/lit/ - Literature

i dont know

>>12246148
bad things like fucknuts posting religion threads on a literature board?

God gave us freedom to choose.

>>12246154
If God is omniscient then there is no freedom.

>>12246148
i assume he's vengeful and likes to btfo people. this is also exactly why you should fear him and believe in him and strive to appease him every day through prayer and sacrifice.

>>12246159
God can know what will happen without our freedom being affected. He is not constrained by time, whereas our freedom of choice is constrained by time and operates in time

>>12246148
he faps to evil

>>12246152
>implying God and art aren't one and the same
Do you have fucking downs syndrome or something, you goddamned fucking retard?

>>12246166
Time doesn't exist.

The Universe is the plot of God, and the plot of God is perfect.

>>12246175
Actually, it does.

>>12246152
The Bible is literature.

>>12246148
The idea of a universe where only good things happen is only possible in a universe where both good and bad things happen.

>>12246179
You think our universe was the only one?

>>12246175
Wouldn't that still leave the statement true, since it rests on our own uncertainty and god's timeless nature.

>>12246179
How so? I could see the argument that what we call time is just motion, and has no existence independent of motion, and thus no actual existence.

>>12246193
I don't know.

>>12246154
>God gave us freedom to choose.
Explain this:

Romans 11:32
>For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

>>12246148
God "allows" what Man's inhumanity does to himself. If that isn't good enough, have faith that all bad things happen for good reasons.

Define "bad"

>>12246195
I'm not a materialist, so the fact that time isn't something tangible that I can handle with my hands and see with my eyes is not something I find problematic. This post I am now typing is in the present for me. The post of yours I am responding to is in the past relative to what I am typing now. The response you may or may not make to this post will be in the future. That's time. It exists.

>>12246199
not OP but I'm guessing he means displeasing to reasonable mortals of a human perspective

that is: by definition incapable of understanding divine motive

This is a literature board.

>>12246210
Scripture is literature.

>>12246197
God's will and our freedom coincide

>>12246218
Very fair point. I'll have to think about that one.

>>12246154
what about bad things that aren't a product of free will? like cancer?

>>12246197
>Romans 11:32
If you are interested I would just look up the Catholic/Orthodox response to predestination. I don't know each and every verse in detail and how it relates to others. In any case, there are plenty of scriptural verses which affirm free will which you, if you are putting forward a deterministic view, would be hard pressed to explain. But this is all a matter of exegesis and traditional doctrines, so I would just read what the traditional views are if you are interested. I can have a discussion with you on a philosophical level, but I am not a professional exegete and I don't know the Bible thoroughly verse for verse with all their explanations.

>>12246204
I'd say whether or not you're a materialist is irrelevant, since a similar argument could be applied to many ontological systems, and materialism doesn't exclude the possibility of there being principles like time. But that doesn't really answer my question, or do anything to refute his claim that time doesn't exist.

The past doesn't exist, all that exists is the current present of reality.

>>12246161
Vengeful for what? What could we possibly do to offend this dude in any way in his divine omnipotence? Seriously, if he gives this much of a shit then maybe he's just petty
I think we're agreeing here, its just baffling

Why do you worship him?

>>12246225
those are the fists of god punching down on you.

>>12246225
Good question. Adam was made the crown and head of creation. If the crown and head falls the rest of creation falls with it. God not only gave us freedom, he gave us responsibility over all creation.

>>12246239
what does responsibility have to do with things that aren't a product of free will?

>>12246228
I'm not sure I'd call it predestination. I don't feel comfy with the idea that my life is all planned out already and whatever is going to happen will happen. If that were the case there'd be a lot more fatalistic suicidal bums around.

I'm thinking more in the vein of Providence. A divine plan we are not privy to, and which it would be useless to depend on. People pray for healing all the time and get nothing. God cursed us to toil, to eat by the sweat of our brow, remember. I think this falls in nicely with Christ's presence on Earth. He taught us the way to the Father, by which thoughts and deeds we should gain eternal life. To resist those is to work for the other, the prince of this world.

>>12246231
I haven't seen any arguments for why time doesn't exist, only an assertion. Obviously the past exists. How did you get here? You also undermine your own argument if you deny the existence of the past. In fact, you cannot have a conversation with me, because anything you may have said in the past actually was never said since the past doesn't exist. Are you really willing to renounce all claims with respect to the past? Did you make the post I am responding to or did that never occur?

>>12246256
They are. Nature is an extension of us. When Adam CHOSE to disobey, he, as the head of creation fell, and so all creation fell with him.

>>12246148
The Demiurge is incompetent

>>12246235
whodat

>>12246256
Not that anon but yeah, I think Providence. Act of God. We each have our allotted time, our span to impress upon humanity whatever gifts we can, and then die. Some people maybe are spared greater pain by an early death. Or perhaps the pain that would go to others.

>>12246166
I don't think you're fully grasping the definition of the word omniscient (also omnipotent).

I don't think that there is a christian here that would deny that god is both of these things.

With that supposition that there is an all powerful and all knowing god, that god would know exactly what to change, precisely what to do in order to convince them to "be saved". God knows this and yet does not act.

Imagine mastering in every conceivable way baking a cake, and then punishing the cake for being flawed. Even though you know what was deficient in the first place. It's a paradox.

With god you are born sick and ordered to be well. It's ludicrous. Christians are forced to either chalk it up to another mystery of faith or sophistry.

>>12246232
>What could we possibly do to offend this dude in any way in his divine omnipotence?
We are flawed. He's the great overseer, you piss him off you'll feel the whip.

