[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 190 KB, 1920x1080, 8609rrks1l411.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14657523 No.14657523 [Reply] [Original]

>the bible and all of the church fathers were incapable of answering this
Epicurus is so fucking based. imagine btfo'ing the entirety of theistic metaphysics in a handful of lines.

>> No.14657528

>>14657523
gnostics answered already

>> No.14657532

>Then he is malevolent
Yes.

>> No.14657535

>>14657523
Got bitchslapped out of the room in his own time period.

>> No.14657537

Plato answered this already

Cicero answered those already

Augustine answered those already

>> No.14657538

Not even Epicurus' idea you retard.

>> No.14657546

>>14657528
based

found this ten part video series on the cathars the other day, just thought id share
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fstQgYA124

>> No.14657570

>>14657523
>le atheist can only think in terms of dualistic metaphysics
cringe

>> No.14657572

the answer is literally
>HURRRRRRR WE WUZ IN EDEN N SHIET BUT WE WUZ BAD MEN N GOD KICKED US OUT BUT HE WUZ A GOOD GOD HE MAKES US LIVE A SHIT LIFE AND WE MUST SUFFER CUZ OF TWO FAGGOTS WHO DIDN'T ABIDE THE RULES
theists are the height of mental retardation and cuckoldry, this is why so few religious people get a long way in life

>> No.14657605

>>14657572
>he reduces the problem of idealism to a biblical parable

And I’d bet you would suck the big fat cock of any given rationalist if you had the chance.

>> No.14657614

>>14657605
and i bet you'd start sucking big dark nigger cocks if there was a commandment about it in your holy book

>> No.14657622

>>14657614
how would a christian even respond to this? it's 100% true. if jesus told them to suck black cocks post haste they would drop to their knees faster than you can say "cuckoldry"

>> No.14657625
File: 2.83 MB, 384x372, 049.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14657625

>>14657605
>rationality bad
ah, the theist unmasks himself.

>> No.14657629

>>14657622
I don't think you understand Christ if you believe he would tell people to indulge into sexual vices.

>> No.14657633
File: 350 KB, 1800x1322, diogenes the shitlord.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14657633

>>14657523
He was no Diogenes...

>> No.14657640

>>14657625
Other way around retard, I’m a rationalist. And I think the guy is probably a crypto-rationalist.

>> No.14657649

>>14657629
i don't think you know how to properly engage with the point of the argument given your response. the very nature of religions of revelations suffers from this structural flaw. anyway, christ told the israelites to massacre canaanite women and children when they invaded canaan, so he isn't exactly such a nice guy. he also drowned the whole world in a flood except for one family. telling people to suck black cocks for shits and gigs sounds right up his alley

>> No.14657660

>>14657528
No they didnt

>> No.14657663
File: 709 KB, 500x725, 1556304488796.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14657663

>christcucks after 2000 years still have not solved the problem of evil
>meanwhile in the east there was never a problem to begin with
It is a sort of Lovecraftian feeling when one thinks about the fact that there still exists Christians in this world

>> No.14657672

>>14657660
yeah, they did. god is not omnibenevolent or omnipotent or omniscient. he is very evil, very strong (but not all powerful), and very knowing (but not all knowing)

>> No.14657679

>>14657663
eastern mysticism always devolves into antinomian insanity if you rigorously follow it to its conclusion. so they definitely have some problems.

>> No.14657682

>>14657672
That doesnt solve the problem, retard

>> No.14657698

>>14657649
If you equate ethnic cleansing with sucking cocks, then I don't know what to tell you. You probably shouldn't project your own secret fantasies into holy texts which were far from suggesting such a thing.

>> No.14657707

>>14657682
It quite does. Gnosticism solves the problem of evil.

>> No.14657708

>>14657698
im taking the queue from the other anon who mentioned cock sucking. what the fuck are you even saying in this post? why cant you address the argument? how do you respond to the inherent structural flaw of religions of revelation?

>> No.14657710

>>14657698
>holy texts
being written by jews 3000 years ago doesn't suddenly make them holy

>> No.14657718

>>14657708
the discussion is not about christianity, or any other religion, retard

>> No.14657724

>>14657718
you can't answer the question hahaha

>> No.14657730

>>14657710
It Unironically does.

>> No.14657731

>>14657710
What does?

>> No.14657733

>>14657707
Conceding that God is evil is not a solution because God cannot be evil. Gnosticism only affirms the problem if evil. It does not solve it.

