/lit/ - Literature

>>17066449
>ancient kike desert tales make no sense
Oy vey op. Man lands on moon. Water is wet.

>>17066449
>Cancer is not a consequence of Free Will.
Yes it is. All disease is a result of the sin of Adam which he committed because of his free will

>>17066479
Animals can get cancer also.

>>17066449
>Then why would He create a world full of Evil, Sin and Temptation?
He didn't, when Adam fell he suffered a deficiency in goodness, and in order to restore it and to restore the goodness in all of his descendants, God let the world be as it was and is (fallen) in order to allow us that chance, otherwise we'd all become mini lucifers.

>But it's really not. Cancer is not a consequence of Free Will.
Yes and no, it's easily conceivable that God uses sickness, diseases or other trials in order to humble a person so that he may come back to God. This does not mean that you should judge everyone who is suffering. The Pharisees did that, like with the man in iirc Bethesda by the pool with miraculous healing. He couldnt walk and was waiting for like 37 years to get in but every damn time someone else took his chance. Christ came to him, acknowledged his great faith despite what happened and didn't judge him for sin. Rather, that man was lame to perhaps serve as a great example of faith. I think cancer can serve as punishment, but it's not for every case.
>That still doesn't do a good job taking into account everyone's living conditions and luck. No shit someone living in a nice gated community with no interacions with the underclass would find it very easy to be a great Christian. But life is too complex to reduce everything
God isn't an autist, He won't ever give someone too much of a burden and judge them for not being superhuman. Those with understandable, sympathetic reasons will be given as much leniency as is righteously merciful, and those who indeed with their limited agency, ultimately chose to reject God will suffer the agony of His presence while the saints will enjoy it. I even believe that fedoras who only encountered and rejected blasphemous, edgy versions of God would perhaps even be rewarded to some degree for that. Not everyone will be judged by the same standards, obviously a low IQ person who never heard of Christianity will be given more leniency than the high IQ bishop theologian who is perfectly aware of what to do and what not to do.

>>17066602
shit, even plants can

>>17066449
>But it's really not. Cancer is not a consequence of Free Will

The idea that free will precedes one's birth, that one precedes one's birth, is at least implicit if not explicit in most of Christianity, excluding Catholicism, which is not Christian at all. The Protestant obsession with determinism goes far enough to Dialectically reach absolute free will, i.e. life is so determined that even one's (ostensible) experience of determinism could be Epistemologically indistinguishable from one's false experience of free will relative to God's true determinism, that God actually determined this when one thinks he determined that, his determinism ever imploding lest the determined defiles it by knowing, its Epistemologically retreat indistinguishable from an Ontological one, lest he defiles it by being.

>>17066646
>your second point

What distinguishes this from man being a vehicle for genes per Darwin?

>>17066449
>Why exactly would a guy who takes it in the ass go to Hell, the same place as a murdering rapist?
Because he's denying his God-given natural ends imo. God gave us commandments such as to be fruitful and multiply, and defined marriage as between only man and woman, with all sex outside of the marital bond being necessarily fornication. So it's easy to grant that sodomy is fornication by definition, but your question would probably be "why is it worse than hetero fornication?" and/or "why is fornication that bad?". I think it's a sating of appetites that have no benefit to the spiritual state of the person, but rather pull him away from God's will and grace. Let's try a more radical, obvious analogy that you might agree with. Gluttony, which includes substance abuse. It's a sating of natural desires (eating and having sex are both rather normal wants to have) but it's subverted into having a negative effect upon someone. I won't focus on the physical negativity, because I would still argue that even if hardcore drugs didnt have physical addiction, the spiritual addiction to it (food is like that, do you get withdrawals physically from fasting a bit?) still makes it very wrong. Your concentration becomes shot because you gave up the discipline of redirecting your will towards something other than short term pleasure. You find it harder to enjoy things because with every 'satisfaction' (if you can even call it that) you suffer more because you need to re-sate that desire over and over, especially if you totally lose control and have to increase the dosage or intake or whatever. You're dedicating time and energy to an ultimately fruit-less endeavor, and before one can appeal to muh escapism, there's other ways to partake in pleasure (even for its own sake!) that are more healthy and productive.

To go back to that God-given ends a bit, I think God designed men in such a way that they would be best with a woman in marriage rather than a man. Men ought to be the leader, and a leader needs rationality and assertiveness off the top of my head. Women ought to be the opposite but compatible. Devoted, with devotion coming from sensitivity and passivity. These traits work well together, the man as an autocrat (but not distant) makes decisions on behalf of the family and bases them off of his own reasoning, although he isn't necessarily obliged to own everyone else in debate lol. Another end would be child-rearing, not just to give birth and continue their bloodline but to raise them up to be good examples of Christians. A gay ass couple of men in pseudo-marriage cannot satisfy these ends unless you want to get really fricking weird. Dads and moms naturally have the most affection for their biological children, so it makes sense that abstractly speaking, biological dad + mom is the best combo for raising the kids. A couple of gay dudes runs into some problems, namely: (cont)

>>17066753
1) Unless they somehow have 100 percent perfectly aligned wills, one of them has to be the submissive party and therefore faggy and not properly masculine.
2) The child rearing is likely to be inferior to the traditional model (which actually isnt even just bio mom and dad by other family members) and in order for the child to receive motherly care, one of the sodomites needs to get extra feminine.
3) Their sex is necessarily fornication, and therefore analogous to habitual sin in general.

>>17066646
Why would an all powerful all loving God torture people with sickness to get them to worship him? Why not drop a package from the sky with a million dollars and a note that says "Love you bro - God" why not actually show himself to mankind if he wants them to chose him? Why would an all good God even have people born into poverty in the first place if he doesn't want them to unnecessarily suffer?

