>22. I know that most of the Christian philosophers who defend their view are almost driven and shaken by this argument and admit that god does not care, which is exactly what Epicurus is looking for...
-Lactantius, On the Anger of God 13.20–22 (374 U)

>>17863799 (OP)
This is a problem for the God jews worship. Ask them.

>>17863799 (OP)
First time I'm seeing a threat titled as though it were a 2012 youtube prank video.
>NEW! The UNREFUTED argument that drives Christians to DESPAIR and MADNESS [Gone wrong] [gone sexual] Link in bio
And of course it's just Epicurus wondering "whence cometh evil" as though wondering needs to be refuted.

>>17863799 (OP) This shitty debunked argument again? What a waste of thread.

>>17863818
Greatest of christian philosophers:
>This argument is unrefuted.

Retard on /his/, 2025:
>ummm ackshually it got le deboonked or something, pastor John said so!!!!

>>17863844 Look the archive, retard. I'll sure as hell not repeat myself because a retarded fuck couldn't read my reply on the subject. But you'll keep making the same thread over and over again, no matter what.

>>17863844
>Greatest of christian philosophers:
>>This argument is unrefuted.
NTA but could you show me? Epicurus in context barely relates to Christianity at all. In the rare cases where someone did weaponize Epicurianism against the Church, I've never seen anyone really struggle with it. To me it barely even seems like an argument at all, especially knowing his historical context.

>>17863855
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Christians literally spent millenia coping about this.

>>17863799 (OP)
There, refuted.


Well, that was easy.

>>17863886
>God judged it better for my 4 year old to get raped by the priest! HAHA get owned gaytheist!!!

>>17863799 (OP)
Why can't God be evil?

>>17863869
I'm not seeing the Greatest of Christian philosophers claiming it's unrefuted there.

>>17863892
>>God judged it better for my 4 year old to get raped by the priest!
So that virtue could be manifested in forgiveness, mercy and reconciliation.

It's really not that hard to understand.

>>17863799 (OP)
Apetheists don't even know what good and evil are. Let's solve that first before we get the discussion going.

>>17863896
The fact that they've been sneeding and feeding about it for two thousand years and still do today can tell you it's pretty much unrefuted and only able to be coped about.

>>17863897
>So that virtue could be manifested in forgiveness, mercy and reconciliation.
>It's really not that hard to understand.
None of those things need to exist, this and >>17863886
are just cope with the fact that god wanted evil and hell to exist

>>17863799 (OP)
The beautiful thing about the Christian story is that God isn't indifferent to evil. He is incarnated into human flesh, walks with us through poverty, injustice, suffering, loneliness and transforms it through his passion and sacrifice.
The Gospel really is the answer to the problem of evil.

>>17863916
>None of those things need to exist
That is for God to decide, not you.
>god wanted evil and hell to exist
No one has ever denied this, the question is "why"? What purpose to hell and evil serve?

>>17863907
They produced half a dozen solutions and many of them get brought up each time the "paradox" is reiterated in a new thread. This is one of the furthest things from "unsolved".

>>17863918
Makes you wonder why he created a world based on suffering and death in the first place.

>>17863925
So that virtue could arise. One cannot forgive, show mercy, or grace, if no wrong has been committed.

>>17863925
It's something to meditate upon.
I belive it's not fully clear right now but the end will make it worth it.

>>17863921
>No one has ever denied this, the question is "why"? What purpose to hell and evil serve?
cause he wanted it. You can only concede that god made these things because he wanted it. The real ultimate purpose for humanity is to be sent to hell, heaven only exist to magnify the suffering for those in hell.

>>17863952
>cause he wanted it.
Right, but why?

>>17863955
are you blind?
>The real ultimate purpose for humanity is to be sent to hell, heaven only exist to magnify the suffering for those in hell.

>>17863918
>God isn't indifferent to evil.
So why is there evil?

>>17863963
When did people start thinking heaven and hell are places to go when you die instead of places on the earth?

>>17863923
And none of them were worth a damn seeing as they had to keep going on producing them.

I still don't get why God chose to create a world he know will have stuff he dislike in it, like sorcerers and gays
God has a superpower to always get what he wants (omnipotence)

>>17863972
You seriously gonna pretend there's a fact of the matter to the nature of hell?