>> No.14657735

>>14657730
yeah recognizing jews as your masters surely does

>> No.14657736

>>14657730
i guess 3000 years from now freud and marx are gonna be holy texts

>> No.14657742

>>14657733
gnosticism claims that the creator god is evil, not the ultimate transcendant divine reality. it solves the problem of evil by pointing out that creation wasn't done by the ultimate God to begin with.

>> No.14657743

>>14657724
what was the question? Pretty sure I answered to all of your crypto-homosexual fantasies.

>> No.14657746

>>14657736
Freud and Marx already are holy books

>> No.14657750

>>14657736
Well, homer was pretty much a Devine text for the Greeks.

>>14657735
Ok.

>> No.14657753

>>14657733
>mistaking the Demiurge with the Monad
Never go full retard.

>> No.14657756

>>14657742
Thats not a solution either, because it only pushes the question back one step. How can the Perfect and Good transcendent divinity beget the imperfect and evil Demiurge?

>> No.14657768

>>14657736
If you define "holy" as the phenomenon of spawning a contingent of radical retard followers, then yes. All religious and ideological texts possess this holiness.

>> No.14657779
File: 28 KB, 485x254, CB5E2C79-3F9B-4BE2-A7B3-B802706D2436.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14657779

>>14657528
>>14657537
Doesn’t matter.

>>14657538
Doesn’t matter.

The point of the saying is to choose one. This is answered in various ways. The Christians have no right answer, only another contradiction on top of their faith of “mysterious ways” (that was meant to be a mystery cult anyway till cloudier heads threw out the “gnostic” parts)

God, Yhwh, is malevolent. Evil.
Or god, Jesus, is impotent. Not omnipotent.

>> No.14657784

>>14657753
I was responding to the context given by the other anon who used rhe word God to describe the Demiurge. Now please answer this >>14657756
Gnosticsm actually complicates the problem of evil because it says that evil is a positive attribute rather than just a privation. The perfect Monad produced an imperfect substance, which cannot be possible. Gnosticism is certainyl imaginative, but is a terrible response to the problem of evil

>> No.14657789

>>14657724
first reply in the thread, have not idea what you're talking about. just mentioning that the OP.
the idea of 'evil' somehow disproving God is based on the axiom that the individual is somehow born entirely good/just and for the first time (i.e. he has no 'punishment' from a previous life) because otherwise the harm that is done upon him can be justified by his own bad deeds (therefore being still imprisoned in the material life because of his choices and not being able to break free). even more, define 'evil', define 'good'. do those concepts refer to something that is entirely empirical ? no, because we're talking metaphysics. given that you can easily twist the problem of evil to be even non-existence, since what is on earth is subjected to free will and chaos, it's temporary, but what is beyond earth will be judged correctly, objectively, meaning that the material world simply doesn't matter, it's like a short fever dream compared to an eternity. the only real problem of christianity is Free will

>> No.14657794

>>14657768
the Monad is a plenitude that overflows. the fact that one of the beings that emerged from it chose to do evil doesn't contradict the perfection of the Monad. The Monad isn't a craftsman who plans out and makes things. it is in perfect contemplative repose and that contemplation produces an overflow of power which produces indirectly lower levels of reality. it's fairly similar to Neoplatonist conceptions. so your question is flawed because the Monad neither begat nor created the evil demiurge in any sense of those terms

>> No.14657807

>>14657794 for >>14657756

>> No.14657814

>>14657679
I don't think so but because they do not have a moral liberation ontology that means you can't really justify ethical policies or whatever based a supposed correlation to salvation.

Basically morality/ethics is for society, not liberation. Which is why when the Buddha during his last day taught a tribe to hold on to their traditions of their forefathers, not institute new laws, venerate and perform the sacrifices to their gods and shrines, and to protect the arahats etc, it wasn't because this provides a way to salvation but only that their tribe will thrive and expand because of it. A separation between the profane and sacred.

>> No.14657821

>>14657779
do you ever post something resembling more an intelligible argument than scribbles of a person dealing with cognitive issues coupled with a tumblr picture?

