If there is a God...why is there...

[sentinent]

As advised by another poster, this post deserves a pot of its own. Something that's been niggling at me for a while now; for those who believe (or even not believe) in the existence of God/a higher power, (I firmly do believe btw), how do we explain children in pain, suffering, getting terminal diseases or being killed??

God sees the "bigger picture" that we can't see. Similar to when a baby has a vaccination or when I don't let my dc have unlimited sweets, parents are aware of things that their children may not understand. I had a miscarriage that was devastating. 9 years later, my dc5 wasn't stillborn because as a result of the miscarriage, bleeding during pregnancy terrifies me so I went into hospital very quickly. The bleeding was just a show but at the same time they discovered I had sepsis. My dc2 was failure to thrive as a baby due to low muscle time and high metabolism. When he took an overdose as a teenager his high metabolism meant he survived. Sometimes bad things happen and we don't know why. Sometimes we find out later and sometimes we don't.

Also, time seems much longer to us than it is to God. Similar to the way Christmas or a holiday seems like ages away to a child but as adults we know it will come, probably sooner than we are ready for it! God sees my Dad dying and knows I will see him again in heaven in another 40-50 years or so. And then I can see my Dad every day forever if I want. So when I moan that my dad died and it's not fair, to God that's like when my boys moan to me that they can't cope with another week at school until the weekend. That's how I see it anyway.

@GolgafrinchamB The serpent tempted Eve, it wasn’t Satan or The Devil.

Err, actually it was

Deceived is the key word in 1 Timothy 2:14 that forges the link to Genesis 3:13, where Eve says, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” The verb deceive, then, throughout Scripture calls to mind the fall and the action the serpent took. What verb did he do? He deceived Eve (so also 2 Corinthians 11:3). The serpent thus is known as “the deceiver”:
“that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world” (Revelation 12:9; also 20:10).

Deceive becomes the quintessentially satanic action.

Your words:

Wanting possession and ownership of knowledge rather than sharing and using knowledge in harmonious unity with the Creator and the rest of Creation is what is evil.

My paraphrase:

Evil comes from people keeping knowledge to themselves instead of sharing it with others and God.

I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate with "own unique style", but if you believe this paraphrase misrepresents your intent, could you explain how? Essentially, all it does is restate the same components in a slightly different order and without the pompous Glory-of-God stuff.

(Yes, I used quote marks to indicate that I was discussing someone else's idea, but not bold, which is the MN convention for a direct quote.)

@Jackandjillswell, I think you might understand my posts better in terms of scriptural reference. So here you are:

1 Corinthians 1:5
"For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge"

Further to what I was talking about before. If you understand the phrase 'in him' as meaning in unity with Christ, then it follows you are partaking of God's knowledge by being in unity. Which is why I have been saying attempts at being possessive over knowledge or attempts at owning knowledge separately from God is wrong.

Sealions rape penguins. So, no, it's not just a reproductive strategy. 🤷🏼‍♂️

@off why did you chose to paraphrase and not quote me? If you believe the tone and meaning is exactly the same?

I said unique style because it is different and unique from my own.

Essentially if we are in unity property becomes irrelevant was the gist of my phrasing.

@meanderingbrook Which is why I have been saying attempts at being possessive over knowledge or attempts at owning knowledge separately from God is wrong.

Fair enough, if that's your take on it.

'(Yes, I used quote marks to indicate that I was discussing someone else's idea, but not bold, which is the MN convention for a direct quote."

There are various conventions used on MN. @off You can also utilise the quote feature on the app.

"Fair enough, if that's your take on it."

@Jackandjillswell, is your take different?

I've never thought about it because it doesn't interest me.

@Jackandjillswell, oh curious. As a Christian, what is your take on eating from The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil (specifically) in the Bible leading to The Fall?

Because I'd already directly quoted you, at length, in my previous post only slightly earlier, and it would've seemed a little odd (and maybe a bit like I was targeting you personally) if I requoted in full again straight afterwards, when I only wanted to address one point again. The paraphrase was just to make it clear which specific bit of what you said it was that I was addressing in the follow-up.

You know full well that referring to someone's "own unique style" in that way has derogatory implications.

No shit, Sherlock.

@MysteriesOfTheOrganism Do they really! That’s fascinating.

