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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 38 KB, 310x441, 45882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18517949 No.18517949 [Reply] [Original]

>“If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?”

>> No.18517952

>>18517949
>erect
lol

>> No.18517963

>>18517949
I cannot imagine a lack of attempt to understand religion and Christianity greater than this.

And given the cliche nature of these statements, it feels like more of a boast that one believes in them than genuine thinking.

>> No.18517966

>>18517963
This isn't a refutation.

>> No.18518005

>>18517949
Where were you when the universe was made?

>> No.18518281

>>18518005
>where were you when i sealed the chambers? where were you when i mixed the gas?

>> No.18518516

>>18517966
It is if you're smart.

>> No.18518544

>>18518516
>Dude you totally misunderstood, you just gotta beleeve.

>> No.18518571

>>18518281
>sealed the chambers
On wooden doors?

>> No.18518633

>>18518544
>dude let me just misuse the theological ideas of Biblical fear, praying, communities, repentance, etc. with my unoriginal self-described "free thinking" ideas
Read a book you brainlet.

No one's using "faith" as a refutation of the Op, and the fact that you assume it's the only answer to these "unanswerable questions" shows how retarded you are. You are a retard. Shelley's statements aren't even as piercing as Epicurus', and if you had a brain in your head you'd be able to see the emotion behind the statement is no better than him saying he doesn't believe in God and boasting about it.

>inb4 retard thinks the emotion behind a statement has nothing to do with its truth

>> No.18519215

>>18517949
>if he is infinitely good why fear him
Because there cannot be good without evil, fire of wrath is the same as the fire of love, numinous consciousness itself is constituted by the tremendum aspect, etc. read books shelley

>if he wise why we doubt
Because WE are not, retard

>if he knows all
Same thing as above

>if he is everywhwre why erect temples
If language can never express and grasp truth perfectly why speak of anything at all? Also psalm 30

>if he is just why fear that he will punish weak creatures
Weak in what? Reason? Will? As we employ both to affirm and deny his existence, his goodness and the goodness within us and affirm evil knowing it is evil? Is this weakness? The possibility for a finite thing to negate, nullify an infinite being? IS THIS WEAKNESS YOU BRAINDEAD ANGLO FUCKTARD?

>if he is all powerful how offend and resist him
You cannot resist nature and so you cannot resist what awaits you in afterlife, you cannot offend him without having consequences, same as above essentially

>if he is reasonable
Same as above about his being just, “i have the liberty to be unreasonable” yes but you dont have the liberty to choose what happens consequently to this choice of yours, and if you are aware of it you are not blind.

>if he is immovable
Metaphysical nuances here but essentially it is the same as above about our intellectual limitations

>if he inconceivable
He made himself conceivable and also the same as what was said above on his omnipresence

>if he has spoken why universe ignore
Well you yourself said people have the liberty to be retarded and it seems you are one of them, be aware though that it is not the whole universe, only the wicked as you yourself shelley.

>> No.18519438

>>18519215
>Because there cannot be good without evil

Demonstrably false.

>> No.18519498

>>18517949
sucks that percy is burning in hell rn

>> No.18519514

>>18517963
How the fuck did you come to this conclusion at 5am?

>> No.18519549

>>18519438
Not even in the platonic unserstanding, dum dum. Try to demonstrate that the opposite is the case.

>> No.18519550

/lit/ is overrun with demiurge cucks. don't ask questions, trust the plan, 2 more millenia

>>18519215
>because there cannot be good without evil
lol, you're not half as smart as you think you are.

>> No.18519555

>>18519549
Angels. God created free, good natures without evil. If they aren't free, then Lucifer could not have fallen. If they weren't wholly good, then they wouldn't be angels. You are retarded.

>> No.18519584

>>18519549

What is better: hugging your grandma after cutting her arms off with a sword or just hugging your grandma?

>> No.18519591

>>18519215
>Because there cannot be good without evil
why not tho
what if there was, like, only good?

>> No.18519782

>>18519555
Freedom is pure potency, that is, pure Will. It is essentially dyadic and affirmative. Freedom implies the good in the utmost sense and force of the expression, evil can only affirm good.

>>18519584
Absolutely retarded example of false equivalence, try at least getting your fallacies well presented. What is better: being forced to hug your grandma or having the possibility of even klling her but choosing to love her?

>>18519591
If there was only good there would be nothing to be aware of it, in the platonic sense the dyad is the differentiation, the procession, just like Plato says in the Sophist Non Being is necessary since it is difference itself. In this same way, without evil there would be no creation and good would not be manifest and extended to the Other-than-the-good-itself.