>>17863972
what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

>>17863963
>>The real ultimate purpose for humanity is to be sent to hell, heaven only exist to magnify the suffering for those in hell.
I'm gonna need a Bible chapter and verse on this, chief.

>>17863999
The fact alone that if a child dies before baptism will get sent to hell is proof enough but the fact that you're constantly on the verge of losing your salvation every millisecond of your existence even after you convert is also good proof.

>>17864019
>if a child dies before baptism will get sent to hell
Source?

>>17864019
>The fact alone that if a child dies before baptism will get sent to hell-
Chapter and verse, please.

>>17864025
>>17864031
https://youtu.be/aQCGU7TaZj4?t=446

>>17864042
>Catholicism
Eww.

>>17864042
Not a Bible chapter and verse.

>>17864046
>>17864048
Protestantism is a meme tier group, similar to Islam

>>17864051
Still waiting for that chapter and verse, btw. Not some video by a random p*pist YouTube channel.

>>17863894
Anyone going to answer this?

>>17863981
>>17863984
yes

>>17864031
John 14:6

I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

>>17864054
part of the reason martin luther made Protestantism is because he knew he wasn't gonna be good enough to be saved. closest group to catholism is orthodox but even they are a bit memeable with some of their beliefs. If christianity is true then 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all humans to exist are fucked

>>17864065
So you think Luther was just playing pretend?

>>17864068
Unironically yes

>>17864058
Guess that's a no. Epicurus' dilemma revolves entirely around the fact that God cannot be evil. But if He can, his BS means nothing.

>>17864065
>closest group to catholism is degenerate gopnik
Speaks volumes ngl.

>>17864062
I don't see any mention of baptism in this verse.

>>17864071
How would him pretending no to be hellbound help him escape hell?

>>17864131
I don't understand why you are being difficult about this
Do you think universalism is true, that everyone is saved?

>>17864133
No, I just don't see any mention of baptism in this verse.

>>17864132
He was gaslighting himself and others that he wasn't. If any actual Christian took the time you actually think about the requirements to being saved they would loose their hope of salvation.

>>17864135
How do you think people become saved? Why would an unbaptized baby possibly be saved?

>>17864139
Please tell us the requirements to be saved

>>17864158
>Why would an unbaptized baby possibly be saved?
There are two ways they could:
1. There could be a minimum age below which people are not responsible for their sins.
2. It could be that you can be saved by believing without being baptized.

>>17864164
Matthew 5:48

>>17864169
>1. There could be a minimum age below which people are not responsible for their sins.
>2. It could be that you can be saved by believing without being baptized.
>>17864042

>>17864169
Do you think it's hypocritical to ask for "chapter and verse, please", then drop this load of arbitrary speculation?

>>17864183
Already addressed.

>>17864189
>Do you think it's hypocritical to ask for "chapter and verse, pleas" then not immediately nodding like a submissive retard at the first retard adding shit that's not in the unrelated verse hi gives you?
Not at all.

>>17864201
you didn't address it, you hand waved it away. Protestantism is christian cope group

>>17863807
>his resurrection was done as proof of divinity
Then why did he only show the proof to an isolated handful of people in secrecy instead of walking into the Temple in Jerusalem and preaching? Why turn a public ministry with public miracles into a secret mystery cult? It's just so unreasonable. Looks more like the Heaven's Gate stay behinds than any sort of actual expression of divinity.

>>17863886
"Need not bring about a foul thing to exemplify a good, when a good ought stand firm of its own accord."

>>17863886
>have good idea about this
>turns out saint Augustine already though of it hundreds of years ago
REEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRR
he can’t keep getting away with it!

>>17865197
>Need not bring about a foul thing to exemplify a good
It's not to exemplify good, but bring about good through evil.

>>17863855
The church's theodicy is literally that we must trust the plan and that evil must have a purpose in god's plan.
The rest of the church's theologians' answers amount to very retarded sophistries like the one below by St Augustine.

>>17863886
If he had to bring goodness out of evil, he's not omnipotent because his power is constrained.

>le good can't exist without evil
Another theists filtered by the concept of neutrality (evil - neutral - good).

>>17865651
>If he had to bring goodness out of evil
He didn't "have" to, He wanted to. I don't know where you get that God had an obligation to do anything from.

>>17865662
Inflicting unnecessary suffering cannot be an act of good; you played yourself

>>17865676
>Inflicting unnecessary suffering
It's not unnecessary, it has a purpose.