>>17066449
I've seen much better critiques of Christianity

>>17066449
>Then why would He create a world full of Evil, Sin and Temptation?
Man created sin, not God, though our free will
>Then why does evil exist?
Read Aristoteles Metaphysics, beings come in different levels. Some are closet to God who is the absolute good, some are more distant and thus evil
>Cancer is not a consequence of Free Will
Why is cancer evil, its a lump of cells? Everything that is is good, its only considered "evil" out of our limited world view and how we interact with it.
Example: An E coli virus is "good" while in our digestive system but "bad" when its in our blood, even tho it itself doesn't act any differently.

Again, read some Metaphysics

>>17066449
>A good Christian is essentially a coward, divorced from life who throws all the responsibility to "God".
I disagree, and some examples would be some saints who were canonized for their military accomplishments rather than happening to being military. Take St. Aleksandr Nevsky, his campaign was so successful against the (semi-?)crusades that it was regarded as God's divine providence truly intervening. I'll put it like this, forcing others to suffer because of your own ideals is unchristian. There is no greater love than sacrificing your life for a beloved one and for God (not mutually exclusive at all, but very much inclusive). Sometimes, that means killing, and Christ Himself orders killings throughout the Old Testament. Forgiveness in the form of accepting someone back isn't unconditional, that person must repent before he could be trusted. While we should forgive people in the sense that we shouldn't bear grudge or ill-will (disciplining them or correcting them isn't ill-will btw) and pray for them, obviously a drug dealer cannot just tell the judge "yo im sorry :((((((" and be let off the hook. Paul says in Romans 13 that the sword of the authorities must terrorize the evil-doers, deter them from committing evil unto others. Someone who kills and rapes your daughter should be given incredible punishment if not outright death.

>A good Christian is essentially a coward, divorced from life who throws all the responsibility to "God".
That's a bad Christian, a good Christian understands that God also gave him responsibilities. God is fatherly, not motherly so therefore He wants us to also do things by ourselves, although technically everything is by His allowing at the very least. But I think you get what I mean, the child cant do anything if the father doesnt earn for his food and shelter but the father can still teach the child to stand up for himself, to be responsible without others telling him what to do all the time etc.

>>17066449
Cancer is not evil. Your reasoning is based on this life = good, and anything that might take you away from it “undeservedly” = bad.
The plastics in the water, in our food, the pollution, the smoking etc, all those things that environmentally impact cancer for example are things done to exploit fellow man for profit and usually keep him addicted - by other men. Not god.
And the whole point of accepting Jesus is that when you go, you don’t fear it because being released from this earth where you were encouraged to do good but not ultimately expected to be a saint, because most others aren’t, is actually a blessing.
You are conflating the pain you feel as someone left behind by a victim of cancer with the event itself. It can only be seen as a release, and ultimately will result in a reunion, if you believe.
It is not inconsistent, you just don’t believe it. That’s fine; me neither. But don’t pretend it’s stupid, when it makes perfect sense.

>>17066814
>Why is cancer evil, its a lump of cells?

The fact that there are cells to being with is Evil.

>>17066817
>Your reasoning is based on this life = good, and anything that might take you away from it “undeservedly” = bad.

Not at all. Good = at the very least not suffering, Evil = suffering. Life and death are parallel thereto. By this definition, cancer and the life it is part of, are Evil.

>>17066721
Sorry bro I don't really understand how anything I said implies anything similar to what Darwin said.

>>17066794
If God would ever allow you to suffer, it's for you to spiritually mature. Worship of God isn't just anything purely formal or an intellectual assent to the proposition "that God exists", it's at least an activity but could also be considered a way of life in general. I will warn that this question is impossible to exhaustively answer, because by definition, God's goodness isn't completely comprehensible, and what we could comprehend is revealed by Him. To summarize, evil that befalls us can lead to spiritual profit, and if we hold spiritual profit to be good rather than material, than what God does is in fact good. We could try to entertain some possibilities or even actual examples. I have a relative who was immobilized a bit by a tumor, but it led him to become more religious (which doesnt translate to more virtuous, but its a start) and a lot more thoughtful of his own evil actions, to be a lot more responsible in his life. He got better fortunately.

>>17066814
Don't you think it's a tad strange to recommend reading a pre-Christian philosopher but recommend nothing Christian? Like, Job would have been a great example of literature to read.

>>17066816
>forcing others to suffer because of your own ideals is unchristian
>god forcing man to suffer because of his own ideal (of creation) is unchristian

What did he mean by this?

>>17066449
>you have to both accept Jesus and also do good works in order to be saved
not really biblical. faith implies works. you dont even go to hell for being a bad person you go to hell for not forming a relationship with god which is fucking dumb.
the bible is cool and I like it but it gets really fucking stupid and hand wavey under any serious scrutiny imo

>>17066854

You and Darwin agree that man's only purpose is serving something utterly alien to himself.

>>17066854
>If God would ever allow you to suffer, it's for you to spiritually mature.

You haven't answered his question.

>Why not drop a package from the sky with a million dollars and a note that says "Love you bro - God" why not actually show himself to mankind if he wants them to chose him?

>>17066860
I'll tell you what I meant. It's own to make others suffer for your own ideals because the moral duty to save others takes precedence over the "duty" of being pacifist. God's wish is to offer us grace, to bring us close to Him. What he does is analogous to a father's relationship with his children. But we dont have that sort of relationship with a lot of people, it's not in our place to allow them to die because we fear for our own, fallible, imperfect notions of goodness inferior to God's.

>>17066867
I don't agree that God, especially since He became incarnate is utterly alien to ourselves. It's serving the One Who created us and is completely good, serving your genes isnt necessarily good but serving God necessarily is.

>>17066905
>serving your genes isnt necessarily good but serving God necessarily is.

