/lit/ - Literature

>>18410488
>It's ok that god took everything Job had and killed his wife and kids, though, because god gave him a new family and more stuff than he had before!
I really like how Job gets a earthly reward for having withstood God's shit test instead of an heavenly reward in the afterlife. It really drives home the point that kikes didn't have a concept of an afterlife before copying it from other religions. Deprived of spiritual goods, they're only masters of material wealth.

>>18410488
God is not just some dude, he is the personification of being. Reality is a bitch, and recognizing the progenitor of our existence is a being that can be supplicated to and has an ultimate good end is the function of religion.

>>18410509
>God is not just some dude, he is the personification of being.
Nothing in the Bible indicates this. This is probably just a pseudo philosophical post-hoc cope of the ‘I am that I am’ quote, which meant something completely different. The rest is just more pseudo intellectual coping

>>18410509
naturalistic fallacy

>>18410488
God is a beta bitch who deserves everything Satan throws at him

>>18410488
In my eyes the or a lesson of the book of Job is that to choose evil over the Good which in this instance is God (conformity through obedience to the Divine Nature), is still evil as it would be even if Job had none of the horrific hardships and psychological anguish befall him. And it's a good text, because it gives us a lesson on spiritual objectivity.
Besides apart from bodily suffering and mental anguish, if the greatest evil is sin and sin is defined as being that which is the polar opposite of the Divine Nature, then it would appear that the love of evil and the conformity towards evil in itself is a greater peril that can behalf a human being than merely dying an untimely death by itself, as conformity towards evil directly suggests hatred and animosity towards God in the Biblical context, resulting in spiritual blindness which is antithetical to being a spiritual person.

>>18410488
>God tortures his faithful servant to prove a point to Satan.
Bible verse? Specifically where does it point out that he does so to prove a point to Satan.

>>18410691
Not that anon, but he may be referring to this? Though it is Satan who is trying to prove a point to God and not vice versa.
7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” 8 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” 9 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? 10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” 12 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

>>18410488
>Read Book of Job
>"God doesn't behave well!"
>"If a person behaved like this we would call him a cruel despot, a sadist, a monster!"
>"NOT COOl, GUYS!"

This is by way of being the whole point. The chapter is there to emphasize that God isn't a person and it's not for His people to judge Him. That's why His behaviour is made "unreasonable". Suppose the story went as follows:
* God behaves in a way that seems unreasonable
* Job gets annoyed
* The Job finds out all the facts
* Actually God was being reasonable, Job just didn't understand everything
* Job accepts this and stops being annoyed

Then the message would be: "You can apply the same rules of logic and morality to God as you can to people. If He behaves, in your opinion, badly, you are allowed to get cross with Him, and he has the duty to explain Himself to you. Then, if and when you're satisfied that He was justified in doing what He did, you can go back to liking Him again."

The whole point is, that's the wrong attitude. Remember the Old Testament was written for and by the Jews, who are the most stiffnecked, egotistical, logic-chopping, sea-lawyerly people in the history of the world. So it was necessary to make a big point of this.

To paraphrase: just shut up and take what He gives you and like it.

>>18410488

>>18410759
>>"If a person behaved like this we would call him a cruel despot, a sadist, a monster!"
Yeah I never got that either. If God really grants us eternity united with all things good, noble and beautiful, and all we need to do is keep the faith in this life, then assuming atheists understand this, could they really be arguing in good faith when they say
>if God real, why bad thing happen?

>>18410488
filtered

>>18410488
Was not the Satan introduced later?

>>18410759

What distinguishes this from Atheism?

>>18410785
>>if God real, why bad thing happen?
>if I repeat this meme as often as possible, the problem of evil will simply go away, somehow

>>18410759
And you can apply this logic to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, with the same ease

>>18410518
>unironically taking bible literally
Back to /pol/, christcuck

>>18411099
It is kinda a meme

The story of Job is a story of how easily Yahweh is fooled by a satan.

>>18411107
Sure, if you think that S or M or PP is God.

>>18411087
Err, literally everything. Not sure what you mean.

>>18411156

Everything you said can be applied to a vacuous Materialist Cosmos.

>>18411107
>>18411150
I mean yes, you're right, and that's why so many communist dictatorships have such a quasi-religious feel to them. Millions of Chinese people in the second half ot the 20th Century did indeed regard Mao with exactly the same blind faith that the Book of Job says the Jews should reserve for God.

>>18411168
Yeah that's true, the modern nihilistic atheism in the west can directly trace its roots to the bible.

Is there a satisfying christian answer to job, seriously?
also regarding those who say evil is just distance from good or whatever, how do you explain evil that doesn't have its roots in free will: earthquakes, disease, etc?

>>18411741

Same as every Job thread:

>The story itself is ironic in that the principle of Job being innocent is completely absurd, and people taking it as dogma are themselves exemplary of Job's perverse "innocence". It is implied that God could have destroyed everyone and everything around him, and Job would have thought nothing of it. Worse still, that he only thought about it once he became afflicted, was utterly unrepentant in his ignorance, but still self-aggrandized in both refusing to admit fault and refusing to consider that, if he is indeed innocent, anyone and everyone that God likewise tormented could have been innocent as well, making him the disciple of a monster. So many mutually aggravating offenses that they indeed make lesser "Mosaic" sin redundant and Job formally innocent thereof. God's non-reply being not only perfectly adequate in mirroring Job's casual monstrosity, but quite merciful as well in letting Job carry on as usual.

>>18411741
How is an earthquake evil? How a disease? Will men die? Perhaps, empires fall? Yes, sometimes that too would any of these things last forever if the world was an infinite series of natural hot tubs year round fruit bearing plants and STD free sex? Would man not then loudly proclaim how can there be a god when sometimes I am chaffed, and sometimes my face is covered in fruit juices!

>>18411954
>How is an earthquake evil?

By being part of the Phenomenal world, which is Evil.

>>18411981
>Ugg no understand place in phenomenal world
> Ouch phenomenal world hurt ugg
>Ugg no like phenomenal world other one be better! Even though I never understood this one the other one be better.

>>18412014

How would you know that there is such a thing as "a place therein"?

>>18410614
Only a fallacy if it's wrong

>>18410636
Satan be down in the lake of fire suckin toes, who's the real beta bitch?

Read answers to job by Jung

>>18410684
>>18410759
>>18410785
Get your well-defined explanations out of here, don't you know that /lit/ threads are exclusively for people who don't know what they're talking about?

>>18411099
It'll stop being relevant once the majority of atheists become remotely intellectual rather than repeating talking points from TV shows.

>>18411741
The text is a legalistic one and as such doesnt make Christians feel too good. Job is having an existential crisis, and his friends are totally wrong. God certainly does wrong Job. Job is blameless. The text itself establishes that at the beginning. The typical Christian extraction from the text is always a rephrasing of Eliphaz (some variant of have faith, and you are at fault) that God explicitly condemns. The real lesson is that God is sovereign, creation is good, and Job's attempt to call God to task is impossible since Job is using the concepts of Human justice which are not on the scale of or even relevant to the system of justice by which God operates Kierkegaard makes the same delineation between the knight of faith and the knight of morality. God points it out to Job when he asks him if he was there when the oceans were filled, when the sky was hung with the stars. It helps to think of it like Leibniz's monads. We cannot make moral judgements on a monad that is more privileged then us, anymore than an ant can know our motivations.

The best way for a christian to deal with the text is to realize that while Job had no way to litigate against God, ie he had no intercessor, we have Christ to appeal to in prayer and to transmit to us a degree of understanding of what God expects.

>>18411137
Honestly, the satan acts as an adversarial voice in God's court that allows God to create a very important teaching moment for humanity. And if you follow the lesson through to the end, assuming that God allowed Satan to make him do evil to Job, you are missing the point and basically taking on the persona and argument of Job.

>>18410488
>God can and will do anything he wants and fuck whoever he wants over for the most bullshit of reasons because he is God
Based

>God tortures his faithful servant
Lol - any pain that may befall a person is nothing compared to the blessing it means to have god's eyes resting on you.

>>18410488
>fuck what a sociopath
Now you're getting it. Now either you become a sociopath or submit to one and nod and wave to discuss the story in public or else face serious political and financial consequences. Remember Moses was a bolshes :)

>>18410501
This guy gets it. Straight to the obvious point that gut feeling should be a dead give away instead of thousands of years of "I JUST DONT UNDERSTAND. PLEASE RABBI LET ME GET MORE LESSONS I WILL REFINANCE"

>>18412163
I tend to agree with this. Job was tested and won. He doesnt lose his faith in God and denounce him. Instead he poses a philosophical question in response to his friends totally incorrect restatement of God's opinions, and God has to correct everyone.

>>18412099
The Jews got Jewed by their own God and they can Jew you like Job because they are your G-d

>>18412171
Job isnt Jewish though, he was an Edomite

>>18410518
Isnt it "I am who am,"

>>18412179
see
>>18412192

The hebrew it is written in is archaic and probably a translation since it has more individual works in it than any other book of the bible. It was probably around prior to the Yahwehists of the Exodus era

>>18410759
>just shut up and take what he gives you and like it
Huh where have I heard that before

>>18412195
Job came before exodus, so no YHWH. El would probably be more appropriate

>>18410614
Not an argument

>>18412206
Nigga what

Job only serves as a teaching tool to show how cool, edgy and powerful God is.
Hence the etymology of the word "Job", that's how the verb was invented.

