Isaiah 45:7 states, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil (adversity): I the Lord do all these things."
Why would I love a God that creates evil/adversity when in his allpowerfulness he didn't need to? Just to not get tortured by him?

>>40625826 (OP)
>Why would I love a God that creates evil/adversity when in his allpowerfulness he didn't need to? Just to not get tortured by him?
Basically yeah, the carrot and the stick. When you're writing a hoax religion it's good to account for evil shit so people can go "it's actually in the bible you didn't nootice anything".

>>40625826 (OP)
The role of the lord of this world of contention is to create and manage the contention. This contention shapes the soul in preparation for its sublimation by our Savior, Jesus Christ, lord of the world of wholeness.

>>40625902
>suffering is needed to shape the soul
Only cuz God made it that way, being allpowerful he could have made it not that way

>>40625826 (OP)
If you don't believe it, and if it's not real, why do you care?

For reference, satan quotes scripture at Jesus in the bible, but of course OP already knows this.

>>40625946
Paranoia makes me consider it.
I did not know that.

>>40625826 (OP)
You don't create darkness, it's just an absence of light
Of course God is speaking poetically. He separates the light, and thus "creates" darkness, the same way removing heat creates cold, even though cold is not a real thing but rather a absence of heat

Now apply that to evil. Evil is not a thing, it is the deprivation of the thing. God is saying he is in control of it. Would you prefer a God who is powerless over evil?

>>40625933
>he could have made it not that way
That would be fake. God values truth above ephemeral comfort.

>>40626038
He decides what is true and can thus decide for the non suffering way to be true and for the ephemeral comfort way to be the best and most productive. Allpowerful

>>40626037
The absence of good isnt necessarily evil, it can also be neutral

>>40626068
Ok
This is you

>>40626063
Wrong. God has values. The Logos is his immutable will. Trust that his infinite wisdom exceeds what you can grasp.

>>40626076
Ok
You believe in a God that tortures you for no reason

>>40626128
Strawman
You're low iq and probably not worth speaking to or here to understand the opposing position

>>40626148
So is he just incapable of helping you grow into a complete without the suffering and pain or does he just enjoy watching it as a sadistic tyrant?

>>40626100
>God's values and will
Including those that make him torture you? Is he constrained by those values? If he's allpowerful he could change his values so that he wouldnt want to make you suffer, but he wont cuz why would his nature induce the desire for its own change. Sounds like he wants you to suffer even tho he could make it not necesarry, which makes it already unnecessary in the grand scheme of things

>>40626148
>double ad hominem
Who are you calling low IQ, mong? I've refuted all your arguments and you none of mine

>>40626037
>whenever "God" said something scientifically incorrect it's because he's speaking poetically

>t. Semantic tiring argument x is the absence of y

You guys are degenerates, verbally jewing why g has no responsibility for evil.

>>40626158
God is already simple unconditioned perfection. In order to create something "new" he must create something other than simple unconditioned perfection. The complex imperfection he creates is then sublimated back to up immortal perfection in its individuated form.

>>40626170
Everyone uses language such as "I'm making the room cold." Nobody says "I'm depriving the room of heat." You choose to be pedantic with scripture because it suits your narrative.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Until you understand this, you absolutely cannot be spoken to. There's no reasoning when you interpret things antagonistically intentionally

>>40626161
You keep saying "but he *could* do it my way". Yes, but he choose not to. He clearly has different values and greater scope of understanding than you do, as a limited creature. You either make the leap of faith to trust in him, or continue to wallow in your pessimism.

>>40626196
His supposed perfection is selfreferential, he could change himself to where he would not create suffering.
>he must create something other than simple unconditioned perfection.
Implies limit to his power

>>40626219
His values of making his creation suffer unnecessary, because his allpowerful nature enables him to not make his creation suffer but with the same truth and outcome

>>40626187
Even if God did explicitly create evil, he would not necessarily be responsible for it, because God a the highest possible authority IS the ontological moral goalpost.

Don't be emotional when you reply to me

>>40626238
>unnecessary
You're not in a position to know that. Only God knows what is necessary and unnecessary.

>>40626170
LE SCIENCERINO
WOW TAKE YOUR BOOSTER

>>40626261
The lack of limitations implied by his allpowerfulness allow me to know that

>>40626214
I'm just saying, the all powerful all knowing designer of the universe could've dropped us a few impressive hints about how the universe actually works instead of persistently presenting his ideas well within the range you would expect for some random human of the time period in which he was speaking.

>>40626275
God simply doesn't subscribe to your utilitarian moral framework.

>>40626279
I don't know if you're criticizing religious scripture for not being a science textbook or just generally lamenting an absence of "empirical hints" about God's nature and existence. The closest thing we have is the historical person of Jesus, and his supposed miracle working and resurrection.

>>40626298
Nice attempt at evading what I said, bet you'll come keep ingoring it cuz you dont have a rebuttle.
God doesnt subscribe to the notion that unnecessary suffering is bad? You serious?

>>40626279
And he could've avoided actively misleading us about things, like with Jesus being opposed to handwashing, which "creating darkness" might be yet another more subtle example of.

Though that said I just remembered that elsewhere in the Bible God does seem to "create" "darkness" that actually is a palpable thing rather than just the absence of light. Exodus 10:21-22, "Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward heaven so that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, a darkness that can be felt.” So Moses stretched out his hand toward heaven, and there was dense darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days."

>>40626254
>evil is good actually

>>40626321
He wasn't opposed to hand washing, he was opposed to the idea that ritually washing the body cleanses us spiritually. Read the rest of the text

You're a dishonest party out for your own interest. My only question is, do you know you're doing this or are you just an NPC totally operating on autopilot with like an animal?

>>40626337
I don't believe that position, I was arguing from the position of the person I was speaking to

But yes God ontologically must be the ultimate source of good, as good is the highest possible moral authority. It's why he gets to kill people but we don't.

>>40626318
Suffering is necessary. You don't think so, but God does and he knows better than limited creatures like you.

