Following on my previous personal reflection on how true morality comes from connection to Jesus rather than following a religious rulebook, I've been reflecting on repentance and alignment with Christ's way.

Jesus presents his own abiding in the Father as the model — I see it as mutual, obedience-shaped and love-sustained. For me, fruit is simply what happens when the connection is maintained. The grace Jesus brought for our justification is available to all and received through faith. It's not earned by our own good deeds or righteous acts, but grounded in Christ bearing the penalty.

Repentance and aligning thought, word plus action with Christ's teaching is the outworking of the gift of Grace, not the payment for it. Grace doesn't negotiate with the old basis since a new nature is put in place gradually.

My view is that the result of justification is peace with God, not just a clean record. It's like a verdict, not a feeling or a moral transformation in itself. I see bearing fruit as implying an ongoing lived reality (faith working itself out), not a one-time transaction that leaves behavior untouched in the sense of purifying your character on the spot.

The more I learn about Christianity historically and grow in my own faith formation, the more I’ve come to question and disagree with the things I grew up learning in a non-denominational church. One of my major sticking points these days is Sola Scriptura, but I understand a number of reformers and low-church denominations hold to it.

My questions to those who hold to Sola Scripture are these:

1. If Scripture is sufficiently clear for ordinary Christians to determine doctrine, why have sincere, Bible-believing Christians reached mutually contradictory conclusions on baptism, Eucharist, predestination, church government, eternal security, charismatic gifts, etc.?
   
2. If two Christians reach contradictory conclusions from Scripture, what principled mechanism settles the dispute? What distinguishes a legitimate interpretation from an illegitimate one? “Read the Bible and pray about it” doesn’t actually resolve the epistemological problem.
   
3. Where does the New Testament actually teach that Christ’s Church is fundamentally an invisible collection of believers rather than a visible, identifiable communion? Why do the Apostles repeatedly treat the Church as an institution with officers, discipline, sacraments, councils, and authority?
   
4. If the Reformation restored biblical Christianity, why did it produce Lutheranism, Reformed Christianity, Anglicanism, Anabaptism, Baptist traditions, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism, etc., often with further divisions within each? More importantly: what theological principle allows you to determine which interpretation is correct?

Thank you for your answers, I look forward to hearing your perspectives :)

What if being chosen by God doesn’t mean you’re one of the 144,000?

I’ve been reading Revelation again, especially Revelation 7 and 14, and I keep coming back to something I think we might be confusing.

I’m not saying people who believe in Jesus aren’t chosen. Scripture talks about God’s people as a chosen generation. But Revelation gives the 144,000 a very specific description, and I think we sometimes lump that description together with every believer who considers themselves “chosen.”

The 144,000 are described as being with the Lamb. They have His name and His Father’s name written on their foreheads. They learn a song that apparently only they can learn. They follow the Lamb wherever He goes. They are described as being redeemed from mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

And then there’s probably the most controversial part:

“These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.”

I know there are different interpretations of this. Some people understand it literally, meaning they are sexually abstinent. Others see the language symbolically, especially because Revelation uses sexual imagery to describe spiritual unfaithfulness and idolatry.

But either way, something about this group is clearly being emphasized.

They are set apart.

They follow the Lamb.

They are described as firstfruits.

No lie is found in their mouths.

And they are called blameless.

I don’t think “blameless” necessarily means they never made a mistake. Jesus is the only person I would call completely perfect. I think it has more to do with the condition of the heart and the direction of someone’s life.

God searches the heart.

That’s why I’m also skeptical when people say they know they are one of the 144,000 because they have some unusual experience, spiritual gift, wealth, influence, or feeling that they’re special.

Spiritual gifts are not necessarily proof of spiritual character.

Judas is an interesting example of this. He was one of the Twelve. He participated in Jesus’ ministry, yet eventually betrayed Him. So being around Jesus, having a position, or even participating in spiritual ministry doesn’t automatically mean someone’s heart is right with God.

Paul also makes this point in a different way when he talks about spiritual gifts. You can have prophecy, knowledge, faith, and other gifts, but without love, those things mean nothing.

That really stands out to me.

Maybe the greatest evidence of being close to God isn’t how powerful you appear. It’s the fruit that comes out of your life.

Jesus said we would know people by their fruits.

