Hypocrisy

As a side note, predestination to me means that our fate is determined by our choices.

Isn't this by definition contradictory?

Originally Posted by Ocarina Master

Not necessarily. I don't think there is anywhere where God says, "Let all those with terminal/debilitating diseases go without care and die because it is my will." Maybe in the end the person will die, but that doesn't mean that you can't try to use medicine to cure them. It may not be certain that they will die from their illness. One can say that doctors and their abilities are a part of the help that God has (indirectly) given to the world.

Also, I don't see how the will to survive can be considered hypocritical in anyone's belief system.

I think he was talking about prayer, mot medicine.

The page maybe be gone now, but the creator, Tartarus, vowed he would continue in making more pages for no reason other than to try to offend someone. What's funny is that before the page was deleted, Tartarus actually linked to his profile just to show how over confident he is. Do with it what you will.

Originally Posted by Double A

Isn't this by definition contradictory?

In a way, but I would look at it as more of a paradox. Let's see if I can explain this the way I see it in my mind. Discard your personal beliefs for a moment and just assume that God is real, etc.

God creates the universe and everything in it, including humans, who he grants free will. However, God exists outside of time. This means that he can see the fate and choices of everyone who ever has or will exist. Because he has this knowledge and does not do anything about it, he has technically "predetermined" everyone to their fate. However, we cannot exist outside of time, so we do not know what will happen to us. For the most part, our choices make us who we are during life and determine our fate for when we die. Since God does not directly influence our lives, he has neither made our choices for us, nor has he changed the end result of our lives (that he has been able to see all along), thus creating a paradox of predetermination.

What I'm trying to say is that our fate is predetermined because God can see our entire life, but not predetermined because we still have control over the choices that we make while we live. It is the difference in how God and people interact with time that makes the paradox. Time does not matter to God, but we cannot move freely from one point in time to another. Therefore God "seals" our fate by doing nothing, and we change our fate by the path of choices that we make during life.

What is the definition of "time" you're operating under?

Originally Posted by Double A

What is the definition of "time" you're operating under?

Hmm...I'm not sure how I would define it, but I'm looking at it as though it is a line. By definition it has an infinite number of points/events/choices on it.

For an analogy, I am looking at time as a film strip. We exist in one frame at a time, and can only move forward one frame at a time. We cannot revisit the old frames, and we cannot look at future frames.

God is like the film operator. He can unroll the film and look at any frame he wants at any time. Because of this, he can see the past, present, and future relative to the frame that we currently reside in.

Originally Posted by Double A

Except, for the most part, this isn't "protection".

Oh it definitely is. Mobbing an internet troll with negative comments is akin to a group of howler monkeys hooting at a jaguar. Try to scare him off by yelling at him. Its one of the most primal methods of group protection.

On another note, does anyone honestly think that labeling a heinous act an "social experiment" or "an attempt to show the hypocrisy of group X" in any way changes or lessens how heinous the act is? I could be wrong, but it seems like the OP and the creator of that page tried to legitimize what would otherwise be a heinous act (mocking a terminally ill child) by calling it something that people might respect ( a "social experiment" and an "attempt to out hypocrisy"). Is this much different than what Nazi scientists did? Were their experiments any less heinous because they were done with supposedly honorable goals or intentions? Even if that page was done with the best of intentions, how do you think that poor dying girl will feel when she finds out about it? Is a social experiment, or showing a group of people their ignored hypocrisy worth literally crushing a poor, dying child?

Originally Posted by mattj

Oh it definitely is. Mobbing an internet troll with negative comments is akin to a group of howler monkeys hooting at a jaguar. Try to scare him off by yelling at him. Its one of the most primal methods of group protection.

This guy is a troll though. He lives off of those comments, especially if it started out as a "social experiment". The wisest thing to do would have been to ignore him, or at least to NOT respond in a "dropping to your level" sort of way.

Indeed. Feeding trolls is what they want. They want people to get upset and to yell at them. No matter how cutting or accurate your comments, they'll laugh them off. They find the whole idea of taking things seriously to be a riot.

Apologies, I didn't see this before.

Originally Posted by Ocarina Master

Hmm...I'm not sure how I would define it, but I'm looking at it as though it is a line. By definition it has an infinite number of points/events/choices on it.

So essentially, "time" (as you're using it) is a series of events?

God existing outside of (your definition of) time contradicts what you have said here, in that case:

God is like the film operator. He can unroll the film and look at any frame he wants at any time. Because of this, he can see the past, present, and future relative to the frame that we currently reside in.

^event

Originally Posted by Double A

So essentially, "time" (as you're using it) is a series of events?

God existing outside of (your definition of) time contradicts what you have said here, in that case:

Okay, I see what you mean and I definitely did not explain it the way I wanted it to come across. I guess I was just trying to find a way to make physical sense of the fact that God is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.