>>40626341
I can read, and to someone without the correct idea that handwashing is important for cleaning yourself of invisible non-spiritual sources of defilement, having God himself come down, and, when some clever people ask him why he and his disciples eat without washing their hands first, he calls them hypocrites and says that "there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile" without any further clarification --- it might give them the wrong idea.

>>40626238
>all powerfulness
Do you even know what that means?
Can you construct such a thing without paradox?
Limited constructs of power and truth are all we know. All of that knowledge comes from God, and our contentions with evil arise from our own choices. God is not all powerful. If we have a choice, God does not - and that is the God of the bible.

>>40626355
If you think anything it is necessary for God to have anything be in a particular way you put constraints on his abilities and do not believe in his allpowerfulness. In our realm suffering is necessary only because of his desire for it to be so here.

>>40626373
You have a due diligence to yourself to interpret things fairly
Some people might get the wrong idea - you don't have to. Yet you choose to, deliberately.

>>40626403
I'm putting myself in the shoes of anyone who wasn't taught the germ theory of disease as a child. So most people until not too long ago, including the people Jesus was talking to back then.

>>40626415
I don't know how many times I can explain to you that not wasting your hands isn't the point

You can have the last word.

>>40626401
>If you think anything it is necessary for God
It's not me who imposes necessity on God. It is God who imposes necessity on the world in order for his will to be accomplished. Suffering is one of those necessities. You can't understand it, but you're not expected to. It's beyond your ken.

>>40626373
*without any further clarification that actually washing your hands before eating is good, but for non-spiritual reasons (though if Jesus believed that, then it's hard to see why he and his disciples still avoided doing it).

>>40626435
If it isnt necessary for God to have suffering exist it isnt truly necessary at all, butbonly exists in our realm cuz he wants it to

>>40626394
>God is not all powerful
Then you dont believe in the bible, youre not christian

>>40626488
I don't believe in the semantic construction of "all powerful" in the English language or its relevance to the bible. Your accusation of non-christiandom is very anti-christian and anti-bible.

>>40626473
>If it isnt necessary for God to have suffering exist it isnt truly necessary at all
Wrong. God makes it necessary because he values Truth and indeed IS Truth.

>>40626533
So you have your own religious beliefs
Ok
Christians believe their God is allpowerful
Isaiah 44:6
I am the Lord All-Powerful,
the first and the last,
the one and only God.

reading this thread feels like watching kronk argue with the angel and devil on his shoulders
>>40625826 (OP)
take reincarnation into account: god brings you back again and again until your soul is refined. Christians view this as second death where nothing escapes because their perspective is that you are here for that moment now, and that there's no need to hesitate in forming a relationship with god. Hindus love riding the wheel, buddhists aim for the center of it, and jews are in denial that it ever happened to begin with. Our universe "Isreal" (please read that twice it's not a typo) and is literally the kingdom of god who is you as you are right now, and you always have been and always will be in the tree of life

>>40626543
>God makes it necessary
Exactly. Suffering is necessary only because he makes it so. If you think he is constrained by truth, his own nature, you don't think he is allpowerful. His nature just wants you to suffer

>>40626562
>I am the Lord All-Powerful
Not what it says.

>>40626562
>So you have your own religious beliefs
I just explained God's chosen lack of power as described in genesis. If you think it's my own belief you have some studying to do.
>Christians believe their God is allpowerful
They believe God gave them free will, which means we have power over ourselves, which means God has relinquished power and is therefor not all powerful.

It's important to look at the original meaning of these things. I told you my contention was English and modern context, didn't I?

>Isaiah 44:6
οὕτως λέγει ὁ θεὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ισραηλ ὁ ῥυσάμενος αὐτὸν θεὸς σαβαωθ ἐγὼ πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα, πλὴν ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν θεός." This translates to: "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God.'"

>>40626578
>If you think he is constrained by truth, his own nature, you don't think he is allpowerful.
It's not a constraint; his will and chosen nature is Truth.

>>40626585
Woops, maybe you'll be satisfied here
https://www.openbible.info/topics/all_powerful_almighty

>>40625826 (OP)
Well. He has to test to see who is good and who is bad.

Like your teacher in school
She tears you with quizzes to see where you are mentally.

God tests you with drugs, chores, murder, temptations, etc to see where you are Morally.

>>40626598
If its not a constraint he can alter truth and his chosen nature to that which doesnt create suffering

>>40625826 (OP)
Well. He has to test to see who is good and who is bad.

Like your teacher in school
She tears you with quizzes to see where you are mentally.

God tests you with drugs, Whores, murder, temptations, etc to see where you are Moraly.

>>40626599
None of those verses say what you have been trying to assert. You're pushing a philosophical point that was explored to death in the 1800s and bares little relevance to the Christian faith.

>>40626613
Revelation 1:8 in the original Greek is: Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ. This translates to: "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
>almighty

>>40626623
A more concrete translation would be
>he who holds sway over all things
Sway is not direct control. God asks.

>>40626612
That doesn’t make sense. Doesn’t the Bible say he knows your heart or something and the reason it was ok to flood the earth was they were all evil even the children or they were going to grow up to be.

I had what I thought were good intentions in some conspiracies I spread but it seemed God got real mad at me and punished me for it. Which didn’t make sense to me but maybe he knew I’d grow to have not so good intentions years later.

>>40626638
Another translation would be
>ruler of all
Tell me, does a ruler have the power to decide when his subjects not to pee? Or does he merely hold sway over things like where they may?

>>40626638
Fair correction and would give you some reason to think God isnt supposed to be allpowerful. Butnwhat about this?
Jeremiah 32:27 in the original Hebrew text is: הֵן אֲנִי֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהֵ֤י כָל־בָּשָׂר֙ הֲמִמֶּ֔נִּי יִפָּלֵ֖א כָּל־דָּבָ֑ר This translates to: "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is there anything too difficult for Me?"
Seems to obviously imply omnipotence.