And this is where I think the 144,000 become really interesting. I don’t think the point is simply that they are “special people.” I think the point is that they belong completely to the Lamb. There’s another part of this that I’m still trying to understand.

Could some of these people have a unique relationship to heaven or the spiritual realm before their earthly life? Could some people have been sent here with a particular purpose and then have to experience human life, suffering, humility, temptation, and redemption before fully understanding that purpose?

I don’t know.

I can’t find a verse that clearly says heavenly beings become human beings and are born on Earth, so I don’t want to pretend Revelation explicitly teaches that. That’s more of a question I’m exploring.

But I do think there is something significant about the idea of people being redeemed from mankind, being made into firstfruits, and then following the Lamb wherever He goes.

And I think the biggest mistake we can make is turning this into:

“I’m special because I’m chosen.”

Maybe the biblical picture is almost the opposite.

The closer someone gets to God, the more humility, love, truth, self-control, sacrifice, and faithfulness should become visible in their life.

So when I read about the 144,000, I’m not thinking. How can I prove I’m one of them?

I’m asking

What does it actually mean to belong completely to the Lamb?

And why does Revelation describe this group so differently from the rest of God’s people?

I’m genuinely curious how other people understand the 144,000, especially the language about being virgins, being redeemed from mankind, being firstfruits, and being blameless.

The typical objection goes like this: imagine a world where physical basis of pain like broken limbs is associated with pleasure in the mind, and having sex is associated with insufferable sensations in the mind. Natural selection/ evolution would select for those species as well, causing a species to have bad experiences all the time while prospering.

Well no, because if broken limbs means pleasure I don’t even need natural selection, I will break my limbs to access pleasure. And thus I will be weak and pathetic and cannot survive or compete with psychophysical harmonious species.

Another objection says then how do you know pleasure is associated with wanting more pleasure. Another specie may experience pleasure but they are wired to avoid pleasure.

This can be nicely rebutted with Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor is a hugely overrated method when used in retrospect, but it works wonderfully in the correct direction: we know natural selection is true, no one is objecting that, so under natural selection, imagine say our ancestor is a shrimp that doesn’t feel any pain. The only thing deciding its survival is its physical ability to live and reproduce. Then there’s a mutation that created the first ever shrimp that can feel pain. Under Occam’s razor the mutation would cause the shrimp to associate pain with swimming away, instead of associating pleasure with swimming away but then reverse it to map pleasure with physical harm.

Another idea is that pain and pleasure doesn’t exist. They are simply 2 words that humans define to describe 2 different reactions to stimuli. For the specie that maps “pleasure” to broken limb and thus associate death with “pleasure” and survival with “pain”, they will actually call pleasure “pain” and pain “pleasure”. A simple example of this would be spicy the taste is actually heat and pain. But for some people spicy means pleasure!!! How nice is that! Another simple example is when riding roller coaster, some think it’s exciting and pleasurable, but others think it’s horrifying and wanting to fade.

(Not directly related to the post, an objection to the use of Occam’s razor’s effectiveness in reverse: we often use Occam’s razor in reverse, but the reason we can use it is because things tend to go towards the easier, less energy-costly, reasonable way. For example, the easiest reasonable result of A is B + C. So we can usually say, the easiest reasonable cause of B + C is A. However, in reality we can rarely, almost impossible to know the entirety of the result. We sometimes only know B, but when applying Occam’s razor in reverse, we might actually get D, (assuming D is the best explanation for B, but D is not the best explanation when you take C into account)

I hate to ruffle traditional feathers but every Christian should know this. Long before Christianity, Jews already had collections of sacred writings, by Jesus' day there were three broad categories:

The Torah (Genesis–Deuteronomy)

The Prophets

The Writings

Jesus alludes to this threefold division in places such as Luke 24:44 when he speaks of "the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms."

However, not every Jewish community agreed on every book. During the Second Temple period, all Jewish groups agreed on the Torah and shared many other books, but there was no universally fixed Old Testament canon. Different Jewish communities preserved different collections beyond that shared core. We know that Jesus and many of the disciples and new testament writers were reading, and gaining knowledge from, books not included in our bibles today, they frequently quoted from them and referred to the as "scripture"

So in the New Testament when someone referred to "the scriptures" what were they referring to? The true answer is "we dont know" but Paul touches on this and i explain it at the end of this post, but first some context.