Why?

>>17066891
Yeah I forgot. Because it's kinda stupid bro ngl lmao. God doesn't want us to be rich in money as much as He wants us to be rich in virtue. Why not? Because for whatever reason, that won't be spiritually profitable. A reason could be that the money will lead to sin.
>>17066905
>It's own to make others suffer
retard moment, meant wrong not own.

>>17066910
God is perfectly good, which extends to His will. To serve Him is to do His will, which is necessarily and perfectly good.

Your genes dont have to be necessarily good. For an example, a gene that inclines you to do anti-social behavior. Anti-social behavior is wrong, so we shouldn't "serve" such a gene although Im not entirely sure what "serve" means. Do you mean reproduce and perpetuate it?

>>17066449
>Owning God with FACTS and LOGIC
REPENT

>>17066913

You claim to know that money is not spiritually profitable but suffering is.

>>17066706
too high iq post, need to dumb it down

>>17066921

What is your experience of God as perfectly good? According to you, all he does is make people suffer.

>>17066923
I don't deduce it like some abstract argument, it's what taught in the Scriptures as what God did and induced from what God typically does. Since I believe that God is real and divinely provident, I interpret the world with that in mind. I don't see God pulling off stuff like that, and it seems strange compared to other things He has done so I would think that He would most likely not ever do that. I do see God using suffering, whether in the Bible, or in my own life and even for me personally.

>>17066928
Come on now, I know that I said that if He ever allows that (should have used "when" tbqh) it's for spiritual profit in the end. I even gave the example of my relative. My experience of God as Someone good is a God who wants us to be good, and gives us many chances and sometimes disciplines us to bring us back to goodness.

>>17066937

Where in the Scriptures is it taught?

Nobody has given an answer to the closing line of OP:
>>17066449
>A country has been occupied. Centuries now. Their customs are getting erased, their identity muddled, their people fucked to nothingness. Eventually they rise up and kill the conquerors, gaining freedom. Do they all go to Hell?

>>17066947

Is there any amount of suffering that will convince you otherwise?

>>17066966
You're right, I forgot. My own answer would be I very much hope not, but God's judgement isn't so easily known like that. We can speculate that perhaps some were too cruel in their war against the unjust conquerors, but that's just what I called it.

>>17066963
I'm sure there are plenty of other places, for me personally the entire book of Job comes to mind, or the countless times the Israelites apostastized or became only nominally religious only to get BTFO usually by pagans until God rescues them when they repent.

>>17066972
No, Id rather put faith into God rather than faith into my own fallible reasoning. I think it's impossible for a human to autonomously judge God.

>>17067020

What distinguishes this from worshiping an entity that is totally Evil?

>>17067016

The only clear thing at the end of Job is that he profits materially, that he even agrees with God's non-answer is tenuous. Your second example is also one of material profit.

>>17067034
There's no good answer from this on the Christian side because they're afraid to give it: God isn't good or evil, but both and neither at the same time. There's no devil, just God. The existence of Satan would only weaken God.

If a child is raped and murdered, it must be for the Greater Good, and the Will of God, because it is and it happened. I personally actually believe this, despite how terrible it sounds at face value. There's no such thing as a mistake.

>>17066449
You've reached the correct conclusion, but you're argumentation is cringe and faggoty, so I will post a basedjak now. Let this be a lesson for you.

>>17067082
>from nature we come and to nature we return
sounds familiar

>>17067081

How far are you willing to go? Would all people being tortured forever suggest that he is Evil?

>>17066449
You seem to think God cares about our human form and earthly suffering. When in fact he cares only for your the soul.

>>17067109

Who made the human form then?

>>17066449
>why would He create a world full of Evil
He didn't. It's entirely on humans.
>Cancer is not a consequence of Free Will.
Cancer isn't evil either. It's tragic for the plans you made for yourself, presumably, but if God exists, your plans matter little.
>. No shit someone living in a nice gated community with no interacions with the underclass would find it very easy to be a great Christian.
Christianity literally spread by the lowest class and a good part of them were publicly tortured lol Pretty sure being sheltered is not the key.
>Some dumbfuck kikes killed each other and now we're all somehow stained. That still doesn't do a good job taking into account everyone's living conditions and luck.
It does take living conditions into account. Luck by definition cannot be accounted for.
>The guidelines set in the Bible are too contradictory
Not at all too contradictory to act them out, no. When confused, consult the experts.
>faggots. But why is it a Sin?
Because it's a mis-use of sexuality, as it doesn't lead to reproduction.
>Tolstoy reached the conclusion that to be a proper Christian you need to abolish states and armies.
That's on Tolstoy. He knows nothing about God's plan.
>>inb4 REEEEEEE... REEEEE
Cool.
>Do they all go to Hell?
Christians are instructed not to judge.

>>17067105
God is the supreme being, and if existing, would see and know all time, space, etc... The ability to judge something so immense and all-encompassing will forever elude us.
In short, it couldn't suggest he is evil, because the concept of Good itself (if seen from that level) is dependent on God, not on us.

God is truly terrible - in the ancient definition of the word. Droughts, earthquakes, wildfire, and plagues are rightfully called Acts of God even by insurance companies. The Hindus have terrifying forms of God for a reason.

>>17067126

And you do not intuit the Christian God as the abolishing of the hierarchy rather than its apotheosis?

>>17067137
I'm not a Christian. Matters like this, to me, are the concerns of Men, not God. Civilizations and religions are specks of dust and only embued with meaning by our minds, which see only part, not the whole.

>>17067166
>"theology" indistinguishable from materialism yet again

I'm tired of this shit.

>>17066449
cancer isn't evil

>>17067034
I think such a God is definitionally contradictory, and I'm also not a fideist. Maybe you want to ask, why this God and not another?

