>thought God was all knowing
>read bible
>God is fucking learning things and changing his mind about shit
w-what the fuck..

it's an antropomorphisation for humans in linear time to make sense in human language of the actions of an infinite God in eternal time

>>24459848
And the cope begins ...

>>24459841 (OP)
>omniscient
>doesn't know his Adam and Eve were deceived by a snake he must have created
>first fails to find them in the garden and begs them to come out
>then asks them what happened
>then the benevolent god curses their entire bloodlines forevermore for the sin of being tricked by a snake he put in a garden with them
He's actually an idiot

>>24459841 (OP)
>Garden of Eden
>Paradise
>Contains a deceitful snake
>Contains fatally poisonous fruit
>Contains humans susceptible to temptation
>This is all before the fall even happens
>Contains humans lacking the knowledge of Good and Evil
>Despite this, the humans get punished for committing a "sin"
>Somehow this is how sin enters the world, but they had to sin for sin to enter, implying it was already there
Yeah, the very first story is all kinds of retarded.

>>24459848
>"You don't understand, recording the direct commandment of God to kill babies is just, like, how we can understand God in human language"
kek

>start reading the bible
>women lying, stealing, having incest, literally disobeying god and getting turned into salt for it
>this is kind of based actually

>>24460497
She got turned into salt for looking back at Sodom as her family and everything she knew were burned alive inside actually
>your just and benevolent god, sir

>>24460516
hey they told her not to turn around, her fault

>intelligent design
>creates 4chan

>>24459876
>/lit/ doesnt know what a rhetorical question is

>God is a white man
>Makes the white couple Adam and Eve
>Eve gives birth to blacks, Asians, etc

>>24459876
I bet you would feel pretty stupid if your dog bludgeoned herself on an end table you installed in your home because you should have known better and she died. "Why didnt muh smart atheism save me from my dog bludgeoning itself on my end table? Why atheism? Whhhhy?? I should have rationalized that my dog was an idiot who would bludgeon itself on an end table." Yeah i bet your dog gets up to some pretty crazy stuff when you aren't home. Maybe you should ruin your home by dog proofing everything and making your surroundings miserable so your dog won't accidentally bludgeon herself on an end table or a glass door or something. Talking snakes? Wtf? Can't have cool shit liek that any more, mans disobedience ruined that for us.

>>24459841 (OP)
The Bible was written by humans who were ignorant about lots of things.

>>24459841 (OP)
>demands jews and canannites sacrifice their children in fires
>knows he will eventually rescind this and make the pact of Abraham
jews were and still are psychotic barbarians who figured out putting word in Gods mouth tricks retards and zealots to give them power across time and space

>>24460497
Like most mythologies.
Greek-roman has Pandora. Sumerian has the prostitute that turned Enkidu into a civilized man (And thus caused his death). Japanese has Izanami who is the source of human death.

>>24459848
Why not just explain it the way theologians do? Ancient people weren't retarded, it's not like they could only handle dumbed down fairy tales.

>>24460621
no that was noah, his 3 sons were all different races probably because of god doing magic on him or ive seen some bible schizos say its because his spirit and sperm was pure/potent or something

>>24460623
If I were omniscient, I'd have bought either a dog that's not the height of the table, or a table that's not the height of a dog, to avoid pulling out my hair over something so fucking retarded. But guess I wanted to spend my eternal godhood on mulling over such things instead of anything more interesting

>Harder for a rich man to go to heaven than putting a camel through the eye of a needle
>Job is God's #1 human
>God reward's Job with further riches
>God accepts the satan's concessions to testing Job further than originally planned (the satan is thus more influential that Job's pleas)
>The satan in relation to everyone else tells him to fuck off when asked where he's been.
>God could have said he wanted to test a great man, calls Job a mental midget who doesn't know shit rather than treating him with respect
oh and ((Job)) wants to tackle his issue as a court case?

>>24460851
My theory is that’s actually because the flood happened all over and there were many Noahs. Noah’s arc (get it?) is the most “mythical” part of the Bible. One of the redpills is that not every Biblical/Quranic prophet is one guy.

>>24460926
>Flood along river(s)
>Some farmers prep some don't
>Those who don't get btfo / starve / line dies out
>Really gotta stress to future generations why prepping for floods is important

The God of the Bible is an extraterrestrial who's more like the CEO of the company that owns the exploitation rights to Earth.

>>24460714
>Ancient people weren't retarded

>>24459841 (OP)
God is not learning he is the unmoved causer you faggot

>>24459841 (OP)
>let me create humans in my image
>wisdom teeth
>fibula
>feet originally made for climbing
>kneecaps that fail
>ventral thalamus
>appendix
he was retarded

>>24461157
demiurge recognizer has entered the chat

>>24461231
The God in the Christian Bible is NOT the God of the universe. If he was, why would he need you to stick up for him?

>>24461251
He is not exactly but he is much bigger than that, than all religions combined

you have to stick to one religion because most popular ones is his whether you like it or not

>>24461257
>popularity equals truth
you are a remarkable twit

>>24459841 (OP)
God is omnipotent. Of course He can change His mind. And because He's omniscient, whatever He changes His mind to is correct. Slavery and slaughter were objectively morally fine, and now they're not.

>>24460482
The adults are talking here bud. Take a hike.

>>24461290
>is God omnipotent?
>yes
>can he make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
>yes
>then he can't lift the rock
>yes he can

According to predestination God created 4chan

>>24461240
We were made in the spiritual image of God, not physical.

>>24459841 (OP)
Bible only started making sense once I read Neville Goddard. You don't even have to believe in his Jewish mental powers. It just makes sense for it to not be literal. He's also very fun to read

>>24459841 (OP)
>God reveals his plan in phases
>By the end of the Bible the entire plan is fully revealed in a book that's literally called Revelation so there is no more uncertainty about anything Christians are to expect from God
>Nowhere in this timeline of events does anything about who God is or what He wants change
>Galatians 1:8 predicts and premptively dismisses any attempt to pretend God has changed his mind as heresy
>Islamists and Mormons try it anyway and get relentlessly clowned on for their failmeme cult and Godless degeneracy
>"Woah he's so indecisive"

>>24460637
also Orpheus/Eurydice, when you factor in >>24460516 and >>24460527

There is no biblical justification for the bible.

>>24461332
>Can't address a single points
>"Uhh, um, could you go away? Your completely valid points are making me uncomfortable"
kek

>>24461332
>Can't address a single point
>"Uhh, um, could you go away? Your completely valid points are making me uncomfortable"
kek

>>24461802
>so there is no more uncertainty about anything Christians are to expect from God

hahahahahahahahhaha

>>24460621
Niggers are the descendants of Caine.

>>24461877
I understand that you feel the need to set yourself apart from others, and while it is cute, maybe that behavior is best left for the schoolyard. Come back in a few years bud.

>>24461341
>I am mentally retarded
>gigachad.png

>>24459841 (OP)
>God doesn't give them a choice to follow Him or not
>you're just enslaving me! I demand free will!
>God gives them a choice to follow Him or not, even though He already knows what decision they'll make
>hah you didn't know so you're actually not omniscient!

atheists, lmao

>none of the Old Testament is to be taken seriously and is all allegory
>but Jesus gains all of his authority from Old Testament predictions and a bloodline that connects all the way back to Abraham
I’ve always struggled with this

>>24462017
you struggle because the first premise is faulty and clearly not in line with Scripture; you probably picked it up through Catholic osmosis. The Bible takes itself, all of it, as very serious truth; it's not simply allegory, Genesis only makes sense as literal history. The bloodline connects not just to Abraham, but through Noah to Adam. The theology of seven (six) day creation permeates through theology in other chapters including but not limited to the literal seven day week. Either all of the Bible is true or none of it is, but 'The OT is true but allegory' cannot stand. Old Earth Creationism is folly and if you believe God can create Heaven and Earth surely he can do it in a set time frame; evolutionism cannot make sense of eight people surviving the Flood and so Noah, just like Adam, being the progenitor of all mankind; evolution necessitates death before the Fall and death as good which is antithetical to the centrality of life in theology and God making the earth good; and Jesus being the New Adam conquering sin is pointless if the old Adam wasnt the first man by whom sin entered the world. There's no squaring the circle of a Biblical humanity of around 6000 years old with billions of years of evolution. Jesus in Matthew 19:4-9 doesn't seem to think it was metaphorical history.
The Bible takes itself seriously in all the miracles. Believing otherwise is pointless for a Christian, just like a Christian who believes in a metaphorical resurrection is a pitiable fool; 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.
Believe all of it or believe none of it, but being lukewarm is worst-case.

>>24459841 (OP)
>try reading a millennia old Hebrew text without any context for the language or idioms, with intent to misinterpret it and feel good about yourself by showing your clearly superior intellect whose bad faith reading of the text is better than the ancient people who literally memorized the whole thing, their descendants, and institutions (the Church) which have been studying it for thousands of years
I don't care if you're an atheist, get thee some humility

>>24462085
By this logic everyone should still believe in miasma and demons inside of teeth causing cavities. Very low IQ take

>>24462097
people act like germ theory destroys miasma but if anything bacteriology could not be more vindicating to it
>a lot of things that pollute the nearby air, such as corpses, are unclean, being near them is a risk of infection
>viruses can be airborn or carried by airborn creatures particularly in swamps and still bodies of water; stationary liquids are harbingers of rot

>>24462097
Perhaps i could better phrase my defense thus: the Hebrews described God's actions the way they would describe a human's actions (such as "God learned" or whatever OP was talking about), since He had not really revealed that much about His true nature to them, or He only revealed it in ways that would need later revelations to fully understand (God appearing to Abraham as a group of three men hinting toward the Blessed Trinity for example)
I said nothing about the physical sciences. I merely mean that doing a surface level reading of a text and pretending you understand what it's saying (whether or not you believe it's true) better than people who've spent their lives studying it is arrogant and ignorant.