>>17865677
You already admitted god didn't have to but decidet to do it; that is by definition unnecessary; I'll wait for your cope

>>17865682
>You already admitted god didn't have to but decidet to do it
For a certain purpose, not just 'cause.

>>17865688
Could god reach his purpose in a different way?

>>17865694
>Could god reach his purpose in a different way?
Yes, but He didn't want to. It's better to bring good out of evil than just there being no evil and just good.

>>17865702
>Yes, but He didn't want to
Then the way he is doing it is by definition unnecessary

>>17863799 (OP)
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

My best guess on this side of the great beyond is something to do with our free will. God is both able (He can do all things) and willing (He walked with us and suffered for our sake) yet many here still are left undecided and must persist with our own thorns in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7).

>>17865704
>Then the way he is doing it is by definition unnecessary
Right, but God is not bound by necessity, He doesn't have "needs" of any kind, everything He does is purely out of His own accord, of His own will and desire. He didn't "need" to create the universe or nature or humanity or anything at all for that matter, He did so because He wanted to. He doesn't have to justify His actions based on necessity. He does what is pleasing to Him, which is to bring good out of evil. Why would you think that an all-powerful God not bound by anything do something out of need?

>>17865715
You already said god doesn't need to do things; I just want you to admit that the way god is supposedly achieving his purpose is by definition an unnecessary path

>>17865662
If he wanted to, he's malevolent
If it's the only way he could, he's not omnipotent

>>17865720
I fail to see how that would be a point against God though? Of course nothing He does is out of necessity, He has no needs.

>>17865721
>If he wanted to, he's malevolent
Why? He wants to bring good out of evil, not just have evil for it's own sake. I wouldn't say that's malevolent.
>If it's the only way he could, he's not omnipotent
See:>>17865715
>>17865723

>>17865723
Do you agree that god has chosen a path that is not necessary by definition? Stop avoiding

>>17865727
>Do you agree that god has chosen a path that is not necessary by definition?
Nothing God does is necessary by definition.

>>17865725
>He wants to bring good out of evil, not just have evil for it's own sake.
Then why bring evil ? If he couldn't, he is not omnipotent.

If on the other side he really wanted to bring good with evil then he is malevolent.

Simply as is

>>17865730
So you agree the path he has chosen is not necessary

Now, is the suffering emcountered in the path necessary? This has only one correct answer

>>17865731
>Then why bring evil ?
To bring good out of it. Like making plants grow in an infertile soil, it is more worthy of praise than simply growing on fertile soil.
>If on the other side he really wanted to bring good with evil then he is malevolent.
No, not "good with evil", good OUT OF evil.
>>17865733
>So you agree the path he has chosen is not necessary
No path God would've chosen would've been necessary, by definition. So I don't see why you think God is at fault for making an "unnecessary" decision when that would've been true of any other decision He would've made.

>>17865736
>No path God would've chosen would've been necessary, by definition. So I don't see why you think God is at fault for making an "unnecessary" decision when that would've been true of any other decision He would've made.

You avoided the question again; is the suffering in the path necessary to reach the objective? Yes or No?

>>17865736
>No, not "good with evil", good OUT OF evil
Good doesn't come from evil, that's a retarded augustinian notion that even the church doesn't use
Again, if god voluntarily decided to bring evil to bring good, he's malevolent. Evil wasn't necessary but god wished it so.

>>17865742
>You avoided the question again; is the suffering in the path necessary to reach the objective?
No, nothing God is. This doesn't prove your point though. God is not malevolent, He lets evil exist to bring good out of it. If He were trully malevolent, He'd simply let evil exist with no greater purpose in mind and nothing good coming out of it.
>>17865746
>Good doesn't come from evil
Some can, like someone stealing your moing and you forgiving that person. Thus the virtue of forgiveness can arise.

>>17865750
Was evil necessary to bring good ?

>>17865753
>Was evil necessary to bring good ?
The good that God specifically wants, yes. Like eggs being a necessary ingredient to make a cake.

>>17865750
>No, nothing God is. This doesn't prove your point though. God is not malevolent, He lets evil exist to bring good out of it. If He were trully malevolent, He'd simply let evil exist with no greater purpose in mind and nothing good coming out of it.

Could you stop tryimg to predict what the next question is going to be?

