No no no. In this particular case no clarification was asked before assuming the worst about me.
<sigh> The fault was still initially yours, Luk. If you had originally stated, and I quote, "Of course his suffering is the result of something that he did not do purposely. (like live in a house full of carcinogenic mold)" instead of, and I quote, "the boy is a victim of our sin
", there would have been no issue with you in the first place. "Carcinogenic mold" does not equate to "our sin", correct? If your answer is yes, and you can admit that you chose your words poorly in your original statement, then I will gladly retract my negative opinion of you based upon said statement.
Direct aid, no I agree with you. Direct consent, I disagree. God must give you his consent for you to live. He's the one who created your soul, without it you wouldn't be able to function. You wouldn't be there. That's what I meant when I said I couldn't live/breathe without him. It meant that without him I wouldn't even exist! I have made a difference between without God and without God's help. Do you see it now?
Now that you have clarified your initial comment, I accept your distinction as it applies to yourself. The rest of your explanation, however, has no basis in reality unless evidence is provided to the contrary. Sorry, I flat out reject your opinion, for that is exactly what you have offered.
No in both case God is there next to me...waiting.
It's like if you sprained your heel and I was walking next to you.
Case 1 : "God won't protect me when I don't want him in my life" I won't help you if you don't want any help.
Case 2 : "God does not abandon you when you don't want him" I will still be there next to you even if you don't want any help.
You understand now?
Ok. I see what you meant. I stand corrected that there was no contradiction in your two comments.