/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15496277]

Guys, I am now a firm beliver in God and I do not ask this question to dismiss his existence, I just want you to clear it up for me. Why would an all loving God give someone life and then make them suffer? Why couldn't that suffering exist outside of a conciousness? Outside of a being?

[Anonymous No.15496281]

>>15496277
>>>/rel/

[Anonymous No.15496291]

Suffering is a process that perfects your soul, when dealt with correctly.

[Anonymous No.15496299]

>>15496281

This. God these faggots need a containment board. If /v/ can get one for fucking Pokémon surely we can get one for christcucks.

[Anonymous No.15496310]

>>15496299
Judgement day is right around the corner.

[Anonymous No.15496482]

>>15496291
this. suffering is necessary and desirable once we are past it and newly made by it. God himself has put himself through immense suffering for the sake of love.

[Anonymous No.15497148]

>>15496310
I'll just walk round the other corner

[Anonymous No.15497307]

>>15496277
Suffering doesn't exist, it's the absence of God's being either individually or socially

[Anonymous No.15497354]

>>15496482
>>15496291
I really don't think we should deify suffering. All that god created is good. The path to God is gracious, it's the sin of man that is not. I think giving suffering any credence or ontology turns people into perverts

[Anonymous No.15497412]

>>15497354
i should have made a distinction between self flagellation, needless sin etc vs. enduring unavoidable suffering with the understanding that God will strengthen you for it, and that faithful endurance is a good work. i rushed it, my bad

[Anonymous No.15497472]

>>15496277
only religion that really has an answer for why suffering exists is islam, in essence the idea is that life is a trial and all the miseries thrown at you are to see how you'd react and if you'd still uphold your religion even in the worst of circumstances. I'm pretty sure christianity doesn't have an answer, not sure about judaism though

[Anonymous No.15497625]

>>15496299
>This. God these faggots need a containment board. If /v/ can get one for fucking Pokémon surely we can get one for christcucks.

[Anonymous No.15497658]

>>15497472
>Christianity doesn't have an answer
>>>/out/
>>15497307
Evil is what doesn't really exist, not suffering.
>>15496277
Suffering is generally just part of being fully cognizant of some evil or imperfection. If we didn't have enough of an ability to both delight and suffer from both good and bad things, we wouldn't have a sufficient ability to choose God (or not).

[Anonymous No.15497666]

>>15496277
God doesn’t exist, especially in an personal, intentional form.

[Anonymous No.15498360]

VIII.

Job asked: “God, why would You, who are perfect, create a universe filled with so much that is evil?”

Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the whirlwind, saying “WOULD YOU PREFER I HAD NOT CREATED YOUR UNIVERSE, EVIL AS IT IS? WOULD YOU PREFER TO BE VOID AND EMPTINESS?”

“No!” said Job. “I would prefer to live in a universe that was perfect and just!”

“I CREATED SUCH A UNIVERSE,” said God. “IN THAT UNIVERSE, THERE IS NO SPACE, FOR SPACE TAKES THE FORM OF SEPARATION FROM THINGS YOU DESIRE. THERE IS NO TIME, FOR TIME MEANS CHANGE AND DECAY, YET THERE MUST BE NO CHANGE FROM ITS MAXIMALLY BLISSFUL STATE. THE BEINGS WHO INHABIT THIS UNIVERSE ARE WITHOUT BODIES, AND DO NOT HUNGER OR THIRST OR LABOR OR LUST. THEY SIT UPON GOLDEN THRONES AND CONTEMPLATE THE PERFECTION OF ALL THINGS.

YET I ALSO CREATED YOUR UNIVERSE, THAT YOU MIGHT LIVE. TELL ME, JOB, IF I UNCREATED YOUR WORLD, WOULD YOU BE HAPPIER? OR WOULD YOU BE DEAD, WHILE FAR AWAY IN A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE INCORPOREAL BEINGS SAT ON THEIR GOLDEN THRONES REGARDLESS?”

“I would prefer to be one of those perfect beings on their golden thrones.”

“WHAT WOULD IT MEAN FOR YOU TO BE SUCH A BEING? THEY HAVE NO BODIES, NO EMOTIONS, NO DESIRES, NO LANGUAGE. WHAT WOULD IT MEAN FOR ME TO CREATE A VERSION OF YOU WITHOUT BODY EMOTION DESIRE OR LANGUAGE, VERSUS TO CREATE SUCH A BEING BUT NOT HAVE IT BE YOU AT ALL? IS A VERSION OF YOU WHO IS INFINITELY WISE STILL YOU? A VERSION OF YOU WHO IS A WICKED IDOLATOR? A VERSION OF YOU WHO IS EXACTLY LIKE NOAH, IN EVERY WAY? THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE COSMIC UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.”

[Anonymous No.15498366]

>>15498360
“THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY UNIVERSES HAVE A JOB. THERE ARE VARIOUS CREATURES MORE OR LESS LIKE YOU. IF I UNCREATED YOU AND YOUR WORLD OF SUFFERING, THEY WOULD REMAIN, AND YOU WOULD DIE. WOULD THIS BE A FAVOR TO YOU?”

“I still don’t understand. Certainly I, who exist, want to continue existing. But instead of creating one perfect universe and some flawed universes, couldn’t you just have created many perfect universes?”

“TELL ME, JOB, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR RIGHT AND LEFT HANDS?”

“Uh…one is on my right, and the other is on my left. And they’re mirror images of each other.”

“I AM BEYOND SPACE. TO ME THERE IS NEITHER LEFT NOR RIGHT NOR MIRRORED REFLECTION. IF TWO THINGS ARE THE SAME, THEY ARE ONE THING. IF I CREATED TWO PERFECT UNIVERSES, I WOULD ONLY HAVE CREATED ONE UNIVERSE. IN ORDER TO DIFFERENTIATE A UNIVERSE FROM THE PERFECT UNIVERSE, IT MUST BE DIFFERENT IN ITS SEED, ITS SECRET UNDERLYING STRUCTURE.”

“Then create one perfect universe, and some universes whose structures have tiny flaws that no one will ever notice.”

“I DID. I CREATED MYRIADS OF SUCH UNIVERSES. WHEN I HAD EXHAUSTED ALL POSSIBLE UNIVERSES WITH ONE FLAW, I MOVED ON TO UNIVERSES WITH TWO FLAWS, THEN UNIVERSES WITH THREE FLAWS, THEN SO ON, AN ENTIRE GARDEN OF FLAWED UNIVERSES GROWING ALONGSIDE ONE ANOTHER.”

[Anonymous No.15498373]

>>15498366
“Including mine.”

“YOUR WORLD IS AT THE FARTHEST EDGES OF MY GARDEN,” God admitted, “FAR FROM THE BRIGHT CENTER WHERE EVERYTHING IS PERFECT AND SIMPLE. THERE IS A WORLD MADE OF NOTHING BUT BLISS, WITH A GIANT ALEPH IN THE CENTER. THERE IS ANOTHER WORLD MADE OF NOTHING BUT BLISS WITH A GIANT BET IN THE CENTER. AND SO ON, BUT MAKE A MILLION MILLION WORLDS LIKE THOSE, AND YOU START NEEDING TO BECOME MORE CREATIVE. YOU NEED MORE AND MORE STRATAGEMS TO SEPARATE WORLDS FROM ONE ANOTHER. WORLDS WHERE INCREDIBLY BIZARRE THINGS HAPPEN AS A MATTER OF COURSE. WORLDS WHERE RANDOM COMBINATIONS OF SYLLABLES INVOKE DIVINE POWERS. AND THE MORE SUCH THINGS I ADD, THE MORE CHANCE THAT THEY TEND TOWARD EVIL. YOUR WORLD IS VERY FAR FROM THE CENTER INDEED. IT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A VAST WASTE, WHERE NOTHING ELSE GROWS. ALL OF THE WORLDS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PLANTED THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOMINATIONS OF WICKEDNESS. BUT BY COINCIDENCE PILED UPON COINCIDENCE, YOURS WAS NOT. YOURS WILL GROW INTO A THING OF BEAUTY THAT WILL GLORIFY MY HOLY NAME.”