>> No.14657822

>>14657807
oops, thanks anon

>> No.14657835

>>14657814
>Basically morality/ethics is for society
exactly. someone who is on the path to liberation can dispense with it if they please.
>Which is why when the Buddha during his last day taught a tribe to hold on to their traditions of their forefathers, not institute new laws, venerate and perform the sacrifices to their gods and shrines, and to protect the arahat
this was advice, not a doctrine. his doctrines naturally lead to antinomianism which is why he felt the need to give that advice to begin with

>> No.14657838

>>14657794
>>14657807

The Monad doesnt need to make conscious decisions for there to be an impossibility of evil.
>the Monad is perfect and Good
>all that exists procedes from the Monad
>evil exists
>therefore evil and imperfection procede from goodness and perfection
If you follow that the Demiurge is a result of the Creative substance of the Monad, then you must accept that it was begotten by the Monad. You are saying that a Good substance produced an Evil substance. This is the fundamental point of the Problem of Evil. Evil cannot procede from Good. This is why Gnosticism is not a solution.

>> No.14657856

>>14657838
>all that exists procedes from the Monad
gnostics are dualists bro. they don't believe that. the overflow of his power is what Matter leeches off to produce created things. he gives off goodness and the coeternal prime matter twists it

>> No.14657864

>>14657838
Everything that proceeds from the Monad is fundamentally less perfect and pure. If it wasn't then it would simply be a duplicate of the Monad and would also be capable of comprehending the Monad. This is why Sophia in attempting to comprehend the Monad fails, and gives birth to the Demiurge.

And a lot of the Gnostics didn't consider the Demiurge evil, simply ignorant. Matter is not really evil in the moral sense either, it's just degenerate.

>> No.14657879

>>14657821
Don’t @ me till you come up with something to say.

>> No.14657885

>>14657864
Matter is evil in the sense that it is far removed from the Monad.

>> No.14657891

>>14657663
>meanwhile in the east there was never a problem to begin with
replace evil with suffering

>> No.14657902

>>14657838
What this guy said >>14657856 . Problem of evil only really exists if you affirm creation ex nihilo. If you believe in a coeternal material principle from which the evil derives then it's a nonissue.

>> No.14657905

>>14657856
Right, which is why gnosticism is just a mess of a philosophy. It combines Plotinian emmenation and a notion of substance dualism. Its an absurd position. Ultimately you must address where matter comes from. Certainly you dont say matter is uncreated, because that would put you into the same problem the Manichaeists had. If you say that matter is created ex nihilo by the Demiurge, then fundamentally its existence is contingent on the Demiurge, whose existence is contingent on the Monad, therefore making an evil subtance the result of a good substance.
Further, by what power can the Good and immutable emmenation of the Monad be turned evil and mutable? You would be suggesting that something is more powerful than the Good, which is an ontological impossibility.
>>14657864
>sophia is perfect wisdom
>monad is perfect being
>perfect wisdom and perfect being produce the Demiurge, which is imperfect wisdom and imperfect being
Same problem as before, just with diffferent terms
>And a lot of the Gnostics didn't consider the Demiurge evil, simply ignorant. Matter is not really evil in the moral sense either, it's just degenerate.
If Gnosis is the ultimate good, then ignorance, which is short of gnosis must be evil. This answer directs towards a solution of privation, which is more logically consistent.
However, a degeneration of Goodness into perversion by way of matter must itself be Evil. This refers back to evil as substance which just cannot be logically substantiated.

>> No.14657918

>>14657902
Only Creation ex nihilo can answer the problem of evil, because it fundamentally states that matter is non being. The further removed from participation in Being, the less Good, thus making evil a privation rather than a substance. Any argument that proposes evil as substance will fail to answer the problem of evil.

>> No.14657925

>>14657905
>Certainly you dont say matter is uncreated
but...that's exactly what you do. Why would you not do that? Even Neoplatonists believed in co-eternal material principle. It's pretty simple. The good gives off good, matter twists it.

>> No.14657935

>>14657918
there can be no murders or wars or rapes in a state of utter non-being. it's only the created existence that such evil things abound. pretty stupid argument

>> No.14657945

>>14657523
This is only a problem for Christian metaphysics not theistic metaphysics. The God of the OT never claims to be omnibenevolent and is perfectly willing to harm man as a test. Islam states that out of the 100 parts of Gods traits one part is wrath. So that rules out omnibenevolence. Most religions in fact do not make such a claim.

>> No.14657946

>>14657925
I belive matter is created from nothing by God.
If you support coexistence then you're basically saying there is a self sufficient substance other than God, making matter equal to God. If they're equal, how can one be better than the other?

>> No.14657951

>>14657946
>making matter equal to God
it doesn't make them equal, it makes them co-eternal

>> No.14657955

>>14657935
You misunderstand, which is usual for this. Murder is imperfect Being. An attempt to imitate God, but lacking in His absolute nature, so is thus corrupt. All acts are fundamentally good insofar as they participate in Being. I would direct you to the second chapter of the Confessions for a brief look at that

>> No.14657964

>>14657945
>Islam states that out of the 100 parts of Gods traits one part is wrath.
Where do they say that? I'm not challenging you btw I'm genuinely curious to learn since it sounds interesting. Is it from the Koran?

>> No.14657970

>>14657955
>Murder is imperfect Being. An attempt to imitate God, but lacking in His absolute nature, so is thus corrupt.
That's almost identical to the gnostic position. The Monad is perfect. Matter leeches off it, "imitates" it if you will, and produces imperfect things.

>> No.14657974

>>14657951
If matter is co-eternal then it must be self sufficient. If a self existent substance can twist and pervert another self existent substance then it must be more powerful than the other substance. If the Good is the highest point of Being, then it must be unassailable by anythin lesser than it.

>> No.14657979

>>14657891
Not the same thing. Suffering is caused by improper epistemology and is solved by a epistemic shift. Evil is a force that you're subjected to that is wholly outside of oneself. And no one can overcome evil except at the point of death and then too it is by further forces subjected to a person from outside himself, those being grace and forgiveness.

Eastern doctrines of suffering is not concerned with the "suffering" caused by a roof collapsing over a bunch of believers. Christianity certainly are though, and really the only ones that have "solved" it are the Calvinists that say it is God glorifying himself.

>> No.14657982

>>14657970
checkmate

>> No.14657986

>>14657970
Its different in so far as it suggests that matter is its own self existent substance and produces its own things. Its a subtle distinction.

>> No.14657988

>>14657964
look at the 99 names of allah
https://99namesofallah.name/
>The Abaser
>The Humiliator
>The Bringer of Death
etc

>> No.14658006

>>14657974
it doesn't pervert god, it perverts his overflow. and before you say that this means that his substance is flawed or some other pseudery this also applies to your god. people use his creation which was "very good" according to the bible for evil purposes all the time
>>14657986
it doesn't produce its own things, it uses goodness to produce evil

>> No.14658015

>>14657988
>the Retarder
ah, that explains a lot of things about my pakistani co-workers

>> No.14658021

>>14657622
>If God commanded you to suck black dick, I bet you would do it!
>If triangles had FOUR sides, you would be forced to call squares triangles. Geometcucks btfo.

>> No.14658023

>>14658006
> it uses goodness to produce evil
That mean the substance is actionable in itself, meaning it contains Being in itself. If Evil is a substance independently existent and able to do harm to Good, then it must be either equal to or greater than Good which is an ontological impossibility.
Evil as privation of Being is the only possible answer to the problem of evil

>> No.14658026

>>14657988
I was actually referring to a hadith. I will see if I can find it. It speaks of Allah beinh 99 parts mercy yet one part wrath. Also it is important to remember that the Arabic word for humiliate more accurately describes humbling (as in everyone is humbled and abased by his power). As for bringer of Death while it may refer to the violent ends met by those who opposed him it also refers to everyone who dies by the passage of time in a mundane fashion. More a reminder of mortality than a threat.

>> No.14658030

>>14657970
>That's almost identical to the gnostic position
This. What Christians don't seem to realize is that gnostics believe essentially the same things as them. They also believe in the same creator god, they just call him what he is, "evil". The beliefs are the same, the valuations are different.

>> No.14658039

>>14658023
Again, it just means that it is co-eternal. If two people are the same height it doesn't make them "equal" in all respects.

>> No.14658057

>>14657523
>is he able but not willing?
Well I guess you know the answer. Fucking obviously.

>> No.14658064

>>14658026
Also to add to that one of the names is Ad Dharr or "The Harmer" basically confirming God as the author of at least certain evils and saving Muslim theologians a few millenia of mental gymnastics

>> No.14658123

A lot of responses here defending Christianity seems to only concern themselves with evil being the purposeful turning away from Being. But is not things like cancer also considered an evil in a system that believes in a personal god?