>>24459848
i love how not a single person has discussed the metaphysical deminsional ramifications of god
If god is an all know all seeing being and can see the start middle and end of the universe than it is very obvious god exists outside of our dimensional comprehension.
If we can interact with and manipulate the second dimension than 4th dimensional beings should be able to do that with us.
We only give ourselves the illusion of being able to control time and our understanding of time is very limited. All we know is that it goes forward and we have speculated and theorized that it's linear. For all we know time could be circular and what is currently happening has happened and will happen again.

>God remembered his covenant with Abraham
>implying that God forgot

>>24459841 (OP)
Hegel actually based most of His philosophy on that fact

>>24462134
this example proves my fp >>24459848
right even though people were dissing me for it. God did not forget his Abrahamic covenant, but sometimes acted in accordance with it and sometimes went against the Israelite people immediately as repercussions for their actions.
Within the immediate scope of vision of Israelites who were suffering some punishment, an improvement of fortune would read as God 'remembering' the promises. It's the writings making sense of a God who at different points in time does different things without seeing the bigger picture. Whereas an eternal God was always going to act upon his promise, and the punishment is a mere temporary setback, which in eternity means no real setback at all.

Religion is what happens when people don't tell their kids that Santa isn't real.

>>24462159
That just makes the people who wrote these things down seem dumb.

>>24460531
God retroactively BTFO.

>>24462159
>god is an omnipotent 4D being beyond time and spice with infinite power and a non linear understanding of time
>uses near infinite powers to reward and punish a small tribe in the Middle East throughout time because ???
This interpretation also breaks several parts of the Bible

>>24459841 (OP)
Because the Bible represents the transition from polytheism to monotheism of the Near Eastern people, it's mixed together in a narrative. God has characteristics of a chief polytheistic deity like Zeus as well as those of a philosophical, conceptual God remote and beyond iconic, polytheistic, character-based gods.
The reason the Bible is full of nasty shit >>24460497 is because its authors were drawing a distinction between the outdated barbaric ways of polytheistic people and establishing a monotheistic order as the ultimate truth. And this was all fabricated by the Jews to give themselves a history and unique distinction that set themselves apart from everyone else.

>>24462236
>uses near infinite powers to reward and punish a small tribe in the Middle East throughout time because ???
He does though, and the Bible clearly explains why. Partially, it's about honoring the promise to Abraham and honoring the promises and the curses of the covenant with Israel, which God does because he is all-Good and all-Justly Wrathful, respectively; but mostly, it's all about setting the groundwork for Jesus to redeem all of humanity, proving that man is powerless to stop sinning on its own while in His grace saving a remnant and conquering sin and death through the resurrection. God has been planning the playing of the Jesus card (who is also God) since before time began, and uses prophecy to the Israelite people as a means of convincing the Jew and the Gentile of Jesus' legitimacy.
>This interpretation also breaks several parts of the Bible
name them

>>24462253
Can you explain the goodness in child mutilation on penalty of death being the foundation of the covenant?

>>24462253
>the Bible clearly explains why
Of course it does and of course the explanation is something other than "to give credence to itself" because the purpose of the Bible was simply and logically to create a false history and identity for the Jews. Everything contradiction and bit of weirdness within it is explained by the simple exercise of who benefited from it existing.
Everyone talks about it being fictional but stop short of the reason why and by whom. You can't usefully criticize or debunk the Bible without treading on anti-semitic territory, i.e. criticizing and debunking its People.

>>24461290
If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock he can't lift?

>>24461989

strawmen, lmao

>>24461989
This doesn’t make sense. You either have free will or you don’t. If an omnipotent god exists you cannot by definition have free will.

>>24462269
it ethnically sets apart the Jewish people as separate and holy and it is a visual mark of the covenant with Abraham God faithfully upholds; it symbolises the excising of sins; and like all blood sacrifices, it foreshadows Christ's bloody sacrifice on the Cross (who, not coincidentally, is a circumcised man of the seed of Abraham, obeying the entirety of the Mosaic Law in our stead)
>>24462270
The New Testament was not written for Jews lmao
>>24462275
pic related

>>24462302
>it ethnically sets apart the Jewish people as separate and holy
Why was such a painful and disfiguring practice necessary to do this? How is mandatory, permanent disfigurement of children congruent with love and being "all-loving"?

>>24459841 (OP)

>>24462314
> How is mandatory, permanent disfigurement of children congruent with love and being "all-loving"?
First, is it permanent? The Bible teaches that our bodies will be made fully anew in the New Earth. You're bringing in some human assumptions here.
Second, is it disfiguring? You're removing pleasurable nerve endings, nobody's arguing that circumcision is a pleasure; but it's not like castration.
Third, is it unnecessary? God wanted to set his people apart, and this is one of the means he used; the existence of other means doesn't mean this means wasn't also necessary to make it super duper clear that these were a separate people.
Fourth, and probably most importantly, it was fitting precisely because the promise the foreskin removal attaches to is a promise regarding offspring, which is inherently penile. God promises Abraham offspring, a people; and that people needed to be kept apart so the people after them could also be kept apart, ad infinitum. And a people needs a clear boundary; and a mark of the body is the simplest, most elegant solution to that problem.
Fifth, with the benefit of hindsight, it clearly worked. The Jews practice circumcision to this day.
Sixth, God says so, so it is so. When you're arguing against circumcision you're kind of arguing with God; which is pointless if he doesn't exist, and should lead to humility if he is. Either way, questioning the small details that have some plausible explanation is very unproductive.

>>24462339
>First, is it permanent?
In this life, yes. If we are also taught that the body is a temple, and not to defile it, is requiring permanent (in regards to our finite lifespan) disfigurement not in contradiction to this?
>Second, is it disfiguring?
The figure of an uncircumcised penis and a circumcised penis are different, due to what the circumcised is lacking. So yes.
>Third, is it unnecessary?
Whatever God deemed necessary was necessary, but why was it necessary for the thing he deemed necessary to be so painful and disfiguring?
>And a people needs a clear boundary; and a mark of the body is the simplest, most elegant solution to that problem.
Are there not other marks of the body that are equally permanent and clear that would be less painful and disfiguring?
>Fifth, with the benefit of hindsight, it clearly worked.
This is a non-point because obviously if God demanded it, it worked. But since God is all-powerful, any other method of setting them apart would have worked, so why this particular one?
>The Jews practice circumcision to this day.
Ironically enough, they do this to continue to separate themselves from the Christians, who no longer require circumcision. Their continued use of it is a tribute to their backwardsness, not a point in their favor.
>questioning the small details that have some plausible explanation is very unproductive
Is the very act that established Abraham into the covenant a "small detail"? What does "productiveness" have to do with making sense of something?

>>24462361
a very cogent response desu; but also, way to ignore the point I very clearly marked as 'most important'
>it was fitting precisely because the promise the foreskin removal attaches to is a promise regarding offspring, which is inherently penile
it's the BEST mark to set a people apart over a longer period of time because of how it links up with the promise to Abraham

>>24462371
Would it not be equally fitting, then, to have female circumcision, by that logic? Why is male circumcision the best mark, and not female? And could a "penile" mark not be representational and still carry the same meaning, rather than being a literal disfigurement of the organ itself?

>>24462275
Yes. He can also lift the rock.

>>24462302
>>24462385
How do Christians define "can" and "can't"?

>>24462377
the promise was to Abraham who was male, and therefore it was for all the male offspring. As for why not a covenant with Sarah, God does seem to make covenants with men as fathers of people as a shadow of the events of Eden and the subjection of woman to man, so maybe there's something to explore there. Not to mention that logistically, for a primitive people, I can only shudder how much harder female circumcision would be than just cutting le hangy flap.
>And could a "penile" mark not be representational and still carry the same meaning, rather than being a literal disfigurement of the organ itself?
A good mark is visual and a physical one engages an extra sense of touch; so nah. It's also one-time, which means low upkeep. Cut off the foreskin and men will be reminded of the covenant daily. And circumcision damages nothing essential to sexual functioning; tattooing or stem incision would be riskier.
There really does come a point where more 'why' questions becomes trivial and unproductive.

>>24462394
Fair enough, you've made your case. I disagree that it is a "trivial" matter since it's the founding act of the covenant, but you've given more food for thought.

>>24462385
But that means he can't create the rock.
Checkmate, godtards.

>>24462394
Final note before I bid you all a good night: I don't like my phrasing in this post, as of course there WAS a covenant with Sarai, which is how she became Sarah; but it seems different in kind, or at least primacy, to the covenant with Abraham, as Adam was asked to bargain something for it rather than simply receiving a blessing of fertility; so I stand by the post's substance if not its literal text.
Similarly,
>>24462302
'The New Testament was not written for Jews' is also a bad phrase, as Christ did also die for the Jews and his death is effectual for all Jews who repent; my point was simply to state that the New Testament was not written to create a false history and identity for the Jews, since the writings are of the rival Christian cult. Again, substance is fine, wording's awkward, which I care about because of autism both figurative and literal.

>>24462302
>circular argument
Oh dear. Christianity is reduced to this.

God values freedom of will above all else. He wants creations that he can speak to and connect with. Plants, insects, mammals, fish, and the sort are wonderful, but they can only offer so much companionship. Even a man needs more than a pet cat in his life. But to be made in his image, he cannot treat man the same way as a bee or a tiger.

He cannot suppress knowledge or remove parts of the mind that might think abstractly. To do so would not create a human, it would just be another drone-like insect or another animal driven by instinct. So yes, man is now privy to all sorts of suffering, horror, and misery that maybe our gorilla and chimpanzee cousins are not. A gorilla is never going to figure out creative ways to waterboard his neighbor just because it sounds fun. A chimpanzee will not fall into depression because he discovered that other chimpanzees are raping kids on the other side of the globe. However, they also are not capable of living in goodness like we can-- and we cannot live in that type of goodness unless we have the evil to go with it.

