/lit/ - Literature

>>12333938
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLZ6zrPy6oo

>>12333938
God says git gud

He has a very different sense of humor than from what we can comprehend

>yeah, that's right, the clay answers to the potter. don't get me started on how he SHOULD have made things

>>12333938
>dicks in my bumbley-hole give me ass cancer? how dare you how very dare you "god" you imbecile you scoundrel
Also stephen fry wrote a book about cooking with cum

>>12333938
The problem of evil is so complex but so many faggots are content to just dismiss any possibility of a higher being by bringing up dying babies. Many such cases! Sad!

>>12333960
Top kek

>>12333944
Decent answer.

>>12333960
Lel

>create people knowing they will be sinners
>people sin
>god says how dare you! you deserve eternal torture
why is god a fucking moron?

>>12334060
yeah i was like wtf i love kebab now

>>12333944
>Islamic metaphysics

>>12334125
does it matter where memes come from?

>>12334089
It’s for the glory of God. You wouldn’t understand. If I were to create a super realistic SIMS universe you better believe there will be conflict and suffering, winners and losers, those whom I love and those whom I hate. Meanwhile your SIMS has no meaning behind it, and you get bored after 5 minutes.

>>12334125
It's almost exactly the same position the RCC takes.

>>12334166
>Thomist metaphysics

>>12334173
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, but it might help to write in full sentences.

>>12334156
Are you an AI?

>>12334156
>glory of God == fancy of man
>proven in one simple post
what a time to be alive

>implying your previous earthly suffering matters after reaching heaven

>>12334197
My point still stands. It doesn’t even get into the ideas of God’s completion of His nature (aka glorification) but it’s easy to understand for humans. We even kill creatures below us with no sympathy all the time. You could make the argument that we are morally imperfect, and God should be morally perfect, so that he shouldn’t be like us, but if we are imperfect, then all criticisms of God are invalid as we know nothing wholly. There are infinite things beyond us which God knows well.

>I want free will but I also want God to pamper me like a babby

>>12334207
More understanding is derived from a SIMS full of suffering than one without. I could not be omniscient without the perception of suffering. I am made omniscient and omnipotent through the SIMS, not before. But the SIMS already exists, and I have always gone beyond it. It couldn’t not exist.

>>12333938

He's actually right, though. But the trouble about Stephen Fry being the one to make the correct argument is that he himself is a very damaged man, but in fact his personal damage does not undermine the validity of his rejection of conventional rationalizations about theodicy. Stephen Fry really is a damaged man, as are the stupid theists who rationalize using their conventional, wrong arguments.

>>12334250
>free will
An illusion, like time. God knows better

>>12334250
you're making an important philosophical distinction without noticing how awesome that would be.

>>12334220
/thread

>>12334255
I’ll be awaiting your blueprints for a better universe. Remember that you are God and that your creation must first and foremost satisfy yourself (even if that includes doing everything you can to satisfy your creations). I’d love to see what you come up with! Be creative!

>>12333938
such a boring, brainlet argument

>>12334220
It matters a lot while you're on earth though.

>>12333944
Nasr doesn't delve into this in that video, probably because he didn't want to add necessary confusion for the audience, but on top of the standard 'creation by default means a separation from good', there is the higher-level more esoteric teaching imparted on top of that which holds that creation doesn't take place in a real sense and that the universe is illusionary. Sufism aligns with things like Vedanta and Mahayana here and Ibn Arabi etc writes in their works about how the universe is unreal, transient, etc. So when Nasr says "the infinity of God necessarily includes the possibility of manifestation", he omitting the addendum that (as many Sufis would hold) existence is more akin to Allah witnessing His reflection in the universe-mirror (which they regard as not really separate from Him), which people don't realize due to ignorance and because of them identifying with the reflection on the surface of the mirror and not the thing reflected (Adi Shankara and Ibn Arabi both use this same mirror metaphor in Upadesasahasri and Fusas al-Hikam, respectively)

Christianity explicitly does not promise an end to suffering in this world, at least not until Christ comes again in glory. You can be mad about that, but I don't like this implication that the religion is somehow tricking people into thinking that belief in Jesus means no more suffering.

"In this world you will have trouble. But take heart; I have overcome the world."

>>12334288
*unnecessary

>>12334293
>you know the first thing a newborn baby sees when it is born on Guam?

>>12334125
It's actually Neo-Platonism under the guise of Islam. There is nothing uniquely Semitic to it.

>>12334288
that's some far out shit man

>>12334125
Dude there are parallels with the Greeks and others in his words. Can you not see that? Especially the manifestation part.

