Thread 17975731

Why would a god of love create this?

>>17975731 (OP)
>why
for balance

>>17975731 (OP)
Take the soft deism pill. God is not your personal babysitter. He loves you and the universe so much that he created you and gave you the freedom to do what you want with it.

>>17975753
There's no indication that God loves humans, many humans are born with genetic diseases that make their short lives a living hell. And that's not even counting all the ones who get tortured, murdered, die by the tens of thousands in natural disasters and so on

>>17975753
My question isn't even about human free will. It's about why he would set up nature in such a cruel way, if he is a god of love and benevolence.
>>17975744
The issue is you want to claim he is "all good". Creating a system that necessitates pain and agony when he could have created literally anything else contradicts this

>>17975731 (OP)
>picrel
Wild animals are no guide to morality, they also engage in rape, cannibalism, etc.

>>17975767
>Wild animals are no guide to morality, they also engage in rape, cannibalism, etc.
Yes, that's literally my point. Why would a benevolent god create them that way? Holy fuck you're dumb.

>>17975761
>>17975763
He’s not micro managing the universe it’s running on its own.

>>17975770
I'm addressing the image creator's point rather than yours.

>>17975775
I'm not saying he's micromanaging it, I'm saying he came up with a natural system with a predator/prey food chain and living beings that are born with painful diseases and deformities. What's your excuse for that?

>>17975785
That he created the universe and mostly left it at that. Predator prey all of that wasn’t his doing. Happened on its own after the fact

>>17975761
so is physical pain the worst thing? Is there not something higher than simply the lack of pain? Your ability to take a stand in whatever situation you find yourself and chose to take a better option.
>>17975763
Its a system that should work in any conceivable scenario. A god of love that only gives you pleasure does not make you love him, but love pleasure. If a love can survive all situations, attractive and repellent, then it is real love.

>>17975788
>Predator prey all of that wasn’t his doing
Genesis describes him creating everything including animals deliberately.

>>17975799
An omnipotent God could create a universe where real love exists where babies don't have to get murdered or get cancer when they're five years old.

>>17975788
So why did you write that he loves humans before? you are contradicting yourself

Also, why would you even need a God at that point? An uncaring Universe could give rise to exactly the kind of world we observe. If you posit a supernatural agent and then you observe the natural world the logical conclusion is that God is malevolent

>>17975809
>the logical conclusion is that God is malevolent
NTA but that's pretty much where I'm at.

>>17975807
A omnipotent axiomatic God would exist in all possible scenarios from the deepest of hells to the highest of heavens.

>>17975809
I’m not contradicting myself at all. He does love you. That doesn’t mean he’s a genie in a bottle granting you wishes though. It’s not a matter of needs.

>>17975804
This isn’t the kike mythology thread. I think you’re lost

>>17975822
When I say "God" here the implicit understanding from most people here is that I'm talking about YHWH, the penis blood sucking vampire war god. Because he is the god of the bible and the bible has historically dominated the west for 1500 years.

>>17975731 (OP)
I just see God eating God

>>17975815
Why does he condemn his creation to live in agony and hellish conditions if he's benevolent though?

>>17975828
because he believes that your spirit can get better. That through suffering through lesser woes you can find higher ideals that are strong enough to push you through them.

>>17975824
Ok, I’m not a Christian. Honestly what I am is complicated, I’ve struggled with religious questions all of my life. I kind of like a lot of the old Greek pagan ideas though I’m not a pagan larper either. Fundamentally though I believe that god whatever he is, he’s good in his own way.

>>17975818
You are contradicting yourself in so many ways it's not even funny

>That he created the universe and mostly left it at that. Predator prey all of that wasn’t his doing. Happened on its own after the fact

>but somehow he also loves humans (this is the deist God that just created the Universe and left it at that supposedly)

>I'm a deist btw

>>17975831
>because he believes that your spirit can get better
He could also just create our spirits maximally perfect to begin with, while retaining full free will. He was totally within his power to do that, but he consciously chose agony and torment instead. I think he likes it.

>>17975834
I don’t see how that’s a contradiction though. You can care about someone and still leave them to make their own choices. The act of creation in of itself can be seen as an act of love

>>17975842
>condemning billions/trillions of conscious entities to torment when they could simply not exist at all is an act of love

I'm anti natalist by the way. It's the only ethical position to hold.

>>17975842
mumbo jumbo

Also you are clearly not a deist, you believe in a personal God

>>17975848
I’d call myself a soft deist. I think the universe mostly runs itself but he set it in motion

>>17975844
I’d rather live and suffer at times then not exist at all. Just my personal opinion though

>>17975857
What makes you think god is a "he" or even any kind of being at all?

>>17975870
Maybe “he” isn’t. I suppose it’s presumptuous to assume that the living self aware universe would have a gender.

>>17975731 (OP)
That squirrel was clearly an unrepentant sinner who did not know the salvific grace of Jesus Christ.

>>17975836
THats an angel. Humans are the progressive element reaching for that status. the persuit itself rather than stasis is good. reaching towards the infinite in becoming rather than content in static being.

>>17975879
>THats an angel. Humans are the progressive element reaching for that statu
So why even create humans? Why create something imperfect if you know you're just going to have to eternally punish most of them for their imperfections. Unless he's just evil, in which case this makes sense.

>>17975882
>>17975879
what makes the pursuit of perfection "better" than perfection? The simple definition of perfection is that there's nothing better than it

>>17975879
I think about this a lot. I think about the Garden of Eden story. Again I’m not a Christian but just to humor them for a minute maybe god wanted Eve to eat the apple? He knew what he was doing putting it there. He wanted mankind to rebel

>>17975763
>why he would set up nature in such a cruel way
Cruelty is an entirely subjective perspective. Love is a subjective perspective. You can love someone but still wish for them to experience the consequences of their actions, no matter how terrible those actions or consequences may be. Take something simple like a crime committed by your child. You can love your son, but if he assaults someone, you can wish him to spend time in prison to learn that he was mistaken and hope that he grows from the experience. He would call it cruelty; you call it tough love.

>>17975892
>Cruelty is an entirely subjective perspective.
No it isn't. A world where animals with nervous systems and pain receptors don't have to maim and eat each other just to survive would objectively be less cruel than this one. Less agony and pain would be happening

>>17975892
Well put. Thank you

>>17975896
lmao no it wasn't, it's just the usual christranny apologetics

>>17975894
>Less agony and pain would be happening
Is that your entire definition of cruelty? Do you think the world of the Matrix is cruel, if the people who are "trapped" in it don't know that they're trapped? The people who get out certainly seem to think it's cruel once they find out the truth, and look at the lengths they go to to rip everyone ELSE out of it. It ripping those people out (against their will) cruelty?
The movies (and real life) of the 90s show us that a stable white collar job can be considered "cruel" if it is devoid of meaning. Can a life without agony/pain even HAVE meaning?
I don't necessarily have answers to these questions but nothing about this topic is objective - it's purely subjective.

>>17975899
I'm not even Christian or any other sect of religious - I'm just an agnostic who was sent to Catholic high school and my four theology classes were, by far, the most interesting part of my education there. The philosophies of good and evil fascinate me and none of them are as clear-cut as most people would like to believe they are.

>>17975882
Because it is one of the infinite permutations emanating from an infinite. This fractal pattern that has the capacity to return to its grander creator, or simply fizzle out into nothingness.
>>17975883
So that perfect can be appreciated from both a finite and infinite vantage point. Omniscient, singular, and hypothetical.

>>17975912
>Because it is one of the infinite permutations emanating from an infinite.
So why do you claim he is all good then? Remember, I wouldn't even be making this thread if you would just concede that God has evil qualities.

>>17975909
>Is that your entire definition of cruelty?
That's not my entire definition of cruelty, but a god inflicting those things on created beings when he could have chosen not to is undeniably cruel.