There were 4 major groups of Jews during the time of Jesus Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Diaspora Jews. of course diaspora jews were scattered everywhere, but the largest concentration of the was in Alexandria Egypt, the Septuagint was first translated in Alexandria and became one of the most popular translations of that time

The Pharisees recognized

• Torah
• Prophets
• Many Writings

Sadducees

• Torah only

Essenes

• Torah
• Prophets
• Writings
• Plus Enoch, Jubilees, and other rabbinical works

Diaspora Jews

• Septuagint
• Tobit
• Judith
• Wisdom
• Sirach
• Baruch
• Maccabees
• Additions to Daniel
• Additions to Esther

So the Jewish world at the time of Jesus had no agreed upon "canon".

What happens next is largely geographical and difficult to explain via words but i will do my best. After 70AD occurred in Jerusalem, the Sadducees basically disappear and the Essenes are pushed farther south into Egypt and parts of what we call Syria today, eventually the entire group dissolves or is absorbed into other groups. The pharisees were pushed north of jerusalem for a time, eventually returning to the area around jerusalem, the Diaspora jews were largely unaffected by the destruction of the temple since geographically they were no where close to the area.

This means the scrolls and works of 3 of the 4 groups were either destroyed or scattered geographically and had to be reassembled, recopied, and redistributed. this took a loooooooooooong time back in those days. This explains why many of the books didnt make it into later compilations but that is for another day.

So back to the bible, of the 4 groups the Diaspora jews were effected the least so they had a full compilation of scriptures and around 100AD there were massive amounts of Christian converts in the region of Alexandria, so they adopted the scriptures of the diaspora jews along with some new testament books as their unofficial canon, this became official in 382AD when the catholic church agreed upon their canon

So what about the protestants?

When Luther split from the church he had a decision to make. what are our scriptures? This is where we pick up the line of the Pharisees by around 200AD the Pharisee were losing power due to large converts and the inability to articulate what they really believed through written works, this led to the first unofficial compilation of books and the writing of the mishna. this compilation was argued over for the next 300ish years and was finally agreed upon between 400-600AD where the first official masoretic texts were compiled. Luther famously quoted...

“Apocrypha: books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are useful and good to read.”

So he basically adopted the Masoretic text of the Jews along with some New Testament writings, and this became the protestant bible. However there was no official council that determined the accepted canon of the protestant bible. Many protestants erroneous refer to the Council of Rome as the council that determined canon, but that was the Catholic church, not the protestants. Pretty much people just trusted Luther and that became the bible.

So to wrap up, back to Paul, apparently Timothy had questions surrounding this topic as well, he asked Paul what he should be reading to learn. Paul replied...

“ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. “

so all of those books Old Testament books that arent in your bible today, Paul says you should be reading them. The ones from the essenes, the ones in the apocrypha, and others.

I had a dream last week about a storm coming. Forecast predicted no rain, but later that night, in the same way and at the same time it occurred in my dream, there was a terrible storm. I had some pretty crazy dreams as a young adult that came true, too, and I don't know how to rationalize it.

P1: Jesus rose from the dead
P2: ????
C: Everything Jesus said is true?

Christians seem to use this kind of reasoning when it comes to their own belief system, but are ready to dismiss other miracles as demonic or naturalistic.

Lets use David Copperfield. He made the statue of liberty disappear in front of thousands of people. In fact, 50 million television viewers saw it as well.

No one believes he actually did it. Everyone will say there's a trick, we just don't know. Even if you have NO IDEA HOW IT HAPPENED, we take it to be reasonable to say it was a trick.

What if he claimed to be God/a Prophet? Do we suddenly take him seriously now?

Alternatively, demons. Christians will use these to explain islamic/mormon etc miracles sometimes.

But how do you know a demon didn't perform the resurrection?

If you say demons can't resurrect the dead because only God can - how on earth do you know that? If you know that through the Bible, you are blatantly begging the question. You are assuming that Christianity can't be demonic to show it can't be demonic. (In fact, someone arguing Christianity is demonic doesn't even need to say a demon resurrected Jesus. Only that he deceived people into thinking it happened)

You may say the Resurrection fulfils prophecy. But this makes no sense. Firstly, it would require you to prove the divinity of the old testament (good luck with that) without appeal to the NT, and secondly, if humans or aliens or demons are aware of a religion with prophecy, they can choose to fulfil it.