>>12334288
>mirror metaphor
Where could I have picked this up? I started using this idea little under 2 weeks ago in my comments here. I believe both the worship and rejection of God glorify Him, as he sees how he is desired, and how people can suffer without him. It’s all a movement towards understanding, the completion of omniscience, yet it has already been completed.

>>12334337
To add on, I think this puts Romans 9 in context:

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

>>12333938
Do you really expect Yaldabaoth to fix bone cancer like baka

>>12334284
Why?

>>12333960
I am reading his poetry book that was posted in the wiki and it has been helpful so far. No chapters about cooking with cum though

Why does God owe you an explanation as to why bad things happen? Are you really naive and pompous enough to believe that it will give you one? What then? Do you attempt to negotiate with your creator about what should and shouldn't befall you? Do you put your own needs before others?

God's silence in the face of theodicy is not because it has no answer, its because the question is fucking dumb.

>>12333938
stephen fry discovered there is a God, and for his many sins in setting others against God he is in purgatory. roastin'. broilin'. bakin'.

>>12334363
>>12334421
>“Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
All instances of "man playing god" are thus justified. And you are the people who told us atheism would end morality...

>>12334501
>All instances of "man playing god" are thus justified
This is a dumb argument made by low IQ Christians. Literally nothing in the Bible says anything about using advanced technology, so long as you stay humble and don’t think yourself as being above God.

>>12333944
This would be nice and all if God wasnt implied to be Omnipotent.

>>12333938

Go to bed, Ivan Karamazov.

>>12334516
Elaborate

>>12334511
All I'm saying is I think if you inject your cum in a chicken egg, what comes out would have every right to ask "why did you make me like this?", if it could. The Christians say that it wouldn't. Christians are gross.

>>12334521
You can't talk about the creation that a Omnipotent and omnipresent being made without addresing the common fallacy. God makes rock, rock is not perfect, God is not perfect.etc

>>12334533
So a perfect creator is incapable of creating something imperfect? Wouldn’t that just lead to no creation at all? Thus making God imperfect? Did you think this through at all?

>>12334533
no, God made the Form of the rock.

nature made the shit-tier rock.

>>12334530
If that creation will lead to benefitting others, then it’s not that bad, is it? Early medicine might have killed people, but it saves millions today

>>12334547
what a pointless metaphysical distinction

>>12334546
It would lead to no creator at all dumbass. It's a fallacy not a rule fag.

>>12334277

No, it isn't. It is absolutely correct. So, then, why is it rejected? For at least three reasons, none of which is intellectually legitimate.

1) The browsers of this popular forum currently find it in fashion to play like they actually believe in god (none of them really do), not because of the goodness of belief, but because as young people who care about sex and social status, they do not want to be associated with neckbeards, fedora tippers, "fat unattractive people". A cultural ad-hom in a given demographic.

2) Exactly for its true simplicity, which "bores" sophomoric minds which pretend sophistication as cultural preening. "I'll pretend like I've read the bible!" (Do not say: "as a matter of fact, I have read such-and-such". This only makes you an exception in this place, and not the rule.)

3) Genuine moral misunderstanding. If god existed as described in the conventional abrahamic religions, it would be morally necessary to reject him, even and especially if this guarantees damnation, and even and especially if humans are "incapable" of doing so for the various cultural reasons (many valid) that apologists unwarrantedly repair to as false vindication.

>>12334275

There are at least two feasible models. I am all that exists and I am well pleased with myself in my vacuum all of the time, and I sustain in this way being all that exists. Or, I annihilate myself with the surety that nothing else can possibly exist afterwards. Either way, serenity. There's no need to set some other particles/actors going.

>>12334547
Didnt god made nature? Didnt god made all things?

>>12333938
>Bone cancer in children?
Bone cancer in Jesus.

>>12334563
(Not him)
Thats a rather complicated question

>>12334558
You’re not actually explaining why a perfect creator can’t create “imperfect” things. Think through it and actually give an argument.
>>12334558
>I am all that exists and I am well pleased with myself in my vacuum all of the time
Why would you be pleased? What exactly are you?
>I annihilate myself with the surety that nothing else can possibly exist afterwards
>le God is magic meme
God is necessary. And why would you even want to destroy yourself? Why would God be suicidal?

You evolved from a monkey and you think you understand everything. Incredible.

>>12334555
Sure, that's why I'm deliberately using the most disgusting, least valuable example. Look it up if you want, I don't wanna post result on a SFW board.

>>12334582
Yes it is and i really don't know the common answers since i'm not a religious person thoug i do think you can't rationalize god and faith.

>>12334607
You cant rationalize existence either. Reason is baffled by life. None of this makes sense and it never will.

