The good in God

[Anonymous No.14730737]

Where's the guarantee that God is not an evil prick abusing his absolute power?
It's impossible to trust an all-powerful being that can sentence you to eternal torture for refusing to worship it.
Are there any books that tackle this subject matter?
Why is God considered good? Isn't the likelihood of God being evil about the same?

God could easily brainwash you into believing you deserve to get eternally assraped by demons in hell, if he's omnipotent as they say.
Has any theist countered this yet?
How can you take the goodness of God for granted?

[Anonymous No.14730766]

there are no guarantees. don’t believe the theological pilpul

[Anonymous No.14730767]

1. Bible
2. Yes.
3. He's the Good by which goodness is defined.
4. Depends on your understanding of goodness.
5. Yes.
6. By not being aware of it or your potential for belief in it.

[Anonymous No.14730777]

>>14730767
>He's the Good by which goodness is defined
semantic pilpul

[Anonymous No.14730793]

>>14730767
I'm actually God, and I'm a decent enough guy. You can trust me because this 4chan post says I am, and I wrote it, and it's true because I'm God.

[Anonymous No.14730810]

How can an evil being produce something beautiful?

[Anonymous No.14730828]

>>14730810
By not believing that beauty is contingent upon morality.

[Anonymous No.14730832]

>>14730810
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, anon
It's subjective, which means it doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.14730842]

>WHY DOESN’T GOD ADHERE TO MY SUBJECTIVE SENSE OF GOOD AND BAD?!?

[Anonymous No.14730865]

It is clear to me Goodness is itself unconditional Love or Good Will towards all. The utterly logical response to another sentience is sympathetic empathy. You put your self in the place of the other and treat them as you would like to be treated(an inherent logic of behavior).This sympathetic empathy engenders loving-kindness and compassion, or when taken together Benevolence. This Benevolence is meant to be apt (or to give the soul it's proper due regard) in that you act as if the sentient being's desires were entirely rational. A soul in a vacuum is simply meant to be hedonistic, it should want to maximize the pleasure it experiences("so that your Joy may be full").

Under careful consideration, it appears as if God is not entirely Benevolent. God does not alleviate the suffering even of completely moral beings(nay, sometimes causes them to suffer), and certainly does not try to make people happy with His omnipotence. Not yet, at least.

[Anonymous No.14730867]

>>14730737
There is no guarantee and there never will be. The evidence we have at hand tells us that he is at the very least, not very "caring" in the human sense

[Anonymous No.14730922]

>>14730832
God creates beauty, yet in our own free do we have the ability to find ugly what God deems beauty. One will mistake God as Evil, as above. Yet He is infinitly good.

[Anonymous No.14730955]

>>14730922
What did God deem beautiful? How do we know that those things are what they are? Everything boils down to the judgement of human subjectivity which as many religious people are wont to point out when discussing the problem of evil, cannot be applied to God

[Anonymous No.14730996]

>>14730922
>infinitely good
Do you think hell is a fair and just punishment?

[Anonymous No.14730998]

AHEM. FUCK GOD. GOD IS A NIGGER.

IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE A KEK AND A FAGGOT.

[Anonymous No.14731030]

If God is the Absolute then He is perfect. If He is perfect then He is good. The end.

[Anonymous No.14731038]

>>14730810
why would an evil be unable to produce something beautiful?
>>14730842
Good and bad are more objective than you know

[Anonymous No.14731047]

>>14730828
What is beautiful is better than what is ugly. Better here being a superlative of good. Therefore, beauty is characterized by good. Good is better than evil. Therefore, good cannot produce what is worse than itself, that being ugly.

[Anonymous No.14731053]

>>14730955
not that I believe in God or anything but I imagine he considered The Garden Of Eden to beautiful

[Anonymous No.14731063]

>>14730737
>THE LAW
But Christians don't have to follow the law. They don't even keep the commandment about the Sabbath.

[Anonymous No.14731075]

>>14731047
But God, the most beautiful and perfect being in existence, created humans?
He created humans, knowing that they will sin, time and time again. He's the one who set everything in motion.
It's like putting a pilot inside a badly-constructed plane mid-flight then blaming him when he crashes and burns instead of sticking the landing.

[Anonymous No.14731100]

>>14731047
Stupid word games and nothing more, fuck outta here with that shit

[Anonymous No.14731106]

>>14731075
I agree that explaining the Fall of Man outside of exoteric mythology is difficult. But heres what I know.
I know God exists
I know that for God to exist, He must be Good
I know that Humans exist
I know that Man is Fallen.
Since these points are all true, there must be a reconciliation between them. What that reconciliation is, is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.14731114]

>>14731047
>"good cannot produce what is worse than itself, that being ugly"
playing fast and loose with the words here we can claim that Roses are objectively more beautiful than Nettles, yet Nettles produce greater nutrition and in more abundance

[Anonymous No.14731125]

>>14731114
I'll agree that my argument is a rough sketch, but I believe in the dialectic so we can work through it.
In what way does nutrition point towards aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.14731126]

>>14731106
Are you genuine or just baiting?

