God literally brought things into existence that he will send you into eternal torment over if you enjoy them in your...

you forgot
>god is good
>yet produces a person (Lucifer) who isn't. along with a world that isn't
imperfection cannot come from perfection. peaches cannot come from apple trees. and a flawed creature cannot come from a hood god.

the abrahamic religions really shot themselves on the foot from the get go with the assertion of "god is good". don't even know what made them think that in the first place t bee h

God created you and has given you a choice. You can either be with him or not. Heaven is being in God's presence for eternity and hell is what we call the eternal separation from God. Hell is symbolized as torturous because God is good.

>god is perfect and made everything ex nihilo but somehow satan wasn't perfect because he fell, oh, and so did the whole world that god created oops :^)
According to the bible God only created heaven and earth while the rest of the universe already existed before and independent of God.

The 'heavens and the Earth' refer to all things seen, unseen, material, and spiritual. See Neh 9:6 and Col 1:16

>imperfection cannot come from perfection.
>only God is perfect, so only God can come from God
>i.e. God cannot create

What do you know of perfection anyway, sinful human? You reject life itself by your disbelief in it's goodness - that absolves you of responsibility in your mind.
Is it Lucifer's fault that you stray so far from the right path, or is it yours? You should be asking why God created you, if you spread misery everywhere you go.

>>god literally brought things into existence that he will send you into eternal torment over if you enjoy them in your finite existence
What do you mean "enjoy"? Things have a proper use and purpose. If you use them improperly you are abusing them, not enjoying them. The fact that something exists is not a license for you to use it however you please.
>>god is perfect and made everything ex nihilo but somehow satan wasn't perfect because he fell, oh, and so did the whole world that god created oops :^)
Everything occurs after the council of God's will. There is no "oops".

>If God exists, then why don't I have a girlfriend? What all-powerful benevolent being would allow such an evil injustice and so much suffering to exist, such an affront to personal dignity? Therefore, I reject God, and embrace science. I am enlightened.

Attached: trenchcoat.png (495x337, 195K)

Attached: 1524507138289.jpg (1056x723, 256K)

>eternal torment
Maybe it will not be torment, it will be emptiness. Read C.S.Lewis “The Great Divorce”

yeah, I’m a Christian, you got a problem with that? I used to be a sinner like you but 2 years ago I found GOD. In my teens I would laugh at creationists; I would always tell my grandma that I didn’t want to go to mass; I was agnostic but not like r/Atheism. But when I GREW UP and became a man, I realised I needed to put childish things away (1 Corinthians 13:11). Why is that? Because I realized that we need Christianity to SAVE THE WEST. After I voted Trump in the 2016 election I decided to go to church again. I knew that I would find a QT pure Christian GF who I could lose my virginity to (I haven’t lost it yet because I’m saving myself for marriage, like God intended). I haven’t found her yet, but like Job I will pray and have faith in God. Then I saw Jordan Peterson talking about Christianity and I was hooked! (I don’t like him anymore though, he’s a fake Christian). I watched all his videos on the bible and realised how God reveals himself in many ways. I was on /pol/ (came from r/The_Donald during the election but I hate redditors now) Christian General and I saw Yea Forums chart which had The Bible and I KNEW I found my people. Every day I see THE WEST falling because we gave up our FAITH. Well, the new Christian intellectuals are coming; We are the sons of the Crusaders and we shall not recoil before the sons of Voltaire! (Candide was shit, so is Nietzsche (haven’t read either of them)). Yea Forums introduced me to Kierkegaard and I became a KNIGHT OF FAITH, so now I know that I just gotta believe and that’s TRUE bravery. I read DANTE and DOSTOEVSKY and I saw the beauty of God and true art. I’m a proud Catholic (Protestants are heretics) but I hate Pope Francis, he’s a heretic and isn’t MY Pope. Yea Forums is a Christian board, and I know that if I just keep recommending the Bible, telling people to go to church, and making threads about how great God is, I will finally be able to sincerely believe in God and distract myself from the gnawing feeling that I’m a fraud. Faith ain’t easy.

Attached: 847169841228430465.jpg (367x500, 26K)

>Everything occurs after the council of God's will. There is no "oops".
>If you use them improperly you are abusing them

And this, ladies and gents, is why christcucks are morons

>God created you and has given you a choice

If there was a 'God', which was 'good', it would not veil actual 'being' in a reality that is nothing but suffering and malice. Look around you and tell yourself that anything outside of your imagination is 'good' and you know that you are blind. That is why you have to imagine a perfect, good world, to make yourself feel like your pointless suffering means anything, and imagine 'free will' to give yourself the notion of agency

Fucking mental wasteland

>And this, ladies and gents, is why christcucks are morons
There is no contradiction there. If you disagree then point out what you think it is.
>If there was a 'God', which was 'good',
I think you are too hung up on the word "good," honestly. God good, but he is holy and just, and deserving of fear.
>it would not veil actual 'being' in a reality that is nothing but suffering and malice.
Why?
>Look around you and tell yourself that anything outside of your imagination is 'good' and you know that you are blind.
I have known many things in my life that I would consider good.
>That is why you have to imagine a perfect, good world, to make yourself feel like your pointless suffering means anything, and imagine 'free will' to give yourself the notion of agency
I don't believe in free will, sorry.

>Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
>And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
If you don't think this is beautiful, I don't really care about your literary opinions.

>gnawing feeling that I’m a fraud
It all comes back to a liberal fixation on "authenticity."
At some point you've gotta realize it isn't all about you.

Are you incapable of talking to somebody without quoting and responding to individual sentences?

