them lesson!

I cannot find words that the Moderators will allow to remain on this Forum to express my opinion of this God or of your attitude Spud, you are beyond reprehensible and that is the most I can say without the risk of being censored. 

It seems that the parents must have somehow been taught an immense heresy, ie that you can pray for someone to be healed without actually doing anything, expecting God to perform a miracle. So whoever has misled them in that way will hopefully be prevented from doing so again.

I made the comment this morning in the light of Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

It seems that the parents must have somehow been taught an immense heresy, ie that you can pray for someone to be healed without actually doing anything, expecting God to perform a miracle. So whoever has misled them in that way will hopefully be prevented from doing so again.

I made the comment this morning in the light of Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

Let's say you are God. You were faced with this situation. What would you have done?

Why not punish the parents and save the child?

[Owlswing]

It seems that the parents must have somehow been taught an immense heresy, ie that you can pray for someone to be healed without actually doing anything, expecting God to perform a miracle. So whoever has misled them in that way will hopefully be prevented from doing so again.

I made the comment this morning in the light of Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

You have just proved yourself beneath contempt!