>> No.14658137

>>14658039
Some christians, like Aquinas, have proposed a co eternal principle, that God is eternally begetting Being, however it is acknowledged that matter is still subordinate to and contingent on God's Being in every way. By existing in this lesser state, it is impossible for matter to do harm to Good. If you say that matter leeches and perverts Goodness, then it must do so on its volition, and this violates the Good as the highest. Matter cannot be contingent on Good and also able to act in itself against Good. If matter is wholly contingent on Good, then all that is actionable within it must come from Good. Within the gnostic sense, this would mean that evil is a positive attribute produced by Good, which fails to answer the problem of evil.

>> No.14658174

>>14658123
Augustine had an answer to evil within natural systems, like cancer, but I forget what it is.
Any serious christian repsonse to the problem of evil should begin with a reading of Augustine.

>> No.14658182

There's no 1 Christian metaphysics. There's Christian monists, dualists, pluralists. It's up to interpretation. Also, it's literally a contradiction to call God evil; it's the same as saying good is evil.

>> No.14658213

>>14658182
>Also, it's literally a contradiction to call God evil; it's the same as saying good is evil.
Read the thread. Gnostics solved this.

>> No.14658225

>>14658137
>Matter cannot be contingent on Good and also able to act in itself against Good.
But it do though. At least according to Thomists. And since evil to them are just relational property of Good then necessarily it fundamentally depends on it just as shadows depend on light and so Goodness must be its cause.

And btw is not the human soul also Being, or what is it?
>>14658182
>There's Christian monists, dualists, pluralists.
Point to any Christian denomination that is not dualist please.

>> No.14658248

>>14658225
Unironically crypto-quakers.

>> No.14658305

>>14658225
The key point here is "act in itself"
There can be no property intrinsic to matter that is not contingent on God. If evil is either a substance or act itself, it must therefore come from God, which is the root of the problem of evil. This is why evil must be only a privation and is why the gnostic concept of matter, evil and being is untenable.
>>14658213
>Read the thread
I thik that the thread has demonstrated that the gnostic solution is wrong

>> No.14658310

>>14658225
Did I say anything about entire denominations being nondualist? I don't know; irrelevant. I can name a nondualist Christian: Meister Eckhart.

>> No.14658313

>>14658225
>Point to any Christian denomination that is not dualist please.

Catholics.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05169a.htm

>> No.14658318

>>14658305
>I thik that the thread has demonstrated that the gnostic solution is wrong
Opposite, really.

>> No.14658363

>>14658318
Do we really need to start this all over again?

>> No.14658385

>>14658305
I don't see how you can say privation solves the problem of evil. Privation caused by beings that have their existence depend on Being is ultimately caused by Being itself.
>>14658310
Yeah you did. You said there are various Christian metaphysics.

If there is a Christian that believe in non-dualism then his Christianity is just accidental.
>Meister Eckhart
Was put on trial for heresy and probably would have burned for it if he had not died prematurely. If he then is still a Christian according to you it just means the signifier "Christian" points to nothing signified.
>>14658313
Creation is dualism.

>> No.14658393

>>14658363
No, because you got BTFO by the Gnostic Anons. You already lost.

>> No.14658397

>>14658385
A cause is an action and action is a presence which is not an absence. Privation is an absence, so therefore privation is something not effected by causality.
All actions are good in themselves in so far as they participate in Being.

>> No.14658403

>>14658385
>Creation is dualism.

That isn't even a coherent answer to the philosophy to which Catholics adhere to. As explained they believe all creation emerged from a single substance. Did you even read their doctrine?

>> No.14658408

>>14658393
No I didnt. So far Gnostics itt have been unable to explain how evil as substance can come from Goodness.

>> No.14658425

>>14658408
Anything that isn't part of the Monad is evil to varying degrees. Evil means being far removed from the Monad, not evil in some faggot moralist way. Evil isn't a substance.

>> No.14658438
File: 20 KB, 598x554, 1580175097230.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14658438

>>14657523
>man famed for "why bad thing happen" argument has "epic" in his name
you gotta love God's sense of humor

>> No.14658449

>>14658385
>If there is a Christian that believe in non-dualism then his Christianity is just accidental.
That doesn't make any sense. He's still Christian as you admit. His metaphysics is based in Christianity and is nondualist, so his metaphysics is Christian nondualism. Christianity is defined by Christ not dualist metaphysics.

>> No.14658459

>>14658425
Okay, that's a plotinian answer, but Gnostics also assert that matter was created by the demiurge, which is an act of creation not relevant to distance from God. They also assert that the substance of goodness is perverted and actively turned into evil, which is different from a "dimming" of Being. This suggests that matter as substance is evil.
The problem with gnosticsm is that its a mish-mash of several different philosophies and mythologies which creates internal friction.
You want ex nihilo when its convenient here and emmenation when its convenient there without regard to reconciling the positions.