>>40626669
>Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is there anything too difficult for Me?
Implies? Perhaps from your perspective. I see a question showing the limits of knowledge of even the most devout, those who we trust to speak for God as they listen to the holy spirit.

>>40626613
Christians overwhelmingly believe in God's omnipotence and as is clear from the discussion here it is very relevant

>>40626689
Omnipotence is difference from being all powerful. You can relinquish power and still be omnipotent. For instance you might have the power to microwave a burrito so hot not even God can eat it, but be smart enough to never do so. The power to perform this action is relinquished to service but omnipotence is retained. Yet will can now claim this is beyond God's power. Do you see the distinction?

>>40626609
>If its not a constraint he can alter truth
Again, what he "can" do is irrelevant. His will is Truth. He wills the pleroma to be full of real eternal beings who led real (if brief) lives under conditions of limitation before they were sublimated. It's so important to him that he incarnated himself in this world and endured great suffering, because character formation happens authentically through affliction, not in a state of "all-power".

>>40626685
You think the answer to God's question to be no? You think he is here implying that there is a limit to his power?

>>40626718
I think he's implying that this knowledge is our limit, even after gaining knowledge of the fruit of good and evil.

>>40626669
>Seems to obviously imply omnipotence.
Flesh is illusory.

>>40626707
Semantic schizobabble. What you mean is relinquishing of direct active influence not actual power. You do not lose power when you do not exert it. Omnipotence and allpowerfulness are the same; the potential to do all, the power to do all

>>40626739
You're obsessed with "power", which has no meaning outside the illusion of limitation.

TIL that one of the common names of God in the old testament, El Shaddai, commonly translated as "God Almighty" is actually of uncertain meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Shaddai

Some other suggestions for what it could mean are "God of the Wilderness," "God of the Mountains," "God the Destroyer," or, apparently conceivably though it seems incredibly unlikely to me, "God of Breasts."

>>40626739
>You do not lose power when you do not exert it
You lose power when you promise to never exert it.

>>40626753
No you dont, you can simply break a promise

>>40626767
Sure, now try to apply that to the topic at hand, God. Even if God did flood the earth again, Christians wouldn't see it that way. We'd likely blame ourselves / climate change. Why? Because God promised. That power is no longer His.

>>40626750
Not a refutation

>>40626646
Yes but you have free will.

>>40626777
The promise is to no longer exert that power, not to relinquish the power itself. The identical endresult does not mean identical causes

>>40626780
A bade framing cannot always be refuted as it provides its own context. A little phenomenology destroys most of Niche's work for instance, but both stand on their own.

>>40626777
You're talking the Bible way too literally. It's an allegory for the evolution of the soul.

You have free will.

You have the will to do good and be good

You have the will to do bad and be bad

It's so simple.

And ONLY humans can make something that is supposed to be SIMPLR turn it into something difficult/impossible

If you do you deserve where you are going

>>40626780
It is, though. Power is inherently dualistic, hence ultimately fictional.

>>40626794
>not to relinquish the power itself
Let's get really simple here.
Say I have the power to flood my neighbor's basement by leaving my garden hose on.
Now I promise I will never do it, and my word is binding.
Do I still have the power to leave my hose on until my neighbor's basement floods, or is that power bound and now beyond me? Physical capacity is described by power. Full capacity is described by omnipotence. The promise is spiritual, not physical.

>>40626812
If Gid is bound he is not allpowerful

>>40626799
Considering how many pages are devoted to detailing ancestry and names few souls related to... explain. For instance, how does the table of nations describe the soul?

>>40626816
Good, then we're on the same page
>>40626588

>>40626832
Aight
Then you think not only that the aforemnetioned rhetorical questions does not imply God implying himself allpowerful, but you also think the following to be incorrect, just a believer being wrong?

Job 42:2

“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”

>>40626841
I think Job was wise in his framing. Can do is not will do. Power requires both.

>>40626849
The ability itself is power, not the exertion of it

>>40626825
>how does the table of nations describe the soul
It describes the different karmic paths a soul can take through the world of contentionality. For example, you can turn away from God and give in to worldly expedience like Cain, or die a martyr like Abel. The more you give in to the world, the farther you fall and the more soulless your world becomes.

>>40626853
If an ability cannot be exerted then the holder of that ability does not have its power.

>>40626863
Exactly, but cannot doesn't equal will not. You can refrain from an action, basedou will not do that action, while you still can do it, it being in your power. So job is saying that God can do all things, that all is within his power

>>40626880
*action, so that you will not

>>40626880
>cannot doesn't equal will not.
Yes, it does.
If something cannot happen then it will not happen.
>you still can do it, it being in your power.
If you are the embodiment of Truth, your word is binding, and won't becomes can't.

>>40626896
How you confuse potential with the already certain is beyond delusional. Power is ability, they exist even when passive, their exertion, the direct result of that power does not, the eventual result/the outcome does not.
If God can do all, he can break his promise, he only choses to not do so

>>40626907
>power is ability
Yes, and ability is constrained by choice. God chose to constrain His power/ability for our sake. In the promise of the flood. In giving us free will. In sacrificing His own son. These are limits placed by "the all mighty" upon "the almighty," and a limited all mighty is no longer all mighty. Do you understand? He can't even take back His word without becoming less than God.

>>40625826 (OP)
You dont know what a messiah is. Jesus IS THE CHRIST, THE MESSIAH and he didnt die dangling on a stick like you say
Messiahs are supposed to live not die. Jesus is a man and hes been alive for 2000 years. Help jesus the mortal messiah

Many Christians are utterly appaling to jesus, they always want jesus to save them, jesus needs saving himself thats what a messiah is for , save the messiah, save yourself while saving the messiah, a messiah doesnt have a magic wand to save people. Thats not how a messiah works. Stop doing blood drinking and flesh eating rituals, you mock jesus when you do that. The man is trying to be a messiah, save him, let him get a wife and a life thats he deserves being a good messiah and all. Help jesus

Jesus needs to beat the antichrist and youre saying he died and that thats a good thing. How is jesus gonna be a messiah if hes dead? He wont obviously

How can you even talk yourself out of that. Impossible. Jesus is a man and jesus needs saving. Jesus is still alive for 2000 years thanks allah

>>40626922
Choosing to not exert power is not the same as relinquishing it. The limit he set up was for the mere exertion of the power that remained still. A limit, a promise, that he can break at any time, for he can do all. Exertion of power and power itself are not the same. It's within my power to jump out a window, it's within my potential, but that doesnt mean I will. He can absolutely take back his word while remaining God, for he can do all. If the bible is true of course

>>40626959
>Choosing to not exert power is not the same as relinquishing it
Right, unless you're God and you made a promise.
>he can break at any time
Not while still being what we call God.
So, God cannot do this. This was God's choice.

