stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
You do know that if YOU were God, no child would have cancer. But you’re not sure if you would allow cancer in adults, right? Because you know that if you said you would also not allow cancer in adults, then the next question would be as to whether, you being God and all, you would allow other deadly diseases in adults, right? And you know that if you answered no to all diseases, the next question would be whether or not as God you would therefore require yourself to make every death painless or to make everyone immortal, but you are not quite prepared to answer that, are you, because then you’d have to answer whether or not as God you’d require yourself to pretty much confine everyone to a plastic bubble to prevent any unpleasntries at all, right? So Instead you decide to stick with cancer in children and throw your hands up in the air about all other forms of suffering, right? Besides, you know that cancer in children will clog your readers with enough emotional baggage to make them forget all your failures to opine on other forms of suffering, right?
You’re finding this hypothesizing yourself in the role of God a bit more complex than you had originally bargained for, aren’t you?
Let me ask that question again: Children suffer when their dog dies. Would you, as God, allow THAT suffering, or would you require yourself to make all dogs immortal?
Let me guess. Your answer: "But, but "every three minutes ..."
You’re finding this hypothesizing yourself in the role of God a bit more complex than you had originally bargained for, aren’t you?
Let me ask that question again: Children suffer when their dog dies. Would you, as God, allow THAT suffering, or would you require yourself to make all dogs immortal?
Let me guess. Your answer: "But, but "every three minutes ..."