And god doesn't alleviate this terminal cancer that the 6-year old has because...? I will have to look into the case more closely to give you all the reason why he does not cure the boy. Most of the time it is because the boy is a victim of our sin.
Why did you capitalize the word 'more' above?
Sorry , I started the phrase with "more" then added "even" and did not make the change after.
Regardless, I'm not exactly sure what your point is with the above. And I'm really not sure that we're using the word 'care' in the same way. Because if person A would stop a rape in progress and person B would not stop a rape in progress, then I would say that person A was a more caring person than person B. I'd feel even worse about person B if he told me he wouldn't stop the rape in progress because he wouldn't want to impede on the rapist's free will. I totally agree with you. We can impose our will unto others. Would it be to attack them (as the rapist did) or to rescue them (against the rapist).
Which choice? In my example, god is totally letting the rapist decide to 'rape' or 'not rape'. That choice isn't being taken away from the rapist.
Well, if the rapist is spoofed away he would not be able to do what he wants to do.
I'm rather sure that being raped was against the woman's choice, in the same way that I'm rather sure that getting terminal cancer was against the 6-year old's choice.
Me too. They are both victims of someone else sin.
Okay, if some guy walked in on a rapist about to commit rape, and stood by and did nothing to intervene, he would not be considered good or moral. Even to protect the rapists "free will". Valuable as it may be, "free will" is trumped by the victim's well being.