If God is real why does he allow deformed babies to be born?

>>539748
because he can bring a good from deformed babies

>>539748
He has a wicked sense of humour

Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.

>>539760
Is he also intelligent and nihilist?

>>539755
Why choose to "bring good" through the medium of making innocent babies suffer, surely an omnipotent being can find another way. Also where does that leave free will? Those babies have none.

File: Assbaby.jpg (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>539748

God loves every baby.

Even Assbabies.

>>539748
Your question doesn't really challenge God's existence, but his benevolence. I'm atheist by the way.

>>539767
Well he does remind me of myself

>>539773
If he's not benevolent then nobody should even care about him or about believing in him. Thus it doesn't matter if he exists or not.

Punishing the parents for their sins.

>>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

Try again.

>>539748
because the physical realm is one of duality i e made up of opposites in principle

God works in mysterious ways, faggot

All the misery and horror of this world is just an elaborate part of it

However, all the good in the world is the result of his clear benevolence

He works in mysterious ways ;)

>>539769
God isn't short of "paint".

If he wants to make good, he can create another universe for the baby where they live a better life.

For an infinite God, this isn't hard to do.

>>539748
Why would he not? Clearly his plans/actions are alien to humans

>>539748

He'll judge them based on their next life

>>539805
Fuck off Hindu

>>539788
That's an elaborate way of saying absolutely nothing my man.

>>539800

So there's an universe where deformed babies are happy. Is that the rationalization?

>>539804
>their next life
Hippies need not apply.

Because God is not anti-material. To God, though, we are *all* deformed, and massively so. A baby who is physically deformed but has the spirit, is less deformed in God's eyes we are.

>>539748
Because if it were all perfect we wouldn't be as beautiful as we are.

>>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?

>>539769
because some good can only come from evil

why wouldnt they have free will?

>>539821
Because some of them are literally plants, have no upper thought process other than reactionary impulses.

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.

>>539833
Has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. But nice quote.

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

Thanks, God.

File: 23423536.jpg (19KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x300px

>>539838
I'm talking about babies that die shortly after birth you retard. Stuff like this. Will he become a geneticist?

>>539828
>have no upper thought process other than reactionary impulses.
of course they do, you dont need the brain to think

>>539846
>you dont need the brain to think
I think you're a prime example.

So to keep me from becoming proud, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger from Satan to torment me and keep me from becoming proud.

>>539844
what's the problem if he dies after birth?

File: can't be.png (10KB, 344x341px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 344x341px

>>539844
>deformed babies to be born?
>Uh no, i was merely pretending to be retarded, i meant EXTREME deformity! Should have picked that up anyway dude.

>>539865
Are you gonna answer the question?

>>539850
>apes have brain
>dont think
why would the brain be essential to thinking?

>>539867
No, because you've been demonstrably shown to be dishonest, and a retard. So engaging you would be pointless.

>>539869
>>>/x/

>>539869
necessary =/= sufficient

>>539876
>>>/reddit/

>>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).

>>539875
>dishonest
It's a subcategory of deformity so it still applies

If you had an answer you would have posted it in the same amount of space it took you to write that. Now fuck off.

>>539869
I'm not going to go into semantics. By thinking I mean the thought processes that happen in homo sapiens sapiens and not in other living beings. IE Imagination.

>>539883
So if "it is" why don't you go ahead and answer the first part of the question.

>>539884
>imagination only happens in human beings
nice one, m8

>>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."

>>539748
>>>/x/

Wrong board brah

>>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

>>539892
You should look up Anencephaly. They say that after they're dead I presume? So the premise is that all dead babies will stand up for themselves? Or do they automatically go to heaven?

You sound like someone who 'honed' their debating skills on /r/atheism. This whole ordeal of a thread sounds washed up and your whole arguments 'cranky' at best. 3/10 fedoras is your score.

>>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.

>>539914
I'm actually a Christian you retard. Now go fuck off with the fedora meme. Ignoring questions that are obviously troubling you isn't the path to salvation.