>>17975925
You're conflating "inflicting pain" with "allowing pain." These actions are not equal by any means.
You really should address my Matrix example, since it clearly demonstrates how people with multiple perspectives could have entirely polar opposite definitions of what "cruelty" is.

And I do deny you, for the record. I believe that a world WITHOUT pain is far more cruel than a world WITH pain. A world without pain is so sterile and lifeless that I imagine anyone subjected to it would kill themselves "just to have something happen."

>>17975946
>You're conflating "inflicting pain" with "allowing pain."
No. By setting up the predator prey food chain he is directly inflicting pain by not allowing the predator animals any other means to survive but by maiming and killing other animals.

>>17975952
How much direct oversight are you attributing to God in this discussion? When life began, it was single-celled organisms that were neither predator nor prey. Over millions of years of evolution, these single-cells combined and mutated and evolved into a vastly diverse ecosystem. Do you posit that God micromanaged that evolution? I don't. I also deny creationism.

My subjective view is that if there is a God, He created a scenario/world (as one might in a video game) and then let it play out, naturally, in one of the infinitely many ways that it could have played out. He watches with fascination and excitement as lives blossom and event transpire, and he weeps when the stories f that world take a tragic path.
His love is creating the opportunities that we all enjoy.
It's not cruelty in my mind when those opportunities manifest as conflicts of interest.

>>17975978
>How much direct oversight are you attributing to God in this discussion?
The almighty creator of the universe resides at the highest layer of reality and has infinite oversight and capability.

>>17975731 (OP)
Those are animals, not God.

Explanations: There's a reincarnation scheme, those non-predatory animals are destined to have a go at a better life with increased joy potential next go around.

Death is an essential part of life. Living things have to die so other living things can live. Natural horror can be completely reframed (by us) with a little meditation/CBT/deep chakric prayer. And we can't begin to know what the experience of a dying non-human or any non-dying non-human is like.

These are bullshit explanations but I'm not sure the problem of evil would be very difficult to reckon with for a believer.

>>17975731 (OP)
God is the God of everything. Including Love and Pain. He created love and he created pain. With pain we can appreciate love just that much more.

>>17975987
Are you saying that He has infinite -direct- control over everything? I'm not sure you actually think that, or want to think that. If God controls every action everywhere at all times forever -directly-, then you are not "you." You are merely an extension of Him, and your every thought and action are not yours to commit or experience (because you have no agency - you are a thing that is directed to act outside of your own control at all times). Everything you think you experience is an illusion and as such, it's not really cruelty because even the pain an agony you think you're thinking you're experiencing are illusions. It's all a big game of make-believe.

I don't think any theistic denomination thinks that way. The more common view is that He sets pieces in motion but then goes "hands off."
Obviously I can't ask you to prove any of this one way or another, which really shines the spotlight on how subjective this all is.

>>17976006
>if god real, why bad thing happen?
>why god not let me be free?
>why god not show himself?
>why god tell me what to do all time?
>help me!
>go away, I hate you!

>>17976018
>Are you saying that He has infinite -direct- control over everything?
Ultimately, yes
>If God controls every action everywhere at all times forever -directly-, then you are not "you." You are merely an extension of Him
Yep. Free will isn't real.

>>17976026
>Free will isn't real.
What does it cost?

>>17976026
Well, then if that's how you feel then there is no cruelty. One aspect of the Creator is interacting with another aspect of the Creator, like two of your fingers rubbing together. Any perception of cruelty is simply mistaken interpretation from the perspective of something that cannot possibly understand the scale of the scenario it's experiencing.
Like, even sentience/consciousness is actually fake in that interpretation of existence. You're not any more sentient than your own toenail.

I don't agree with your premise at all here, but if you start with that premise then that's the answer to your question: you are simply and completely mistaken about the nature of your question.

>>17975744
That is not balance. There is no balance. There is no grounding. Not truly. There should be. There should be no consequence. All end results of all religions conclude to that point, but forgived the procession; the hellish transition perpetual as asserted in one form or another. To what end? Who is elect when one consumed is not venerated as the willful martyr? Who is gracious in an agony beyond a consignment? Who were all through the ages?

These threads about evil are the best because they showcase the incoherence of Christians better than almost anything else

>>17976037
Suppose I believe in magic free will
How do you explain away God choosing to cause an universe intentionally set up for suffering?

>>17976105
I already answered that here >>17975978. Bad and good cannot exist without their opposite. There is no framework to appreciate or understand one without the presence of its absence.

>>17976037
Don't like it? Take it up with the Calvinists.
What a silly dodge. Do you think people are just not seeing you setting up this ridiculous escape hatch. If you're not gonna engage with the question, you don't need to make a ruse to get off the hook - you can just not make a reply
Nobody will be able to tell it's you, even if you make other posts

>>17976108
God before he chose to create the world was not good? That's so stupid.

>>17975892
>You can love your son, but if he assaults someone, you can wish him to spend time in prison to learn that he was mistaken and hope that he grows from the experience. He would call it cruelty; you call it tough love.

What have children born with cancer done to experience this "though love"?

>>17975763
Sometimes people get off to pain and agony. Its called BDSM. maybe you would know this if you know, had sex or something.

I just think we could have good things, without braincancer in children

>>17975731 (OP)
You have to give it to fedoras, they have to complain, but they're limited to "my cat scratched the sofa" bc they're faking atheism.
Pic, is also the reason why Christian larpers should be laughed out of the room

>>17975753
Belief in a benevolent and loving God in incompatible with deism. The underlying point is that trying to reconcile 2000 years of copes with the nature of existence simply can't be done in good faith. God exists and he neglects this world. It's the only reasonable deist stance on God's nature.

>>17976018
>I don't think any theistic denomination thinks that way.
Literally every Abrahamic religion denomination thinks this way.
>The more common view is that He sets pieces in motion but then goes "hands off."
No, this isn’t common at all, and most Abrahamic faiths would have burned you at the stake for saying such things at one point or another.
>Obviously I can't ask you to prove any of this one way or another, which really shines the spotlight on how subjective this all is.
Yeah, it’s called fucking religion. It’s all subjective and unproveable. That’s the point.

Where does /his/ find you retards? OP was clearly trying to address the “Fall of Man” issue in Abrahamic religion which entails that all evil in the world is the result of Eating the Apple. A lion eating a zebra has nothing to do with the “Fall of Man,” so it appears, in an Abrahamic framework, that god designed the zebra to suffer for no real reason despite there being infinitely other ways to design the animal kingdom.

Nobody cares about your hippy dippy bullshit. OP is addressing the primary religions that govern most of humanity and governments across the world.

>>17976248
>No, this isn’t common at all
I've also noticed this. When "Christians" here get into arguments, they always spew some really weird shit. It certainly isn't any theological understanding that has been agreed upon by any historical creed. They can't even cope with their heresies by saying
>uh those specific Christians are ackshoaly wrong
Because the stuff they spew on this board is fundamentally wrong about things that most Christians IRL would agree on regardless of denomination.

>>17976259
Every Christian here is only Christian because of culture war shit and because they hate Jews. That's it. They're not actually spiritual people.

>>17976259
>I've also noticed this. When "Christians" here get into arguments, they always spew some really weird shit. It certainly isn't any theological understanding that has been agreed upon by any historical creed.
This happens every time someone posts a thread about the Trinity. Some TradCath larper calls you a retard and explains how the Trinity is “so simple to a high-IQ white man like me.” They then proceed to espouse some Medieval heresy that would have got them executed a few centuries ago.
>They can't even cope with their heresies by saying
>uh those specific Christians are ackshoaly wrong
>Because the stuff they spew on this board is fundamentally wrong about things that most Christians IRL would agree on regardless of denomination.
While this is true, they’re also doubly wrong because most of them claim to be Catholic or Orthodox because it’s “based” even though they know neither about those churches’ theologies. They just kinda assume that their personal opinions reflect the Vatican’s opinions, even though there’s published documents proving the contrary.