>>12334607
Just don’t bother with that guy. His answer was retarded. The existence of “imperfect” things doesn’t mean God is imperfect. There is no logical argument for this, or at least, I haven’t seen one yet

>>12334584
Resorting to shitposting and putting words in my mouth huh? Bait harder. Or chill, whatever the case.

>>12334621
You’re basing your decisions as God on your limited understanding as an ape on Earth. For some reason, you think that God is at peace with absolutely nothing else but himself (what exactly is he without creation?), or that God would despise his existence. You haven’t given a good reason for either case. Not baiting, this is serious. If you can demonstrate that your creation or lack thereof is more perfect than this universe, then you’ll have a good criticism against theism

>>12334637
Yeah thats why i said in another post that i think God and faith can't be rationalized.

>>12334559
>strawman
>ad-hominem
yawn

Reminder, pantheism is the only true form of God. We are all self aware blips of one consciousness arguing our own existence.

>>12334643
The existence of something does not depend on its rationalization.

>>12334643
The whole point is to nullify the criticism against God, though. Evil and suffering exist, so people think God doesn’t exist, or something of that nature, but they can’t truly justify their reason for believing this. People can give reasons for either side (in my opinion, there are almost always more reasons FOR God, but that’s irrelevant), so that in the end, yes, faith is necessary.

>>12334559
>Non really do
Stoped reading there. If you make such a dumb statement the rest of your post can't be any good.

>>12334559
>It is absolutely correct
Atheism and arrogance go hand in hand.
>The browsers of this popular forum
Cringe
>none of them really do
Arrogance, again. Tell me, how do you KNOW this? You don’t, because it isn’t true.
>they do not want to be associated with neckbeards, fedora tippers, "fat unattractive people". A cultural ad-hom in a given demographic.
Except you could easily be an atheist without telling people you’re an atheist. Lots of people do this. People are concerned with meaning and purpose, saving their souls, stuff that actually matters.
>2)
Nothing of substance
>it would be morally necessary to reject him
And no argument was given

>>12334436
Stupid image. Humanity isn't conquering nature any more so than a beaver is when it builds a dam. Humanity takes resources from nature an repurposes them in a way that is beneficial for humans, many animals do it. Humans just do it in a much higher capacity. I will agree though that many humans see themselves as something special and separate from the rest of nature, which is also the same mindset that creates monotheistic religions with anthropomorphic gods.

>>12334691
alright well let me know how your transition operation goes

you identify as a piece of scented meat, correct?

>>12334705
Unless this is a true detective reference I have no idea what you're saying.

>>12334717
it is. good job.

>>12334337
>>12334363

Yes, I get what you are saying and I agree. In a sense it's all part of a pre-ordained cosmic drama in which every moment from elation to fear and deprivation are all equally part of the music of the Divine disclosing, and then returning to Himself, when you add in the element of the mirror there is a sense of everything having already eternally been taken care of, the cosmic/existential question has already been solved and we are nothing (as individuals) in comparision to this overarching divine plan. And since the universe is unreal and since God is already eternally established in Himself without need of reconciliation (this is why many eastern doctrines often teach only ignorance of the Absolute needs to be removed, since no action can produce a beginningless and eternally existing effect); it's not as though there is a real entity in need of reconciliation, but rather that all states, possibilities of being and indeed all times conditionally exist within God's infinity, these helping to form as it were the harmony of God's 'non-voidness' (Him not needing them in any sense, but that part of His fullness is that there are these innumerable possibilities). All the beings, 'created' by Him in their dependnce on Him as source and witness, but not being seprate from Him; are all in their own way a glorification and celebration of Him.

Reading into this as anyway bad is sort of due to not realizing that the perfection and infinity of God incomparably transcends any sort of 'suffering' by individuals who don't even really exist as individuals (here you can see why people like Guenon had beef with gnosticism for example). I think when people fail to conceptualize this as not inherently negative (via the possibility of any ignorance existing even as illusion) it's because of them unconciously assigning ultimate importance to their (individual) self, e.g. "if Brahman is perfect and spotless I wouldn't be born or experience suffering" while not realizing this reasoning is negated if it's true this experience is just an illusionary sensation seeming to occur within the landscape of infinite divine perfection, which is revealed as having been one's surroundings all along when the illusion disappears. I agree that the Bible verse you cite is riffing on the same note. Many Sufi works often have a similar of reminding you of your source and quote the Quran line "everything will be returned to Him", to similarly remind you of the utter significance of anything in comparision to this harmony. I recently posted a thread with a few passages from the work 'The Enclosed Garden of Truth' by the Sufi poet Sanai that talks about the same theme as that Bible passage

>>/lit/thread/S12287676#p12287682

>>12334730
>>12334337
>>12334288
*destroys your sophistry with plain old Catholic common sense*

Nothing personal lads

>>12334736
*dies of congestive heart failure*

>>12334736
>conveniently ignores Romans 9 post
I’d genuinely like to hear your interpretation of that passage.

