Vincent Torley is Our Deluded Anti-Intellectual Person of the Day

Vince is smarter than your average bear, I'll admit, and respectful. But he's no less deluded than the others. I think he was gunning for this award so I'll grant it to him. Congratulations Vince, or something. ;-)

I wish I had a dollar every time a Christian said God acts like a wise parent to his children. In a futile attempt to alleviate the problem of suffering, Christians almost always say God allows us to suffer, sometimes intensely, to teach us to trust him, or to love deeper, or to strengthen our moral character, or to discipline us for our sins, or even to complete the sufferings of Christ, whatever that could possibly mean (Colossians 1:24), and so on.

Torley rejects the parental analogy since he rejected Dr. Abby Hafer's response to the question, "Why is God obligated to help someone who rejects Him?"

Hafer had used the parental analogy in answer to the question, saying,
The same reason a parent is obliged to help her children, even when they reject her. Parents bring their children into the world. According to this person's world view, God brought humans (and animals, and plants) into the world. Human parents have this very obligation toward their children--to keep helping them, even when they reject you. And by and large, parents do this. So--is God actually *less* moral, dutiful, strong and self-controlled than your average mother? LINK. Dr. Hafer is the author of the incredibly good book, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer.]
"I don't buy the argument, because the analogy is a flawed one," says Torley. Well, now, if this doesn't prove there are too many ways to play the game called Christian apologist, I don't know of them. Whatever the problem is, answer it by saying whatever needs to be said to save one's faith from refutation. Torley begins by saying God is not obligated to help us at all:
Children (at least, young children) lack the use of reason, which is why they need someone to keep an eye on them all the time and make sure they don't get into trouble. Adult human beings not only possess but also exercise the faculty of reason. We're not children. What about our own children, then? Is God obliged to look after them 24/7? No; we are. Nearest of kin and all that. Plus it was our choice to bring them into the world; God simply acquiesced in our decision...All we can say is that it was entirely His decision to make the first humans.
What's a god to do given this answer? Nothing! Nothing at all! What's the difference between this type of god and no god at all? Nothing. If anyone thinks this is a good answer to the problem of suffering invoking an inattentive inactive indifferent god, then it would be an utter waste of time to worship him/her. If I believed in such a god I would shake my fist and condemn him/her for not helping. This is what Protest Theology asks of us, to shame god into action.

What Torley needs to show is why God is not obligated to help people who suffer. The person who has the greatest obligation to help sufferers, regardless of the parental analogy, is the one who cares the most, who also has the most power or financial ability, especially if the life of the one suffering depends on it, and especially if it demands so little from the helper. God cannot defer his moral responsibility to the parents of children who suffer. For one thing, Torley's god has more resources at his disposal to help children (miraculous power anyone?). Secondly, if parents aren't good parents god should step in to help their children. Even the law takes over the rights of parents if they seek to harm their children, or fail to protect them in times of danger, or fail to give them access to good healthcare.

Torlet continues:
Another reason why the parent-child analogy is flawed is that children lacking the use of reason can't disown their parents. Adults can. Looking around us, it's fair to say that the human race has collectively disowned God. We all sin, every day. Even if we could hear the voice of God booming from the heavens 24 hours a day, how many people would want to listen? Most or all of us would tune out, because we prefer autonomy and we also don't like having our consciences pricked. I say "we" because I'm in the same boat as everyone else.
I'm running out of time and energy on this. So much to say, so little time about this. Let's focus on just one point. According to Torley if parents reject god then god isn't obligated to help them, even though helping the parents is also helping the children. This is severely twisted. No social service agency conditions the help given to the child based on the behavior of the parents. But this is Torley's god for ya. It's as if Torley doesn't have children, and if not, it's a good thing too. He's unconcerned about them. That's why he gives this as an answer to why his god is not obligated like a parent to help children. The love of someone is never seen better (or worse) than how someone treats the defenseless. Children are the most defenseless people in the world. And Torley's god doesn't give a shit about them. Then let's look elsewhere to a different god, or none at all.

So if the human race has collectively disowned God, what obligation does He have to come to our aid right now, if we're in distress? He might figure (rightly) that He's better off leaving us alone for a while, until we're ready to come back to Him. Or He may think (rightly) that letting us stew in our own juice for a while will bring us to our senses sooner. Of course, the downside of non-intervention is that a lot of innocent people suffer undeservedly. But if non-intervention also helps hasten the collective repentance of the human race, then I don't think it's fair to say that God is wronging us. After all, what matters most is our eternal destiny.
Torley believes we may end up in hell, which makes his attempt to save god from refutation self-refuting. No thinking person thinks we're rebelling against a god (Allah?), nor that by disbelieving in him we deserve hell as a punishment, especially if that punishment is forever for a finite number of small actions. It is ludicrous that anyone believes this ancient barbaric superstitious stuff in today's modern scientific world. He's just too ignorant here for me. I recommend just one book, The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds.

Torley's last sentence:
So, is God morally obligated to help someone who rejects Him? Eventually, yes. But not right now.
Apparently in heaven, when everyone else is suffering eternally in hell. Is this something people in heaven can live with, knowing their loved ones, their children, are suffering in hell every second of every hour forever? No! Bullshit. Become informed Torley. Reject this barbarism. Now! Or you may suffer eternal punishment in Allah's hell.