“It will?”

“GENESIS 1:31. I LOOKED AT THE WORLD, AND I SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD. I BEHELD ADAM KADMON, THE SEED OF YOUR WORLD, AND SAW THAT IT WAS A GOOD SEED. THAT IT WOULD GROW INTO MORE GOOD THAN EVIL. THAT IT DESERVED A PLACE IN MY GARDEN, BESIDE THE MILLION MILLION OTHER SEEDS THAT WOULD GROW INTO OTHER WORDS, SO THAT AS MUCH GOODNESS AS POSSIBLE COULD BE INSTANTIATED IN THE COSMOS.”

“God,” said Job, “what about me?”

[Anonymous No.15498378]

>>15498373
“WHAT ABOUT YOU?”

“All my children are dead. All my wealth is gone. I’m covered in boils. And you’re telling me, basically, that the reason I’m covered in boils is so that you can have one universe where I’m covered in boils, and another universe where I’m not covered in boils, and then you’ll have one more universe than if you committed to not covering me in boils?”

“NOT EXACTLY. I DO NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE EVERY DECISION ABOUT BOILS. I CREATE THE SEEDS OF UNIVERSES, WHICH GROW ACCORDING TO THEIR SECRET STRUCTURE. BUT IT IS TRUE THAT I COULD HAVE LIMITED MYSELF TO CREATING UNIVERSES WHERE NO ONE EVER BECAME COVERED IN BOILS, AND I DID NOT DO SO. FOR THE UNIVERSES WHERE SOME PEOPLE GET COVERED IN BOILS ALSO HAVE MYRIADS OF WONDERS, AND JOYS, AND SAINTS, AND I WILL NOT DENY THEM EXISTENCE FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE COVERED IN BOILS.”

“How many wonders and joys and saints is one case of boils worth, God?”

“BE CAREFUL, JOB. I HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH ABRAHAM BEFORE YOU. HE ASKED WHETHER I WOULD SPARE MY JUDGMENT ON SODOM LEST FIFTY RIGHTEOUS MEN SHOULD SUFFER. WHEN I AGREED, HE PLED FOR FORTY, THIRTY, TWENTY, AND TEN. BUT BELOW TEN HE DID NOT GO, SO I DESTROYED THE CITY. AND IF I WOULD NOT RESTRAIN MYSELF FROM DESTROYING FOR THE SAKE OF A HANDFUL OF RIGHTEOUS MEN SUFFERING, HOW MUCH LESS I SHOULD RESTRAIN MYSELF FROM CREATING.”

“So I should just sit here and suffer quietly?”

“UNTIL YOU DIE, AND YOUR SOUL IS REMOVED FROM THE WORLD, AND I CAN GRANT IT ETERNAL BLISS WITHOUT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT ANY OF THIS.”

[Anonymous No.15498386]

>>15498378

“That’s not a fucking lot of consolation, God.”

Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the whirlwind, saying: “HAVE YOU BEHELD THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH? SEEN ITS FOOTINGS AND ITS CORNERSTONE? WATCHED AS THE SONS OF GOD ALL SANG TOGETHER AND THE MORNING STARS SHOUTED FOR JOY? HAVE YOU SEEN THE DOORS OF THE SEA? THE CHAINS OF THE PLEIADES AND ORION’S BELT? THE LIONS, THE RAVENS, THE YOUNG OF THE DOE AND BEAR? BEHOLD THE BEHEMOTH, WHICH I MADE BESIDE YOU, AND THE LEVIATHAN WHO RESIDES IN THE SEA. CAN YOU SAY THAT ALL THESE WONDERS SHOULD NOT BE, SO THAT YOU COULD AVOID A CASE OF BOILS? SHALL I SMITE THEM FOR YOU? SPEAK, AND I SHALL END THE WORLD WITH A WORD.”

And as He spoke, the whirlwind took form, and Job saw all of these things, the boundaries of the Earth and the gateways of the Heavens, the myriad animals from Leviathan down to the smallest microbe, the glory of the lightning and the gloom of the deepest caves, the pyramids of Egypt and the pagodas of China. And he knew more surely than he had ever known anything before that God could end all of them with a word, and he knew that the existence of all of them, every single one, depended on the same seed that had given him a case of boils.

And Job said “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes. But…why couldn’t you have told me this before? Why did I have to suffer in ignorance?”

[Anonymous No.15498393]

>>15498386
“YOUR WORLD IS AT THE EDGES OF MY GARDEN. IF NOT FOR COINCIDENCE PILED UPON COINCIDENCE, IT WOULD NEVER BLOSSOM INTO GOODNESS, AND SO COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED. YOUR IGNORANCE OF MY PURPOSE BEGINS A CHAIN OF COINCIDENCES WHICH WILL GROW AND GROW UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD, WHEN IT WILL COME TO FRUITION. THAT PURPOSE IS NOW COMPLETE. GO, AND REGAIN EVERYTHING YOU HAVE LOST, BUT TELL NOBODY WHAT I HAVE TOLD YOU.”

“But…I told everybody I was going to ask You about the purpose of evil. When they want to know what You answered, what should I tell them?”

“TELL THEM I SAID ‘GO FISH’.”

[Anonymous No.15498394]

>>15496277
Zeus didn’t actually create humans. It was actually Gaia. Zeus is was an interloper, and now that he’s dead the age of Apollo has been a disaster for mankind.

The goddesses will return the world to its former glories, anon. You just have to believe.

[Anonymous No.15498414]

>>15496482
>if you were present at the crucifixion you would have endorsed it instead of stopping it
christcucks are so funny

[Anonymous No.15498458]

>>15498414
How the hell would I stop a group of roman soldiers from doing anything? Why would I worry about an impossible situation? If you wanted to blaspheme, why did you pick such a stupid hypothetical? You could have said something like "Oh, so if you were being tortured you'd thank God for it?" or something.

Shouldn't you be on /pol/? This is a seriously baffling post to me. I can't imagine how you'd think this up. 10/10

[Anonymous No.15498492]

>>15498458
You didn't even answer the post, if you were present, and had the power to prevent it, would you?

[Anonymous No.15498611]

>>15496277
Suffering is the sacrifice needed to bring humanity to its true state before original sin. Suffering purifies.

[Anonymous No.15498652]

>>15498492
That Jesus-Freak is right, this is a stupid hypothetical. How could he stop the crucifixion? He doesn't speak Latin! Stop taunting the oiks with your superior Public School education. Nunc, non dicite Caudicibus. redite ad villae tuae, Patricie!

[Anonymous No.15498669]

>>15498393
Pretty enjoyable. Reminds of a short story by Vladimir Korlenko called "The Shades".