>>12246262
Yes, there is a plan. We choose which side of the plan we fall into, the good, or the bad. The plan will accomplish everything it sets to accomplish, it's just a question of how you will choose to involve yourself in it.

>>12246267
so bad things that happen to us that are out of control are punishment for Adam's fall? then why do some people suffer from them and others don't?

>>12246271
>Not that anon but yeah, I think Providence. Act of God. We each have our allotted time, our span to impress upon humanity whatever gifts we can, and then die. Some people maybe are spared greater pain by an early death. Or perhaps the pain that would go to others.
I don't see how this is an answer to my question.

>>12246272
As Christians we know that God is just. It's one of his intrinsic properties. We don't know precisely how the final accounting will take place, but we can rest assured that no one will be wronged.

>>12246161
This is actually moderately plausible based off of the Old Testament depiction of God. There's many instances of God having his anger tempered by a human convincing him to spare them. The part most people seem to miss is that humans utterly deserve his vengeance. Humans are despicably selfish and greedy creatures who have taken His creation for granted and laid waste to it. Human arrogance is the cause of our suffering.

>>12246271
It's El, the supreme deity of many Proto-Semitic pantheons. He's also known as Yaweh. He was eventually held up above all other gods and became the monotheistic god of Judaism (later, Christianity).

>>12246148
God doesn’t exist if bad things don’t exist. Everything exists to actualize God. He knows what evil is. But how can He know it without its existence?

>>12246263
But time can't exist independently of motion, any and all methods of measuring, and thus demonstrating the supposed existence of time are just mechanisms of motion, starting from the basic universal clock that are the motions of the universe itself, down to the motions of atoms. If it has no existence independent of motion, and in fact can be observed to be in any way distinct from motion, how can it possibly be said to exist as anything other that motion?

As for the past existing, what's a fundamentally absurd notion. The past has no existence, because by its very nature it's a present that has ceased to be. My actions can be said to have once existed because of the changes in the present (memories, these posts, etc.) that have been brought about by them. Nothing I have done was done in the past, it was always done in the present.

>>12246280
Punishment is one way of thinking of it, but that is not a word I used and for good reason. It's an illness. Death has entered the world through our forefather. All of us die. Some of us experience this or that misfortune that another does not, but death reaches us all equally. Good and bad has multiple sense, the most critical of which is not benefit/harm but good and bad in the moral sense. Whatever we suffer in terms of harm or privation is not what is important but how we choose to respond is where the real good and bad is.

>>12246297
based Yahweh. father of Jor-El? father of Kal-El?

>>12246279
Pretty much. Reminds me of Plotinus' idea of a higher soul and a lower soul. One that has some agency with the divine, and one that is ours on Earth, both a part of each individual.

>>12246285
I'm not sure I understand your question then. You're asking about things outside of human control, correct?

>>12246312
saying it's an illness would imply that it happens beyond God's control, but that can't be true if God is omnipotent. he is faced with the choice to either allow bad things to happen to people or to prevent bad things from happening to people. why does he choose the former, if he is omnibenevolent?
>>12246314
>I'm not sure I understand your question then. You're asking about things outside of human control, correct?
yeah, how can you reconcile the existence of bad things that are not a product of free will with God's omnibenevolence?

>>12246331
>God's omnibenevolence?
Who says God is omnibenevolent?

>>12246331
i'm the guy who said in a spoiler tag that you can't define bad things. you're a mortal. you do not have the faculties to pass judgment on God. it's not a respect thing, you're simply incapable. what is "bad" to you is not necessarily bad to God, or creation. read Job.

>>12246305
>But time can't exist independently of motion, any and all methods of measuring, and thus demonstrating the supposed existence of time are just mechanisms of motion
Are you inferring that because we cannot measure time apart from motion that therefore it does not exist apart from motion? That's a fallacious inference since that does not necessarily follow, but even if it does not exist apart from motion I don't see why it matters. It does not matter in what manner or mode time exists, it still exists. Using your reasoning one could equally reverse the statement and say that motion does not exist apart from time and therefore motion does not exist, only time does.
>Nothing I have done was done in the past, it was always done in the present.
All this establishes is that past and present are fundamentally different in nature. Actions WERE done in the past. Actions WILL be done in the future. Past, present, and future have different characters obviously they cannot be assimilated to one another entirely. Your saying that past and future don't exist because they do not share the same properties as what makes the present the present. That's as absurd as saying that dogs exist and therefore chickens don't exist because they are not dogs. By the way, you never claimed that only the present exists, because you made that statement in the past and the past doesn't exist.

>>12246148
Because "God" doesn't exist outside your head, is just an abstract idea you are associating with "good" and "bad" relative personal values, phenomena that destroys life and destructive and erratic human nature.

>>12246340
God is frequently called infinitely merciful. This could be omnibenevolence. Many mortals, like this anon here, don't have any clue how this appears in reality.

>>12246345
>t.
You have to know the material to be able to talk about, ya dingus. Just tossing it out because you don't understand is never the right answer.

>>12246331
Again, I made a distinction between different sorts of good and bad. The moral sense is more critical. Harm and benefit are properties of nature, but what matters are what choices we make. Christians do not find suffering problematic because we embrace it. Even God incarnated and freely chose suffering.

>>12246340
the bible, I thought.
>>12246341
so, supposing God is omnibenevolent, children dying of cancer is good to God?

>>12246350
>This could be omnibenevolence
>could be
Curing cancer isn’t infinite mercy.

>>12246361
>the bible, I thought.
What verse?