>>40626970
God has lied in the bible, he can be untruthful

2 Thessalonians 2:11

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

That he cannot break a promise your personal headcannon. His ability to do all easily overrides it. Sorry bub

>>40626994
That's not a quotation from Jesus, so it's not a promise from God.

>>40627002
>dismisses the entirety of the OT, which jesus said he would uphold
Okay "christian"

>>40626994
Yes, God sends delusions, and evil, and many other things. That they are as named and come as recompense (as in your example) is God's truth, is it not?

Tell me, where has God broken a promise?
Who suspects that the sacrifice of Jesus is a lie and is still a Christian?

>>40626994
>>40627013
The Bible itself is considered God's revealed truth, with passages like John 17:17 stating, "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth".
God's word is seen as inerrant and infallible.

>>40627012
>dismisses the entirety of the OT
I didn't dismiss it

>which jesus said he would uphold
No, he didn't. Only Jesus speaks the true Word of God and is empowered to make promises on God's behalf.

>>40627032
>The Bible itself is considered God's revealed truth
Wrong. Only the Logia of Jesus contain God's revealed truth.

>>40627013
>That they are as named and come as recompense (as in your example) is God's truth, is it not?
Not to those he lies to. Jfc
>Tell me, where has God broken a promise?
As if every single thing God can do has to be specified. If he is alpowerful he can break a promise. You previous argument that he cannot because he is truth or whatever is totally refuted by me pointing out that he lies. Never said people suspect jesus's sacrifice is lie. If God can lie in general, that doesnt mean everything he says is a lie. Again, you confusion regarding potential and certain, power and exertion is beyond delusional

>>40627039
That many see it this way is a matter of fact and is all I stated. I respect your opinion on the matter
>In John 14:6, Jesus declares, "I am the way, the truth, and the life". This statement highlights that Jesus perfectly embodies God's truth and is the ultimate representation of it.

However, Jesus sent The Holy Spirit to guide us. I believe the hands that wrote the bible were flawed, but the spirit that inspired them was holy.

>>40627044
>Not to those he lies to.
A delusion is a distraction, not a lie, and it is in not standing with God that we become subject to such things.

>If he is alpowerful he can break a promise.
Right, but the bible clears shows that He is not "alpowerful."

>>40627059
>A delusion is a distraction
Total falsehood
>it is in not standing with God that we become subject to such things.
Unless he wants you to as in thesselonians 2 11
>Right, but the bible clears shows that He is not "alpowerful."
He is repeatedly describes look that in the bible, purportedly his own word. Just stop bro this is getting sad

>>40627082
>thinks delusions aren't distractions
Okay, enjoy your delusions, I'm out!

One last thing. Why would God kill His son to save us if he could do it any other way?

You're looking for quick answers. Read the stories.

>>40627104
Their definitions, their concepts are simply not the same, but ine can be used to get another. Distract someone with falsehoods to delude, delude someone to distract from another topic. This is just another example of you not understanding the potential and the certain.
>Why would God kill His son to save us if he could do it any other way?
Because he loves suffering, he is the source of all adversity
Byebye!

>>40626994
Compare and Contrast:

Inauthentic(?) Paul
2 Thessalonians 2:9-11
"The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned."

Authentic (Imo) Paul:
2 Corinthians 4:3-6
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing clearly the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’s sake. For it is the God who said, “Light will shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

One Paul, in one context, attributes mind-blinding to "the god of this world," and makes a point of distinguishing the mind-blinding god from the God who said "Light will shine out of darkness," while the other Paul, though admittedly in a different context, attributes mind-blinding to God proper. Are they really the same Paul, talking about the same true God? I suspect not, but even if that isn't persuasive by itself, there are other reasons to believe that 2 Thessalonians wasn't written by the authentic Paul, such as the language of the letter.

Picrel source on comparing the language of several new testament letters
https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/7795

>>40627138
>Because he loves suffering
So in your head cannon God is a masochist who chooses fate through fetish?
That's some hardcore delusion son.

>>40625826 (OP)
God is All. Understand that the Godhead/Tao/Brahmin/Source/Reality Creation Matrix - creates both good and evil. All comes from the Godhead. This is why some people like to Worship Krishna or Jesus or Hermes. They don’t want to understand that All is everything.

The god of this world can lick my fukin balls. FUCK the demiurge for creating this prison we all live in. I spit in his face and in his mouth. Christ will soon free us and we all shall return to the plemora from where our souls came from. We will return to the one

>>40627161
I think it's more a choice of example, because it's much harder to see the inherent nature of All than the story of one who embodied it.

This relates to this post: >>40627145
Paul's perspective was not everyone's perspective, but Paul did not have the final say.

>>40627175
Mara, aka the demiurge, is a beast of your own making. Spit in its face and you spit on your own dreams.

>>40627193
Our dream to being in an imperfect disgusting prison planet?

>>40627145
Is not "the god of this world" precisely the "false power" that God sent?

>>40627161
The Source of the All is not itself the All. It is the One on which All depends.