>For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror
That sounds pedestrian compared to
>For now we see through a glass, darkly

Only if I'm responding to something that isn't foolish drivel.

just grabbed the first translation I could find desu.
but you're probably right.

only fundies believe this. serious christians don't.

i feel like you're kinda missing the point of the complaint. the whole debate can be boiled down to quite a simple and often repeated paradox:
>if there is a god that's both good and omnipotent/omniscient, why does the possibility of evil exist?
good here being the christian definition of good; aka compassionate, loving, against murder, rape, debauchery, etc
why did he not create the devil and man like he created his saints, with a good heart such that even with free will, they would choose good? why does man have to struggle against their urges to be good?
it must be that either he is not omnipotent/omniscient, or hes not good in the christian sense of the word.

So the answer is no, you don't have the intellectual capacity to respond to posts in a semi literate way. You're cancer.

I dunno dude, just read some theodicy if you're so curious.
Or are you one of those people who says
>Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm: morons. None of their arguments are good enough for me!

>implying all christians think the same things
fucking atheists

what do "serious" christians believe?

>>if there is a god that's both good and omnipotent/omniscient, why does the possibility of evil exist?
Because God willed it so that he could glorify himself through it's destruction.
Rom. 9:22-23 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
>it must be that either he is not omnipotent/omniscient, or hes not good in the christian sense of the word.
You've misconstrued the Christian sense of the word. Which I why I was telling the other user he was too hung up on the word good, such that his conception of "good" is overriding his understanding of God's other attributes. I don't think you can square the definition of "good" that you gave earlier with the scriptural evidence regarding God, without some substantial qualification.

>god literally brought things into existence that he will send you into eternal torment over if you enjoy them in your finite existence
"""Fuck you mom, if you didn't want me to look at incest porn on your iPad Pro you shouldn't have bought it!!!"""

>god is perfect and made everything ex nihilo but somehow satan wasn't perfect because he fell, oh, and so did the whole world that god created oops
"""It's YOUR fault!!!"""

atheists are perpetual children

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 33K)

Yes, and that's discussing literature

Humans as having logic and moral thinking can clearly see a morally better alternative. 'This is the best world there is!' is a delusion to prevent you from dare thinking that the other alternative to the line of thinking; namely that God is not good or that he doesn't exist.

>Because God willed it so that he could glorify himself through it's destruction.
>god let little Abigail get raped and murdered when she was 8 years old so that he could glorify himself by abolishing the evil of it
>Jimmy got to be so excruciating isolated and lonely to point where he blew his own brains out just so god could say, lel just a prank bro, look see I'm gonna abolish evil now oh but you still get to spend eternity in hell
literally psychopathic.

you christcucks need some serious help.

That everything in the Bible that would offend secular society is conveniently an allegory.

religious people often feel uncomfortable when asked how a perfectly good being can punish humans for all eternity with the most horrifying pain. and they either turn into psychopaths who think you actually deserve an eternity of torment or just force themselves to not think about it. a belief in god is a mental illness

Attached: 1482771414866.jpg (574x795, 63K)

Yes, the suffering of people such as that has a reason and serves a greater good. You can take comfort in this fact or you can cry about it.

i'm willing to give them a shot at some point but you must understand i have some reluctance reading hundreds of pages of discourse on religion i'm not entirely sold on. would greatly appreciate a rough outline of their arguments from any user familiar with their works though.

I'm religious and I don't get uncomfortable at all because I don'y believe what you think I do. Perfectly good people don't reject God and choose eternal separation from Him.

perhaps it is just larpers here, but it really shows how fragile christian 'ethics' are when they immediately suggest that the brutal suffering and eternal torment for no reason pleases their benevolent, omnipotent God who could stop it but doesn't.

>Christian literally admits he's a psychopath

Attached: 1500605906380.jpg (612x528, 126K)

Christianity is by far the greatest religion to ever exist. It is more fulfilling than atheism and healthier than any self-defeating Orientalisms.

...

So why did little Abigail get raped?
Do you really think "no reason at all lol" is a better answer?
Zizek's got a good quote on this point
>Therein resides the paradox of the theological significance of shoah: although it is usually conceived as the ultimate challenge to theology (if there is a God and if he is good, how could he have allowed such a horror to take place?), it is at the same time only theology which can provide the frame enabling us to somehow approach the scope of this catastrophe - the fiasco of God is still the fiasco of GOD.

>self-defeating
>tells you literally to 'turn the other cheek'
lol whatever you say dude

Just read Augustine, so I'm no scholar, but I'd be willing to give it a shot if you've got specific questions.

christianity literally teaches that perfectly good people dont exist. we're all sinners. baptism is one of the conditions for salvation. if you dont get baptised it's eternal torment.
as i said. they just pretend it doesn't exist and try to use some mental gymnastics to show how it's YOU who's wrong and not god

>baptism is one of the conditions for salvation. if you dont get baptised it's eternal torment.
This is not a universal belief.

which only shows how fragmented the beliefs are.

You don't have to be baptized to go to heaven. You're not expected to do anything you don't know or have the capability of accomplishing.

That's not even the official teaching of the church.
The sacrements help you get closer to god. They aren't necessary conditions. I believe it's even folk doctrine that Socrates had an exchange with an angel before his death which worked out his salvation.

The utopia of the atheist is in which all is relative, no one believes anything, and irony constantly cloaks every action so as to prevent the horrid crime of sincerity. As soon as one dares to even ponder the idea of anything metaphysical, they attack like pack dogs barking out the same arguments time after time again. "if god good y bad thing happen???"
There's a reason literally every civilization detested atheists until the modern era. They serve to do nothing but lower the spirits of the people. All the satisfaction that would reside in the attainment of virtue has been channeled into spite towards their brothers and sisters. They cannot bear the sight of someone who does something meaningless with his life beyond vain philosophizing or idle banter.