>>12246362
I'm not sure what you mean. Freeing one of your creations from mortal suffering and bringing them to the transcendent love of the divine presence is not merciful?

>>12246358
so a life of suffering and a life of comfort are identical?

>>12246368
Morally identical, you could say. Or rather, those conditions have no bearing on morality, it's how we respond that makes it morally good or morally bad. Obviously, they are not completely identical. One has suffering, one comfort. That's a difference.

>>12246368
>so a life of suffering and a life of comfort are identical?

>>12246289
Sure but this isn't a logical argument that can be founded on any facts. In fact there are many examples that would discredit this notion. The fact that christians have to tip toe and pick a la carte what they value in the bible which is the closest thing they have to the word of god is another red flag.

As Christians you "believe" that he is just, on faith alone (faith defined as "a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof"), or in other words belief without any evidence.

>>12246363
Psalm 145:17, for one. I thought God being omnibenevolent was a mainstream position in Christianity. correct me if I'm wrong.
>>12246376
so, logically, one should not choose a life of comfort over a life of suffering?
>>12246377
what I mean to say is, would someone prefer a life of suffering over a life of comfort?

>>12246355
I don't care about the material, any theological argument is never free of assumptions and I don't believe any of that, because you have to do that, believe. Is as simple as can be.

>>12246379
We believe according to revelation. That's evidence. It's not evidence so dazzlingly bright that you can't deny it, it requires some faith, but there isn't any kind of reason/faith dichotomy. They are mixed up together. And I cannot speak for all denominations, but the Orthodox Christians fathers don't pick and choose with the Bible, they look at the whole.

>>12246148
why does god punish infants with immeasurable pain and then leave it ambiguous as to whether they go to heaven?

>>12246388
>so, logically, one should not choose a life of comfort over a life of suffering?
One should make morally good choices, whether they entail suffering or comfort.

>>12246171
>you goddamned fucking retard?
Woah woah not a very christian thing to say pal.

>>12246342
>Are you inferring that because we cannot measure time apart from motion that therefore it does not exist apart from motion?

I'm saying that because we can only observe it through motion, there's no reason to think it exists independently of motion, and thus is another term for motion.

>That's a fallacious inference since that does not necessarily follow,

In what way?

>but even if it does not exist apart from motion I don't see why it matters.

It matters because if time doesn't actually exist, all that would exist is a singular, timeless present.

>It does not matter in what manner or mode time exists, it still exists.

No, what exists is motion in a present without past or future.

>Using your reasoning one could equally reverse the statement and say that motion does not exist apart from time and therefore motion does not exist, only time does.

The difference of course is that motion precedes time. Motion exists in the absence of thinking beings, and wont be put into terms of time until thinking beings attempt to measure it.

>All this establishes is that past and present are fundamentally different in nature.

Way to ignore the rest of my statement. Once again, the past is by its very nature a present that has ceased to be, and as something that ceased to be, it doesn't exist.

>Your saying that past and future don't exist because they do not share the same properties as what makes the present the present.

I'm saying that they don't exist because they're not ontological realities; one has ceased to be, one hasn't come to be, both of these mean they don't exist.

>That's as absurd as saying that dogs exist and therefore chickens don't exist because they are not dogs.

That's a bloody ridiculous comparison. Dogs and chickens can both be demonstrated as phenomenological things.

>By the way, you never claimed that only the present exists, because you made that statement in the past and the past doesn't exist.

You're back to ignoring my statements. I hate to quote myself but "My actions can be said to have once existed because of the changes in the present (memories, these posts, etc.) that have been brought about by them." So, in providing evidence that I did indeed say that (when the present was at a different state that it is now). >>12246305

>>12246399
what I'm asking is, if we are to embrace suffering, we should not prefer a life of comfort over a life of suffering, right? if not, it seems that one is worse than the other in some way.

>>12246364
By infinite mercy it is referring to the afterlife

>>12246391
>I don't care about the material
come back when you care about Scripture, retard.

>>12246388
>what I mean to say is, would someone prefer a life of suffering over a life of comfort?
that's up to the individual

>>12246415
again, I say you don't have the correct perspective. you're a mortal. of course you think death is bad.

>>12246388
>psalm 145:17
>17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.
Really?

>>12246396
citation needed, and it better not be protestant nonsense

>>12246423
>that's up to the individual
so a life of comfort isn't better than a life of suffering?
>>12246425
what do you take that to mean, if not that God exclusively makes morally good decisions?

>>12246442
>so a life of comfort isn't better than a life of suffering?
"better." This is so basic. Go ask a friar who's lived fifty years of chastity and poverty and obedience. Ask him if he would have preferred a more comfortable life. Go ask the trust fund kid who never did anything worthwhile if he would have preferred a little more suffering, a little more motivation.

I repeat myself: it's up to the individual.