If God wanted to make a paradise where we don't have this level of suffering and sadness-- he can do it. He already has. That was the beginning of Earth until more advanced animals came along. Bacteria do not fear death, they aren't even capable of fear. Bees are basically organic machines whose only purpose is to keep their species going. Many fish don't even have the nerve capabilities to feel certain pain-- they also don't do much besides eat and mate. But who actually wants to trade their human life for that of an ant or a trout?

Good is the default baseline. Creation is good. Yes, even the cat eating the bird is good, because that's the perpetual cycle of life, and life is good. Maybe some of it is scary, but the alligator and spider have just as many wonderous elements as the sunflower and sea sponge. Corruption can only exist if good exists. There is nothing that starts out as corrupted and turns into something else. The corruption is not the work of God, because God can only create good. So yes, he sees that evil is preying upon humans and allows to happen because to divinely intervene would remove the free will that makes us human. All he can do is guide and influence us so we're not completely corrupted.

>>24461966
>Still no substance
>"Bro, like, you don't believe in Islam just to set yourself apart from the billion+ who do"
>"Bro, like, you don't believe in Hinduism just to set yourself apart from the billion+ who do"
Yawn

>>24461989
>"Here's the liberty to do as you wish, the inclination to harm yourself, and the means to harm yourself"
Any reasonable person would conclude this is an irresponsible parent or authority figure.

>>24462085
>1 Samuel 15:3
>"You just don't understand the context for God commanding the killing of babies"
Do religious people have the slightest self awareness?

>>24462482
>>24462489
It's okay that your only knowledge of the Bible comes from watching cartoons about it. Maybe someday you'll crack open the book. This is /lit/ and not /co/ after all.

>>24462441
Ridiculous post

>>24462496
Great rebuttal.

>literally every pro-Abrahamic argument relies on circular logic
>just follow god's commandments because they're god's commandments lmao
>what do you mean he's a narcissistic, inconsistent sociopath?
>everything he does is right he says so himself lmao

Bro, can you at least wait like 30 minutes before posting again so it's not so obvious that you're a samefag?

>>24462441
He could've created a planet where food is nutritious and abundant or just outright make it so hunger doesn't exist. He could eliminate violence and suffering by deleting disease and the propensity for violent action. Instead he encoded those things into the planet then ordered your worship because he's insane.

>>24462508
Who are you talking to? If it's >>24462504 I've only just entered the thread

>>24462493
>Can't address the point
>Introduces non-sequiturs as a cope
Every. Time.

>>24462441
Do you just refuse to acknowledge evolutionary history? Animals were killing each other for food and prey animals lived in perpetual fear for millions of years before anything even remotely Human appeared on the scene. Not to mention, the Garden of Eden as portrayed in the Bible contains a deceitful snake and the human inclination to disobey before sin and the fall happen. This contradicts the interpretation that the Garden of Eden was ever paradise.

>>24462509
>He could've created a planet where food is nutritious and abundant
He did. It's called photosynthesis. And I still wouldn't trade my human life so I could be a cyanobacteria.

>just outright make it so hunger doesn't exist
He did. It's called a cell. I dont want to be a neuron floating in space.

>He could eliminate violence and suffering by deleting disease and the propensity for violent action.
You can't remove the part of the mind that is aware and capable of violence while also still having a human being. I could answer you in non-secular ways and say, "The devil makes us murder!", but I assume you're fully secular and will only listen to what I say if I wrap it in your own understanding of the life and the universe. There is no way to have human that isn't capable of violence that isn't robbing him of free will by surgically altering something-- amputation or lobotomy. The same is true of God.

>>24462517
At one point, all Earth ran on photosynthesis. God wanted more complex life. You think every religious person believes that the Garden of Eden was literal instead of divine visions by people who were open-minded to hear God to try and understand what he had to say. God can't spew out complex information about the universe in terms of atoms and space time. He also can't wait until we discover those things to start talking to us. He also to give us info slowly. He also knows that humans live better by being allowed to meditate on ideas. If he came out and said, "This is exactly how life and death and the cosmos work", you can bet your ass there would be an entire sector of people going, "Oh, I don't like that!" and going against God because they hate his plan. However, by focus on the spirituality and morality of it, we're able to form a personal relationship that can work on a large scale. Some people might take the Old Testament literal, some thinks it's echoes of the past, some think God is the universe and we're living within him, some think we're in a simulation and God is monitoring us, and so on.

This very idea is addressed with Moses when he asks God, "Who am I to say you are?" and he responds, "I am who I am". Which means it's irrelevant and not helpful to just denounce all religions in one fell swoop by saying, "Oh yeah, the Sumerians got it right". He's the creator. All he wants to do is guide you to live the best life, most of which can be found through Jesus' teachings. Things like the Ten Commandments are not threats of, "Don't you dare dishonor your mother or father or you will go to hell!", they're promises. "I promise you, when this is all over, you won't even think about dishonoring your mother and father. Society will be so good, I promise you, that the desire to kill will basically be eliminated". There are absolutely high-trust places in the world with virtually zero crime rate and those are the places people want to live in the most. Imagine that on a worldwide level.

>>24462513
Your "point" is just mockery that stems from ignorance. It's like trying to tell a flat Earther that he's wrong when he's already convinced himself he's right and has closed the book on that matter.

>>24462540
>You can't remove the part of the mind that is aware and capable of violence while also still having a human being
You could if you were God. God is above the idea of concepts. He could have made humans eukaryotes and that would be what a “human” is.
>There is no way to have human that isn't capable of violence that isn't robbing him of free will by surgically altering something-- amputation or lobotomy. The same is true of God
No it isn’t because, again, God is above concepts. There is no free will because he is an omnipotent 4D being who can control space and time. Everything that has been done or will been done has already been seen and decreed by him because he created existence itself. To imply free will exists is to imply there is something God is not in control of, which means he isn’t omnipotent
>At one point, all Earth ran on photosynthesis. God wanted more complex life
God does not “want” anything. Desire is a human concept.
>You think every religious person believes that the Garden of Eden was literal instead of divine visions by people who were open-minded to hear God to try and understand what he had to say
This is blasphemy and not biblical
>God can't spew out complex information about the universe in terms of atoms and space time
If he wanted to, he could have. Humans have proven the ability to understand such concepts, so why did God decide to wrap it up in allegory?
>This very idea is addressed with Moses when he asks God, "Who am I to say you are?" and he responds, "I am who I am". Which means it's irrelevant and not helpful to just denounce all religions in one fell swoop by saying, "Oh yeah, the Sumerians got it right"
This God is the same one who gave the Israelites permission and power to exterminate several faiths and ethnicities in the area. Do you think that sounds like the act of a being that believes in multiple truths? Literally the first commandment he gave Moses was to obey none other than HIM
>Things like the Ten Commandments are not threats of, "Don't you dare dishonor your mother or father or you will go to hell!", they're promises. "I promise you, when this is all over, you won't even think about dishonoring your mother and father. Society will be so good, I promise you, that the desire to kill will basically be eliminated"
Where in scripture does it say any of this

>>24462569
You're ascribing powers to God because of how others described him. The Bible never uses the word omnipotent, they use "almighty". And you seem to think almighty means the ability to create life and physics that are contradictory. And no, it's not blasphemous to believe many stories in the Old Testament are historically accurate, in fact, it's an extremely common Christian viewpoint.

Even Jesus, the Word of God, did not say, "They were right, they were all right!". He said they were divine and inspired men. Yes, I do believe some of the historical figures such as King David and Moses. Do I believe that David fought the last remaining giants that were made because angels had intercourse with humans? Not sure. There arealternative history theories about more advanced races being around the time of humans, those are interesting to think about with the Bible's timeline. Similar to how the Younger Dryers theory lines up with Noah, and how a wind setdown phenomenon can explain the parting of the Red Sea. It is possible that God led Moses to a body of water right when a wind setdown event happened, and scripture writers didn't fully understand the phenomenon and simply said it was God's will (which, in a cosmic sort of way, it was).

Also, humans absolutely function better with stories and parables than purely scientific terms. Again, it is not useful to us to tell us exactly how God works, especially if it's concepts we can never hope to understand. We've never lived in a world without space time. At best, we can hypothesize about it, but can YOU actually understand what it means to live in a realm where time does not exist? Even the smartest minds cannot understand how the universe was nothing and then something, and you want God to explain it to everyone on Earth at the same time?

Third, I assume you're talking about the Canaanites, and that's where it gets difficult to explain in purely secular terms. If I were to try my best, I would say it was a human culture that was so vile and corrupt, that they were beyond even God's redemption and had to be killed. It sounds cruel, but if you believe that we all return to God upon death (this is where I must get non-secular), then our souls are just going back to our creator. I don't believe in a fiery hell or a cloudy heaven. Maybe elements of re-incarnation might be real. Resurrections is real (if you're a believer). Does God allow sinned spirits to keep going through a physical journey until their spirit is healed? Maybe. Again, God is intentionally vague about what he's doing because if we just tells us everything and people decide they don't like it, then he'll forever lose those people.

I say all this with this belief said by Werner Heisenberg:
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

>Where in scripture does it say any of this
Romans 2:12-16.

>>24459841 (OP)
yeah modern Christianity based their theology on camp fire songs... fucking Pslams
truth is heresy

>>24462540
>he did
You're using semantics to avoid the point. By what I said it's clear that I meant humanity didn't have to hunger nor did animals have to die - your deliberate misinterpretation of this doesn't make you look intelligent. Your attempts to twist god into someone who created these things in a lesser form to what I envision only highlights his impotence as your supposed omnipotent leader.

>god wanted more complex life than photosynthesis
So why didn't he create humanity without the need for hunger or desire to do harm unto others? Your religion is dogshit babble.

>>24462617
Almighty is a translation of the Greek word for 'all-powerful ruler'.
>Jeremiah 32:17: Ah, Lord GOD! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.
>John 3:20: For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

>>24462640
>>24462648
You say I misinterpret things while also claiming your elevated version of God, that you most likely heard from others and didn't understand, is the one true version. You're the one twisting God into something that he didn't claim to be. You think almighty means something like this >>24462302. God is almighty because he made everything, because he understands everything, and because he can use what he's created to help mankind-- but he still has to use it. People who don't understand Scripture or taking it purely at face value think that God conjures things out of thin air.