>>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

>>539919
>I'm actually a Christian

That's good, becomes Christ is most welcoming of the simple of spirit, like you. His love will transform you eventually, you'll just have to wait.

>>539939
>becomes

*because

darn.

>>539939
You basically said nothing the entire thread and just spewed ad hominems and memes. Can you go be a retard somewhere else?

>>539928
When the pool of choices is limited to reactionary impulses (like in the bears case) that's not how I would define free will.

>>539948
>Can you go be a retard somewhere else?

Hmmm, maybe i can make a thread and spew simple minded arguments about the benevolence of god? Hmmm...

because he created the universe.

he doesn't do things to satisfy your personal idea of what God should be or should do. if he wants to make a deformed baby to make the non-deformed appreciate what they've been given, then so be it.

we are the clay, he is the potter. who are we to say he can't make a deformed baby.

deformed babies have nothing to do with god

>>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

>>539957
>abstract thinking doesnt really depend on brain activity
Do you have anything to back that up? Every kind of human thinking is dependent on brain activity as far as we know.

>>539952
The thread was mostly questioning his benevolence.
If he's not benevolent it doesn't matter if he exists or not.

File: giphy.gif (718KB, 500x279px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 500x279px

>>539963
>If he's not benevolent it doesn't matter if he exists or not.

>>539904
If I chain you to a wall, does that impact your free will?

>>539905
No one "automatically" goes to heaven. It's always a choice.

>>539969
Chaining to a wall is different that meddling with brain function. So it's a misplaced analogy. If you gave me a lobotomy then yes you are impinging on my free will.

>>539963

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

>>539979
Well, free will is ultimately a function of the spirit, not the brain, or else everything with a brain would have free will.

File: eileenwat.jpg (43KB, 540x443px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 540x443px

>>539748
Explain what you mean by God and why such a thing is a concern in relation to God existing?

>>539748
idk lol

>>539999
>I'm sorry that doesn't make much sense to me, don't know how to put it in other words.

see

>>539975

>>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

File: Just cute my shit up.jpg (216KB, 1280x1459px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1280x1459px

>>540005
Alright.
Now I need to understand your question precisely:

>What do you mean when you say "God"?
>What do you mean when you say God is benevolent?

These details are more important than you know.

>>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.

>>540005
>I'm sorry that doesn't make much sense to me, don't know how to put it in other words.
Free will in Christianity is a metaphysical property, not chemical combos.

>>540014
>yes, but it doesnt eliminate it
Absolutely right. And similarly, the infant in your case who dies due to the state of original sin, still has free will in a spiritual sense.

>>540031
>"Good" is subjective to every person
no one is going to accept that bs presupposition m8

>>540035
uuh i wasnt the guy who made the infant case

Death and disease are a product of the Fall.

>>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
They revert to plants in a physical sense, but not in a spiritual sense, and our physical choices are largely just a reflection of our spiritual choices.

File: eileenseeingyourshit.jpg (47KB, 540x323px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 540x323px

>>540031
>God as in the Abrahamic one.

I'd assume as much but there are different understandings within that.

>What do you define as "the Abrahamic God"?

>>540059
What you're saying is the kind of thinking we do on this earth has nothing to do with the spirit? Then who cares what you think and do?

>>540063
>What do you define as "the Abrahamic God"?
I guess that's what I'm trying to find out my man.

>>539748
Probably because he knows there will be people like you who will find something to bitch about regardless of how you turn out. That's probably why you're autistic.

>>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)

>>540065
It absolutely does. I'm saying our actions and even our thoughts to a degree are a product of our spiritual free will, whether we actively pursue hamartia, or God.

>>539748
Because if God is real, he probably isn't a good guy.

>>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.

>>539789
>God works in mysterious ways.

Maybe this foul creature may yet prove one day to be of use to me...

File: image.png (262KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 500x333px

A better question is;

Why does God allow stillbirth?

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.

>>539838

Aside fron ignoring a lot of things, this also puts a dent in the "free will" question.

