The problem for Christianity is that it doesn’t fit with how God is presented. He intervenes in things from time to time. Destroyed civilization with a flood because he didn’t like what people were doing with free will.
You might be able to take a Deist stance and make it work. However, then you’re implicitly saying there’s no evidence for God, and are one step out from agnostic atheism. You could say God changed his mind and saw the flood as a bad idea, but fundamentalists are never going to go for that one.
For that matter, the free will explanation isn’t even universal among Christians.
People have free will, because that is the greatest good, but not freedom of consequences (even from god) when they behave bad with that free will. Even though they behave bad, if bad is an objective scale, their bad bahvior was still less bad than having no free will. On this scale, god not punishing them for their bad behavior is more bad than gods punishment. So, because he always has to let the most good thing happen he both has to allow free will and people to do bad and also punish people for doing bad even though he knows they will be bad and he could prevent it. Again I think it’s bs, and there’s a lot of bad logic in Christianity, but that’s their subjective stance (usually but, like you said, not a monolith). It “works” because good and bad isn’t something you can logic out very wrll since it’s highly subjective.
As someone who is neurodivergent: what a weird fucking non-sequitur-cum-ad-hominem. Fuck you for using “neurotypical” as an insult, like you are somehow better than others because you’re so special. You make us look bad. At least your username is accurate.
Yeah I’m not religious but this is it. Christians believe free will is “more good” than the bad things it leads to are bad.
The problem for Christianity is that it doesn’t fit with how God is presented. He intervenes in things from time to time. Destroyed civilization with a flood because he didn’t like what people were doing with free will.
You might be able to take a Deist stance and make it work. However, then you’re implicitly saying there’s no evidence for God, and are one step out from agnostic atheism. You could say God changed his mind and saw the flood as a bad idea, but fundamentalists are never going to go for that one.
For that matter, the free will explanation isn’t even universal among Christians.
People have free will, because that is the greatest good, but not freedom of consequences (even from god) when they behave bad with that free will. Even though they behave bad, if bad is an objective scale, their bad bahvior was still less bad than having no free will. On this scale, god not punishing them for their bad behavior is more bad than gods punishment. So, because he always has to let the most good thing happen he both has to allow free will and people to do bad and also punish people for doing bad even though he knows they will be bad and he could prevent it. Again I think it’s bs, and there’s a lot of bad logic in Christianity, but that’s their subjective stance (usually but, like you said, not a monolith). It “works” because good and bad isn’t something you can logic out very wrll since it’s highly subjective.
If you make a child, you are responsible for it. Should parents drop children in a forest to be at the mercy of nature?
I don’t know what you’re trying to argue here. Do you want my opinion? The opinion of Christians? The opinion of people who view nature to be god?
In my opinion, no. Obviously not. But I also am not a Christian.
Oh well, you are neurotypical likely, you would not get it.
As someone who is neurodivergent: what a weird fucking non-sequitur-cum-ad-hominem. Fuck you for using “neurotypical” as an insult, like you are somehow better than others because you’re so special. You make us look bad. At least your username is accurate.
Blocked for being toxic as fuck. Don’t need any asshole ruining my mental health whatsoever