[Anonymous No.14731138]

The only thing we can grasp on to in this life is love. May love be our rope back to God, may we find consolation in love, and prevail against all fears and blindness

[Anonymous No.14731154]

>>14730737
>Where's the guarantee that God is?
Fixed that for you.
And there is no guarantee he exists.
There you go.

[Anonymous No.14731157]

>>14730810

I sometimes contemplate this when I see my waifu

[Anonymous No.14731165]

>>14730737
It is true that justice, forgiveness, are evil qualities.

[Anonymous No.14731168]

>>14731154
We get it, you're an atheist, God doesn't exist.
You don't have to point out the obvious.

You clearly missed the point of this thread.

[Anonymous No.14731171]

>>14731165

Did God allow evil in order transmute it into gold? Was God an alchemist?

[Anonymous No.14731175]

>>14731171
Is it in the bible?

[Anonymous No.14731180]

>>14731165
>justice
>forgiveness
Before spouting such nonsense, let me ask you:
do you believe hell is a fair and just punishment?
Is God incapable of forgiveness unless the person expresses remorse over his actions?

How come we, flawed human beings, can forgive a murderer if he kills our child, but God can't?

[Anonymous No.14731244]

>>14731180
The point of the sacrifice of Jesus is so that all will be forgiven if we return to God via the spirit of Jesus. It is not so much a punishment as it is that when Jesus returns and instigates the end days, everything that is of God returns to God, and the rest is cast away because it is incompatible with the universe as it stands at that point - everything being God. So 'refusing to worship it' in this way is refusing the spirit that will mark you against being destroyed.

[Anonymous No.14731288]

>>14731244
His sacrifice is a bit belated, considering human beings have existed a long time before his arrival.

You're also forgetting that God is the instigator and punisher. He's the one who decided that sinners cannot co-exist with him.
It's like a robber pointing a gun at you, then shooting you when you refuse to give him your wallet.
Are you to blame? Partly. It would've been a smarter choice to hand the wallet over, a la Pascal's wager.
Is the robber alleviated of the responsibility of committing murder? Hell no.

I know you're probably just larping as a Christcuck though.
Doubt anyone here is truly religious.

[Anonymous No.14731300]

>>14730737
>God is not an evil prick abusing his absolute power?
Why would someone with absolute power need to abuse anyone else? He doesn't even have needs. There is no incentive for abuse.

[Anonymous No.14731323]

>>14731030
>If He is perfect then He is good
prove it fag

[Anonymous No.14731325]

>>14731288
>considering human beings have existed a long time before his arrival.

If we're speaking like the Bible is telling the truth, then no this isn't true.

>He's the one who decided that sinners cannot co-exist with him.

I don't know if it was a 'decision' and neither do you.

>It's like a robber pointing a gun at you, then shooting you when you refuse to give him your wallet.

Actually it would be refusing to give the robber's own wallet back to him.

I'm not a Christcuck.

[Anonymous No.14731365]

It is kinda a apriori thing found in the concept or God. Just like how we know a bachelor is an unmarried man. Even an atheist can state that conceptually God must have x properties to be God even if no such thing exists. God conceptually has to be most good, most knowing, most benevolent.

This means it can't lie or decieve for example or test you such things. If it is not you have another non-classical theism. The question then is why give a shit about it? It might as well be an armed dude, a warlord who can see everything.

[Anonymous No.14731612]

>>14731325
>If we're speaking like the Bible is telling the truth, then no this isn't true.
Fair enough.

>I don't know if it was a 'decision' and neither do you.
Does God not have free will? Isn't everything a part of his plan?

>Actually it would be refusing to give the robber's own wallet back to him.
That doesn't make the murder any more justified.

>I'm not a Christcuck.
Okay.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14731712]

>>14730737
1. Your ignoranty presumptuous notion of God as being a potentially malevolent entity is erroneous, and indicative of your own spiritual deficiency.

2. One is either: impelled to worship God, and live within its plenitude, or compelled to stray from God, and consume one's and/or others' alloted abundance unto death; in neither case is one sentenced/forced to anything beyond what one has chosen/determined for oneself.

[Anonymous No.14731735]

>>14731712
Arent you gnostic? Do you understand that evil doesnt exist?