Amazing that people would disagree about something they think is important.

so?

People can believe all sorts of different things about any number of topics, but does that mean there is no truth? If I show you five different people with five different answers to the problem of 2+2 does that mean the answer isn't 4?

>I believe it's even folk doctrine that Socrates had an exchange with an angel before his death which worked out his salvation.

Attached: 1459020378509.png (900x1481, 459K)

the stakes are slightly different when you're talking about an eternity of torture.

>That's not even the official teaching of the church.
It is. It can be accomplished in multiple ways, though, such as the "baptism of blood" of martyrdom. It's the reason that concepts such as Limbo were created, i.e. a place in Hell devoid of punishment for infants who died without being baptized, since they cannot enter the presence of God.

Yes I agree. So what?

Not as crazy as it might sound.
There are striking parallels between the life of Socrates and Christ.
In addition, the novel account of love he gives in The Symposium is a lot like the Christian notion that wouldn't become religious doctrine until several centuries later.
I think the Thomist line is that if someone would have accepted Christian doctrine, they would have been saved. Based on his writings, you could argue that Socrates would have accepted Christ.
In any case it seems that Thomists consider Aristotle a saint in all but official designation.

>god wants you to worship him
>doesnt even provide a consistent dogma
>woops bud, you believed in the wrongs things. time to suffer

You didn't read what I wrote. You're not expected to do anything you don't know or have the capability of accomplishing. You will ultimately have the choice between accepting God and living with him in eternity or rejecting him and living in eternal separation because God is not going to force you to be with him.

>the novel account of love he gives in The Symposium
Written by Plato, using the character of Socrates.
It's obviously just a method for later greek loving Christian writers to use their work without acknowledging that they were pagan. It's like how in Islam God sent his saints to all men before Mohammad, so you have people claiming Aristotle and even the Buddha as Islamic saints.

I'm no Catholic. I'm not even a catechumen, but I'm pretty sure the church no longer teaches the existence of Limbo. There's this from the english catechesis:
>The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. (CCC 1261)

God saves everyone that he chooses to save. If you are one of God's elect, the people that he has predestined to salvation, then God will give you faith at the appropriate time. It's not a game of chance like you are implying.

Attached: john-calvin.png (800x1024, 1.42M)

>Doesn't provide a consistent dogma
>The Catholic Church exists
Sorry bud

Attached: 1550096221143.png (1200x758, 433K)

so from what i understand Augustine justifies our urges to do bad as coming from the original sin? why did god make this original sin hereditary? and why did he let it happen in the first place? i also believe his views allowed for cases where war and murder are justified? how does he do this when both Jesus and the old testament are explicitly against this? (although the old testament still has its fair share of murder i must admit)

based

what are you talking about
my argument is that it's ridiculous for you to be punished by torture for all eternity because you believed in a different dogma or didnt believe at all.
it has nothing to do with capability or knowledge.

I know that Limbo is not an official doctrine. It was a proposed solution to the conundrum that the Catechism is dealing with, which is how can an infant be saved if baptism is necessary. The Catechism's answer shows that there isn't actually an answer.

Ah, the unchanging Church of all ages...
youtube.com/watch?v=YL9tmkBS9K0

Purgatory was the official name. The Catholic church used to preach its existence (trick-or-treating used to be a purgatory based ritual) but I'm not sure if they do anymore.

Believing in wrong things or not believing at all doesn't necessarily condemn you, because you're not expected to know things that are out of your control. Those noble pagans who weren't given the necessary knowledge or lack the ability to make an informed decision in life be given the choice to accept God or reject him after death. This what the episode about Jesus descending into hell is all about, he was giving them a choice because they didn't have the ability to accept Him in life.

Hell is the eternal separation from God and it's symbolized as being tortuous because God is good. The state of hell is the separation from anything good, and that seems like it would be a tortuous existence.

>Written by Plato, using the character of Socrates.
Big brain user knows the platonic dialogues were written by plato. I'm impressed. What's your point?
>It's obviously just a method for later greek loving Christian writers to use their work without acknowledging that they were pagan
Aquinas freely acknowledged that Aristotle was a pagan. It's a big point in Christian theology though that Christ has always been present as the logos. If on the one hand Aristotle was a pagan, on the other he seemed especially inspired by christ as logos, and so there's reason to think he might have been a Christian.

In any case, calling Socrates a pagan is a bit of a stretch. In the Euthyphro, he pretty clearly pushes for a monotheistic religion in which God and the good are united. That looks a lot like the Christian God.

Follo the rules or suffer the punishment

but this 'suffering for greater good' is unnecessary, this just proves that the Christian 'God' is either not benevolent or not omnipotent, both of which bring the whole structure down.
As someone who greatly admires Christianity, I say: Christ and his disciples are worth looking up to, but the Christian/Judaic 'God' isn't worth a whore's shit in a bucket of piss

original sin was the rupture in the perfect world we must come into terms with

your argument would hold water if you were an amazonian tribesman isolated from the world. in the modern era this does not hold true.
>Hell is the eternal separation from God and it's symbolized as being tortuous because God is good. The state of hell is the separation from anything good, and that seems like it would be a tortuous existence.
another tactic of the religious is try to argue that hell isn't actual "physical" torture but is instead a seperation

>What's your point?
Those are not the words of the actual Socrates, so it is silly that people construe them as such.
>Euthphro
again, Plato. Not Socrates, who defended himself against the charge of atheism. In addition, monotheism is not Christianity, and there are several pre-socratic philosophers who posit a singular principle without being considered non-pagan.
>on the other he seemed especially inspired by christ as logos
His thought inspired the conception of Christ as logos, you mean. You are putting the cart before the horse. If wherever the conception of logos, and the logic of principles of this nature, appears there are Christians then you might as well call the litany of philosophers from Lao-tzu through to Shinran Christians.