>>24462547
Point out how I am displaying ignorance. Mere refutation is vapid, if you had some wisdom to share, you would demonstrate it by sharing it, failing this, we are left with the reverse conclusion.

>>24460621
Eve was handcrafted for BBC

>>24462540
Your conception of God sounds a lot like a God that doesn't exist and people just come up with stories based on their own level of knowledge.

>>24462423
He can create the rock.

>>24460527
If this was a vague command in a book I can understand that it was a dick move. But if God, GOD, himself commanded you to not turn around but you did then that's on you.

>>24459876
>>doesn't know
No proof for this

>>24459848
>it's [intense coping and rationalizations]

>>24462441
>God values freedom of will above all else
>Punishes all humans forever for a woman who did something he didn't want.
>He cannot suppress knowledge
>Job/humanity is literally incapable of knowing or questioning his actions
Pack it up

>>24462428
you dont know what circular argument means. you barely know what reduced means. retard

>>24460482
You missed the part where god didn't even think what he did was good at first and redid mankind so that it wasn't actually a complementary monad in the image of perfection.

>>24460637
Don't forget with Yin/Yang dynamic where the female energy, negative energy, and evil energy are all the same type.

>>24461231
No, in the bible, that was waters since they were already all around when god began, if god of the bible were eternal, the story wouldn't start with "In the beginning" because there wouldn't be one.

>>24462275
Turn the whole of creation into rock such that nothing exists on any side of rock, so the word "lift" loses all meaning because there is no where to lift the rock to, there is only rock.

>>24462252
This. The God of the Prophets is so markedly different from the God of the Torah and the God of the New Testament is a leap forward still. It's a progression of understanding

>>24462302
>The New Testament was not written for Jews lmao
You mean besides matthew, mark, maybe luke, john, and paul?

>>24462302
The pic wasn't a contradiction, it was an outright lie, he said he couldn't lift it, but he could easily lift it, so he was just lying about not being able to.

>>24463148
Read John Milton's "Paradise Lost" and you'll understand the idea behind Eden much better.

it's just Abrahamics worshipping the Demiurge.

>>24463009
Nobody knows exactly what or who God is, dummy.

"I am who I am".

>>24463003
>God says we should not kill one another out of human desire
>God also says he is the arbiter of all judgement and that his word is Law
>If God commands to kill, his judgement is right. If we command to kill, our judgement is most likely wrong.
>"SO GOD'S JUST A HYPOCRITE, HUH?"

Hard to argue with a guy who doesn't understand nuance when talking about the fucking Bible.

>>24463218
>Read the (very great) fanfiction
Great now I'm a republican.

>>24463257
You clearly don't understand Genesis, so may as well read it from someone who spent his life dissecting it.

>>24463155
>You missed the part where god didn't even think what he did was good at first
??????????

>>24463233
So you confirm that in 1 Samuel, when God commanded killing babies, you believe that is a good thing?

>>24462540
you are wrong

>>24462617
You are right

>>24463768
nta but why are you people so obsessed with using the old testament? the whole point of the new testament was to replace it.

>>24462617
You are gay.

>>24459841 (OP)

>>24463774
Genuine question, was the Old Testament inaccurate? Was it a different God? Did he realize how monstrous he was and change his ways? Again, I'm just pointing out the difficulty in reconciling the figure of God in the Old Testament with any semblance of morality, which appears impossible.

>>24463767
TRVKE
>>24463779
the OT is accurate and its the same God and he wasnt monstruous

>>24463779
>difficulty
Wrong

>>24463779
If you take it entirely at face value, then old testament can make sense from a narrative point of view.

1. God made things on earth.
2. They were tricked and had to leave paradise, cause sin can't exist in paradise.
3. Adam and eve had kids, they immediately started sinning. those sinful kids made more kids and the world was plagued with basically little lucifer pawns.
4. God had to flood it and start over, chose a righteous family who would repopulate the earth. Said he would never do that again.
5. Solomon + david were further instructed to wipe out whatever other evil hybrids were left
6. Yadda yadda yadda
7. God has to send jesus to stop this cycle of violence so we can finally rebuild paradise by being good christians

Obviously i'm skipping some steps with moses and jacob and so on, but if you're trying to understand the bible like it's a constructed story, then it's a story about god's creation getting corrupted and having abominations branch out and him trying his best to stop his creation from destroying itself and bring them back to paradise.

>>24463789
God lies to Adam in Eden though, while the serpent tells the truth. God states that on the day they eat the fruit, they will surely die, which is false, Adam goes on to live a 900+ year life after leaving The Garden of Eden. The serpent tells them they won't die on the day they eat it, which is proven true, and also the serpent says that God is afraid that if they eat the fruit, they will become like God. This is confirmed as true later when it is recorded that God says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.". Thus, canonically, God is a wicked liar in Genesis and the serpent is a based truth teller. This is taken directly from the text of Genesis.

>>24463814
>cause sin can't exist in paradise.
Why was there a serpent tempting them then? Temptation must presuppose the thing to which one is tempted. Furthermore, how is it that Eve was "tricked" at all? Remember, before eating of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve were in a state of moral innocence, they literally lacked the capacity to make moral judgements. To be "tricked", is to be misled, to deviate from the correct path, but as the story illustrates, Adam and Eve lacked the capacity to judge the right path from the wrong path, they lack the fundamental element necessary to be held morally accountable, namely, the ability to comprehend morality at all. Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that every element of this story is in conflict with some other element or with the overall thrust of the narrative; that it is incoherent.

>God is supposed to be an unmoved mover
>God moves multiple times in the Bible
who even takes this stuff seriously

>>24460516
There were whole gangs if men going around raping children in Sodom, as in the vast majority of the inhabitants.

>>24464312
>they literally lacked the capacity to make moral judgements. To be "tricked", is to be misled, to deviate from the correct path
No.
>but as the story illustrates, Adam and Eve lacked the capacity to judge the right path from the wrong path, they lack the fundamental element necessary to be held morally accountable, namely, the ability to comprehend morality at all
No.
>Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that every element of this story is in conflict with some other element or with the overall thrust of the narrative; that it is incoherent.
No.
Please read a book before posting further.

>>24460621
>one primal ancestor emerges from primordial ooze
>shapeshifts into birds, bugs, fish, mammals, etc
What the fuck?

>>24464312
>Why was there a serpent tempting them then?
That was the devil or a minion of the devil, possessed or shapeshifter take your pick, who snuck into paradise.

>Furthermore, how is it that Eve was "tricked" at all?
Trickery still exists even if you're naïve about it. Morally righteous and trusting people get scammed all the time. The key thing about being tricked is that you don't realize it's the wrong path until after you've taken it, so you can be tricked even without having the knowledge of what trickery is. Lacking the capacity and lacking the knowledge are two different things. Cause clearly adam and eve were capable of gaining knowledge since they got it.

>that it is incoherent.
But you're trying to apply scientific reason to the garden of eden when even the most devout people believe that it's not a literal historic event but a summary of humanity's humble beginnings. The big bang theory was formulated by a catholic priest to try and explain "let there be light". Like, believers also like science, i don't know why people think they can't co-exist.

>>24463080
But that means he can't lift the rock.
Checkmate, godtards.

I could go on all night, but it's tough on my suspenders.

>>24461204
they weren't, peer pressure is just a hell of a thing
>hey john, you're a catholic like us right?
>*look at the dangling corpses of prots who were hanged cause they interpreted the holy book slightly differently*
>yeah of course haha why you ask

>>24463174
>taking refuge in nonsense
Many such cases among your kind.

>>24463154
>not an argument
Surrender accepted. Although I thought you'd put up more of a fight.

>>24464341
>No.
Yes.
>No.
Yes.
>No.
>Please read a book before posting further.
Yes.
Please read the book we are referencing before posting further.

>>24464349
>That was the devil or a minion of the devil, possessed or shapeshifter take your pick, who snuck into paradise.
So we have established that Sin and Evil were in paradise before Adam and Eve sinned.
>But you're trying to apply scientific reason to the garden of eden
I'm applying critical thinking even allowing for it being a simple narrative. I am saying even on the grounds of a narrative, it is incoherent in its own internal contradictions.

>>24459841 (OP)

>>24464392
I don't know why you use sevens to name those images of Jesus. His number is eight.
Ἰησοῦς = 888 in Greek isopsephy.
Also, 8 is the number of Mercury, the messenger, which tells its own story.

>>24464392

>>24464417
Seven is even better

>>24464387
>So we have established that Sin and Evil were in paradise before Adam and Eve sinned.
No one said there was a force field physically preventing the devil or his minions from entering eden but that sin can't live in paradise. You can't be the devil and also live in eden because you'll only seek to destroy it, which he kinda did.

>I'm applying critical thinking even allowing for it being a simple narrative.
Yeah totally bro, also, how are the toys in toy story alive? How come they are alive but all the woody decorations from the second movie are not alive? Are they not also toys? That really ruins the whole story for me. What a failure of a script.

>>24462063
Massive cope

Gayest thread on /lit/ right now. This site really needs a religion board

>God created the universe in "6 days" before the Sun and Earth existed.
>The Earth is 6,000 years old
>Humans lived with dinosaurs

>>24464580
We do have one, it's /his/.

>>24459864
What cope? Look up theistic finitism

>>24464442
Die

>>24462661
You're literally just making shit up to justify retaining belief in an inconsistent religion, the same inconsistencies in your 'all-powerful' god ended his worship by the way. The Bible even names him one of many gods, meaning he's literally just a war god before the Jewish people became monotheistic. He even had a wife. Did you know that? Or do you project your lack of education onto others?

>>24462661
>People who don't understand Scripture or taking it purely at face value think that God conjures things out of thin air
Literally does this on multiple occasions including the seven day account of him creating everything.