>> No.18519793

>>18519215
>you cannot offend him without consequences
I think his point is that to offend implies a hurt. Now if God is all powerful by definition he can’t be hurt by anything. If he was then he’s not all powerful. Therefore you have to scrap one or the other—either that he’s all powerful or that he’s capable of being offended—to be consistent.

>> No.18519837

>>18519782
>being forced to hug your grandma or having the possibility of even klling her but choosing to love her?

What does force have to do with any of it? Don't try to sneak in a "forced good" qualifier. But yes, choosing Good despite the potential for Evil is at least no better, if not worse, than simply being implicitly Good.

>> No.18519839

>>18519793
I would say God himself hurt himself. His act of creation is nothing but this, and our offense is nothing but denying his act of creation, his own suffering, a suffering of his out of pure love.

>> No.18519851

>not a desert jew
>worships their god
???

>> No.18519884

>>18519837
That is what a oneness of good implies: no difference, strict determination. You think then that there is no difference between pointing a gun at your head and demanding your donation to poor people and your own compassive feeling for poor people ending up in your donation? You think that the person with a gun is as purely good as your compassion. I think it is even applicable to learning and knowedge. You think dogmatic repetitions are better than the process of learning and understanding to attain knowledge (a process that demands a lot and makes one suffer). Again, not even in Platonic protology/ontology is the One Good without the Dyad.

>> No.18519897

>>18518633
You will never be a theologian.

>> No.18519898

Will God ever recover?

>> No.18519905

>>18519898
He let his son be crucified by puny humans. How embarrassing is that? Lmao

>> No.18519964

>>18517963
God (not yours, spinoza's), christcucks never quit injecting that copium.
Not an argument.

>> No.18520036

>>18519884

Inasmuch as it is forced it is not Good. Inasmuch as it is Good it is not forced. Your own argument being ironically more to MY point, that the world is pure Evil.

>> No.18520049

>>18519964
Spinoza’s system is full of holes, blatant gap between infinite modes and finite ones, his god is as dependent on his manifestation as an insect, no will but necessity, no goodness at all. Why do people fall for this?

>> No.18520080

>>18519782
>If there was only good there would be nothing to be aware of it, in the platonic sense the dyad is the differentiation, the procession, just like Plato says in the Sophist Non Being is necessary since it is difference itself.
Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can define "good" in purely positive terms without needing to contrast it with evil (no I'm not gonna do it), then we can imagine a world where it is ubiquitous.

>> No.18520112

>>18520036
What are you on about? You were the one claiming an autonomous, independent Good apart from everything else. Evil is everywhere just as Good is.

>> No.18520119

>>18520080
I’m not saying that there is no Good, even awareness of it would imply an other than it, difference. And yes, you won’t because you can’t. I’ll reiterate the platonic pov: Good as unity, implies other than it, multiplicity and its resolution.

>> No.18520138

>>18520112

Yes, autonomy and independence do not require force.

>> No.18520210

>>18520138
The point is that there is no autonomy or independence, dude.

>> No.18520256

>>18520210

That is exactly what Evil, the purported mixture of Good and Evil, wants you to think.

>> No.18520299

>>18520119
No matter how many times you namedrop Plato you still haven't explained how there couldn't be good without evil.

>> No.18520348

>>18517963
>i cannot imagine
certainly not.
>cliche
subjective, if it's a cliche it's because this guy wrote it 200 years ago
>feels like
yes this is the nature of your post, emotional response

>> No.18520360

>>18519215
>there cannot be good without evil
"name beauty and ugliness is"
"nothing is either good nor bad yet thinking makes it so"

>> No.18520365
File: 22 KB, 460x276, Burke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18520365

>>18517949
This is why atheism leads to despotism; if Shelly sees no reason to fear God, then how will other people live as neighbours to fearless Shelly? Therefore Shelly's fearful neighbours must create a totalitarian state that Shelly will fear; and if fearless Shelly does not fear this, then fearless Shelly will die fearfully.

>> No.18520370

>>18520365
>fearfully

Fearlessly.

>> No.18520386

>>18520299
I literally posted about it in more than one post. Read the thread, especially: >>18519782 and >>18519884

>>18520256
Great argument, next.

>> No.18520390

>>18520360
all things are good and evil

>> No.18520417

>>18520370
Cope

>> No.18520432

>>18518544
Yes, you totally misunderstood. I quite doubt if you've read the Bible, I have reason to doubt you even read the source of your quote and I am absolutely certain that you have not read any other ancient texts.

>> No.18520449
File: 804 KB, 2400x2948, Percy Bysshe Shelley.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18520449

>>18520365
Actually, Shelley died in a boating accident. But more to the point, what makes atheist regimes inherently more despotic or tyrannic (I refuse to use the Reddit-tier word "totalitarian") than religious ones?