No, those are not the same thing. Purgatory is a place for people who have died in a state of grace but have venial sins that need to be cleansed. It is a place where their remaining sinfulness is purged before going to heaven. Only people who are saved go to Purgatory. Limbo was a proposed solution to the problem of what happens to infants who died without baptism. Seeing as they committed no sins themselves, but were also not cleansed of original sin, it is reasoned that they would go to Hell, but a part of Hell without punishment called "Limbo," in which they experience natural happiness, but are denied the face of God. Limbo and Purgatory are different things entirely.

“Were he supreme, were he mighty, were he just, were he good, this God you tell me about, would it be through enigmas and buffooneries he would wish to teach me to serve and know him?”

Some questions for the Christians: How come no one in the bible performed a more believable miracle, something like revealing a truth about the universe that was not to be known until much later, like: "the earth spins on its axis while it orbits the sun" or "all matter on earth is composed of two types of particles clumped together with a third electric particle orbiting them" or "humans evolved from tree dwelling apes," or "there are invisibly small tiny parasites living everywhere."

Also what happened to all the people that lived before Christ and outside of his teachings? Would it have been better to be an ancient Greek who believed in Zeus, or one that was an atheist?

Pic related is a hubble deep field, a picture of about one 24-millionth of the sky, and each dot represents an entire galaxy, does life exist outside of earth, or is it just empty space for us humans to admire? If it does, did God reveal himself to the other civilizations as well? If space and time are infinite, wouldn't there be an infinite number of people who have never heard of the 1 God, same as the hunter gatherers have been left out? And the Chinese.

Attached: heic0916a.jpg (2345x2039, 2.05M)

>this board shits on roko's basilisk
>it's exactly what god and hell are.
>tfw christcucks dismiss their own religion and don't even realize it.

Anything that God has decreed is necessary. There is no other standard by which you could judge something to be "necessary."
>is either not benevolent
He's benevolent to his children. He is not to his enemies.

>trick-or-treating used to be a purgatory based ritual
yeah no

>How come no one in the bible performed a more believable miracle, something like revealing a truth about the universe that was not to be known until much later, like
That would only be relevant to people today. What would that mean for all the Christians for the past 2,000 years? Get your head out of your ass.

Yeah it did

Hell couldn't be physical torture because we leave the physical world behind after we die. The point I'm making applies to anyone who doesn't know for whatever reason, whether they mentally retarded or were taught as a young child to be a Hindu and never really learned what Christianity was all about. They're not expected to know what they haven't learned because God isn't going to force anyone to live with him in eternity against their will, those people will have to be informed because they can make their decision to accept or reject Him.

You're being a bit of a cunt but accusing me of acting surreptitiously. I'm merely telling you what I believe as a Christian because you insist on arguing against a strawman. You don't have to accept what I say, but you will live with the consequences--whatever those may be.

Not him but I'm pretty sure telling sandniggers 2000 years ago about the origins of diseases (and therefore how to avoid most of them : hygiene) would have been pretty fucking relevant to them.

Why would the Christian God create its own enemies?
Also, regarding the Christian tradition, God and free will are not compatible.

>God brought things into existence that he will send you into eternal torment over if you chose to adore them instead of Him in your finite existence
>God is perfect and made everything ex nihilo and somehow creation not being God isn't perfect
so...how exactly do non-christians not see the glaring absurdities of their foundational doctrines ?

>Why didn't God make our material lives easier?
Missing the point

I can only speak to the question about the hereditary nature of original sin.
Augustine launches into a complicated discussion of the various theories of the origin of human souls when this topic is brought up, but I think he gives a fairly straightforward account just before that (I'm drawing on "On the Free Choice of the Will").
It wouldn't have been in accordance with justice if Adam were able to give birth to offspring which lacked his sin. It isn't a problem that we are born with this sin, because God did in fact create a person who lacked all sin, namely Christ, who can heal us of our sin.

So it was more important to perform some miracles to people in close vicinity, but leave out everyone else? It would have certainly made it more credible through the ages, as people today have no reason to believe.

in the modern era you dont have a choice of not knowing christianity or islam or hinduism or w/e. you have the ability to learn and discover these things.
what you believe in is your choice. i never argued that people shouldnt believe but i'm merely pointing out that the only way religious people justify their beliefs is either through wilful ignorance, psychopathy or mental gymnastics. the fact that you try to argue that hell is not actual torture just shows that you yourself are aware how insane it sounds that a perfect being would punish people for all eternity and thus apply mental gymnastics.

>Why would the Christian God create its own enemies?
Rom. 9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
>Also, regarding the Christian tradition, God and free will are not compatible.
I don't believe in free will.

>how come god didn't reveal actually useful stuff ?
>hurr it wouldn't have been relevant
>actually this example would have been pretty relevant
>b-B-but yOu'Re MiSsInG tHe PoInT
Why do I even bother.

>then you might as well call the litany of philosophers from Lao-tzu through to Shinran Christians.
That is roughly the move. They were Christians inasmuch as they were right, and pagans inasmuch as they were wrong.
The issue of causality is eschewed by the fact that christ was always already present in every person as the logos.

