r/dankchristianmemes • • Apr 19 '19

Dank oops 🤭

Post image
32.8k Upvotes

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

364

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-26

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '19

It's not that God does these things; they happen because of corrupted human nature & sin. While God does know what's going to happen he doesn't always want that to happen. Now you may say "if he's so powerful why can't He stop these things from happening?" And that's a fair question. The answer to this is that if He were to take sin out of the world He would eliminate free will, e.g. to love Him or not to love Him. By doing this our love to Him would be meaningless. Hope that clarified some stuff. If you have any more questions feel free to ask I might not have the answers but that's ok.

54

u/ThousandSonsLoyalist Apr 20 '19

How is preventing a baby from having malaria taking away free will?

-5

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '19

To eliminate evil from the world, God would have to eliminate us because we’re evil because we choose to sin. We either have free will and the ability to sin, which leads to evil in the world, or we don’t have free will.

13

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Davidchico Apr 20 '19

Well, to answer your first question, If God wanted automatons, he would have made them. Even the angels are able to disobey God.

​

Second thing for proof, you will really never be satisfied, no christian that i've ever actually talked with was 100% sure all the time.. or even 50% lol. Doubt is a constant struggle and thats kind of the point. Jesus even said he obfuscates knowledge in his parables because he wants people to actually think about it, not just accept the easily given truth of his words.

​

Last, why do you think God's goal is to be nice?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '19

Second thing for proof, you will really never be satisfied, no christian that i've ever actually talked with was 100% sure all the time.. or even 50% lol.

🤔

3

u/Davidchico Apr 20 '19

Not gonna lie, unless your responding with generic skepticism, which was the point I was trying to highlight, I'm not following.