>>17067057
That doesn't exclude spiritual profit. The Israelites did come back and repent of their sins. As for Job, Job understood his own limitations in understanding God, and then confessed God's dominion over all. God's answer is first that Job is simply too fallible and limited to fundamentally know God's reasons, only He would know. So Job repented of questioning God's justice, then he acknowledged that his righteousness wasn't apart from God. Then he acknowledges that God doesnt just have dominion over physical things or humans, but over satan himself.

>>17066449
>like I said, I don't like fags
>It's OK for me to judge things, but God? Where does He get off judging things?
Aren't you a little old to be posting things like this?

>>17066646
The Bible is extraordinarily valuable, but genuinely believing in its God is fucking retarded. You have been brainwashed.

>>17067234

Why would it be contradictory?

>>17067234
>As for Job, Job understood his own limitations in understanding God, and then confessed God's dominion over all. God's answer is first that Job is simply too fallible and limited to fundamentally know God's reasons, only He would know. So Job repented of questioning God's justice, then he acknowledged that his righteousness wasn't apart from God. Then he acknowledges that God doesnt just have dominion over physical things or humans, but over satan himself.

This is not clear from the translation alone.

>>17067176
I'm not sure I understand your frustrations, anon, but I'm willing to try if you explain further.

>>17067313
If we go by the classical definition of omniscient and omnipotent, then what is God's will would necessarily be good. Omniscient and omnipotent (there's also omnibenevolent ofc but thats no fair) means infinite in knowledge and infinite in power. God would always do the greatest action, because He knows what it is (omniscience) and He has the infinite ability to do so (omnipotence).

>>17067277
ok anon

>>17067320
IDK man I read it and I think that's clear. In the beginning of chapter 40, Job repents and humbles himself, and in the beginning of chapter 42 after God's homily he confesses that God is all-powerful, divinely provident and that he spoke of things he didn't understand and says he repents. What's your interpretation?

>>17067544

More Materialism, that God knows what the greatest, presumably you mean the best, action and that he can do it does not necessarily mean that he does do it. That would be ultimate incontinence, indistinguishable from how the vacuous Cosmos allegedly acts according to Materialism: planet fulfills condition A and condition B therefore planet moves as such.

>The Essential Guide to a Redditor's Midwit Arguments Against God

>>17066449
>you have to both accept Jesus and also do good works in order to be saved
Stopped reading here, realized I was in a pseud thread.

>>17067612
Uh, I fail to see the relevancy of materialism. But ok, do you wish to say that God will not necessarily do what He considers to be the best action to take?

>>17066449
>Cancer is not a consequence of Free Will.
Its a consequence of biology

>>17066449
>Then why would He create a world full of Evil, Sin and Temptation?

You’re mistaking normie interpretations with the Actual Bible, it says clearly in Isaiah 45:7 that god creates all evil and the term for evil used is the same one used in genesis.

> Then why does evil exist?

Depends on the theological system but in general it’s a movement towards the non-being nature of god and man, which is pervaded by God’s burning desire, which if embraced and fulfilled becomes the fire of heaven and if rejected is experienced as the burning fire of hell and lack. See boehme, Paracelsus and pseudo Dionysius. Alternatively in the Old Testament hell is conceived of as just eternal sleep/rest which would mean they’re just entering back into unmanifest ineffable potentiality.

> But it's really not. Cancer is not a consequence of Free Will.

It’s a result of sin, as is the decay of nature and of animals and death in general, the Bible is clear all of the earth suffers because of imperfection, the wound in nature/being. This wound is how man and nature does not satisfy the perfection of God because the world is not yet complete. Creation won’t be done until the end of this world.

> The guidelines set in the Bible are too contradictory and specific for God to either be a strict father, or an all-loving faggot. For example, Sodomy is a Sin and sends you to Hell. Fine, I don't care, I don't like faggots. But why is it a Sin? Why exactly would a guy who takes it in the ass go to Hell, the same place as a murdering rapist?

Sin is imperfection, it’s literally an archery term meaning missing the mark, imperfection. By not obeying the divine will and mind you are producing imperfection which makes the desire of god unsatisfied in creation. Resulting in your annihilation/concealment. All imperfection is imperfection, if you are not perfect you by your own merit cannot have salvation. This is why the christ is necessary. Only by the perfecting of our imperfect reason and natures through the perfect reason and nature that is the Christ, by a change in our nature’s, a repair in the wound of man, can we be saved.

The Bible says all states and governments are appointed by the will of god and the Bible casts its self as a heavenly monarchy, prior to Kings the preferred government system was a prophet led theocracy. Tolstoy is a fiction writer not a serious theologian.

Turning the other cheek is balanced by Christ saying to take a sword and defend yourself. Balance in all things. And there’s nothing against just killing in the Bible only unlawful murder, if you believe you are doing a legal killing against conquerors this would be legal.

Try actually reading the book.

>>17067793
I like this post.

The fact that answering these questions requires an immense amount of mental gymnastics is what turned me away from Christianity. Actually reading the Bible just comforted me in the idea that abrahamism makes absolutely no sense at all.
In the end it always either falls apart upon analysis, or boils down to "God works in mysterious ways".

>>17067733

Yes. Necessarily doing something simply because you can do it is contrary to any Subject.