>>24464639
>Another "everyone thinks genesis was literal" post

Can you guys just scroll up before posting.

>>24464635

>>24464643
>noooo it wasn't literal it wasn't literal it wasnnnn't you need to interpret it very specifically so that it looks less silly now that the flaws in the creation myth are apparent
Plus
>nooo you don't understand the genius intellect of god had to be cryptic about his messaging and leave ambiguous, contradictory, forever splintering and schism causing information within his oeuvre

>>24464647
Yes, absolute nonsense isn't it? Almost like it was being patched together by a Middle Eastern tribe of brown Jews over centuries

>>24464652
>LOL your mythos is so fucking stupid sounding
>BTW did u know the universe was the size of a pencil eraser and we used to be soup before being struck by lightning?

I get it, you hate even the idea of god. What do you want me to do about it?

>>24461204
Hi jew!

>>24461240
none of these things are signs of imperfection, we're just adjusted to a world that degrades these traits.

>>24462161
>my parents are atheists that brought me into this world for no reason besides monkey ape biorobot shit and/or narcissistic social clout
sucks, bro.

>>24464589
nananaa naa naa, nananaa naa naa, nananaaa naanaa naaa

>>24464626
>"DIE!"
Is this an example of the Biblical influence on a mind?

>>24464512
>No one said there was a force field physically preventing the devil or his minions from entering eden but that sin can't live in paradise
Clearly the potentiality for sin already existed and lived in the Garden, so it becomes an arbitrary distinction.
>Toy Story
In the places where the animating force for the toys comes into conflict with the story, it would be legitimate to criticize, but beyond that, if it presents the motivation of the toys, even if it's arbitrary, it would be expected that this motivation stays consistent, and isn't dropped at random times. Also comparing the Biblical text to an animated kids movie is an interesting move.

>>24465073
Idk man, it just sounds like you're being pedantic trying to understand a metaphor. The bible is supposed to be simple enough that even illiterate farmer joe working in the medieval fields can get it, but you're here asking why the eagles didn't just fly them to mordor. You're acting like it's some kind of gotcha when i've already said most people are in the bible for the new testament anyway.

>>24459876
god as the author knew, god as his self insert character didn’t know

>>24462489
There's plenty of practical reasons when you're a nomadic tribe facing extinction every day warring against enemy tribes in a precarious existence, and you have to euthanize their children after killing their parents who are trying to murder you, because you don't have the resources to raise them or even enslave them.

This is not even getting into spiritual/metaphorical explanations which I don't care about and find uninteresting. This is easy to understand when you aren't blinded by moralfag cope which ironically is instilled into you by a society who's basic principles and morality were founded by the bible. Your ignorance and lack of self-knowledge is embarrassingly bad. Read the bible in good faith and an open mind and you might come out with something other than unoriginally edgy takes that no one is impressed by anymore.

>>24460623
Not only am I not omniscient but also not omnipotent. If I were, I would create a house that's neither miserable nor dangerous for it's inhabitants. I'm not going to put some poisoned meat next to my dog and then curse him when he vomits on my carpet.

>>24465507
The problem is that if you just say "well, whatever, no matter what it says you can just interpret it into meaning something" is the high of vapidity. You might as well take a cook book off the shelf and wax poetic about salt and pepper representing the light and darkness in us all and that table sale comes to us in cubes, a divine representation of the Holy Trinity. If you're willing to do all the heavy lifting, you admit the work has no merit in itself. An actual literary masterpiece has depth and cohesion.

>>24465786
>It's actually totally justified for God to command the killing of babies
>Also, by objecting to killing babies, you're appealing to the book which justifies killing babies
The lack of self awareness is staggering.

>>24464305
Serpent hands typed this post.
God said "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” And Adam did certainly die. The part about 'on the day you eat it' is not in the text and you just added it because you are of your Father the Devil, the Father of Lies.

>>24460623
>I should have rationalized that my dog was an idiot who would bludgeon itself on an end table.
If god was omniscient they wouldn't even have to do that, they would've just known that it will happen in the first place.

>>24460635
This.

>>24463007
>Eve was handcrafted for BBC
What was her BMI?

>>24459841 (OP)
The first time GOD knew anger is when he caught Adam trying to drown a deer in Eden.

>>24466356
It's an ancient jewish fertility cult, which is why many Christians only give a fuck about the unborn and oppose any kind of care for the newborn.

>>24466351
If the pigs can talk like humans in animal farm, why are they still treated like dumb farm animals? Like you're just missing the point, dude.

>>24460482
test

>>24460482
God has angels that will do his every bidding, meaning they don't have free will.
God's first command for humans was a test to see if they would disobey him, and they did, thus they were successful in God's eyes.
God wanted Mankind to have free will, he wants them to go beyond his expectations.

Likewise there are stories of angels who want to go down to earth and experience free will.
I'm sure the snake was an angel who followed God's command so he could experience free will on earth.
I'm just speculating however.

>>24460516
>>24460527
>>24463107
It wasn't a direct punishment, it was in indirect consequence of witnessing a heavenly nuclear bombardment.
There are multiple stories where God can't intervene because he's literally too fucking powerful. Like the time he parted the clouds and showed a part of his back to a mountain, and said mountain was flattened into the earth.

It's stories of an entity so powerful that he has to rely on indirect methods because his direct intervention would destroy the world.

>>24462252
This anon is correct, societies experience religious shifts based on their environment, where tribes living in forests create Gods that couldn't care less about what man does. When humans start living in cities suddenly self governance becomes important, placing trust in strangers is risky, that's why urban religions impose laws on behavior. People stop worshipping "the snake god of mischief" and start worshipping "titan, the supreme authority of marriage and executioner of thieves".

I'm not remotely Christian but as I get older and the more I'm able to analyze and interpret fantasy and mysteries, I'm finding I'm able to understand what the Bible is going for.
Like it's easy for a kid to poke holes in the book, but when you give it the benefit of the doubt, and you start trying to see the author's intent, I appreciate the overall message.

It was a fantastic civilizational ordinance for establishing public order, common decency and creating high trust environments. It established itself in the most advanced civilization on earth for a reason.
Compared to its competitors in Confucian or Tao, or Islamic, or Vedic texts and you realize we got lucky. Either a philosophy is too strict or hierarchical and while a society continues it doesn't advance. Christian philosophy was a cocoon that allowed for western society to progress til the point it wasn't needed anymore and now we've shed to husk and now now religion is needed. Meanwhile the middle east has modern technology and cannot escape the cocoon of islam. I think thanking Christian history is the least we can do.

>>24466607
>we got lucky
it wasn't luck...

>>24461157
What exactly would an alien be deriving from Earth that they couldn't make/find elsewhere?

>>24461204
Read books from older times. I was fascinated how good people could care for themselves in medieval times. Cooking, chores in the house, combat training. They knew it all, unlike the helpless beings that run around outside.

>>24464665
>never claimed to be atheist
>jumps to conclusions instead of defending his post
Just admit your rabbi babble is ridiculous and move on.

>>24466607
Pagans had richer symbolism and early Christianity is nothing like later Christianity. Saying Christianity was responsible for progress when they slapped people around for scientific advancement is a fresh take though, I'll give you that one.

>>24466607
>>24466660
Especially after
>It established itself in the most advanced civilization on earth for a reason.
You think the technologically advanced Pagan Rome might have fell off so hard for a reason?

>>24459841 (OP)

Your first mistake was reading the Bible to know God. Read Critique of Pure Reason instead. Realise that God in unknowable and then dispense with the idea

>>24466669
actually God reveals Himself in Scripture and you're retarded

>>24466660
>Pagans had richer symbolism
You're trying to make a comparison between an established religion and an umbrella term to describe "any" religious traditions followed by anyone in the world. Paganism in Britian is vastly different to paganism in Germany, so how are you saying "paganism has this one thing better than christianity".

I want to counter you but you haven't established any premise for me to interact. You can't say paganism has better symbolism because paganism is too broad. You're just making sweeping generalizations on nothing. If you could find me text on a society that followed a religion before Christianity, and explain what they did exactly that was better, I'd happily listen.

Also
>Saying Christianity was responsible for progress when they slapped people around for scientific advancement
debunked reddit myth. you're so far behind on this discussion it's not worth talking to you. Christian monks were the only literate people around and they were also the only ones maintaining knowledge and preserving books that predated christianity. It was Christian scholars who wrote down the fucking Norse myth, without them, nobody would know who Thor or Loki were.

Yes, the Bible has contradictions, because it evolved from a changing culture. People's ideas about God have changed over centuries. That's not a flaw; it's a testament to how human understanding evolves.

>>24459848
FBFP.

>>24466829
>first best first post

>>24466607
How did Christianity do this when they piggybacked off of pagan Rome to do so?

>>24466898
Christianity was an evolution of prexisting ideals and philosophies stretching all the way back to ancient greece. It wasn't formed in a vacuum, it wasn't solely invented by Hebrews, it was a chain of cults and traditions.

And stop calling it paganism. It's like discussing China and referring to them as "nonwhites", it's fucking vague and retarded. Roman religions had names, paganism isn't the correct word.

heheh actually kid that was just the demiurge

>>24466362
You sure about that? It'd be pretty embarrassing if, once again, the serpent told the truth and the naysayer was wrong, wouldn't you say?

>>24466567
If you gave free will, and then tested them, and then punished them for choosing wrong, why give them free will to begin with? What kind of logic is that? "Here's free will, but if you use it for yourself, I'll come down on you like a ton of bricks". Sounds sadistic to me, something a devil would do.

>>24466362
>>24467021
>The atheist knows the Bible better than the believer
Every damn time lol like clockwork

>>24467027
They didn't fail, they succeeded in disobeying, that was the ultimate test. To prove that mankind has free will and can disobey a direct order from God, he offered an impossible test of obedience.

It the logic not making sense? How else do you test somebody for free will, or for disobedience. You ask them to follow your command and watch them disobey.

