Schmizm,
True, children aren't to be held responsible for the bad things their parents do, but that doesn't save them from having to suffer the ill effects brought on by their parents not having acted responsibly. A child and its welfare ARE the parents responsibility--which is one reason they are called "parents".
You have a big problem fooling yourself. You attempt to use heavily flawed fairy-tale metaphors to explain the actions of the All-Not-So-Mighty. THe difference between a parent and God is that the latter makes the rules and can change them if they turn out to be a disaster. He is law.
Example #1: It's widely known that while a child is developing inside its mother's womb that serious consequences can result if the mother smokes tobacco etc. Of course nobody, other than you and a few other nincompoops, would blame the child for what has happened. Too, most people would fault the parent, rather than God, for being so foolish as to do something that would harm their own child.
Silly metaphor 1B: You are the baby's doctor and the owner of a drug company. You have access to expensive drugs which might remove the effects of his mother's smoking. Instead of helping the child you say you have a plan of helping him real soon, but you don't even care to prove it beyond doubt. You keep explaining it away by giving some beaurocratic reasons. By the way, you own the company and you devised the whole beaurocracy. Worse still, the child grows up not believing in your offer after being told the same promises over and over again. Who is guilty of complacency?
Example #2: A child is killed as a result of its parent's reckless driving habits. Who's at fault, the parent or the child? The parent is, of course. Yet, the child had to suffer the consequences of its parent's actions. Again, nobody, other than you and a few other nincompoops, would blame the child for what has happened; and most people would fault the parent, rather than God for the death of the child.
Silly metaphor 2B: You are a driver passing by just after the accident took place. You see that the child is still alive and the parent is lying there uncoscious. But it's obvious that the parent is responsible for the accident so you don't even bother to call the ambulance. Are you guilty of complacency or are you not?
I feel really embarrassed having to make up your type of silly stories. As we waste our time arguing over this fallacious bulshit, hundreds of children are starving to death. Of course at the very same moment God is sitting on the galactic clouds picking his nose as his heart is being "filled with joy by those who serve him". Yeah, if he exists then he must be the greatest psychopath of the Universe. He derives pleasure from the meaningless actions of his servants and feels angry with you when you tell a white lie, but he doesn't feel compelled to help a dying child. But he has a divine plan! I tell you what. He's emotionally crippled and there is really no point in trying to explain his intentions and actions by means of meatphors from the world of humans.
It would be best for you, Gumby, if you'd come face to face with reality and stop fooling yourself. You're leading a miserable existence, and it will dawn on you sooner or later.
Oh pleeaase Schizm. This is so profoundly pathetic. Coming to face with reality is something you have to work on. Get some feedback from other posters, Schizm.
May Jehovah bless you with a more coherent vision of his creation,
Pole