>>12334363
>But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

So it's ok for me to create a simulated universe where I spawn sentient beings just to torture them? I suppose it actually is fine since my creation and I are just aspects of the original creator which is God, but if we're going with the idea that all physical reality is just a reflection of the ultimate axiom, God, why does God have such a distinct personality? If we're going with YHVH at least. Shouldn't such a particlar personality, one that seems and acts human in nature, just be another reflection?

>>12333944
Idk why he is using this question as a subtle opportunity to criticize the West. His answer is interesting but in 4 minutes time it creates more questions. The world is not perfect but it could be far worse than it is or far better than it is; to what degree did God influence that and to what degree can/should God change that? This would be the first question an atheist might ask. Another question would be, “what is the nature of good? It is a reflection of God? A part of God within us?” He seems to set up an issue of degree as you could have a near perfect world with slight imperfections which would still “not be God”.

The part about the world manifest to recognize God is good but it doesn’t really answer the problem of evil.

>>12334730
might enjoy this m8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAqHJTqJKq8
and Ibn Arabi had the concept of the Barzakh which did not exist in hindu cosmology

>>12334785
>what degree did God influence that and to what degree can/should God change that?
well in Islam both free will and predestination exist so that is a complicated topic, but as far as ability, existence is dependent upon God (see metaphysics of causation in Islam)
> “what is the nature of good? It is a reflection of God? A part of God within us?
Good is defined as what God likes, asking questions about the nature of God is of no avail as he is beyond comprehension. The closest thing around are the 99 names of God in Islam for a description.

>>12333938
>god micromanages every facet of life

>>12335235
By virtue of being omniscient and omnipotent he is at the very least constantly making an active choice to let all things exist specifically as they are.

>>12335249
Did you forget the part about man being a fallen creature

>>12335261
Not sure what that has to do with what I said. Not all evil is man's fault. See natural evil.

>im addicted to sucking dicks? how dare you.

>>12335265
I'm saying man is doomed to suffer. What we call evil is part of that. Read the bible.

>>12335282
I've read the bible. Why should the son inherent the sins of the father? Why does all of humanity deserve to suffer because of the mistake Adam and Eve made? Why do children deserve to fall victim to disease and natural disasters? You could say "every man has sinned, and therefore every man deserves to be punished", but I have problems with that as well. I'd consider it an immoral act for a creator to intentionally make something flawed and then punish his creation for being flawed, when it was made that way on purpose. Plus, plenty of human beings suffer without sinning, like infants. Do they deserve suffering simply because of original sin?

>>12335299
Read job.

>>12335302
I've read Job. What did Job's children do to deserve getting smote by God just so he could play along with Satan?

You don't have the right to ask why, scripture says an answer will not be given (jesus was the entirety of the word), and you couldn't understand even if you did get an explanation from god. Your mortal meat brain is a puddle of pus fit for only mince pies.

>>12335309
Then what's the point of ever discussing theology in any logical context?

>>12335306
Did you forget what you read in Genesis already. Read the expulsion from the garden again, and the story of cain n abel.

>>12335315
Why not tell me specifically what you think I'm missing instead of trying to make me guess your intentions.

>>12335314
You arent. I'm showing you how your ignorance is inhibiting your ability to answer these questions, or to know how to ask the right questions.

>>12335321
No its 5am and I'm phoneposting and should go back to sleep.

>>12335324
What are the right questions if any questions about God's nature or intentions will be answered with "you can't comprehend it"?

>>12335328
That's fine with me. I enjoyed our discussion regardless. Thank you for providing a position to argue with. I should also sleep.

>>12334663
So people think the merciful all-loving Abrahamic God doesn't exist, not a god in general.

>>12335349
Deism is the most redpilled stance after all.

>>12333938
just because a random guy called you faggot while you were walking down the road doesn't mean he doesn't exist
also bad things don't stop happening just because god doesn't exist

>>12335442
What is the point of this post?

>>12334089
Because God is imperfect

what do you expect from britbongs, they are legitimately the dumbest people and also think they're the smartest at the same time.

>there are people in this thread who believe this question can be resolved with a short video

>>12333938
>Behold, i show you the
I'm new to /lit/ and I don't understand what is going on here.

There are many post about religion versus atheism but I don't think most religious texts are literature really worthy of that much discussion.

Is this like a really LDS board or something?