Actually what he said was: no human father would subject his children to pain and suffering in order to alleviate their pain and suffering. My response was to rebut that claim.
Not to belabor the point, but if I were to ignore the totality of what was said and selectively edit docphin's post to "no human father" then I could argue that docphin was suggesting that there are no human fathers to begin with
Bit silly, don't you think?
Clearly, docphin was, like I said, pointing out that it is ridiculous to suggest that a perfect Father, like God, would subject His children to needless harm when even an imperfect father, like yourself and most every other human being, knows better than to do so
I understand the nuance. But I wonder if he could have done as you suggest and (at the same time) rebut the claim that we are better off living independently of him, because that was the claim that set the human family on the course that it is on down to this day. And, if so, how?
john
So, what you are saying is that:
God inflicting needless harm upon us = God proving to us that we need Him
and, conversely:
God choosing not to inflict needless harm upon us = God leaving open the door that leads us to think that we can live without Him?
Am I correctly understanding your position??