>>18412219
The Yahweh cult only formed during the Mosaic period. Prior to exodus god was referred to as El (Lord) or El-Shaddai. Job wouldnt have been interacting with a being known as I am who I am (YHWH in hebrew)

>>18412230
this, its fiction and good fiction at that

>>18412192
>Job was an Edomite
Wikipedia article shows how convoluted this deduction is:
"
The land of Uz (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ־עוּץ – ʾereṣ-ʿŪṣ) is a location mentioned in the Old Testament, most prominently in the Book of Job, which begins, "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job".[1] According to Rashi, Uz is actually Aram. (As Uz, the firstborn son of Abraham's brother - as noted in Genesis 22:21 - was of the children of Nachor, which is Aram.) See Rashi's comment on Job 1:1.

According to the War Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the land of Uz existed beyond the Euphrates, possibly in relation to Aram. In Column 2 verse 11, it is noted, "they shall fight against the rest of the sons of Aramea: Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates."

Uz is sometimes identified with the kingdom of Edom, "

You really gotta split hairs and delve deep into the text there to find out the lifespan of Job and Esau to find that either Job was a resident or descendant in Edom

>>18412099
>Where were you when I mixed the gas? Where were you when I built the chambers? Do you at least have the dignity not to cough? Ha! Didn't think so!

>>18412233
>The Yahweh cult only formed during the Mosaic period. Prior to exodus god was referred to as El (Lord) or El-Shaddai. Job wouldnt have been interacting with a being known as I am who I am (YHWH in hebrew)
Welllllllllllp i dunno about any that, al-shabbahb or whatever, but anon i must say, smart as you are, im looking here at my ineffable King James, and I see what's there, and those words are all I need to know what's what. Thank you, anywho

>>18412247
You dont see YHWH before Exodus, its always Elohim Elohai, El, El-Shaddai. God literally tells Moses his name in front of the bush. Job too place probably 500-1000 years before exodus. Its in your KJV.

MUH
MORALFAG
TAKES

>>18412260
Genesis 35:11 and and 17:1 for instance

17 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty;[a] walk before me, and be blameless,

[a] Hebrew El Shaddai

>>18412242
I dont see how this is splitting hairs. He lived in northern arabia, he wasnt a hebrew

:DDD

>>18410509
Why are cucks like this allowed to make the Bible into whatever they like? If I was a pedophile, I could make the Bible into fucking children with my cock of being, granting their anus eternal afterlife with my cum. The Bible is meaningless at this point, any retard interprets it in their own way, to mean whatever they want it to mean. God is dead, he lives in 1000's of interpretations and in lukewarm believers, as a false figure of comfort. A transcendental justification for whatever bullshit anyone wants justified, a meaningless figure serving as grounds for anything.

>>18412260
Woah there, slow the roll Sally. I dunno who El Ahmed or whatsoever you said is. But the good book says it simple, and thats enough for this lil dog, i tell you.

>>18412099
>the 150 IQ take.
>>18412179
>the 75 IQ take,

>>18412303
>If I was a pedophile, I could make the Bible into fucking children with my cock of being, granting their anus eternal afterlife with my cum.

>>18412204
He God. Either get on His good side or get obliterated.

>>18412308
cringe

>>18412336
Now hold your horses. What do you mean by cringe? What is so cringe about me? Why must you be so cruel, sir

>>18410488
Literally a sadist.

>>18412312
Religion does not determine the character of the race but the race determines the character of the religion

>>18412260
This is an incredibly brainlet take. The word YHWH is used repeatedly prior to the Exodus, such as in Gen 2:4, Gen 2:5, Gen 3:21, Gen 24:35, and Gen 39:21. Even without this obvious observation, it only makes sense that although Job did not know the proper name and nature of God (that He is who Is, ergo being itself), this would not change the eternal nature of God. The story of Job is about the same eternal God, and so >>18410509 has a perfectly valid point. Plus, Hebrew tradition says that Moses wrote Job, anyways.

>>18413420
Right, or maybe the Yahwists made Yahweh took El Elyon’s place on the throne of the Canaanite pantheon, and then never left, a move which included the scribes of the royal court rewriting tge Bible several times.

This is also known as the explanation that doesn’t require mental gymnastics

>>18413441
El is a generic epithet for any God, literally meaning "Mighty", and Elyon literally means "highest". Saying that El Elyon is a different deity than YHWH is being completely ignorant of the ancient near-Eastern context of those words. Is Elohim also a different God? What about El Shaddai? It is obvious that these are all titles for the same entity, whos name is said to be YHWH by Moses - just like how Ba'al (lit. "lord") is a generic name for many other Canaanite gods, which are called the ba'alim (lit. "lords").

>>18410488
You are treating it like a story. If it is in fact real, then what about the family that was killed? What do they get? What reward did they get besides slaughter? Isn't their situation even worse than Job's? Even less reasonable, less just?

So you didn't read it

>>18411741
Creation is separate from God and therefore not perfectly subsistent. It cannot be perfect the way God is

>>18413482
No you fucking idiot. El was the high god of the Canaanite pantheon. In the Canaanite religion, he’s the creator god who created the heavens and the earth, and the leader of the divine council. His wife was Asherah, and occasionally his reign was challenged by gods such as Hauron and Baal. This is what he looked like.

>>18413486
Sauce on all four panels?

>>18413482
El =/= Yahweh

>>18410509
Wrong stupid nigger
Reality is what god made it
Fucking figure out anything you dumb fuck

>>18410636
God made satan
God made people
Literally nothing exists or is the way it is without god fucking doing it exactly like that
>booo hooo wahh imma pwunish yuu uwu y u do dat booo ;'(
Fucking nigger retard god and all dumb fucks that can't figure this out
IF YOUR GIRLFRIEND, WHO IS NOT AN ALL PERFECT KNOWING BEING, TESTED YOU ON CHEATING BY HAVING HER FRIEND TRY TO FUCK YOU, IT WOULD BE GOODBYE BITCH
INCOGNITIVE RETARDS ARE LIKE
HMM LIFE IS A TEST IT IS OK
God damn you

>>18410488
>ITT autist atheists who think they are the smartest people to ever exist because they didnt buy into the evangelical christianity that was forced on them by their abusive parents

Yes yes the only thing that is bigger than your ego is your absurd pride at thinking you are literally the first people in history of mankind to ponder these questions and that each of you is smarter than all of the people before you that pondered the same thing and reached their conclusions. And obviously that very same pride has you not only content with believing that you know everything about these texts despite being a 2X yo neet who has barely put any thought into them appart from a surface reading, but also acts as a defence mechanism by forcing you to imagine everyone who doesnt think the same as brainlets and their explanations as "pseudo-intellectual 20th century coping". Ive seen it a million times already, you are not as original or smart as youve decieved yourself to believe to be.

>>18410759
I am gonna be a giant faggot don't judge me tho you can't do that cus i said
Ok faggot

>>18410785
Dumb nigger it isnt why bad ting happin
It's that you are taking a whole fucking interlaced concept for granted
Like just accepting what you're told that you have no evidence of
I know your fucking idiot mind is already connecting your preloaded arguments heard time and time again to the words used

>>18413926
rent free

>>18410759
A god, infallible, CAN NOT BE CROSSED WITH. THEY ARE PERFECT.
THERE IS NO ROOM TO QUESTION.
IN YOUR RETARD JEW BOOK, THERE IS A LOT TO QUESTION.

>>18410488
filtered
>It's ok that god took everything Job had and killed his wife and kids, though, because god gave him a new family and more stuff than he had before!
not the point

>>18413857
Fear: Ивaн Гpoзный и cын eгo Ивaн 16 нoябpя 1581 гoдa
Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on November 16, 1581
by
Ilya Repin
It has caused madness in at least three people, including a death. Be careful anon.

>>18411954
You are so fucking diluted
God. Made. Every. Thing. All. Things.
There is NO. THING. NOT ONE THING WITHIUT GOD'S SUPPOSED DIRECT CREATION. IT SUPPOSEDLY MADE HORRORS AND SADNESS AND BADNESS AND HURT.
>good god
Fuck you god damn it there aren't words to describe how much hate I have for idiot thought

>>18413963
Thanks anon, much appreciated

>>18412316
Obliterate me nigger I am fucking waiting you cunt nigger fuck

>>18413845
he looks based

>>18413926
No we are as smart as niggergod made us you fucking cuck idiot

>>18413845
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. "El" literally means mighty or God, and is an epithet that can, and was, applied to many gods (like when in the Ugaritic texts, Hadad is referred to as "il hd" - "the god Hadad"). Just because there was a Canaanite god which had the proper name "El", does not mean that the word "El" used in every context refers to that god. Like I said, context is clear that YHVH is referred to as "El Elyon", as well as "El Shaddai" and "Elohiym". Your hypothesis that the usage of the word El (a generic and commonly used term for God/mighty, which was applied to many Canaanite gods) must indicate a vestigial presence of the god El that was edited over, is unsubstantiated. Do some research.