Now you agree that the suffering in the path is not necessary. Yes or no; amswer first with either and then you may add to it

>>17865755
>Could you stop tryimg to predict what the next question is going to be?
No.
>Now you agree that the suffering in the path is not necessary.
Nothing God does is necessary.

If this answer doesn't suffice you we're done here.

>>17865754
So then god couldn't bring good without evil : he's not omnipotent, at least in the traditional way.

>Like eggs being a necessary ingredient to make a cake
Another theists filtered by neutrality
btw the church doesn't advocate for the retarded augustinian theodicy

>>17865756
>Nothing God does is necessary.
>If this answer doesn't suffice you we're done here.

Answer with a simple yes or no; is it to hard for you? Yoi scared?

>>17865760
>So then god couldn't bring good without evil
It's not either or. God can just bring good, but that is not enough for Him, He wants to see good arise from evil, that is better that the former.
>btw the church doesn't advocate for the retarded augustinian theodicy
I'm not Catholic though?
>>17865761
>Answer with a simple yes or no; is it to hard for you?
I already did? No. But I don't want to make you feel like you've won because you haven't. It' doesn't prove your point that God is malevolent, as I said no path God would've chosen would've been necessary, because God has no needs, but His desire is to bring good out of evil, that's why evil is allowed to exist.

>>17865767
>He wants to see good arise from evil
>he wants evil
>"malevolence : the quality of causing or wanting to cause harm or evil"

lol

>>17865767
>I already did? No.
See it wasn't hard; so the suffering we see around us isn't necessary; do you think more unnecessary suffering is preferable to less unnecessary suffering? Yes or no?

>>17865776
>>"malevolence : the quality of causing or wanting to cause harm or evil"
I don't agree with that definition though. It sounds incredibly retarded actually. You can absolutely harm someone for a good reason.
>>17865777
Now you're equivocating, exactly what I thought you were going to do.
>so the suffering we see around us isn't necessary;
You make is sound like the suffering around is has no greater purpose, which is not the case, suffering does have a reason to be. You're using the word "unnecessary" in way that I am not, by "necessary" I mean "was God forced to do things?" "did He have no other choice or free will"? The answer is that of course He had, He's not bound by anything.
>do you think more unnecessary suffering is preferable to less unnecessary suffering?
If more suffering brings out more good, yes.

I think it's time for you to answer a question of mine for a change: Do you think it's better for suffering to exist for a greater purpose or that suffering just exists for no reason?

>>17865795
>You can absolutely harm someone for a good reason
That's the issue with your line of thought, you assume that god's actions are merely simple punishments for better ideals, like a father punishing his son for some menial reasons.
In reality, evil doesn't bring in good. Evil is kids getting tortured to death in the name of god, it's natural disasters making small children see their father and mother die in front of them in agonizing pain, it's aneurysm randomly occuring and depriving society of its greatest talents.

There is no "good" coming from evil, only suffering. The fact that you genuinely think to yourself that all this is necessary is beyond retarded and really shows how inept and delusional you truly are.

>>17865806
>That's the issue with your line of thought, you assume that god's actions are merely simple punishments for better ideals
No? I'm not saying that the suffering is always a punishment, sometimes it is but not al the time. Like I said in the other example, someone can steal money from you, that suffering opens for you an opportunity to express virtue by forgiving that person. Thus, good.

>>17865811
That is literally what you're saying. Evil brings suffering which brings in "good".

>no but you see, the children had to be raped and dismembered, it's all god's plan !
>now, he'll be able to forgive his rapist
>fucking amazing, I love god so much

>>17865821
>That is literally what you're saying.
I already showed you that no, not all suffering is a punishment.
>no but you see, the children had to be raped and dismembered, it's all god's plan !
It opens up a chance for the child and the parents to forgive the rapist, as well as a chance for God to be merciful and forgiving.
>>now, he'll be able to forgive his rapist
Correct.
>>fucking amazing, I love god so much
You'd rather children's suffering be for nothing? Is that supposed to be good or make me feel better?
>Inb4 I'd rather see no children raped!!!! Got you!!!!
STFU, children WILL be raped regardless, the matter now is why. In the atheistic worldview there is no greater purpose, no comfort of any kind, they just suffered without reason and they just have to live with it. FUCK YOU, at least in my worldview there's hope.