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14731781]

>>14731735
>Arent you gnostic?
I doubt that you know what it means to be "gnostic", but my answer to you is: yes, I am.

>Do you understand that evil doesnt exist?
No, because there is no truth in that to stand under; rather, I know that it does exist, and that any claim to the contrary necessarily stems from ignorance of what is "evil".

[Anonymous No.14731820]

>>14731781
What does it mean to be a gnostic then
Whatdo you think evil is

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14731964]

>>14731820
>What does it mean to be a gnostic then
To be gnostic is to lead a noble (derived from root: "gno-") lifestyle, through reception of God's grace, with direction toward God's plenitude.

>Whatdo you think evil is
Evil is a quality of ignobility/ignoble being.

[Anonymous No.14731980]

>>14731964
This retard again
Gnosis means knowledge, not nobility
Ignobility is a privation, not an quality, meaning evil quite literally not exist

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14732013]

>>14731980
>Gnosis means knowledge, not nobility
What are you even replying to?

>Ignobility is a privation, not an quality, meaning evil quite literally not exist
Nobility and ignobility are intrinsic qualities, regardless of whether you prefer to follow/use the vulgate; you are wilfully ignorant.

[Anonymous No.14732189]

>>14732013
Ignobility is an absence of nobility, making it a privation rather than existent.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14732197]

>>14731980
>>14732013
Also, gnosis pertains to the total - physical, mental, spiritual - synthesis of knowledge, that is: the motion of Wisdom, not merely the totality of knowledge; this can only be done with a root in Nobility, hence the reflected/common etymological root.

[Anonymous No.14732207]

>>14732197
Can you direct me to a source that details the etymology and use of "gno" in ancient greek?

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14732254]

>>14732189
"Ignobility" refers to the manifestation of the essence of the abyss, which is something that exists, hence, the resulting darkness/evil is what characterizes ignobility.

[Anonymous No.14732274]

>>14732254
>manifestation of the essence of the abyss,
Well this is a weird statement. Where from is the essence manifested and into what is it manifested, and by what means?
How can an absence manifest and how can something that is characterized by non existence have an essence?

[Anonymous No.14732279]

>>14732254
>Ignobility" refers to the manifestation of the essence of the abyss
What does this even mean

[Anonymous No.14732286]

>>14730737
https://discord.gg/hCjX58e

[Anonymous No.14732336]

>>14732279
Sounds like a misunderstanding of neo platonism where he conflates an absence of being with an existent abyss. Rather than evil being distance from the one it is rather nothingess incarnate. As usual, gnostics have everything backwards.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14732416]

>>14732274
>Where from is the essence manifested
Firstly: from the aether, which permeates & underlies everything, secondly: from, and through, the abyss.

>and into what is it manifested,
Into whatever is aberrated from and/or mixed with plenitude/the Light.

>and by what means?
By whatever means are at one's disposal.

>How can an absence manifest and how can something that is characterized by non existence have an essence?
I reiterate: the essence of the abyss (the Dark) is not nonexistent/"absent", rather, it faciltates absence, within the abyss/void.

[Anonymous No.14732492]

>>14732336
exactly, i thought this as well

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14732656]

>>14732336
>>14732492
Your fantasy of a numb nothingness will be immediately dissipated once you experience the heaviness of a threefold darkness.

[Anonymous No.14732690]

>>14732656
More bullshit statements. You're preaching exoteric nonsense

[Anonymous No.14733052]

>>14732656
there is no essence of an abyss but an essential abyss, all and not a single a thing

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14733424]

>>14733052
The essence of the abyss, which is the Dark, is produced from deflection of Light, not merely from its absence, in the same way that "dark" feelings pollute the air of affect, and the waters of emotion, producing/perpetuating abysmal conditions; sole absence of (a part of) Light is resolved within the potentiality of aether, which is comprehended & generated in its totality by God alone.

Abysmal absence of everything is an actuality of the Dark; aetheric absence of what is possible and/or yet to be is of divine potentiality.

[Anonymous No.14733688]

Why is there religious discussion in /lit/? I thought this trolling stuff was reserved for /pol/ and /b/, or do you guys take it seriously?

[Anonymous No.14733858]

>>14733424
I understand the Darkness as being concealed by the light of Being - and beings, that is, manifestable and manifested possibilities and the Darkness itself being Non-Being, or unmanifestable possibilities; and this Darkness in turn conceals the Light of light (abyss within abyss).
If by aether you mean Receptacle, Matter (prima and secunda) and or Substance then I think we agree. But it is totally passive to the essence, and its ''degeneration'', its downard tendency toward pure quantity most apart from quality (essential pole) is its own Tamasik state in substantialization of Non-Being.
just remember that The One, God, is all things and no one of them.