He didn't come down on them, the exchange for knowledge comes with the awareness of misery, something animals do not succumb to. The reason why women have periods, and pregnancy is painful, is because of our large brains.
knowledge is a pain, that's the overall message. But it proves we have free will.

Without the fruit of knowledge we'd just be animals shitting in the woods.

>>24467027
It's not cruel if you aren't a low IQ hylic

>>24467027
Every mythical god in every culture is a cruel mean bitch. What moral and ethical framework are you applying to the christian God? Can you name a kinder God?
If you can just decode the message instead of splitting hairs over the minute to minute actions you might be able to understand the point.

>>24467065
So God purposely made evil with no need? He made all of that before free will, or once Man passed the test, evil came in to existence, qualifying by your metric as "succeeding"?
>>24467068
It's overtly cruel. Like placing a poisonous fruit in the middle of your child's playpen and then watching them eat it and die in agony levels of cruelty.
>>24467075
Suffering has passed into my sphere of experience, and I can judge that it is better not to suffer, it is better to have a life filled with profound satisfaction and deep human connection. I communicate with those around me, and they have all agreed that good experiences are better than bad experiences, the only difference comes in the occasional person labeling certain experiences as "good" which deviate from the overwhelming majority's consensus. This recognition alone makes me more moral than any proposed God. And that is the ultimate point, God is just an invention by certain groups to try to artificially elevate their own arbitrary moral framework. How about we dispense with the illusions and simply do what is tangibly and manifestly better regarding as many human lives as possible?

>>24467098
Again, point to a non christian god who's nicer. instead of trying to paint the CGod as a meanie, just look at the metaphor and message of the text rather than trying to take the literal meaning.

>Man passed the test, evil came in to existence, qualifying by your metric as "succeeding"?
Yeah that's probably the meaning of the story. As soon as man had free will to stray from Cgod he was capable of evil. But that's still part of the divine plan.

>It's overtly cruel. Like placing a poisonous fruit
now you're just twisting the story, it wasn't a poisoned fruit, CGod didn't make the eden to have a bunch of naked hedonists never feel pain, he created something outside the ethereal heavens and into the mundane world, created free will, then tested his creation to see if they were capable of doing their own thing.
It's called the fruit of knowledge bro, if he wanted to torment people he could torment them, it's knowledge and it comes with a price. Notice how intelligent people are less happy than retards? That's the point.

>>24467098
Yeah I'm sure if you were a God the "moral" thing to do is to create a doll house where nobody feels pain and everyone is happy.

>God is just an invention by certain groups to try to artificially elevate their own arbitrary moral framework.
no, religion evolves based on environments, and typically people who live away from civilization create gods with no morals. But when Society develops into cities, and people begin living amongst strangers, where trust and self governance becomes invaluable, people always begin FORMULATING (not fabricating) God who are moral, Religions with laws and orders so that everyone is in harmony.
You seem to think religion is just a story people follow, it's not, it's a philosophy and a set of guidelines people follow so that society is harmonious.

>How about we dispense with the illusions and simply do what is tangibly and manifestly better regarding as many human lives as possible?
Religion died precisely when the industrial revolution started, that is when religion began to die off in europe.

You're sadly a midwit who thinks he needs to "beat" religion. I'd at least respect you if you bothered to break apart other religions, but you just sound like a petulant child still upset aboutt being dragged to church on sunday

>>24467116
>it wasn't a poisoned fruit
See >>24467021

Also, if you compare Christianity with something like Hinduism, even at broad strokes, Hinduism is far superior in terms of morality. The simple concept of Karma, that a person's actions impact their own future experiences, is by definition a punishment or reward to the person who committed the good or bad action, far superior to the inherited form of "original sin" which is morally incoherent. How can a person be held accountable for something they didn't do, and didn't even exist when it happened? Nonsense. Further, Vishnu, as viewed in the tradition of Vaishnavism, is a pretty extraordinary figure; if you haven't read the Bhagavad Gita, I highly recommend it. In it, Krishna, an avatar of Vishnu, lays out in poetic beauty, wisdom and advice to a young man, Prince Arjuna, who is going through internal turmoil over the call on him to perform his duty, but his own doubts and fear about carrying out that duty. I find this portrayal of a God figure to be far superior to the Christian God, while acknowledging that it is still just one culture's tradition elevated in the literary form of a deity for added artificial impact.

>>24467134
>Yeah I'm sure if you were a God the "moral" thing to do is to create a doll house where nobody feels pain and everyone is happy.
If God created pain when it wasn't strictly necessary, he is by definition sadistic.
>You're sadly a midwit who thinks he needs to "beat" religion. I'd at least respect you if you bothered to break apart other religions, but you just sound like a petulant child still upset aboutt being dragged to church on sunday
Resorting to childish insults really elevates your position, well done.

>>24467150
I can easily debunk Hinduism because your country is a shithole that nobody respects. Everyone scams, lies, cheats, steals.
Look at the society that these religions built, that's the only proof of superiority.

Feel free to argue the virtues of raping every women, dog, child, reptile you meet

>>24467150
>Hinduism is far superior in terms of morality
>morally incoherent
by what standard retard you're an atheist

>>24467152
You're obsessed with the idea that an omnipotent god has an ethical duty to create numb worlds where only good things happen.

If you create a living, working existence where physics and biology has to work in accordance with science, you can't make "exceptions".

We feel pain for a reason, we feel sad for a reason. Having created a working existence with the concept of pain isn't immoral or evil.

>>24467153
I'm not Indian. Many Westerners have found value in Hinduism, from Oppenheimer to Alan Watts. Also, Nazi Germany was a supermajority Christian, is mass slaughter and genocide to be attributed to Christianity? There would be a strong case, since in 1 Samuel God directly commands a genocide. Furthermore, it seems your heart is filled with hatred, which seems in conflict with what is usually considered the core of Christianity, but this is a challenge that you will have to live with and overcome.

>>24467150
Discussions on Christianity is only allowed by white westerners. This discussion is above your brown head. Everytime you people post your shit smeared pagan religions it's like listening to a toddler talk about dragon ball.

>>24467157
I stated my standard already here:
>Suffering has passed into my sphere of experience, and I can judge that it is better not to suffer, it is better to have a life filled with profound satisfaction and deep human connection. I communicate with those around me, and they have all agreed that good experiences are better than bad experiences, the only difference comes in the occasional person labeling certain experiences as "good" which deviate from the overwhelming majority's consensus. This recognition alone makes me more moral than any proposed God. And that is the ultimate point, God is just an invention by certain groups to try to artificially elevate their own arbitrary moral framework. How about we dispense with the illusions and simply do what is tangibly and manifestly better regarding as many human lives as possible?

>>24467153
This is what happens when /pol/ forms your perception of reality

>>24467163
I'm as White as the driven snow, but midwits like to use race as an excuse to avoid engaging on the merits of the argument put forth, so continue with your additional delusion.

>>24467166
so its
>I feel so
>authority argument
so no moral standard at all

>>24467162
First you appeal to authority by naming random scientists, then you bring up nazi germany as if it was a christian nation.

I'm also not Christian, but I'd argue hatred is allowed in Christianity. See, I'm not an idiot, I can interpret text, analyze, dwell on it, understand it, without accepting it as part of my belief system. I understand Christianity, I don't believe in it, but it lead to the best civilization.

Your criticisms don't hold up. Smarter, stronger, better people than you have held onto Christian beliefs and accomplished so much. Your moral arguments against CGod just sound whiny.

>>24467158
Creating a world where small innocent children are born with incurable bone cancer and die in immense pain at an early age certainly seems like immoral evil to me; if an agent like God existed and was behind the existence of such a thing, of course.

>>24467180
Creating a static plastic world of smiling mannequins is more evil. You're simply a deluded toddler.

>>24467172
Good and Bad are just as real as anything else in existence. You apprehend things about reality through your senses, and baked into your consciousness is a capacity for detecting whether a thing is good or bad. That is the ultimate and only moral standard, and anything which interferes with the maximization of good experience or the diminishment of bad sensations must be viewed as immoral, and nothing else can be appealed to. Notice even religions use rewards like heaven (infinite good experience) or hell (infinite bad experience), thus appealing to the very standard I am setting forth. If God simply commands a thing, it can only be moral if it creates a better set of experiences on balance for the most amount of people. Otherwise we can deem it immoral.

>>24467184
Dude is like "millions of suffering children is fine because it avoids a made up scenario I created in my head". Astonishing.

>>24467188
>good and bad are just as real as anything else
you are an atheist. it all boils down to you pretending your milquetoast utilism which is also coincidentally confirming all your priors is somehow objective when its not. it has no grounding, you are relying on subjectivity which should lead you to nihilism. you cannot judge other peoples enjoyment, you definitely cant just add people up, and you have no explanation for any of the myriad of complex dilemmas that can be raised against utilism by a literal toddler.
But those are actual arguments about the content of your post, and ultimately, you dont deserve those. The point is simply this: you have no moral standard. you have a pragmatic standard. dont call it moral, its not, you hedonist fucking faggot, when you deny God you deny all objective grounding

>>24459848
>it's an antropomorphisation for humans in linear time to make sense in human language of the actions of an infinite God in eternal time

Which is the same as saying Bible knows fuck all about God.

>>24467202
>human authors write stuff down inspired by God but with their own personalities and vision of the world
>but this human worldview cannot inform the writing in any way whatsoever
one of us is retarded and it aint me

>>24467192
I think your moral argument is weak, I don't care what world you think is better, we live here now, we make up rules to make the world better, we currently live in an age where science has prevented the suffering of billions of children.
And this medicine was invented in a Christian society.

So whatever argument you want to make about God creating a mean unfair world, just know that a mean unfair world lead to a better world. Progress doesn't come without challenge. We built houses because the cold is painful. We create art and music because we're bored.

You world would be "ethically" boring as shit with your plastic dolls doing nothing all day.

I'm not a Christian but the KJV is just good writing.