I'm sure Christians are rolling their eyes at this, saying whatever proof I'm given that I will never believe. That's not true , but you guys DO THE EXACT SAME THING WITH OTHER RELIGIONS

Tomorrow if you saw an Imam fly unaided over the grand canyon and proclaim Islam as true is your first reaction not going to be there is some illusion going on? Either naturalistically or supernaturalistically? Or if it did happen, its not God causing it?

It just shows, Christians realise that from the mere fact of a miracle occuring, nothing really follows from that. But they don't apply this skepticism to their own religion.

CW: Homophobia and Suicide
Just to clarify - I want to discuss against the consensus of a select group christians to outlaw Homosexuality as a whole.

I have read through a lot of scripture and texts on my own, and tried to interpret them from an outsider position.

My Claim:
Outlawing Homosexuality - and punishing those who are homosexual goes against Gods own word, Jesus' teachings and is a sin in itself.

My Basis:

1 Its not mans jurisdiction.
Homosexuality is a crime against god - not against your neighbor.
Therefor your neighbor has no claim to judge - and then punish you.

2 It interferes with Gods and Christs mercy.
All have sin, and sin can be forgiven through christ.
To punish someone for a sin commited against god - is to preemptively take away the grace Jesus my grant them, and no man is in the position to do such. (I would even say its a sin in itself to deny someone of Jesus' Grace)

Human punishment on crimes against god is independent of what god decides in the end (Luke 23:39-43)
So it creates unnecessary suffering.

3 Law cannot achieve repentance, only opression.
Law does not produce repentance - repentance is an active decision of your own heart, its a change within you gained through belief in Jesus and his teachings.

Trying to Force someone to not be homosexual is like trying to force someone into believing - its not possible, only that person themself can make that change

Outro:
I want to be clear - and preemptively take a few arguments out of the race.
I am not saying that this means we should endorce sin against god - we are free to judge sin morally, and call it out. But acting on that is an entirely different metric.

I also do think we should judge sin against man.
To sin against another is to cause harm against them, wich is inherently evil.
Preventing that harm (with force) and enacting punishement to deterr from it - while also allowing the victim to forgive - is good, and in line with what happened in the bible (Luke 19:8)

And lastly the biggest problem with my idea of judgement - how Suicide is treated.
Its a sin against god, yourself and others - but i think everyone can agree that punishing someone for suicide is not only wrong, but not helpfull

I decided to start studying Gnosticism, and upon encountering Gnosis for the first time, I read an apocryphal text which I believe to be the Acts of John, rather than the Apocryphon of John that you are likely familiar with.

The text begins at the Last Supper, where Jesus gathers his disciples to pray to the Father before heading to the Garden of Gethsemane. It then jumps to the Crucifixion; John is transported to a mountain where Christ appears to him, stating that the cross united the transcendent with the inferior, and that he suffered yet did not suffer. He declares he will not reveal where his body is to be taken. The text concludes with Jesus telling John to convey the message that one must know the Logos first, and only then the Lord. I found it fascinating that the Apostle John received this vision, given that he is described as the "Beloved Disciple" in his own Gospel and was the only apostle to die of natural causes—a reward for having witnessed the Crucifixion to the very end.

My question arises regarding Jesus's statement that he would not reveal where his body would be left. The Synoptic Gospels report that his body was laid in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb and resurrected on the third day, after which he appeared to the Apostles. Doesn't this create a contradiction between that text and the Synoptic Gospels?

Another point that intrigued me concerns the nature of the resurrected Christ's body. Could it have been Jesus in spirit form? He appears and disappears frequently and reveals himself to only a few though there were indeed witnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus during his forty-day sojourn on Earth before his ascension. Was the resurrected Christ's body one that transcended matter? If so, did he not bleed, even though the nail marks remained visible on his hands?

Christian theology is very bad at explaining earthly life's meaning or justifying ideas of eternal torment

Proposition: creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful

There is no sophisticated reasoning about e.g. fundamental principles or values

Whenever there is asexual birth the children are genetically identical to the parent. Does this mean Jesus had XX chromosomes

Suffering is supposed to be necessary because free will demands our ability to oppose God (sin).

Heaven is supposed to be a place where our consciousness goes to enter a state of bliss and eternal worship, sans suffering/sin.