>>17975799
>A god of love that only gives you pleasure does not make you love him, but love pleasure. If a love can survive all situations, attractive and repellent, then it is real love.
So the sky rabbi bound by that external constraint?

>>17975831
>because he believes that your spirit can get better.
Why?

>>17975892
I'd rather he didn't commit crimes. The sky jew is capable of making people who don't commit crimes but chose to make criminals. Why?

>>17976016
>He created love and he created pain. With pain we can appreciate love just that much more.
So the sky jew is bound by that external constraint?

>>17975744
>balance is when a much stronger creature chases down a much weaker creature and rips it to shreds so it dies in agony

>>17976006
it’s not about the unpleasantness of witnessing a cute animal die. it’s about the unimaginable horror that a huge percentage of animals inevitably experience themselves in the end. including people of course. cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics are the only way you can reconcile this brutal reality with the existence of a loving god. it’s simply impossible to be true

>>17975731 (OP)
Hey retard, animals also rape? Does that make it okay to rape?
Well thats the only way you could loose virginity so maybe you're fine with that

>>17976344
>Does that make it okay to rape?
NTA but do you really want me to answer that question? You won't like the answer.

>>17976265
I dunno. I had a personal experience witnessing a friend die in front of me and pull a Nikki Sixx and come out speaking Latin to me. You tell me.

>>17976265
That's what I don't get. If they hate jews why do they larp as worshiping a brown rabbi? The church and the vast majority of Christians aren't even on their side on culture war issues.

>everything is so complex and fine tuned only an intelligent mind could do this!
>erm n-no the fact that the world is full of horrible suffering doesn't mean god is evil

Why are theoschizos like this?

>>17975731 (OP)
>if god real why nature exist
This is a devolution of your typical talking points. I'm disappointed in you.

For the record, we live in a broken world that we ought strive to improve by our own efforts.
In the world-to-come, the baseness of nature is addressed, and described as lions laying peacefully with lambs. By then you'll have the world of total Godly control that you like to assume we're currently living in.

>>17976381
they will not, cannot let it go. letting the rug get sweeped means smearing shit on themselves and running naked in the streets

>>17976393
Why is it broken?

>>17976413
Because in our freedom to choose good or evil, we chose evil and doomed it ourselves.

>thats because of god!
You'd like that; it saves you from any responsibility or agency. Do you also blame your mom and dad for your poor genetics or lot in life? Christians view athiests who complain "why bad" the same as that.

>>17975731 (OP)
God didn't create a fallen world, death didn't exist before the fall, eating animals and wearing theirs skins appears in the bible just after the fall. Any christian who tries defending the naturalistic world view sounds idiotic because it's not what a christian is supposed to believe. The naturalistic paradigm in which death is not only part of creation of the world but an essential part of how man "evolved" is irreconcilable with the christian one, nobody will ever be able to justify the God who created death because that God doesn't exist and isn't the God that the Church worships.

>>17976359
HOLY TRAD AND SOVL, praise the lord jesus christ

>>17975753
>gave you the freedom to do what you want with it.
Then why can I only do the things that the body he forced me into is capable of doing? Are you saying the rabbit wanted to get maimed in a horrible embarrassing fashion?

>>17975780
No you aren't, the creator was saying nature is to be respected and you are saying nature is not good.

>>17975815
No, hells couldn't possibly exist if god was an omnipotent benevolence that could drive all possible scenarios to the greater good.

>>17975832
>Ok, I’m not a Christian.
Then why are you appropriating christian vocabulary, why don't you have your own word for your deity instead of their god, is it just because your deity is too incoherent to even name let alone define?

>>17976441
I'm not that anon but the image creator was just clearly just trying to say vegans are hypocrites. The anon youre replying to is obviously pointing out the fallacy in letting nature be a critique of human ethics, because even though nature doesn't respect nature, WE can and often do.

>>17975870
All Fathers are hes and all sons are hes as well.

>>17975879
No, angels also rebelled or there wouldn't be satan, the jew god can't make anything purely good.

>>17975909
>My entire worldview comes from mythological books and fictional movies.
No wonder you are so nonsensical.

>>17975978
>How much direct oversight are you attributing to God in this discussion?
Complete omniscient omnipotent oversight is the type generally associated with a monotheistic universe creator god.

>>17976464
omniscience and omnipotence != micromanaging.
Christian historiology does not conclude that God micromanages, but is still assumes he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. One is an action and the others are capabilities.

>>17976013
>non-predatory animals are destined to have a go at a better life with increased joy potential
Yes good goy, if you just be my victim this time around, you will totally get to be an apex predator like us in the next life.

>>17976489
>micromanage
So by your definition, omniscience breaks down at the micron level and even though people can make nano level materials, that is well beyond god's abilities since he breaks down at micro levels?

>>17976489
>omniscience and omnipotence != micromanaging.
So atoms have a mind of their own and their own free will, its just a coincidence they all behave so similarly? Or god loves atoms more than people, so is more willing to put in the work to make sure they behave consistently?

>>17976502
>>17976510
All you guys do is take arguments in bad faith and strawman, how insufferable.

Omni-ness refers to a capability, which is an involuntary attribute.
Actions are voluntary decisions.

Just because God has the capability of being all-powerful doesnt mean he made (you) specifically gay, (you) got that way all on your own anon, congrats.

>atoms and shieet
Were bestowed with natural properties and probabilities same as everything else.

>>17975731 (OP)
Rabbits are the Devil's handy work

>>17976518
>Omni-ness refers to a capability
No, omni means all, none of the omni- properties of god are about impotent capability, they are about potency, sentience, and presence, the rest of your post is retarded nonsense based on a lie that god is defined as omnicapax rather than omnipotent.

>>17976518
>same as everything else.
No, you specifically said people had to have free will, because god doesn't manage any properties beyond the micro level.

>>17976525
Nowhere is omnipotence meaning "determining every single event". It simply means he is infinitely powerful, or nothing is capable of being more powerful than him. You are trying to redefine millenia of theology to fit your argument.

A common debate of omnipotence is "could a being create a stone so massive it's impossible for even it to move?". The question here is about the being's CAPABILITY to do something like that. Get it? People think about omnipotence as like "unbeatable", not "all-determining".

An omnipotent being is still an agent that could allow something to happen outside their direct control.

In fact, I'd say an omnipotent being is so powerful that he could create a universe in which he *does not* directly control every soul, but still certainly *could*.

>>17976528
In case youre ESL, "micromanaging" is just a term that means controlling every detail, like how a manager might annoyingly controller his employees.

If youre not ESL; atomic properties do not necessarily disqualify free will. This isnt even about spirituality anymore, there are athiests who believe this too. Idk what to tell you.

>>17976585
>A common debate of omnipotence is "could a being create a stone so massive it's impossible for even it to move?"
An omnipotent god could just turn himself and everything else into a stone such that move loses all meaning as there is nothing outside of the stone to move the stone into. You clearly just don't understand the implications of omnipotence.

You still can't answer why he micromanages every detail of atoms and nature, but not people.

Free will is disqualified by the fact that anyone can be murdered against their will at any time.

>>17976612
>You still can't answer why he micromanages every detail of atoms and nature, but not people.
I never said this. I don't believe he does this at all. It's not in the Bible lol.

I think he did the math to start things initially with the Big Bang, and I believe he interjected Himself to Earth about 2000 years ago; those are the main (but not the only) things God has done in our story.

>Free will is disqualified by the fact that anyone can be murdered against their will at any time.
This just makes no sense man. And I don't see how it connects to what you were trying to say at all.