>> No.18520456

>>18520386
You still haven't proved why there can't be good without evil. Plato's argument is that without evil you cannot differentiate good. But this wholly different from showing that without evil there would be no good because according to your own theology god's commandments are good, which is independent of how people differentiate categories. If good and bad is determined by god you can have good without evil.

>> No.18520466

>>18520449
>what makes atheist regimes inherently more despotic or tyrannic
Supression of truth, especially when its own justification is grounded on the rejection of what leads to religiosity, metaphysical contemplation - which are the pillars of every civilization, moral and the very epistemological affirmation to the due establishment of any government and rule.

>> No.18520475

>>18519215
>read books shelley

Like... Uh... A book by Rudolf Otto published around 100 years after Shelley died?

>> No.18520495

>>18520456
I think I must tell you that I'm not putting evil as more essential or principal than good, I'm saying they coexist and one affirms the other. This is what is also in Plato's protology with the One and Dyad and with the Unity.

>according to your own theology god's commandments are good
When did I say anything about what I believe theologically? This is your speculation.

>If good and bad is determined by god you can have good without evil.
They are expressed by God's own manifestation and creation. Again, just read my post about Freedom, about going out of himself, extending good, etc. just read, everything is there:
>>18519782
>>18519839

>> No.18520498

>>18520475
based for knowing otto, but come on, he could have read Plato

>> No.18520509

>>18520449
>What makes religious regimes nicer?
Nothing, you are missing the point; we have experienced a little freedom through self-regulation according to the principles of Protestant religiosity. You know, ideas like forgiveness rather than breaking criminals on the wheel, representative government rather than monarchy, etc.

These changes rely on a cultural understanding that Christ has covered our sins; not that we are not guilty, but that we are forgiven. In other words the system is built on moderation. Take away the understanding that we are guilty, and it is just as bad as taking away the understanding that we are pardoned. Both guilt and pardon is needed or there is no freedom.

>> No.18520515

>>18517949
Who could've known Shelley was such a retard?

>> No.18520553
File: 161 KB, 1400x802, cong_hands_1904.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18520553

>>18520495
>I think I must tell you that I'm not putting evil as more essential or principal than good, I'm saying they coexist and one affirms the other.
Ah, so an infinitely good god made the Belgians cut off a 5 year old girl's hands and feet as a punishment for not harvesting enough rubber to affirm all that's good. Now I get it, this is also my conception of infinite goodness. Finally, you have proven that there cannot be good without evil, because if some Belgian didn't cut off this 5 year old girl's hands and feet then we wouldn't have any appreciation for all the other 5 year old kids who have a happy childhood not working on a rubber plantation.
Let's go back to the starting point of this discussion:
>>18519215
>Because there cannot be good without evil
I don't see a proof in any of your posts.

>> No.18520633

>>18519215
You know so much about so and so subject that you can declare human intellect to be too limited to acquire any knowledge about those subjects. Simply miraculous.

>> No.18520666

>>18520553
I told you to read my posts, see the one precisely touching on the question of Freedom. He did not make the belgians do whatever they did, the belgians did it, they chose to do it. Yes there is evil in this world and you can recognize it, and seeing evil you see and express goodness, be you aware of it or not.

>I don’t see a proof
Then you can contest the points made in the following posts, all of which I quoted in the previous one. Make an argument.

>>18520633
Limitation is not nullification.

>> No.18520760

>>18517949
he was r/atheism way before r/atheism even existed

>> No.18520829

>>18520666
>Then you can contest the points made in the following posts, all of which I quoted in the previous one. Make an argument.
There's nothing to contest because you did not explain how "there cannot be good without evil".

>> No.18520855

>>18517963
So... No argument?

>> No.18520858

>>18520829
From my post in >>18519782:
> Freedom is pure potency, that is, pure Will. It is essentially dyadic and affirmative. Freedom implies the good in the utmost sense and force of the expression, evil can only affirm good.

>> No.18520883

>>18517963
The emperor has no clothes. therefore i don’t need to read tracts about the glorious incandescence of his belt buckles and they will not persuade me in the slightest

>> No.18520890

>>18520365
>This is why atheism leads to despotism;
Yeah, remember absolute monarchy by the grace of G*D? Whoa, that was really no despotism at all...good times back then...

>> No.18520909

>>18519498
>he thinks hell isn't void, he thinks G*D does not forgive everyone in the end
You don't even know your own religion... sad, many such cases.

>> No.18520995

>>18519215
"Good without evil" is simply the attributes of unfallen Man

>> No.18520999

>>18520466
>Supression of truth
...Such as?

Friendly reminder that Queen Elizabeth is the legitimate Head of Anglican Church, by the Grace of God, because her uncle wanted to marry an American woman (???)

>> No.18521007

>>18520509
>we have experienced a little freedom through self-regulation according to the principles of Protestant religiosity. You know, ideas like forgiveness rather than breaking criminals on the wheel
You do realize that the first country to abolish death penalty was catholic, right?

>> No.18521011

>>18517949
If you dont follow the words of god you fall into sin and it will corrupt you, corrupted men failed the IQ test that is life and are not granted entry to heaven.

Jesus, atheism really is the top of the bell curve.

>> No.18521017

>>18521011
>If you dont follow the words of god you fall into sin and it will corrupt you
Absolute heresy, repent

>> No.18521033
File: 54 KB, 840x1135, death penalty by religion.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18521033

>>18521007
Not just that, nowadays atheists are the ones most likely to be opposed to the death penalty (in the US). So... where exactly is that Protestant forgiveness?

>> No.18521051

>>18521033
I saw that pic a couple days ago, usa is anyway not a meaningful demographic. Guns, death penalty, shit like that are so engrained in the cultural landscape that you can barely have any varied opinion about it.

>> No.18521070

>>18521051
>you can barely have any varied opinion about it.
The chart shows that there's significant variance in opinion both within and between religions.

>> No.18521078

>>18521033
>Atheist and Agnostic separated

Oof.

>> No.18521092

>>18521033
Religion has always been about finding reasons to punish, enslave and genocide people. The forgiveness part is for the upper class that fucks everyone over so it reduces resentment towards the upper class.

>> No.18521098
File: 9 KB, 283x178, commie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18521098

>>18521092
>Religion has always been about finding reasons to punish, enslave and genocide people. The forgiveness part is for the upper class that fucks everyone over so it reduces resentment towards the upper class.

>> No.18521125

>>18521070
That pic shows that in every single religious demographic there is a significant majority of people approving death penalty. The only demographic where "Pro DP" is not well above absolute majority is "black protestant", and they still are 50/50

Atheists and agnostic are against, "Nothing in particular" (sic) are overwhelmingly pro, even more than Hispanic Catholics.

White evangelicals are "famous" for being right wing, yet i the pic there is barely any difference with not evangelicals whites.

Also, the stats are not weighted for the actual numbers of the various populations. That 65% of atheists opposing death penalty is nowhere as nearly relevant as the 66% of protestants supporting it.

DISCLAIMER: What I'm saying here has nothing to do with my own opinions about death penalty.

>> No.18521127

>>18521078
Makes sense btw. Do not mistake me for a filthy a*no

>> No.18521130

>>18521098
How many people have been killed in the name of religion versus how many people have benefit from religion that couldn't have just got the same benefit from something else? Religion is the most unnecessary thing that only causes problems. Any benefit it brings can come from a different source.

>> No.18521137

>>18521130
Wow I can turn your own logic against you;
>How many people have been killed in the name of religion who would have been killed in the name of something else anyway?
Why even bother dismissing the good while exaggerating the evil? Just stop.

>> No.18521143
File: 496 KB, 795x1200, 2017-07-29-RTR17-Fahne-Mühlhäuser-Haufen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18521143

>>18521098
>He didn't study Thomas Muentzer as part of his understanding of the Reformation and is therefore unable to refute him
*sigh*
Many such cases.

>> No.18521148

>>18521137
That doesn't make sense because one less thing people kill each other over is one less thing that divides people. It's called harm reduction.

>> No.18521149

>>18517949
>If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him?

because you aren't

>> No.18521176

>>18521149
So...an infinitely good G*D created me, an imperfect being, so that he could punish me forever if I don't act perfectly good (which I'm unable to do in the first place) because...He is infinitely good?

Hmmm...

>> No.18521187

>>18521007
Not everything can or should be forgiven, end of story.

>>18521033
>Atheists and agnostics are wrong about something
Water is wet

>> No.18521191

>>18521130
You know why? Because religion and politics are intimately related, the birth of every community was at once the emergence of religiosity and institutions/rules/definitions of that community. There cannot be politics without religiosity, there cannot be religiosity without violence and there cannot be communities without any of these.

>> No.18521195

>>18521176
No you retard, god does not expect you to be perfectly good, but you find excuses to be good or worse to be anything without him.

