>>539783 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." Ezekiel 18:20
>>539812 Okay so because we're all deformed he decided to make beings that are born in suffering and never have the chance to apply their free will? Isn't that what he gave humans that made separate from animals?
And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us.
A deformed baby, out of personal suffering experiences with deformities and empathy to those who have it too, becomes a geneticist that works on a pioneering research to weed out genetic deformities out of the genome in the prenatal period. Didn't see that coming, did you? God did. One of the best motivational speakers out there is born limbless and he brings joy to millions. v\https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kxSrPD__BA
>>539820 It is. Our fall was a product of free will, but it also impairs our free will. We're completely enslaved to pleasure-pain and the material world masters us more than vice versa (even with all the technology we have today).
>>539887 Well, they still have free will in regard to salvation, presumably. They can be saved or say, "No, my chance in life was unfair, and there is no way you can be considered a benevolent God. I side with Satan who cares more about justice than free will and forgiveness."
>>539887 >>539896 also, why would you consider they dont apply their free will? Free will applies to what you can do. It would be like arguing that a man isnt free because he cant get pregnant, or a blind man isnt free because he cant see, or a horse isnt free because it cant fly, etc
>>539904 >Free will applies to what you can do. What are you trying to say my man? A bear can maul you and he does it, is that free will? Free will implies being able to make a choice some of these babies obviously don't have it. Its empty upstairs or they're even dead when they're born.
>>539915 > Free will implies being able to make a choice and they can still make choices, but they can only make them from a limited pool of choices >A bear can maul you and he does it, is that free will? if a bear has free will he can choose to maul me . If a bear has free will he cant choose to talk, make my taxes, etc
>>539948 >When the pool of choices is limited to reactionary impulses (like in the bears case) that's not how I would define free will. but it isnt, as i said, abstract thinking doesnt really depend on brain activity, so they arent limited to impulses
benevolence in your definition would be your personal definition. you may think abortion is a loving act for the mother, and a non-issue for the fetus, whereas another person would say abortion is evil for a baby that's just been murdered
i would also add that even if God wasn't benevolent (which i don't agree with), it would still matter, because we would still be faced with the option of going to heaven or hell
>>539988 It was mostly a mistake. It should have been "if god is benevolent". >>539983 >benevolence in your definition would be your personal definition That's why I'm trying to see what your definition is and how it fits in this scenario. >>539987 I'm sorry that doesn't make much sense to me, don't know how to put it in other words.
>>539769 >Also where does that leave free will? Those babies have none.
This is like arguing free will doesn't exist because you were born black and not white. It's pants of head retarded. Also, 90% of deformed babies come from the mother doing something stupid during child birth like smoking or drinking alcohol.
>>539781 >If he's not benevolent then nobody should even care about him or about believing in him.
Holy shit you are retarded. If believe will learn to like a brutal dictator ruling their country, then surely an all powerful being with infinite power is at least as worthy as being liked? There are several religions that worship a deity not out of benevolence, but of fear of the consequences.
Also, you blatantly moved the goal post by switching from "god doesn't exist" to "it shouldn't matter if he exist". If you are going to start a thread over a central argument, then please don't immediately flip fop on it at the first sign of criticism.
>>539962 i disagree, while human thinking has been shown to be correlated to brain activity, there isnt anything that shows it is dependent upon it >>539976 >If I chain you to a wall, does that impact your free will? yes, but it doesnt eliminate it
>>540020 >What do you mean when you say "God"? God as in the Abrahamic one. >What do you mean when you say God is benevolent? Desire to do good. "Good" is subjective to every person so for example the scenario I just presented doesn't seem "good" to me.
>>540012 I should have been more specific when I wrote that by deformity I meant the ones that impeach on your ability to think. >>540036 I'm not saying there isn't a greater truth or good, but it's something you might struggle for all your life and still not find the answer to especially because you can't see all the implications of an action. >>540032 I always looked at free will as a property of the brain and it indeed seems to be because if the spirit was governing the "free will" you talk about why do you see some people reverting to plants (I don't mean physical but in the head) when certain parts of their brain have been affected.
>>540052 i dont see why you would think they "revert" to plants. That doesnt sound like something plausible. "Revert" implies youve been a plant before, which is something that cant be accepted by the Christian (both on philosophical and theological grounds)
>>540031 god created man in his own image. unless god is deformed, it is difficult to say deformities are the result of god, but rather of postlapsarian man -- i.e. sin. god is benevolent because he wants to grant salvation to all men from the issue of sin by restoring them to his image through christ.
Why does he allow children's diseases (pic related)?
There are no satisfactory questions to these. "god works in mysterious ways" is not a satisfactory answer because it's a cop out. It suggests we're not even worthy of discussing theological questions. Essentially, it's just an infintile last resort of a cornered person.
>>540254 Probably it was in the last iteration of the material (Genesis literally says in "a" beginning). Man had completely control of matter, but then became enslaved to it and was so powerful he created a nightmare for himself, so God nuked it from orbit (the flood), Anyway, might have been several cycles, but suffice to say, you have this one now, where man's power is very pruned, but he still destroys himself and his environment a lot.
>>540313 It's just theoretical, not dogma, but I'm influenced by my idea of the pre-fall creation by the Philokalia and Fyodorov's philosophy. Why, is any of this more ludicrous to than believing the immortal and perfect creator of reality came down in human form, got tortured to death, then came back to life three days later?
When I say "nuke it from orbit," I mean he probably just collapsed the universe or whatever.