[Anonymous No.15498749]

>>15497658
I think a good metaphysics on suffering allows people a realistic view on the nature of the world not too much either way. I think suffering is just lack of charity or some variable that defines suffering. You can do more w it less w it

[Anonymous No.15498753]

>>15498393
I appreciated this it was nice

[Anonymous No.15498759]

>>15497148
*is already waiting for you*
Nothin personnel kid

[Anonymous No.15498765]

>>15497148
*is already waiting for you*
Nothin personnel kid

[Anonymous No.15498867]

>>15498669
>>15498753
It's an excerpt from Scott Alexander's Urban-Jewish-Fantasy webnovel Unsong, set in a universe where Kaballah is real and it's patented by corporations. It's online for free, I encourage you to check it out.

The excerpt is an anecdote from near the end of the novel being delivered to one of the main characters, who responds with an angry rebuttal that is also worth reading, but not as comfy.

[Anonymous No.15498872]

>>15496277
Because life is not pure suffering. If your life is mostly shit you still at least have heaven to look forward to, but you can't if you were never born.

[Anonymous No.15498885]

if your theodicy is anthropocentric it's bunk

christians have never solved the problem of evil

[Anonymous No.15498930]

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

[Anonymous No.15498981]

>>15496277
this is /lit/ - literature
not a fucking religitard agony aunt column
fuck off

[Anonymous No.15499035]

>>15498930
This server was filled with awful racist nonsense while pretending to be a community about mysticism.

[Anonymous No.15499170]

Because God is a cowardly asshole. He fucked up in the Garden of Eden, and transmitted the blame of his fuckup onto innocent humans, like the asshole he is

[Anonymous No.15499215]

>>15499170
What are you talking about? It's perfectly normal to put your toddler children in a playpen and then deposit a bunch of poison fruit in the middle of it and then when one of your house servants tells them to eat it you condemn both your children to great torment and death. It's just basic parenting

[Anonymous No.15499309]

>>15498749
Yeah, that's close to where I'd go with it. In a way though, I suppose some forms of suffering are actually essential for us to be made in the image of God; empathy is one. God became Man and died for us and suffered for us and with us. Suffering in the sense of empathy is love and I'd argue it's necessary. As for suffering from hunger and other pains, that's more to do with basic human urges (so that we'd actually eat) and that it's a recognition of imperfection. One could argue that it's a form of empathy, but that seems needlessly convoluted--I'd just go with what I've said already, that suffering is a recognition of the fallen-ness of creation and how it is imperfect. It's just a side effect.

[Anonymous No.15499325]

>>15499170
It's a multipurpose allegory:
1. Humans, given our libertarian free will, will invariably sin.
2. Sin originates from a desire to prioritize knowledge over love. God, being fit for love (and obedience, just as it's loving to obey your parents when they lay down sensible rules) should have been obeyed rather than ignored in the pursuit of knowledge.
Anyone reading it too literally is likely a moron and/or Sola Scriptura.

[Anonymous No.15499745]

>>15499325
If "too literally" for you is almost every Church Father considering it a true story (aka Adam and Eve really existed, were truly the two first humans and truly did sin in that way, introducing sin into the world), maybe you're the one who isn't getting it.

[Anonymous No.15500054]

>>15499745
First, "almost every" is a bold assertion. By bold I mean "straight up fucking wrong." Hell, even Augustine, poster-boy of the West (aside from Aquinas) says that people reading it as history are dumb. In any case, a claim with no sources gets refuted likewise.

[Anonymous No.15500104]

>>15500054
"Even" Augustine is a bold assertion, because if I can remember it right, he, Origen and Clement of Alexandria are almost alone in this. The Catholic Church even made it dogma that the story is to be taken literally; the only part that is flexible is the 7-day count, which can be taken as a figure of speech for the instantaneous creation. But that Adam and Eve existed as first man and first woman, and were responsible for the first sin, there is no ancient Church that denies it.

[Anonymous No.15500115]

>>15500104
>Catholic
>Church
Pick one, anon

[Anonymous No.15500128]

>>15500115
I'm pretty sure the Orthodox all consider the Adam/Eve story to be literal, at least in some mystical sense.

[Anonymous No.15500484]

>>15498492
>and had the power to prevent it
False assumption. I'm not God so I cannot prevent a prophesied crucifixion.

[Anonymous No.15500508]

>>15500115
>>15500054
Can you name even three notable saints (aside from St. Augustine and St. Clement) who denied the historical nature of the Adam and Eve account?

[Anonymous No.15500513]

>>15499170
>Because God is a cowardly asshole. He fucked up in the Garden of Eden, and transmitted the blame of his fuckup onto innocent humans, like the asshole he is

>>15499215
>What are you talking about? It's perfectly normal to put your toddler children in a playpen and then deposit a bunch of poison fruit in the middle of it and then when one of your house servants tells them to eat it you condemn both your children to great torment and death. It's just basic parenting

[Anonymous No.15500523]

>>15496277
>Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

[Anonymous No.15500549]

>>15497472
Before V2 RCC though exactly the same thing.

[Anonymous No.15500612]

>>15496277
>Why couldn't that suffering exist outside of a conciousness? Outside of a being?
Because in Christian theology all actions/operations are personal. Suffering is a human action, every human action is embodied in a person with human nature, just as a divine action necessarily only proceeds from one with a divine nature. Human nature is never separated from the concrete person embodying it and does not exist on its own "abstractly".

[Anonymous No.15500651]

>>15496277
You know when you cut yourself really deep and need stitches to make it heal/heal correctly? The stitches hurt going in but once it's sown up it gets better. Look if you're searching for a scriptural answer it's about us joining the Satan in his little rebellion (autistic shitfit is more like it), the answer is Genesis. There's plenty of philosophical/pragmatic reasons I can give but I know some people won't like them, nevertheless I'll give it a go.

1. Suffering can be a tool. When you're comfortable seemingly there's nothing wrong, when something is wrong you feel suffering (even if it's only a little bit). Suffering has a permanence in it's teaching too because you will remember the thing that hurt you so you will have a better chance of avoiding whatever x is in the future.

2. You're assuming all that you are based on knowledge you think you have. We can't see ultraviolet, our senses (the primary means of gathering data) get fooled by illusions, those fallible senses informed our perception which is flawed from our past experiences because we develop biases and ways of thinking that conflicts with other people's previous experiences, biases and ways of thinking. I guess to sum my point up; we can't fucking know the future and we can't truly know the present. There are are so many variables that we have to consider and a lot of the variables we can't even consider until our technology develops further and we discover them. So asking the questions you did as if the basis is sound and well informed is wrong. We simply cannot know, we're too limited.

3. When your dog shits in your yard, gets it on his foot and runs inside are you held responsible? Why does God presiding over the suffering caused by entities He gave free will assume the responsibility of their actions? If it is this case that He should be held responsible, where do you draw the line between your free will and God controlling your life? You can't draw it, we're too limited and lacking in knowledge.

4. Another possibility is that it's evolutionary. Pls don't try to btfo me Christians, to a being who exists outside of decay and therefore time, evolution is just another process of creation. You can view it like God watering a seed and watching it grow. Sorry for the digression but to get back to the point, every ounce of pain you feel is to help you avoid death. inb4 "What about ones to help you avoid injuries?" It's the same thing, by avoiding injuries you have a better chance at surviving and reproducing.