>> No.18521196

>>18521176
Are you trying to be a caricature of a jew lol

>> No.18521208

>>18521191
This seems like an argument for international communism to me. You are saying violence is due to differences in politics and religion. So in conclusion we can reduce violence by everyone being in the same community (international communism)

>> No.18521220

>>18521148
Thats a completely ridiculous conclusion that can only come from some post enlightenment continental; all men are evil and will live their vices whenever given the chance, religion is a means to suppress evil and encourage good.

>> No.18521268

>>18521187
>>Atheists and agnostics are wrong about something
>Water is wet
WAIT WAIT WAIT
Atheists and agnostics are wrong in opposing death penalty... just like Christ was?
Damn... this Christianity thing sure is complicated...no wonder I never really got it...

>> No.18521289

>>18521220
This is completely wrong, religion has no bearing on whether a person is morally good or bad. Just look at the churches cover up of rampant sexual abuse.

>> No.18521310

>>18521208
You can’t be this retarded.

>> No.18521318

>>18521310
Not an argument.

>> No.18521324
File: 33 KB, 1375x238, cretin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18521324

>>18521195
>god does not expect you to be perfectly good
complete heresy
>>18521196
lmao no dude ahahha just trying to be good cretin ahahha after all Jews are our (((Big Brothers))) in worshipping Adonai lol

>> No.18521332

>>18521289
>religion has no bearing on whether a person is morally good or bad
Yes it does, and if you were honest and went outside you would see it. We are currently facing the destruction of all good, literal evil and you want to tell me atheists are just as moral as religious societies.

>churches cover up of rampant sexual abuse
What cover up? Everybody knows about this and its a certain little group of bad fruits that are tainting the tree.
The only thing that is being covered up is the child abuse perpetrated by the secular government, the UN and charities.
https://parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/

>> No.18521344

>>18521332
>Yes it does, and if you were honest and went outside you would see it. We are currently facing the destruction of all good, literal evil and you want to tell me atheists are just as moral as religious societies.
Elaborate

>> No.18521346

>>18521268
>Christ opposed the death penalty
Where in the scriptures does it say that? I can't remember a single Biblical character speaking out about the death penalty being bad.

If you can find the scripture where it says that I should be against the death penalty when death is appropriate punishment for the crime, then I will change my mind, not before then.

>> No.18521371

>>18521346
Are you really asking me to quote a verse that literally entered the common vocabulary of every single European language?

You can't be serious.

(I'm going to be absent for 10 minutes. Hope you figure it out in the meantime. If not (sic) I will tell you)

>> No.18521374

>>18521176
the punishment is self inflicted, and comes not from being imperfect but from rejecting the truth. which you are absolutely free to not do despite your imperfection.

>> No.18521375
File: 333 KB, 1710x2560, 81j7g4R1rtL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18521375

>>18521332
>We are currently facing the destruction of all good, literal evil and you want to tell me atheists are just as moral as religious societies

>Violence has declined
>God is dead and societies are more secular

Wrong. The most religious countries tend to be the most violent and the most secular countries are the most peaceful.

>> No.18521383

>>18521268
And to be quite clear, my original post was against torture; not against fatal outcomes for murderers and arsonists who get caught. Here was my post >>18520509


You must think someone is a pussy whipped liberal like yourself every time someone suggests forgiveness. You're right though, I guess you are too stupid to understand this Christianity stuff. I highly recommend going to a place where people share your level of intelligence, like New Guinea or Burkina Faso.

>> No.18521407

>>18520890

The UK has never in its history had an absolute monarchy. James II tried to rule as an absolute monarch, and was abridged for his troubles.

>> No.18521416

>>18521371
Will that verse be Genesis 9:6?
>Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Or would you prefer Exodus 21:12?
>He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

>> No.18521448

>>18521332
Personally I think you are weighting religion/loss of religion too strongly as a factor of societal change. The chief factor in my eyes is mass communication. Search christians on tik tok to see the effect mass communication is having even on religion. Now apply that effect to every institution and you have found your demon.

>> No.18521471

>>18521324
>perfectly good
>heresy
Look up pelagianism retard

>> No.18521488

>>18521289
Without God there is no epistemological foundation for any morality. Without God and the Sacred there is simply nothing, you can resort to any cognitive jugglery you want.

>> No.18521614

>>18521416
*wrong answer sound*
*twice*

It was way easier than OT, btw.

John 8:7

>inb4 t-that's not against death penalty AT ALL! Jesus only said that no imperfect living human has an higher moral ground to declare death onto another fellow human!
Exactly.

>>18521471
>pelagianism
Completely unrelated, but that's ok

>> No.18521622

>>18521488
Hmmm... I wonder why it was acceptable to offer your virgin daughters to guests back then, and not now...

>> No.18521971

>>18521614
Sins are not crimes, they are different. See the case with the thieves on the cross.