>>40626751
Can I get a check on that -_-

>>40627225
How can God cast out God? "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

>>40627152
That is not my headcanon, that is the only logical conclusions christianity offers, you sillybilly. Its so ridiculous that it almost cannot be true, and thus probably isnt as a whole

>>40627184
>161
Myth is a doorway. The undivided All is the room. I don’t like imagining I have a superior belief but to see the “All” is hard to do but worth a try. Most people cannot digest the totality of that thought so they instead do the easier thing and jerk it to figures through a lens of their own cultural persuasion.

>>40627258
A 'god' is simply a ruling agency. The god of this world is the agency that forms and regulates the souls dwelling therein. Whereas God (capital G) is the agency of agencies.

>>40627273
A god who with full intention places and keeps a wicked ruler in charge isn't worshipping as God because he would be responsible for considerable wrongness. He would be at best morally grey and indifferent. If you're interested in what's good over what's bad, you should worship a god who is simply good, even if not omnipotent.

>>40627299
*isn't worth worshipping as God

>>40627299
Souls are shaped through opposition and limitation in this world of evil. Without introducing a finite bit of evil at the beginning, the soul never differentiates itself from the unconditioned oneness of Source.

>>40627333
An omnipotent God would be able to get around that, so it's apparent that you're talking about a not-omnipotent God. But even given that, the metaphysical rule you propose seems to have been generated out of thin air entirely as an explanation of evil. I see no reason why it should be the case. And even granting it, I don't see why "differentiating itself from the unconditioned oneness of Source" should be something that God values highly enough to bring into existence countless evils. And if it were so, why couldn't he explain to us personally in an undeniable way that this is the purpose of it?

>>40626354
Argument only makes sense to the utterly deranged, that's why I don't trust any type of religious loon.

>>40627202
That's your dream. Perhaps you should spit on it. I prefer cutting these things in twain.

>>40627266
I presented the alternative. It was to acknowledge our lack of knowledge. Not everything needs a head cannon, especially when the answer is staring you in the face.

>>40627269
Yeah, I know what you mean. I sometimes have trouble relating with other Christians. It's like they forget where dogma comes from and how Jesus felt about it. Lenses must be kept and polished after all.

>>40627375
>An omnipotent God would be able to get around that
Luckily an intelligent God would be smart enough to know not to try

>>40627375
>why couldn't he explain to us personally in an undeniable way that this is the purpose of it?
Because that would defeat the purpose of the illusion. God does things this way because it is the best way to do things. Have faith.

>>40627236
The nameless Tao is the coin, the ten thousand things are heads and tails of the coin, but it is still one coin. Whereas, correct me if I misinterpreted you, The One is above the coin altogether.

>>40627403
The one is the coin.
Heads: The Father
Tails: The Son
Edge: The holy spirit

The edge is not part of the coin, at least as you presented it. Therefor, God is both a part of and above the coin.

>>40627396
An omnipotent and intelligent God would be able to get around it without whatever negative consquences you've imagined, so I'm not sure what your point is.
>>40627400
I don't have faith. I see no reason to believe that this is the best way to do things. In fact it seems like there could be many improvements made.

>>40627410
>would be able to get around it
Right, but at what cost? You don't know, He does.

>>40627416
>Right, but at what cost?
So again this question implies that you're not talking about an omnipotent god. But if you're not talking about an omnipotent god, then it's conceivable that he actually doesn't know the best way to do things.

>>40627403
The nameless Tao is the unconditioned ground of consciousness, the unknowable One from which all arises.

>>40627408
No.

>>40627410
>I don't have faith.
Then there's your problem.

>>40627430
>So again this question implies that you're not talking about an omnipotent god.
False. Either consequences matter or they don't. If they do we have free will, but if they don't we don't. This is not a matter of power, it is a matter of truth. By talking about omnipotence in terms of power and not truth you create this paradox for yourself.

>>40627437
Oh, then what is the edge of the coin?

>>40627445
I don't see it as a problem that I don't pretend to believe things that I'm not persuaded of, which is what you seemed to want me to do by telling me to have faith.
>>40627451
This response it's pretty much gibberish to me, sorry.

>>40627469
>This response it's pretty much gibberish to me, sorry.
That's fair. I've been thinking about this in depth for 20 years, and you're still trying to debate children on a basket weaving forum. You might get it some day.

>>40627477
Last I checked I was trying to debate you.

>>40627488
>trying
That's the operative word. It takes two to tango my friend.

>>40627469
Ascension hinges on recognizing the intellect's inferiority to the wisdom of faith. You think you know better than God, to the point of attacking the way he set things up. You're not in an epistemic position to do that. In any case, if you don't trust in the goodness of God, no empirical evidence can prove it to you.

>>40627488
>>40627509
If I may extend this anon's sentiment. Wisdom comes from love, as love is the means by which we grow out intuition, the knowledge we embody. Without faith even this gets lost, intuition gets ignored, and people intellectualize the suffering they could instead witness and overcome.

>>40627477
Unable to accept he wasted 20 years kek

>>40627529
If it's a waste, why are you here?

>>40625826 (OP)
>says adversity
>translate it as evil
wow what a hecking good faith question ya dingus

>>40627596
Darkness wasn't good enough for you? lel

>>40626585
>>40626588
>Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”

Nothing is impossible with God which means he is omnipotent and not bound by your human logic or paradox. Hope this helps!

>>40627596
The KJV translates the word as evil as it often does when the same word is used elsewhere, and that's because "evil" or "bad" is mostly what the word means, though modern English translations often prefer calamity because they feel it's a more natural contrast with "peace." However, one of the oldest Isaiah manuscripts from the dead sea scrolls actually puts "good" in place of "peace" which I think means the more default meaning, "evil" or "bad" should be kept.

>>40627626
All possible things are possible, but not all possible things are useful.

>>40627677
If all things are possible, it's possible to make all things useful.

>>40627693
All things are useful to God, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

>>40627707
Yeah but that means God is a selfish asshole.

>>40627626
>Nothing is impossible with God
Really? So then God can send another flood? That would mean God's word is not truth.
>he can but we won't
If He can then He is not the God who bound this truth and Himself in promise.

