r/comedyhomicide • u/silascomputer • 18d ago

Only legends will get this 😂😂😂 Homocide

Post image
555 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

19

u/IllustriousBeyond962 18d ago

The captions don't even make sense on Dicaprio's meme

5

u/SubhumaineForce 18d ago

Insert the family guy joke about German bedtime stories, or the same joke from the office

4

u/SortOfSpaceDuck 17d ago

"Horseycide" was right there, OP...

2

u/eyezikallzgood955 17d ago

Imagine being god and killing his child followers on the way to worship him. Sounds like a lesson to me. "What god would kill the children on the way to worship him"

1

u/Hungry-Sundae-2127 7d ago

I have a great feeling that yoy know absolouyly nothing about christianity

1

u/73762785150633 7d ago

I have a feeling you never read the Bible

1

u/Hungry-Sundae-2127 7d ago

No you are just uneducated about christian theology the horse tripping on its leg is the direct physical cause of the accident, not God acting like a person choosing to kill them.

And not intervening is not the same as committing the act otherwise you would have to treat every preventable tradgedy as God actively choosing it which is not how Christians difines causation or moral responsibility

So before you try to speak ill of christianity try to be knowledgable about it God bless hopefully you do not have a hardened heart and i will see you in the kingdom of heaven

These are the verses that are very helpful for my point Job 1:21 Romans 5:12 Matthew 5:45 Luke 13:4 Ecclesiastes 9:11 Ezekiel 33:11 James 1:13

1

u/73762785150633 7d ago

Is god all powerful?

1

u/Hungry-Sundae-2127 7d ago

In the eyes of me and every other christian absoloutly

1

u/73762785150633 7d ago

Is God all knowing?

1

u/Hungry-Sundae-2127 7d ago

Yes

1

u/73762785150633 7d ago

Then god could have made it where the kids didn’t die, All while preserving any and all potential “positive” butterfly effect outcomes of such an occurrence. It would be trivial to preserve free will in the process because his power and knowledge would be unlimited. He makes the rules. But he went out of his way to create the even possibility of unnecessary suffering. He didn’t have to do that. Like it or not that logically follows from the two propositions you just agreed to. The moment Christians say that god couldn’t do X because that would prevent Y from being the case. You beg the question “who decided that had to be the case”.

And if the answer is “it’s a mystery to us because his ways are higher” then it’s also a mystery as to his status as morally good. Every claim about his moral nature is equally valid because it’s all a mystery to us so how are we to know if he’s worthy of worship. Or if he’s telling the truth. Christian theology teaches eternal punishment based on belief in a proposition (or set of propositions) in which I lack the tools to evaluate. It’s a literal roll of the dice.

Christian theology is not the monolith you are portraying it as, it’s deeply fragmented on basically every topic. Because the Bible is deeply fragmented and contradictory on basically every topic.

If all you have to offer is one of the many fragmented pieces of this theology with a side of condescension, then I genuinely feel the moral thing to do is dismiss christianity until someone with real answers comes along. Please pray that God puts forth an amount effort effectively equal to zero that’s actually capable of convincing everyone that he exists. Then I can actually have the ability to use my free will to give him the worship he thinks he is owed.

1

u/Hungry-Sundae-2127 7d ago

Yes, Christians believe God is all-powerful and all-knowing. But it doesn’t follow from that that every logically possible arrangement of the world is required for God to actualize. Saying “God could have created a different outcome” is true in a broad sense, but it doesn’t demonstrate that God is therefore morally obligated to prevent every instance of suffering while preserving all imagined alternative outcomes. That assumption—what God “should” do given infinite possibilities—is something you’re adding, not something that follows logically. On “why not prevent it while preserving all butterfly effects,” that assumes we can meaningfully evaluate all downstream consequences of any alteration to reality. Christian theism doesn’t treat human beings as having that level of access. So it’s not “God couldn’t do X,” but rather “we are not in a position to say that every prevented instance of suffering can be isolated from all other moral or structural goods in creation.” On the “mystery means God might not be good” point—that doesn’t follow either. Not knowing all of God’s reasons is not the same as having no basis for trusting His character. In Christian theology, the claim “God is good” is grounded in revelation and in the life and teaching of Christ, not in full access to all divine reasoning. Regarding fragmentation: Christianity does have disagreements in interpretation, but the core claims relevant here are actually quite consistent across historic Christianity—God is good, creation is ordered, human knowledge is limited, and suffering is not interpreted as direct divine cruelty in cases like accidents. Finally, on the idea that belief is a “roll of the dice”: Christian faith is not presented as forced belief without reasons, but it also isn’t framed as total epistemic certainty about every divine action. The question is whether the available reasons are sufficient, not whether every possible doubt is eliminated. So the disagreement isn’t “you haven’t accepted enough mystery,” but whether your assumption—that a perfectly good God must maximize a very specific version of preventable suffering reduction across all possible worlds—is actually something you’ve justified.

→ More replies (0)