>>17976112
It's not a dodge at all, it's a rational response to the premise. IF there is no free will because God is an all-powerful micromanager that controls every minute action, THEN there is no cruelty because nothing has any agency or true capability to exist as itself.
You can't act all high-and-mighty if you're not actually going to engage with the argument, and I am arguing in good faith here. As previously stated, I don't even believe in an Abrahamic God, but I am capable of imagining how I would feel if I had not eaten breakfast this morning.
What do you mean by "take it up with the Calvinists?"

>>17976115
Creating the world at all is considered "good" because it's better than there being nothing.

>>17976121
People with predictably short life spans will frequently live life fuller and more vigorously and vivaciously than those who think they have forever to squander it. They'll do more in 5 years than a healthy person might do in 50. It gives them an appreciation for life that they otherwise might not have. You can see their circumstances as tragic, but that is just one perspective.

>>17976458
If I had given a food analogy, someone would complain about that too. I will fight for the right to use analogies.

>>17976489
>>17976518
Good to see someone else who understands that distinction.

>>17976248
I don't think you've ever had a good-faith conversation with a theist so you really don't have any grounds upon which to say that you know what or how they think.
Incidentally, your post contradicts your own stance. Look at the Fall of Man story: God says "do NOT eat the apple" and what happens? Eve eats it. The indication is that God gave Eve both an instruction and the ability to act in opposition to that instruction, and he was left disappointed by her failure to listen. He was upset for a few thousands years, but eventually relaxed and removed the punishment he gave her for not listening.

He had the POWER to force her compliance, but chose not to enact it. This does not contradict omnipotence, but does directly show that He was not micromanaging the situation to enforce absolute dictatorship over all actions.

>>17976698
>Good to see someone else who understands that distinction.
Really glad I'm not alone here, thank you anon. I felt like I was going crazy trying to explain myself. I know youre not exactly Christian but Godbless you man. I feel like I can leave this thread on a high note now.

>>17975731 (OP)
Why does gods most inhumane creation see this as bad?

>>17975731 (OP)
Life is a product of evolution, not intelligent design.

>>17975731 (OP)
I know you’re jewish so you never read the bible, but try to read a book first before you attack the plotline.
>why?
The bible explicitly states that god made all these cute curdly creatures and living stuffed animals. Then the devil came, snd the cuck goodgoy faggot adam and eve the hooker decided to kick god out, and make satan the new god. Then satan turned the cute living stuffed animals into hellish caricatures where they devour and rip eachother apart like in a violent cartoon.

>>17976870
Same thing

I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

>>17976874
Adam and Eve is the Jewish creation mythology you fucking idiot. Genesis is the Jewish religion.

>>17976359
SAAR

>>17976870
Prove evolution isnt gods will

>>17976331
>balance is when a much stronger creature chases down a much weaker creature and rips it to shreds so it dies in agony

you know nothing of prey animals and especially rabbits. when captured by a predator most have a built-in kill switch that is they die immediately to avoid the horror of being dismembered alive.

Because there is no loving God you stupid assholes.
There is no mind that created this universe.

>>17976882
I thought you jews worship baphomet or something. Why else do you like to abort so many kids?

>>17976957
I'm not a jew you moron
The Bible old testament is literally the jewish religious book and genesis is literally the jewish creation mythology. You believe in jewish fairytales.

>>17976698
>Creating the world at all is considered "good"
Creating the world is in fact not good. Because you can't have good without bad.

There's no bad without the world

>>17977039
You cropped my sentence halfway to say what I said as if you were disagreeing with me.
Why did you do that?
I agree that you cannot have good without bad. I agree there is no bad if there is only nothing. But generally speaking, thinking creatures believe that the ability to think, for all its suffering, is better than not having the ability at all. The good+bad ratio is still considered greater than the nothing of nothing.

>>17977057
God has not created the world yet, there's been no sin. There's no bad.
Therefore it makes no sense for someone with your theology to say creating the world is good.

your sentience goes wrong midway through

>>17977154
*actually the entire sentence is nonsense

>>17977057
>>17977154

I'll try to make my issue more clear.
You need bad for there to be such a thing as good, right?

God alone before creation is perfect. There's no bad anywhere. God has not created a world with bad stuff in it.
So you're not going to have anything good either.

But you probably don't want to say that God creating the world isn't good.
I wouldn't want to say that. - But I think there can be good without bad, so I got no problem. I can say: "God creating the world is good."
You cannot, because you believe there needs to be good for there to be bad.

>>17977154
The statement is not that good and bad were created in equal measure, though. There was nothing, and then God created the world, creating good and bad, but more good was created than bad in the process.
There is no conclusive way to claim that good and bad were made in equal and opposite amounts - that's an entirely subjective opinion, that someone can easily respond to with "nuh uh, I disagree" and neither side would be more or less authoritative on the subject.

>>17977163
>You need bad for there to be such a thing as good, right?
Correct.
>So you're not going to have anything good either.
Still with you so far.
>But you probably don't want to say that God creating the world isn't good.
It's not a "want" really - the argument is that in the creation of the world, more good was introduced than bad. The net outcome is good.
>But I think there can be good without bad.
This is wrong, though. Factually wrong. This has nothing to do with theology at all - it's just how words and the meanings thereof work. "Good" as a point of view cannot exist without knowledge of its opposite. You cannot have "beneficial" without an understanding of "detrimental." Good is not neutral. "Nothing" is the only fully neutral state of existence. Without bad, you have no frame of reference with which to acknowledge or recognize good.
I'm repeating this a lot to you because it's something you simply MUST understand to even participate in this conversation, long before you can worry about God and things like that.

>>17976423
>our
You mean adam and eve

>>17977169
>The net outcome is good.
I'm not talking about outcomes.
I am talking about God's act of creating the world, that act cannot be good. Because there is no bad.

Free-will enjoyers talking about evil as it's somehow *has* to be the case.
There's absolutely no contradiction in everyone always forever just choosing the good, and no one ever choosing evil. If evil is something that *has* to be come about from human free-will, then human will is very clearly NOT free in regard.

>>17977186
You are talking about outcomes, but you don't seem to be doing so with even a shred of honesty.
The act (creating the world) has aspects that are both positive and negative. No honest person can deny this!
Almost every action that can be performed by anyone, anywhere, has aspects that are both positive and negative. No honest person can deny this!
The argument from theists who believe that God created the world is that for the action of creating the world, the net value of these combined aspects is good.

>>17977191
>There's absolutely no contradiction in everyone always forever just choosing the good
"The good" is entirely subjective. What is good for one man is potentially bad for another man. There are almost no things in the entire universe that are good for everyone, from everyone's perspective.
>but solving world hunger!
Would make the food-sellers poorer, which they would see as a bad thing.
>but solving diseases!
Would make the pharma companies poorer, which they would see as a bad thing.
>but those people who don't want to solve these things are evil!
I don't deny this but that proves my point. What is good for them is bad for you.

>If evil is something that *has* to be come about from human free-will, then human will is very clearly NOT free in regard.
That's not logically consistent at all. That's basically "if apple, then square" in terms of action-consequence relationship.
Evil does not -have to- come from free will, but it -will- because as soon as there were two brothers, one killed the other for his stuff. They were free to not go down that path, but they were also free to take that path. If a path exists, -someone- will take it. We're talking about infinitely large numbers here.

>>17976730
>I don't think you've ever had a good-faith conversation with a theist so you really don't have any grounds upon which to say that you know what or how they think.
Most of the world is theists, you fucking retard. Everyone knows what Catholics believe, or Methodists, or all the other major denominations. You’re the one spouting your stupid, hippy dippy heresy pretending it’s somehow in-line with Christian theology. Nobody cares about your stupid, individual opinions. This is a debate on Abrahamic theology, of which you are way off.

