Explain child cancers to me, you heartless religitards

Explain child cancers to me, you heartless religitards.

Attached: 1562735213831.jpg (640x463, 46K)

Other urls found in this thread:

britannica.com/topic/maya-Indian-philosophy
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Justice

If daddy God isn’t exactly how I want him then he is OUT OF MY LIFE

Why would suffering disprove religion?

>Explain child cancers

What exactly is a "child cancer" and what does it have to do with religion?

>yet another brainlet who hasn't done any thinking or reading and doesn't know the answer to the problem of evil

Through a Glass Darkly by Jostein Gaarder

The biggest mistake to make about life is to think we're here to have a good time

Cancers are bacteria, viruses, and mutations accidentally destroying their host. Neither sentient, nor intentioned, they are meaningless in a metaphorical and metanarratival sense.

You could see them as a vestigal disturbance designed to somehow unlock the potential of the human mind but that is a subscriber service that also potentiates further psychic aberration.

Because the question for the believer in the interventionist god is "how is God good if this is happening".

I'm having a pretty good time bro

Attached: sickle cell anemia.jpg (745x817, 75K)

this
some children are pieces of shit

God is good and just, and would never permit bad things to befall on good people, or good things to befall on bad people at random. Therefore what we perceive as tragedy or suffering, is in fact neither good or bad. The way we feel and react to them depends entirely on one's disposition, or how the stoics would put it, one's hegemonikon.

>God is good and just
how do you know?

It amaze me how man can make this mental gymnasty to convince himself of all this bullshit

LOL.

When you completely fucked over that one person, sure enough that person fell into despair and asked the heavens, "if the Most High is good, why did this happen to me?" Why indeed? Because you are a spiteful and callous sod. When the kid dies of an uncurable illness the body was claimed by the earth, but the soul was rescued from life on an enslaved earth full of terrible people. If the earth was allowed to flourish and its people were allowed to optimize life in all aspects, then there would not be senseless death. But there is senseless death, because senseless decisions are made every day. You little twat.

don't blame it on me that's all Marcus Aurelius

Free will is the answer. Another addition to that answer is you're a weak person who needs a cope for why unfair things happen

>tee hee muh sky daddy and so on

then the next moment

>WHY is GOD so EVIL AND CRUEL???
>GOD IS SO UNFAIR, and I can say this because I am ABOVE GOD and can JUDGE HIM

Attached: 1557156950832.png (800x451, 198K)

Is there supposed to be any "Good" way to explain it?

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

Keep in mind that there is 0 way to verify any of these answers and all you'll get is 100% conjecture. Accept none of it without proof.

Wasn' he a polytheist ? Makes no sense of him talking of one and only God then

more like Cope Aurelius
hes pantheist

A world without child cancer would be better than our current world. However such a world could still be better, and the degree to which a world could be better has no upper limit, you can always just add in one more good person and the like to make things better. So a maximally good world is infinitely good. Now lets use the variable X as our world's goodness, the world without child cancer will be X+1, it is better in some degree. Now note that for any two finite numbers they are equally distant from infinity, both 2 and 3 are infinitely distant from infinity, to give one example. But this means that both this world and the world without child cancer are equally distant from an infinitely good world. God having infinite power entails infinite potential goodness in creation, thus God can create any world, but the possibilities of instantiated good are infinite, no matter what kind of world God creates it could always be better to the same degree. So any claim you can make like : "having only x degree of goodness in creation is unacceptable for God" is going to be an arbitrary one,as it is no closer or further from infinity than any other finite state of goodness. In this case to ask for infinite goodness in creation is a contradiction in terms, so him not being able to do that makes no difference to his power or goodness, and all finite states are equal instantiations of his power to manifest his infinite goodness in the world, being all equally distant from infinity, so the particular state of creation and whether or not it involves child cancer, has no necessary connection to God's properties like omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

dead children become angels, don't they

Shitty parent genetics
Sorry kids, God is not a individualist and he does hold your ancestors actions against you. Also as another user said, don't assume out purpose is to live without any suffering, it clearly isn't.

>Free Will
I have never understood this justification. If god is all knowing and all powerful then free will is at fake. God knows exactly how his actions (or lack of) will cause you to act and therefore is deciding to make you do that act.

britannica.com/topic/maya-Indian-philosophy

/thread

Attached: fedora.jpg (1000x1000, 101K)

Sometimes God does take backs.