>>12246403
>In what way?
The fact that you cannot measure A apart from B does not necessitate that A does not exist apart from B. The only thing we can infer is something about the nature of how we measure A, not something about A in itself.
>It matters because if time doesn't actually exist, all that would exist is a singular, timeless present.
I don't see any good reason why it wouldn't exist, and all life and experience suggests that it does, including this conversation that would be impossible without it.
>what exists is motion
How do you come to conclude that motion is the defining feature of existence? Why can things not in motion have no existence?
>The difference of course is that motion precedes time.
They seem obviously concurrent to me. How could it precede time? In what sense does it "precede"? Certainly not temporally.
>Motion exists in the absence of thinking beings, and wont be put into terms of time until thinking beings attempt to measure it.
Why do you believe that time requires thinking beings? Again, you are making statements about MEASUREMENT. How measurement takes place is a separate question from what the thing measure is in itself.
>a present that has ceased to be, and as something that ceased to be, it doesn't exist.
The past is not the present. Your defining the past as something nonexistent by definition and then using that definition as a proof. That's circular reasoning. The fact that the past is not the present is not proof it does not exist. When the present moment passes it ceases to be the present, it does not cease to be full stop. Likewise when I grow up I cease to be a child, but in ceasing to be a child I don't cease to exist entirely I become an adult.
>Dogs and chickens can both be demonstrated as phenomenological things.
If dogs went extinct would you deny that dogs ever existed?
>when the present was at a different state that it is now
Yeah, that's called the past. According to you it doesn't exist. You never made the post I am now responding to.

>>12246184
This is true.
But it still doesn't do any favors to combat the level of incredulity required to believe, the ironies and horrors of our known universe that exist synonymous with a Judeo-Christian god.

>>12246411
>we should not prefer a life of comfort over a life of suffering, right?
No, we should prefer comfort where it is consistent with morality, but should shun it where it harms us morally, where it frequently does when it is indulged in excess. Comfort is not bad in itself, not morally anyway.

>>12246148
>allow
He wills them to happen.

>>12246458
I'm asking whether there is no objective measure by which someone with AIDS has a worse life than a completely healthy person.

>>12246423
>come back when you care about Scripture, retard.

Is kinda like you are saying "come back when you care about Star Wars so I can beat your ass talking about what Jedis believe" and that's all fine and dandy, the problem relies on your kind of people trying to explain reality to me and the supposed way humans should act according to those books you like to read.

>>12246460
>the thing measure
the thing measured*

>>12246148
why do people let their cats paw at things they can't reach on a far away tabletop? because if he falls it'll be funny.

>>12246469
so we shouldn't necessarily embrace suffering, as you said? (if this wasn't you, please correct me).

>>12246493
We should when it is morally and spiritually necessary. Frequently it is. We live in conditions where it can be difficult to be good and godly without discipline and prolonged effort, and discipline and effort can be a source of suffering. Also Christians should always be open to accepting persecution rather than renouncing their faith, and historically this has frequently occurred.

>>12246460
The fact we have never, and cannot observe something as anything but A, would imply that it is indeed A.

All that's required for this conversation to exist is motion. The motion of the atoms in our bodies on up. A principle of time distinct from this motion is not even remotely required.

Hypothetically, something not in motion could exist, but even its lack of motion would be distinct only in the fact that things are moving around it. But as it stands, everything that we have observed to exist is in motion, and there's not much reason to think that motion isn't a constant feature of everything that does exist.

It could precede time in that time is just a measurement that's applied to motion.

It requires thinking beings because it is a measurement, and nothing more. Time is a convenient set of measurements for motion, different from a meter only in what it measures.

It's conceivable that the past could exist, but from the perspective of a human being, the only perspective we could possibly utilize (rendering any other just an exercise in naval gazing to consider) the past is something that has effectively ceased to be. It will never be again, and the only evidence to suggest it was are artifacts that exist in the present. Also that's a really bad analogy, because you as a child indeed doesn't exist anymore, but the current non-existence of a previous you has no bearing on a present you.

No, because there'd be countless artifacts existing in the present to demonstrate their previous existence.

But it doesn't exist anymore. It was once a present, now it's nothing, leaving only a collection of artifacts, like that post to demonstrate that it was.

>>12246393
That level of evidence can be applied to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism (the latter two predating the bible) or literally any other conceivable religion backed by ancient documents. It's faith not evidence.

>>12246506
when is it necessary versus unnecessary? why is it necessary for a child with cancer to embrace their cancer?

>>12246475
You keep changing the goalposts. For the third time: individual. Ergo: subjective. Bugchasers exist. I don't understand them, but they exist. Only you can say what you prefer. So it is with everyone else. Do you understand?

>>12246526
honestly not trying to move the goalposts, but just trying to reformulate my question. my point is that if there are certain conditions that certain people find excruciating (regardless of whether this is subjective or not), why is God justified in imposing such conditions on them?

>>12246512
You're still engaged in circular definitional reasoning which says that existence is necessarily existence in the present therefore since the past is not the present it does not exist. And motion clearly takes place in time! How can you say that all we need is motion but not time? Motion is inconceivable without time, since it in fact hinges on it by definition. Anyway, I've been up for over 24 hours (uh oh, didn't mean to use the bad time words), and I need sleep, so I can't continue this conversation.

>>12246538
again, read Job. God does not need to justify himself to us. He is not subject to our morality, or even our judgment. We are unfit to make any recriminations, being that we are of limited sense and understanding. We're mortals, not omniscient.

>>12246546
okay. so your position is that there is no objective morality? or that there is, but it is only known to God, and differs wildly from our moral system?

God isn’t real

>>12246554
Jesus outlined an objective morality. God loves. Be like God. Do as Jesus (who is God) does. Love thy neighbor as thyself. We know this objective morality, because it was taught to us. What I AM saying is we are not fit to pass judgment on God, or blame God for what we deem unjust.

>>12246565
so IF there is an objective morality, and God is omnibenevolent (if you were the person saying that God isn't omnibenevolent, ignore this), then it is morally justified for children to die?

>>12246579
You either aren't reading or aren't thinking.