>> No.14658462

>>14658438
bro you are just mad that theists got btfo bro, nobody could ever answer this question, nobody writes about this topic, theres no field of religion dedicated exclusively to this

>> No.14658476

>>14658462
you're right you're right. its totally an epic argument, can we get this man some gold reddit??

>> No.14658481

>>14658397
Absence is an unmanifested presence. God is omnipresent so his unmanifested state is caused by none other than himself because as you said before, Being can not be affected by causes outside of itself.
>>14658403
Catholics do not believe God was the material cause of the universe. He created it ex nihilo, not out of himself or whatever.

This is clear dualism.

>> No.14658492

>>14658462
The "question" is only a problem for Christians. Gnostics answered already. Muslims also did to some degree.

>> No.14658497

>>14658481
>Catholics do not believe God was the material cause of the universe. He created it ex nihilo, not out of himself or whatever.
>This is clear dualism.

Then you are taking a very non standard definition of dualism, one which is largely equivocal.

>> No.14658503

>>14658481
Thats an interesting point. I suppose privation is hard to reconcile with omnipresence. I think that dualism can possibly answer this, but its beyond me for the scope of this thread.

>> No.14658565

>>14658497
>Then you are taking a very non standard definition of dualism, one which is largely equivocal.
It actually is a common form of dualism(substance dualism), and that is true to the traditional christian take on the nature of the world, in which there is a clear distinction between Creator and Created.

>> No.14658581

>>14658565
Fine, I'll concede it is a form of dualism, but it is still equivocal given it is not the kind of dualism required for the previous arguments in this thread. Drawing a distinction between creation and creator is not the same as posting the existance of two co-eternal and antagonistic substances.

>> No.14658621

>>14657523
>>14657779
How is it malevolent? Why would God have an obligation to stop evil that humanity brought upon itself? The average man has a greater capacity to prevent evil than he exerts and we do not call him malevolent for this.

>> No.14658712

>what is eternity?
>what is the eternal soul?
>what is heaven ?
>what is hell?
Atheists are faggots and midwits

>> No.14658755

>>14657523
What appears to be evil to us is not actually evil. We are living in a mistaken conception of reality whereby we perceive certain things to be good or bad, but really there is no such thing. Therefore, God is able to prevent evil, but he is not willing to because it is not actually evil and we are merely living in illusion thinking that there is even a distinction between good and evil.

>> No.14658768

>>14657523
>Epicurus
This is not his belief please stop spreading this false information.

>> No.14658897

Freedom is before being. God has freedom. We have freedom. We exist in god and use freedom to create realities not fully revealed to be the Trinity. We get saved by god and reality is transformed, completed or filled up. Evil is only possible in certain modes of existence. Freedom is the only way that good can come about. The universe has evil elements to it because of something that happened in a past age, christians call it the fall. Matter is good but the fall altered it. Discursive reality is not final reality. Final reality is good. The potential for evil exist because the need for freedom is greater than the dross of gods creative process byproducts such as some souls turning away from god for a time.

>> No.14658927

>>14657537
Wait I thought Cicero worshiped the night mother/sithis?

>> No.14658995

Basically evil exist because christ is crucified. But good news, he has risen. Because he lives, so shall we. You wish to obliterate the very fabric of reality that makes you exist when you desire God to destroy everything in order to make it perfect. But you are too valuable for God to just erase you. God does get rid of evil. It just happens to be that you are in and part of that very process. Without you his kingdom can not fully be.

>> No.14659023

>>14658897
Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and God is a spirit. Matter is not good, it's degenerate and corrupt and distant from the Monad.

>> No.14659614

I am agnostic however come from a very educated catholic background; the most plausible argument I've heard came from a bishop: the paradox of Epicurus creates a false dichotomy. It postulates that for one thing to be wholly and infinitely something, its antonym would simply not be able to exist. And that's silly.
Where there infinite sunlight there would still, somewhere, be a shadow. Once this is taken into account there also exists the more stoic perpspective that stipulates that there is more nuance to life than "thing feel bad, thing bad". Maybe reaching a more Solomonic or Jobbean understanding of suffering would be good for us all (see: Ecclesiastes and Job).
If there truly is a grand designer of the Cosmos, a narrow moralistic argument would certainly not defraud his existence. Likewise a narrow moralistic argument does not account for the sheer transcendence of what we call god. It certainly brings a valid point to critique a very specific interpretation of the Bible and its words; but it does little else than foster further discussion instead of, as many apparently believe, terminate it.