>>17067793
Not OP.
>Try actually reading the book
You can't actually read the Old Testament and claim Yahweh to be anything else than a wrathful and vindictive entity that behaves more like a capricious king than a supreme deity, much less the perfect and uncreated Absolute.
Yahweh's behavior too conveniently anthropomorphic for me to take seriously. Why would the divine give us such a stupidly specific set of rules to follow? Why would he act the way he did, especially in the OT?
Either you handwave a bunch of crucial details and try to reconcile the rest with Neoplatonism like what Eckhart did, or you admit Christianity is not so different from Judaism and Islam in that it's just a set of arbitrary laws supposedly given by a God that is simultaneously the expression of ultimate transcendence but also somehow gives a shit about the fate of some random desert tribe.
I anticipate the responses I'll get to be typical brainlet dismissals like >>17067626, but who knows

>>17067793
>It’s a result of sin, as is the decay of nature and of animals and death in general, the Bible is clear all of the earth suffers because of imperfection, the wound in nature/being. This wound is how man and nature does not satisfy the perfection of God because the world is not yet complete. Creation won’t be done until the end of this world.
>Sin is imperfection, it’s literally an archery term meaning missing the mark, imperfection. By not obeying the divine will and mind you are producing imperfection which makes the desire of god unsatisfied in creation. Resulting in your annihilation/concealment. All imperfection is imperfection, if you are not perfect you by your own merit cannot have salvation. This is why the christ is necessary. Only by the perfecting of our imperfect reason and natures through the perfect reason and nature that is the Christ, by a change in our nature’s, a repair in the wound of man, can we be saved.

Isn't this just a Cosmic arbeit macht frei?

>>17068201
God is on your side, God creates covenants with your people and bless you if you follow them. Judaism is pretty simple. The new testament is way more confusing.

>>17066449
We all know this dude except for the very devoted LARPers that won't change their mind anyways

>>17068272
You're approaching the tanakh from a secular Christian perspective. The laws aren't arbitary for people who believe because you (and your family) are blessed for following them.

>>17068297
Legalistic theology is fucking retarded

>>17068297
A god that is good would not give children bone cancer.

>>17068333
Did he give you bone cancer?

>>17068320
>The laws aren't arbitary for people who believe because you (and your family) are blessed for following them.
That's a circular argument.
Contrast the laws in Christianity with the rules outlined in Buddhism: the former's legitimacy is reliant on the guarantee of subsequent salvation, while the latter are meant to be experienced through a direct beneficial influence on one's life and their legitimacy is therefore founded on experiencable good, not just faith.
This is just an example, I'm definitely not shilling for Buddhism since I'm a platonist.

>>17068353
Not me personally.

>>17068297
Old- heeb supremacy justified by muh higher power wanting only your people for some reason to follow the Decalogue and genocide and enslave all other peoples.
New- All of humanity should follow the Decalogue to achieve world peace.
Wow so confusing |___|

>>17066449
Christianity is a cope religion for people who are cut off from ancestral rites and ties to land and kindred. What is more it has been superseded by a religion which is even more individualistic and universalist.
Stop wasting time trying to sort out its contradictions. Religions such as this are a symptom of a grave illness.

>>17066449
It's time to write a new collection of parables and stories to dispense and stimulate moral wisdom. What do you call it?

>>17069066
Elbib Eht

>>17069082
I'm sure some postmodern cunt already made this joke

>>17066859
Christianity is based on Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy

>>17066449
>problem of evil
Once again, God is the pure act that upholds the whole of creation. What we perceive as evil is the "lack of something good" from our point of view. Evil being a lack of something good means it does not exist. Now you may ask: "Why did God create a world where I lack something?" And fair enough but if you did not lack anything, you would be God. And ultimately that's what you're going to be once your soul rejoins him after death.

>God as a strict father or an all-loving *****
Those are imperfect metaphors for God so as to make his being understandable to humans. God is neither strict nor all-loving, he is beyond both.

>>17066449
>Cancer is evil
Wrong

>>17069252
wow i didn't know Plato and Aristotle wrote the bible

>>17068333
>A god that is good would not give children bone cancer.
Right, because a good God would grant her life. Which he actually did, she lived.

>>17068243
But this is practically if not literally a redundant truth. God is not arbitrary and God has His own reasons. When He does something, He does so because in His infinite wisdom He considers it to be the greatest action. To imply that God, when faced with a hypothetical choice of an inferior choice and a superior choice could conceivably choose the inferior option and remain God is wrong because it attributes irrationality to Him.

>>17069368
God has made himself intelligible through nature. This is why you find no culture on earth that lacks the idea of the divine. This rational intelligibility lacks revelation as a guiding light and so we arrive at various corruptions of pure natural religion. Aristotle and Plato were pious pagans and adherents of pure natural religion. They intuited basic truths about the divine but ultimately lacked the knowledge of revelation. Still, if one ventures into the area of rational rather than revealed understanding of God it is licit to draw upon the understanding of those pious Greeks. Read the Summa Theologica for further information.

>>17069398

He is then indistinguishable from the Materialist Cosmos, and, by your arguments, triumphantly so.

>>17066479
Why are we paying for something that cuck Adam did?

>>17069573
>He is then indistinguishable from the Materialist Cosmos
To those that only look at material in the cosmos, perhaps.

>>17069584
it do be like that sometimes

>>17069399
>Aristotle literally was a champion of "Just Wars" and thought that Greeks should be the Masters of the rest of the world, which he desribed as Slaves
>Plato literally broke down society in three categories and considered certain people subhuman
>"they're totes the same as my Jewish God who tells me to forgive the killers of my children, because in Hell they'll be tortured for eternity"
Damn, so close.

>>17069618

That is what Materialists do, by definition.

>>17069734
>straw man of Aristotle
>straw man of Plato
>straw man of the Bible
Teach me, oh wise one.

>>17069765
Yes. That's my point - their optics are at fault.

>>17069799
>I don't like it therefore it's strawman
Tell me again how Aristotle wasn't a Supremacist, faggot.

>>17066449
Sin is separation from God. Any action which a person takes which is not what God would have that person do (and which is therefore their "free will") is sin. Therefore, evil is most likely extreme sin, if God is good.