>>17865832
>STFU, children WILL be raped regardless, the matter now is why.
>God HAS to make children raped
>Yes, he's omnipotent and benevolent
>Yes it doesn't bring much
>but he just ... he just has to OKAY !
lol, the level of delusion

>le rape is necessary because it brings out good things
Do we need to do a rerun on the whole thread or are you genuinely sub 90 iq ?

>FUCK YOU, at least in my worldview there's hope.
4/10 b8
besides, you could have picked a more consistent story than the shitty 2000 years old abrahamic one. I've heard that eastern religions were much better at solving traditional theistic problems.

>>17865850
>>God HAS to make children raped
Again, He doesn't "have to", He wants to.
>>Yes it doesn't bring much
It absolutely brings much, forgiveness is one of the greatest acts of virtue one can perform.
>Do we need to do a rerun on the whole thread
No? I've already won the discussion.
>4/10 b8
Not a bait, that's how I geniunelly feel.
>I've heard that eastern religions were much better at solving traditional theistic problems.
Not really, they're much more defeatist, they just shrug and say "that's how things be". That's the reason why Buddhism was such a breakthrough in eastern thinking, but it entails erasing your sense of self, which I don't know if that's waht you want to do.

>>17865795
>You make is sound like the suffering around is has no greater purpose, which is not the case, suffering does have a reason to be. You're using the word "unnecessary" in way that I am not, by "necessary" I mean "was God forced to do things?" "did He have no other choice or free will"? The answer is that of

This isn't a question of purpose; you keep equivocating; you already agreed it was not necessary

So is more unnecessary siffering better than less unnecessary suffering?

>>17865795
>If more suffering brings out more good, yes.

We are talking about UNNECESSARY suffering aka the goal can be achieved with both path; you keep going to a purpose but that is irrelevant to tge question.

>>17865879
>This isn't a question of purpose;
It is to me.

>>17865883
>We are talking about UNNECESSARY suffering aka the goal can be achieved with both path;
But it can't. Not for what God wants. Again, not just bring good, but specifically bring good OUT OF EVIL.

Yes the suffering is preferrable.
>you keep going to a purpose but that is irrelevant to tge question.
That's the question I'm engaging with, don't know what the fuck you're doing.

>>17865902
Cool but it's completely irrelevant to the questions

>>17865906
>But it can't. Not for what God wants. Again, not just bring good, but specifically bring good OUT OF EVIL.

So god has to chose a specific path? You have gone back on what you said before

>That's the question I'm engaging with, don't know what the fuck you're doing.

You might be illitterate because purpose was never in question; you imagined that


Let's try again; can god reach a result he wants in a different way? Yes or no? Don't add your babbke to it, it's irrelevant and haven't asked you anything about purpose

>>17865928
>You might be illitterate because purpose was never in question;
That's quite literally what every Christian has been saying ever since the problem of evil has been presented. Why?

>>17865930
>Why?
Because they want to avoid the line of questions; like you did (again) right now; makes you think

>>17865941
>Because they want to avoid the line of questions;
No I meant as in the "why?" of evil.

>>17865945
I see; that's only because they have a belief in a supposedly all good all powerfull god that let's evil exist, that's going to cause cognitive dissonance

>>17865964
>cognitive dissonance
What cognitive dissonance? I've answered all of your questions clearly.

More suffering.

>>17865975
Can god achieve his purpose in a different way? The question is not about the purpose or result; it's about how you achieve it/get there

>>17864046
>>17864051
worse than catholic or protestant, it's a Sedevacantist youtube page lol

>>17865980
>it's about how you achieve it/get there
The way He achieves it is the purpose though.

>>17863807
>by his stripes you are healed
>broken for your iniquities

Why do crossniggers keep lying about their religion

He's the ultimate chicken sacrifice. That's part of your theology

>>17866090
>He's the ultimate chicken sacrifice.
Wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvGs2wg4Tbg

>>17866016
No it clearly is not

>>17866222
You can cope all you want

He even went to hell for your tradition. Why did god forsake him? Because your chicken sins got placed on him.

Can you stop lying and being clueless. He's the sin sacrifice to end the temple animal sacrifices.

>>17866228
Yes, let's go back to the plant allegory. There's nothing remarkable or praiseworthy in making plants grow in fertile ground, but it is remarkable and worthy of exaltation to make plants grow in infertile ground, either way, the result is the same, but the conditions were different.