I have a metric fuckton more if you're interested but I have a meeting with someone tomorrow and I need to head to bed so I won't be on much longer. Best of luck in your journey mate, if you need answers don't be afraid to pray. God will give you better understanding than any of us.

[Anonymous No.15500675]

>>15500651
Please forgive some poor phrasing, I'm a fuckwit who can't use proper grammar and have trouble un-convoluting my retard thoughts. The first sentence in 2. I should have said "The basis for your questions is based upon knowledge you think you have".

[Anonymous No.15500698]

Any justification of suffering presupposes our current human condition as somehow necessary and it always fails to explain how the God of omnipotence and omnibenevolence did not create the best of worlds, unless our current human condition is the best of worlds, which would be at least extremely difficult to argue.
Even considering the gift that free will is, if you take the scholastic definition of free will (the power to choose the means of an action), it does not entail that God has any need to allow men to sin and do wrong. In fact, he has the ontological duty, as the highest good, to predetermine any action men take towards the highest good possible.
In the end, even when you accept the autistic ramblings of evil "not existing", the problem of evil will always end up being about God doing whatever he wants.

[Anonymous No.15500755]

>>15500698
>trying to pin God down into a neat philosophical talmudic box
>about God doing whatever he wants
>problem

Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us,
But to Your name give glory,
Because of Your mercy,
Because of Your truth.

Why should the Gentiles say,
“So where is their God?”
But our God is in heaven;
He does whatever He pleases.

[Anonymous No.15500771]

>>15500755
>Why should the Gentiles say,
>“So where is their God?”

[Anonymous No.15500780]

>>15500755
Namedropping "talmudic" means literally nothing when this is exactly what theologians tried to do for the entirety of the existence of the Church, specially the western Church. If you're going to defend a voluntarist god, go ahead. Just don't try to defend your faith as in any way, shape or form as "reasonable".

[Anonymous No.15501165]

>>15499309
>God BECAME Man
>Malachi 3:6 “For I the Lord DO NOT CHANGE; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed."

>Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
god doesn't change, isn't a man and doesn't change his mind (like he did in 1st Samuel 15:10-11 '"Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, I REGRET that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.' Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.")

christianity is a joke

[Anonymous No.15501211]

>>15501165
>Christianity is a joke
Trust me, everyone will get the message one day, purely by chance or coincidence, be kind to your future self and don't make him feel all that gulit and repent now, to avoid all that unnecessary suffering. Or not, but you know what awaits you either way (God will show you the truth one day and you will be on your knees saying God forvive me for deceiving myself, I will change and if you know the future you know it's true, so please have mercy on me) so yeah just keep doing your thing, I was like you once. The real struggle isn't to stop sinning, it's to keep beliving, because either way only a complete retard would choose to disobey God and suffer instead of accepting his gift, and I say retard confidently because you will want to take it back, but you won't be able to.

[Anonymous No.15501242]

>>15501211
I'm not that guy, but I wish I could turn back to believing like you do now and like I once so fervently did. Yet I can't ignore the contradictions, misquotations and mistakes made in the NT; the extraordinary claims are manifold, but the evidence is so scant. Do you ever think abou that? Or do you ignore it over the fact that believing in God is probably the only thing that put your life in order? Do you see your wilfull ignorance as an act of humility unto God?

[Anonymous No.15501465]

>>15501211
Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr maybe it's just that Christianity in its contemporary form is absolute nonsense and the truth lies elsewhere.
You are legitemately acting out of blind faith, like a little child clinging on to his belief in santa, your scripture is faulty and altered, and the best thing is that you don't need to accept this nonsense. Jesus was truthful, no doubt, but the the assertion that he claimed divinity is absolute nonsense and he claimed no such thing and I challenge you to prove. If jesus isn't god (he never claimed so and I challenge you to prove so) but was just a prophet as he claimed then the only choice you have is to believe in Islam, whose concept of god is the most rational (perfectly one, not three in one or a family of gods or some other nonsense.) and which affirms jesus's prophethood.


I honestly don't care what you believe in, but if, when faced with blatant and apparent contradiction, you still choose to lie to yourself and find no problem with the fact that your god is the author of lies and confusion, then you're hopelessly lost and I can't help you.

[Anonymous No.15501480]

>>15496277
Why do you assume God to be nice, or even intelligible?

[Anonymous No.15501493]

If you faith you can't fact, it invalidates the faith.
Fact.

[Anonymous No.15501507]

>>15501165
>>God BECAME Man
>>Malachi 3:6 “For I the Lord DO NOT CHANGE; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed."
>>Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
>god doesn't change, isn't a man and doesn't change his mind (like he did in 1st Samuel 15:10-11 '"Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, I REGRET that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.' Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.")
>christianity is a joke

[Anonymous No.15501514]

>>15496277
All that exists is God’s consciousness subjectively experiencing itself. God’s conscious must experiencing everything imaginable before reaching self-actualization (Heaven/Hell), so suffering is a real occurrence

[Anonymous No.15501516]

>>15501465
>Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr maybe it's just that Christianity in its contemporary form is absolute nonsense and the truth lies elsewhere.
>You are legitemately acting out of blind faith, like a little child clinging on to his belief in santa, your scripture is faulty and altered, and the best thing is that you don't need to accept this nonsense. Jesus was truthful, no doubt, but the the assertion that he claimed divinity is absolute nonsense and he claimed no such thing and I challenge you to prove. If jesus isn't god (he never claimed so and I challenge you to prove so) but was just a prophet as he claimed then the only choice you have is to believe in Islam, whose concept of god is the most rational (perfectly one, not three in one or a family of gods or some other nonsense.) and which affirms jesus's prophethood.
>I honestly don't care what you believe in, but if, when faced with blatant and apparent contradiction, you still choose to lie to yourself and find no problem with the fact that your god is the author of lies and confusion, then you're hopelessly lost and I can't help you.

[Anonymous No.15501521]

>>15501514
>All that exists is God’s consciousness subjectively experiencing itself. God’s conscious must experiencing everything imaginable before reaching self-actualization (Heaven/Hell), so suffering is a real occurrence

[Anonymous No.15501524]

>>15496299
All religion posters should go there, including pagans, muslims and pajeet spiritualists.

[Anonymous No.15501530]

>>15501165
>eternally existing outside arbitrary norms such as time
>being subject to “change” despite how it may be perceived by the human mind which is nothing more than subjective experience
pick one

[Anonymous No.15501533]

>>15501242
>contradictions, misquotations and mistakes made in the NT
Like what? Why do you trust modern scholars over the words of Christ?

[Anonymous No.15501552]

>>15501465
>Jesus was truthful
How do you know this when you deny apostolic succession and an uncorrupted transmission of His teaching?
>he never claimed so
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."
(Exodus 20:2)

[Anonymous No.15501564]

>>15501211
This. I am so greatful to Christ for turning me away from this madness in my youth.

[Anonymous No.15501573]

>>15501533
Read Faith Strengthened. It's not just modern scholars. There are several parts of the OT which are misquoted, out of contest, inexistant; genealogies written in a wrong way, events indicated to have happened to wrong persons. To accept this as divinely inspired, at the very least you'd expect these technical aspects to be without any mistake. If, however, the writers of this book weren't even able to be consistent with sacred scripture, how can I trust anything else as divinely inspired? If you combine that with the historical blunders and events not mentioned by any other source, to maintain faith in it feels like an exercise in gullibility.