Not an atheist faggot. Just not afraid to admit to myself that gods not some freedom loving liberal hippy that that unconditionally loves me.

>However such a world could still be better, and the degree to which a world could be better has no upper limit, you can always just add in one more good person and the like to make things better. So a maximally good world is infinitely good.
It's almost like Zeno's paradox

1. Inability to see the full causal implications of events-- it is not possible for humans to know exactly how something like a child's illness and death will end up impacting people and the world. This doesn't make childhood sickness good per se, it just means we cannot perceive anything more than the immediate effects (suffering of child, mourning of family etc.)

2. "The sufferings of this world are as nothing compared to the glory to be revealed in us." Eternal salvation redeems any amount of finite, worldly suffering.

3. With (1.) In mind, recall that suffering is necessary for provoking the human motion towards seeking out God, salvation and a life of faith. Suffering is a necessary aspect of love, and mankind is called to a life of loving God with its own free will.

Christ suffers to love us, and we suffer to love Him.

None of this will be convincing to someone who believes void and darkness follow death. It is precisely such a perspective which causes modern persons to consider suffering as being equivalent to evil.

>natural evil
>"muh free will"
Based retard
The Free Will defense doesn't even work against the evidential argument from evil. Get your philosophy right, you worthless troglodyte

No. Dead children can’t play baseball. They will never be a part of the Angels

>the problem of evil wasn't a thing before secularism
Imagine being this stupid, and so confident in your illiteracy

god is a creator, not a maintainer. thats our job.
fag.

That's not what I said. I said the suffering/evil equivalency is modern, and also suggested it flows rationally from the more foundational belief that death represents the total end of being.

Probably would have grown up to be shitty people

does religion mean that there are supposed to be no "bad" (whatever you think that means) stuff in existence?

You don't understand. One doesn't believe in religion because it's the most pragmatic or utilitarian ideology. One believes in it because it's true.

Prove to me that a non-living object is “evil” or capable of doing “evil” things. You can’t, because you’re a faggot.

What spell is she casting?
Is that milk?

Attached: FB1BE92A-F84F-4251-9AC3-924F3793991F.jpg (1255x1880, 1.41M)

>evil ontologically exists and isn’t simply a lack of good

Why would god create something that lacks goodness while still calling it good?

Why do you do it, butterfly?

>cancer
>a moral evil
Prove to me there is a moral evil in death or pain, I'll wait

Attached: 1564815273504.jpg (822x598, 59K)

Let's agree that god is perfect. Why would a perfect being create a would with child cancer is the question.
If god is perfect, god is identical with goodness. God is purely good and has no evil and is completely powerful and only does good. No evil can issue from god. Then what does god cause to be? Life and existence. And what is most of the opposite of that which we call good, against which our desire is turned? Sickness, death, that kind of thing. In a word, nonexistence. But god didn't create nonexistence. We must say nonexistence either preceded existence - for if existence did not exist then this would be nonexistence - or has existed (in its unique way) as eternally as existence, because for existence to mean anything it must have a contrast.
Thus the perfect being did not create nothingness (the waters in Genesis) but created either out of nothingness or against nothingness, and anything finite part of that creation must be in context with the nothingness.
Since every event is indirectly related to everything else and every change has a cause, in making the natural world perfectly scientifically and mathematically rational, for there to be any finite good against the background of nothingness, there had to be bad.

>One believes in it because it's true.
But it's not, atl the abrahamic pieces of shit

God makes evil, and creates good

This is stated by Him explicitly in the Bible

Children die of cancer because it is best. For them, their wretched parents, for me, for everyone

Oh and to make you feel better, in the afterlife there is no child cancer

Just the worm for the evil ones

You're gonna have to get a Bible google is censoring it I was gonna look it up for you

The whole point of God creating humanity is to create an existence that is not fair or perfect

They are good children, so they get to get heaven sooner.

They were criminals in their past life

God has no incentive to prevent suffering. That would actually limit his omnipotence

God is a fairy tale told to keep the dummies in line. Thanks for staying inline, dummy.

Most cancer comes from consuming animal products so is it karma?
I’m eat meat but I don’t drink nature’s growth hormone, milk.

Pleb. Please accept this rebuttal.

MILKY MILKY WARM AND TASTY!

