/lit/ - Literature

>>17845703
jt;dr

>>17845703
earth was never meant to be some peaceful paradise in any religion so i don't know why people would think otherwise.

>>17845703
BROOOO WHY ISN'T EARTH FUCKING HEAVEN

>>17845722
unless you're God you can't make a claim like that

>>17845714
fpbp, please kill yourself op

>>17845703
There are a few theodicies I find at least sort of convincing
1. God can alter the past, see Shestov
2. We can't understand God's reasons for making the world as it is any more than a child understands why their parent makes them do something that is good for them
3. God is not omnipotent but a force of good against a relatively equal force of evil

I wanna shoot my cummies in her tummies

>>17845703
Our conception of good is just positive phenomenology from our subjective points of view as individuals. If God, the Idea, whatever, exists, everything we believe is real, right or wrong goes out of the window.

>>17845703
He’s not benevolent because pain exists? Pretty limited view ngl.

>>17845703
>am i wrong
yes

>>17845703
>Am I wrong?
Yes. Lack of benevolence, especially purely from a human perspective does not mean there's no rules or form. 'anything is permitted' is wrong even from a basic material/causal standpoint as is it clear that some things work well and some things don't. the higher details being imperceptible don't change what is immediate.

>>17845804
Not just pain. Unspeakable evil and suffering.>>17845812

>>17845703
there's no virtue in being good if everything else is good, and there's no virtue in being good if you didn't choose to be good

Op here. Can anyone refute this?

P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

P2. There is evil in the world.

C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

P1a. God exists.

P1b. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

P1c. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

P1d. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

P1e. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

P1f. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

P1. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

P2. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

>>17845703

>>17845703
God is benevolent, humans are just fucking retarded and think they know better so they dont listen to him. He literally told us exactly what we needed to do to maintain heaven on earth and we didnt do basically any of it. How is that his fucking fault?

>>17845857
I hate you fags, who think this is some great idea, the greatest minds in history have been contemplating Christian Theology for thousands of years, and you think they haven't thought of solutions to the problem of evil? At least read the wikipedia page on this and then maybe you can discuss why you disagree with already established arguments instead of having to start from the beginning and explain this shit ground up to brainlets every fucking time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Free_will_defense

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

—The Epicurean paradox, ~300 BCE[148]

>Women won't have sex with me therefore God isn't benevolent.

>>17845737
Tell us, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be

>>17845884
The problem of evil isn't reconciled. Theologians have to jump through all kinds of hoops to try to come to terms with it

>>17845884
>and you think they haven't thought of solutions to the problem of evil?
Not any good ones, no. Free will sure isn’t one

>>17845857
>>17845872
>if god real why life hard?
>why god no make life easy?

>>17845703
This is it. If I don’t Masturbate one more time to pretty girls on the internet, it’ll be the longest without fapping I’ve ever been.

>>17845906
>when everything fails, use memes
A fitting end to theology

>>17845890
Based and dare I add sir, redpilled

>If god real why bad thing happen
Damn dude, that changes everything. I'm an atheist now. Tranny porn here I come.

>>17845888
>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Malevolent by who's metric? Man's? See, I never understood that idea of judging God like you would judge any jerkoff on the street. Not even presidents and kings are judged the same way as the commoners and you people have the gall to attempt to judge God like he's Billy Suckerman? Ridiculous.

>>17845934
Why does evil exist then?

>>17845946
>Malevolent by who's metric? Man's?
Are we capable of understanding sin and evil. If not then why are we punished for it? If yes then we can apply those same standards to god.

>>17845932
>>when everything fails, use memes
>A fitting end to theology

>>17845953
what if you really fucking deserved it?

>>17845946
>Malevolent by who's metric? Man's?
Weren’t the prophets and the people to whom God’s wisdom was revealed men? Or were they perfectly reliable, with absolutely zero religious and cultural biases?

>>17845964
The only defense is "God has his hidden reasons"

>>17845888
>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
is he?

>>17845976
>what if you really fucking deserved it?
Deserved what? And for what reason?

>>17845953
Because you're a fag

>>17845970
>refute the accusation of relying solely on shitty memes
>by relying solely on a shitty meme
Another instance of the famed Christian intellectual tradition

>>17845992
what if you really do deserve this tragedy and pain life gives you?