>>18412303
No one would read your bible

>>18413926
Not the smartest people to ever exist just cursed with the stupidest and most pernicious spiritual poison of a creepy pasta gospel to have ruined Rome and the World for a millennia that could have had Pax Germania and made hentai lmao
Me imagining yfw when I say made hentai real

>>18412195
What is it

>>18410518
How do you interpret that quote if not as God being being itself?

>>18411741
>how do you explain evil that doesn't have its roots in free will: earthquakes, disease, etc?
Could be demons/fallen Angels I guess

The righteous Lot fucked his daughters.

"But they forced him!!"

Bullshit. No amount of alcohol would be sufficient enough to fuck my progeny

Kikes are sick fucks

>>18414830
>Pax Germania

LOL fucking loser.

>>18413975
>hate God
See how that goes for you

>>18413926
someone who actually reads more than he types.

>>18410759
Christianity is the religion of broken bucks. From top to bottom (heh) it is a combo of post hoc cope and deep seated submissive complex.

>>18415362
Thats my favorite story in the bible. I use to jerk off to it when I was a teen.

>>18410636
t. Satan

>>18411131
>not taking bible literally
kys tranny

Lots of people giving elaborate justifications for this when the reason is obviously just that Bronze Age Jews had a very different value system than modern people do and were much more comfortable with attributing things like arbitrariness, vindictiveness, etc. to God, as was very common at the time throughout the Ancient Near East and most religion in general. It's like trying to come up with an explanation for why Zeus or whatever else could do such horrible things. It's just the result of a different culture and an earlier stage of religion. Same with all the other cruelty of the OT God.

>>18412260
>God literally tells Moses his name in front of the bush
part of me believes that God just said that was sort of piss of about how much of an autist Moses was being at that time, maybe because in my mind it plays like if he just screamed "IT'S ME, DUMBO" in the way that's always written in all caps.

>>18418115
>just said that was
just said that because he was*

Synopsis

Job, sorely tried in both flesh and possessions, curses man's fate. It is great poetry. His friends arrive and rending their garments, dissect Job's guilt before the Lord. Job cries out that he was right-eous. Job does not know why the Lord smote him. Job does not want to talk to them. Job wants to talk to the Lord. The Lord God appears in a chariot of whirlwinds. Before him who had been cloven to the bone, He praises the work of His hands: the heavens, the seas, the earth and the beasts thereon. Especially Behemoth, and
Leviathan in particular, creatures of which the Deity is justly proud. It is great poetry. Job listens: the Lord God beats around the bush, for the Lord God wishes to beat around the
bush, Job therefore hastily prostrates himself before the Lord. Events now transpire in rapid succession. Job regains his donkeys and camels, his oxen and sheep twofold. Skin grows over his grinning skull. And Job goes along with it. Job agrees. Job does not want to ruin a masterpiece.

Job is one of the deepest stories on the entire planet regarding theodicy. People like to discard it for shallow reasons, but it's only them that are hurting, because they will continue to hate what they don't understand. When your mom gets cancer, she is Job. When your grandmother is mugged and killed, she is Job. It is a story about why righteous people deal with evil. Read Job 38, at least, because you are doing yourself a disservice to disdainfully write off one of the best works of world literature because "muh God is a worse being than I am, I am so morally superior".

>>18413951
idk seems less questionable than drinking cum or w/e the pagan gods do when they're not out raping random bimbos

>>18410488
>God tortures his faithful servant to prove a point to Satan.
Based God, using the evil Satan intended to work Good. Job's test has helped millions.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. Genesis 50:20

>>18410488
>what a sociopath
He admits he enjoys doing so in Deuteronomy 28:63

>>18411954
It isn't evil but it is bad.

Imagine worshipping a jewish demon
praise the Sun

>>18418379
What does it mean then in your opinion?

>>18410488
That's Yaldaboath

>>18418379
Lmao that's what makes it so radical you nigger goof, I AM a superior being to a God that tortures his own children. Are you retarded? Stop downplaying the gnostic undercurrent behind youtube essay bullshit

>>18415362
>early civilization uses a story to establish incest as taboo
this is controversial?

>>18420221
please stop posting, reading your horseshit is like reliving being a know-it-all fedoralord 14 year-old again

>>18420300
loathsome insect nigger. I despise you

>>18410488
>the problem of evil still filtering brainlets of /lit/ in 2021...

>>18419885
not him but i suggest listening to this rabbi who admits the story has no clear moral message but postulates three possibilities. if you have read the story before, you can skip to the end instead of listening to the recap
https://youtube.com/watch?v=e9LB47o4Q9M

>>18410501
>It really drives home the point that kikes didn't have a concept of an afterlife before copying it from other religions. Deprived of spiritual goods, they're only masters of material wealth.
Do jews even believe in a spiritual afterlife? Or do they think that everyone will be raised from the dead upon the coming of the Messiah

>>18420327
yes they did. secular religious academics like the cunt who did the yale series on the old testament and certain fringe rabbis try to push this idea that jews never believed in the afterlife, ignoring numerous biblical passages about "sheol" the dwelling place of the dead and genesis mentioning enoch was taken from earth to be with god, and the book of enoch (which was "canon" in judaism for at least a hundred years) mentioning paradise.

>>18415362
>>18416787
Same desu

>>18420327
Its 50/50, you can go live with God (like Moses and the prophets), but the majority of people will go to sheoul. From dust to dust.

>>18410759
>actually God was being reasonable
Disagree

>>18410488
It’s simple: Job desrved this just as we all do. every single human being on this planet is so evil that they deserve nothing less than eternal torture. Christians must believe this, or else Jesus died for nothing. The amount of hate God must feel for mankind must be infinite.
>b-but Jesus
Jeus came to “save the world” except not really because everyone who doesn’t follow him is going straight to hell and Jesus HIMSELF says that most of those who do follow him will not be saved either. God picking a small group of his most obedient favorites and sending literally everyone else off to eternal torture? How is that anything else than immense hate for mankind

>>18410488
>Fucking christ, what a sociopath...
You say this like you live in some other world where this is not the essence of life

>>18420757
It's not hatred if you understand the full situation.
God is perfection. Absolutely sinless. As such, His perfection does not allow any degree of imperfection to reside with him.
We as people are tainted with sin and other evils, completely incompatible with God.
This is why he sent Adam and Eve out of the Garden, and why places like the Tabernacle and the innermost part of the Temples needed ceremonial cleanliness to even survive.
So He does love everyone (literally everyone) but if you don't decide to accept what Jesus did on the cross, then you're still incompatible with God, and thus, go to Hell (which isn't actually confirmed to be torture, just utter separation from God [which could be seen as torture under our current circumstance]).
That's just how it goes.

>>18420793
This implies that Sin > God. God could not just remove sin? He has to go through these hoops just to save maybe 10% of mankind? So God can create from nothing all the conditions for sin to come into existence but once sin inevitably shows up, he can’t do anything about it.

>>18420832
>This implies that Sin > God.
Incorrect, it's the other way around actually. God is so good that he absolutely BTFO's sin, so hard that stained people cannot survive around him.
>God could not just remove sin? He has to go through these hoops just to save maybe 10% of mankind?
>"What is the entire point of Christianity again?"
What's the point of having a conversation on the internet if one party doesn't even know the basics about what they're talking about?

This has been discussed numerous times but here's the tl;dr:
God wants relationship.
Relationship needs trust and respect.
God loves us enough to give us the free will to decide if we want relationship with him. This opens the way for sin.
>inb4 But can't God do X without Y?
No. Love requires a choice. A choice opens the possibility for poor descisions, If we were forced to love him it wouldn't be love (he already has angels for that). If we were forced to be clean it would mean we wouldnt have a choice.

>>18420943
>dodges the question
>y-you don’t know what you’re talking about
classic lmao
God could absolutely have freewill without the existence of sin, he is omnipotent. besides that, is it truly freewill when God demands us to love him or face eternal torment? that’s more of a threat than a choice.
Angels absolutely have freewill. This is not even up for debate. The weird automatons you seem to think they are have no basis in scripture. Actually they seem to get a free pass for a lot of things too. Consider this: when Angels sin, only those who have sinned are punished. Meanwhile TWO humans sinned ONCE and the ENTIRE race is damned by default.

>>18421079
>Consider this: when Angels sin, only those who have sinned are punished. Meanwhile TWO humans sinned ONCE and the ENTIRE race is damned by default.
Not that anon but those two humans were the progenitors of mankind. Which is why them sinning is big deal, as we're all descended from them.

God didn't directly torture anyone. Job was tortured by Satan and "God gave him permission'' in the sense that God permits humans and angels to exercise their will already, and he permits nature and disasters to run their course as well.

Job faced calamity as we all do, but to a very high degree, yet his faith remained.
the story of Job is an answer to ''the problem of evil'', not a question. When man humbles himself and relates correctly to his Creator then ''the problem of evil'' disappears.

>>18420943
>God loves us enough to give us the free will to decide if we want relationship with him. This opens the way for sin.
Problem with this response brother is that it implies there is no freedom of will in heaven and no possibility of a real relationship with God in heaven since there is no possibility of sin there.
Free-will doesn't need to depend on the possibility of sin, our will only needs to be able to choose between multiple goods to be free, like Adam and Eve had free-will prior to the fall, they were choosing between multiple and various forms of good. They didn't attain freedom of will after the fall, they already had it. And even if they never sinned the would still have freedom of will, being able to choose between multiple goods. In fact being able to choose evil is a form of bondage not ''free'' expression of will.

>>18421134
Why did God tell them to reproduce knowing that their offspring would be damned? Why not just start over? It’s not like he wasn’t open to the idea, he flooded the world later to do just that.

>>18421204
Dude still loves his creation, their damnation was that they would grow old and die.

>>18410501
interesting take, ANON.
keep them gears grinding...based

>>18410636
God created Satan
A think?

>>18421204
>Why did God tell them to reproduce knowing that their offspring would be damned?
God is patient, God loves man and gives him multiple chances to repent; God had a contingency plan for their salvation involving the incarnation.

[God] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:4

>>18411137
Shut up, Stupid, please.

>>18421274
ok but why then tell them to reproduce, which would damn the children and the children’s children etc.
>>18421311
if this is all part of God’s plan how can he condemn us for it? then it’s not freewill. also does not address why the entire race had to be damned

>>18411107
except mao and stalin lived and died and shitted and pissed and burped same as any other retard

>>18410759
>all these replies saying WOW GOD SOUNDS LIKE [A HUMAN BEING WHO IS NOT GOD]
this board is seriously fucking embarrassing. you can not rationalize the one who gives you a rational mind, why can you fedoratards not get this?

>>18421419
>Why tell them to reproduce
Because God loves to create people and be known, and the salvation of the world (Christ) would be born of a certain lineage to fulfill the Father's plan. Everything is connected to glorify God, even if the path towards that glorification has calamities.

>if this is all part of God’s plan how can he condemn us for it?
It's more like God warned us, if you do X then Y will follow, because that's how creation operates. If you start a fire it can burn you, but it can also burn down your whole house and your neighbor's house.

We experience the effects of our ancestors sins, but we are not responsible or guilty for them. Adam and Eve set the world on fire and we have to endure those affects, but we are judged for our own sins and saved by faith and grace, so while evil persists God offers a solution for us.

Only we condemn ourselves, not God, not Adam, but sin has effects on the whole cosmos not just our race. Paul said: For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. - Romans 8:22

>>18421419
How are they being damned? Do you mean in the sense of growing old and dying?

>>18410509
Why does he act like some dude then?

If you're saying it's all parable and allegory that shouldn't be taken literally or at direct face value, then I get that and respect it. If you're saying that "you're just not conceptualizing god right, if you think about it like I think about it then all the horrible stuff he did/continues to do is perfectly fine" then your apologetics suck ass desu.

>>18412059
I get the impression that if this is the case, then Satan is a footfag.

>>18412099
Thank you for your take, it's interesting.

>>18413926
Something being simple doesn't mean that it's beyond discussion. Just because the dullest man appreciates the beauty of a sunset doesn't mean that it's beneath the sharpest.

>>18421491
why did God expect Adam and Eve to know right from wrong when the literally did not know until they ate the fruit? why is it part of God’s plan to condemn countless numbers of souls to eternal torture?
> We experience the effects of our ancestors sins, but we are not responsible or guilty for them.
right except for the fact that you are held accountable for these sins and you will go straight to Hell without Christ. It would have been more logical, more moral and hell, more compassionate to tell Adam and Eve to NOT procreate and instead cast them out and start over. but no, God loves us by...allowing the vast majority of mankind to be tortured eternally.
>>18421523
I mean destined for Hellfire. As everyone is without Christ

>>18421720
>why did God expect Adam and Eve to know right from wrong when the literally did not know until they ate the fruit?
They knew right from wrong before the fall and they knew what it was like to choose between multiple goods and obey God. What they didn't know was the direct experience of disobedience and sin. They knew in principle what it was, but not directly.

After all they had human nature like we do -- but the serpent deceived Eve and she ate the fruit anyway. What they *knew* afterwards was the reality of sin, via direct experience, which they hadn't experienced before, and with that came shame and despair, etc.
It's like the difference between knowing what sex is, in principle, and actually doing it and knowing it directly. It's two different kinds of ''knowing''.

>>18410488
Almost as if... God is not human?

>>18421720
For the longest time before Christ people just went to Sheoul, which was nothing. Its a very big thing in the old testament, people come from dust and return to dust. Personally, I'm a believe in annihilationism(those who sin do not suffer for eternity but cease to exist) a key idea of Christianity is that Christ offers you eternal life, the common perception that a sinner also receives eternal life but in a twisted way, makes little sense to me.

>>18421720
>right except for the fact that you are held accountable for these sins and you will go straight to Hell without Christ.
God does not judge us for Eve's sin in the garden. God judges us for our own sins which we have plenty of by our own actions.

>it would have been more logical, more moral and hell, more compassionate to tell Adam and Eve to NOT procreate and instead cast them out and start over. but no, God loves us by...allowing the vast majority of mankind to be tortured eternally.
Adam was our representative in a way, if he fell, then we would fall too. After all we all sin already by our own accord, so it would only be a matter of time before we disobeyed just like Adam if God had made little gardens for each of us. God knows all these contingencies and works his salvation through them, he could've done it in all sorts of different ''ways'' but he chose this particular way. So it's kind of pointless to argue why this way and not some other way? We aren't God, so it's just speculation, like asking why didn't Jesus come sooner rather than later?

>>18410488
>To prove that the love of and for god is not simply the product of worldly comfort and pleasures and contexually dependent situations. its absolute and omnicontectual. If god did not love and was loved in all possible situations, the relationship would be a passing one, one of vanity, rather than eternal and absolute.
Its an Abrahamic ring of Gyges. Love for and by god in and for itself, not for some petty reason.

>>>God of infinite love and mercy who is slow to anger sends people to a burny torture pit to suffer horribly forever and ever

Fuck you idiots. I'm sick of your shit. Your religion doesn't make sense.

>>18421765
how could they have known right from wrong, when only by eating the fruit they are able to know right from wrong?
>>18421776
annihilationism is certainly more moral, but aside from that it doesn’t really change my questions.
>>18421816
even if you do not believe in original sin, we are still condemned for things we have no power over. it is literally impossible not to sin. you admit that yourself of course, as do all Christians. Why then does God condemn us for it? He is the only one who can have control over it and yet he damns us for what we cannot do. I’m not saying how God should do things, instead I am pointing out that in the bible it is quite clear that most humanity is going to hell. it is also clear that God is omnipotent. if God wants to save humanity from hell, why doesn’t he? Angels have freewill, yet they are already in heaven. Humans are born in a world where sinning is INEVITABLE and are condemned for it. Either God wants 99% of humanity to burn in hell or something is wrong here

>>18413920
t. pleb

>>18414014
>implying he will do it because you command it
Poor anon, not even aware of how miniscule he is to God, the only thing more sad is that eventually you will answer to him and then you will discover the true meaning of retribution

>>18414417
You destroyed that guy

>>18410488
Bro wtf spoilers, I haven’t gotten to that part of the book yet

I should preface this that Im by no means a theologian, but here's what my understanding of it all is
>>18421079
>>dodges the question
>>y-you don’t know what you’re talking about
>meanwhile is forgetting that the whole jive with Christianity is that God, through Jesus did take away sin
That's what I'm talking about, if you don't understand the very basic thing that defines a religion, why are you talking about it?

>b-but he could do X
Probably, but then what would the point be? If you desire a creature to have relationship with, why would you make a visual novel? Bad analogy but it fits.
If God wanted some
> (Condition) ? "X":"Y";
he certainly could make it, but then we wouldnt be able to have a relationship and truly mean anything by it
>Yes I am programmed to be good, and love you. Isnt this such a good friendship oh Creator of mine?
Then
>Is it freewill...
yes. Just because you have consequences for your actions, doesnt mean you weren't free to commit such actions.
>Angels have freewill
Not really. They literally were created to serve God, acting as intercessors, and doing exactly what God says.
>When angels sin...
Yeah, but 1) That race had offspring, meanwhile Angels that had sinned haven't and 2) the whole idea of "Original Sin" varies depending on what denomination you ask Either way, Humans are corrupt by nature having come from corrupt beings themselves, meanwhile angels dont reproduce whatsoever.

>>18421170
Perhaps, but that does seem to be the case, my friend. Our time on earth is so that we have the capacity to develop genuine relationship. We've known sin and shame and what it means to truly love God, and so we have a full appreciation with what being with him is, whereas if we were just created sinless and with freewill in the first place, a choice between good and good does nothing for relationship. It is just as good as having no choice at all.

>>18410759
so god is a woman

>>18412099
Based and christpilled

>>18422252
stop attempting to convince children of Satan to become followers of Christ over the fucking internet
go outside

>>18412308
Lmao

>>18412308
Lol

>>18422025
>even if you do not believe in original sin, we are still condemned for things we have no power over.
we feel their temporal effects, but we are not judged for other people's sins by God.

> it is literally impossible not to sin. you admit that yourself of course,
I don't say it's impossible not to sin, as if we're robots predetermined to sin by some external force. It's just the case that eventually we choose to sin and we've all chosen to sin, voluntarily. So the idea of God ''starting over" or telling Adam and Eve not to procreate misses the point because if we were put in their position we would fall short too.

>Why then does God condemn us for it? He is the only one who can have control over it and yet he damns us for what we cannot do.
We condemn ourselves when we sin voluntarily. If you go out and do evil that's your fault, not God. But since God is perfectly holy and just he will judge you accordingly and fairly for that. But he also provides salvation and mercy. So there's no need to be angry at God, either he will judge you justly or he will have mercy on you, depending on your faith. There's no instance of a person going to hell who didn't deserve it, or a person going to heaven without God's mercy.

>God is omnipotent. if God wants to save humanity from hell, why doesn’t he? Angels have freewill, yet they are already in heaven. Humans are born in a world where sinning is INEVITABLE and are condemned for it. Either God wants 99% of humanity to burn in hell or something is wrong here
God is literally saving the world and sinners as we speak...every moment sinners are kept alive is a form of mercy, God allowing them a chance to repent and seek him. And we don't know what % will go to hell and how many will be saved...

>>18422343
Yeah it's the internet, in the 4th lockdown of my country, at least the bantz here are good.

>>18421466
>The rules of logic, reason and morality don't apply to God because I've set up a conception of God which a priori rules out even being able to examine him by these metrics in the first place haha looks like I win
Google circular reasoning you gorilla nigger

>>18412246
A simple shitpost and not a single christard has refuted it

>>18422252
>>dodges the question
>>y-you don’t know what you’re talking about
>>meanwhile is forgetting that the whole jive with Christianity is that God, through Jesus did take away sin
>That's what I'm talking about, if you don't understand the very basic thing that defines a religion, why are you talking about it?
reading comprehension retard go re-read my posts.
>ignores my point and just reguritates "uhh it wouldn't be freewill because I said so"
>yes God is threating you with a fate worse than death but actually it's a free choice and it's not a threat
amazing mental gymnastics here. if I point a gun to your head and say suck my dick, are you making a truly free choice of your own will? as in, completely uninfluenced by outside sources? how can it be freewill when God specifically tells us what to do and how to do it and there is an explicit threat behind it?
>Not really. They literally were created to serve God, acting as intercessors, and doing exactly what God says.
Have you read the bible at all? Where does God say to go down to earth and fuck the women? At what point does God tell 1/3 of his angels to rebel against him?
>>18422381
>I don't say it's impossible not to sin
you probably shouldn't say that as it implies a mere man could be sinless, equal to Christ himself.
>we're not caused to sin by an external force
we are born into a world of sin. that's like bible 101 man come on.
the fact that you actually think anyone deserves eternal torture says a lot. that's just psychopathic.
>every moment sinners are kept alive is a form of mercy
hahaha holy shit you really are a psychopath do you hear yourself?
>we don't know what % will go to hell
you're right. but every non christians goes to hell, which is already the majority of the world, and on top of that Christ himself says that even for those who follow him hell waits for most of them. I don't know how you can consider eternally torturing all these people saving the world. in fact I don't think you've ever considered what eternal torture means. think about it. this is cruelty beyond human comprehension and you call God merciful?

>>18422463
>you probably shouldn't say that as it implies a mere man could be sinless, equal to Christ himself.
It is possible to be sinless, Adam and Eve were sinless for a time. The question is how long can that last? I don't know, but from observing history, man's nature and what the bible says: everyone sins and falls short...
I think Catholics believe Mary was sinless and lived sinless, but I'm not sure about that.

>we are born into a world of sin. that's like bible 101 man come on.
the fact that you actually think anyone deserves eternal torture says a lot. that's just psychopathic.
I don't deny we are born into a fallen world, and our nature is predisposed to sin, yes. That's Christian doctrine.
What I deny is the idea that you're ipso facto damned before committing a sin.

>hahaha holy shit you really are a psychopath do you hear yourself?
If you are in rebellion against God and he is giving you years and decades to seek him and repent, that's a form of mercy. Instead of just ending your life instantly and judging you in your sin and rebellion...he is giving you chance after chance. And he's been giving the whole race of man second and third and fourth chances....

>you're right. but every non christians goes to hell, which is already the majority of the world
that's not true, God can save whoever he pleases and different standards apply for those who are totally ignorant of the gospel, to laymen Christians, and to priests and pastors who teach the gospel.

> think about it. this is cruelty beyond human comprehension and you call God merciful?
Cruelty has no significance outside a system of objective, divine Justice. Once you believe in God then cruelty has significance relative to his laws, his justice and his mercy.

> in fact I don't think you've ever considered what eternal torture means.
I don't think you've taken a look at the teachings on hell and just think of it in a cartoony demons-with-pitchforks sort of way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Romanides#Heaven_and_Hell

>>18422463
>you probably shouldn't say that as it implies a mere man could be sinless, equal to Christ himself.
It is possible to be sinless, Adam and Eve were sinless for a time. The question is how long can that last? I don't know, but from observing history, man's nature and what the bible says: everyone sins and falls short...
I think Catholics believe Mary was sinless and lived sinless (?), but I'm not sure about that.

>we are born into a world of sin. that's like bible 101 man come on. the fact that you actually think anyone deserves eternal torture says a lot. that's just psychopathic.
I don't deny we are born into a fallen world, and our nature is predisposed to sin, yes. That's Christian doctrine.
What I deny is the idea that you're ipso facto damned before committing a sin.

>hahaha holy shit you really are a psychopath do you hear yourself?
If you are in rebellion against God and he is giving you years and decades to seek him and repent, that's a form of mercy. Instead of just ending your life instantly and judging you in your sin and rebellion...he is giving you chance after chance. And he's been giving the whole race of man second and third and fourth chances....

>you're right. but every non christians goes to hell, which is already the majority of the world
that's not true, God can save whoever he pleases and different standards apply for those who are totally ignorant of the gospel, to laymen Christians, and to priests and pastors who teach the gospel.

> think about it. this is cruelty beyond human comprehension and you call God merciful?
Cruelty has no significance outside a system of objective, divine Justice. Once you believe in God then cruelty has significance relative to his laws, his justice and his mercy.

> in fact I don't think you've ever considered what eternal torture means.
I don't think you've taken a look at the teachings on hell and just think of it in a cartoony demons-with-pitchforks sort of way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Romanides#Heaven_and_Hell

>>>The whole binding of Isaac was supposedly done so God could show Abraham that he was a God that did not require/want sacrificial offerings of blood etc.

>Sacrifices Jesus' blood to himself so he could save us from himself


???

>>18422605
It showed that our sacrificial offerings were just pre-figurations of what was to come, they were not effective in themselves, because only Christ's pure sacrifice was effective.
Abraham was to have faith and that was counted to him as righteousness, and that was the whole point.

>>18410509
look all these idiots replying to you who think the bible god is thought to be a man in the sky.....literal retards.

Why did God create sin if He hates it so much?

He had to have created the concept at least, don't gimme that "we created sin" crap.

>>18413945
athiests accept what their told every single fucking day, they don't check the evidence themselfs. big science man say mercury safe, woops i drank now i dead....wtf science.

>>18422605
becuase you don't need to sacrifice babys to worship god , faith in god is enough stop killing your babys your fuckin idiots.

jesus time line....
jesus goes and accepts all the sin and does repents it for us, so we are no longer burdened aslong as we have faith in him.

>>18414417
You know that dude is furiously scouring some atheist blogs looking for some way to refute you right now lol

If one accepts Christ, does that cover them for ALL sins? Even future sins?

>>18422463
>reading comprehension retard go re-read my posts
I don't need to, you evidently lack the critical thinking to understand that the initial response was a mockery of your
>God could just not remove the sin?
comment. That's literally what the entire point of the Christian faith is. He did. And therefore, if you don't understand that very idea, then I am genuinely wondering why you are trying to talk about Christianity.

>>you ignored my point!!
>despite the fact that I addressed the one (1) point about free will you had
Sure buddy.
I get you want some "gotcha" moment, where you own the christcucks, but at least be honest. You only needed your """rebuttal""" which was
>gymnastics! Asking you to be in relationship is the same as saying "I am a homosexual rapist threatening your life! Trust me, it's the same as not wanting to have relationship with a creator deity!"
which I once again would bring up the fact that sin and God are incompatible, and thus, if you don't want anything to do with God, he won't stop you.
>inb4 b-but no! he tells us to...
no. He asks us to, but we are free to say no.
However, I know that you will (once again) ignore this, and conflate it with some punishment, because you don't think that having the ability to make your own choices in life is "free will". So I don't know what to tell you anon, you sure got me.

Ah yes, the fallen angels. Ngl, I did forget about those guys, but didnt their offspring have to suffer the consequences of the flood? So their offspring suffered too?
...so their offspring (or the "race" of those half angel half human things) were damned too.
But I know the main point is "God didnt tell them to do that", to which I say: sure? Unless he made them for that purpose in the first place, though that's not necessarily Biblical. What is biblical is that all of the other instances of angels serve a purpose as God's lackeys, unfeeling, just beings doing what they were made to do, without any real relationship involved.
I enjoy these talks anon, but I wouldn't be so hypocritical about deflecting and mental gymnastics if I was in your place. It's one thing to call out some funky reasoning, (as one should) but it's another to ignore context and the rebuttals others have, and dance around them, simply because you don't like them.

>Despair is the one sin that CANNOT be forgiven

Well, that's pretty fucking cruel wouldn't you say?

So, if you have EVER been in despair you are PERMANENTLY FUCKED.

>>18420362
Sheol is just described as a place of darkness. It’s synonymous with nonexistence.
>genesis mentioning enoch was taken from earth to be with god, and the book of enoch (which was "canon" in judaism for at least a hundred years) mentioning paradise.
>hurrr, the people who wrote the book of Enoch and the people who wrote any book in the Old Testament were all the same and held the exact same beliefs

>>18422697
>That's literally what the entire point of the Christian faith is. He did

Not really, there are eternal sins that He will NEVER forgive. In that sense, he didn't get rid of ALL of it.

Supposedly even Jesus' wasn't good enough to cover THOSE sins.

>>18410488
God isn't real. Who the fuck cares?

>>18422580
>It is possible to be sinless, Adam and Eve were sinless for a time.
well yes because...sin didn't exist yet.
>What I deny is the idea that you're ipso facto damned before committing a sin
You don't believe in original sin. that's fine, but the fact remains that sin is inevitable
>that's not true, God can save whoever he pleases and different standards apply for those who are totally ignorant of the gospel, to laymen Christians, and to priests and pastors who teach the gospel.
ah right forgot the part in the bible where Christ says "The only way to heaven is through me*"
*pagans, laymen priests and pastors can be exempt from this rule
>Cruelty has no significance outside a system of objective, divine Justice. Once you believe in God then cruelty has significance relative to his laws, his justice and his mercy.
That is insane. You are trying to justify and wave away the most cruel fate ever imaginable. Is torture not cruel? oh but it doesn't count when God does it right. oh but sometimes he's nice so it doesn't count then either.
>I don't think you've taken a look at the teachings on hell
the actual methods of hell do not matter. if it's fire and brimstone, pure darkness, or the light and love of God himself it does not matter. torment is torment. the method is irrelevant. God is sending someone to eternal torment, doesn't matter how it's done it is torture. Annihilationism at least spares the soul such cruelty.
>>18422697
>n-no I don't have to read your posts because I'm just right!!
>you're just ignoring my points! I'm not ignoring yours it's just you!
not once have you actually answered a single problem I have presented. you can act like you totally BTFO'd me but not once have I received a solid answer. I don't want to repeat myself for the nth time so just re-read my posts if you want a response, the issues have not been addressed sufficiently.
>it's freewill b-because it just is OK?! I said it was stop disagreeing with me! All those things you brought just don't count because I said so!!
and you expect me to take you seriously
>But I know the main point is "God didnt tell them to do that", to which I say: sure?
where do you want these goalposts chief I'm getting tired. Angels were made to serve and worship God (like us) and they can sin and make their own decisions (like us) but they don't have free will. really makes a lot of sense

>>18422649
Sin wasn't created, as much as it is a consequence of having an alternative to perfection.
Sin itself is an archery term meaning "to miss the mark/bullseye", and so by giving Man the choice to do anything they wanted (with the "mark" being to listen and respect God and not eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil), there was the opportunity for sin.
tl;dr wasn't created by God, but was a result of Him setting a standard.

>>18422689
Yes and no. If you accept Christ, that means you accept the fact that you are sinful, and will never reach that perfection. So all your sins are forgiven, yes.
...but that doesn't really mean anything if it's just lip service, so future sins aren't necessarily covered unless you acknowledge them and make a point to repent.

>>18422737
>You don't believe in original sin. that's fine, but the fact remains that sin is inevitable
the orthodox christians believe in original sin, sometimes called ancestral sin, which is what I described.

>ah right forgot the part in the bible where Christ says "The only way to heaven is through me*"
he is the Gatekeeper but that doesn't mean what you want it to mean. For Christ even went into hades for 3 days and preached to the spirits there, so how he saves and who he saves is up to him, yes he is the only Way, but his methods are beyond us. The fact that ordinary salvation involves faith and repentance doesn't mean that there are no extra-ordinary means of salvation that God uses.

>You are trying to justify and wave away the most cruel fate ever imaginable. Is torture not cruel?
It's cruel for someone to rebel against God and remain tormented and enslaved by their sin, yes its self-inflicted cruelty.

>the actual methods of hell do not matter. if it's fire and brimstone, pure darkness, or the light and love of God himself it does not matter. torment is torment. the method is irrelevant. God is sending someone to eternal torment, doesn't matter how it's done it is torture. Annihilationism at least spares the soul such cruelty.
the method matters because if sinners in hell are tormented by their own selfishness, their own hatred of God and rebellion against what is good then they are the ones being cruel to themselves.

>>18422735
>Literature board
>Doesn't care about discussing literature
ngmi

>>18422737
>>>and they can sin and make their own decisions (like us) but they don't have free will.

You literally just described them as having free will. The ability to make one's own decisions is LITERALLY what free will is.

What you just said really doesn't make sense.

>Jesus descended into hell and saved some souls

Buuut we're fucked. Great.

>>18422771
I'm familiar with the harrowing of hell but iirc that's not actually in the bible.
The end is what matters. God sends them to a place of torment, which he does not have to do in the first place! let's say it is by their own sins that they are tormented. why does God allow the torment? we live in a state of sin right now, yet we are not tormented. it seems to be a specific choice by God to allow this torment, one which does not end, and completely unnecessarily except for petty vengeance.
>>18422800
That what I'm saying, angels DO have free will, he's saying they do not. I was being sarcastic

I've heard Hell described as being burned by Gods love.

>>18422812
>gospel preached on earthly plane
>gospel preached in underworld
>But we're fucked.
Why? Only if you remain in rebellion, and would rather chase idols than seek God. Up to you.

>>18422819
> let's say it is by their own sins that they are tormented. why does God allow the torment? ,..... it seems to be a specific choice by God to allow this torment, one which does not end, and completely unnecessarily except for petty vengeance.
Because when you sin you sin against the eternal Good, if you murder a woman you are not only sinning against her and her family but God himself by destroying what belongs to Him. God allows people to rebel against him, and this rebellion eventually causes them to suffer.
He judges who he wills and has mercy on who he wills...and this is righteous.

>we live in a state of sin right now, yet we are not tormented.
in fact anyone who sins is a slave to that sin, so while that explicit ''torment'' might be subtle now it will be more obvious in the time to come unless they repent.

The point isn't that God is settling a score with Satan. The point is that Job, the human being, lacks the power to understand. We tend to frame this idea in emotional ideas. Either "how dare God," or also "how dare you question God." But perhaps consider the ontological questions. Job lacks the metaphysical nature in which he can apprehend his problem.
Recall the epistemological problem. How do you know what you know, and what you experience? You could be mistaken. You could also be totally right. But it is at least possible for you to be mistaken. The human mind demonstrates it lacks the epistemological power of absolute knowledge that would exist with the Divine. It would be nonsensical to conceive of God as fallible.

>>18422846
>Because when you sin you sin against the eternal Good, if you murder a woman you are not only sinning against her and her family but God himself by destroying what belongs to Him. God allows people to rebel against him, and this rebellion eventually causes them to suffer.
>He judges who he wills and has mercy on who he wills...and this is righteous.
Makes no sense at all. A good god with an actual sense of responsibility would either punish such mistakes in such a way that the person would learn something from them, so they can do better next time, or prevent such a mistake from ever occurring in the first place.

Of course, Christianity isn’t concerned with these two options, but that’s ultimately because it’s a cult, and at the end of the day isn’t concerned with morality, but with power. So are you, probably, even though you act like just another mindless cult member. Your goal is probably to climb the ladder, so that you get to boss around the next batch of suckers in this pyramid scheme

>>18422737
>n-no I don't have to read your posts because I'm just right!!
Never said that. And I never claimed to be right either. Nor am I acting like I BTFO'd you. I'm just responding to what problems you presented. Whether you think that is sufficient to you is up to you. Just because I didnt greentext every one of your words with my rebuttal, and/or you didn't like the responses that I did directly greentext, doesn't mean I didn't respond. Take that how you want, I "actually answered" whether you accept it or not.

>it's freewill b-because it just is OK?! I said it was stop disagreeing with me! All those things you brought just don't count because I said so!!
You haven't exactly brought up a reason that it's not, anon. You can be subjective about free will till you're blue in the face, but it is defined as follows
>n. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice.
which you do get to choose. The consequences (which you are getting particularly hung up on) are the result of your free will. God isn't forcing you nor threatening you.
>n. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.
and you arent predetermined either (though Lutherans and other Prots may have a word on that, I personally disagree with them [inb4 "then you're being subjective!". Whatever you say anon, (you)'d be the one moving goalposts if you tried to change your whole argument because I disagree with (((prots))) ]).
So... am I expected to take you seriously if you disagree with the dictionary definition of free will? Or am I expected to take you seriously because you're criticizing the way I'm saying things instead of actually rebutting what I say
Protip: it's neither, but I'm a sucker for theological discourse, so there (you) go.

>Yadda yadda angels
Yeah, I conceded the fallen angels. That's not a goalpost. That's a concession. Though it's not out of the picture that God created them to be proto humans, we can drop it, since I'm not God, and you'll just screech "goalpost" again.
>Angels were made to serve and worship God
yes
>(like us)
no. We were made for relationship, quite a difference, and has big implications with our whole jive with sin.
>and they can sin and make their own decisions
did, sure. Past genesis though what do you see? Is it the same human-like creatures capable of free-will?
>(like us) but they don't have free will. really makes a lot of sense
Yeah, whoda thunk that spiritual beings created by a God much bigger than us could be a bit confusing. This is less of a concession, but I don't know what to tell you anon, like I said, past prehistory, the angels act as nothing more than automata.

Anywho anon, it was fun chatting, but I've got work tomorrow and need sleep. I wish you the best in your future endeavors.

>>18422025
No problems, I personally think that the eternal damnation interpretation is pretty appalling.

>>18422878
And as has been said before, you can apply the same logic to the historical materialistic dialectic, and nothing would change. In fact, if you’re a communist, it would allow you to say that, since Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were fallible men, they simply misunderstood the historical materialistic dialectic, and there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that, so we should just give communism another go.

Your logic is an excellent way to make your beliefs utterly unfalsifiable and avoid any kind of criticism

>>18422886
God has the power of life and death, justice and mercy.
If you want mercy then repent and ask for it.
If you want justice then continue to rebel.
There is no blemish on God for giving the rebel justice and the faithful mercy.

>>18422907
The dialectical cycles of history are also a religious belief in all but name

>>18422936

>>18422893
>Anywho anon, it was fun chatting, but I've got work tomorrow and need sleep. I wish you the best in your future endeavors.
good thing for me too, I don't want to go in circles all night. I'm sure we could go at it forever honestly.

>>18422936
>God has the power of life and death, justice and mercy.
Aside from the fact that you guys have never even demonstrated that this is even remotely true, or that your god even exists in the first place, power doesn’t equal right.

>If you want mercy then repent and ask for it.
I’m not interested in cult membership, thanks

>If you want justice then continue to rebel.
Ironically, this may be accidentally the most accurate thing you’ve said so far. Justice is indeed completely inconsistent with following the Abrahamic God

>There is no blemish on God for giving the rebel justice and the faithful mercy.
Is that why he ordered the slaughter of anyone who doesn’t believe in him? Man, woman and child, that’s merciful to you?
It truly never ceases to amaze me how Abrahamic cult logic can completely disfigure a mind, and the fact that you probably mean this is even more terrifying

>>18422942
Oh okay, so we should give communism another go, then? After all, the previous ones all got it wrong, but that’s simply because the historical materialistic dialectic is too powerful for us mere mortals to properly comprehend, which causes us to question it and rebel against it, thus once again causing all the horrors we saw in countries like the USSR. Luckily for us, the historical materialistic dialectic is a forgiving doctrine, and allows us to repent, if only we accept its infallibility and do everything we can to achieve communism. All it asks of us is that we not rebel against it, but it’s such a benevolent force that it allows us the freedom of will to do so. This will result in a punishment, but I guess that’s a punishment we chose

>>18422846
my point is that there is no need for eternal torment. it is completely unnecessary. God knowingly puts people into a state of eternal torment, because...he just wants to. yes people can choose to sin and whatnot but why does it end in torture? what purpose does this punishment serve except pure vengeance? if God's love or goodness whatever you want to call it hurts them, why does he allow that? if he truly did love them why put them into eternal torment? >He judges who he wills and has mercy on who he wills...and this is righteous.
is it actually righteous or is it just righteous because God does it? We get our morality from God yet it does not apply to him? the whole "God is good so whatever he does is good" doesn't seem right to me. I know "God can do whatever he wants because he's God" is the whole point of the book of Job but that sounds more like a tyrant and less like an all loving and good God.

>>18422988
If you want, its a strong fiction for college students and even though it's resulted in a lot of lost lives, there's still a queer appeal to it. Maybe they're just uneducated? Or maybe it's the old communist/left wing influence in the establishment.

>>18422963
>Aside from the fact that you guys have never even demonstrated that this is even remotely true, or that your god even exists in the first place, power doesn’t equal right.
All of creation testifies to the glory of God. The laws of nature, logic, the existence of objective morality and meaning presuppose God. The knowledge of God is within our intuition and conscience, although suppressed in some more than others. The prophets testify to the creator and reveal his message. So you are without excuse.

>I’m not interested in cult membership, thanks
Anyone who doesn't follow God follows idols of their own invention or forced upon them by their culture. So you are already in a cult of some sort, without realizing.

>Justice is indeed completely inconsistent with following the Abrahamic God
There's no justice apart from God's objective moral order. Outside that you have relativism, human preference, idols and man made ideologies that change with the wind.

>Is that why he ordered the slaughter of anyone who doesn’t believe in him? Man, woman and child, that’s merciful to you?
Try to read the context of those narratives next time and how they are explained in Christianity, this is basic stuff.

>It truly never ceases to amaze me how Abrahamic cult logic can completely disfigure a mind, and the fact that you probably mean this is even more terrifying
Now you're getting emotional because all your points have been disarmed.

>>18422907
>>18422988
>In fact, if you’re a communist, it would allow you to say that, since Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were fallible men, they simply misunderstood the historical materialistic dialectic, and there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that, so we should just give communism another go.
That's not a good way to phrase the argument. What you're saying is that there is ultimately a correct understanding of the problem in question, and that since the problem with the failures was a misinterpretation, a rightful interpretation is possible. That's a fundamentally different thing than what was said, thus your example cannot be rightfully analogous. In fact, I don't think you present much of a clear argument at all. What if I say, yes, you, mere mortal, cannot comprehend the dialectic, and I was incidentally correct and this was the truthful state of the universe? I think it's primarily from how you've phrased your argument than the argument itself, because it lends to irrelevant trivialities.

And it was not to say the beliefs can avoid any possible criticism, though I think the word "falsifiable" is qualitatively inappropriate for this subject.
This can be exemplified with Thomas Aquinas's treatment of the problem of evil, which frames the problem in a particularly metaphysical way. We can intellectually understand the problem of evil. We can intellectually ascertain or imagine a lot of things beyond our true epistemological experience. For example, we can ascertain the infinite, yet not process it. We can imagine that time has a dimensional quality akin to spatial one as in the story "the Time Machine," yet we are incapable of experiencing time in a way other than what we do now.

>>18423044
>The laws of nature, logic, the existence of objective morality and meaning presuppose God.
They don’t. First off, considering that your own holy book amends the supposed objective morality and meaning of your god tells me all I need to know about that, and secondly, even if I accepted the infallibility of the laws of nature and logic (which I don’t have to), presupposing that a god dun did it, much less your specific interpretation of your specific denomination of your specific religion of your specific pet version of God, is just a massive argument from ignorance

>Anyone who doesn't follow God follows idols of their own invention or forced upon them by their culture.
This is almost verbatim what a Muslim will say about a Christian. Christians worship the cross, and not God himself, therefore they’ve committed shirk, and deserve eternal hellfire. This doesn’t convince you to become a Muslim, so why should it convince me to become a Christian?

>Outside that you have relativism, human preference, idols and man made ideologies that change with the wind.
No, outside that you have a morality that accepts its own fallibility, where if it turns out to be wrong, we accept that and correct it. This makes that morality better, and is a far less embarrassing alternative to endlessly insisting to your moral code has never been wrong, and trying to mental gymnastic your way out of all the instances it was disastrously wrong, like you do

>Try to read the context of those narratives next time and how they are explained in Christianity, this is basic stuff.
Oh dear, the eternal context, which can trump even the divine commandments of God. Doesn’t sound very objective, does it? Then again, when you’re not allowed to admit you’re ever wrong on anything, you’ll have to rely on sea-lawyering tactics, such as the old classic of ‘if I have to do it or it’s wrong, it was a metaphor all along’.

>Now you're getting emotional because all your points have been disarmed.
You wish. Your ‘disarmament’ of my points consists of little more than repeating the same old set of religious talking points that have been dismantled again and again, and you having no counter towards this, and then finally just relying on the last resort of calling your opponent ‘emotional’, which is an amazing assessment considering this is text

Anyway, in conclusion, you sound like a very average run off the mill mindless zealot, who doesn’t even have interesting counters to some of the most basic criticisms of religion. Even a new atheist fanboy could probably take apart most of what you say, and all you offer in light of this are scripted responses that will convince no one with a functional brain. You show what religious ‘arguments’ ultimately are, repetitions, and not points of discussion

>>18422418
>The rules of logic, reason and morality don't apply to God because I've set up a conception of God which a priori rules out even being able to examine him by these metrics in the first place haha looks like I win
Yes. That which creates Logic, Reason and Morality cannot be said to be subject to those things.