Now, why allow this sin? Well, it's necessary, at least for this first run. For a soul/person to exist, they must be separate from God to some extent (or else they would just be God and not a soul), and therefore, each person is fundamentally born of sin (separation from God). So, God gave us this world to live that initial birthed-person's life in, and for the most part left us to it, but only as a consequence of the overwhelming majority choosing to further sin/separate, as opposed to following God.

So now we can see that it may be God's fault, as the initial cause, that there is so much sin in the world, but it is man who has brought that sin into the world, because he chose to use his faculty as a separate will from God to distance himself further from his creator.

A good Christian is not a coward, because it takes immense strength to resist the urges of the 'flesh' (the ego, the personality separate from God) and follow the guidelines which the Lord laid out so that persons might follow a course more similar to what he would have those persons do (to not increase their separation from God).

Now, regarding the guidelines...

>>17071266
Regarding the guidelines, if one thinks of the consequences of not following them, it is clear why God would want us to follow them. Masturbation of itself does not seem so wrong, right? But if one feels compelled to masturbate upon seeing any suggestive images, would not this trained behaviour also lend them to act upon seeing suggestive dress out in the wild, and to then engage in frivolous sex without the intent of establishing a long-term partnership, or even as part of an affair against a long-term partnership?

On to the issue of evil occuring which is not the cause of man. We could talk about the chain of causes which may have led to the 8 yo developing that cancer, but let's say it was truly a spontaneous random thing without any human cause. Well first off, some believe the child COULD be put to euthanasia and not go to hell, if they did not yet fully understand their separation from God and their ability to resist sin, or if they did understand and accepted Christ already. Secondly, if this event is somehow something which God specifically ordained to happen, even though it could have not been ordained, then I think one must assume that God has a reason. If God is the perfect utilitarian or has some other moral prescription which maximizes good, then perhaps this event is necessary for such ends.

But perhaps the kid developing cancer is a random occurence in this world which has RNG elements and which God only created the engine for, maybe also the seed.

>>17071343
And if we should say he prescribed the initial seed for this RNG, then I will fall back again to the wisdom of a being outside of time to decide which seed should maximize good in the world.

And so finally we reach the topic which you seem to have missed: Christ.
>Why exactly would a guy who takes it in the ass go to Hell, the same place as a murdering rapist?
We could discuss whether a good God actually does condemn people to Hell for rejecting his sacrifice of atonement for their sins. But let's say he definitely does. If this is the case, he must send the gospel of Christ to every end of the Earth as soon as He came, or else not condemn those who at least recognized their sin and felt repentance, or else he is not a good God. With that amendment of not condemning the repentant who have yet to hear the gospel, it is possible for every soul to be saved, but without it, some would be doomed to Hell without a choice, and God would not be good.

So we shall either assume that amendment is the case, or there is somehow a chance for every person before death to accept God and forsake their separation.

Now, my final topic is living...

>>17071495
On living: you are free to live a life of sin. You should feel that it would be better for everyone if you cut out as much sin as you could, if you came as near to God as possible. But you are free to keep separating yourself. And I think that in the end, you are free to eternally separate yourself, via Hell, which may not quite be the brimstone place, but certainly would be quite shit with NO presence of God, or might even just be the void if you should believe that consciousness is impossible without the presence of the Lord.

But if you examine any utopia, or you study philosophy and economics and government and all of this shit, then you should see something. You should see that the only way to have a good society is for each person to not do what God would not want them to do. Now, I'd have to do some more thinking on whether this would mean there is only ever one choice, doing EXACTLY what God would have you do, or if you would be free to choose from a set of decisions which God would approve at any fork.

But the only way to have such a good society would be...

>>17071586
...for each person to die to the ego they have built separate from God, and take no action which God would not want. And so it seems that we are destined to die, and those who cannot accept a life prescribed by God will go elsewhere, and those that can will enter the new kingdom, but only after they have been made clean. Perhaps physical dying is enough to be clean (alongside the sacrifice of Christ, who is the Lord that came down and lived a perfect life and died such that we should be able to be made clean, and whose resurrection embodies that each person may be made anew to live eternally with God), but perhaps we all go through some bit of Hell so that we may see the end result of total separation and forever know why to act in accordance with God.

But the new kingdom is something to look forward to, and each person should want to do their best in this life to live as though they are already there, to lessen the shittiness in this world. And sometimes we will fall again to the temptation of the ego, but our place in the new kingdom is waiting, so long as we do not decide we would rather be eternally separated from God. And that is a conscious decision.

>>17066449
Read Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue with God the Father.

Reading it, it is persuasive enough that I really believed it was such a dialogue. It answers a lot of your questions - to an extent.

Albeit, not this one:
>But why does fucking man-ass matter to God?

Intercourse allows for the creation of new life. As such, it is sacred, or should be. Hence the prohibition on fornication, adultery and sodomy.

That erection of yours? There's a reason for it -- it's to plant to seed in the garden of life, in the womb of your beloved.

>>17071750
God gave me too many of them for comfort though

>>17066449
the world is evil because its seperate from god, only god is good. in christian theology, goodness is the only real thing that exists. evil only exists in the sense that a shadow is the absence of light. so wherever god isn't is evil. god is not in the world, so the world is evil. Whats the problem?

>>17066449
God did not "create" evil because evil dues not properly speaking exist; evil is just a privation of good. He created a perfect world, and as such, it would only be fitting for Man, as Imago Dei, to have free will like his Creator. Because Man chose disobedience/disrespect, corruption/sin was brought into the world. Now that Man is back under the moral headship of God in Christ, he can be saved. There is nothing to fear in this life, for no matter how much suffering one endures, one experiences infinitely greater perfection and good in Heaven. It is awfully shortsighted to think only of this mortal life rather than the life eternal. Mortal sins are mortal sins because they transgress what is good and proper and perfect, i.e. God Himself.