>>540322 Sort of, except man was the Lovecraftian horror horror, so he go rekt. 1/3 of the angels had a similar issue under Satan, who was appointed ruler of the world, and then decided God wasn't necessary.
>>540322 Lovecraft would have hated it, but Lovecraftian Horror is deeply sympathetic to the orthodox christian worldview.
The concept of a "fallen world" is like that. Most people try to simplify that horror into a world when humans did something to warrant punishment, so pain is allowed to happen.
But when you reach into theology and mysticism, the problem is much deeper. The notion that everything in this world is deeply WRONG. God did not intend this to be. Everyday we exist and our existence is a lurching, struggling abomination. And most people can't even realize it.
For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." -- Romans 9:11-22
>>540404 Exactly, that is why your jargon is nonsense when you aren't talking to other Christians who actively avoid physical evidence and have their own alternate definitions and invisible supernatural basis for motivation.
>>540409 >free will is not possible based on our cosmetic knowledge of the material >free will is not possible if God can foresee our free decisions, because they obviously can't originate with us if God can predict them, since God cannot know our hearts in all times, even though he exists outside of time
>>540414 This thread is about a hypothetical scenario where the Christian God exists (obviously at least a benevolent God, otherwise the question would be nonsensical). Presumably the Christian answer is requested. That is kind of hard to supply if you demand the Christians accept atheist assumptions first, which dispermit the answer.
I think you should read it a bit more closely. It says god formed you, like a potter, to do whatever he wanted you to, he made one lump of clay for honour another for dishonour, he hardeneth who he hardeneths, etc etc he chooses, he decides, and if you complain well tough shit he's just god mother fucker.
He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5
>>540412 That expression is a paradox, those two concepts naturally contradict since if you are restricted to a limited choice among an uncontrollable set then you don't have freedom, you have a limited perspective.
>>540429 > It says god formed you, like a potter, to do whatever he wanted you to, he made one lump of clay for honour another for dishonour, he hardeneth who he hardeneths, etc etc he chooses, he decides\ Right, some of us have it easy, others--well, back then especially, are born as slaves.
>>540425 As long as you understand it is nonsense that only belongs in nonsense threads.
Also the christian bible never says man has free will, that is a concept from Greek Philosophy that even St. Thomas Aquinas rejected, they were given knowledge of good and evil by eating the fruit, not free will or they wouldn't involuntarily feel shame.
>>540498 Yes and Latins can interpret it that way because free will is not mentioned in the bible, it is something that has been added along with other sect dogmas that each religion adds based on other moral codes of the day.
>>540563 It wasn't man's choice, though, it was woman's choice and they were one flesh, so his choice is her choice and it doesn't matter if he understood what he was eating or not because the biblical account does not even reference free will or care if it was a choice.
If it is so important, then why doesn't the bible clearly say that and just makes it seem like they were doing what they were told to do and didn't know God was more good than a snake because they didn't have knowledge of good and evil?
>>540679 No, he purposely used the expression free choice because he found problems with calling it free will because there are obvious existing physical restrictions that bind a will and he went to some lengths to redefine free to fit.
>>539748 The issue with this argument: it's basically stating that God existence is determined on conditions of his creation (If one follows Christian God theologically). The problem with assertion it depends on idea is either it's not intentional or God's unjust thus God can't be a, well, a deity. As least the one described in the bible. However, it's likely He permits this to occur, but not necessarily desire for to happen.
>>539748 Christians *literally* believe this to be the result of Adam and Eve disobeying God by eating the forbidden fruit. Without original/ancestral sin there would be no deformed babies so ultimately its humanities fault.
>>541299 This guy explains it well >>541237 "Without original/ancestral sin there would be no deformed babies, so ultimately its humanities fault." Also if one follows Christian theology, God seems to want to remove the suffering of the world once his revolution occurs, but apparently it only happen under specific guidelines and events. So, God is taking responsibility with humanity, but as a whole. You might find this a little more enlightening and thorough. https://vimeo.com/41753716
>>539773 Yes, but God is described as infinitely benevolent in most Abrahmic religions, so OP's not just challenging God's benevolence, but he's also challenging God as he's depicted in Abrahamic religions.
Because in reality this short life is but a blip compared to the life to come after.
Such people get a practical free pass into heaven, and we don't even know if the worst affected of them are even experiencing it soberly.
The deformities and cancers you fedorists are talking about are mainly new in their occurrence, and it is largely due to the contamination of our air, food, water, and in general our environment by chemical manufacturers and other large corporations. Such things are humanity's fault.
>>540688 >Greek Christians, maybe. Not Greek pagan thought. of course you were, m8 >How so? It's pretty much just an elaboration of panentheism. ignoring the problems of panentheism, how can you be ok with the Church making a philosophy into a doctrine?
>>>540689 >No, he purposely used the expression free choice because he found problems with calling it free will what are you talking about? he calls it free will all the time, see pic
Death, struggle, strife is meant to show you how insignificant, yet paradoxically grand our lives can be -- how it pales in comparison to all of Creation; assuming one would ascend into the heavenly plane to witness it.
Lots of different takes on it, but life is not everything, or the only thing. It is just a thing. Being.
>>544753 It's beyond hard mode for the non-viable babies. It's barely even a mode.
It occurs to me that if he wanted to, God could prevent them from suffering while leaving external reality unchanged. Acknowledging this has dangerous implications though, that's probably why we don't do it.
Thread replies: 181 Thread images: 19
Thread DB ID: 402598
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.