>>18410488
To judge God by your own standards presupposes you are God. Are you tho? If you are him; then God is just(assuming you fullfill your own standards lol). If you are not; then you cannot judge him, because you are not him.

>>18423119
>First off, considering that your own holy book amends the supposed objective
morality and meaning of your god tells me all I need to know about that...
the ceremonial and sacrificial laws were fulfilled, not amended, and are not identical to the eternal moral law. Basic Christianity you misunderstand.

> even if I accepted the infallibility of the laws of nature and logic (which I don’t have to), presupposing that a god dun did it, much less your specific interpretation of your specific denomination of your specific religion of your specific pet version of God, is just a massive argument from ignorance
>logic (which I don’t have to),
if you don't accept the laws of logic you won't be able to argue for or against anything. if your view can't account for invariant, immaterial, immutable laws of logic then your worldview will fall into incoherence (it does). The same applies for invariant, objective laws of morality, etc

>This is almost verbatim what a Muslim will say about a Christian. Christians worship the cross, and not God himself, therefore they’ve committed shirk
Because they misunderstand our Trinitarian theology and form bad arguments non-believers present bad arguments, like you yourself have been doing this whole time. That's not a blemish on us, but a blemish on them.

>No, outside that you have a morality that accepts its own fallibility, where if it turns out to be wrong, we accept that and correct it. This makes that morality better
>wrong...better
wrong and better by what standard? That's the problem relativism has no objective standard, it has a shifting and arbitrary consensus. One day beastiality is immoral the next it's something to celebrate on Pride month. There's no ''progress'' towards a more correct position because it can't be grounded in anything solid.

>Oh dear, the eternal context, which can trump even the divine commandments of God. Doesn’t sound very objective, does it?...lawyering tactics
You're doing rhetoric by ignoring the context of those narratives.

> Your ‘disarmament’ of my points consists of little more than repeating the same old set of religious talking points that have been dismantled again and again
So far you've just appealed to relativism and offered emotional appeals as to why hell makes you upset.

>>18423119
>First off, considering that your own holy book amends the supposed objective morality and meaning of your god tells me all I need to know about that...
the ceremonial and sacrificial laws were fulfilled, not amended, and are not identical to the eternal moral law. Basic Christianity you misunderstand.

> even if I accepted the infallibility of the laws of nature and logic (which I don’t have to), presupposing that a god dun did it, much less your specific interpretation of your specific denomination of your specific religion of your specific pet version of God, is just a massive argument from ignorance
>logic (which I don’t have to),
if you don't accept the laws of logic you won't be able to argue for or against anything. if your view can't account for invariant, immaterial, immutable laws of logic then your worldview will fall into incoherence (it does). The same applies for invariant, objective laws of morality, etc

>This is almost verbatim what a Muslim will say about a Christian. Christians worship the cross, and not God himself, therefore they’ve committed shirk
Because they misunderstand our Trinitarian theology and form bad arguments non-believers present bad arguments, like you yourself have been doing this whole time. That's not a blemish on us, but a blemish on them.

>No, outside that you have a morality that accepts its own fallibility, where if it turns out to be wrong, we accept that and correct it. This makes that morality better
>wrong...better
wrong and better by what standard? That's the problem relativism has no objective standard, it has a shifting and arbitrary consensus. One day beastiality is immoral the next it's something to celebrate on Pride month. There's no ''progress'' towards a more correct position because it can't be grounded in anything solid.

>Oh dear, the eternal context, which can trump even the divine commandments of God. Doesn’t sound very objective, does it?...lawyering tactics
You're doing rhetoric by ignoring the context of those narratives.

> Your ‘disarmament’ of my points consists of little more than repeating the same old set of religious talking points that have been dismantled again and again
So far you've just appealed to relativism and offered emotional appeals as to why hell makes you upset.

>>18412233
>Prior to exodus god was referred to as El (Lord) or El-Shaddai
Isn't it the same guy? Yahweh, Elohim, Tzevaot...
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me (I have no experience with religious history) if it absorbed other cults which is why God's "personality" changes so dramatically book from book.

>>18423216
>if it absorbed other cults which is why God's "personality" changes so dramatically book from book.
can you give examples of these dramatic changes

You cannot have a discussion in good faith (pun intended) with Godfags, they're delusional and will go to any lengths to appease their massa in the clouds. My proposal for dealing with religious people is to throw them in reeducation camps so they can become productive and intelligent

>>18423241
>seething atheist
I see its time to break a buck.

>>18423260
Christcucks are closer to slaves than any atheist

>>18423271
You'll be my buck

>>18422878

Is this not the very kind of knowledge that this argument claims you CANNOT have?

>>18410509
So why should i care about him then?

>>18423159
good thing all those things actually come from human experiences.

>>18420943
>Relationship needs trust and respect
And showing up more frequently than 1000 years

>>18423206
>by what standard
By standarts of them fucking working and harmonising with society.

>>18422963
>Aside from the fact that you guys have never even demonstrated that this is even remotely true, or that your god even exists in the first place, power doesn’t equal right.
One of the best things about judgement is that you will understand perfectly how sinful you are and how Gods existence was obvious but you missed it out of pride. There will be nowhere to hide. No claims "But the evidence!", you will be enlightened and know 100% for a fact you fucked up

>>18423831
BASED and excellently expressed pilled.

>parents aren't really practicing christians but wanted to baptize me when I was a baby anyway
>allegedly when the priest put me on his lap I took his cross and flipped it upside down and started hissing or some shit (not even larping this is literally what my mother told me)
>priest left and I wasn't baptized
I'm not a Christian because I can't really suspend my disbelief regarding most events in the Bible but what the fuck does this mean? When I think about it I'm always spooked

>>18423698
>good thing all those things actually come from human experiences.
human's can discover them, that doesn't mean they are grounded in or ''come from'' human experience itself, no more than the rules governing geometry ''come from'' our experiences or the laws of nature ''come from'' human experience.

>>18423831
Not him but I believe in God, just not YHWH

>>18423969
sounds like you should continue to seek and ponder God and maybe you'll get baptized properly one day.

>>18423997
who do you say God is and what is his purpose for you and mankind? How do you know?

>>18424000
>continue to seek and ponder God
What does this mean? I think there's a God but I don't know what to do about it, I tried praying a couple times sincerely but nothing happened

>>18424005
The way I imagine God is akin to the One according to Plotinus, the absolute essence of existence. I find the idea of a personal god kind of silly.

>>18424008
>What does this mean? I think there's a God but I don't know what to do about it
I would seek him in the scriptures (the bible) and read the writings of the saints.

>I tried praying a couple times sincerely but nothing happened
You mean you prayed for something and it didn't come about? That's okay. The function of prayer is not to change God's mind but to change the nature of the one who prays.
You could pray for faith and guidance, pray to seek him better and slowly but steadily you may be surprised.

>>18424023
>You mean you prayed for something and it didn't come about?
I prayed that if he existed he'd give me some kind of sign that could serve as guidance or just reassurance since I'm pretty lost in all aspects of life. Maybe I should read the Gospels

>>18424019
>I find the idea of a personal god kind of silly.
I think you should be open to the possibility that ultimate reality is personal and gave us conscious personhood in order to know it more truthfully and intimately.

>>18424038
The fact that you are even here pondering such things is a good sign already. Good luck

>>18424059
Thanks friend

>>18424038
You think you want that but you really don't. It's been lost from decades of Protestant style "Jesus Christ is my best buddy" style religion but God is actually terrifying. If you were face to face with God you'd piss your pants and become a complete wreck, anyone would. God is Love but God is also so far above humans ontologically that the distance between God and man is infinitely more than the distance between man and Bacterium. Like a Bacteria doesn't perceive the existence of the man whose skin it lives on, man cannot perceive the existence of God who provides being to all things.

God is good, but God is also completely alien to us. A being so far above us that it's not even "a being" anymore, it's just being itself. There's a reason even the Angels, messengers of God tell people "be not afraid".

It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God because God is unlike anything we can even conceive. Benevolent, yes, but also awful.

>>18424076
What's the right course of action then?
Aren't you supposed to be able to love God? How do you love something you can't understand or even contact without experiencing pure terror?

>>18411741
There is a very hard distinction between pain and evil proper. All of those discussions are muddied by confusing the two. The "problem of evil" without any further description is about the latter. Job also wasn't innocent.

>>18414417
Other anon was never seen again.

>>18424086
Well in Christianity that's the point of the incarnation. Man is completely incapable of bridging the infinite gap between man and God so God bridges it for us and comes down to us so we can be raised back up to God. You can love God in the person of Jesus Christ, who becomes human so we can know Him.

The point is that it's good to have a healthy fear and respect for God. God isn't your best buddy. God is the creator of all things who sustains them every second of every day. We should reverence God and glorify God. The flipside is going back to the bacterium example is that because God is unlike humans who don't consider the bacterium on their skin God actually deeply cares for every single one of His creations. Especially humanity, the crowing glory of the cosmos. Because God is so unlike us He can overflow with infinite love, giving and caring for all creation for eternity.

>>18424118
>so we can be raised back up
Does that mean eventually we're destined to be able to understand God as long as we seek him?

>>18412303
>If