I *just said* God cannot be held to account to man. When you ask if it is morally justified for children to die, you don't even realize you don't have the faculties to competently ask that question. You just don't. You're a mortal with an imperfect, very limited perspective. A set of inherited "morals" that you evolved among mortals, for one, and a preference for living for another.

>>12246606
I didn't ask whether he was justified TO MAN, I just asked whether he is morally justified.

>>12246565
but it's an abstract universal. we can't always afford to love thy neighbor.
whether you like it or not history will always trend away from the words of your god and toward objectivity.

God wants us to create. If we did not suffer, then we would not struggle. Real art is only made out of struggle. Can you imagine how hard it must be for God to maintain all of this? He's working very hard, how can you be so critical when you are a brushstroke on his painting?

>>12246620
are you reading what you're writing?

>>12246623
>Can you imagine how hard it must be for God to maintain all of this?
if he's omnipotent then it shouldn't be difficult at all.

>>12246612
You just don't understand.

Even if you construct a sentence to imply it isn't so, "morally justified" is always from Man's perspective. Morals are a mortal device. And we don't have God's perspective.

>>12246565
>Love thy neighbor as thyself

You do know that the golden rule greatly predates christianity and is visible in virtually every surviving society. In other words this instinct is what has been passed down genetically through evolution. A society that abides by murder, theft, perjury naturally do not last long.

>Be like God.
God and Jesus never condemned slavery, they promote it, they give you slave guidelines. They advised murder and genocide etc etc.

Humans are capable (with flaws no doubt) of creating a civilization with nuanced moral codes. A society ruled by the morality of the bible is a society doomed.

>>12246624
no, I link to think that I'm rather writing what I'm reading

>>12246644
>"morally justified" is always from Man's perspective. Morals are a mortal device.
why? didn't we just agree that God has an objective moral system?
>And we don't have God's perspective.
again, I'm not asking man to understand God's moral justification.

>>12246148
“Why are there good things?” Where in a godless world is there a place for goodness?

>>12246657
>You do know that the golden rule greatly predates christianity and is visible in virtually every surviving society.
Your point? Jesus was talking to the stiff-necked Israelites, who repeatedly had to be corrected by God. That line is not the whole of his teaching, incidentally, just one of the most important. I'm sure you know this and aren't just shitposting.

>A society ruled by the morality of the bible is a society doomed.
When parables are read by literalists like you to justify their agenda, as you are doing, certainly.

>>12246672

>>12246663
>why? didn't we just agree that God has an objective moral system?
Given to man, yes, for man's benefit. God is the source of all goodness, incl love and mercy. Again, we go to the subject of earlier in the thread: things you call "bad" or deem unjust -- natural disasters, childhood deaths, torture, whatever -- are part of Providence and beyond your understand. If you have faith, you know that all good comes from God. If this is repulsive to you, it is because you are mortal trying to apply a morality to something that exists beyond your judgment.

>>12246606
If you have this mindset; that there is a metaphysical god that exists completely outside of our understanding then you are caught in circular reasoning (one of the most common fallacies) which presupposes that god exists. But it's all white noise if you can't give evidence or facts that support your claim in the first place.

>>12246684
so God has no moral system?

>>12246697
None that man can understand.

>>12246691
Which claim? That God exists? There are several proofs.

>>12246642
Who said he's omnipotent? Did God tell you that?

>>12246705
>None that man can understand.
so you don't know whether God has a moral system? will you concede that, supposing he does, and supposing he's omnibenevolent, he is morally justified in allowing bad things to happen to innocent people? that's all I'm asking.

Here, read this. I'm done repeating myself and solving slow-ass puzzles for SF techbois. Goodnight.

>>12246623
>Real art is only made out of struggle.
Umm, you can't create art when you're in a state of bliss? I think you are getting ahead of yourself. Art is a human construct, the idea of "real art" is absolutely ridiculous. Who are you or is anyone to judge what is defined as real art vs whatever the fuck.

>>12246691
>>12246697
>They dont know that it always comes down to faith

>>12246272
see Hick's soul-making theodicy

>>12246717
I never said it doesn't come down to faith. I'm asking whether you have faith that God is morally justified in allowing bad things to happen to innocent people.

>>12246714
very nearly almost a well formulated question. your error is in still talking about "bad things to happen to innocent people." You are once more viewing God's movements, some of them you call "bad," from the mortal perspective. Your question is a demand for justification. Again, I tell you: you don't know what "bad" is. What appears to be bad to any reasonable human (who is severely underinformed) could in fact to an omniscient being be a very good thing.

Goodnight.

>>12246148
Look up Open-Theology.

>>12246734
I am not the anon with which you argue, just a bystander

>>12246741
I thought we already agreed that "bad" just means subjective suffering? I'm not saying that God thinks such things to be bad. I'm saying the exact opposite. God would see such things as morally justified and therefore good, right?

>>12246752
I figured. just thought you might wanna join in.

is morality even possible for an omniscient being?

>>12246673
First off ad hominem will only makes you look weak. My point is that you don't need the bible or a religion to tell you right from wrong. Everything you said about loving god, be like god etc is moot. Whereas the golden rule is a valuable principle that exists independent of christianity. We have it intrinsically (notable exceptions being psychopaths/sociopaths, other interesting brain related disorders).

>When parables are read by literalists like you to justify their agenda, as you are doing, certainly.

Everyone reads the bible in their own way, impossible not to. When did god say to not read the bible literally? You choose what you like and don't like from the bible, as does everyone. You pick a la carte. And as society progresses, Christianity, throughout it's various denominations is forced to adapt and give more in order to be realistic (and not downright ridiculous) in a more informed modern landscape.