[Anonymous No.15501579]

>>15501165
>God BECAME Man
without changing Himself or confusing Himself with humanity. Christ is still fully uncreated and the same as He always is, even though He accepted created human nature onto Himself and died on the cross for us.

[Anonymous No.15501587]

>>15501573
>Faith Strengthened
>(((Moses Mocatta)))
You got played by the synagogue of satan, brother.

[Anonymous No.15501602]

>Faith Strengthened
>considered an early forerunner of later textual criticism of the New Testament.
>used by all freethinkers in the period of French Enlightenment including Voltaire.
>Thus it could be stated that this work, written by a Jew in defense of Judaism, had contributed to the intellectual ferment of the 18th century,
>which ultimately led to the French Revolution.

[Anonymous No.15501633]

>>15496277
Suffering is a purely mental state.
Suffering, as opposed to pain, is caused by desire. They are two sides of one coin. So long as you desire, you will also suffer.

[Anonymous No.15501635]

>>15501552
That verse wasn't said by jesus, are you retarded
>>15501579
I'm guessing you're a trinitard, explain this verse to me "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36.
Why doesn't the holy spirit know the hour? You could do some retarded mental gymnastics and say that jesus didn't know because he wasn't in god mode at the time, but the holy spirit didn't know, why? Your own bible confirms that the spirit is not omniscient.

[Anonymous No.15501645]

"So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men."

"Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, our are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ. But I am talking about the ungodliness and present madness of the Jews."

"Certainly it is the time for me to show that demons dwell in the synagogue, not only in the place itself but also in the souls of the Jews. As Christ said: "When an unclean spirit is gone out, he walks through dry places seeking rest. If he does not find it he says: I shall return to my house. And coming he finds it empty, swept, and garnished. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself and they enter into him and the last state of that man is made worse than the first. So shall it be also to this generations"."

"Do you see that demons dwell in their souls and that these demons are more dangerous than the ones of old? And this is very reasonable. In the old days the Jews acted impiously toward the prophets; now they outrage the Master of the prophets. Tell me this. Do you not shudder to come into the same place with men possessed, who have so many unclean spirits, who have been reared amid slaughter and bloodshed? Must you share a greeting with them and exchange a bare word? Must you not turn away from them since they are the common disgrace and infection of the whole world? Have they not come to every form of wickedness? Have not all the prophets spent themselves making many and long speeches of accusation against them? What tragedy, what manner of lawlessness have they not eclipsed by their blood-guiltiness? They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons. They refused to recognize nature, they forgot the pangs, of birth, they trod underfoot the rearing of their children, they overturned from their foundations the laws of kingship, they became more savage than any wild beast."

[Anonymous No.15501648]

>>15501645
"Wild beasts oftentimes lay down their lives and scorn their own safety to protect their young. No necessity forced the Jews when they slew their own children with their own hands to pay honor to the avenging demons, the foes of our life. What deed of theirs should strike us with greater astonishment? Their ungodliness or their cruelty or their inhumanity? That they sacrificed their children or that they sacrificed them to demons? Because of their licentiousness, did they not show a lust beyond that of irrational animals? Hear what the prophet says of their excesses. "They are become as amorous stallions. Every one neighed after his neighbor's wife". He did not say: "Everyone lusted after his neighbor's wife", but he expressed the madness which came from their licentiousness with the greatest clarity by speaking of it as the neighing of brute beasts."

[Anonymous No.15501661]

[Anonymous No.15501669]

[Anonymous No.15501676]

[Anonymous No.15501680]

>>15501635
>That verse wasn't said by jesus
the previous verse is literally
>And God spoke all these words:

[Anonymous No.15501681]

[Anonymous No.15501683]

>>15501587
>>15501602
Read it then. You have nothing to lose if not your wilfull ignorance. When I wanted hard to believe, I'd react exactly like you. A lot of its arguments are bullshit apologetics, but others are pretty straightforward and show very clear faults in the NT.

[Anonymous No.15501689]

[Anonymous No.15501692]

[Anonymous No.15501699]

[Anonymous No.15501703]

>>15501680
Anon... what kind of circular reasoning that, are you genuinely braindead?
Meanwhile you have jesus HIMSELF saying in John 17, 1 When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2 For You granted Him authority over all humanity, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him 3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent."


Here jesus literally calls the father "the ONLY true God" meaning jesus and the spirit are either false gods or not gods at all, yet you retards contradict jesus himself in favor of your retarded preachers and priests it's fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.15501710]

[Anonymous No.15501711]

>>15501635
>Why doesn't the holy spirit know the hour?
Where does it say that the Holy Spirit does not know? The Father shares all knowledge with the Holy Spirit and the Son.
>You could do some retarded mental gymnastics
Why would it be mental gymnastics if it's the truth and Christ has two natures?

[Anonymous No.15501716]

>>15501683
>show very clear faults in the NT
Show me exactly which judaic trick made you apostatize. Give me his best argument.

[Anonymous No.15501725]

>>15498393
WHY ARE WE YELLING!!!!!

[Anonymous No.15501735]

Jesus is a meme. He never existed. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.15501751]

>>15501711
>where does it say the spirit doesn't know?
Do you know what "only" means?
Does belief in christianity mandate the rejection of basic common sense?

[Anonymous No.15501767]

>>15501751
>Does belief in christianity mandate the rejection of basic common sense?
I hope this question is rhetorical.
If not... the answer is yes.

[Anonymous No.15501781]

>>15496281
>>15496299
>>15497625
>>15501524
Based.
Put them with all the voodoos from /x/ and see them fight their natural enemies.

[Anonymous No.15501794]

>>15501703
>the ONLY true God
And Christ with the Holy Spirit are this same God. What is the issue here? There is only one divinity which Christ shares with the Father by virtue of being His only begotten Son and having the same nature. Also, did you ignore all other places in John where Jesus clearly shows His divinity? I'm almost willing to bet money that you've never read John from cover to cover.

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.”
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.
(John 10:25-39)

How can a created being possibly be "one with the Father" or be such that the Father is "in him"?

>>15501751
The Holy Spirit does the same works as the Father, they share the same nature and thus the same knowledge. This knowledge is unique and pertains only to God, so we say "only the Father", as there is no other divinity or power that could know these things and all divinity proceeds from the Father.

[Anonymous No.15501821]

>>15501735
>He never existed.
>Prove me wrong.

Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, 27 the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

[Anonymous No.15501825]

>>15501821
>Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, 27 the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
seethe
Do you find it fun to copypasta?

[Anonymous No.15501874]

>>15501533
Jesus of Nazareth was born in Nazareth. In order to force him to fulfill prophecy there had to be a complete fabrication of a census that forced people to go to their home towns. This never happened, Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the city of David. Also, the gospels themselves contradict each other in almost every detail about the empty tomb. Was the stone rolled away? Was an angel present at the entrance? You'll get different answers from different books. If you look into it at all, you'll find the gospels were written decades after the fact and based solely on the account of several hysterical women, and at that time their testimony carried less weight in court than a man's.

