A close-knit ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn was plunged into a new round of mourning Monday by the death of a baby who was delivered by cesarean section after his parents were killed in a grisly hit-and-run crash a day earlier.

Police hunted for the suspected driver, identified as Julio Acevedo, saying he was barreling down a residential street in a BMW at 60 mph, or twice the speed limit, on Sunday morning when he collided with a car hired to take the couple to the hospital.

The death of the newborn on Monday piled tragedy upon tragedy and compounded the community's grief. The infant was expected to be buried near the fresh graves of his parents, Nachman and Raizy Glauber, both 21. About a thousand community members turned out for the young couple's funeral a day earlier.

"The mood in the neighborhood is very heavy," said Oscar Sabel, a retired printer who lives near the scene of the accident. "We all hoped the baby would survive."

Brooklyn is home to the largest community of ultra-Orthodox Jews outside Israel, more than 250,000. The couple married last year and were living in the Williamsburg neighborhood.

They were members of the Satmar Hasidic sect, whose men dress in dark coats and hats, wear long beards like their Eastern European ancestors and have limited dealings with the outside world. Raizy Glauber grew up in a prominent rabbinical family. Her husband was studying at a rabbinical college; his family founded a line of clothing for Orthodox Jews. (source)

Question for the religious people here: If it was God's will that these parents and their unborn baby die in a hit and run, how can we hold the driver responsible based on his free will?

Views: 829

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

None of that has stopped Christians from believing what they want to believe. 

Anyway, perhaps (a theist might argue) God is omniscient in the sense he is all knowing in terms or known what he wants to know. Viewed that way, his power is intact. 

But you have thereby proved it IS nonsense.  The concept is self-contradictory, and contradictions cannot actually exist.  (In general, tf you think you see a contradiction existing, you haven't looked at it closely enough; there's something you don't know that would resolve the contradiction.  But if you are faced with something self-contradictory the only possible resolution is that it doesn't, in fact, exist.)

Although people are careful to claim that we don't positively believe that there is no god, arguments like this convince me that this particular god cannot possibly exist.  So when it comes to the Xian/Jewish/Muslim gods, put me all the way over at #7 (positive there isn't one) on Dawkins' scale. 

As such, doG is less believable than Thor and Zeus who still are possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely.

Maybe 'God' is more like 'Maxwell's Demon'. God tosses the coin, but never looks to see where it lands, or at its state..

If predestination is true than there's no free will. Now, I don't believe in free will anyway, but I don't believe in predestination because of the surging world of randomness as you go below the atomic level, which may from time to time affect events on the atomic and above level.

Isn't it most reasonable to call that apparent randomness, rather than assumed randomness.  Wouldn't an actually random atomic level be incapable of sustaining levels on it?

I remember talking to a physicist about this stuff and he was of the opinion that we were so way out of our understanding with our dimensionally-bound reasoning that we can't really settle on anything, but rather we just need to explore and learn what we can about what we see so far.

I didn't use "apparent" or "assumed." I used "may...affect events..." which doesn't seem to correlate with either of those terms with any degree of necessity.

It isn't about what you used.  My point is that between the two main options we have, that something appears to be random but isn't, and that something is random.  I guess we could also allow for a partially random in there too...  But it seems that you are leaning toward randomness being more probable because you are resting on it to disbelieve in an atheist form of predestination.

Whatever. We know that randomness interferes in our daily affairs if only in the form of cosmic rays that, for example, cause mutations that wouldn't otherwise exist.

"...so way out of our understanding with our dimensionally-bound reasoning that we can't really settle on anything, but rather we just need to explore and learn what we can about what we see so far."

Very nice way of saying it. I expect that by 'exploring', we start to become aware of the "dimensionally-bound reasoning", and start slowly adding 'dimensions' to our thinking. Another way of thinking about it also, is to consider how we are socially conditioned by language, custom, and beliefs. These can 'confine' the decision space we 'visit' in our thinking. I expect that there are areas that should never be visited, due to their inherent anti-social, or none life affirming characteristics. 

Finding tools that allow a broading of our decision space, such as mathematics and modeling, allow us to 'visit' these possibly hidden holes in our logic systems. Sadly theists need to 'visit' these areas more often, but find ways to skirt them, and maintain a clear conscience. 

Unseen, the bible answers this rather unsatisfactorily.  

It says "

16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

God’s Wrath and Mercy

19 You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; 23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—"  Romans 9:16-23 NRSV

So basically, the answer is "God is a mystery".   So it is really a dead-end in dealing with Christians at least.  The bible answers it with as good as a cop-out as it answers "Why do bad things happen to good people" in Job

God is a mystery, so is what lies beyond our light horizon.

Question for the religious people here: If it was God's will that these parents and their unborn baby die in a hit and run, how can we hold the driver responsible based on his free will?

Let the mental gymnastics begin. Pretzel twisting contortions tainted in nuts of bat-shit. 




Started by Chris Russell in Small Talk Jun 20. 0 Replies


Started by Chris Russell in Small Talk. Last reply by Chris Russell Jun 6. 11 Replies

I'm not an atheist anymore...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Pope Beanie Jun 12. 19 Replies

Alex J O'Connor

Started by JadeBlackOlive in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman Jun 1. 3 Replies

Blog Posts

Equuleus - the little horse

Posted by Brad Snowder on July 9, 2017 at 1:08am 0 Comments


Posted by Mary smith on July 2, 2017 at 12:35pm 0 Comments

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service