Free will is literally just a cope invented by Christians long after the original movement's leaders were dead to try and handwave the PoE away. The fact that nowhere does the New Testament ever once use the concept of "free will" to defend human evil should have your alarms blaring already, let alone the fact that Paul often expresses a deterministic mindset and never expresses an *explicit* free will mindset.
Its cope. It needs to stay nebulous and hard to define because if it is clearly defined and argumentatively taken down, millions of white lukewarm Christians everywhere would have a mass panic attack hyperventilating over the fear that maybe Heaven isn't real and when you die, that's it. For them its either this or nihilistic atheism.

>>17069573
I completely fail to see how. God is simply (supra-)rational and consistent with His own nature. Are you by any chance more aligned with divine command theory?

>>17069252
Not completely, especially with the greek patristic teaching rather than the post-Schism scholastic teaching. What do you think some similarities are?

>>17066850
>evil=suffering
Retarded unjustifiable assumption. Evil strictly being defined as suffering by whos standard, yours? Without God there is no objective ethical standard from the get go, so your definition is a subjective opinion. What if suffering can lead to good?

>a redneck cant be a billionaire so free will doesnt exist

>>17066449
>Is that God's plan for the world?
Unironically yes. That's what the story of the Tower of Babel is about. God is scared shitless of humans using their free will and reaching their full potential.
This is also why the only forbidden fruit in the garden was the one that openes your eyes and makes one like God, knowing good and evil, and why God lied and said this fruit would kill anyone who touches it.

>>17075556
>God is scared shitless of humans using their free will and reaching their full potential.
Unmoderated will of human beings is harmful for humans, not God who is necessarily unable to be harmed.
>God lied and said this fruit would kill anyone who touches it.
Adam and Eve died the moment they ate the fruit (spiritually), so this was no lie.

>>17066449
How is cancer evil (or good)?

>>17075556
>God can experience the emotions you experience
it's no wonder you don't believe in God, your conception of Him is less than that of a 5-year-old's.

>>17066721
What?

>>17066794
Because not only is he all powerful and all loving, but all knowing. His insight goes far beyond ours, and while we may THINK god "should" act a certain way because it would benefit us, we do not see all ends and all means like God does.

I don't necessarily believe in this kind of God, but this is where the "God works in mysterious ways" idea comes from, which is a pretty effective counterargument to any problem of evil questions, even if it is hard to accept in practice.

>>17075573
>Unmoderated will of human beings is harmful for humans
So when humans build a tower, differentiate between good and evil, or try to reach immortality, their free will goes to far but dying from cancer is okay?
>Adam and Eve died the moment they ate the fruit (spiritually)
Huge mental gymnastics. They became like God, is he also spiritually dead?
>>17075668
>God can experience the emotions you experience
Of course, the Bible says he experiences jealousy and wrath. Have you not read the Bible?
If he can't feel those emotions, he wouldn't be omnipotent.

>>17075850
>not understanding that the bible is literal and allegorical so people of all mental stripes can understand

>>17076108
>I don't like this part so it's a metaphor
>I like this part so it's literal

>>17066449
>straight away assuming God = YHVH
wrong from the off. Your arguments all apply to that retarded crap. Not to God.

>>17076135
it's both. hermeneutically, the Bible was written for people of the times and people in the future, we're meant to understand the words therein as having double-meanings, some are meant to be taken literally, some are not, some are both. when God is shown to exhibit emotion you must understand that literally every man of letters over thousands of years did not understand God to be some old man in the sky. hell, every fucking educated man throughout history knew the High God to be completely ineffable, and their idols (pagans) were not literal manifestations of their gods in regards to non-abrahamics. please search for your common sense.

>>17075850
>So when humans build a tower, differentiate between good and evil, or try to reach immortality, their free will goes to far but dying from cancer is okay?
When (fallible) humans embark on a course destined only for their misery and suffering, yes I'd expect God to intervene to prevent it.
>Huge mental gymnastics
You're literally taking the words of the devil at face value. Here though,
>They who say that Adam was so formed that he would even without any demerit of sin have died, not as the penalty of sin, but from the necessity of his being, endeavour indeed to refer that passage in the law, which says: "On the day you eat thereof you shall surely die," Genesis 2:17 not to the death of the body, but to that death of the soul which takes place in sin. It is the unbelievers who have died this death, to whom the Lord pointed when He said, "Let the dead bury their dead."
St. Augustine On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants Book One Chapter 2

>>17075850
>If he can't feel those emotions
Again. In every passion of the appetite the patient is
somewhat drawn outside its ordinary, even, or connatural
disposition : a sign of which is that these passions if they
become intense cause an animal's death. But it is impos-
sible for God to be in any way drawn outside His natural
disposition, since He is utterly unchangeable, as was
shown above. 2 It is therefore evident that these passions
cannot be in God.

Moreover. Every emotion that is accompanied by a
passion, has one definite object, according to the mode and
measure of the passion. For a passion has an impulse
to some one thing, even as nature has : and on this account
it needs to be curbed and ruled by reason. Now the divine
will is not in itself determined to one in things created,
except by the ordering of His Wisdom, as was proved
above. 3 Therefore there is no emotional passion in Him.

Again. Every passion is in a subject that is in poten-
tiality. But God is altogether free of potentiality, since
He is pure act. 4 Therefore He is agent only, and in no
way can passion take place in Him.