>>40627720
He can do whatever he wants to do even if makes no sense to your human brain or mine, if he is indeed all-powerful as described. Dunno if he is.

>>40627719
Except he's not. He already has everything. He does everything for us.

>>40627723
>He can do whatever he wants
Then He is not God. Wants are a silly human trait. I think you're projecting.

>>40627731
>Wants are a silly human trait.
Being unable to fulfill your "wants" is a human trait. Having wants and fulfilling them instantly as you please is a divine trait. No human, animal, tree or whatever can do it.

>>40627730
>He does everything for us.
Nah. He could give us perfect free will and absolute happiness at the same time. He decided on purpose that he wants to weave suffering, child rape, cancer and much more into the world because HE likes it. He is the designer. Only what God wants is in his "game".

>>40627740
> Having wants and fulfilling them instantly as you please is a divine trait.
That sounds like a demonic trait to me. God puts our desires before His own. Fulfilling our desires he puts behind fulfilling our needs he puts behind allow people to fulfill themselves. All of this comes before God's desires. There is no instantly fulfilling His wants, as they are entangled with All wants.

>>40627754
I think God is a selfish asshole. I'm not defending him. He 100% puts his desires before our own. I mean if he's real and omnipotent you and me are just his puppets anyway. Our will comes from within and he made all that is within us.

>>40627757
>I think God is a selfish asshole
Then you are likely a selfish asshole, or believe you are victim to selfish assholes. The thing to question is not God or God's nature, as at the very least these are meant to be sign posts for understanding yourself and the world. By judging them you free yourself from self judgement, but this tarnishes all in your life.

>>40627769
You're a victim to the selfish asshole called God right now too. No matter what, you can't prevent your loved ones from suffering, children from being raped or animals having their throats slit open in millions. You can't do anything about this torture simulation either.

Reality arises from an impersonal generative field variously called Mind, Tao, or Source that spontaneously expresses all polarities without judgment. This field is morally neutral: beauty and horror, creation and destruction are natural complements within it. Think of a supernova: destructive when within close proximity but beautiful from a safe distance.
Because all is Mind, individual consciousness is both a fragment of and participant in the totality. The purpose of life is not to escape reality but to refine and align one’s own awareness. This process can be done through alchemical transmutation. It involves refining perception, dissolving delusion, and cultivating integrity so the “circle” of the self transcends identification with the “square” of environment.
Transformation is an ongoing, recursive path rather than a final escape. Practices include observation, mental transmutation, nonattachment, contemplation, and building trust in the generative Source. The environment remains imperfect and challenging, but through inner work it loses the power to define your own consciousness.
Ethically, moral categories are seen as relative perspectives arising within polarity. Individuals are responsible for clarifying or refining themselves rather than judging or reforming the cosmos.
There is no singular final state; only ongoing refinement, increasing clarity, and the potential for deeper union with the Source. In this view, the path of self-transformation is not about acquiring power or escaping suffering but about realizing the inherent freedom of consciousness within existence. The uncarved block becomes many things. The choice is fundamentally yours: smoke crack behind your local Micky Ds or attempt to become a better version of yourself from yesterday. Good luck.

>>40627772
My mother wants to die before my father, and at her funeral I will sing her favorite song, in service of God. She may not get her wish, but that's not really the point. With faith her life will remain something to celebrate. I'm not going to pretend she's a victim in what gives her strength. Instead I choose to play my role, because God prepared me as grace.

Until then I live a blissful life. I choose to suffer in places like this on occasion, but I see the good in it. I was called to, and so even in suffering I find joy.

>>40627796
Well, I think you have to be somewhat sociopathic and selfish to lead a "blissful" life while there is so much pain all around you.

Either way if God is omnipotent this is all extremely ridiculous because he could achieve all his goals without kids getting anally raped but God really wanted the latter to happen for some reason. Great guy.

>>40627803
>I think you have to be somewhat sociopathic and selfish to lead a "blissful" life while there is so much pain all around you.
I think the same can be said about trying to diminish or remove justification of bliss. You may not believe yourself deserving, but I don't have to suffer for that. Instead, I set an example. I teach how to fish. And, sometimes people want to learn. Some people would rather hide because they saw some mean things happen, or even just heard about them. I'll tell you this old saying from my grandfather. Even God hates a coward.

>>40627819
Your bliss doesn't justify kids being raped and getting cancer. Just saying. Life isn't about you and bending over for your BDSM Daddy God.

>>40627824
I never claimed it did. However, if I was raped as a kid and I feel this way, what then? Perhaps your justification for hiding was nonsense?

>>40627830
The point is not about YOU or ME it's about the fact that God as an omnipotent entity could make a world without innocent beings having to suffer through extreme torture but he WANTS billions to suffer which can only mean that he enjoys our suffering on some level. Evil.

>>40627740
You can only presume to know the nature of your own suffering. Once you start pretending to quantify the world's pain, you've already far gone beyond what you can know directly. God creates no more adversity than what is needed for the authentic development of individual souls.

>>40627837
God decides what is needed.
God can decide that horrible torture isn't needed for authentic development.

God looked at the world and decided "Yes, I want millions of kids to get raped and brutalized" and he thinks it's amazing.

>>40627836
>The point is not about YOU or ME
Actually, the bible was written explicitly for YOU and ME, and these lessons are in fact for YOU and ME. Not that I can make you listen.

You cling to this idea of omnipotence and power without understanding it or its implications, but choose to let it flavor how you see all good in the world. It's a sad sight.

>>40627850
Bible says God made good and evil, light and darkness. Bible says nothing is impossible for God.

This means God can do whatever the fuck he wants HOWEVER he wants. Meaning that child torture isn't needed and he just added it cause he likes it personally.

>>40627858
>Bible says nothing is impossible for God.
Where? I've seen the question asked by Job amidst dire tribulations. That's about it.

