Too bad you take away choice. Good lil’ chilun automatons with lollipops.
What’s choice? Did you choose your parents? I work with heroin addicts, gamblers, alcoholics, what should I tell them? Choose not to have started those behaviours?
Everyone is a victim. Got it.
Who isn’t? Or are you a victim of too much privilege?
Give thanks always and for¹ everything (including kidney cancer) to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
¹Not just in all circumstances (1 Thessalonians 5:18).
Me too. Not that particular horror. But others. I’ve been homeless too. Broken. Bereft. And I have been delinquent of course.
Would you wish that on anyone?
And again
Was that in reference to my kidney cancer? Your memory disappoints. Nor was @gbob horrified by his. He suffered well.
That would depend upon whether or not we have submitted to being rescued by his offering. All is not well for all eternally. Putting yourself above Jesus and deconstructing his words is something I would recommend against.
The label on the tin is misperceived or distorted due to faulty spectacles. I thought of you when I was reading this – spotty glasses could prevent you from seeing the [spoiler alert! 
] Dalmatian, or have you see something that was not there:
Not as much as it does me. But it never will again in this regard: one learns through suffering yet.
I’m in good company. You deconstruct Jesus’ words all the time without even being aware of it and reconstruct them according to your unconscious cognitive bias, your narrow, shallow epistemology, your folk Lutheran enculturation. You can never be ready, it’s too late. In this irrelevant life.
You need to look in that mirror and see yourself, not me. When you’ve fixed yourself, your unconscious cognitive bias, your narrow, shallow epistemology, your folk Lutheran enculturation, get back to whatever mote there actually might be in my eye.
So for the third time of asking.
And to the thread title and OP. There is only one thing. Pistis Christou. The Faithfulness of Christ.
Since Tertullian at least post-Apostolic, non-Jewish (Second Temple Jewish), {non, un, anti}-Pauline Christians have gotten their jollies knowing that in Heaven their joy will be sadistically complete, revelling in knowing the horrors that their God is perpetrating on those in Hell. Augustine. Aquinas. Luther et al continued in that infernal, sick projection to this day. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims all believe the same of course. Funny that. The universality of Christ eh?
Don’t worry, Love will cure you all of that, but the vast majority of you will have to die first.
Irony meter explodes.
We all have cognitive bias – some biases are correct. Yours isn’t.
So, if you had a choice between a God who could fix everything for everyone in the transcendent and a righteous psychopath who tortured everyone who had never said the sinner’s prayer, but proportionate to their unforgivable humanity of course, reliving their sin on the receiving end forever and ever, I wonder which one you’d choose?
I choose the God who interventionally acts into his children’s lives, but you deny his existence, because the examples given are not ‘statistically significant’. Like the science of statistics can address the meaning infused into God’s providential M.O. Hoo boy.
Here’s a question you have been refusing to answer for a long time, first publically, then in PM, and now again:
Is a man saying something in a boat once during a storm statistically significant? Oh, the storm stopped. What a coincidence. Timing and placing. Have you heard that combination before? Meaning was infused, why? Because of timing and placing. Remember Maggie? Rich Stearns? Yours truly? And belay the raising of any scarecrows stuffed with straw.
I don’t deny Love’s existence at all. I have no experience, no knowledge of this God who intervenes in anyone’s life. So I’m right about this intervening God of yours.
Yes, you’re right – you have no experience, or at least cannot interpret it correctly.
What about the man in the boat? Is that experience and testimony statistically significant?
You have been given examples, so your denial is vanity.
I interpret my experience - and yours and Maggie’s - rationally. Sorry. No other interpretation is necessary. And that doesn’t negate Love in the slightest. The Love that makes sure that everyone ends up with the same lollipop.