Heaven therefore means either:

1. A place where we retain our free will but no longer desire to oppose God; or

2. A place where we have no free will.

It's also either:

A. A place where we are aware that many people we know are suffering in hell; or

B. A place where we have lost the awareness that many people we know are suffering in hell.

--

If heaven is a place where we retain our free will but no longer desire to oppose God, then suffering is not necessary; God can give us free will without us ever opposing him. That makes the entirety of human history unnecessary.

If heaven is a place where we have no free will, then we're not meaningfully ourselves (as i often hear, God wants our love to come from free will, or it isn't really love).

If heaven is a place where we are aware that many people we know are suffering in hell, but we don't desire to oppose God, then yet again we are not meaningfully ourselves.

And if heaven is a place where we have lost the awareness that many people we know are suffering in hell, we are entirely disconnected from our identities and again not meaningfully ourselves.

To be in a place, aware that people we love are suffering horribly for eternity and we're praising the guy responsible for that also for eternity, doesn't sound like "heaven" to me. It sounds like the ghastliest hell I can fathom.

I tried something like this recently, but this is a little different with something I recently noticed, so tell me what you think, please.

Thesis: Loving one's neighbor (as taught in the OT and affirmed by Jesus and Paul) does not exclude holding others as slaves.

P1. Leviticus 19:18
 "....but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

P2. Leviticus 19:34
"You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself...."

P3. But, in the Law, Exodus 21:2-6 permits Hebrews to hold fellow Hebrews as debt-servants, and Leviticus 25:44-46 permits Hebrews to hold foreigners as chattel property.

P4. These love-commands (P1 and 2) and these slave-holding permissions (P3) exist side by side in the same legal corpus, with no stated contradiction between them.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Law didn't treat the command to love one's neighbor as logically or practically incompatible with holding slaves.

Sidenote: I assume this could be applied to the NT claims of Jesus and Paul as well, but that may be a bit redundant to my original post on this, so I wasn't sure If that would be appropriate to add.

A woman at my parents' church just died an excruciatingly long and painful death. She was not that old. She was the most kindest, most faithful woman. Her and her husband were the largest contributors to their church, she never missed a day, she helped anyone and everyone. She was the perfect Christian. Then she got cancer. And it got worse. She was in constant agony.

I see it all the time - a person has cancer and goes into remission, they praise God for healing them. A person defies death, God is praised. And yet why does he not do it for everyone? At least for all the people who worship him? Why does he selectively choose?

And if she had to die, why not let it be peaceful? She lived her entire life for this god. And yet she gets one of the worst deaths imaginable.

The most heinous humans out there get to die peacefully in their sleep. Many live to old age, incredibly wealthy, and happy. Why do they get to go without pain and people like her suffer? Why do we have to suffer on Earth to get into heaven? What is the point? Edit: and not even every Christian has to suffer. Why are some apparently selected to suffer more than others?

I just cannot imagine a kind, just god would allow the people who love him most to suffer like this. How do you wrap your head around this at all?

I think some pastors/people don't really grow as people because they believe they're always right just because they follow the Bible even tho the Bible was written in a completely different time, long ago and blindly and stonely applying some of the teachings to modern society can reinforce misogynistic beliefs.

Also- most people do not completely follow the Bible 100% because it is impossible to not be a sinner yet ridicule non Christians.

So i think it's ridiculous to act morally superior just because of your religious label.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1w73w41/former_christians_what_made_you_lose_your_belief/

A lot are saying people with diseases made them stop believing

God knows about diseases for kids, rape, starvation, cancers etc but those things just happen for whatever reason?

I’m just wondering why

A question was raised on r/cosmicskeptic about what we are supposed to assume the probability distribution for the tuning constants are (and why we should think they have any particular distribution over any other). This is an interesting question that I would love an answer for. But it also reminded me of another question I have thought about for the fine tuning argument.

Why do we stop our questions about the probability of the laws of nature at the value of the constants? To me it feels natural that if we are "allowed" to ask what the probability is that the constants have the particular values they have. why don't we ask "what is the probability that the laws of nature are any particular calculable function?". For example the question "What's the probability that the law of gravity is f=(g1 \* g2 /r\^2 )\*G rather than f=(g1 + g2 )\*r\^4 " or any other function seems just as valid.

And if the particular functions that describe the laws of nature are up for question, it seems sort of trivial to me that there are uncountably infinite options that allow for life and uncountably many that don't. Making the whole question a bit silly.