>>17863921
>Define God as being good
>Anything he does is by definition good?
Why even debate at that point, you're arguing about the fundamental nature of reality. Nobody outside of a cartoon villain is going to willingly worship what they see as an evil God.

>>17863932
And what if no virtue arises from evil?
>Priest molests a kid, goes to jail and gets stabbed to death in prison
>Victim hangs himself
>Victim's parents condemn priest until they die

It also ignores acts of God. How does a tsunami show God's grace?

>>17864089
>If he can but doesn't he's malevolent
The implication for non retards is that worshiping an evil God is retarded

>>17866288
No idea. But God has turned the worst event in the world - people torturing and killing his loving son - into the best event in the world - salvation of the cosmos. I'm not sure how someone getting stabbed is going to turn out in the end, but in the context of Passion, no evil is too big to turn into good eventually.

>>17866295
>Trust me bro
No

>>17866302
Don't trust me. Trust God.
We're not here discussing a methodology by which Christians propose to know how each bad event will eventually turn into something good. We're discussing a model where evil is tolerated and will produce good eventually.

>>17866308
>Don't trust me. Trust God.
Just asked God, he didn't answer.

>>17866295
>god fixed the problem he created
>be grateful

unbelievably jewish lol

>>17866313
the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

>>17866314
>I might have done it but God was watching cmaaan cut me some slack here goy
Sure.

>>17866315
Just knocked, no one opened. I think he might be dead, we better call for a wellness check.

>>17866328
>knocks once
lol

>>17866288
>And what if no virtue arises from evil?
Evil offers a chance for virtue. Thus evil is justified by opening up that chance.
>How does a tsunami show God's grace?
Natural disasters are no necessarily acts of God. Also, are you stupid? Of course disasters offer a ton of opportuntities for virtue to arise.

>>17863799 (OP)
>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
I feel like Abrahamic monotheism would make more sense conceptually if God were omnibenevolent and the most powerful singular being in existence, but not powerful enough to completely eradicate evil. But as this thread proves, Abrahamists always insist on total omnipotence

>>17866492
Who would want to worship a god that can fail?

>>17866495
People who value goodness more than power.
Which tbf, despite the posturing of the religious, is probably a minority of humanity

>>17866492
God being the most powerful being in existence still seems doubtful given his general inaction and invisibility. Maybe it sounds childish, but why wouldn't God then behave a bit like Superman? You'd have to explain it as a 4D chess move of some sort.

>>17866566
Because Superman is limited. The only way Superman can defeat evil is by preventing it. God doesn't have to do that - he can turn evil into good retroactively.

>>17866341
Sounds like God is pretty rude.

>>17866382
>Evil offers a chance for virtue. Thus evil is justified by opening up that chance.
Why allow the specific acts that don't cause grace to happen?

>Natural disasters are no necessarily acts of God.
God created the world where they are natural events. An omnipotent being could have created a world without earthquakes.
>Also, are you stupid? Of course disasters offer a ton of opportuntities for virtue to arise.
Are we just talking virtue or are we talking grace specifically? The former doesn't require suffering. A happy kid can be friendly and generous to another happy kid, it's still virtuous without suffering. If you need suffering for virtue than either there's suffering in heaven, in which case why would I care to go there, or there's no virtue in heaven which doesn't sound like a very godly place.

>>17866492
Dualism makes infinitely more sense
>Why do bad things happen?
Ahriman is making bad things happen
>Why doesn't God stop him?
Because they're equal in power and the deciding factor is the hearts and actions of man.

>>17866574
Copium

Trust the plan braindead qanon tier

>>17866587
Well we did become the biggest religion in the history of human species trusting the plan so...

>>17866574
>he can turn evil into good retroactively
That doesn't make sense to me. If something is understood to be evil at the time it's happening, then it's evil. If a doctor sneaks up on me and gives me a vaccine and it hurts like hell because I wasn't prepared for it and they're bad at giving injections, them saying "You're welcome, I just prevented you from getting Measles in the future and also the vaccine was laced with happy-drugs so now you're going to be euphoric for the next two hours." doesn't seem like it would undo any of the pain or make the nonconsensual nature of the interaction into a good thing.

>>17863799 (OP)
you dont like free will?

>>17866593
Was Christ dying and going to hell evil? It was. But he turned it around and saved people there. Making it ultimately one of the best events that had ever happened.
What your experience of said events might or might not be is a separate question.