>Incidentally, your post contradicts your own stance.
It doesn’t. You are just retarded.
>Look at the Fall of Man story: God says "do NOT eat the apple" and what happens? Eve eats it. The indication is that God gave Eve both an instruction and the ability to act in opposition to that instruction, and he was left disappointed by her failure to listen. He was upset for a few thousands years, but eventually relaxed and removed the punishment he gave her for not listening.
What does this have to do with god designing sharks to have giant, razor-sharp teeth intended to rip seals apart in the most violent and painful way imaginable? Nature is just as violent and evil as humanity despite no shark ever “Eating Duh Apple.” The Bible gets around this by saying predators and prey will lie together or some shit, which is frankly just dumb and doesn’t explain why sharks will have razor teeth that they’re ideally not supposed to use.

>He had the POWER to force her compliance, but chose not to enact it. This does not contradict omnipotence, but does directly show that He was not micromanaging the situation to enforce absolute dictatorship over all actions.

>I knit you in your mother’s womb.
>I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
The traditional Christian perspective is that god controls all things, actively. He creates evil (Isiaiah). You are simply wrong.

>>17977344
>I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

>>17977366
Choosing to cause disaster or calamity is itself morally evil. If a human somehow knowingly triggered an earthquake that killed thousands of people, would that be evil of them to do?

>>17977344
You still don't seem to be discussing this in good faith. ARE you even theistic? I've already explained that I'm not, and you don't seem to be either.
>Most of the world is theists, Everyone knows what Catholics believe
No, you know what you THINK they believe, but only as framed by your own (presumably disparaging) perceptions of them. You present yourself as looking down on them, and this will warp your perceptions of what you think they think.
>What does this have to do with
When you inserted yourself into the conversation, the other person and I were discussing the nature of omnipotence, and the separation of capacity and action. You brought up Adam and Eve and I explained how it related to that context.
Nature is violent and brutal, but that is not evil. Nature has no morality because it has no capacity to perceive such concepts. Nature simply "is." Sharks have sharp teeth because the food they eat necessitates such teeth. There's no morality to sharks eating seals. It just is. if the shark does not eat the seal, it starves to death, which is just as "evil" (in your point of view, not mine) as the seal being eaten.
>god controls all things
That passage seems to be saying that he creates things, without any indication that he controls their actions thereafter.

>>17977384
Again, you're totally wrong. Let's take a forest fire. Forests NEED to burn - it happens in nature in uninhabited areas because it's how nature clears up debris and refreshes the soil. In the absence of people, it's just "a thing that happens" without any moral direction. If humans build a city next to a forest, and then proceed to neglect the forest and don't maintain it properly, it's still going to burn itself down... but now those people are affected. Some will lose homes, some will die. This is STILL not evil. It's just "a thing that happens," but now humans are affected.
>If a human somehow knowingly
Intent TO cause harm is paramount in sentencing such things.

>>17977414
>Let's take a forest fire. Forests NEED to burn
Because God chose to nature that way. It's genuinely shocking how only a couple people in this thread have even figured out the point I'm making.

>>17977423
*chose to create nature

>>17977423
See? You're not addressing anything I'm saying so there's really not point in talking with you on this topic. It's not a debate; you're talking AT me without hearing anything I'm saying in reply.
Nature is, for all intents and purposes, an infinitely complex, self-regulating machine. It repairs itself, it modifies itself, it improves itself, with or without "external" influence. God created nature to be completely self-sufficient when looked at from a wide-enough perspective. You don't like forest fires, but that does not make them evil, nor does it make their implementation evil.
The human body is similar in this regard - you don't concern yourself with the deaths of your individual cells, yet they live and die every minute of every day, doing the tasks that make the body continue to operate.

Both on the micro and macro scale, none of this is "evil." Just because some action is destructive from the narrow perspective of some affected party, it does not make the action evil.

>only a couple people in this thread have even figured out the point I'm making.
Your point seems to be "God is not good." This is not an insightful or special point - people with far greater grasp of philosophy than yourself have made that argument for millennia, and have been countered by equally great minds who held the opposite view. The stalemate will never end. People can get your point without agreeing with it. You seem to be the one with the issue understanding the point of the other side.

>>17977451
>Nature is, for all intents and purposes, an infinitely complex, self-regulating machine
Who is responsible for creating nature? Holy fuck you are so dense.

>>17977494
For the purposes of this discussion, God. He created nature, which is a thing that is not evil, even when it is violent or destructive or detrimental to your comfort.

>>17977423
I think most people got it, it's just that the question is so vague that it sounds like "Why rabbits?". God chose to create things this way because he deemed it good. What criteria an omniscient unlimited mind considers (if any at all) when making ethical judgements is likely not something we will articulate in detail during our lifetime.

If we ever scientifically confirm that we're part of a simulation that's been set up by whatever is the five-dimensional hyperalien equivalent of a complete retard, will theists admit that maybe things really aren't all that great, in line with how they appear, or will they just insist that surely the seven-dimensional hyperalien who is simulating the five-dimensional retard could be a perfectly good person who is infinitely more intelligent than we are, or at least we can't understand things well enough to make a moral judgment of his handiwork?

>>17977550
>maybe things really aren't all that great
You sound like you just want people to be pessimistic. Like hope or optimism are beneath you, and should be beneath everyone else.

>>17975731 (OP)
FUNNY BUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>17977555
I think theism undermines morality as far as it bars us from judging God based on how his handiwork appears to us because he works in mysterious ways and we're too stupid to see the big picture or whatever. If good and evil are to have any useful meaning at all, they have to have meanings that we can get some handle on, that are based in our experience, and I think anyone who looks at the world honestly would say that it's full of evil (what most honest humans would perceive as evil or wrongness -- something that shouldn't be the way it is) and of a sort that an omnipotent or even just very powerful being could easily prevent yet conspicuously doesn't.

>>17977566
>If good and evil are to have any useful meaning at all, they have to have meanings that we can get some handle on
And we get "some" handle on them in our social lives. But ethics are famously complex and inconclusive even when it comes to limited human beings who faced local situations with local inputs and consequences. If you cannot reliably grasp local questions, why would you (or anyone else) feel confindent aby any single conclusion about cosmic-proportion-questions? Theism doesn't undermine morality, in fact I would say theism is the strongest base for morality... it just makes you face your limits in the field.

> I think anyone who looks at the world honestly would say that it's full of evil (what most honest humans would perceive as evil or wrongness -- something that shouldn't be the way it is) and of a sort that an omnipotent or even just very powerful being could easily prevent yet conspicuously doesn't.
This is one example of your limitation. As a human being, your only way of combatting evil is to prevent it ahead of time. This is not a limitation God has to deal with. He can turn the worst event into the best event.

>>17977527
>God chose to create things this way because he deemed it good.

So, God saying something is good/he is good automatically makes it true? Slave mentality

>>17977566
>it bars us from judging God based on how his handiwork appears to us because he works in mysterious ways
But that's an entirely valid viewpoint. Are you familiar with the Chinese Farmer proverb, otherwise known as the Maybe Story? Whether something is good or evil is not purely decided in the moment it happens, since it can have unforeseen ramifications for those involved. The system is too complex for a human to ever understand it. We are not gods.
>I think anyone who looks at the world honestly would say that it's full of evil
I think everyone can agree with this, but the world is also full of good. There's a balance to these things.
>a sort that an omnipotent or even just very powerful being could easily prevent yet conspicuously doesn't.
Sure, but we cannot know what would happen if they -did- prevent it. The consequences of that action could result in a greater evil taking place, and then a greater one if that one is prevented and so on. We don't know and we can't know. An omniscient being, however, could know and there pick the lesser of two evils (assuming that it interferes at all).

>>17977574
>Theism doesn't undermine morality, in fact I would say theism is the strongest base for morality... it just makes you face your limits in the field.
Fully agreed.

>>17977576
Yes, God saying something literally makes it the case. That's how reality is created. If you think you can rebel against natural laws being in place, go have your freedom I guess.

>>17977576
Whether you believe in God or not, what you just described is how omnipotence would work. You're not a slave to that any more than you're a slave to the laws of physics.