@off your paraphrasing looked like a quote and the tone, I felt, changed when taken out of context from what I was saying. I really don't mind you re-quoting me. I object to this far less than paraphrasing made to look like a quote. At most, I would have expected a set of single inverted commas for a paraphrase or more usually no inverted commas.

I don't know whether to be flattered or not that some people seem to think I am the fount of all knowledge when it comes to religion.

Why is my take so important to you?

@off, you used double inverted commas, I.e. speech marks " " on a paraphrase.

@fullbloom87

For it's that everything bad happens for a good reason.
For example my nephew died of SIds at 4 weeks old, his brother was born 12 months later and now his brother is training to be a doctor.
His brother would not have been born if hie hadn't died of Sid's and if he hadn't of been born he wouldn't be training to be a doctor who could potentially save a life or cure cancer or do something amazing.

I desperately hope you've never said such a thing to these boys parents. Reading it as a third party who doesn't know you was horrifying enough. What an awful, awful post.

"I don't know whether to be flattered or not that some people seem to think I am the fount of all knowledge when it comes to religion.

Why is my take so important to you?"

@Jackandjillswell, I don't. However you were just very recently on this thread quoting the Bible and talking quite specifically about deception. I thought you displayed some knowledge. So I was curious that your studies hadn't taken you to ponder further. And I'm just interested, generally. One of the aims of the church is finding fellowship.

That single/double inverted commas distinction doesn't really exist in that way.

The paraphrase was in quotes to indicate a specific idea I was addressing, which was expressed by a previous poster. This kind of reference to an idea is a common use of quotation marks, especially in conversational text, and doesn't necessarily imply a direct quote, especially where no specific source is named (which I didn't, because I was addressing an idea raised in the post that I did directly quote). See: any time someone makes a "but won't somebody think of the children" reference — they're rarely directly quoting the Helen Lovejoy character who popularised the phrase, but instead are putting it in quotation marks to show that it's an opinion they don't share but are addressing.

On MN, for at least the last decade and probably more, and long predating the post quote function, if you wanted to directly quote you used bold text. A few newer users haven't picked up on that yet, but it's the standard usage here. I adhere to the conventions of the medium, so to directly quote another poster I either use the quote function or bold text. It's clear from the context of both my own post and the entire site around it that text inside double quotes is not intended to masquerade as a direct quote from another poster.

@off, well I thought it wasn't clear and so it follows it would also be less than clear to at least some others posters.

And yes, I have been on here for over a decade, under a variety of user names. Did used to use the bold convention but felt it was superseded when the quote feature came about.

No matter. It's clear now you were merely paraphrasing.

I told my sister tonight I posted this. She isn't on Mumsnet but I was scared that by some coincidence she would join, read this thread & put two & two together. Thankfully she was ok as its anonymous. She did add there's something I omitted to tell you. She then added my MIL was in the back seat with the children. After I had this 'vision' a few seconds later I blurted out what was that. Her MIL answered I saw it too. They never spoke about it again. Her one huge regret is her MIL passed away & she never asked her what she saw. Neither of them ever mentioned it to each other again.

I think the poster you quote expressed it rather clumsily.

A better way of saying it would be "sometimes good can come out of tragedy".

Think about the Organ Donor Programme.
A young person dies tragically in a road accident.
Because they are registered as an Organ Donor they have the potential to save 4 lives by donating heart & lungs, kidneys, liver and restore sight to 2 people via corneal grafts.

This may give some small comfort to the grieving family.

I don't really care about the opinions of people who would make assumptions about the opinions of Poster A based solely on the style of quotation marks used in an unattributed phrase written by Poster B.

Can't believe I've got sucked into one of these threads — recapitulating arguments that were given up as a rum do a thousand years ago is not a good use of anyone's time. I should've taken my own advice, glanced over the Wikipedia pages I posted, and refrained from posting from the start, but I'll do it now instead.

Well I'm a Catholic, who according to some MN users, belongs to an organisation that is misogynistic, hypocritical, homophobic, brainwashes kids, murders babies, supports 'forced-birthing' and is populated with officials who are kiddy-fiddlers.

So excuse me if I'm not rushing to share my opinions.

My head is still hurting from the last load of (metaphorical) brickbats I had thrown at me.

If you want fellowship I'm sure there are members of your own denomination who would enjoy that.