>>17866598
>Was Christ dying and going to hell evil?
No, he chose it. It's just an elaborate assisted suicide and I don't care how you get your rocks off.

>>17866602
You don't think an innocent person dying unjustly and going to hell without blame is evil? Then I suppose we have different definition.

>>17866551
>People who value goodness more than power.
Goodness means nothing without power though. You can be the most righteous person in the world, but that doesn't mean anything if you can't defeat evil.

>>17866581
>Why allow the specific acts that don't cause grace to happen?
All of them do.
>God created the world where they are natural events
But that doesn't mean that God specifically commanded the sea to cause a flood.
>Are we just talking virtue or are we talking grace specifically?
Virtue.
> The former doesn't require suffering.
Most people have no desire to excert virtue without suffering.

>>17866551
>is probably a minority of humanity
Which is exactly why you need power, not just "be good".

>>17866293
I believe in a God that can be Good and Evil whenever He chooses.

Now what?

>>17863799 (OP)
It's been refuted a million times, no one cares. Enjoy Hell, rodent.

>>17863886
So your god is only a passive judge, he doesn't actually create the situations any way he desires, he just picks the lesser evils from the choices provided?

>>17866700
Now you are only retarded whenever you are chosen, so when you are just stilling alone and nobody is interacting with you, you are normal, but otherwise enjoy being retarded.

>>17863894
He can, it just means if you worship him you are being tricked and exploited like with any other greedy narcissistic cult leader and there is no reward for you, just more tricks to get you to submit to more slavery, suffering, and exploitation.

>>17863904
Atheists have equated good with benevolence and evil with maliciousness for centuries, though, theists are the ones who constantly have to change what good and evil are based on trends, one day its evil to eat meat and good to eat fish, then only on fridays, then only on fridays during lent, then only if you promised to give up meat for lent, etc.

>>17863918
He never had to deal with poverty, he could simply transform things into more valuable things just like he couldn't be held accountable for telling his followers to buy swords and stab guards because he could just miraculously heal the stabbed guards which is why he didn't deal with injustice either since he specifically provoked all the legal trouble and knew exactly how miraculously incur the wrath of the authorities and he was never alone because he was at least 3 different people at once and he never actually sacrificed his life since he didn't actually die since he had the plot armor of doing miracles.

>>17863923
The fact that they still have half a dozen conflicting copes instead of a single definitive universally accepted answer definitely means its still not answered.

>>17863925
Because your grandpappy ate his favorite fruit, it wasn't based on suffering and death until his fruit was stolen.

>>17863932
Except the whole point of the story is that mankind is fallen, it hasn't been forgive and can't possibly be forgive, mankind has to deal with the fallout of a bad choice for eternity since the entire history and makeup of mankind is shaped by that choice forever going forward and the one who made the choice died and their children had to deal with consequences.

>>17864131
But you see how babies who can't even walk or talk can go through jesus and accept his father as their lord?

>>17864169
Jesus quote that refutes 14:6 while backing up either of those claims?

>>17863923
I think you meant "solutions", not solutions. and the plural is superfluous. if there were any solutions, providing one would be enough.

>>17863886
>another christian denying the omnipotence of his god

>>17866595
ah yes, another limitation of god. he could not get the same results, whatever the fuck they are, without free will thrown into the mess.

we should cut this short: anyone replying to 'why god yadda yadda ..?' with 'because ...' is postulating a limitation of the power of said god, ergo does not believe in omnipotence.

>>17868504
>he could not get the same results
He could. You just cannot make the argument that he should have.

>>17868493
>providing one would be enough
Clearly not, seeing that we have many and atheists are ignoring them all.

>>17863973
>somebody's debunked me in 12 different ways
>clearly this makes me right

>>17868520
it's christards who argue that he had to.

God is evil. Everything he does that seems to be good is actually part of an elaborate 4D chess move, because God judged it more evil to bring evil out of good than to suffer no good to exist. For example, the universe isn't totally undeniably evil for everyone because that allowed God to bring about the evil of people willfully deluding themselves into believing that God is good and defending his supposed goodness to others, all while God rubs his hands together in devious amusement over having deceived so many.

>>17863799 (OP)
Evil doesn't exist. Every bad thing that happens is just punishment for bad people.