>> No.14660493

>>14657779
Look! The tranny arrived

>> No.14660544

>>14657523
no anon Christians believe this is all a test to get into heaven. Even when their "god" destroys their lives its all just a test bro. Odd some people get a harder test than others

>> No.14660547

>>14660544
>Odd some people get a harder test than others
God works in mysterious ways ;)

>> No.14660782

>>14657523
God is unable but willing. God is "potent," but not omnipotent. He is perhaps omniscient, although who could say? If He isn't truly omniscient, then He is pretty close to omniscient. The one thing we can say for sure is He is omnibenevolent. We know this from His acts. He reaches out to us from the immaterial world of the forms through occasional miracles and messengers like Jesus and Amitabha.
>>14657733
See above. Problem of evil, done.
>>14657742
The true God who created all things and the Demiurge who corrupted the material are two separate things.
>>14657756
Even master craftsmen sometimes make mistakes. God is masterful, but He is not omnipotent. He weeps for us, because evil is so powerful in the material.
>>14657784
God is as close to perfect as is possible, which is why we call Him perfect.
>>14657649
That wasn't Christ.
>>14657856
>>14657902
You understand.
>>14657905
Gnostic Christianity is no more a mess than mainstream Christianity. The difference is that in today's world it is easy to differentiate the different sects and denominations of mainstream Christianity. The mainstream texts of the different denominations today were not deliberately destroyed in the days before the printing press, after all.
>>14658182
I think this is a good way to say it.
>>14658213
Dude... The thread is a clusterfuck of half-baked gnostics making clumsy arguments, and I say that as a gnostic.
>>14658123
Material things are imperfect reflections of their immaterial forms.
>>14658305
I think the main thing the thread has demonstrated is that the people meme-ing Gnosticism don't even truly understand Gnostic ideas beyond a Wikipedia summary. They need to read more, is all. Christian monism is alright. After all, we can't truly know for sure whether you monists or we dualists are correct until our times come.
>>14658363
No.
>>14658393
No, the Gnostic anons didn't BTFO anybody.
>>14658408
You are a monist and Gnostics are dualist. Completely different models. You take something else as a truth of your faith and that is alright.
>>14660544
>>14660547
That's not what all of us believe at all.
>>14657649
>>14657779
>>14657532
>>14657672
>>14657707
Stop slandering God.

>> No.14660786

>>14660782
what a gay and useless post

>> No.14660789

>>14660786
I'm bored and waiting for my fiancee to come home so I can cook dinner.

>> No.14660794

>>14660789
Cool, say hi from me, tell her it's Andy; she'll know.

>> No.14660878

>>14658021
Based and apologetics-pilled.

>> No.14660920

>>14657535
And then became central for 2 millenia. No evil, no free will; no natural evil, life ceases to be an adventure.
Why this rage for utter predictably? Things are perfect as they are: there's plenty to do.

>> No.14661002

>>14660782
>God is "potent," but not omnipotent
fucking heretic, you would be literally burned alive back in the good old days

>> No.14661012

It’s so fucking easy to refute though
>why is suffering inherently evil
>why is suffering/evil inherently bad
>what if suffering/evil is necessary for God to be all loving
Etc etc etc

>> No.14661015

>>14658462
Theosophy

>> No.14661041

>>14658621
>evil that humanity brought upon itself
Evil that god created because he created everything? It's not so much that he doesn't stop it, but that he created it. Why would an omnibenevolent god create evil?

>> No.14661044

>>14661012
>no see that baby had to get lymphoma because god needs to be out here living his best life n sheeeit
brilliant refutation, very convincing

>> No.14661051

>>14661044
Better than the hyperbolic crap you’ve offered in “response”. Why is a baby dying bad if it goes to heaven after?

>> No.14661058

>>14657663
>>christcucks after 2000 years still have not solved the problem of evil
Wrong.

>> No.14661062

>>14661012
>what if suffering/evil is necessary for God to be all loving
He makes you suffer because he loves you? Sadist, abusive relationship with his kid. Was this entire religion made up by people trying to reconcile their daddy issues?