>>17845988
well yeah

>>17845998
>>refute the accusation of relying solely on shitty memes
>>by relying solely on a shitty meme
>Another instance of the famed Christian intellectual tradition

>>17845988
Yes? How is that not malevolent? If you can help, but don’t, you’re an asshole. I know that telling others to follow an ethic of compassion while simultaneously not following yourself is standard amongst Christians, but that doesn’t make you less of an asshole

>>17846007
what if the painful experience of life gives makes you better? wiser etc.?

what if you just straight up DESERVE to suffer?

what if the reason you suffer is like the buddhist interpretation, where it's actually your own clouded interpretation of discomfort?

What if allowing you to suffer is a means to a better end? or stopping your suffering destroys your freedom? or some other more important principle?

these are just spitballs here, but, it does have to be justified that someone else not removing the pain from your life is malevolent.

>>17845857
>>17845872
The easy answer that room IQ people could come up with is that there is an equal opposing force in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god existing that counters the good.

>>17846051
omnimalevolent*

>>17845964
>If yes then we can apply those same standards to god.
But this has never been the case and there's no reason to do so. God is a cosmic king of sorts, not a commie peasant. Different rules apply to generals, to referees, to leaders. The fact that you want to apply the same rules to everyone, even the Creator himself, a divine entity bigger than us, only implies to me that you have some sort of communist leanings and a commie worldview as well that permeates to everything you see, thus, making you incapable of recognizing the different hiearchies that exist elsewhere.

>>17846021
>If you can help, but don’t, you’re an asshole.
that's not malevolent, that's just callous.

>I know that telling others to follow an ethic of compassion while simultaneously not following yourself is standard amongst Christians
i don't get why you want to pretend you're being intellectually honest, when you say things like that. Maybe you should go to reddit or something.

>>17846046
That's seems retarded though. Those are insane things you have to pretend to believe.

If you have the power just make life great.

>>17846088
>That's seems retarded though.
go back to r3ddit.

>>17845703
>If God even exists there's no way he's benevolent. Am I wrong?
On a technicality, yes, and more generally, still yes. But maybe something omnipotent and omniscient exists which is evil. It's not the only possibility though.
>And if he isn't benevolent that means anything is permitted. Am I wrong?
Absolutely wrong.
>So this wild shithole we are living in now is exactly how things should be.
Extremely wrong as well.

>>17846051
So he's not omnipotent then. There is an evil force he is unable to stop that's stronger. Which means he malevolent and not worth your consideration. Now we're in a dualistic situation. Or are there more gods anon?

>>17846101
good one, I must admit. You're still stuck with huge mental hoops you have to jump through to justify yourself though

>>17846112
"Malevolent" by who's metric? Your average redditor's? You keep repeating that like it's a fact.

>>17846060
>But this has never been the case and there's no reason to do so. God is a cosmic king of sorts, not a commie peasant. Different rules apply to generals, to referees, to leaders. The fact that you want to apply the same rules to everyone, even the Creator himself, a divine entity bigger than us, only implies to me that you have some sort of communist leanings and a commie worldview as well that permeates to everything you see, thus, making you incapable of recognizing the different hiearchies that exist elsewhere.
So its okay when god does it? God can allow genocide, torture and pedophile and its okay because hes god. Why are there different rules for god? Also why is that morally acceptable? See I don't make excuses for genocide or pedophile ever, period, because they are wrong, I would never say that its okay period, because I am not a scumbag.

>>17846123
listen, I think you're a piece of shit. What if GOD thinks you're a piece of shit.

What if you really DON'T deserve it to have life just BE GREAT?

>>17846112
>So he's not omnipotent then. There is an evil force he is unable to stop that's stronger.
There is an evil force that is equal in power and neither of the two can fully cancel each other out; an unstoppable force meeting and unmovable wall so to speak. It isn't that it isn't all powerful/omnipotent, its simply that it isn't the only omnipotent force on the field.
>Or are there more gods anon?
Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not even remotely close to being well-educated on the topic, but didn't early versions of Judaism not denounce the existence of other gods; just simply stated that there was only one true God and to not worship beings below him? I'm pretty sure someone told me that the whole Moses story underlying theme with the plagues was God just shitting on the Egyptian ones.

>>17846130
malevolent by how it's defined in the dictionary you fucking dumbo.


Let me guess. Your god is malevolent is only ways he knows.

>>17846060
If god told you to rape a baby, would you do it? He is god after all, you can't question the morality of his demand, hes the cosmic king.

>>17846145
I see now, you're autistic

>>17846155
nta,
well the bible DOES say you should be ready to murder your son on command without question.

>>17846061
>that's not malevolent, that's just callous.
Not if you’re omnipotent, which your god is supposed to be

>>17846141
>So its okay when god does it?
Yes.
>Why are there different rules for god?
I don't know, man. Maybe because he's literally GOD. The Creator of the Universe.

Question: Do you lean left or not? Do you favor socialism and communism?

>>17846170
I mean it is like the first story of man, god makes them, they fuck everything up and so he punishes them by making them live on earth.

If we choose to interpret scripture literally like you redditors often do.

>>17846155
Now this is malevolent projection and dishonest thought. Show your nose.

>>17846178
>Yes.
So you would kill your whole family if God told you to?

>>17845703
Your and God dont have the same goals. >>17845872
>P1a. God exists.
Yes
>P1b. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
Yes
>P1c. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
Yes
>P1d. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
No.
>P1e. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
Yes.
>P1f. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
No.
>P1. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.
No.
>P2. Evil exists (logical contradiction).
No.

>>17846197
Why are you avoiding the question? Would you or wouldn't you, by your own logic you should. I would never, I'd rather die. But you think raping babies is the right thing, if god says so.

>>17846210
>>17846197

>>17846197
That's basically one of the most famous stories in the bible though, not 'rape infant' but Abraham ordered to kill his son is pretty close.

>>17846217
How about you answer my question first? Yes or no?

>>17846178
>I don't know, man. Maybe because he's literally GOD. The Creator of the Universe.
So if god asked you to rape a baby would you, yes or no?

>Do you lean left or not? Do you favor socialism and communism?
No, you stupid faggot, I find it very funny how to justify your bullshit you have to categorize me with some political label. I am right wing.

>>17846176
>Not if you’re omnipotent,
there's no special clause in the definition of malevolence that makes this true. malevolence is the seeking out of suffering of others out of hatred, enmity and so on.

callousness no matter how easy it could be to solve isn't the same as intentional harm. you could call it cruel maybe, but it's not harm anyone worked to inflict upon someone.

But we're going off on like a technicality at this point and deviating from the real important part of the discussion. Go back to r3ddit

>>17846220
And Abraham would have, but god interfered. Now why stop at killing your son, why not rape him if god commands it, why not torture him if god commands it? Why not?

>>17845881
Because he's all powerful so everything is his fault or not.

>>17846243
Anon, i can only get SOOOOO erect!

>>17846243
That was my point, you're not supposed to disobey God. if you can second-guess him then the whole thing falls apart

Perhaps God would not order anyone to do such a thing though.

>>17846236
>malevolence is the seeking out of suffering of others out of hatred, enmity and so on.
So there’s nothing wrong if you cause suffering by omission? If you see someone get beaten up, and you have a gun, but you simply don’t intervene and let the person be beaten to death, you technically didn’t commit any act of violence, but is that very moral, according to you?

>>17846258
the fundamental point of that story is to say that even if your dream (abraham's dream is having a son) gets shattered, or you have to let it go to follow GOD(the tautological truth or righteousness etc.) you do it. And usually you get to have your dream, but it's not guaranteed.

I have no idea what kind of moral implication it is when you interpret it literally is.

>>17846270
Would technically just not be malevolent, would still be uncaring/callous

>>17846258
>you're not supposed to disobey God.
How many slaves do you owe? How many non-believers did you kill this week?

>>17846258
>Perhaps God would not order anyone to do such a thing though.
And you continue to avoid the question.

If he did would you or not?

If you would you have no morality, you have no beliefs, you have no basis for them, at any moment god could contradict himself and you would be incapable of ever admitting that to yourself. It makes you more akin to an animal than any idealized version of a lucid human being.

Would you or wouldn't kill and rape, even if the victim is a child, if god asked you to?

>>17846285
I have 4 slaves but I am behind on my weekly non-believer killings

>>17846233
You can't be Godless and right-wing. We already had that discussion in another thread. As for your dishonest and filthy question, I reject your premise.

>>17846294
>You can't be Godless and right-wing. We already had that discussion in another thread. As for your dishonest and filthy question, I reject your premise.
What is the premise that you are rejecting?

Also why can't I be godless and right wing?

>>17846292
I wouldn't but I think we are supposed to assume Abraham would, and that it would therefore be the right thing to do according to Jewish or Christian dogma.

>>17846051
Yeah right, as if Christians would ever accept dualism, your best bet would be the cathars and those got exterminated a long time ago, assuming they even existed in the first place.