>>540168
There's a ton of suffering that is a product of the fall. This isn't any more confusing than the rest of it unless you think suffering is punishment.

>>540168
why wouldn't he?

>>540168
I'll give you a tip. You're focus is on the wrong thing....

>>540176
I thought the fall was metaphorical?

>>540226
The account of it is, the actual fall isn't.

>>540244
So how did it really happen?

>>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.

>>540268
>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)
wow.
You believe in this?

>>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.

>>540319
So really we're just talking about Lovecraftian horror's right?

>>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.

>So many people here are arguing from the perspective that we even have free will in the first place.

Why?

>>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.

>>540334
Because that's the Christian perspective....

File: 3079849093_4ed1806302.jpg (102KB, 373x500px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 373x500px

>>540334
Listen fedora.

Just because circumstances beyond our control determine all of our actions doesn't mean we don't have free will.

God cannot predict the future nor can he control it.

>>540335
Seems like Gnostic hated of the material, tbqh

>>540343
>Just because circumstances beyond our control determine all of our actions doesn't mean we don't have free will.

That pretty much is the definition of not having free will though.

Just because we have the ability to make choices, doesn't mean those choices are "free".

Christianity is literally incoherent on this point.

>>540363
The person you're responding to isn't a Christian

>>540366
Doesn't really matter.

>>540343

No fedora needed, this is legitimate philosophical point that needs addressing first and foremost. Before we delve any further, just define "free will" for me first. What is it and how does it work?

>>540372
It really does, because Christians don't believe circumstances beyond our control determine all our actions.

>>540373
Free will is the capacity to consciously choose between hamartia and agape.

>>540383
>because Christians don't believe circumstances beyond our control determine all our actions.

Which is why Christianity is incoherent on this point.

Can you read?

>>539748
The fall of man and free will ensures that man will choose good and evil over god every time.

>>540383

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

File: 50.gif (1MB, 245x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 245x200px

>>540388
>Christianity is incoherent for not subscribing to a secular doctrine

>>540385

Which is gained in experiences we have no say in. Cause and effect.

>>540404
No, Christianity is incoherent for claiming we have free will.

Free will is not possible considering our material and genetic makeup, and for the sake of argument, it's not possible if there exists and omnipotent, omniscient deity either.

>>540401
What does this have to do with free will? No, if something happens to you like with Job, it's not your will, but that doesn't mean you don't have free will.

>>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.

File: 1448318699894.gif (903KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 300x200px

>>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

File: 607722222.gif (2MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x250px

>>539884
>if you had an answer, you would have posted it

>im not getting into semantics

Thanks for the laugh

>>540416
Glad you understand.

>>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.

>>540412

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.

> Ephesians 1:4-5
1 Timothy 2:4

>>540432
Yes, our freedom has been tremendously impacted since the fall. That doesn't mean it completely disappeared. It's like the difference between strong legs, very weak legs, and having no legs.

>>540444
>Answering bible verses with other bible verses

lel

>>540444

You're missing the OT allusion to pharoah, it's not saying he makes god makes life hard for some people.

But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses. Exodus 9:12

God has no obligations to us.

>>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.

>>540463
The passage alludes to the Pharaoh, but if you keep reading, you'll see it's about why the Jews had to suffer so much.

>>540472
>that is a concept from Greek Philosophy
Top kek, no. It's a concept from ancient Judaism. Greek philosophy is not about free will.

>>540472
Also, Aquinas is very Latin, and Latin theology is indeed very influenced by Greek philosophy. I'm Orthodox, though, and we're not.

>>540490

That doesn't change the meaning.

Why do u care op? R u questioning ur faith in God and r u upset?

>>540496
Aristotle started the modern trend in On the Soul where he argued the anima was a result of self sensing action of choice instead of the creation of gods.

>>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.

>>540514
What. Aristotle thought existence precedes essence?

>>540521
The ancient Jews weren't sola scriptura, and neither were the ancient Christians. The Garden of Eden has always been seen as choice.

Idea that God can desire all men to be saved, but some men cannot be saved, is pretty clearly a product of free will.