I know it comes across as a cop-out, but I guess the easiest thing to say is that God doesn't play by the rules of the universe. He is a singularity in that regard, so time doesn't apply to him and he can see whatever he wants, "when"ever he wants. And of course, this is part of the reason why religion comes across as quackery to the non-religious, since it cannot exactly explain the power of God.

I went on this predestination tangent because the poster I originally replied to seemed to think that Christians believe that they should just give up whenever something bad happens to them due to it being "God's will" (preordainment). I wanted to refute this by saying that God gave us the free will to change our future, since we as humans do not know what it our future is, only God does.



To keep this post on topic, I only saw one comment on the given screenshot that mentioned bad things happening to the page creator's children. The guy didn't need to start the page because it is completely obvious that all humans, regardless of religion or lack thereof, are hypocritical creatures. He should not be surprised by all of the hateful reactions, since many view the page as an attack on the ill child. There is no reason to use a victim of an illness to try and prove a point. The creator is just a troll, and a bad one at that. He gave out his real name for Pete's sake.

Originally Posted by Double A

This guy is a troll though. He lives off of those comments, especially if it started out as a "social experiment". The wisest thing to do would have been to ignore him, or at least to NOT respond in a "dropping to your level" sort of way.

Oh I definitely don't disagree with that. Flaming is exactly what he was looking for. My point though, was that flaming is a natural reaction to the type of thing the creator of that page did. I still don't see the hypocrisy the OP alluded to. I see a bunch of people getting upset at a seriously disturbed man who tried to harm a child. Maybe I'm just missing it.

People should not go looking for sympathy. Such is the sign of slave morality, and is not a trait of the Overman.

Originally Posted by mattj

Oh I definitely don't disagree with that. Flaming is exactly what he was looking for. My point though, was that flaming is a natural reaction to the type of thing the creator of that page did. I still don't see the hypocrisy the OP alluded to. I see a bunch of people getting upset at a seriously disturbed man who tried to harm a child. Maybe I'm just missing it.

Being a natural reaction and a hypocritical one aren't necessarily exclusive. What I was trying to say is that being a "natural" response isn't really important (nor is it, I suppose, even true for many people in the context of a social network).

I don't believe that it wasn't obvious that he was looking for inflammatory responses. If they really wanted to protect the child (like you were claiming), they wouldn't respond, or at least respond more calmly. The hypocrisy is present in the way people condemn him for wishing ill upon others, when they in fact do the same to him.

Is that really hypocrisy though? That man attacked an innocent, vulnerable, terminally ill child. Those people definitely did wish him ill, but he clearly wasn't innocent like that girl. I don't see why it would be hypocritical to wish ill on the guilty but be appalled when that guilty man harms a child. I could understand why it would be hypocritical to be appalled at an innocent person being attacked, but then attack a different innocent person. But he isn't innocent like that poor, vulnerable little girl.

Originally Posted by mattj

Is that really hypocrisy though? That man attacked an innocent, vulnerable, terminally ill child. Those people definitely did wish him ill, but he clearly wasn't innocent like that girl. I don't see why it would be hypocritical to wish ill on the guilty but be appalled when that guilty man harms a child. I could understand why it would be hypocritical to be appalled at an innocent person being attacked, but then attack a different innocent person. But he isn't innocent like that poor, vulnerable little girl.

He was being condemned for doing something by people who are doing the exact same thing. The status or situation of the girl is not relevant. They are still "stooping down to his level".

It's hard to be the "better man," it really is. My respect goes out to the person who backs out of a fight or refuses to retaliate, but that just isn't human nature. I don't blame any of these people to react distastefully to a provocative and hurtful statement because that's what most of us including myself would do. Besides, keeping bottled up anger is dangerous and unhealthy; an Internet flame war is far preferable way to let out steam than a real life scuffle, which in turn is better than violence.

As for this "social experiment," I doubt that was the author's intention. He could have easily found such results anywhere there are trolls. There was no reason to put a bunch of strangers in a bad mood to prove a point, especially when there runs a risk of the girl's own family finding the statements.

Originally Posted by Thegargoylevine

As for this "social experiment," I doubt that was the author's intention. He could have easily found such results anywhere there are trolls. There was no reason to put a bunch of strangers in a bad mood to prove a point, especially when there runs a risk of the girl's own family finding the statements.

The family has to go no further than Adalia's own Facebook page to find these sort of statements. I do pity her, not for her illness which is not treatable, but for her mother to look for sympathy through a corrosive medium like Facebook.

Here's her page if anyone's interested: Adalia Rose

I find this "social experiment" inconsiderate towards people's feelings. Sure those people are not "morally correct" but trolling as a social experiment just sounds stupid if you ask me.
That's like me running around with a megaphone shouting 'RELIGION IS FOR RETARDS' outside several churches, as a "social experiment".

Maybe I just repeated what others said, but this is my take on it.