I didn't say hell wasn't torturous. I said it wasn't physical torture. That distinction may seem unimportant but that's because you're an idiot. The inability to understand this nuance is emblematic of my conversation with you. You call anything beyond your comprehension an exercise in mental gymnastics.

That's pretty fucking convenient isn't it.

>I don't believe in free will.
So then it's not atheists' fault if they're atheists. So god would eternally punish them for a choice they never had.

>Why didn't God do what I think he should have done?
There isn't a way to satisfactorily answer this sort of question, as the only standard being used is your own sense of propriety. People disbelieve because they are sinners and a miracle isn't going to make them have faith. See the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

Quotes like this really expose the psychological condition of the atheist.
Forever Oedipus. Unwilling to castrate himself, desperate to be the phallus for the mother, and, for both reasons, eager to overthrow the father.
You don't get to tell God how to get the job done. He's been doing just fine without your advice so far.

Oh, alright, you should've said that since the beginning. You are precisely what Freud describes the religious person as.
I'm really curious to hear what experience made you adhere to a belief that makes you nothing more than a pawn in God's eternal masturbatory process.

How do people not see this as a bias-confirming thought process? The underlying assumption is that all logic would confirm their own personal beliefs and when it doesn't the other party is just wrong.

>Justifying God's goodness based on utilitarianism

Attached: 1550763087003.png (446x435, 74K)

all torture is torture regardless of what you want to call it even it it comes in different degrees. you trying to dull it to not make it seem far less horrifying than what it actually is doesn't change the fact that people will be punished for all eternity

They were a creature acting in accordance with their will and are thus responsible for their actions. And even if they were not, God has decreed that they are, and thus they are.

That's some pretty hardcore projecting here bucko

Yeah. Systems of thought are usually abandoned if they don't work.
2 ways to look at it. Christianity works, or Christians found ways to make it work. That's where faith comes in.

Degrees has nothing to do with it. You can't physically torture an immaterial being. This is not saying you can't torture an immaterial being, but you can't PHYSICALLY torture in NON PHYSICAL being. If I were you I'd feel stupid, but that's because I have a soul.

>People disbelieve because they are sinners
People disbelieve because there is not a single rational reason for them to believe.

Wrong.
1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Tell me about your mother user.

She's a pretty cool gal.

Still waiting for a reply to this post.

more dogma. some will claim that you can physically torture a soul since it's god's will.
i sincerely doubt that muslims dont believe in actual physical punishment of the soul seeing as how the koran is filled with detailed descriptions of it. regardless at this point you're just trying to shift the discussion from god punishing people for all eternity into distinctions of how he does it, which is meaningless. since psychological(?) torture of the soul can be just as a cruel

>People don't get to choose their actions but are still responsible for them, because my sky sockpuppet said so, as you can see written here in my magic diary

I'm just pointing out your inability to understand basic concepts. I'm actually laughing at you because your persistent stupidity is amazing.

>the bible is true because it says so in the bible
Why do people on a supposedly educated basketweaving board still use this argument in CURRENT_YEAR

not the original user but
>if there's no god then there's no reason for anything
is a pretty stupid false dichotomy to believe.

damn. Some people really still are stuck in that 2003 atheist mindset.
I thought this was supposed to be the smart and well-read Yea Forums board.

>i cant defend my religion so i will call you stupid

Attached: 1459005535894.jpg (568x543, 176K)

I posed the question. What you interpreted as me making a dichotomy was me anticipating a reply and providing a counterargument.
But if you've got an answer, I'd love to hear it. Why did she get raped?

This thread is just people making up stupid aphorisms and holding God to thier on own criteria for existence. God is beyond our comprehension if you think you understand him or his will, you don’t.

>literally all assumptions except for two
c'mon user...

We're not talking about an actual God, we're talking about the Christian 'God', the attributes of which could be understood by a 3rd grader.

OP's Ignorance: the thread

Because her aggressor acted on his desire to rape her.
and if you're baiting an infinite recursion of causes, just because we don't know (yet, and possibly never) how the universe came to be doesn't validate the christian religion.

I'm sure you genuinely think that is what's going on here.

>perfectly good
Who says this? God is beyond good and evil; if anything, he just is.
>human intreuptions of “goodness”
Good is a subjective quality and not universal but even if it wasn’t don’t you think a “being” that has the perspective of trillions of years (if not infinite) would have a completely different view on good than a being with such a relevatively short life and history?

all i saw was you getting angrier and angrier which each reply you made. every single argument you made is so generic and cheap that you shouldn't have bothered. dont be so defensive your retarded religion is self contradictory and no amount of mumbo jumbo will solve it, after all you've been trying for the past 2000 years. at least have the decency to pick a religion that's more straightforward.

Ah, the old
>it doesn't matter that Jimmy is getting ass-raped by his uncle because in God's perspective, this specific act will cause an event similar and magnitude to the fall of the Roman Empire, leading to the salvation of billions. So buckle the fuck up, Jimmy.
Is that what you have to come up with to justify your faith?

>thinking truth can be explain through a method of articulation that is has only been properly developed for a few thousand years
Verbal fags are the worse

similar in magnitude*

Saying that she was raped because her aggressor acted on his desire to rape her is tautological.
There is a rape if and only if a person acts on their desire to rape. All that you've said is that she was raped because she was raped.
In any case, describing the events that led to her rape answers "how," but not "why."
A very standard move to make at this point is that there is no "why." But if you make that move, you have to be prepared to say that there really is no problem of evil. How can there by "oughts" if you can't even answer a "why" question?