>>12246148
Why do you think you're able to logically comprehend God and His actions?

>>12246787
>When did god say to not read the bible literally
Jesus did, in one of the gospels. He explained why he spoke in parables. I can't look for it now because I'm drifting off. Try reading the Bible before arguing it.

>>12246705
Do yourself a favor and look up the rebuttals to your proofs.

>>12246741
If you are arguing for a god that is beyond our understanding, while at the same time telling us how he is to be understood, it is a paradox.

If you were to truly follow your line of reasoning you'd realize that everything you are claiming about god would be nullified by everything you've said about god.

>>12246818
Even if he did (with another passage that could be interpreted in an infinite amount of ways), I'm sure he specified which passages to take literally and which not to.

Because no one would pray/worship otherwise.

>implying good and evil aren't both part of god
>being such an infantile that you blame your parents behavior on yourself
man up and face that god has his shadow

1. Go on YouTube and search Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss. Watch the hundreds of debates they have with the most rhetorically gifted and nuanced theists alive.
2. Have an existential crisis.
3. Go on YouTube and search for Alan Watts.
4. Crisis averted.

Worked for me.

>>12246148

Think of positive, rather than negative, perfection.

>>12246715

Why degrade Plotinus by associating him with those autists?

>God is omniscient
>"I know that if I create this person he will commit sin and then be punished in Hell for eternity"
>Creates him anyway
Why does God do this?

>>12246741
>Again, I tell you: you don't know what "bad" is. What appears to be bad to any reasonable human (who is severely underinformed) could in fact to an omniscient being be a very good thing.
>being born without any say on your part, suffering alone, dying a virgin, and then being punished eternally in hell by a being who did not have to create you but did anyway knowing that you would experience all this and puts in hell for offing yourself because you just couldn't take it anymore is actually a good thing bro!
you are insane and have no answers

Why would you make creation and then have it be a boring controlled environment? Isn't it enough to see what's coming?

>>12247153
>just off your omniscience Bro
lol

>>12246272
>Imagine mastering in every conceivable way baking a cake, and then punishing the cake for being flawed.
We are not a cake. God gave us freedom, and this freedom is exactly the capability to do good and evil. We can do evil since we are free, and God punishes us if we do evil because he's good.

>>12246159
No, it's like a clockmaker and a clock. He can create the clock and get it working but he's not the one making the needle go round.

>>12247278
But why does God create someone he knows will do evil?

>Suffering = morally bad
How can God possible recover?

>>12246182
so is pic related but papercrafters know it's best to stick to their own board to discuss it

>>12247317
Is this Origami book a collection of stories like the Bible is?

>>12247323
>being a plotfag

>>12247278
He creates us KNOWING the path our lives will take. He is after all omniscient. This is why Calvinists believe in a pre-ordained life.

>>12246431
The suffering remains regardless, and some child killed in 500 BCE by bandits who torture him and his mother to death is not necessarily bound for paradise. Its implied that once judgement comes all souls have a chance but that's not clear in the context of people born before Christ or people who had not heard the word of God, Christian apologetics and exegesis says that's what likely happens but that's not literally written in the scriptures which are considered divinely inspired and thus the indirect word of God. Even then, the child still got tortured to death. There's no defense for that, if there was why the fuck did he do it in the first place?

>>12247349
I know your mom will be sucking nigger dicks tonight, but that doesn't mean she's not doing it of her own free will

>>12247359
>suffering = morally bad

>>12247361
why are americans so obsessed with black men's penises?

>>12246148
because he doesn't exist... :S

>>12247365
>its ok that children die meaningless, horrible deaths because there's an unspecificied and unknowable slim chance they might go to paradise
>if they don't that's ok too because good people who hear the word of god and accept christ do get to go to heaven
>billions of people potentially burning in hell or wallowing in purgatory or just being annihilated after horrible lives is fine because me and the people i like get to experience perpetual prostate orgasms from cherubim while we lap up the Lord God's pooled semen from his eternal wank over people who believed slightly incorrect versions of Christianity burning in hell being raped by demons for all time
this is what Christfaggots actually believe.

>>12247395
Toptip kids: when you find yourself typing out shit like this, it might be easier to concede you've lost the argument

Nothing that's bad has ever happened nor will it ever happen.

It's just a prank bro, relax.

>>12246148
Evil is a catalyst. Females cause drama and fights to get best possible DNA sequence into the future, parasites can't be too potent as to destroy their victims without dying themselves.
The manner of evil that doesn't seem to do anything of the sort is the direct and intentional opposition to morality, and as such, harming God. So the question can be phrased: why does God allow Himself to be opposed?

>>12246154
>>12247283
You guys are implying that God CAN’T do something, heretics. Namely that God can’t create a wholly good clock. You can call that restriction even though we wouldn’t know the difference but if you want to go that route then by virtue of giving us these particular bodies he’s inherently restricting us as well

>>12246148
God is nothing if not the priori for the becoming of 'bad' and 'good'

>>12247386
Amerimutt penises are mutilated and the slave breaking sequence corrodes their sense of self-worth.

>>12246148
Bad exists only because humans cannot transutate the material world to be useful to us.

Flood bad, dam good.

Evil existing is the individual’s fault.

>>12247742
>bad exists only because bad exists
holy... i want more

>>12246148
Because God isn't nice. God probably doesn't give a fuck about humans. God has a million other planets with far more interesting creatures.

>>12247763
Clearly. Bad exists because we feed it.

>>12246161
He's a changing living god, not a god of stasis.