MOMMY! MILKY! PLEASE BE HASTY!

REFRESHING DRINK FROM MOMMY'S UDDERS!

I WANT MOMMY'S AND NO OTHER'S!

GIVE IT! GIVE IT! GIVE IT NOW!

GIVE ME MILKY, LAZY SOW!

UNTIL YOU DO I'LL SCREAM I'LL SHOUT!

I'M CRY I'LL WHINE AND STOMP ABOUT!

UNTIL MY BELLY IS FULL AND HAPPY!

I REFUSE TO TAKE A NAPPY!

Tragedies are the most beautiful stories.
Read Plutarch' consolation to his wife upon the death of their baby daughter.

Religion is no longer needed for the governing authorities' sake. You're the one falling in line, pal

>Religion is no longer needed for the governing authorities' sake
Religion is no longer need

>commits suicide

>he needs a reason to keep on living
>that reason has to be a bunch of fairy tales
>he is too stupid to figure out his own reason for living
I’m sorry this happened to you

Human interactions are an interconnected web. The child's suffering tests him and those he is closest to. He will go to heaven and if his parents are virtuous so will they. Secular morality fails to account for this.

Read Pensées and see if you think the same

Unless you believe in an objective reason for living you are essentially accepting that your whole life is one big cope.

You could cure cancer but you choose not to. If Adam and Eve had studied seismology, none would have died in earthquakes nor tsunamis. If Enoch had studied transportation, the early humans would have had cars and electric ones at that after Abel had studied greenhouse gases. All these awful diseases are easily solved, but we choose not to cure them because we do not work hard enough.
Ask yourself these separate questions and see if you can answer them. In what physically consistent world is it possible to have consequences for ones actions but also freedom from natural suffering? Should the laws of gravity be suspended briefly because a child fell off a cliff? Such a world would not be physically consistent.
Human suffering is in large part because of our selfish ineptitude, and perhaps because it is impossible to simultaneously satisfy free well, a physically consistent world, and freedom from "needless" suffering simultaneously.

Lmao who said earth had to be free of suffering? This isn't heaven.

Christians on SUICIDE WATCH. There’s literally no retort to this that doesn’t posit the idea that God is ultimately not benevolent, a direct contradiction of NT scripture. The mental gymnastics alone that is required to apologise for God in these instances is embarrassing to see.

>Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
I suppose we need to find God a millstone.

Ultimately, in the christian doctrine, in the words fo Dosto, something will happen and

>suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidian mind of man, that in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, of all the blood they've shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened with men.

You just need that little leap of faith user.

>kids dying horribly for no reason is okay because one day soon we’re all going to heaven forever ;)

>Neither sentient,

Dualism is bad

>for no reason
It's as if you don't understand that in the christian dogma all the horrors and suffering must have been endured so that heaven comes to earth.

That's a dumb question, answered in detail in the Book of Job

This but unironically

How can one understand God/Tao without suffering? We need it as contrast to goodness otherwise we would no be able to feel and value it. The cosmic world is for perfect bliss but the duality that exists in the material world allows us to question and understand God. Being forced to confront suffering is not pleasant experience but being able to come to terms with it and accept it as a part of life will bring you much closer to God. Successful people of any metric know this as most will tell you about the adversity they have faced in life, conversely, people who don't suffer often lead very shallow lives and end up unfulfilled.

Not that I have decided my own beliefs on fate but one could argue that cancer stricken children or their family/close friends (should they not survive) often go on to do great things once they have come to terms with it.

read more

I think "illiterate useless turd" may apply to you, as I replied to OP question in the form of an excerpt of a monologue of fictional character Ivan Karamazov, when he's trying to figure out why innocent children are allowed to suffer. If you actually read, you would know that I omitted this part
>but thought all that may come to pass, I don't accept it. I won't accept it

good one

humans fucked up the creation so much with their mindless materialism and greed that now there is so much chemical pollution that children can get cancer, how is this gods fault.

Just outed yourself as the retard here, homie.

Being good and doing good are not necessarily the same thing.

What if we're in Hell ? Have you thought about that or similar things ?

You're assuming it's possible to create living creatures that can't get cancer. A world without cancer would be a world without humans

This but unironically and BASED

Attached: download (2).jpg (214x235, 5K)

Read Nietchee

What the fuck is that pic

Witch on shrooms, mang

We're all gonna die bruv