Why does god neglect the starving kids in Africa?

[lil hoodlum]

I will not engage in an online p!ss!ng contest on who helps more. Because the the problem of evil is not answered even if you could prove that those presenting it are the worst people by any moral standard.

 

The problem of evil stands on it's own feet. God has the power to stop the child rapist but doesn't. By getting hung up on the illustrative example of starving children the believers keep dodging the fact that evil and suffering exist for many other reasons than famine. Many evil things happen all the time and all the donating and volunteering in the world could not redeem them. The tsunami 2004 could not have been avoided by volunteering. It killed several 100'000 people within a few hours. No man on earth is responsible for this disaster.

 

The believer claims these deaths are a result of our wrong use of free will how exactly?

 

 

You are right, evil and evil things do happen all of the time in this world.

 

That is not God's will though.

 

He gives everyone, both belivers and non-believers, free will. That includes to be free to do evil and horredous things to others. It also includes the free will to do good.

 

God does not interfere with our free will. He will hold us accountable though for the choices that we make, both good and bad.

 

Free will to do good or evil is in all of us. Non-believers and believers both. We all have the capacity to do both.

 

I don't think it is fair to blame God when someone commits an evil act. He doesn't "force" us to do good or evil. He leaves that choice up to us.

[lil hoodlum]

I think you answered your own question. `Your so called creator`, decides to starve children then overfeed others? You belief is skewed to say the least.

 

 

No, God doesn't decide to starve children or overfeed others. He allows us to make the choice to let some children starve or overfeed others.

[TheFinalWord]

Sorry, silly. Very. What does your god think about this? Not much obviously. Maybe he has gone for a take out?

 

What's silly? The fact that obesity produces a greater global burden than hunger? Or that in America those in the lowest poverty brackets have the highest rates of obesity?

 

I never blamed it on God. I blame it on a series of interconnected environmental and behavioral determinants, for which there are solutions, if the desire as a society is there

[Scorpio Chick]

You clearly misunderstand the concept of the right to life.

We haven't discussed the right to life.

 

We all have the same right to life, including fetuses. That right to life does not and should not come at the expense of another living being.

Again, I think it's best to start a thread on abortion, because in order to address these issues you're mentioning could be better addressed in it's own thread, and I would love that. I want to focus on the issue of what Tyler brought up and that is that God deliberately lets children starve. I wanted to know if you were pro-abortion in all instances because it would mean you are selective in whose life you defend. I would love to discuss further how you may disagree with me there, and not via PM but perhaps in a new thread?

 

Example: Matthew needs a kidney transplant, and John is the only available matching donor, but John refuses to give him it.

 

That John refuses to donate his kidney does not negate Matthew's right to live.

 

If Matthew does not get the donor, he will surely die.

 

Agreed.

 

Since Matthew has the right to life, should he able to force John to hand over that much needed kidney?

 

*Should*? Sure! Perhaps legislation could be enacted to force a viable donor to donate. I would have to think through that one. I don't think there is currently anything on the books to force someone into donating their organs to another person. So far, we let each living being, CORRECTION: we don't let fetuses make that choice - make that informed choice, or emotional choice. I think if someone could donate their organ and didn't, it would probably be based on fear, etc.., no maliciousness. But I get what you're trying to compare. Donating a kidney to someone who is in kidney failure is not the same at all as a mother, and the society that enacted legislation to allow it, who decides to not let her fetus progress in its' development any further.

 

If not, why not? After all, we all have the right to life, right?

 

Why SHOULDN'T he be allowed to force John to donate his kidney? John does have a say so to protect his right to life. While donating a kidney would likely not kill him, it would certainly compromise his living status and he would actually have to legally sign off on that fact were he to donate. In other words, we recognize that right to life and we would be asking John, alright, John, this might kill you, you SURE you want to do it? So while as of yet, we don't force him to compromise his own living status, we do force him to legally sign off on his understanding of the fact that he is voluntarily compromising, of his own FREE WILL, living status. Conversely, Matthew also has signed papers, legal papers, regarding his status. He has to sign papers that he might die during the donation process. The law gets involved with everything!! Everyone trying to protect their asses!! (It has nothing to do with caring, hee hee). Just as I would like it if God would just intervene and stop starvation, and abortion for reasons other than the life of the mother, I would like it if He didn't let situations like this ever come about.

 

Yes, we ALL have the right to life. If something is living and dies, it is because of a few things. Either another living being did something active or passive to bring about it's demise. Or there was a natural disaster that overwhelmed the survival capabilities of that living being. I could go on, but I'm sure you agree with what I'm saying without having to lay out every instance of how people die.

And since I think most sane people would err on the side of "No, Matthew should not be granted the right to forcibly remove John's kidney" regardless of his need for it, I have to ask, why do you want to grant special rights to a fetus?

 

I'm in no position to grant rights, first of all. If only. You and I are, right now, placed somewhere on a continuum of life. People that are in their 80's or 90's oftentimes end up in many ways, back, for all intents and purposes back on the continuum of life that they were long ago. Unborn babies are on the earliest continuum of life. Moreso than any other living human being, they are the most defenseless. We have a voice. You can read what I'm thinking. I find it the cruelest thing that not only can a fetus be aborted, but we are unable to ask them if they want to be. It is as if, well, you can't speak, too bad, you don't deserve the life I've been able to attain. How fair is that? The least among us are the ones cut down before their vocal cords have even developed. And trust me, they're developing, or there would be no need to cut them down, would there?

 

Should God intervene in these matters? No, but if he's so dang against it,

 

IfGod exists, and you're angry at Him, why can't you just come out and say it?

 

and it's in his power, why doesn't he?

 

Again, how do you know what He is or isn't doing? You might THINK you know.Wish I could answer you, but if I were, I guess I would be above you on the omniscience scale, right?

 

You're asking me what god should intervene on when I don't believe god even exists. That's patently ridiculous.

I would have to agree, IF YOU ARE TRULY CONVINCED IN YOUR ATHEISM, that I would ask an atheist when they think a God they don't believe in should and shouldn't intervene, that is patently ridiculous: You want to know what is patently ridiculous? Just look who keeps engaging in a heavy discussion with someone who believes.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Scorpio Chick