>>17846292
Also I think it is hard to really say what you would do if God actually revealed Himself to you and you knew absolutely it was Him. Would blow up your whole worldview properly, maybe most people really would just do anything He asked because the material world would suddenly seem insignificant

>>17846281
So you don’t know the difference between commission and omission? Malevolence by omission is arguably worse than malevolence by commission, because it’s much easier to get away with. However, you still haven’t addressed the fact that your god is omnipotent, which makes his malevolence by omission infinitely worse than that of a human. A human has limited capacity to help everyone in need, while your god by definition will literally not break a sweat if he resolved all suffering in an instance. He quite literally has no excuse, and you don’t either

>>17846294
>You can't be Godless and right-wing
Why not

You all are getting caught up in the Tales of the Abrahamic God. Everything in the Jew part of the bible is just symbolism and myth. It's not to be taken literally. If you take it literally you have to reconcile the fact the the old testament god is fucking crazy and murders and will. He is jealous and causes/allows unthinkable suffering even to his closest followers. (Poor Job) Also, read Jung.

>>17846304
>I wouldn't
On what basis would you have not to?

>>17846294
>I reject your premise.
You refuse to answer because you're afraid of the answer, because it reveals that you're scum.

>>17846314
>Also I think it is hard to really say what you would do if God actually revealed Himself to you and you knew absolutely it was Him. Would blow up your whole worldview properly, maybe most people really would just do anything He asked because the material world would suddenly seem insignificant
If people would do anything than who's the nihilist?

>>17845703
>that means anything is permitted. Am I wrong?

>>17846270
>So there’s nothing wrong
again i said this was a technicality. it's not malevolence though. you can call it cruel, but malevolence is a specific thing, and this doesn't fit the definition of malevolence, it fits the definition of callousness. you picked out the most irrelevant technical part of the discussion like a true redditor would.

look, i'm a naturalist, but if you suppose that you should interpret the bible literally. Suffering during life is like a punishment where you have to deal with your rotten self and siblings making everything awful for each other. And it's also for like infinitesimally small amount of time compared to the infinite length of bliss you get anyway.

like if you really do take the literal interpretation seriously, this is like a shitty waiting room where they just ask you not to fuck anything up and then you go to heaven. He gives you the right to be a piece of shit, gives your family the right to be pieces of shit to each other and then you all get lumped with the consequences and then he forgives you for it, and you get to feel better forever.

>>17846155
>If god told you to rape a baby, would you do it?
According to the Bible, yes, if God himself told you to skin your son alive you have to do it or else you're going to hell.

>"Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions gods infinite love."

You people are retarded dogs

>>17845872
The problem is that you're using an implicit definition of evil. What you define as 'evil' is not the same as what God defines as 'evil': individual acts may be in and of themselves evil, but in God's eyes, they comprise and contribute towards a more perfect, more total good. If this, to you, means that God isn't 'good' in the way you define it, fine, but it solves the paradox and avoids contradiction.

>>17846270
is it malevolent to just watch an ant drown in your sink and not bother to pick it out of the water bowl?

>>17846243
What a childish argument. Is this the level of atheist discussion on lit? Even youtube comments argument really more intelligent.

>>17846316
Well that's just what the word malevolent means, you can't be passively malevolent.

>>17845857
God is immortal and omnibenevolent, but He is not omnipotent or omniscient. Older Zoroastrians argued this.

>>17846319
>On what basis would you have not to?
i'm not Christian and if a god appeared to me I would probably not trust him depending on what he said.

>>17846316
>So you don’t know the difference between
look you really talk like an insecure midwit redditor. go back.

>>17846292
But he wouldn't ask. Gtfo with your retarded "what ifs"

>bbbut Abraham
Nigga none of us are Abraham

>>17846352
If you know that that ant has developed an advanced level of consciousness, where you know it can experience all the all the fear and pain you intentionally fail to save him from? Very much so

The truth is that evil does not exist, there isn't anything that is actually evil.

Murder isn't evil, rape isn't evil, theft isn't evil, and so on and so forth.

>>17846337
It's not nihilism, it's just meaning determined by God, not by your ideas of material world.

>>17846343
>if God himself told you to skin your son alive you have to do it or else you're going to hell.
This reveals that all your morality is, is a carrot and stick, this proves that all morality is consequentialist. It also proves that you don't truly have a morality, as you have no basis for it. See >>17846346


If god rewards you for raping baby and skinning them alive, would that make flaying and raping babies okay?

If god punished you for be a good person, be sacrificial, living the life of Jesus and helping those in suffering, would that make those things bad?

If so why?

>>17846352
Assuming you loved that ant, yes.

>>17846343
the Bible does not say that
another poor argument from a child

>>17846385
>This reveals that all your morality is, is a carrot and stick, this proves that all morality is consequentialist.
Hey, don't blame me, blame the guy upstairs, he's the one calling the shots.

>>17846355
>What a childish argument.
I have to dumb down the argument so that your capable of understanding it. Still despite its simplicity you refuse to answer.

>>17846372
Can you not even conceive of a hypothetical?

Who are you to say what god will or won't ask?

Can god that ask that of you?

>>17846374
what did you eat for dinner last night?

>>17846359
So when your country falls under the control of a totalitarian government, that government decides to arrest and execute your whole family, and all your neighbors and friends conveniently have other matters to attend that day, you won’t ascribe any malevolence to them?

Remember, this is just talking about humans, and not an omnipotent god

>>17846393
If Abraham refused to kill his son God would have sent him straight to hell and you know it.

>>17846383
But god clearly believes in nothing.

Neither do you because you'd do ANYTHING he asks you to.

>>17846390
okay now what if after drowning, that ghost ant is fine and shows up at your other house, and he's infinitely blissful forever after because you gave it to him?

>>17845857
>There is evil in the world.
Prove it

>>17846292
There hasn't been any written text or record of Christian origin where God would randomly ask people to rape babies. Abraham's child sacrifice was a unique case and of a another nature.

>>17846408
No, that's cowardice, callousness, etc. not malevolence, just look up what the word means

>>17846419
Are you saying I need to go on a killing spree to send people to heaven?

>>17846400
>Hey, don't blame me, blame the guy upstairs, he's the one calling the shots.
I don't believe in a "guy upstairs" because I'm not retarded. See >>17846402

>>17846409
See >>17846385

>>17846402
If you have to "dumb" it down it just means your argument is retarded to begin with.
If God isn't real then how are you experiencing conciousness?

>muh hypothetical
We are not Abraham, his story was already told.
Your obsession with baby rape is quite disgusting also.

>>17846408
dude, they're correcting you for getting the definition of a word wrong. YOU'RE ON LIT you fucking mongoloid.

>>17846417
You can't question God's beliefs and actions, you don't know what he believes in, you can't just say it's nothing, you are clueless. And you do believe in something, you believe in God

>>17846423
>There hasn't been any written text or record of Christian origin where God would randomly ask people to rape babies.
Continue to avoid the question.

Do you have no balls or are you to stupid?

Would you or not?

>>17846407
Nothing that’s ever possessed something even close to the consciousness of a human. Then again, I’m not a god, and if I don’t eat food that is partially based in suffering, I starve to death

>>17846409
Where does it say if one does not commit murder they go to hell? I'll wait

>>17846319
I refuse to answer because the premise is faulty and intellectually dishonest. It's like one of those childish "would you rather..." trick question students did in middle school.

>>17846426
yup.

>>17846426
Not that guy but I've always said that the greatest good anyone could do would be to willingly doom himself to hell by killing as many newborns as they could to make them reach heaven and save them from earthly sin.

>>17846433
>If God isn't real then how are you experiencing conciousness?
I do not know, and neither does anyone else, at least I have the balls to admit it.

>>17846436
Do you claim to know the mind of god?
On what grounds?

>>17846425
No, because I’m talking about humans, who aren’t all powerful. Your god is, which makes him malevolent

>>17846442
>if I don’t eat food that is partially based in suffering, I starve to death
go eat some plants and beans and stop killing conscious creatures. The relative difference between your consciousness and the literal interpretation of god's consciousness is way bigger than yours and a cow's

>>17846438
No because it is a sin and God would never ask me to do such a thing.

>bbbut what if he did!
Lmao imagine having to resort to arguments such as that
Gtfo with your baby rape obsession you sick freak

>>17846445
Going against God's will is a terrible sin.

>>17846448
>I refuse to answer because
you're a lying coward

>trick question students did in middle school.
Hows is it a trick question? Its a trick only in so far it exposes you for what you are. Its the most basic moral question one could ask.

>>17846438
Can't answer something that's intellectually dishonest. Just because you asked a question doesn't mean that the question is well-thought. I reject your hypothesis.

>>17846470
12 commandments
And it was never God's will for Abraham to actually kill his son

>>17846457
No I don't know the mind of God, that's the whole point. If I knew he wouldn't have to tell me to do anything would he

>>17846450
Based

>>17846459
okay, actually you're a mongoloid or trolling or something, this is too stupid of a take. just use the right definitions for words idiot. calling god an asshole for being callous is what you actually want to say, but you keep pushing this incorrect word malevolent, like an idiot as though we lack google. that's not what the word means. start using the right words.