>>12246179
Much bigger men than (you) have concluded that time is an illusion of the senses, and past ,present and future all coexist

>>12246620
>Posts arch-lutheran Hegel

>>12247773
>t. Bo Burnham
https://youtu.be/Zxc20saM8DA

>>12247990
they were wrong

>>12246148
Literally who?

>>12246148
Because the good only has value with the possibility of the bad. If nothing bad ever happened then good things couldn't exist. This is the only possible world and therefore justified.

Science and humans will never fix bad things no matter what, annhilation is always around the corner no matter pur efforts

>>12246148
Chesterton addresses this quite well, as does Alan Watts...

>>12246197
Explain? Okay, the Bible is just a book written by limited people about an imaginary sky daddy, with no connection with reality.

>>12248108
t. anon on a Nepalese sparrow hunting forum

>>12246297
So you're the one calling himself El

First let us understand the origins of religion and of religious scriptures. According to Jaynes, the Bible is basically an attempt to record the voice of God, once heard by all but later only by what they called prophets, but whom we today would regard as schizophrenics...

>>12246148
It's not a thing that he allows or not.

Bad things that happen are basically the Chaos
that we encounter in our lives. Now, God is Order.
Being two driving forces of our existence we get to
encounter both Order and Chaos. The question
doesn't go along the lines of "how God allows evil?"
for it's like asking "how Existence (Being) allows for
some things to not exist?".

>>12246753
Wew, we still arguing. I couldn't sleep well, I had a cat on my chest.

>God would see such things as morally justified and therefore good, right?
Yes we are in agreement bad means subjective suffering. Infants have a different idea of bad than adults. God is not bad. God is good. This is known. And again: I can't tell you what God thinks.

Read Aquinas.

>>12246871
No Jesus did not leave a list of footnotes. He passed his ministry to Peter, who began the tradition of the Church.

>>12247232
You don't know who is in Hell. All of God's creatures are good, and God's mercy is infinite. For all we know Hell is empty.

>>12248365
>Yes we are in agreement bad means subjective suffering. Infants have a different idea of bad than adults. God is not bad. God is good. This is known. And again: I can't tell you what God thinks.
okay cool. so the answer is yes, then, that God finds it morally justified to allow things that WE consider bad to happen to people (who WE consider innocent).

>>12248809
>so the answer is yes, then, that God finds it morally justified
No, that is incorrect and I'm surprised you didn't proofread your conclusion. You can't know the mind of God. You can infer from Scripture what opinions God MIGHT hold, but that does not necessarily reveal God's true thought. imo the concept of morality cannot even be applied to an omniscient, omnipotent Creator. It just literally does not make sense. Think about it for five seconds. God is not moral. God is not immoral. Neither of those terms apply.

Okay how do I illustrate this. Imagine having a yardstick that measures morality. Your job is to measure God, and take the figures that you see on the yardstick and say "that is God's morality."

Except God is infinitely larger than you. God made you and is not subject to measurements. You couldn't measure God if you lived to be a billion. You certainly can't do it in a span of 70 years.

>>12248841
now hold on, I didn't claim we can know the mind of God, nor did I claim we can understand his decisions using our human moral framework. didn't we agree that a) God has a moral system, and b) God is omnibenevolent (we're supposing this for the sake of argument)?

hah i gette quods lol

>>12248883
I conceded IF God has a moral system, it is none that man can know. I'm not sure it is even possible for an omniscient Creator to have conceptions of right or wrong.

This is beginning to enter the territory of mysticism, of Imago Dei. If we have a system of morals, and we are made in his image, that implies that God does have a morality. But I don't think that is possible. We had a system of morals REVEALED TO US by God. An omnipotence is by definition not bound by anything.

>>12248944
oh I see. so you don't know whether or not God has a moral system.
>I'm not sure it is even possible for an omniscient Creator to have conceptions of right or wrong
so God isn't omnibenevolent, then?

>>12248985
I don't know. I would not argue that that is the case.

that is, I believe it to be true, and would not argue that God is not benevolent.

>>12248990
but you don't think that God can do wrong, because he transcends the concepts of right and wrong?

>>12249003
I never stated that was the case. As per my belief which I just restated, I believe God is benevolent to Man. So God must necessarily know what is good for man. We're getting tangled up in the morality argument again under different terms.

I think a better way to say it would be: God does not care what Man thinks is right and wrong. God simply does what is good.

The truth is that God is the only thing that exists, good and evil as a binary distinction doesn't exist; and that the universe is unreal and never actually manifests and that all this is just a fantastical illusion appearing like a mirage within the ocean-like infinity of God who is the omnipresent witness of it.

>>12249023
>As per my belief which I just restated, I believe God is benevolent to Man.
benevolent or omniobenevolent?
>God simply does what is good.
exclusively?

>>12249028
>The truth is ... illusion
okay bro

>>12249039
>exclusively?
yes.

>benevolent or omniobenevolent?
There is a difference? As I said, I believe God does what is good. Always. Omnibenevolent if you like.

>>12249051
so if you believe that a) God always does what is good, and b) allowing children to die of cancer is a thing that God does, then it follows that God finds children dying of cancer to be good.

>>12246148
Who do you allow yourself to consider God's plan to be bad?

>>12249060
I should clarify, it follows that YOU BELIEVE that God finds children dying of cancer to be good.

>>12249060
Read Aquinas, seriously.