>>17977574
>If you cannot reliably grasp local questions, why would you (or anyone else) feel confindent aby any single conclusion about cosmic-proportion-questions
If someone perceives a great moral wrong to be occurring, that itself is something that shouldn't occur in a truly good creation.
>He can turn the worst event into the best event.
My intuition is extremely strong that this is pure nonsense. If things are wrong when they're happening, there is wrongness, and future events do not somehow undo it. That a person's future self may derive some benefit from an event doesn't justify inflicting true suffering on their past self. If an experience happened and was judged a certain way, it happened and it was judged a certain way. Whatever happens in the future is irrelevant. The only way a being, even an omnipotent being, could fix that is by fixing it when it happened. But he doesn't. To say that it can be fixed in the future is just gibberish, even under omnipotence.
>>17977579
I'm familiar with the Chinese farmer proverb, but I would take it as being about net-good and net-evil, not absolute good and absolute evil. Someone breaking their leg is bad, flat out. That it may spare them a worse fate in the future doesn't make it good. It just means it be net-positive when seen from a wider context. But God would operate outside the context. If he were truly omnipotent, he could make it so that there was no bad, not just that creation was net-good (on the off-chance that it is). But he didn't. Instead he would be responsible for an extraordinary amount of bad, and him being responsible for good as well doesn't cancel that out. If I steal your wallet and then some time later buy you a sandwich, that doesn't make me stealing your wallet okay, not even if the sandwich cost several times more than the money I had in my wallet.

>>17977600
*more than the money you had in your wallet

>>17975731 (OP)
You're one day closer to Hell. Tick tock. :)

"Enjoy hell" posters are anti-Christian trolls who false flag to make Christians look bad

>>17977600
>that itself is something that shouldn't occur
For this scenario to transpire, life would have to be made perfectly neutral. Flat on all levels. No inequality or disparity in appearance or ability or knowledge or emotion - none of that could exist, because any inequality would give rise to envy. Personally, I view such a sterile world AS Hell, and far worse than what we have now. You cannot make everyone happy all the time - it can't be done.
>My intuition is extremely strong
I promise you, it's not. You're not a god.
>net-good and net-evil, not absolute good and absolute evil.
That is the entire point of the proverb. What might SEEM bad at first might actually be good when viewed in a larger or smaller scope, and the inverse is true as well.
>But God would operate outside the context.
Correct.
>If he were truly omnipotent, he could
Still correct. He "can."
>make it so that there was no bad, not just that creation was net-good
The point is that even if He did, humans would still find fault in it. This is why I brought up the Matrix in my initial example: when the machines made the first Matrix it was perfect, and humans rejected it for being TOO perfect.
>him being responsible for good as well doesn't cancel that out.
To you, but to plenty of other people it does tip the scales in His favor.
>If I steal your wallet and then some time later buy you a sandwich, that doesn't make me stealing your wallet okay
I have learned long ago not to question divine providence, so I do, in fact, see that as okay. I curse my misfortunes in the moment like any other human, but I also understand that greater good can arise from those misfortunes.

>>17977654
>For this scenario to transpire, life would have to be made perfectly neutral. Flat on all levels. No inequality or disparity in appearance or ability or knowledge or emotion - none of that could exist, because any inequality would give rise to envy. Personally, I view such a sterile world AS Hell
I don't believe that follows at all. There can be an enormous range of variety without anything truly bad. I would count many works of art or video games as being pretty much like that. Diversity and pure goodness are not opposed to each other.

>>17976108
How do we know a thing cannot exist without the other? Who decided that? Who decided free will cannot exist without consequence? Who decided a consequence of any confliction is a necessity whatsoever? Those who condone are so lost in the sauce they cant fathom possibilities alien to our experiences and existence.

>>17977660
>There can be an enormous range of variety without anything truly bad.
Now THIS is objectively untrue. If you were to provide me a list of things that would comprise this perfect world, I could just as easily demonstrate a flaw in every one of them. Not "the" flaw, but merely the first one that would come to mind as a professional Devil's Advocate.
>I would count many works of art or video games as being pretty much like that.
What does this even mean? There is no video game that is a perfect utopia world without conflict. The premise of Animal Crossing is your massive debt. The Sims has situations like this.
>Diversity and pure goodness are not opposed to each other.
I could not disagree more, and that's NOT a Devil's Advocate position. Diversity's goodness is entirely dependent on sample size and scale.

>>17977662
>How do we know a thing cannot exist without the other?
Because to perceive such a thing is to perceive its absence. If you have a thing called "is" then it implies a thing called "is not."
>Who decided free will cannot exist without consequence?
The being that decided to make more than one entity to enjoy that free will.
>Those who condone are so lost in the sauce they cant fathom possibilities alien to our experiences and existence.
There's a powerful irony in you saying this when you're only speaking from the experience of yourself, refusing to accept that something above you on the planes of existence might see things differently than you.

>>17977711
>Now THIS is objectively untrue
No it isn't. And less than perfect goodness can still be purely good. Something can be purely good in the sense of not having anything morally wrong with it and yet still be flawed in some other way. A painting that isn't quite the most beautiful painting in the world can still be free of moral wrongness just like a boat with a hole in it isn't morally wrong despite being flawed with respect to its purpose.

>>17977725
>And less than perfect goodness can still be purely good.
Again, you are unequivocally wrong about this. If there is good without evil, then you have "perfect good." If I find a flaw, and I promise you, I can, then there is still evil.
If you cede that flaws can exist in a "purely good world" then you have no grounds to complain about wolves eating rabbits. The world can still be "purely good" with that "flaw."

A painting is an object. There's no morality to ponder about it because it's not alive. It will never eat a bunny or be eaten by a wolf for sustenance.
A boat is an object. There's no morality to ponder about it because it's not alive. You WOULD consider a boat with a hole in it to be a morally evil thing if the boat sank, drowning the people on board. Drowning is an awful way to go.

If you profess that a world of LIVING, FEELING creatures can exist and be good without any form of evil, I challenge you to try to describe that world.

>>17977725 (cont.)
Possibly the difficulty here is that we're working from very different basic intuitions that are hard to articulate. Maybe one part of this is that, although I'd like to believe it, I don't buy the model where bad/evil is just the absence of good. I see it as the positive presence of something that shouldn't be, that has no right to exist in an absolute sense rather than just a relative sense.

>>17977737
With no offense intended, you come across as a person with a very shallow understanding of the nature of life and the universe. You're trying to "vibe check" things that have stumped the greatest philosophers that have ever lived in the combined history of humanity. You will not succeed.
>I don't buy the model where bad/evil is just the absence of good. I see it as the positive presence of something that shouldn't be, that has no right to exist in an absolute sense rather than just a relative sense.
What you just said doesn't -mean anything.- "Good is something positive that shouldn't exist in an absolute sense but does anyway" does not -mean anything.- It amounts to nothing beyond the inane ramblings of a stoner or a drunk. Define "absolute sense" and "right to exist" and all the other things you just said. Name anything "good in an absolute sense" that applies to all living things.

Animals exhale carbon dioxide and inhale oxygen, while plants inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. In both cases, the exhaled material is either poisonous or non-beneficial to the thing doing the exhaling. The cycle could not exist without both halves, and there is no way to satisfy both with the same intakes and outputs.

>>17977744
Now that we've gotten to the insults stage of the argument I don't really feel like continuing, and I suspect it's just going to be a never-ending war of me trying to articulate the intuitions from which I'm reasoning better over and over again in the hope that you might understand them while you stomp all over them because you aren't actually interested in understanding them, just preserving the dominance of your own views.

It is within the very words themselves. Anima. Animated. Once inanimate, sterile matter now set to action. It is your job to tame it. Such grotesque displays of primordial consumptions cease once a civilization has fully conquered its planet and transformed it into a utopia. But beware that you do not tame yourselves into such unnatural disability. A species that masters its environment and domesticates every inferior within its domain must carefully maintain its military might so that it does not collapse.