There wasn't a hint of anger from me. What you say was the realization that you're incapable of understanding the words I was writing. I think it's because you're an idiot but regardless it makes conversation impossible. Things can only be explained, simplified, and repeated so many times before it becomes tedious, and you are a very tedious person.

lol at the absolute insanity of these coping christfags
that last sentence really tells a lot about how you perceive things

There are billboards in my state with babies on them that say "There is proof for GOD" with a number and if you call it they will literally say the proof of the bible is in the bible.

>But if you make that move, you have to be prepared to say that there really is no problem of evil.
So?

les non dupes errent
Just because you don't know the name of your Father doesn't mean you don't have one.

sure thing. remember im not the one who believes that god punishes people for all eternity and and tries to defend it using the same arguments that have been in use for the past 2000 years. hey but im sure some amazonian tribesman who's never heard of christiniaty and the trinity will be very pleased that he will not go to hell after his death.

Seems like that was why we got into this discussion in the first place.
Or is there another point you're trying to make?

interesting, what does he base his view of justice on and why is it not in accordance with justice if his offspring lacked sin? intuitively it feels a bit odd to punish a baby for something he had nothing to do with. also feels a bit rude to the people born between the original sin and the coming of Jesus

Said the sinful imperfect christ-fag

Remember I'm not the user you started the discussion with. But since you're here, what is it you call the problem of evil and why should there be one?

If God simply came down and showed himself to everyone, what would be the point of this existence? Would people who were good only for personal gain (heaven), really be good?

I’m still surprised you’re neive enough to think that only one particular sect of one religion would be praying to the “correct God”. God is universal and open to all beings, religions try to help us understand him but they’re mostly jut aporhism. Whilst there is truth in many of them (older the better) none will have it wholly right because he’s beyond our comprehension.

As has been said elsewhere in the thread, those born between Adam and Jesus have the possibility of salvation, it just isn't as easy. I haven't read any Christian accounts of why it took so long for Christ to incarnate.

As for his view of justice. I can't say. That's really all he has to say about it. He might write more about justice in the abstract elsewhere, but I haven't read that if he has. I think it's something like this though: Adam's punishment really is a punishment for him. His offspring are cursed, which isn't something you want as a father. It's also a fitting punishment, since his sin was in part an inability to maintain order and righteousness in the family. It isn't really a punishment for his offspring though, as much as it is a change in nature (Augustine is cagey on this point). We are now sinful by nature, but we also now have the possibility of entering heaven bodily, which wasn't on the table before Christ. We became a different, perhaps even better (this is very contentious), kind of thing after Adam sinned.

Simply stated: how is there evil if there is an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God?

Well evidently not. The Bible is highly symbolic and the mainly sects of Christianity will have misinterpreted it. It should not be news that Catholicism was really just an extension of the Roman Empire and most sects of prostanism are just a rejection of it.

To understand the teachings of the bible you need faith and an open mind to interpret it since we are way to literal nowadays.

All I’m saying is that I am not arrogant enough to think I can comprehend God or his will. However, good and bad are relative terms, we only know one because of the other. If God were to step in and prevent all evil then we’d not only have zero free will but there would also be no good in the world.

manichaeans go and stay go

YouTube comment tier argumentative response that ignores the whole of what a person is saying by just tasting the ingredients.

I wasn’t replying to you but you can see my post as it answers your question.

The most beautiful and admirable God is the one that is NOT omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

>manichaeans
I didn’t know about these but thanks they sound based.

If I create a program and it fails, I don't blame the person who uses my program, I blame my shitty programming.

Then we're pretty much in agreement. Something radically other to us has to be invoked precisely because there is tragedy. The alternative is autism -- a refusal to make sense of the sensible world.

Isn't it funny that the central theme of the Christian religion, forgiveness, is completely broken by the idea of endless suffering in hell? Lol your religion is a joke.

Here's how you fix Christianity:
>burn the Old Testament
>rewrite the New Testament
>replace the literal omnipotent,omnibenevolent,omniscient skydaddy nonsense with Plato's Forms
Thank me later.

Hell is full of people who wouldn't accept the forgiveness offered them. In fact, that's pretty much the only way to wind up in hell.
The problem is that "accepting forgiveness" doesn't mean you say "I accept your forgiveness, lord" out loud. It isn't a story you tell yourself. Your acceptance of forgiveness is an objective fact evinced by your actions and beliefs. If you really have accepted forgiveness, you are forgiven. If you haven't, you go to hell, where the grace necessary to convert sorrow for sin into genuine contrition is no longer afforded to you, since it is a grace you shunned in life.

God wants you to get into heaven. He's working out your salvation. But if you make it impossible for him through your free will, then he has to do what's left for him to do as an omnibenevolent entity: punish you so that justice is still served.

>Plato
cringe
Aristotle has the real metaphysics.

More Chrisitian strawmans

Attached: start_arguing_any_time.png (600x923, 826K)

If god exists then why was he never featured on star trek? check mate christcucks

Agreable noodles, homosexual.

>perfection cannot create imperfection
>Source: My Ass

Geocentrism to Heliocentrism and killing "heretics" to not killing "heretics" are changes more radical than most insane asylum patients'.

> religion
> not science
found your problem

That's because the Bible can be used to simultaneously both support and attack all Christian denominations.

That's a really really really questionable strawman. For all you know OP has everything in life he wants, and doesn't want to give it all up over some ridiculous mythology.

So this..is the power..of 4chirts apologetics...

Theological threadly reminder Christians are everything they call atheists.

>fedora
Fuck that, how about a literal helmet?