Like I said, you're clinging to this idea and I don't think you even know where it comes from. It arose in the scientific revolution, as spirituality was the prominent guide for scientific exploration. We were trying to ground the idea of God in philosophical terms. We did not succeed, as even when Nietzsche proclaimed God was dead and we killed him (1882), just two decades later we pack peddled. See Edmund Husserl and his seminal work, Logical Investigations.

>>40625826 (OP)
In principle, not all things can be solved by force. The love you are asking about can only be freely chosen. You will always have that choice. God love you.

>>40627843
>God can decide that horrible torture isn't needed for authentic development.
How do you know he didn't? Have you been subject to this "horrible torture"?

>God looked at the world and decided "Yes, I want millions of kids to get raped and brutalized" and he thinks it's amazing.
There's no way for you to know if "millions of kids were raped and brutalized". You can only know your own direct experience. The rest is inferred based on your assumption that the world is a godless physical structure rather than an ephemeral simulation in the Mind of God.

>>40627884
NTA but I've spent enough time being miserably painfully ill that I'm pretty sure just about anything is allowed in this universe as long as it's in keeping with the laws of physics. Of course, from your perspective maybe I'm just an NPC instantiated by God to persuade you of this. But in that case, who are you to argue with God? He clearly wants you to think that such things are possible.

>>40627876
>Where? I've seen the question asked by Job amidst dire tribulations. That's about it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019%3A26&version=NIV
https://www.bible.com/bible/8/LUK.1.37-45.AMPC

>>40627884
>Have you been subject to this "horrible torture"?

Not to the worst torture that life has to offer but to pretty bad things, yes.
But I'm not gonna pretend that victims around me are just NPCs with no pain.

>>40627876
>Where?
Also NTA but Mark 10:27 and Matthew 19:26, in the story about the rich man entering heaven being like a camel going through the eye of a needle. The disciples ask if anyone (or perhaps any of "them," meaning rich people) can be saved. And Jesus responds, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

>>40627964
I didn't intend to deny your pain. In everyday life, empathy and loving-kindness is the way.

I'm saying we can't make assumptions about vast quantities of suffering beyond our immediate awareness in order to judge God. We don't know how God put the optical illusion of reality together.

>>40628062
>pretty bad things, yes
Is it so bad that it couldn't be justified by eternal bliss in your own personal utopia?

Whatever plebbit university graduate is spamming the thread angrily is probably going to hell ngl

>>40625826 (OP)
ignorant

Because when God fucks your life up you can’t claim to be surprised.

>>40628140
Not really because why did God make me suffer to begin with if he had all the power to achieve all the goals he wants without pain? And how do I know other people aren't real?

>>40628165
>IF YOU DON'T SUCK GOD'S COCK UR A PLEBBIT GRADUATE!
cope tranny

>>40628250
You're clearly not giving God the benefit of the doubt. You're a committed pessimist in that regard. Faith, on the other hand, is a kind of commitment to optimism, whether naturally-inspired through gnosis or simply by reason of mental hygiene.

>>40628302
You just sound like a buckbroken prisoner who justifies his masters abuse.

>>40625826 (OP)
The problem is you're reading these things from an assumed neutral ground where the nature of good, evil, suffering, blame, responsibility and culpability is just self-evident and God can be cast outside of/under the judgement of these things that he created along with everything else. You deserve to suffer, I do, we all deserve worse. We all deserve Hell. The nature of God's mercy is a grace beyond this fact, above this fact, that we are not owed and that is only bestowed out of God's love. A love we cannot comprehend the enormity of. You are not on neutral ground, you are not poking holes in the logic of "if God is loving then why does-" because you don't know what love is. You worship God because he is the only thing in existence that is worthy of worship, it has never been about you.

>>40628331
>soul is created without its consent
>soul deserves to suffer even though it never asked to be created

roflmao

>>40625826 (OP)
go to save some americans , christfags
>>>/b/936429017
Israel is preparing to launch a bioterrorist attack on New York (and possibly other major US cities) on July 4th of this year. Jews have already told their NY population to fuck off just like they did prior to 9/11, using the big bad Zohran as a scapegoat so that nobody suspects anything when it hits. Picrel is a 'simulated disaster' type 'exercise', of which parallels can be drawn to Event 201.

A similarly catastrophic attack, which was set to hit Seattle on 3/11/2019, was averted when /pol/ drew too much attention to it, proven by the fact that https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/232137063/#232147201 is the earliest post you can find mentioning it (1 day after the event was supposed to take place), which means that the records of /pol/'s counter-op have been scrubbed.

Please spread this message so that you are not implicated in the deaths of potentially hundreds of thousands.

>>40626354
why is it okay for him to kill people?

>>40625826 (OP)
I read that God is mocking the newest most popular religion of that period, which was Zoroastrianism? In this religion the concept of good and evil is pretty important. It's a main focus. Like, it's a religion that have everything to do with dualistic things or dualism or good and evil. So God is "mocking" this religion by saying that He controls it. Because he controls good and evil so He is bigger than those concepts therefore bigger than that religion of that time. It's the author trying to make God the biggest dick around, but this created a problem for us now because now we can basically blame God for good and evil in the world because it's on the bible and it's God saying that He forms it. But this doesn't stop the christians to invent reasons or motives to say that God is not the author of evil.

New(ish) but also really old solution to the problem of evil: Since so many theists even in modern times seem to have trouble understanding what "omnipotence" means in the full philosophical sense and respond to the problem of evil by insisting that, despite being omnipotent, God is doing the best he can under one or more obscure metaphysical constraints, maybe that was the original idea of "omnipotence" held by most Bbilical authors as well. If something can be done, God can eventually accomplish it (as in the story where Jesus implies that even the filthy rich people can be saved with God's help), but that's it. And we have only the faintest idea what convoluted game we and God are actually caught up in his effort to bring about the greatest good for everyone.

(Regarding verses like OP where God supposedly solves the problem of evil by simply taking credit for it, my preferred solution is to go the Gnostic route and say that this is just the demiurge having one of his moments where he exaggerates his power level to mess with the humans.)