>>24467192
Nobody is arguing that God is a cuddly nice guy, he's described as "mighty" having created the cosmos.
You can judge his action as "evil" but it's kinda pathetic.

You're like a child being told his bed time and arguing with your dad "why do YOU get to stay up?".
Because he owns the fucking house and he made you, that's why.

>>24467204
>human authors write stuff down

You should've stopped right there. Would make perfect sense

>>24459848
>antropomorphisation
why would you even use such a word?

>>24467226
because its the word with the definition that fits in a context where verbiage matters
the OT makes God look like a man, it antropomorphises God
poetic when you think about it because you realise that God became man in persona Christi

>>24464665
>argues against atheism by strawmanning a theory invented by a Catholic priest
bait or mentally retarded, call it

>>24467223
had I said that, there could've been a rebuttal 'but didnt God inspire it?' and then I'd have to explain that in a reply; I thought it best to prebut it

>>24467234
so they made it harder to understand

>>24467241
The point is that if the authors anthropomorphised an infinite God in eternal time then we can assume that either

1. They don't know what God was actually thinking at all, which could mean they are making it all up.
2. God had inspired them to write the stories as but fed them bs about what he was thinking at the time.

It's better to just treat Bible as literal and deal with the fallout

>this makes Abrahamics piss and shit themselves in terror

>>24467235
Way to miss the point lol, but this is /lit/, so.

>>24467272
AAAAAH!

>>24459841 (OP)
>>24459848
>>24459876
>>24460482
>>24467272
You guys are liars.

>>24464333
Atheists still complain about that, that God destroyed such people. They call it unjust for God to destroy wicked people like that.

That's where the scoffers' hearts are, they're upset God destroys the wicked, because they'd have been counted among the child rapists of Sodom.

>>24464392
kys freemason

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

>>24465069
Just go back to your hugbox echochamber, faggot pedophile. >>>/lgbt/

It's only fag child rapists who spam these soijaks. You soishitters also spam kiddie porn on /g/ because you're all fags and trannies, and all fags are pedophiles.

>>24460623
Yes, you are in fact supposed to provide a safe environment for your pets, snakes, and proto-humans

>>24459876
"doesn't know" and "asks them to explain themselves" are two very different things. Clearly you are not a father yet, anon. God bless.

>>24460482
It's all about choice. Do you freely choose to be a part of God's will, or do you choose to listen to the serpent? The fruit wasn't poisonous, smooth brain, the consumption of the fruit was the fall of Man - beforehand, Man was entirely in communion with its Creator.

>>24467201
Inventing a God does not add one iota of credibility to your asserted morality. Mine is based in an actual, verifiable phenomenon. You don't get to claim your invisible imaginary friend makes your preferred moral standard "objective". And you talk about toddlers lol.

>>24467206
>And this medicine was invented in a Christian society.
A secular society which is able to innovate in exact proportion to the diminishing influence of Christian theology over society. Again, you want terminally ill bone cancer children to exist because the alternative would be "boring" to you. That's incredibly sick and twisted my dude, like holy shit lol.

>>24467221
>Comparing bed time to having bone cancer inflicted on children
Are religion defenders purposely disingenuous?

>>24467328
The seething is real lol

>>24467454
>The fruit wasn't poisonous
Oh dear, another believer who doesn't even read the text he is defending

>>24467561
There is an assumption that Adam was supposed to be immortal, and this stems back from the fruit now introducing the concept of death. So "it will make you mortal" and "you will certainly die" are the same statement.

>>24464810
Yes they are, these are all vestigial traits on their way out (wisdom teeth, fibula to an extent, coccyx, appendix) and elements of bad design like ventral thalamus, feet originally designed for climbing trees, kneecaps, fibula
there is a reason why intelligent design is a pseudo-science

>>24462252
This. I think this began to take place moreso upon hebrew contact with platonic ideas in the region.

>>24466669
You know God by his Son. If you read of him and become moved by the Spirit you know the true triune God.

>>24467652
Greeks wrote the theory, jews did the praxis...

>>24466607
I find it's a weird contradiction.
There is a huge amount of deep, meaningful content and the result is an institution that's lasted 2000 years. Many of the most intelligent people to ever live followed the words. Many others produced amazing works of art/lit/music.
I'm currently on an alchemy dive and the further interpretations/spin off discussions and text are potentially also incredibly rich pending your stance on the idea.

However there is also a lot of dumb things and I think it's the contradiction that makes those errors more glaring.

>>24467552
I'm not even christian I just have reading literacy unlike you lol.
I think you're too fucked up and retarded to read, why are you even here?

>>24467555
Are you really going to complain about fairness?
Your entire argument is "God isn't a nice enough guy to worship"

Look we aren't here to sell you on Christianity, I'm not Christian, I'm just trying to argue in good faith on the merits of the philosophy behind Christianity. You're trying to argue about why God is a meanie. You're an 80IQ redditor who joined a meta discussion on religion, you're too retarded to be in this thread.

>>24467686
>However there is also a lot of dumb things and I think it's the contradiction that makes those errors more glaring.

of course, it's not a Book written by a single author, it's a compendium of hundreds of entries by thousands of people adjusted and edited for 2000 years. It was the first book to be printed.

I hate the euphoric redditor athiests who think they're the first person to point out some of inconsistencies in the book. It's fart huffing stupid.

>>24462253
But in reality, none of this is true, and it's just the mythology of the ancient Hebrews.

I'm not an atheist, but this dilapitated, ridiculous religious framework is crumbling around everyone's ankles, and the sophisticated coping methods of the hangers-on just sound pathetic.

If you want this framework to work, take it as allegory for a deeper truth (the banishment of the soul into material, sin and virtue, redemption) instead of putting forth these ridiculous affirmative statements about God's nature that can't possibly be known, and which these ancient myths do nothing to prove.

>>24460714
I don't know what happened to atheists in the 2010s but it's as if you entered a lockstep of your own beliefs about what other people believe.
What's up with that?

>>24459876
>>24459841 (OP)
God was bored and shitposting

>>24460935
just 2 more weeks until the flood bro

>>24461204
If you think modern people aren't retarded I have news for you

>>24467561
>>24467583
You are both wrong.
Gen 3:4
>You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Gen 3:22
>And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
God was shitting themselves, because Man learned morality. Kinda weird how a god that's keeps harping on about free will and using it to do the right thing, doesn't want you to know what the right thing is.

>>24467832
Why do secular people read a passage and then project emotion onto it? Is it because you guys are all autists who can't think about the world except how YOU would react?

>>24467836
You do realize, you can critique a creation myth without being "secular", right? Or is that not possible for you because you're a Christian and you only see black and white?

>>24467832
>>24467836
Any way you slice it, God clearly lies in Genesis, while the serpent tells the truth. Christians still in damage control thousands of years later.

>>24467726
If you're the one who equated a parent sending their child to bed at bedtime with God giving children terminal bone cancer, you shouldn't be throwing around accusations of retardation.

>>24467723
You literally said the universe would be too boring without terminally ill children dying of bone cancer. Obtain some self awareness lol

>>24467264
You don't fucking get it. It's precisely because I treat the Bible as literal that you need to antropomorphise the passages. Because there are other passages in Scripture that the verses have toh armonise with to make a literal interpretation possible. If God literally changes his mind in the sense he changes his plan then you start to violate the verses that say God is unchanging and planned it all from the beginning. You inevitably get contradictions. But I wont grant that much to the atheists. If you want the Bible to be coherent, one has to be read in light of the other.

>>24459841 (OP)
these defns are self centered. All knowing all powerful means 'I the reader cannot personally defeat or outsmart him'

>>24459841 (OP)
>>24459848
>it's an antropomorphisation for humans in linear time to make sense in human language of the actions of an infinite God in eternal time
It's actually the opposite. Le "infinite", "all-knowing", "all-good" etc. shit is man-made abstract philosophical bullshit. Since Hellenization people have been projecting man-made abstract concepts that exist only in human mind onto a real deity, which is cringe. Platonism was a mistake.

>>24459841 (OP)
What do you think elohim means

>>24467548
The literal definition of objective says otherwise you fucking mongoloid. For morality to be objective, it needs to be not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
Subjective morality is no morality at all, it's just hot opinions with morality sauce poured over. But morality means something. The unjustified taking of life is objectively wrong, not just because people feel it and regardless of societal convenience. Thus, you have objective moral truths for any era. Thus, you need something to found it on, and the only unchanging thing it could be founded on is God's eternal will. Kant didnt like that and tried to make it a secular logical deontological thing with his maxims; and he failed, but at the very least, you need some sort of deontology.
You can disagree with the assumptions, but your morality is simply of a different kind than mine. You believe it's hot opinions with morality sauce, but also want to grandstand over my different perspective. That doesn't work, you fucking baby

>>24467969
>Platonism was a mistake.
truly

>>24460714
>Why not just explain it the way theologians do?
Because they don't want to. It's easier to pretend to be wiser.
>>24461204
Inherent intelligence (cognitive potential) hasn't changed over time at all. Human brains from more than 2,000 years ago were similar to ours in terms of capacity for abstract thought, reasoning, language, etc. People have always had the same intelligence.
>inb4 culture and technology
That progress is cumulative, not indicative of a biological jump in intelligence. We've built on previous knowledge through trial, error, war, writing, experiments, etc. not because we're smarter but because we stand on millennia of scaffolding.
>inb4 literacy and education
Relatively modern phenomena and they affect the average expression of intelligence, not the innate potential. In preliterate societies, cognitive skills were often expressed through oral traditions, memory, craftsmanship, rhetoric, etc.