>pelagianism is completely unrelated
A heresy claiming that humans have the free will to achieve human perfection without divine grace is completely unrelated to not only the possibility but the necessity of being perfectly good by oneself

You have no idea about the things you are discussing, you just want to indulge yourself in your own preferences, you are wicked.

>> No.18521983

>>18521622
Cultural customs are not morality, I'm talking about epistemology behind morality and you come up with such a retarded retort. I couldn't expect less.

>> No.18522049

>>18517949
Imagine living in 2021 and believing in sky daddy LMAO

>> No.18522135

>>18517949
The greatest error that humanity ever committed was to think that God was like a human, thought like a human, cared especially for humans; all this is the greatest and worst form of pride.
God is not like a tyrant, sternly and closely ruling over his wayward creations. Humans ask - if God exists, why is the world not perfect? Perfect for whom? for humans? A world that is perfect for humans would surely be terrible for other creatures. Why should God love us more than them? Because we are smarter? God is surely far smarter than us, and yet he loves all things as he does himself.
Humans ascribe concepts such as 'Goodness' to God? What is goodness? No man has ever been able to define such a thing in an adequate way. When men think of Goodness, they think of that which is good for the human.

>> No.18522168

>>18522135
Shut the fuck up nerd

>> No.18522190

>>18522135
i have to agree with the other anon, just shut up

>> No.18522215

>>18521375
Whatever. """Data""" is just another one of old Scratch's diabolical tricks.

>> No.18522225

>>18522168
>>18522190
I'm sorry that true wisdom irritates you so.

>> No.18522238

>>18517949
>If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him?
We are not infinitely good. Wrath is the negative expression of God's goodness and justice.
>If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future?
I'm not sure what he means by 'doubts' obviously the future is uncertain to us, if not to Him. If he is speaking about security in salvation, yes, it is irrational for a true believed to be wracked with doubts. He should turn to the Scriptures for comfort.
>If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?
Not because he didn't know, but because of the honor of being in his presence, mediated through the priest-king Jesus. Prayer primarily serves to transform us, to bring us into conformity with his will. If we pray in Christ's name, as in in his Spirit, our will will be identical with his will, and the prayer will be granted in that sense. I will admit that Scripture is unclear about this. There is a certain ambiguity to language about prayer.
>If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?
The mode of His presence is different, and the mode of our relation to Him as well.
>If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses?
Because it is just to punish the wicked. Men are not wicked because God puts a gun to their heads, but because they are actively malicious and corrupt. Their own will damns them. God has made things in this way for a purpose. It is not arbitrary. In the punishment of sinners the fullness of his attributes will be expressed in the eschaton. All of Creation will be the peak of beauty, a completed self-portrait of God the Three-in-One. This is God's artistic/creative purpose.
(1/2)

>> No.18522243

>>18522238
>If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
We are saved entirely by the merits of Christ. We do not receive reward for anything of ourselves. Our own good works flow from Him, are His gift and creation, and are not the cause of our salvation, merely a necessary correlate.
>If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him?
He permits us to do so for His own artistic purpose.
>If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
This was addressed before. God judges on the basis of the quality or purity of the thing in itself, in its spiritual nature. God's will is perfectly just and good, ours isn't. It isn't unjust of Him to give us these wills, there was purpose in that act of creation, but the wills themselves are evil and deserving of judgement.
>If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
We don't. Prayer was addressed earlier.
>If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
He has made Himself known in the person of Jesus Christ. It is possible to live in relation to Him without comprehending Him in His fullness.
>IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?
Because he has not decreed it to be so. Not yet, anyways.

(2/2)

>> No.18522247

>theologians: "God works in mysterious ways"
>positive theology still exists

>> No.18522290

>>18522135
What a depressing way of looking at the world. What a TERRIFYING way of looking at the world. Is there no romance in your soul? Why do you choose to occupy this deranged frame of mind?

>> No.18522305
File: 215 KB, 1000x667, Luther.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18522305

>>18521614
Yeah, what he said >>18521971
Don't you see how ridiculous you sound? it's like you're saying that if a murderer was brought before Jesus, Jesus would have said "let him who is without sin, cast the first stone (at this murderer)"

You should know that in the context of the time, the Pharisees were trying to entrap Jesus into breaking Roman law, which had no death penalty for adultery. This is not to say that Jesus could not have ordered her death under Jewish law, just that Jewish law was in abeyance at the time, due to the occupation of Judea by the Romans. He had mercy on the adulteress, but this was a choice, an act of clemency from a judge, not a moral necessity.