[Anonymous No.14733874]

when i get to st peter im going to be like "IT ISNT RIGHT, ITS NOT RIGHT WHAT YOURE DOING"
Then jesus is going to be all like "i like this kid he has balls"

[Anonymous No.14734510]

>>14730737
The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis

[Anonymous No.14735675]

[Anonymous No.14736195]

>>14730810
Think of the fisherman with the flashy lure

[Anonymous No.14736210]

>>14730996
An offense against infinite majesty deserves infinite punishment.

[Anonymous No.14736730]

>tfw the jews and their servants have poisoned all discussions of god and religion with retarded arguments about fairy tales

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14736811]

>>14733858
>...the Darkness itself being Non-Being, or unmanifestable possibilities...
The Dark (of which darkness is a quality) is of Being, because: 1. its essence/it, as an essence, is stative; 2. it is manifestable.

>But it is totally passive to the essence, and its ''degeneration'', its downard tendency toward pure quantity...
Aether is intrinsically constant, and incapable of degeneration; rather, the ontological conditions that it facilitates are mutable, via action of Light, and of Dark, through, fundamentally, the potentiality of aether.

>just remember that The One, God, is all things and no one of them.
That is a false sacrilegious statement that is rooted in pantheism, a branch of atheism; God is beyond all things, and comprehends all things.

[Anonymous No.14736898]

>>14736811
>The Dark (of which darkness is a quality)
yes, just like The Good could be referred as Goodness different from goodness. Don't be pedantic about your individual systematizations.

>That is a false sacrilegious statement that is rooted in pantheism.
''the source of all things is not all things; and yet it is all things in a transcendental sense''
>God is beyond all things, and comprehends all things.
exactly what I said
What is manifestable? The Darkness/Dark? Or its instances?

>Aether is intrinsically constant, and incapable of degeneration.
Again, in reference to substance it is passive to quality, and the more it goes away from the essential pole the more it loses the Notion of quality. Aether as Receptacle it is neuter, pure potentiality, materia prima and unintelligible.

[Anonymous No.14736999]

>>14732416
>from the aether,
proof?

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14737408]

>>14736898
>The Good could be referred as Goodness different from goodness.
Goodness is a quality of Good, just as darkness is a quality of Dark; in both cases, both are mutually semantically distinct, and the latter instances were more contexually accurate to your post; I am merely correcting you.

>That is a false sacrilegious statement that is rooted in pantheism.
>''the source of all things is not all things; and yet it is all things in a transcendental sense''
Why are you reinforcing the aforementioned with further judaized drivel?

>God is beyond all things, and comprehends all things.
>exactly what I said
No, it is not.


>What is manifestable? The Darkness/Dark? Or its instances?
1. The Dark.

2. Manifestation transcurs through instance.

>Again, in reference to substance it is passive to quality, and the more it goes away from the essential pole the more it loses the Notion of quality.
You are not saying anything.

Aether as Receptacle it is neuter, pure potentiality, materia prima and unintelligible.
And?

[Anonymous No.14737587]

>>14737408
>The Good could be referred as Goodness different from goodness.
Goodness is a quality of Good, just as darkness is a quality of Dark; in both cases, both are mutually semantically distinct, and the latter instances were more contexually accurate to your post; I am merely correcting you.

>That is a false sacrilegious statement that is rooted in pantheism.
>''the source of all things is not all things; and yet it is all things in a transcendental sense''
Why are you reinforcing the aforementioned with further judaized drivel?

>God is beyond all things, and comprehends all things.
>exactly what I said
No, it is not.

you're still clinging to individual systematizations, in relation to the Good I agree that the Dark would be better to use but I thought you would understand what I meant from the beginning.
by the way that quote is from Plotinus

How is the Dark manifestable?

>And?
And it is passive in relation to quality (the essential side of corporeality).

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.14737742]

>>14737587
>you're still clinging to individual systematizations
I do not "cling" to anything; I side with truth, regardless of my manner of interiorization and expression.

>by the way that quote is from Plotinus
Neoplatonism is a judaized corruption of Platonism.

>in relation to the Good I agree that the Dark would be better to use but I thought you would understand what I meant from the beginning.
I comprehend.

>How is the Dark manifestable?
Via affinity; that which tends toward the Dark becomes of it.

>And it is passive in relation to quality (the essential side of corporeality).
Ok.

[Anonymous No.14738028]

>>14737742
>Neoplatonism is a judaized corruption of Platonism.
lmao

yet you are the one as systematic as a rabbi

[Anonymous No.14738176]

>>14730737
what do you call this art style?