>>24467969
>God is infinite
Psalm 147:5, Job 36:22-33, Psalm 136:26, Psalm 90:2
>God is all-knowing
Psalm 33:13–14, Isaiah 42:9, Proverbs 15:3, Romans 8:29-30, Jeremiah 1:5, 11:33–34, Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:2 and 1:20; as well as any passage where God promises some preidction then follows through
>God is all-good
1 Chronicles 16:34, Exodus 34:6, Mark 10:18, Psalm 25:8, Psalm 27:13, Psalm 145:5-7
It's even funnier because the Bible acknowledges the distinction of the human and the divine view as separate frames eg in Psalm 103:13-14 and Ecclesiastes 8:16-17.
This idea that thousands of years of sound theology are just a Hellenistic abstraction shows a fundamental lack of understanding. READ THE FUCKING BOOKS.

>>24461204
they werent you dumb cunt

>>24467979
It depends what you consider "personal feelings", since, technically, all 5 of the human senses are merely "personal feelings", and therefore all of reality can be dismissed as "not objective". Again, you don't get to just assert that taking a life is objectively wrong, you only believe that because it feels right to you. You also fail to understand that my morality actually stands up better than yours by your own metrics. Remember, you can discover in your own experience that certain experiences factually contain a dimension of "good" and "bad" independent of how you personally want them to be. Undergo an unpleasant experience, and any outside observer would be able to make an objective assessment that your consciousness was experiencing an unpleasant event. If morality is to mean anything, it must be rooted in tangible effects on human consciousness, and you even appeal to this in your own example of killing being objectively bad (I also wonder where you get this from, since both the Bible and secular law have allowances for when killing someone is actually permissible, meaning it is not a universal law but contingent on the circumstances). Lastly, it's hilarious that you claim to speak for an objective morality which exists as a permanent and universal standard apart from any personal feelings of biases, and then lace every post with seething rage over your own misunderstanding of my position. Classic!

>>24460851
Only white people are descended from Noah

>>24467979
>"If you make a case for a utilitarian morality based in human well being, this is subjective and meaningless"
>"If I do the same thing but claim a magic invisible super being told me it was objective, that makes it better. What? No, you have to just believe that being exists, I can't prove he does."
>"Also I have to interpret what the objective standard is, and everyone that interprets it comes up with a different standard."
>"I am incredibly intelligent."
kek

>>24468029
cope
>>24468024
>Again, you don't get to just assert that taking a life is objectively wrong, you only believe that because it feels right to you. You also fail to understand that my morality actually stands up better than yours by your own metrics.
My standard fits my metric better, and you have no standard for telling me otherwise. Whats worse, you dont notice the contradiction even as you type it. If morality is not objective, that's a consistent position; I don't chastise you for merely being subjective, but for being subjective but still trying to morally grandstand, which you immediately continue to do. You are a fucking mongoloid.
> since both the Bible and secular law have allowances for when killing someone is actually permissible, meaning it is not a universal law but contingent on the circumstances
The Bible says murder is wrong. Self-defense is not murder. God-sanctioned killings of peoples are punitive. You have failed to engage on even a surface level.

>>24468033
>The Bible says murder is wrong. Self-defense is not murder. God-sanctioned killings of peoples are punitive. You have failed to engage on even a surface level.
Nice subjective interpretation you have there.
>My standard fits my metric better, and you have no standard for telling me otherwise. Whats worse, you dont notice the contradiction even as you type it. If morality is not objective, that's a consistent position; I don't chastise you for merely being subjective, but for being subjective but still trying to morally grandstand, which you immediately continue to do. You are a fucking mongoloid.
I just laid out that if there is such a thing as an objective universe, then a phenomenon that arises in that universe is the that human consciousnesses undergo experiences which carry an objective character of negativity. Certain experiences exist as undesirable, they enter consciousness with the explicit characteristic of evoking a desire to avoid such experiences. Once again, an outside observer describing objective reality could document that this phenomenon takes place. Now, since these experiences are wired into our very sensory apparatus for the purpose of reward or avoidance, they intrinsically carry a goal, an objective, to maximize reward and to avoid pain or discomfort. Morality, if it is to mean anything at all, is the process of negotiation between thinking agents as to create maximum buy-in from participants and to maximize reward to the highest level possible and diminish pain and discomfort as much as possible. This is the very essence of humanity, this is the calling of the philosophical, only a fool would chuck it up and adhere to an invented deity which has been dreamed up in service of an illusory "objective" standard (which even believers interpret each in their own way, reducing it right back to a subjective standard anyway).

>>24468045
>you make ridiculous claim
>answer question with most basic desert-based distinctions
>'b-b-but youre being subjective also!'
no, I'm not, but regardless the point isn't that I'm not being subjective; I think deontology is objective but I understand you all consider it morality sauce; the point is that YOU believe its subjective but STILL talk down to me like my view is objectively wrong
You are a bogstandard utilist reddit-tier atheist and nothing you say makes a coherent point, no matter how much you believe otherwise. I already addressed it here >>24467201
I DONT found morality on subjective experiences. You CANT, that's the POINT, I found it on something OUTSIDE of humanity, something eternal and unchanging that actually CAN be objective and that is different from pain and comfort which are subjective. You may not believe my view is meaningfully different; agree to disagree. Again(!) let's say I am being subjective; exclam because I've made this concession for the sake of argument twice now and you still ignore the point; be no longer being objective doesn't matter. I can live perfectly fine in a world where my morality is subjective under your skewed definitoon.
What matters is that, having abandoned objectivity, YOU cant then waste thousands of valuable Hiroshibytes grandstanding to me about my morality being wrong, and THAT's why I'm ignoring you. You embrace nihilism up to the point it inconveniences you, THAT's the problem. Stop pretending your bogstandard utilism is objective - me rejecting it subjectively should be enough to show your folly. You have no OBJECTIVE grounds for believing you should personally maximise pleasure, let alone for adding all the numbers up, let alone for some complexprocess of negotiation between vastly disparate humans with separate utility functions. Your bloviating about how thats the highest level possible and the essence of humanity is POINTLESS BLOVIATING. It lacks any real basis. Get your head out of your ass.

>>24467946
>If God literally changes his mind in the sense he changes his plan then you start to violate the verses that say God is unchanging and planned it all from the beginning. You inevitably get contradictions. But I wont grant that much to the atheists

That's fine with me. But if you antropomorphise God then the passages where he changes his mind are not the word or act of God anymore.

>>24468061
> are not the word or act of God anymore.
They are and they aren't. They are divinely inspired Scripture, they are not literally false but their truth, while not mere metaphor, isnt quite to the level of literal truth either, a thought I capsuled in the phrase 'antropomorphisation'. It's true, but from an imperfect view.

>>24468065
I don't see how that would work. I don't expect an ant to understand my thoughts or action in any kind of metaphor that would not completely change the meaning in primitive ant language. Which is why I said that they might as well not be God's action.

>>24468073
Let's just say that you are like 95% right; the consequence 'they might as well not be God's action' is true but I think it's still God's action but maybe discussing the example elucidates the extent to which I do and do not agree.
In the example >>24462134 the Israelite people are spared because God 'remembered his covenant with Abraham' (the promise that Abraham would have countless thriving offspring). God never forgot it, of course, but to humans in regular spacetime it's as if God forgot it because external reality did not appear as if he remembered it. (Because when the Israelites sin, God punishes them with wicked external overlords; and then when God 'remembers them', he sends a judge or king to save them, and then the Israelites sin again, ad infinitum).
So technically, yes, you could say that 'it might as well not be God's action to have forgotten'. Because God didn't forget - he knows all. But for a time, God appeared to men like he did because God was cursing the Israelites for not holding up their end of the bargain to be faithful. Now I would hold that there is a sense in which God did really forget the promise - by not acting on it for a time for good motive. So your statement 'They might as well not be God's action' is a bit reductive still.
This complex modality of being is what I called an 'anthropomorphisation', as human vision can only capture the immediate current-temporal view of the decision of God.

>>24459841 (OP)

>>24467853
And yet, it's only ever one creation myth that people obsess over "not making sense", strange...

>>24468572
Yes extremely strange that people focus on the creation myth they know of. How come they never talk about the creation myths of the African !Kung tribe?

Name one thing God learned during the events of the Bible.

>>24468054
No matter how long you whinge about it, you have subjectively selected an interpretation of a subjectively selected religious tradition which was invented subjectively by human beings. No amount of faith will magically make it objective. My moral standard is based on objective reality and then negotiated among subjective participants. It's still amusing how riled up you get, almost like you have a subjective emotional attachment to your preferred interpretation of one of thousands of moral standards that different people claim to the the one true "objective" standard. Quite hilarious.

>>24468658
He learned that he made a mistake creating humans and decided to kill them all in a flood. Then he learned that he was mistaken to want to kill them all, and allowed Noah to build an ark. Dude is learning and changing his mind constantly in the Bible.

@24468750
You're not getting another (You) out of me, retard. I am entirely unemotional. You refuse to deal with the topic at hand: your view is not objective, stop pretending it is, you are the most useless doublenigger to ever doublenigger.

>>24467561
Yes, Die *spiritually*, which is infinitely worse than physically dying. Hence the redemption that was brought into the world with the coming of Christ and the ability to live eternally in Him. We were all created originally for eternal life with God, in choosing to go against this gift, we could eternally suffer in ex-communion from Him

>>24467832
God's creation was entirely Good until the Fall - What Adam and Eve did was disobey, in doing so, introduced moral evil into the world via the misuse of free-will (non-existence).

>>24468640
Yes, it is extremely weird that only Christianity myths get scrutinized over while people fawn over Greek and Norse mythology and call it peak.

>>24468793
We are reaching seethe levels never before seen. Bro is vibrating with rage right now to the extent he has to impotently avoid (You)ing me even while replying to me. kek.

>>24469174
So you concede that it was spiritually poisoned? And when you asserted that "The fruit wasn't poisonous", you were in error?

@24469621
I acknowledge your concession.

>>24459876
/thread

>>24460637
Why are religions made by incels?

>>24466573
>omnipotent
>can't intervene without...
hmm

>>24460623
I didn't make the dog, retard.

If it was some kind of robot dog for example yes, there's no excuse for me programming it to hurt itself if I have all knowledge and power.

>>24469686
Cope lol

>>24459841 (OP)