More directly: the fox could be chewing some non sentient vegetation for nutrients if you truly wished, but your childrens children should remain wary that this is the innate default truth of reality, and that only intelligent benevolent power forces it to be otherwise.

>>17977754
>insults stage
Oh please. How many times have I been called a retard in this thread? I've been MORE than civilized, despite being called a christranny (whatever THAT means) after my first post.
I have asked you, over and over again, for -specifics- and you have given few if any, and the most recent ones were a boat and a painting... both of which I refuted instantly. If you have no counters to that post then you're correct, there's nothing else to discuss because your entire perspective boils down to trying to overcome "the ick."

>in the hope that you might understand them
What you don't grasp is that I DO understand them, I just think they're juvenile and poorly thought-out. I've had every thought you are having, but I rejected them internally because they didn't stand up to the scrutiny of my own mind. You need to learn to spend more time criticizing your OWN thoughts. Ask yourself "what would someone who disagrees with me think" -in good faith- and then refute them in your own mind, if you can. If you cannot construct the opposing stance to your idea, it does not mean your stance is infallible, it means you're actually stupid (clinically - not an insult). No stance is infallible. If you cannot refute your own internal refutation of your stance, you need to spend more time refining your own stance.

>>17977769
>More directly: the fox could be chewing some non sentient vegetation for nutrients if you truly wished
If animals ate only plants and ate all the plants, the animals would upset the balance of nature and die out. I just mentioned this.

>>17977775
>If animals ate only
The entire earth biome can be rewritten into a new form of perfection if a sufficient organization believed it to be worth the effort. One of the many beauties of 'natural' is that it requires no such artificial management by a sentient, it will self manage into perpetuity. You could make all of earth anima vegan if you possessed the resources, IQ and willpower to see it done, but it will be an artificial creation most likely requiring continual upkeep and intense editing every decade to remain, unless you're legendary enough to be so potent in your skills as a bioengineer to be truly capable of creating an entirely self sustaining vegan biosphere across an entire planet - a feat truly approaching god level status.
>>17977769
I feared this explanation insufficient so I returned: by anima I mean the natural. They do what they will, and there is a morbid beauty in that, however deathly that may unfortunately be. This is why we praise our dogs, our kittens, our falcons as they increasingly display sentient behaviors, step by step approaching the threshold required to be our peers. How strange would it be if anima were already fully sentient, perhaps even more sentient than we? So as you see the bunny crunched by the fox, take solace in that it is merely the first thing that jumped to its mind to heal the pain of its belly, and if you intervene intelligently, over generations of domestication, you may carve your will into thw fabric of their species. Be thankful the wild is there to be tamed. They are our children. How boring otherwise.

>>17977775
>How many times have I been called a retard in this thread?
I'd say there's a difference between the type of insults that are a given on this website and the type of insults that make it seem like the person on the other side is genuinely very emotionally invested in a topic in a way that the insults will ramp up and replace more and more text the longer the discussion continues without agreement. Maybe if I had zero emotional investment in the topic myself I could be fine with it, but, since I don't, the insults get to me and make it harder and less rewarding for me to respond.

>>17977791
>The entire earth biome can be rewritten into a new form of perfection
>a feat truly approaching god level status.
At least you acknowledge that such a hypothetical system would require a god to create it.

>>17977805
You're not beating the "juvenile" allegations. If your feelings got hurt because you lack the rhetorical prowess to disprove the existence of God then I don't know what to tell you beyond what I've already said: you need to get better at thinking about things, and that means arguing with yourself internally and defeating yourself. Repeatedly and endlessly, forever.

>>17975826
Ouroboros. The Ring of Being. The created part (you could say demiurge) doesn't "love." We experience the immaterial part of god's (the One's) eternal expansiveness as "love." The created part emerges from the uncreated, and returns to it, and the cycle continues.

>>17977810
I find that it's usually more interesting and enlightening to argue with other people than to argue with myself because every once in a while the other might ideally bring up something I didn't expect. Arguing with myself feels a bit like playing chess with myself or trying to arm wrestle myself, and have you ever tried doing that? It's very hard to do it authentically. I'm sure you can get something out of it, but I would put it far below the benefit of doing those things with another person.

>>17977829
That you would conflate arm wrestling with chess shows me how little you thought about what you wrote before pressing Enter. Playing solo-chess is absolutely mentally stimulating if you're trying to win with both sides equally hard. That's the basic concept of war theory. Comparing this to arm wrestling yourself (???) is right back to the stoner vibe check stuff. If you'd thought about it first, you might have gone "wait, I should stop with the chess during this analogy because that's at least comparable and not fucking lunacy like the arm wrestling one; man it was silly of me to think that."
But maybe you're wright. Maybe you do need someone in your life to tell you "Bro, what you just said is fucking retarded. Like, completely fucking retarded. What the fuck? What the actual fuck, bro?"

That WAS an insult but it is coming from a place of wanting you to grow as a person.
But man, you say some exceptionally stupid shit and if we're not waxing philosophical anymore then I think someone really needs to inform you of that.

Gnostics win again

>>17977845
>That you would conflate arm wrestling with chess shows me how little you thought about what you wrote before pressing Enter.
I didn't conflate them, I compared arguing with myself to both of them, and I chose arm wrestling because I think it's an especially good example of something that's difficult to do with yourself authentically. Chess is easier, but it's still on the spectrum of difficult to play against yourself authentically and not as helpful for improvement as playing someone else who is more likely to suprise you. I think I'd put arguing somewhere between the two, because arguing is much more open-ended than chess. It requries a genuine motivation to support a side and gather up points in its favor that might be analogized to the exertion involved in an arm wrestle, and which is hard to feel authentically enough for both sides to not just bring up points and counterpoints until your truly preferred side wins the "argument."

>>17977872
>I chose arm wrestling because I think it's an especially good example of something that's difficult to do with yourself authentically
The part of your brain that is supposed to be used to develop logical connections between ideas is woefully underdeveloped/trained if that's the comparison you were going for. There's really no kinder way to put it.
Thinking and chess are both primarily mental activities. Arm wrestling is a primarily physical activity. These are not things you can effectively lump together in the analogy you're trying to make. One of these three is not like the others.
"Do with yourself authentically?" What manner of babble is this? Are you saying your internal monologue is normally INauthentic?

You're getting dangerously close to me dropping the Billy Madison line on you and if I were a less lenient man I would have done so already.

>>17977885
I feel very confirmed in my suspicion that you were just going to resort to increasingly many increasingly aggressive insults if I continued arguing with you on the original topic, which I'm sure you're much more emotionally invested in than the topic of whether arguing can be meaningfully analogized to arm wrestling in some respects.

>>17975731 (OP)
That rabbit is in heaven nibbling on golden grass. He won

>>17977889
If you say increasingly crazy things (as you are) I am going to lose my patience with you. You are correct to expect this. During the theology discussion I was being civilized and arguing under the assumption that you were a rational and logical person who might see the errors in your argument if you were presented with them. By the end of the discussion it was clear that this was not the case; logic and reason have no sway for you because you're not interested in such things - you are looking for vibes and feelings.

My intent with the aggression is to try to illustrate for you that what you are doing is not acceptable in a real (classical) debate. Modern """debate""" is not an actual debate, it's fishing for sound bytes to post to your 200 followers on Instagram. This is not, and can never be, productive conversation. Say smarter things and you will be met with smarter counterarguments. Say stupid things and you will be berated for your insanity. This is the most constructive criticism that I can give you. Shit, man, even when I told you "think harder about things before you say them" you basically replied "but that's too hard and I caaaaan't." You tried to hide behind frivolous claims of "other people might surprise you" but really it's an obvious cop-out to distract from your lacking ability. It should not surprise you to hear that you cannot compare internal debate with self-arm-wrestling. You shouldn't NEED someone to tell you this.