>>17846476
I'm not sure why Godless leftists are so obsessed with questions about God telling people to rape babies. Quite bizarre.

>>17846467
>God would never ask me to do such a thing.
But if God asked would it be a sin. See again you avoided answering the question by changing the question. I said if god asked.

>Lmao imagine having to resort to arguments such as that
>Gtfo with your baby rape obsession you sick freak
You're the coward who refuses to answer. I'm the sick freak, very funny, because I would never rape a baby, you would if god asked you to, or wouldn't you. See you still haven't answered.

>>17846487
>No I don't know the mind of God, that's the whole point. If I knew he wouldn't have to tell me to do anything would he
Then why did you say this >>17846436?
>>17846502
>I'm not sure why Godless leftists are so obsessed with questions about God telling people to rape babies. Quite bizarre.
Because you scum would. That's why you're mentally ill vermin that should eradicated.

>>17846476
>Hows is it a trick question?
Because it's a big if without any true precedent in scripture or saint history. Fundamentally dishonest.

>>17846497
You’re getting very triggered over this

It's the law of the strong.

If someone is stronger than you they can do whatever the hell they want since you won't be able to fight back anyway. And there is nobody stronger than God, so what he says goes.

>>17846512
>It's the law of the strong.
>If someone is stronger than you they can do whatever the hell they want since you won't be able to fight back anyway. And there is nobody stronger than God, so what he says goes.
Exactly

>>17846502
If god demanded you fulfill my fetish for being degenerate and rape babies like i constantly joke about doing, and to have tons of premarital sex, and believe in genocides like the communist dictatorships of the last century developed by atheists, how dare you think he's moral?

>>17846155
>If god told you to rape a baby, would you do it? He is god after all, you can't question the morality of his demand, hes the cosmic king.
What kind of backwards arguement point is this. What anons decision to do has zero bearing in a divine being's system of morality. You should be questioning god, not the anon.

Trump lost get over it.

>>17846510
>triggered
what are you gonna upvote me next?

>>17846507
Those two posts say the same thing, that you don't know God's mind, you just have to obey him.

>>17846509
>Because it's a big if without any true precedent in scripture or saint history. Fundamentally dishonest.
Why can't I offer a hypothetical, and why are you so cowardly that you refuse to answer it?

It tells me everything I need to know anyway, I expect nothing better than christcucks who worship the magically jew on a stick.

>>17846512
>>17846518
survival of the fittest

>>17846522
>What anons decision to do has zero bearing in a divine being's system of morality.
Yes it does, if that divine being asked him to do it. How is this not true?

>>17846507
>Because you scum would. That's why you're mentally ill vermin that should eradicated.
Sounds like projection to me. You're the one asking sick dishonest questions from your own imagination and then telling people they're the sick ones when they reject your intellectually dishonest premises and your general hypothesis.

>>17846528
>you just have to obey him.
No I would never obey him, I determine for myself my own morality, I make my beliefs, I decide what is and isn't wrong. I'm not some dog to be lead. Fuck god, if hes exists hes a cunt.

>>17845703
not liking the game is part of the game, you stupid user faggot.

>>17846537
>How is this not true?
Because it isn't relevant. The question would be; would God make this request, and if it did for what reason/is it morally right. Looking for anon's answer is merely clarifying anons own position of morals, not God's.

>>17846541
>. You're the one asking sick dishonest questions from your own imagination and then telling people they're the sick ones when they reject your intellectually dishonest premises and your general hypothesis.
I'm asking hypothetical philosophical question that prove, through your refusal to answer, that you have no morality, and your no better than the people you claim to hate, but you to stupid to ever have the capacity to realize it. So this conversation is pointless.

>>17846529
Ask intelligent questions with an informed background instead of this sickening nonsense and maybe people would answer rather than rejecting your flawed line of questioning.

>>17846559
>would God make this request
Yes he would

> and if it did for what reason/is it morally right
according to you, because he asked

>>17845703
>babby's first atheist dilemma
every time

>>17846566
Coward

>>17846581
Degenerate.

>>17845703
that girl without makeup and editing software looks like a trainwreck. makeup should be outlawed and women should be forbidden from social media.

>>17845703
dios mio

>>17846572
>believing in a wizard makes me the wise grown up big boy

>>17846570
>according to you, because he asked
I dont believe in the Christian God, I'm merely pointing out that your argument is no longer focused on God but instead someone elses moral system. That's why it seems intellectually dishonest.