If Jesus were brought a murderer, and not an adulteress in the 8th Chapter of John, Jesus would have told them to take the murderer to the Romans, to be duly tried and executed.

>> No.18522357

>>18522290
>TERRIFYING
> muh romance
fuck off you coward pussy

>> No.18522371

>>18522357
Well that's not really a response. I hope that someday you see that there is cause for such hope and joy on account of God's providential care.

>> No.18522377

>>18522225
don't mind them your post is just to real for the baby brains

>> No.18522411

>>18522135
>>18522225
>>18522377
>god actually doesn't care about humans, like it bestows the faculty to know it just at random, like he doesn't even need to be good you know, god is not a tyrant you know he loves that vermin in your stomach as much as he loves you! yeah he loves all things he is a democracy supporter of course.

>> No.18522412

>>18522371
no man he was asking simple questions and you are too afraid to even consider them because your little glass dogmas might shatter
pussy

>> No.18522415

>>18519215
>there cannot be good without evil
Let's assume that's true. In that case good would be dependent upon evil, and since God is good, therefore God would be dependent upon evil. But God is (by definition) an independent being, hence he is both dependent and independent, which is absurd.
The only way out would be to say that evil is God, because that would imply that God is dependent upon himself, and not from an external cause. But then that would imply to moral relativism, since evil acts could also lead to God.

>> No.18522425

>>18522412
you don't even need a brain, just a soul, to understand and feel there is a deeply intimate connection between man and god and the position of man in the universe. it is ironic he called other people prideful when his position is nothing but the assumption that a rational neutrality can lead to a full understanding of god, a democratic god that is so good and intelligent that there is no purpose in anything human.

>> No.18522456

>>18522415
>In that case good would be dependent upon evil
Non sequitur. If you had read the other posts you would know I make no such affirmation.

>God would be dependent upon evil. But God is (by definition) an independent being, hence he is both dependent and independent, which is absurd.
I know this might sound inconceivable especially in a 4chan post, but if you read Boehme, Kabbalah and even Plato, you will see that Evil is present in Divinity, or that Divinity needs it to manifest itself, creation and or both.

>he only way out would be to say that evil is God
Yes, see above.

>But then that would imply to moral relativism, since evil acts could also lead to God.
Not really insofar as God's ''negativity'' would be necessary for his manifestation and his completion (in an ontological process not temporal) and for creation, that is, just like was said above regarding Freedom - there is a potency for good and evil equally.

>> No.18522472

>>18522411
the universe might be infinite there is more complexity then any of us can comprehend 400,000 species of just beatles but you are the center of it all

>> No.18522533

>>18522425
I don't agree with the content of the post just respect the spirit of questioning and challenges.
and don't disagree with your position necessarily, just invert it. for me it's the mind or intellect that imply a deep connection between man and god, but the soul is the shared inheritence of every living being.

>> No.18522610

>>18522472
you can see everything but that which is most evident, this is just sad

>> No.18522626

>>18519215
>Because there cannot be good without evil,
Cringe dualism

>> No.18523176

>>18522456
>Non sequitur.
Dependence is defined as the condition of possibility for the existence of a being. Since the existence of good is only possible through the existence of evil, then it should be followed that good is dependent of evil.
>If you had read the other posts you would know I make no such affirmation.
This one? >>18519782 It's been a while since I read the Sophist but I'll make a try. You seem to talk about created beings (which are differentiated) whereas I'm talking about God considered by itself. Since God is one, it contains no difference and thus can't have any negation, consequently his nature is a purely positive act.
>Evil is present in Divinity, or that Divinity needs it to manifest itself, creation and or both.
Same as above. It should be added that if negation is required for positivity, a Hegelian ontology must follow, since every time
a positive abandons the negative it would cease to exist, hence it should assume the negative and a form of pure divinity would simply be impossible. If that is to be accepted, I would argue that traditional religion is a form of immediacy that should be superseded.

>> No.18523269

>>18520666
What could possibly limit mankind from knowledge of a subject? I know - when the subject does not exist.

>> No.18523423

>>18523176
> Since the existence of good is only possible through the existence of evil, then it should be followed that good is dependent of evil.
They are mutually dependent.

>You seem to talk about created beings.
Not only creation itself but yeah God himself.

>God is one
Yes, and three. I am not subscribing to any intellectualistic especulation here. His act of love (or goodness since you're drawn by intellectualism) expressed in creation reflects his own ontological process. There is negation in God and he must denies himself to be what he is (Love) and in order to create. Even this is to a certain extent in Plato.

>a Hegelian ontology
Not hegelian, but influenced hegelian philosophy.