Causes have double effect. One that is plainly visible. In your example, a child dying of cancer. The other effects are unknown to man due to his limited senses. Maybe the child would have been a mass murderer. Maybe the child would have suffered greatly at the hands of men and was taken back by God. Maybe the child's death affected some other person not even in the child's family, perhaps by way of gossip or broadcast, in some way they don't recognize, but it changed them for the better. We don't know those secondary effects, and it is not our place to balance them against the weight of a child's life (or whatever it was that God did which we, mere stinking mortals, found objectionable).

>>12249088
again, I'm not asking us to understand, as men, WHY God finds it to be good, but if you accept both of the premises I've laid out, you must agree with the conclusion. or do we disagree on what makes an argument formally valid?

>>12249100
I think it is clear I agree with your conclusion. I merely present an argument for why that conclusion is not monstrous.

>>12249088
>Maybe the child would have been a mass murderer. Maybe the child would have suffered greatly at the hands of men and was taken back by God.
and I thought that God allowed us to exercise free will, for better or for worse?

>>12249067
What's so bad about children dying of cancer? The challenge of this earthly vale of tears is cut short and they go to heaven pure and innocent.

>>12249107
okay, that's all I was asking. thanks.

>>12249108
Acts of God are not acts of man's free will.

>>12249121
right, but the child growing up to be a mass murderer would be an act of free will. and I was under the impression that God allows us to exercise our free will. is that not right?

>God is omniscient therefore he knows exactly 1 future in store for you and that's that!
>hah, see? God is evil!

>>12249042
That's the only serious conclusion, origination is untenable when you really look deep into the nature of things, hence there is nothing actually originated

>>12249128
Now we discuss Providence, which is a mystery. And what God owes to man, which is nothing.

>>12249128
Sorry, that was kind of a cheeky answer.

>I was under the impression that God allows us to exercise our free will.
Certainly. But God also has a will, and we cannot struggle with it.

>>12249152
so God chooses to impede some acts of free will, but not others? and that's providence?

>>12249166
I would say that is, as far as humans may understand it, only one half (the negative side). I believe it is possible God also inspires great acts of will in man. Whether those acts are deemed by man good or bad is irrelevant for now.

god doesnt exist. the universe is fundamentally chaotic.

>>12249088
>Maybe the child would have suffered greatly at the hands of men and was taken back by God

that's a direct breach of the free will deal though

>>12249182
/thread

>>12249191
It's just a hypothetical, anon. I don't know why God does specific things, but I believe all God's actions are good. What men think of those actions is not God's concern.

>>12249176
I see. can I ask why you think, using your example of God allowing a child to die of cancer because that child would have grown up to be a mass murderer, that God doesn't do the same for other kids who grew up to be mass murderers? why didn't Jeffrey Dahmer get cancer? I know you'll say that you don't know, and it's not your place to know, but do you have any guesses, at least?

>>12249200

sorry but you are full of shit
find better arguments if you have to immediately pivot every time someone throw s a chink in your armor

>>12247386
>>12247737
now that you two are done stroking each other's inferiority complex, feel free to answer the counter-argument

>people falling for the big meme in the sky
oh dear

>>12249217
>sorry I don't know the mind of God
>THAT'S BULLSHIT YOU'RE BULLSHIT
okay.

>>12249206
It's not my example, it's yours.

>I know you'll say that you don't know, and it's not your place to know, but do you have any guesses, at least?
I already illustrated this in that post. There are secondary effects to every cause that moves man, and these are not obvious. The hidden good could be literally anything, small or great, and not necessarily presented now but in the future, nor necessarily related to the 'victim'.

>>12249238
>using the R"ddit super-human personification of God

>>12249246
have you ever gone to church? most people conceptualize god as a super human father figure who they can talk to and cares about them

God is beyond the human definitions of good and evil.

>>12249264
>superhuman
that is literally what divinity is

>who they can talk to
that is a consequence of omniscience

>>12249245
>It's not my example, it's yours.
well, specifically the possibility of it being justified due to the fact that the child would have grown up to be a mass murderer, was your example, not mine.
>I already illustrated this in that post. There are secondary effects to every cause that moves man, and these are not obvious. The hidden good could be literally anything, small or great, and not necessarily presented now but in the future, nor necessarily related to the 'victim'.
so, for reasons we cannot comprehend, God found the detriments of giving Dahmer cancer to be be more detrimental (not necessarily to Dahmer specifically, but in general) then letting him grow up to kill who he killed.

>>12249276
>so, for reasons we cannot comprehend, God found the detriments of giving Dahmer cancer to be be more detrimental (not necessarily to Dahmer specifically, but in general) then letting him grow up to kill who he killed.
Well put.

>>12249281
well that's certainly interesting. thanks for sharing your thoughts.

>>12249288
pleasant talking with you anon

>>12249264
Okay, and what does that have to do with the fallaciousness of your post? Just because some Christians misconceptualize God doesn't mean you should, either.

Everything below is me bullshitting.

>>12246159
>If God is omniscient then there is no freedom.
You know how light has elements like a particle and a wave? That is destermined existence vs free will.

>>12246184
>both good and bad things must happen so we can understand good
The universe is progressing towards complexity and concentration. Before sentient beings, good and bad was evenly mixed. Now and in the future, there will be a division of good and bad, just like shitty neighborhoods and pleasant ones. There will be a divide that will form a literal heaven in the stars and a hell.

>Everything below is me bullshitting.
more like "everything below this line." except the bit about particles and waves. that is currently electrocuting my almonds. confound you anon.

>74 posters itt just had their babby's first problem of evil examination
/lit/ confirmed underage

>>12246148
Because there are no good or bad things. Just things.