>> No.14661064

>>14661002
yeah that guy has clearly not read revelations 19:6

>> No.14661097

>>14657633

everyone, without exception looks like a pretentious fool next to this guy. based

>> No.14661292

>>14661002

>>14661064
It's Revelation, actually. No plural. Biblical infallibility is idolatry, I think. Same with the porn-addicted trad LARPers worshiping their own image of what the church used to be like.

>> No.14661361

>>14657523
>Be me
>Be christian
>Also be moral nihlist
>The problem of evil is irrelevant
Epiccuk btfo

>> No.14661373

>>14657523
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjnLmZwVHuA

>> No.14661522

>>14657523
What compels this madness?
Do fedoraics lack the neurodiversity necessary to understand world optimization, retribution and free action?
I admit it takes some level of pure rationalism autism to get all this but still.
The 'problem' was already not a problem with Plato, but why do these retarded rakes still resurface after rationalism, especially a Leibniz.

>> No.14661529

>>14661041
To give people free will you retard. God doesn't want humanity to be puppets. Also the concept of evil is just the consequence of sin.

>> No.14661544

>>14661044
Because 'god should have created things to exclusively have pleasant feelings even if that means not having any consistency in the world' is very convincing too.
The cosmic coomer argument.

>> No.14661561

>>14657523
Lamo how does the deduction to malevolent come about? I beat old mate Eppi didn’t have any kids.

You realise that you cannot control your children and cannot force them for them to truly live.
We’re people honest this stupid in the past?

>> No.14661569
File: 21 KB, 689x445, 2AA54BC5-FF39-4532-8E47-CA2B66A874B2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14661569

>>14657572
Lamo literally the most successful people in God

>> No.14661572

Evil does not exist ontology. It's a privation of of divine light and is born from the choices of each soul, freedom is good, without freedom to do evil there's no virtue and only slavery.
To prevent evil is to enslave the universe, which is evil and not good.

>> No.14661576

>>14657523
You have to be 18+ in order to post on this website.

>> No.14661578

>>14657663
>>meanwhile in the east
>there are hundreds and thousands on starving children
>pajeets living in absolute poverty
>Chinese dying while working in sweatshops
That eastern way of life sure is good!

>> No.14661582

>>14661572
People like op don't actually care about evil proper, which deals with both metaphysics and the theory of action. Your response would be relevant directed at gnostics.
Their complain is about pain, the psychological affect.

>> No.14661713

>>14661292
>Biblical infallibility is idolatry,
damn they aren't even pretending to do what the bible says anymore. I guess it's just whatever the pastor feels like this week

>> No.14661790

>>14657523
This quote alone made me into the atheist I am today

>> No.14661803

>>14657523
The reason god doesn't extinguish evil is because evil comes from our own free will, and so to remove evil would be to also remove free will.

>> No.14662243

>>14661803
>The reason god doesn't extinguish evil is because evil comes from our own free will, and so to remove evil would be to also remove free will.
????
Augustine's free will have nothing to do with the modern definition of free will. Ironically, he also defend what is pretty much predestination, then claimed that wasn't deterministic because "muh God".

>> No.14662434

>>14657523
What is evil? Perhaps the greatest food can only be brought about by allowing a certain amount of evil to exist.

>> No.14662441

>>14661790
Small brain

>> No.14662457

>>14661572
>why do bad things happen to good people?
>ackshyually bad things don’t happen at all
apologetics sure have come a long way

>> No.14662470

>>14661051
why haven’t you killed yourself yet if heaven is so great?
>>14661544
>god is “””omnipotent”””
>has to worry about “””consistency”””
OH NO NO NO AHAHAAHAHA

>> No.14662491

So the world is just naturally horrific, and whatever made it come about probably was a bad idea?

>> No.14662511

The theodicy is really a coomer argument.
P1: If god exist, then I would be cooming right now.
P2: I'm not cooming :(((
C: Skyfairy not real

>> No.14662546
File: 134 KB, 862x1124, 1r8e222t6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14662546

*dances pantheistically*

>> No.14663933
File: 214 KB, 1200x823, 1574494770563.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14663933

>>14658462

>> No.14663955

You have to be pretty dumb to think the "problem of evil" is any problem at all.

>> No.14663966

Do what does answer the problem of evil? Theistic or not?

>> No.14665181

>>14663955
"Problem of evil" almost always boils down to
>waaah why am I not happy all the time
>*commits malicious acts against others*