>katana
What are you, a weeb? I'll be rocking up to Jerusalem with my broadsword thanks

>edgy
It would certainly seem pretty edgy to take sadistic pleasure in speaking of someone's eternal torment in nothing less florid than Elizabethan English (many such cases)

>Neckbeard
Orthodox men aren't supposed to shave

>triggered
How about a several paragraph response laden with thinly veiled threats and various bible quotations to conversational minutiae like "I don't believe in God"

Attached: NyLCrbC.jpg (1080x1047, 135K)

tfw living a peaceful life with no god

Attached: 00000_6R8uR1le81f_1200x900.jpg (900x900, 79K)

You have to take a leap of faith.

Maybe I’m just caveman stupid, but I went through a phase in college where I “lost my religion.” Funnily enough though, I could never reach Atheism through pure reason. The farthest I could get was Deism without encountering positions I could not hold on reason alone.

I always thought that was interesting, and it thoroughly pissed off my atheist acquaintances.

Most Christians would say it's harder to get into hell than you're thinking. Not him but you're kind of strawmanning

Agnosticism is probably the most reasonable position. I don't think there are many people who would consider themselves "gnostic-atheists". But a large majority of them probably don't believe there is a God. On the other hand I am, and always have been so thoroughly agnostic that I even occasionally shake my fists impotently at the clouds (but not really). I more or less behave like some nondescript God does exist. But to file myself under any particular religious categorization would feel too arbitrary to me. When I see Christian debates, I mostly find myself agreeing with the atheist side, even if we ultimately disagree.

Most Christians worship the God of their own convenience. There are many charismatic and orthodox Christians that speak of how few will enter heaven and how hard it is to enter (just like it says in the Bible pretty much).

youtube.com/watch?v=SwMVLJ6CdZ4

>Justifying God's goodness

Attached: im-a-cuck-iii-1644076.png (500x629, 102K)

Augustine said we come to rest in God. Another theologian wondered if we don't spend eternity coming nearer to Him.

I can think of no better idea of Heaven. And no better solution to the problem of evil.

We have been flung from God to spend eternity in the joy of coming nearer to him.

I don't think too much about Hell, other than that Jesus and the prophets were quite clear that not moving spiritually towards God in this life is going to lead to something very not good. And besides our hearts don't want to sit still or move further into darkness.

>Agnosticism is probably the most reasonable position
People keep posting this and I have no idea why. Agnostics say that one cannot disprove the existence of God, but what makes the idea of God even worth disproving?

This is dumb though. The "tree of life" is a Jewish Kabbalistic structure.

>(let's assume this)

Attached: 1487134407455.jpg (335x268, 25K)

That's not what agnosticism is. Think about the word gnostic, it means knowledge or to have knowledge. To be agnostic would be to not have knowledge. To be agnostic on the question of god existence is to not have knowledge on whether he does or doesn't exist.

Putting that aside, your question is idiotic. What's the point of investigating anything? You do it because you value truth.

Agnosticism is ultimately a belief that there is no reason to have a strong opinion on the existence of God either one way or the other. This is what both atheists and religious adherents don't understand about real Agnosticism; its total ambivalence towards the concept.

(You)

Okay, so you're a gnostic then? Its probably most reasonable to assume our God is imperfect and that there is a higher, more platonic God who doesn't really even distinguish Good from Evil and for which this is entirely a continuum of unity. Thus to this higher Platonic God both Good and Evil are perfect. Having a personality undercuts ultimate divinity completely. For the most high everything must be consistent and indistinguishable at all times.

its an allegory for how material existence is always preceded by immaterial events that determine how physical states are actualized, and how capitalism has captured us in a positive feedback loop headed towards a hellish cyberpunk dystopia

This is whitin the context of the post. The meaning of the thread isn't to prove god, but to explain how evil is possible in a christian worldview according to the lebinezian argument.

Why do we care about what is possible to believe based on a set of assumptions that aren't explicitly apriori?

This is why arguing in Yea Forums is fruitless. You didn't even read my post.

I did read your post. It first says This is within the context of "the post" (which one?). The meaning of the thread (which apparently you get to define for some reason) isn't to prove god, but to explain how evil is possible in a Christian worldview (it does that by relying on the assumptions that God is good; such an assumption renders the question moot and the further arguments superfluous and dumb). According to the Leibnizian argument (oh well you namedropped, so it must be substantial)

Just like everything in christianity is

You're wrong.

5 assumptions doesn't make for a very compelling argument...

Attached: 0c5bca63f34402ccc7cf3ca08760a86ab3bf29c193e596ebbb72fb7250e5ed26_11.jpg (400x397, 79K)

Do you think that God giving us a choice is moral? Why did he need to create humanity? Could he not just create us and let us be?

>literal dude weed, Manly P. Hall-tier cosmology

That's gonna be a Yikersers from me, dog.

>being ignorant of a topic is the most reasonable position to take on that topic
>Agnosticism is ultimately a belief that there is no reason to have a strong opinion on the existence of God either one way or the other.
I have an opinion that fairies don't exist. If you say you're also technically agnostic about fairies then you're just playing a language game.

>God has given you a choice

Lucky me. He hasn't given people in Sudan the same choice apparently. I think the reason the Saw movies were so enduring and particularly overrated in their philosophical profundity was because of deeply ingrained Christian principles. People just tend to automatically think giving someone a choice eliminates coercion. Hence a lot of people basically agreed that Jigsaw was a moral agent without culpability in the murders of his victims. Basically I'm saying, the Abrahamic God is Jigsaw.

Attached: MOV_ea63bfe9_b.jpg (291x400, 34K)

>implying all Atheist think like OP
Don't know what you are, but fuck your entire group

No, I'm not playing a language game. In the case of fairies or a teapot floating around in space, I would bring up the question of relevance. I wont say for certain even the stupidest thing you can possibly imagine doesn't exist, because that would be inconsistent but the being which apprehends our reality certainly seems like a more abstract and meaningful concept than Martian Hippos in a Conga-line.

I've heard some of the most heartless apologetics on this very matter. Just listen to this shit. If it doesn't make you cringe or wince then you're already sucked into the undertow of Christian apologetic mania.

youtube.com/watch?v=Pfah9fGpG5o

Imagine getting upset over the beliefs of random strangers on the Internet.

Attached: yinyang.png (196x196, 6K)

Well, congratulations, you've said the most cringe thing in the entire thread.

Y'all fuckers are gonna see and are seeing the consequence of a "No God" society.

What exactly makes it more meaningful? What is the specific thing that takes God from most likely not (like martian hippos) to maybe? What elevates it above?

nigger Voltaire blew this shit out nearly 300 years ago now how you still doing this

Voltaire didn't give a single coherent argument. Voltaire is a hack.

It's traditional in christian theology to think that god is good.

It might be edgy if I actually believed in that God but if I am merely drawing a comparison between the Christian God as a character and another character that seems particularly consistent with a Christian or Muslim Weltanschuaang, what is edgy about that? I think hell sounds a great deal worse than anything that happened in any of those tacky movies.

because its an interesting question. It has implications on all aspects of philosophy.

Admittedly the last statement probably should have been Jigsaw is a representation of the concept of the abrahamic God. It was just poorly worded.

Lol oh dear

We can see for a fact that God is irrelevant, it is not something that can be observed in any facet of life, and there is no philosophical argument for it that holds any water, and I'm including Thomas Aquinas. Not to mention there is indication that humans have created multiple deities out of fear, all of which make me say it is as relevant as the floating teapot, and the teapot at least we know one day will exist, as some joker will throw it out the window of his spaceship.

I couldn't imagine being this much a close-minded tipper. Like what if we managed to simulate consciousness with some sort of advanced quantum computer. Would that consciousness be remiss in contemplating our nature?

Okay, so I did a quick search on this concept and one of the first results is actually a Christian's essay drawing the same comparison as if it redounds positively upon their God. I think this proves my point that the "moral" themes of the Saw movies are fundamentally symptomatic of an Abrahamic society.

smoorns.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/god-and-jigsaw-a-comparative-study/

Attached: 1550517358362.jpg (1280x720, 150K)

This is my favorite Bible verse

>Like what if we managed to simulate consciousness with some sort of advanced quantum computer. Would that consciousness be remiss in contemplating our nature?
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean would it be a mistake for it to contemplate the idea of God? If that's what you're asking then, no, I don't think so. But there is an end to contemplation, and the end of the question of God's existence would be: 1. God is irrelevant and 2. Probably not, and the probably not being as close to no as 0.99999999 is to 1.

I don't know how such a poverty of imagination is possible, especially for someone who frequents a literature board. Then again, just as we have Christians here with little passion for literature, who mostly stick around for religious discussion, we probably have atheists with the same exclusive interest as well.

You'd think a literature forum would have posters who've actually read shit in their life instead of Reddit-tier edgelords who hate God because it reminds them of their absent father. Maybe do some *reading* instead of exposing yourself as the retard that you are.
>amazon.com/Summa-Theologica-Thomas-Aquinas-Volumes/dp/0870610635/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?crid=2PID3SMH5GEST&keywords=summa theologiae&qid=1550781869&s=gateway&sprefix=summa theologia&sr=8-2

>Wtf why is God coercing me into virtue? I want to suffer the temporal and eternal consequences of sin!!!
Grow up, toddler.

>imagination
we're on the same page

>Grow up, toddler

Hey, you're the one who actually believes this crap. On the other hand, I'm just speaking rhetorically. Might I refer you to

Imagination isn't a negative thing. Its probably a more apt mother of invention than necessity.

He's basically saying only the pussified betamales of modernity, that have an operational Just World Fallacy, take issue with the idea of hell. That's pretty based and true.

Attached: 1548275103183.jpg (448x450, 27K)

Being a fadora tipper like you fag

The absolute dearth of argumentation in this post is something else. Actually he's saying that fucking third-worlders, including Muslims, especially Muslims (which he points out specifically), have a more advanced concept of justice, law and order than advanced western civilizations. He's basically an anprim.

Attached: c12.gif (250x250, 98K)

the lord works in mysterious ways :)

This is unironically a more favorable demographic than most of Yea Forums

Good post

It's not joy which God opposes, but the substitution of lesser joys for greater. The natural and just consequence of this is that lesser joys and finite interests pursued for their own sake run out, and one is finally and permanently condemned to one's finitude and alienation from the infinite. This permanent condemnation is Hell.

Of course God knows things in the world are going to fall. He could have made it otherwise- made a different world, with different actors and a different history with a different pattern of interventions. But it is perfectly open for him to decide to create this world instead, since his nature is to love (to will the good of those particular things he creates, rather than maximise abstract utility), and it is always better for a being to be than not to be. Thus it is better for us (and everything else that exists) that we exist, as parts and products of a world even with great suffering and lack. God's perfection is manifest in his ability to love not only the perfect, but the imperfect, and even the very imperfect- even those who finally reject grace.

God allows the imperfections of our existence, not only because the good of his creatures is worth it, but because he can bring beatitude even out of such imperfection.

candide was the equivalent of replying lmao

Because correct or even informed knowledge about something one needn't know for any practical reason is a historically very rare phenomena.

>protestant and protestant theology

It's a fun read tho.