>>40630207
This can also be tied in with the ancient view discernable from more modern translations of Genesis and which also IIRC is present in Plato where God didn't create the universe ex nihilo but just found matter in a disorderly or formless state and tried to put it in order. And that also fits more with the Buddhist idea as well IIRC.

>>40625826 (OP)
Out of context. God did not "insert" evil into His perfect creation (that came about by the agency of Lucifer). This verse is a reference to God bringing punishment when and where required, as we read more clearly in the following verse:

“Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6)

>>40630374
Lucifer-as-Satan is non-Biblical mythology, and the demiurge's imitation creation in Genesis 2 was imperfect to begin with, hence his fumbling restrospective realization that it was "not good" for Adam to be alone and hence how it all "fell apart" so rapidly when two people at the wrong fruit.

In other words, I see your mythology derived from questionable interpretation of scripture and counter it with my own mythology derived from questionable interpretation of scripture.

>>40630482
Totally retarded and bullshit. Anyone reading Lucifer's profile in the bible can tell that's Satan. Just another name for the same evil entity.

>>40630508
Maybe you will understand when the day dawns and Lucifer rises in your heart.

"et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris." 2 Peter 1:19

>>40630533
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:” (2 Peter 1:19)

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12)

As you yourself can read, "day star" and "son of the morning" are not the same thing, though there's a bunch of corrupt occult bibles out there that vanish the distinction.

Remember, Lucifer is a counterfit christ, and you ought to watch for these subtleties to avoid being dragged into more luciferian retardation.

>>40630607
It's the same word/name in both verses in the Latin (because Lucifer is just a poetic/mythological name for venus seen in the morning), and the NKJV even has a footnote saying that "Lucifer" is literally day star (see picrel). That one is called Lucifer and the other isn't in the KJV is just an odd choice by those specific translators.

>>40630673
In Isaiah 14:3-4 it's clearly stated who is being called lucifer/day star in the passage. "On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:"

Also, in context, where Jesus says "I saw Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning," it seems to me like it's meant to have happened just recently when Jesus said it, in response to the work of the 72 he had sent out earlier, not to something that happened before the creation of the universe.

The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!” He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning. Indeed, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will hurt you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

>>40630753
*from Luke 10

>>40630673
I'll trust God overseeing the KJV translation over that garbage you got over there.

>>40630753
Interesting stackexchange answer on the topic of interpeting the verse
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/21007/when-did-satan-fall-from-heaven-like-lightning-luke-1018

>>40630759
Lol, sometimes I wonder if many Christians shouldn't be renamed as KJV worshippers.

>>40625826 (OP)
Not adversity - Evil! As in Evil

So you have free will to decide between Good and Evil

Surely you wouldn't be created to just comply, then you wouldn't be human nor the product if a perfect crrator.

Now stop questioning Him and serve.

Once you see the light, you will not need anything else. Its just hard to funnel the spirituality into words and acts.

Of a perfect crrator.

My bash

Creator

Lucy Guo quit

>>40630759
The Geneva bible is better.

Why does anyone do anything? For fun and survival or rather for fun and reproduction.

That is what God is doing.

Your souls is only a baby in gods eyes. Put into the womb of Mother Earth for several cycles until you are ready for birth into higher realms.

You are a baby god. This life is designed to forge and temper your soul to be worthy of having your own reality/universe to rule over.

Don’t you know ye are gods? What did you think being a child of God meant?

>>40628331
>criticizes me for assuming self evident moral charge to reality
>assumes negative selfevident moral charge for humanity
Jfc, not only do you completely misrepresent what I said in order to seem able to refute my concerns, you yourself do the same what you blame me for. Or you believe God made man morally negative for its own sake, that he created his mirror image as an evil entity, which would actually be consistent with the bible. Nonetheless, that evil, in our nature and elsewhere, exists because he wants it to. If he didnt want it he could make it simply not exist, without reducing self will, because he is allpowerful. You dumb fucking troglodytes fucking NEVER think before you speak.

>>40625826 (OP)
The bible isn't real you stupid fucks. Why are you so fucking retarded that you need a made up sky daddy to function? Literal fucking NPCs

>>40627596
>explicitly mention the other translation of adversity
>still get accused of bad faith argumentation
Jfc

>>40632388
How’s summer vacation going little bud? Excited for school to start up again?

>>40627392
The Bible provides enough knowledge to draw these conclusions from, if your not a retarded Stockholm syndrome victim that is. Keep believing in and loving a God that tortures ylu for its own sake nigga

>>40632417
How's beliving in a lie thats set back humanity 3000 years with no proof except word of mouth from so childfucking faggots playing telephone?

>>40632431
But enough about atheism hahaha

Can we define what good and evil are first? Many things are seemingly good or evil. A drought can be seen as evil and malefic but it can be an inevitable event of the ever changing weather and climate, especially when in other places perhaps they will get the rainfalls they yearned for too long.
I think also a problem is that you pesky little buggers were taught magic and it got out of hand where everyone started an quickly unbalanced tug and pull.
Many bad things happening to you can be due to someone else being an extremely greedy little fuck that was harnessing your energy with magic for their own benefit. Its an evil action but I dont think God would approve of some cunty billionaire taking more than they already have from already poor people, you know?

>>40632377
>because he is allpowerful
Not according to your twisted definition.

>>40633283
>Can we define what good and evil are first?
Good is that which fulfills Telos.
Evil is that which obstructs the fulfillment of Telos.

There are 4 types of Telos:
1) Monadic: Bliss (Pleasure)
2) Dyadic: Agape (Love)
3) Triadic: Meaning (Purpose)
4) Tetradic: Plenitude (Abundance)

For example, Pain in itself is evil because it obstructs the attainment of Bliss. Wrath obstructs Agape. Etc.

The point of mortal incarnation is not to attain telos, but to articulate its definition in accordance with the perspective of the Subject. In other words, mortal life is primarily for sowing, not reaping. It's an ephemeral means to the eternal end of wholeness in telos: Heaven.

>>40632274
Amen. (Although the swine here may yet choke on these pearls).