Accordingly all passion by reason of its genus is absent
from God.
St. Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles Chapter 89

>>17076236
>When (fallible) humans embark on a course destined only for their misery and suffering, yes I'd expect God to intervene to prevent it.
Then why didn't he stop Adam?
>words of the devil
Lol, it's a snake, nowhere does it say Devil.
Augustine is a gold medalist in mental gymnastics. He uses adjectives that never were used in the Bible to prove God isn't what the Bible describes him as. He is arguing for a Platonic God, not a Biblical.

>>17076345
>Augustine
Fuck, I meant Aquinas.

>>17066814
>Why is cancer evil, its a lump of cells?
Cancer in itself isn't evil, but God permitting young children to suffer of cancer seemingly without end until they die is certainly at odds with the idea that God is infinitely benevolent

>>17076345
>Then why didn't he stop Adam?
God does not override mans will to choose, which is precisely what Adam did. Adam /chose/.
Sirach 15 RSVCE
>Do not say, “Because of the Lord I left the right way”;
for he[b] will not do what he hates.
12
Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”;
for he had no need of a sinful man.
13
The Lord hates all abominations,
and they are not loved by those who fear him.
14
It was he who created man in the beginning,
and he left him in the power of his own inclination.
15
If you will, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
16
He has placed before you fire and water:
stretch out your hand for whichever you wish.
17
Before a man[c] are life and death,
and whichever he chooses will be given to him.
18
For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
19
his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every deed of man.
20
He has not commanded any one to be ungodly,
and he has not given any one permission to sin.

>Lol, it's a snake, nowhere does it say Devil.
This has long been held to be so by the Church Fathers. Else who was bruised?

Were my well-thought paragraphs too long for you to deign to read? Therein lie the answers to all of your questions, and yet you continue to repeat them. Man is born of separation of God, so that he may have an ego/identity/soul/body, and this ego is free to act how it wishes.

If one must insist on taking the garden of Eve as a literal historical fact, then I suppose we would have to say that man was initially made separate from God but not able to do that which God would not have him do except to eat a literal fruit off a tree which would suddenly make him capable of unlimited freedom of will. And so of course man was curious, and if we must again say there was a literal snake in the garden tempting him, then yes, it is time to tackle whether God is good.

Is it better for there to have been two souls laying back in eternal bliss forever acting just as the Lord would have them, or for the pair to disobey, and for millenia of suffering to result from their ability to disobey their God, and for each man to be redeemed - through God's sacrificial offering and man's conscious choice to repent - so that each one can decide it would rather live in eternal bliss?

>>17076478
decide IF it would rather live in eternal bliss. Some think it such a hellish thought, let them choose.

>>17076478
> but not able to do that which God would not have him do except to eat a literal fruit off a tree which would suddenly make him capable of unlimited freedom of will. And so of course man was curious, and if we must again say there was a literal snake in the garden tempting him, then yes, it is time to tackle whether God is good.
You're simply ignorant of what you are talking about anon. Adam had, as all people do, a free will except that he had no concupiscence. Adam was free to do anything he wanted as he always was free to do. He chose to break the command of God, and so he lost the supernatural gifts of grace he and Eve were uniquely afforded.

If anyone thinks heaven is a hellish thought it is not because they have anything worth saying, but only because they are suffering the price of sin more greatly than others. It is indeed their choice, but it is not possible to say that either choice is as good as the other.

Very based, OP. Everyone here who is unironically Christian/Religious is fucking delusional.

>>17076447
In one post you say God should stop us when we make a bad decision and now you say he shouldn't. Make up your mind.
>Church fathers
Literally fan fiction. God's punishment explains why snakes crawl on their belly. That's it.

>>17066449
Holy.... I want more...

>>17076562
>In one post you say God should stop us when we make a bad decision and now you say he shouldn't. Make up your mind.
You're again just mistaken. God is right stop our /actions/ when it is appropriate to do so. As he did with the tower. God does not stop our will from choosing those actions.

>>17066706
i'm an avid reader but damn, i needed to reread that like 5 times to get it

>>17076602
or alternatively, different anon's amendment:
God might be free to specifically intervene in man's sinful affairs (in this case, destroying some aspect of the individuality he gave them, and substituting it for identity with a global society, and therefore furthering that whole group's separation from God).

OR man might not have really ever been able to bring about such a tower, and God's intervention was merely the intervention of the RNG/fundamentals of the universe he created.

>>17076602
So he could have stopped Adam and Eve from eating the fruit since that's an action.
>>17076660
>God might be free to specifically intervene in man's sinful affairs
How is the original sin not "sinful affairs"
>OR man might not have really ever been able to bring about such a tower
>The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.

>>17066449
The answer for your questions is love.
Only pure people, those that have love for God, can enter Paradise. You can't love God without knowing what is the sin, is there any normal person that loved God and never committed any sin? No, because you love God, a pure love with all your hearts , when you struggle. Praying, fasting and fighting against your instinctive nature increase the love in your heart and your faith. Being tempted by sins, avoid them for the love that you have in your heart. Being tested, suffering for it, increases your love and is necessary; faith must be watered down. In Islam is obligatory praying five times at day and fasting, you struggle and your faith increase, you love more God and you're happier. Without love you cant enter Paradise.

>>17076690
Again, you're simply ignorant of what you are talking about. You're supposing you know best what is Good, but you don't even know what Good is. You're profoundly ignorant of this subject.

>>17066449
>Whatever God does is good
Never really liked this argument; just because a higher power defines what is good does not mean one still cannot criticise them.

>>17077019
Calling everyone in this thread ignorant doesn't make you seem any smarter.

>you killed and raped my daughter?
>joke's on you faggot, I'll forgive you now and in the next life you'll be raped by burning cocks for eternity
>oh, you keep on killing and raping?
>shit, you'll uh get the same sentence

HELLFAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH

What I don't understand is how free will can exist when people are destined to do certain things in order to cause God's predetermined future.

>>17077127
It's simply the truth anon.