>since every time a positive abandons the negative it would cease to exist, hence it should assume the negative and a form of pure divinity would simply be impossible
The positive and the negative are one, the negative/evil as procession (Divinity's emergence out of itself, Divinity's pure Will, toward somethingness) and the positive/love as return (completion of its Will in itself). It can also be understood as an image of Consciousness itself, as the Subject's intentionality and its own self-relation in self-awareness.

>If that is to be accepted, I would argue that traditional religion is a form of immediacy that should be superseded.
Not sure exactly what you mean here but I'm afraid we have a very distinct understanding of what traditional religion connotes, but depending on what you you draw from the word ''religion'', yes, it should (as it already was) totally be superseded.

>> No.18523467

>>18521971
>Sins are not crimes,
Holy Mother of Jesus...you are literally on the same heretic level of myself, an atheist.

>> No.18523476

>>18521971
>You have no idea about the things you are discussing, you just want to indulge yourself in your own preferences, you are wicked.
Said the Christian who doesnt believe in sharia, KEK

>> No.18523583

>>18517949
>If he is everywhere why erect temples to him

For human convenience, God does not require this. The author seems to be equating God with pagan deities which is to totally misunderstand the nature of what's being described

>> No.18523940
File: 126 KB, 622x621, Epictetus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18523940

>>18522290
>>18522371
>>18522425
Not that anon, but often I find that all humanity deserves from God is a kick in the ass. I don't know why you as a Christian see it as orthodox to reject what Job says openly in chapter 38; God has his own reasons for doing things, and they are not human reasons. Also King Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, and that is in the canon of scripture. And moreover Jonah was a pious hypocrite who would not spare Nineveh, since the Assyrians were the enemies of israel, but yet God forced him to be their teacher.

Sounds like this life of meaning and purpose you speak of is not God's will. Perhaps God's will is that we are His servants; consider Luke 17:7 - 9:
>But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?Instead, will he not say to him, 'Prepare what I may eat, and having girded yourself about, serve me while I eat and drink; and after these things you shall eat and drink'?Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

Tis a shocker I know.

>> No.18523944

Maybe the most brainlet thread in the history of /lit/.

>> No.18523983

>>18521208
The international community of US hegemony has done pretty much the same thing.

>> No.18523999

>>18521375
I get the feeling that Pinker would be happy cutting out 90% of the human race's brains and putting them in playstations. Saying that things are getting better in this 21st century is a bit of a nobrainer, since the 20th century was the worst one in human history. From rock bottom, everwhere is up.

>> No.18524751

>>18523423
>They are mutually dependent.

You still avoid addressing the initial question: >>18519584

>> No.18524757

>>18522135

This is pure Atheism.

>> No.18524766

>>18522243
>He permits us to do so for His own artistic purpose.

This is an abomination, as is the rest of your reply.

>> No.18524770

>>18523940

What distinguishes this from Atheism?

>> No.18524984

>>18523940
Yeah you just forgot the verse where God literally says to have created man in his own image, do you remember this?

>> No.18524990

>>18524751
???
There is an answer for that other post.

>> No.18526365
File: 23 KB, 594x485, Tiresome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18526365

>>18524770
>>18524984
Gentlemen, you're confused, allow me to help.

Yes God created man in his own image, but you are too busy thinking like the philosophers. The Hebrews did not have the Greek penchant for metaphysical theorizing, and because they did not think in metaphysical terms, they did not believe that God's mere existence makes life "meaningful." This idea that God existing makes life meaningful, comes from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas; these philosophers say that since the universe is "created" then it must be created with cognizable purpose. Much like how if a carpenter makes a table, the table has purpose in upholding food and drink. The philosophers simply say that God is to man, as a carpenter is to a table.

The Hebrews never thought like this; they never thought that the world is like a machine; the Hebrews didn't have machines. They would have said rather that the opposite of a meaningless life is a holy life, a life which is a life spent in the service of God. Worship is the pattern through which God breathes his holiness upon a people who lack holiness. Each temple is a small version of the Garden of Eden, in which the Tree of Life (i.e. the Cross) is planted. The Eucharistic bread and wine is the fruit of this tree which is planted in our hearts.

So Christianity is not trying to get people to accomplish anything; the world is not a machine in which an outcome will please God, and the rest are failure modes. The world is a garden, a place of peace, and we are at our acme when we tend to it in a spirit of respect, see Genesis 2:15:
>And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

So what I say is not atheism, but rather disbelief in what we may term mankind's crusading impulse.

>> No.18526709

>>18526365
holy fucking shit this post can't be serious

>> No.18526743

>>18526709
Ok, but the post is serious. Are you going to dispute it, or just continue in more godless swearing?