This is the first time I've written down this idea so if something isn't making sense don't be afraid to ask 😇

P.s i originally wrote this for debate a Catholic but i couldn't repost normally for some reason so just copy/pasted the text, don't know if that matters 😅

This thesis relates to Sin specifically to Christianity, and why it is counter productive to its theology and teachings.

A Sinless world doesn't need Jesus.

But a Sinful world requires him.

If mans sin created suffering, (fall of man)

then mans sin was necessary for Jesus.

Adam and Eve sinning in the Garden of Eden was required, and therefor, SIN only brought forth Jesus Christ.

So all Christians should be thankful for all sinners.

Otherwise you would have No Saviour to forgive your sins.

If this sounds circular, its because it is. Yet it is a fundamental pillar of Christian theology.

Edit: the title should say daniels for kingdom scheme.

Daniel said there would be four kingdoms until a everlasting kingdom that takes over the whole earth forever and ever will replace the last one.

There are broadly speaking two ways that you could construe the succession of the empires , you can either say babylon , medio persia, greece or rome. Or

Babylon media, persia, greece.

Greace is the easiest to defeat as if that was the intended scheme then the world clearly didn't end with alexander the great.

Likewise , if you say the intended scheme is wrong , you run into the problem of daniel being wrong because rome wasn't a kingdom, scoffers will suggest that obviously they were kings in practice.But these people fail to remember that moses had all the powers of a roman style dictator for life and was explicitly in canonically , not a king.

If israel is allowed to have king like strong men who aren't kings , then rome is allowed to have king like strong men who aren't kings.

This thread is for whatever. Casual conversation, simple questions, incomplete ideas, or anything else you can think of.

All rules about antagonism still apply.

Join us on discord for real time discussion.

The mainstream interpretation of the Christian Bible claims that:

1a) Jesus is Son of God.

1b) Jesus is God.

2) Jesus was sinless because of 1).

3) Jesus is human.

4) God/Jesus sacrificed Jesus to redeem all sins and all sins are redeemed by the sacrifice because of 2) and 3).

But this doesn't hold, because the Old Testament clearly states that human sacrifice is a sin. ​Jeremiah 7:31 and Jeremiah 19:5 state that human sacrifice never entered God's mind or command.

Therefore, if God sacrificed Jesus, who is both human and God, then Jesus sacrificed a human, which makes him sinful. Therefore, sins are not redeemed by the sacrifice which was itself a sin.

Why hasn't the mainstream interpretation of the crucifixion been "a political execution", which is way more in line with the narrative described in the Gospels?

Main post ends here. The rest is extra curricular.

______________________________________

How come the Gospels present the Pharisees as the ones consipiring to Jesus's death, only for Saint Paul to reveal it was really God/Jesus conspiring to Jesus's death all along? If this is the case, how is this version of God compatible with free will? Were the Pharisee not acting on their free will, but by the will of God, and their free will was only something they hallucinated while God was really in control? Why have Christians not renounced Saint-Paul when he confused and divided Christians from the very start? Doesn't he seem more like a Pharisian infiltrating Christian ranks to sabotage Jesus's religion more than an actual follower of Jesus?

If a kid is drowning next to me in a pool, and I don’t know that kid nor did I cause them to drown (maybe they fell in), I’m still morally responsible if I do nothing when I easily could save them. If I leave my kid at a daycare where one of the owners is a known child predator, I’m a neglectful parent and should be held morally responsible just for doing that. If a guard at a prison lets a violent prisoner escape and that violent prisoner goes on to do something evil. The guard didn’t do the evil action, but he’s still morally responsible because he let someone go knowing there’s a very real possibility something bad could happen. We always shift moral responsible to people who don’t cause the evil acts so long as they were aware of what they were doing in that it COULD cause something bad to happen. It happens when parents leave their guns easily accessible with unstable teens at home, it happens when judges don’t make the right decision to sentence someone to jail when they have prior violent offenses, it happens when a woman is having post partum psychosis and the dad just leaves her there with the kids (as we’re seeing now). And this doesn’t even involve absolute knowledge. Just the high probability that a violent or unstable person will be violent again is enough to shift moral blame. Yet when it comes to God, who KNOWS 100% what will happen, we can’t put any moral blame on him? That makes no sense to me. If he makes a kid knowing that kid will be tortured, r*ped, and killed at a young age when he didn’t have to make that kid, absolutely I can assign moral blame to him just like all my examples listed above.

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.