Christianity is clearly cobbled together to force the fulfillment of prophecy and uses the tool of faith to scare people into not questioning this truly absurd story

[Anonymous No.15501897]

>>15501552
There is absolutely zero evidence that the ancient Jews were ever in Egypt. It's actually hilarious how much Jewish trickery people buy at face value

[Anonymous No.15501929]

>>15501794
>How can a created being possibly be "one with the Father" or be such that the Father is "in him"?
Jesus states literally immediately after that the disciples will also be one with them, do you have 15 gods now? embarrassing.
Also keep in mind that one of your church fathers hated this verse so much that he wanted to remove from the bible, that tells you about the authenticity of the verse.
>spirit
The verse is about exclusion, I swear this is something I would expect from a child. The verse says that ONLY the father knows this piece of information, not the angels, not the son, not anyone else, yet you're still insisting on distrusting the bible and following your preists. actually laughable

[Anonymous No.15501949]

>>15501716
Fuck, I was on the fifth point of controversy when I accidentally closed the tab, so I'm not gonna go that into it anymore but here are some you can research:
Mark quotes a prophecy of the messiah being called a nazarene that is nowhere to be found in scripture. Matthew 23:25 mistakes two Zacharias found in the Bible; the one who was slew is in 2 Chronicles and is the son of Jehoiada, not Barachias.
In Matthew and Luke, Christ says John the Baptist was the Elijah, expected before the coming of the Messiah; in the Gospel of John, however, John the Baptist explicitly denies that.
The genealogies are absurdly different - Luke counts 26 generations, while Matthew counts 43.
The superseding of the Mosaic law is also never stated by Christ himself. In fact, the only time he apparently does this by not punishing the adulterous woman, is a highly suspicious text within the Gospel of John. Google Pericope Adulterae for more information. Yet, Paul says the Mosaic law is to be considered fulfilled, only the Decalogue to be maintained (all the while contradicting himself by circumcising his disciple); funny enough, the Acts of the Apostles, supposedly written by a follower of Paul, adds in a "dream" where Peter is told by the Lord that he should eat of the animals before considered unclean. How convenient is that! And for Jesus to not have told him this simple teaching before, during his one... actually, maybe three years of ministry. Appalling.
Paul also misquotes Isaiah in Romans by mixing two different verses that are several chapters apart.
Last but not least, in the apocryphal Hebrews, Paul uses the text of 2 Samuel 7 that says "I will be to him a father, and he shall be
to me a son. " as a prophecy of Christ. The text, however, follows as such: "When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands." Could a prophecy about Jesus, God incarnate, incapable of err and sin, imply he could do wrong, or rather, that when he does wrong, he is to be punished?

These are some of the most blatant things, among many other details, some of numbers, names etc. And this is only some of what you can find in this one book. It has a lot of stupid apologetic mental gymnastics as well, but it's not like the Church Father didn't go through the hoops to try and justify all the inconsistencies within the NT and in its relation to the OT.

[Anonymous No.15501951]

>>15501710
Inaccurate diagram. It depicts distant stars, in Biblical Cosmology, all the stars are fixed into the firmament. The universe of the Bible is only big enough to accommodate Earth itself, there is nothing beyond it but God's kingdom.

[Anonymous No.15501956]

>>15501242
Have you looked into other traditions like Buddhism or Hinduism? We are all striving for Nirvana, we just have different names for it

[Anonymous No.15501967]

>>15501480
well *I* would be nice if I were God, and I'm a good person, if God isn't doing what I would do he must not be a good person.

[Anonymous No.15501993]

>>15501956
It's what I have been doing intensely for more or less 5 years, having spent the last two as a Catholic. I'm through with the credulity, so I'm much more careful with believing any sort of "transcendency" or "you just don't get it man, you have to be humble" bullshit, but Buddhism is the other tradition I have most researched and I believe it is the most coherent non-theistic system. I'm not prone to perenialism (this view you are trying to affirm) because it conflates traditions which are directly contradictory, overblowing what is similar and pushing away some essential stuff that just don't go together. The search has been important to me though, and has given my life much more direction and depth.

[Anonymous No.15501997]

>>15501951
I'm sorry that modern christians can't art.
This was just a plain old flat earther.
A much superior intellect.

[Anonymous No.15502014]

>>15501699
>how can moral laws exist if the universe is big?

[Anonymous No.15502027]

>>15502014
the argument is more in the lines of "why does the all-powerful God care so much about trivial and apparently inocuous things he could easily not allow to happen if he is so abundantly transcendent and beyond any thing the human mind can even conceive?

[Anonymous No.15502047]

>>15496281
I wish there was a religion board

[Anonymous No.15502085]

>>15498393
What is this

[Anonymous No.15502088]

>>15501956
>We are all striving for Nirvana
>we just have different names for it
"I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, And the life of the age to come. Amen."

[Anonymous No.15502098]

>>15502085
Graphomania.

[Anonymous No.15502170]

>>15501874
>Also, the gospels themselves contradict each other in almost every detail about the empty tomb. Was the stone rolled away? Was an angel present at the entrance? You'll get different answers from different books.
Only if you falsely assume there was a single visit to the tomb.

>Now I want to talk with you, beloved ones, a little about the gospel account of the holy resurrection of Christ and show that there is no disagreement or contradiction between the evangelists in this regard. Since each of the evangelists has some peculiarities in the depiction of this event, the foolish people are ready to see a contradiction in the Scriptures and even a lie. But our holy fathers in a few words reflected their insanity, having established that each of the evangelists describes a special arrival of wives and apostles to the divine tomb, that these visits were at several different times and that none of the evangelists touched what was already told to others. Thus the all-holy Spirit arranged, inspiring the evangelists, so that, on the one hand, none of the events of that time would be forgotten, and on the other, to eliminate any cause for disagreement, thanks to the fact that everyone talks about a special event. So, we accept the difference in time and in the very visits by the wives of the sepulcher, according to the instructions of the fathers. But since some, possessed by the demon, argue that there is disagreement and contradiction in the Scriptures regarding wives, we will try, with the help of the All-Holy Spirit, to clarify how powerful these events are. I am sure, with God's help, that since there is indeed agreement between the evangelists with the difference in time and visits, our word will not be unsuccessful.

Can't find the source in English, but google translate works decently well - https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Zlatoust/o_zhenah_mironosic/

[Anonymous No.15502193]

>>15501949
>he fell for the judaic exegesis sola scriptura meme
>he fell for the masoretic text meme
I will pray for you, anon.

[Anonymous No.15502205]

>>15501993
>t's what I have been doing intensely for more or less 5 years
>intense idolatry and demon worship led someone away from Christ
go figure...

[Anonymous No.15502244]

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

“I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

[Anonymous No.15502267]

>>15502205
I did not follow any sort of religion before taking up Catholicism, which I strictly studied for two years and followed to the letter for almost a year. During these years I did not "worship" anything else. Stop these foolish ad hominem attacks, as if my personal mistakes justify that I stopped believing a message full of internal holes. It's amazing how this is the tactic for christians since literally day one, as if anybody would point them out as holier or more virtuous than any other demographic, historically or the current times.
>>15502193
Please do refrain from the snickering greentext and refute some of the stronger points I have made. I'd be happy to see how you justify yourself.

[Anonymous No.15502296]

>>15496482
this is some sadistic shit right here folks. I'm sure catholic priests tell the kids they're about to fuck in the ass the same thing.

"Hold still billy, for through this pain ultimately is love. Mm tight ass you got there too. Your suffering is truly my reward! Hail Mary here I cum!"

[Anonymous No.15502304]

>>15498360
>WOULD YOU PREFER TO BE VOID AND EMPTINESS


actually...yes it's called Nirvana god, you see I've been doing some reading and...

[Anonymous No.15502310]

>>15498360
>THEY SIT UPON GOLDEN THRONES AND CONTEMPLATE THE PERFECTION OF ALL THINGS.


wouldn't a true god be more humble?

[Anonymous No.15502323]

>>15499325
>. Humans, given our libertarian free will, will invariably sin.


we don't have free will though...

[Anonymous No.15502327]

>>15501993
I think you misunderstand me, I say we are all striving towards Nirvana as a psychological observation, I am not inclined to perennialism either for the reasons you stated

[Anonymous No.15502338]

>>15502205
The guy seems pretty honest in his search for the truth, if that has led him away from Christ, perhaps that says something about Christ

[Anonymous No.15502348]

>>15502244
The scriptures state that I must accept the literal human sacrifice of a sinless man or I will be cast into a lake of fire. Hard pass on the whole lot, sorry bud

[Anonymous No.15502368]

>>15502348
Based anon loves and values christ more than god and all his followers.

[Anonymous No.15502373]

>>15502327
Well, it's an interesting point of view. From a strictly materialist/evolutionist way of thinking, you could say that we are biologically driven by need to survive, wellbeing of our own and procreation. When that drive is fulfilled we are more inclined towards dissolvement and inactivity, which could be resignified as "contemplation". It'd make sense that almost every tradition points towards some level of quieting of the human faculties of thought to let the supernatural seep in, while also being evolutionarily ṕositive, since those with less drive would be inclined to not do activities that require so much energy.
But like any attempt at evopsych it's a fun but ultimately abstract/bottomless exercise at rationalising our human behaviors.

[Anonymous No.15502411]

>>15502373
Don't octopus kill themselves after reproducing? I know they are incomparable almost every other species on the planet but still.

[Anonymous No.15502419]

>>15501165
>that he should change his mind
this translation is up for debate. it reads this way in esv and niv, but in kjv, nkjv and nasb it reads "but God is not a man, that he should REPENT". saying that he doesn't change His mind is obviously false based on context, God changes his mind frequently. Niniveh and the events of Exodus come to mind.

you make this argument weekly, i remember your wojak folder.

[Anonymous No.15502425]

>>15502373
Factoring in the evolutionary pressures on competing groups causes a whole new layer of complexity when evaluating evolutionary roots. I think the drive to have your tribe survive is an underrated aspect of evolution, as it is the basis for the capacity for empathy and reciprocity. It seems the primary role of the supernatural is to delineate who belongs to your tribe and who doesn't. I think the transcendent experience of music, literature, and connection with others is not supernatural or metaphysical, but it is the novel expression of synergy which can be classified as transcendent

[Anonymous No.15502461]

>>15502419
If he makes the argument weekly then so must you.

[Anonymous No.15502486]

>>15502425
It's a good angle. I've lived a long time being very credulous of the idea of the transcendent, and I think most of us live like that. It's very ingrained into human behavior and it seems to work just like what you say: defining who are the ones we identify with, excluding outside members through seemingly ineffable experiences (the eternal "you don't get it man...") and solidfying abstract common goals into empirical experiences (i.e. how americans felt thrilled to be wildly expanding into risky territorry only to manifest their destiny). If anybody knows any literature about this maybe this is the time to make this thread about /lit/ for once
>>15502411
Well, a lot of insects do too. The social suicide of becoming the homo sacer would be evolutionarily beneficial, specially if you consider the immense ability of producing social cohesion that priesthood entails.

[Anonymous No.15502497]

>>15502296
another anon helped me amend my original statement, but ultimately yeah, suffering in this world is not the ultimate evil. it's kind of a mincing, woe-is-me strain of narcissism that makes people think, especially in the first world where our sufferings are as limited as they ever have been, that the relatively few pains endured here equate to some kind of existential proof that there is no God.

You taking it to sodomy immediately is pretty telling though. Have you ever considered your mind is severely polluted?

[Anonymous No.15502505]

>>15502461
this makes it my second time. but even so, what's your point? it's not the frequency of how often he says it that makes it untrue, it's the general lack of understanding and cherry picking.

[Anonymous No.15502653]

You're not allowed to ask this without reading Job

[Anonymous No.15502685]

>>15502653
tl;dr God arbitrarily lets him suffer and when inquired he answers you aren't anybody to ask me anything I can do whatever I want because I made you

[Anonymous No.15502690]

>>15502653
>God feels he has to prove things to the Devil by torturing human beings
For fucks sake when can we leave this absolutely brain dead, morally bankrupt thinking behind us?

[Anonymous No.15502697]

>>15502653
When my neighbor says my kids will disobey if I torture them so I torture them to prove my neighbor wrong. It's basic parenting

[Anonymous No.15502929]

>>15502419
define repent

[Anonymous No.15502974]

>>15496277
I think it is a test, those that react early on to pain and suffering are spared if they show signs of obedience, those who do not probably have a seed, one of evil, disguised as an angel of light....Some type of semi illusion, some are the product and sons and daughters of perdition, some are not.

[Anonymous No.15502976]

>>15496281
When

[Anonymous No.15502979]

>>15496277
What do you mean by God? The Christian God? I'm asking because lots of people here are deists and rational theists (i.e. Plotinists)

[Anonymous No.15502996]

>>15502929
feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin

from google

[Anonymous No.15503005]

>>15502996
>feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin
it literally says regret, what was the point of correcting regret to repent if it's still a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.15503060]

>>15502974
This option never convinced me. I'm torn between these 2:
1) the afterlife, being infinite in duration and intensity, can "make up" for any affliction we may suffer of in our earthly life. Even if my life were to be a life of costant torture and agony, Heaven would still overshadow what I've suffered, in a way that would make such suffering irrelevant. As such we should not bother about this question (why we suffer): God's plans cannot be understood by us, but we can still be sure that our suffering can be rationally accounted for by Heaven, and we can be sure that God will use all these elements (us, our suffering and Heaven) in the most perfect way. The problem with this view is that some people might not go to Heaven, depending on your specific religious beliefs (unless you follow theologians of the like of Scotus Eriugena by claiming that everyone will eventually go to Heaven).
2) this is a less sound stance, but it seems to be philosophically relevant: maybe suffering cannot be prevented if we're supposed to be free. An earthly world devoid of suffering is impossible, as long as there are other free agents who can, by definition, choose to be evil. I think this is a less sound argument because it only deals with unjust suffering provoked by other free agents. This would leave out things like illnesses, natural catastrophes, unfortunate accidents and so on.

This is the best I've got so far.

[Anonymous No.15503072]

>>15503005
repent implies wrongdoing, regret is not an admission of guilt. God's regret is based on creating creatures who use their will to harm each other and themselves, not his own faults.

[Anonymous No.15503087]

>>15503072
I wasn't talking about the verse of regretting creation, but about the regretting of the appointment of saul as king, which god himself says was his own action.
you're trying to salvage a sinking ship and it's failing horribly

[Anonymous No.15503111]

Jesus being the son of God insinuates that God can have other children.

[Anonymous No.15503121]

>>15503111
not really dummy because the name Son is only analogical not a direct description of how he is generated in the trinity

[Anonymous No.15503183]

>>15503111
>>15503121
Luke 3:38: Adam is called the son of God
Psalms 89:26–28: David is called the firstborn son of God
Jeremiah 31: Ephraim is called the firstborn son of God
Oops, that's 3 extra gods plus the entirety of israel, their judges and righteous men are also called sons of god.
>b-but it's metaphorical
then it's metaphorical in the case of jesus, or then you have 200000 gods, you can't pick and choose when it is and isn't literal.

[Anonymous No.15503314]

>>15496277
Pain is a signal of distress from the body that tells the person/animal that something isn't right.
A signal to make you release your hand from a hot plate, to make you step away from embers,etc, A warning to force you into improving the situation.

[Anonymous No.15503330]

>>15503183
No, Jesus is literally a part of Him made flesh. The others are symbolically children of God, just like christians are symbolically children of God aka its faithful creation.

[Anonymous No.15503416]

>>15503183
Yeah anon the fact Christians took titles, psalms etc from judaism and subverted their meaning to retcon it all and say "it was always about Christ!" is nothing new. But the meaning they use to say that Christ the Son of God does not imply God may have other "sons" like him. So that argument is just not sound.

[Anonymous No.15504162]

>>15502098
This is actually a somewhat influential essay called Answer to Job by a somewhat influential blogger-intellectual named Scott Alexander, who goes by the pen-name slatestarcodex.

[Anonymous No.15504178]

>>15503330
>Jesus is literally a part of Him made flesh. The others are symbolically children
no they are not and you have nothing to back that claim up, you don't get to choose who's symbolic and who's literal.
Son of God is just a term used for righteous men, you either go retard mode and ignore that through misconstruing everyone to be a literal child of God or you call them all just righteous men.
your religion's foundation is so shaky it's actually funny, if only you knew how certain doctrines arose and how things came to be behind the scenes, like for example the concept of trinity being created 400 years after jesus, with none of the church fathers believing christ and the father to be one (hierachical binatarianism was present before trinitarianism's insertion).

[Anonymous No.15504183]

>>15504162
I formally withdraw my dismissive comment and offer a sincere apology.

[Anonymous No.15504217]

>>15496277
>Guys, I am now a firm beliver in God
that's your problem
kys

[Anonymous No.15504503]

>>15496277
God is not making you suffer; other humans make you suffer.

[Anonymous No.15504983]

>>15504503
Who created the conditions where suffering is not just possible, but inevitable?

[Anonymous No.15505161]

>>15502348
It's your choice if you cannot accept the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

[Anonymous No.15505172]

>>15502338
He already presupposes that Christianity is false by his baseless acceptance of the Jewish right to interpret scripture after the loss of their temple as prophesied by Christ. How will one find Christ if Christ is not among the options one is willing to accept?

[Anonymous No.15505192]

>>15505172
>OBEY DOGMA
cringe anon

[Anonymous No.15505197]

>>15503183
Jesus Christ is the only *begotten* Son of God, the others are sons by adoption. Even in baptism, we become sons of God and can pray the Lord's prayer, calling God our father.

[Anonymous No.15505222]

>>15505192
He's already obeying the Pharisee dogma of the masoretic text being unaltered even though it was composed centuries after Christ, when the Jews already lost and were seething about the truth Christianity. Everyone by default trusts and obeys either Christ or the pagans and the scribes. Which one do you think grants eternity with God after the resurrection of the dead?

[Anonymous No.15505288]

Well first, I would point out the word "MAKE them suffer." It's moreso that God permits us to suffer with his passive will. One jarring difference in the transition between utilitarianism or hedonism into Christianity is this: there are values higher than pleasure/pain.

Now the sources of suffering can be quite different. Is it suffering caused by the violence of another? In this case, this becomes a topic about God wanting us to have free will with which we can choose to join with Him. For more, research the Problem of Evil and Augustine's solutions in the Confessions.

If you refer rather to the suffering we see in nature, this just seems to be how God intended evolutionary progress to be driven: pain teaches. This used to bother, but now it doesn't, because I see that pleasure and pain are subordinate to transcendental values and my life's purpose. Since you are browsing are board about literature, you are on a good path to valuing the transcendent.

Welcome. Magnificent flourishing and rebirth await you.

[Anonymous No.15505349]

>>15505288
This is the basic answer to the problem of evil and it is woefully insufficient. Could God have achieved the same freedom/teaching without such pain? If so, he is evil, if not, he is impotent

[Anonymous No.15506205]

>muh problem of evil
>muh why god not follow my philosophy
atheist bug cringe.

[Anonymous No.15506298]

>>15506205
>no answer
Typical christcuck

[Anonymous No.15506388]

>>15506298
>no answer
God transcends fallible human philosophies. There's your answer.

[Anonymous No.15506405]

>>15506388
>A made up concept by human beings is above man made concepts by human beings
That's a pretty shit answer desu

[Anonymous No.15506709]

>>15506405
>A made up concept by human beings

[Anonymous No.15506769]

>>15505222
I'm not obeying any dogma. How hard is it to actually deal with the points I made? Is your head that far up your ass? The guy could be a jew, a hinduist, or whatever else; some of the points are completely independent from his identity. I'm not presupposing shit, you are. If it's this easy to take down these arguments, please, I beg you to.

[Anonymous No.15507788]

>>15505197
>Jesus Christ is the only *begotten* Son of God
You have no proof for this

[Anonymous No.15507942]

>>15507788
>No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
John 1:18

[Anonymous No.15508215]

>>15496277
some define "good" as the ability to endure suffering.
in other words, he who suffers most, will know God. F.e. Jesus.

[Anonymous No.15508223]

>>15507942
The Greek word from which "only begotten" is obtained does not mean begotten in any way, shape, or form.
"Monogenes" instead means "unique, special", look it up.
In fact, the NIV, which is probably the most respected version translation-wise, translates the verse John 1:18, NIV: "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.".
Here you can see one and only as an accurate translation of monogenes, as it's synonymous to special and unique.
Now without the biased mistranslation, what does this mean? At a glance, it most probably means that among a sea of righteous sons, the most righteous man, who is the "one and only son" is the only one capable of seeing the Father.

And again, you have nothing to support Jesus as being anything other than a righteous man, or even the most righteous of them all, but that in no way means godhood. Your doctrine is baseless, in fact I'd argue that it contradicts the bible as the bible excludes all beings - and by extension, jesus- from immortality, true godhood, and omniscience save for the Father in verses 1st Timothy 6:16, Matthew 24:36 and John 17:1-3.
In fact Matthew outright excludes Jesus by specific mention from omniscience.
Your foundation is laughably baseless.

[Anonymous No.15508234]

>>15500513
Where do people get these pictures?

[Anonymous No.15508247]

>>15508223
>"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.".
Same anon, I forgot to say that the "who is himself God" part is rejected by many textual critics, but as it outright contradicts John 17, I'd say that it is definitely to be rejected (unless you accept jesus to be a false god)

[Anonymous No.15508260]

>>15508234
>Where do people get these pictures?

[Anonymous No.15508425]

>>15508223
>niv
>most respected
roflmao no
nasb or esv for modern english

[Anonymous No.15508468]

>>15508425
That's besides the point, you still can't answer my argument, even then the esv still translates mongenes as "the only god", it however retains the ''god'' part, or theos in monogenes theos, which as I've said, is textually disputed by your own biblical scholars and is at contradiction with John 17, so that part is to be rejected.


It's effectively the same translation for this verse, now enough throwing red herrings and at least try to dispute my points against what is possibly the most shaky doctrine in the world.