Featured Does God Want Children To Be Abused?

Congratulations. (think of the last thread I started )

Whatever you are looking for, we would all admit that in some sense, God does not get what he wants. I would argue that he gets what he ordains. And what he ordains is best qualified by his supremacy.

I wonder... will this turn into a calvie thread???? I may have to revoke my previous congrats.

 

As I said, his ordination is governed by his supremacy ("purpose of his will"). God is for his glory. He is motivated by it. His ordination conforms to that desire above all else. Is God glorified in ordaining that evil happen. Yes.

Congratulations rescinded.

 

Don't you understand the law of "whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap" and that there is JUST consequences of sin???? Why not ask if God will actually punish women and children (of age) in hell? Or do you deny the existence of women and children in hell??????

Psa. 76:10 is my scripture deal with it.

 

Not sure that's what you meant to link.

 

It's a hard truth, but it is true. God does not ordain evil, but He does allow it for His glory.

Hard as it may be for us to grasp, God is even glorified when people are sentenced to Hell.

Hard truth, but true.

 

Look at your own question. It infers sin -or don't you believe "rape" is sin????

Your question implies that God may be either pleased or displeased with such consequences of sin. The answer is God's good pleasure has NOTHING to do with it but God's JUSTICE does. Is "rape" and "abuse" consequences of sin? Yes! Are the consequences of sin consistent with God's Justice? Yes! Is God's Justice holy and righteous altogether? yes!

 

Some people do what Barack Obama is a master at.....answer ONLY the question you wanted to be asked rather than the one that WAS asked.

The same tactic will be used if you ask whether God "loves" everyone or not....they will answer a question about God's "justice"....but, not God's love.

Similarly, many will answer questions about God's "justice" since that's the question some want you to have asked, but they won't answer a question about what God "WANTS".

 

Dr. J. is not so stupid as to think that your"congratulations" were genuinely offered in the first place.

 

Look, nobody is stupid enough to miss your intent as you plainly state it in these words "Let's see how many people will be honest and consistent with their theology." So it is designed to be a "gotcha" question.

Second, your question says nothing about BEFORE CREATION.

Third, there was no rape, molestation, abuse BEFORE CREATION, all of these are POST-fall events due to sin.

Did God allow, permit, sin - yes because he could have prevented it several different ways. He could have created people in a sustained sinless condition. He could have never given a test. He could have destroyed Adam and Eve Instantly.

No, we do not attribute sin to God BEFORE CREATION in regard to His good pleasure but we do attribute sin to God according to both His foreknowledge and His permission and thus by His design and consistent with His eternal purpose or else He could have prevented it a number of differnent ways.

The creation of moral choice in an unfallen state necessitated the option of sin. HOWEVER DON'T CONFUSE MORAL CHOICE IN AN UNFALLEN CONDITION WITH CHOICE IN A FALLEN CONDITION AS THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Bottom line, God permits rape, murder, molestation, etc. every single day and it is consistent with His eternal purpose in regard to the fall and sin and is consistent with his Justice OR ELSE HE WOULD PREVENT IT as that is precisely what Psa. 76:10 states explicitly.

 

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question. Your question assumes that God does want women and children to be abused, etc.

Logical Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Your question assumes that abuse to women and children occurs precisely because God desires it to be so.

And the list could go on.

You ask the question in such a way that no answer will suffice. Therefore, you create a strawman (yet another logical fallacy) rather than dealing with a similar question in a more proper way. Then, when we point this out, you say that we won't answer the question straight.

Your hatred of the Calvinists is truly ridiculous. In the past week or so you've posted or implied in your writings that Calvinists: 1.) are all anti-Semites; 2.) are all racists responsible for Apartheid; 3.) Satan worshipers; 4.) Buddhists at heart; and 5.) approving of violence against children and women. And, what is more, after we call you on such things, you play the Pariah and Martyr implying that it's "our" fault you do what you do.

Sad.

The Archangel

And, no, this post is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy.