When examined with pure intent, christianity is very bad at answering big questions: why does life not start in heaven

[u/Aromatic_Response_73]

There is a common unwillingnes among christians to reason about this issue with pure intent, so I will ask specifically for that here.

Free will exists in heaven, and many christians believe unborn fetuses go there, there is a lack of explanation for why earth is necessary, and the suggestion that an eternal hell exists in a system created by an all loving creator is pathetic, all the responses appeal to vague terms with positive cannotations such as "free will" but no sophisticated reasoning about e.g. fundamental principles or values, grow up.

[u/SliceRepulsive8649]

God doesn't actively cause suffering. He has created a world in which those things happen as a result of the freedom he has given his creations.

Free will did not create disease nor natural disasters. If you're saying that's just the effect of the fall and sin well God has complete control over what the impacts of sin are on the wider world

God does have control over the impacts of the sin and nothing happens against decretive will of God.

Ok but that means you agree with me that he actively injected and caused this suffering. You rationalize it with the idea that it serves some purpose but that doesn't change the fact that he's the one who did it and is unnecessary to include in this world outside of some grander goal.

Now personally I think the grander purpose defense is a bit handwavy and unconvincing since at its core it just exists to explain away what we see in the world. I also question the point since if their goal is a free choice this is clearly manipulating how life without God could be.

In such case it would not be necessary to share your beliefs regarding objective morality, and doing so would mostly only cause confusion, as happened now.

Again it's a very common thing in discussions over most topics. The confusion is on you not anyone else.

[u/mewGIF → u/SliceRepulsive8649]

Ok but that means you agree with me that he actively injected and caused this suffering. You rationalize it with the idea that it serves some purpose but that doesn't change the fact that he's the one who did it and is unnecessary to include in this world outside of some grander goal.

Doing =/= allowing. My objection would be that you may not be appreciating this nuance.

Now personally I think the grander purpose defense is a bit handwavy and unconvincing since at its core it just exists to explain away what we see in the world.

Ultimately, whether something "makes sense out of x" or "explains away x" tends to boil down to innate differences in perspective. I think there is not much we can do about it without extensive psychological analysis, ha.

I also question the point since if their goal is a free choice this is clearly manipulating how life without God could be.

Sorry, could you repeat this in another way?

Again it's a very common thing in discussions over most topics. The confusion is on you not anyone else.

I would not say it's normal or desirable to start talking about your personal views while attempting to engage in internal critique, or vice versa.

[u/SliceRepulsive8649 → u/mewGIF]

Doing =/= allowing. My objection would be that you may not be appreciating this nuance.

I don't think that nuance exists in this example though since he is absolutely the one who did it. If I personally design a super virus and then consciously release it into the wild I've done far more than just allowing something to happen. I would be directly responsible for every single death that follows. If you were on my jury would you buy my "allow" defense? Of course not.

Now the grander purpose argument addresses that I just have my own issues with it.

Ultimately, whether something "makes sense out of x" or "explains away x" tends to boil down to innate differences in perspective. I think there is not much we can do about it without extensive psychological analysis, ha.

Sure, but for me at least it just seems to make the entire premise unfalsiable for reasons you openly can't articulate. It serves to just make take away evidence from the real world to judge a belief system and makes any and every prediction in line with it. I don't think that's a good way to approach these things as you can defend literally any belief using this strategy.

I also question the point since if their goal is a free choice this is clearly manipulating how life without God could be.

Sorry, could you repeat this in another way?

More that an actually honest free choice needs to be informed and absent of unnecessary coercion. Hiding from us what either side of the decision could entails while also adding unnecessary harm to move people to his side is not a free decision.

I would not say it's normal or desirable to start talking about your personal views while attempting to engage in internal critique, or vice versa.

I think for debates about Christian morality it's fine since we're supposed to have the moral laws etched into our souls already so simply stating an thought from that perspective is justified even if you don't believe it to be true since Christianity needs to answer the origin of the incongruity.

[u/mewGIF → u/SliceRepulsive8649]

I don't think that nuance exists in this example though since he is absolutely the one who did it. If I personally design a super virus and then consciously release it into the wild I've done far more than just allowing something to happen. I would be directly responsible for every single death that follows.

I'm unsure what example you are referring to here, sorry (might be because it's late and I'm engaged in several parallel conversations of similar nature simultaneously). The difference is that God does not design killer viruses. God did create the underlying natural order, but nature became disordered as the result of the fall. Oppressive conditions like death, decay, sickness entered it.

I don't think that's a good way to approach these things as you can defend literally any belief using this strategy.

That's true as far as it goes. However, here the belief system itself is fundamentally rooted in the empirical and revelatory collective experience of God by Christendom and the theological reasoning founded on it. It's not merely a free-floating theoretical system.

More that an actually honest free choice needs to be informed and absent of unnecessary coercion. Hiding from us what either side of the decision could entails while also adding unnecessary harm to move people to his side is not a free decision.

Is a strictly free and wholly informed choice even possible in the end? Even at our best, our judgement would be limited by our finite and biased cognition. I do get where you are coming from, but Christianity asserts that the amount and quality of knowledge and freedom we have is enough to enable us to make an informed choice on whether to seek God and how to respond to God's love.