2 Answers

  1. I can. Stephen Fry proceeds from the implicit axiomatic premise that all the ills of humanity, for which it is not directly responsible, are caused by God (if there is one). In fact, Christianity describes that God, having created the Earth and the universe, settled the first people in Eden and gave them the ability to control animals and plants and, in the long run, the elements (that is, made the guardians of the cosmos). The first humans wanted more, “to be like the gods,” and were driven out of Eden. Hence, natural disasters and so on. – this is a consequence of the chaos in the world, which was brought there by the first humanity. And the descendants suffer – we are with you. But we can improve. It is enough to follow the path of holiness and immediately wonderful things happen-bears start eating with their hands (Seraphim of Sarov), bees do not sting, that is, the original, primordial order of things is restored around the saint (which was before the fall of the first people). But still, the holy spirit cannot fully restore it (since the rest continue to sin), and now we will have to wait for the end of earth's history.

  2. Well, Christians put Stephen Fry in their opposition in absentia, initially, and only for the simple reason that he was born gay. Here the boy “good as you” (gay) was born and from the very beginning the environment, and in his case the English, very conservative and strongly Christianized, began to ridicule him – ” gays will not go to heaven! Gays are disgusting to God! Gays are all immoral by definition! ” – I wouldn't be surprised if he'd often heard taunts at school from straight Christian boys, boys he covertly desired… lusted after and maybe even loved… so Stephen Fry bears a heavy cross. Christians have no idea that the fate of a discriminated gay man is harder than that of a Christian martyr. After all, a martyr will always get a bun and be patted on the head, so it is always easy for him to endure, he has a ticket to heaven, and a gay man, according to the Christian worldview, is born doomed to torment in hell, and it does not even matter in principle whether he is pious or not, he is branded from birth, and if no one – this is still very good and comfortable, because in most cases Christians do not give a damn about gays, and they really want to shame and condemn gays in all possible ways, fantasize and imagine that gays are a hidden or even notorious evil that requires vigorous opposition. So why give up Anglican or Catholic nonsense to people like Stephen Fry?�

    This kind of thought has slipped through everyone's mind, and this is a fairly understandable process. In the network of this monologue of his, I found only some fragment, where the topic is not sufficiently disclosed, in general it looks completely fair. We can only say that the very fact of the existence of injustice and cruelty in the world does not negate the idea of determinism, since determinists themselves consider such moments in the perspective of “chaff separated from the grain” and “you did not choose God, but you were chosen”, so that children whom God killed, God killed simply because he is God and so he wanted, and his actions should not be evaluated. The Old Testament often begins descriptions of how someone died in agony with the words ” he was displeased in the sight of the Lord.” Then there is the standard blah-blah-blah on the theme that” the ways of the Lord are not distinguishable”, that the mechanism of fate and God's plan is transcendent. In some cases, and are cited as savoring, as the prophet Elijah called fire from heaven on his enemies, etc. To refute determinism, in my opinion, it is better to use not ethical arguments, but something like an average static selection of how prayer proved its ineffectiveness, how the Christian faith did not give people any special protection from natural disasters, wars and everything else. At the same time, people who were not connected in any way with Christianity, sometimes by chance, turned out to be alive and well.

Leave a Reply