>>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?

>>540551
No, he thought essence was a completely separate, ideal manifestation loosely based on actual existence that acted out in the anima to attempt to realize perfect ideas in an imperfect medium.

>>540472
Aquinas doesnt reject free will, dont be stupid
>>540498
The Orthodox are influenced by greek thought too m8.
Also, they made Palamism into doctrine, which indeed borders in the heretical

>>540176

And thus god allows children to be born with diseases that kill them afterwards? In the context of religion and a merciful god, this does not make sense. As so much else.

>>540579
They were one flesh with distinct agency.

Because the Bible was a small portion of tradition that was written down for easier reference, it was never meant to be comprehensive.

>>540679
>The Orthodox are influenced by greek thought
Greek Christians, maybe. Not Greek pagan thought.

>Also, they made Palamism into doctrine, which indeed borders in the heretical
How so? It's pretty much just an elaboration of panentheism.

>>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.

>>540684
Literally everyone dies, God doesn't want it to happen, that's why he sent Christ.

>>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.

>>541091

The problem with this argument is that, according to Christian theology, God is omnipotent and created everything, so whether it is "intentional" or not it is still his fault.

With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.

>>540692
>Literally everyone dies, God doesn't want it to happen, that's why he sent Christ.

>Hi I'm an omnipotent god that managed to fuck up. All life I create is dying and I can't stop it even tho I want too.

>>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

File: tumblr_nwoz9mSKvC1r41unfo1_250.gif (2MB, 196x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 196x300px

>>539748

because deformity is a degree not a state.

you are throwing babies missing vital body parts in a pot with babies missing a pinky

think about what is smart to generalize and what isn't, rephrase your question then come back

and for the question why?

>because he can

>>539748
To test your faith.

File: I_see.jpg (26KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x300px

>>541416
>"Without original/ancestral sin there would be no deformed babies, so ultimately its humanities fault."

>>541480
Not him, but it's pretty well explained actually. All humans deserve all the shit they get UNLESS they are blessed by grace. This is Calvinist theology 101.

>>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.

>>539748


This particular universe is actually configured to be a purgatory; it is a crucible to put differing teleologies to the test, and to see which ones behave more virtuously.

Its really the best explanation.

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.

File: freewill.jpg (27KB, 1324x138px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1324x138px

>>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

>>541480
Thats how all Christians think from Calvanist to Eastern Orthodox.

For them it comes under the whole free will clause which is the main and sometimes only explanation for why there is any evil or suffering

He's probably dead.

If i created the world i would also spread Ebola and send tsunamis over innocent people. Creating a world without bad things would be like creating a video game without enemies.

>>539748
God likes uncertainty.

File: i can't bait harder.png (424KB, 900x1168px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 900x1168px

>>539748

File: gondola24.png (27KB, 697x512px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 697x512px

to punish degenerate parents

>>540168
because for whatever medical reason stillbirths occur

how does this relate to god?

>>541328
>god
>fuck up
good one kiddo

If you're real why do you step over homeless people in the street

>>544675
because I don't care about them.

File: ah help.jpg (19KB, 426x320px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 426x320px

>If God is real why does he allow deformed babies to be born?

Because it's not God's adversity to overcome!

How can people not grasp the concept that God isn't going to let us play out our lives on Easy Mode!?!?

>>544675
Because I don't give a fuck about subhumans

>>544753
God is a baby boomer?

>>544479
In the same reason that the ford pintos tendency to explode when rear ended relates to the Ford Motor company and its claim to make quality and safe vehicles

>>544753
>How can people not grasp the concept that God isn't going to let us play out our lives on Easy Mode!?!?

Because they cannot reconcile this with God being all loving of humanity

Because he likes seeing chaos earth realm is beyond saving dudes

>>539748
Yawn... This argument again. There's a ton of answers to this. If you don't know the theistic defense of this, then that just means you haven't looked into any theistic philosophy.

>but why this
>but why make war

>Must be cruel to put us in a proving ground

Existence is all you've ever known consciously

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.