>>17846595
Seethe.

>>17846584
You're too stupid to have this conversation or comprehend the point that I've tried to get you to grasp. We're talking circles because you refuse to answer a question, because that question alone unravels your supposed "morality", you have no basis to call me a degenerate you rat. This is correspondence is over. See >>17846549

>>17846549
In the biblical scenario God has revealed himself to you so it's not really the same. It is also a bit ridiculous to claim you really make your own beliefs and morality

>>17845722
Christians believe god made the world perfect and humans ruined it through sin.

>>17846294
>You can't be Godless and right-wing
Lmfao you don't have a monopoly on being right-wing you fucking idiot

>>17846604
So did Allah in the Islamic one, which is the correct one?

>>17845703
you worry way too much about God and not appeasing the divines by being Olympian. god damn i hate the turn western civilization took with the abrahhamics.

>>17846616
You can't know. But in Islam and Christianity you aren't asked to do what Abraham was, you're just asked to follow the teachings of their prophets.

>>17846604
>It is also a bit ridiculous to claim you really make your own beliefs and morality
Only to the weak who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

>>17846604
>In the biblical scenario God has revealed himself to you so it's not really the same.
Do I, or do I not have free will?
If I have free will I can reject him.

Also how am I to know that I'm not hallucinating, or in some sort of simulation?
Can't I just to choose to believe hes a hallucination, if not then I don't have free will, god is now possessing me.

>>17846601
Your bizarre leftist scenario has imaginary actions of God (without any precedent in scripture) and then proceeds to attack that and act like that's such a big point when people decide that the question is not about God but about your degenerate fantasies trying to be imposed on other people. Your hypothesis is wrong and proves nothing but your own closeted philias.

>>17846610
You're indistinguisable from a twitter woke. Mere superficial disagreements.

>>17846637
Which prophets?

>>17846648
Your beliefs and morality are mediated by your society, it is exceptionally hard to go against it. And you can refuse God, but you would be condemning yourself by doing so

>>17846657
Jesus and Mohammed

>>17846549
If god exists he isn't taking an active role in your supposedly determining your own morality - which i highly doubt because your code is obviously drawn from influences. like most people in todays world, they are essentially extremist christians washed over with marxism.

>>17846655
Probably because you don't know anything about our positions except that we're secular.

>>17846672
In Christianity? That’s news to me

>>17846697
Jesus if you're Christian, if you're Muslim then Mohammed

>>17846233
>So if god asked you to rape a baby would you, yes or no?
this is what we call arguing in bad faith. it would be grossly inconsistent with god to ask you to rape a baby and therefore would not occur in the first place. but you're just trying to dig in at moralisms and use that to justify an extreme. the mongols used to skewer infants alive etc it's not a big deal to kill a child.

>>17846648
And thinking for yourself got you to what the current popular moral conclusions basically are? Or do you have a few hot takes in there you totally thought of yourself?

>>17846707
Also Jesus if you’re a Muslim, just as a prophet, and not a god

>>17846709
>it would be grossly inconsistent with god to ask you to rape a baby
How do you know? Are you God?

>>17846741
See
>>17846509

>>17846741
Scripture.

>>17846741
yes i am created in his image. which is why men have historically always praised the sun. god isn't going to ask you to rape babies. you have to be 18 years old to post here you know

>>17846709
>this is what we call arguing in bad faith. it would be grossly inconsistent with god to ask you to rape a baby and therefore would not occur in the first place. but you're just trying to dig in at moralisms and use that to justify an extreme. the mongols used to skewer infants alive etc it's not a big deal to kill a child.
No, it is a big deal. And if god asked me I would say no. You would say yes, so kill yourself faggot.

>>17846726
> Or do you have a few hot takes in there you totally thought of yourself?
My guide is my moral conscience, it has more to do with the human soul than rationality. You rats would compromise that conscience if your god told you to, that why you're lesser people.

>>17846758
I’m pretty sure the appearance of Jesus was also without much precedent, but that didn’t stop you from accepting it

>>17846761
And how do you know that’s complete? Also scripture?

>>17846766
That doesn’t answer my question. Are you God himself?

>>17845703
SEX

>>17846782
Appearence is different than fundamental actions. Stay dishonest.

>>17846772
>No, it is a big deal. And if god asked me I would say no. You would say yes, so kill yourself faggot.
ok?
>That doesn’t answer my question. Are you God himself?
google vibration, light, and frequency.