>>17977917
Animals do not go to heaven.

>>17978212
Humans can. Humans are animals (anima: imbued with soul; movement)

>>17975731 (OP)
Pussies like you would generally rather exist in perpetual nothingness than ever experience love for another firsthand. Anti-natalist faggot.

>>17976451
>because even though nature doesn't respect nature, WE can and often do.
no you don't, retarded tranny. no one that invented this industrial system and mass culls old growth forests could ever talk anything about "respecting nature". the cruelty of a tiger is balanced in comparison to the avarice of a human.

>>17976092
>>17976331
it's funny when crypto-abrahamists are ignorant to the fact the beginning of life began as an endosymbiotic event between early eukaryotic cells and bacteria.

>>17976092
>>17976331
it's funny when crypto-abrahamists are ignorant to the fact novelty and complexity began as endosymbiotic events between early eukaryotic cells and bacteria instead of their meme might makes right bullshit.

God loves how cute you are when you suffer.

>>17975761
God loves *rigtheous humans.

>>17975731 (OP)
just don't think about it. hopefully ai annihilates us all

>>17975731 (OP)
Vegans don't respect or understand nature. Nor do they understand God or truly love him.

>>17977423
The point you think you're making is stupid. That's why people are talking in circles around you as you screech "ANIMAL DIE THAT MEAN EVIL???"

>>17978764
You can't even define evil beyond
>evil is anything god say not good!
Because you are no different from the bronze age jewish cavemen who spawned your cult

>>17977576
Are you a slave since you always need to breathe and eat?

>>17978290
I didn't invent those, and I don't recall ever speaking in favor of them.

>>17976450
NTA but the word "god" is not specific to Christianity.

>>17976454
If God the Father has no body and therefore no sex, why is it only accurate to refer to him as 'Father' rather than 'Mother' or 'Parent'? Unless you think there's some kind of metaphysical essence of genderedness that exists independent of any sexed bodies.

>>17975731 (OP)
vegetarianism and veganism make sense if you refuse to eat meat because you don't want to endorse the meat industry, not the act of killing a random animal. killing is part of nature, but killing on an industrial scale while causing severe environmental impacts is a different thing entirely.

>>17979618
I'm not sure how I feel about any intentional killing of a living being that's not absolutely necessary, but at the very least hunting is way down my list of priorities to care about; it affects far fewer animals, and a normal life in the wild ending with instant death from a hunter's bullet seems far preferable to factory farmed life.

>>17979637
And what about bow hunters?

>>17979882
Still probably preferable to factory farming.

>>17978212
I say they do and Jesus says it's done unto you as ye believe

>>17980014
There is no mention in the Bible of a pet heaven or dog heaven—and for good reason. Animals cannot take the steps needed to qualify for “the heavenly calling.” (Hebrews 3:1) These steps include taking in knowledge, exercising faith, and obeying God’s commands. (Matthew 19:17; John 3:16; 17:3) Only humans were created with the prospect of living forever.

>>17975804
Genesis obviously isn't supposed to be literal

>>17980034
You gotta make your nonsense palatable and enticing to the common man. Failure to do so is why Jesus is going into the historical crypt of dead gods, like all the other gods before him.

People love their pets and there often was far more kindness shown to us by our animals than any other people.

You dolts saying, "hurp durp animals don't get to heaven," is appalling to anyone inclined to your Jesus brand of bullshit.

Gotta make those lies slick and appealing dumbass.


Also, give the faithtards their own board. History is a pursuit of learned men and there's no one less learned than some faggot popping a chub for that chiseled Jew in his S&M crucifiction story.

>>17980034
>There is no mention in the
All religious texts <2000 A.D. have exceeded their expiration date versus the exponential rate of expansion of consciousness. The modern form of a religion manifests within the continual debate and conversation amongst the prime sentients of a population, as their thoughtforms themselves advance far too quickly for any static text to remain relevant long enough to warrant the creation of any new texts that might govern and supplant the ancient ones. This is the strength that atheists and agnostics continue to fail to perceive - there is no true achilles heel to be found in criticizing history: the true religion has always been a living, breathing, evolving thing, the infinity of it only barely capable of being captured within any text.

Animals can take the steps needed to qualify for vectorization towards the plane of heaven: heaven is so potent a thing that it is set up in a way to catch any soul relevant to its existence, so it would be a betrayal of its very substance to neglect any entity that could possess the requisite honor to enter it. All sufficiently benevolent and sentient beings will enter. How could the opposite ever be argued? As their intellect increases, generation by generation, and the inevitable divergence between good and evil actions throughout a lifespan manifests within them, within yet another species, it becomes clear that classification and organization within the grand system of God is required. Once the minimum level of neuronal density is reached to maintain contemplation of ones own existence, and self observation is maintained throughout that beings lifespan, can you truly say you would believe a God to be so cruel to abandon such a new being? A good one would not. So long as something is good and capable of maintaining its ego throughout multiple lifespans, it will be welcomed past its first trials of life. Anything less would be an unworthy doppelganger of true Heaven.

>>17979604
>there's some kind of metaphysical essence of genderedness that exists independent of any sexed bodies
The Father issues forth from the Mother's womb, the father engenders the physical world, and the things of the world in time complete their journey back to the Mother. The cycle begins again.

>>17980034
If not every single entity is saved, then this existence is not worth saving. Either you value total mercy and perfection, or you are no different than your detractors. This applies to all religions and belief systems in the total sum of all possible continuities. I value mercy and righteousness. No side owns these concepts. Not even God as God is written by man. God as written by man is limited and fallible. As are the detractors. Therefore these debates all devolve to might is right which defeats all of their own principles and premises altogether. Humanity does not own God.

>>17980072
You only say that because science has proven it to not be.

>>17975731 (OP)
Why have anything and not just nothing forever?

>>17980355
Nothing gives birth to something, and something returns to nothing.

>>17980093
>>17980106
>just loosen your standards bro
And this is why other churches have homosexual pastors. No. Animals cannot take cognitive steps to try and become holy. They do not think in the same sense as humans.
>>17980216
A humans life is worth more than any other animal. This is a fact.

>>17980216
>If not every single entity is saved, then this existence is not worth saving
Cool opinion

>>17975744
Why do we need balance?

>>17975767
>they also engage in rape, cannibalism, etc.
So do humans.

>>17980430
Is this a serious take or a jape? Nothing does not beget something, there’s no example you can give to the contrary in this universe.

>>17981020
Prove it

>>17980979
A majority of humans do that?

>>17976426
>God didn't create a fallen world, death didn't exist before the fall
Isn't this rather like saying a bomber didn't create the explosion that came out of his timebomb, so you can't blame him? If anything God is worse, because he created the world and devil knowing comprehensively the suffering their inevitable fall would cause

>>17979604
Christians usually do have a mystical view of sex/gender.

>>17981046
Without laws? Yes.

>>17981026
Fym prove it? Give me one example where it’s not the case.

>>17977851
>Gnostics win again
Gnostics have the same problem, just with extra steps. Monad is benevolent, but out this benevolence arose evil (accidental or otherwise). It doesn't make any sense.

>>17981236
Not all gnostics believe there is a personal higher "good" God. Some just believe the world creator is evil.

>>17980976
because without balance 1 species will flood planet earth and destroy it - see humans oops

>>17981116
We live with a world with laws however. So your anecdotal note is irrelevant since 100% of animals commit rape while only a small percentage do it for humans and they are severely punished when they are caught

>>17981290
May i put forward that in order to overcome our animal nature we need not overcome it at all, we should embrace our animal nature in a healthy positive way instead of a negative way like killing a bunch of people, monkeying our way to enlightenment instead of civilizing man to death.

>>17975731 (OP)
Simple question: what's wrong about that pic?

>>17975731 (OP)
That rabbit is doing the ACK-jak face