>>17846786
How? Is God commanding it not good enough for you?

>>17846772
>human soul
Lmaoooo

Yeah i dont believe in god but project why dont you fucking LARPing Uberman.

>>17846787
That doesn’t answer my question? Are you God, yes or no?

>>17846803
Yes

>>17846795
God isn't not "commanding" it and has never "commanded" the rape of infants anywhere but in your mind.

>>17846807
What number am I thinking of right now?

>>17846782
>but that didn’t stop you from accepting it
Seriously, I've been through this before, I don't believe in God. Stop assuming all your detractors are Christian.

>>17846809
Again, how do you know? He didn’t terribly mind genocid

>>17846795
would you do it if someone was forcing you or else they'd rape and kill a billion other infants

>>17846819
If youre the guy saying christians should be eradicated like vermin you dont seem to dislike it either. Maybe you see to much of god in yourself or something

>>17846823
I’d ask them to shoot me, or I’d fight them to death

>>17846841
you'd consign a billion infants to rape and death by refusing

>>17846835
Which I’m not

>>17846853
Then I’d try to kill the guy

>>17846863
he has you in a locked room, there is a timer with 1 minute left, there is absolutely nothing you can do

>What if you peepee poopoo when youre told to peepoo pee

Damn what do?

>>17846810
You are god too.
"in the beginning was the word"
Light, Frequency, and Vibration. Omnipresence is a form of life that we do not possess because we are material.
Work in scales of consciousness you can observe

[Basic Framework]
Cell > Ant > Dog > Human > ??? > ??? > ???
Following the Basic Framework you can see a clear and observable line of consciousness where each hierarchy on the line is dominant over the other in that it possesses a higher form of consciousness (e.g. the ability to know more -> we can predict the behavioral patterns of dogs for example "Pavlovs Dogs").

In this Basic Framework we can easily see that the lower you go on the scale the lower your degree of consciousness and therefore perception. A dog can feel pain and react to a specific owner hitting it, but an Ant has no knowledge of a human who destroys his anthill. When an anthill is destroyed, say, by a bored child for fun - the ant has no possible way (and never will) of understanding what had occurred. It cannot even consciously consider the possibility of higher forms of life. For the ant, all it is consciously able to perceive is that the anthill was destroyed and that it must be rebuilt. Being able to read the consciousness on the higher scale can be rendered completely impossible.

This is how reality is folded and how it exists. The crucial difference is only humans possess arrogance, and that arrogance is suggesting that the long line of Conscious Framework has an ENDPOINT at Mankind. Given the long line of observable conciousness at lower levels, it is simply a matter of logic to realize that a higher consciousness at varying levels of its own scale of power exist. You are just unable to grasp it, similar to an ant being unable to grasp the anthill that was destroyed. For an ant, the anthill may look a lot similar to what we perceive as our planet - but what is our planet in the conscious scale of things? You can't answer this I know, it's not meant to be "answered". I'm just trying to get you to stop being so god damn edgy for no logical reason and to LARP about "moralisms". you are a being of light, energy, vibration, and frequency - that alone is the only constant reality that forms the foundation for the ability to perceive anything at all along the entire length of the scale of observable consciousness. something to meditate on (which by the way is always used in connection with the production of frequency in hymns, etc).

>>17846503
>But if God asked would it be a sin
Yes it would still be a sin. But God wouldnt ask.
Keep making arguments like a retarded teenager tho.

>>17846884
Id Poopee the peepoo.

>>17846880
>this kills the dishonest sicko
BASED

>>17846880
I break the timer.

>>17846979
There's only two options:
a) Rape and kill a baby and save billions from the same fate.
b) Not raping and killing a baby and thus condemning billions of babies.
Choose now.

>>17846993
Come on man

>>17845703
>If God even exists there's no way he's benevolent. Am I wrong?
>he
>And if he isn't benevolent that means anything is permitted. Am I wrong?
You could say this god you speak of is being very strict
>So this wild shithole we are living in now is exactly how things should be.
Yes.
Or at least, relatively. Time move forwards, which implies change is to be made always.

>>17846346
>awaits anyone who questions gods infinite love."
Show me verses, entry to heaven isn't complex

>>17847087
That's the same kind of childish dilemma you proposed about God ordering people to rape babies.

>>17845703
Evil doesnt exist. It's a non entity
God didn't create evil. God's creation is GOOD, and failure to live up to that GOOD is Evil

>Useless off topic thread
>nearly bump limit
>no other shots of Neekolul

What the hell