>get rid of him
A better question is why he created a being capable of being damned in the first place. If God is above logic, then he should be able to create beings that simultaneously have free will and are incapable of damning themselves.

>>16529179
That's the Gnostic interpretation with God as The One and Satan as Demiurge.

>>16529179
Ugh, yes? He also predestinated all things both good and evil according to the Abrahamic faith and many people were literally created for damnation, it's just Christianity being retarded and pagan.
>>16529211
Reminder Gnosticism is the only way make Christianity not that retarded, though it still doesn't elaborate why should one chose the True God instead of Demiurge if the former just sits somewhere and does nothing while the latter actually cares about shit in one way or another. Their god is powerless, all he can do is to whine.

>>16529179
>If God is above logic, then he should be able to create beings that simultaneously have free will and are incapable of damning themselves.

It is evident youre the same guy from that one thread >>16527019 This was already answered and you refused to engage with the logic. Like a chatgpt bot who doesn't understand higher level math, you eventually stopped trying to correct your answers and halted. Learn logic or you don't know what you're talking about.

Someone showed that there exists fields with characteristic 2 (1+1=0), and since you are like an elementary with elementary knowledge you can't compute how this can be the case and understand the simple math, so you parrot "squack! thats absurd! squack! God is a child!"

>>16529203
>>16529239
I meant to reply to him, sorry OP.

>>16529179
>Why doesn't he just get rid of him? He could do it in an instant if he wanted to

The answer is free will and mercy. All the demons have the ability to repent. But they don't, and they never will. Out of deontic necessity, God doesn't annihilate what he has created, even if they are a complete disappointment to him through their free will.

Central to God's moral will, every creature with conciousness must have free will and MUST have the ability to seperate or commune with God.

>>16529236
>though it still doesn't elaborate why should one chose the True God instead of Demiurge if the former just sits somewhere and does nothing while the latter actually cares about shit in one way or another. Their god is powerless, all he can do is to whine.
True God is perfect, while Demiurge is just his reflection diluted by the physical aspect of existence. Why would you want an inferior copy instead of the original?

>>16529179
lol does anyone have the top right one?

>>16529256
But if the act of damnation is final, then annihilating them would be merciful.

>>16529283
Because the copy burns cities of its enemies and gives wealth to its supporters while the original just sits somewhere and whines.

>>16529304
Damnation is not an act by God

>>16529307
>the copy burns cities of its enemies and gives wealth to its supporters
Well, if you consider those things to be good and cool then that's just a sign that you're not ready to return to The One.

>>16529311
What's even the point in that returning? You supposedly lose yourself and become a part of thay being, it looks pretty much like non-existence.

>>16529179
Satan is a servant of God.

>>16529236
>many people were literally created for damnation
Jesus even said that only few will find salvation. So that means the Biblical Calvinist God made most people just to torture them forever, and there's nothing any of them could have ever done about it.

>>16529256
Open theism at least make sense on this end. Calvinism is illogical.

>>16529309
>Damnation is not an act by God
That's a bit like creating people to be hungry and then placing some nice smelling bacon outside their field of view, and when they go towards it, saying it's their fault.

>>16529437
>the Biblical Calvinist God
It is just Adonai Elohim, the god of Israel, as he is presented in the Tanakh. Calvin introduced nothing new, he just denounced a popular Christian pagan heresy about free will. Actually, Calvinists have only to denounce that retarded Trinity and then they will truly become equal to Muslims and Jews in their worship of the god of Abraham.

>>16529450
God created people good in Eden. When man rebelled, they were seperated from the good (God). In another post https://boards.4chan.org/his/thread/16521817/why-doesnt-god-intervene-on-human-suffering/16526498

This explains why suffering follows as a state, in the absence of good. I didn't make that post by the way. Just explains it well.

But your quote does partially apply to Eden. God intended Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, but he put the test as to test their faith. Prior to creation, God created the thrones, the Seraphim, Cherabim, and all the other ranks of the angels. For eons Lucifer, the Seraphim, was close to God and his best angel. Lucifer was taught the knowledge of good and evil, Lucifer was good. However, one day, he decided to rebel. The Garden of Eden story is crafted in the context of the knowledge of Lucifer and his rebellion. It might have been unreasonable to go through the whole game of whether or not man would go to Lucifer after eons of being with God.

>>16529496
>>16529450

>In another post
https://boards.4chan.org/his/thread/16521817/why-doesnt-god-intervene-on-human-suffering/#p16526498

Correction* I didnt put it in correctly the first time.

>>16529488
Shut the fuck up, heretic

File: lapsarianisms calvinism.jpg (25 KB, 474x320)

25 KB JPG

>>16529437
That's supralapsarianism (God chose who to save first, then decided to create us, then decided to give us free will knowing we would fall from grace and lose it). Most Calvinists are infralapsarian (deciding who to save comes after deciding to permit us to fall from grace)
Some call the two views "Mean Calvinism" and "Nice Calvinism" respectively.

>>16529534
>CALVIN CALVIN CALVIN CALVIN MUH CALVIN YOU SEE C A L V I N
What's wrong with you? It lasts from Moses straight.

>>16529496
Okay but like I love my cat and if I created him I wouldn't make him hungry and then put food in an area where I don't want him to go. And then when he goes there light him on fire. Seems a little unreasonable.

>>16529677
>I wouldn't make him hungry and then put food in an area where I don't want him to go.

God didnt make adam and eve hungry. Satan made them 'hungry'. You read the text and it is only when the serpent suggests something do they start desiring from the tree. No indication of them caring prior.

>And then when he goes there light him on fire.

What God did after was make them mortal. The reason for him making them mortal is discussed in "The Orthodox Faith, Worship, and Life", which is confirmed by ancient tradition.

"As man distanced himself from life, so he drew closer to death. For God is life and the privation is death. The death suffered by the first-formed man after his disobedience was that of the sould, which was followed later by the death of the body 'in order that evil may not be immortal..'"

There was a metaphysical affect in the soul with rebellion. Indeed, the world is imperfect because of this sin. The Holy spirit is in everything.

So when Adam rebelled, the whole world was tainted. Adam separated himself from God in the moment.

>>16529709
That's a fair post, I guess I'm speaking more in general than just the Adam and Eve situation. Sin itself leading to eternal torment in fire. Potentially for just looking at a woman with lust. When I think about my cat, I can't fathom such a situation being loving. Especially if I was the one that installed the lust in the first place.

Why wouldn't we have been made to not have lust once women were married or something? It comes back to the idea that if I made my cat, and installed hunger in him, and then put his food in his proper place, that would be fine. But if I also put food in a place that I didn't want him to go, it would be my fault if he went there. I could just not put the food there. Or I could just have designed my cat to not be interested in food outside of where I want him to eat. But to light him on fire forever for eating the wrong food, would be cruel of me.

>>16529777
>Sin itself leading to eternal torment in fire.
The way this works is that when you die and if you are in a state of being which doesnt Love God, you experience hell fire.The idea is that hell isn't a place, it is an interpretation of the energies of God. The West doesn't have this idea for they lack an 'essence-energy distinction'. So, you might as well be in the same 'place', experiencing the same energies, but if you do not love God, you experience God's love as hell fire. Otherwise, you experience the true ineffable love as intended.

>Especially if I was the one that installed the lust in the first place.

God never installed lust. Our free will led us to the path which led to lust. Our own conscious decision to seperate from God led us to a state of being which allows for lust. Our original state of being did not have lust.

>Why wouldn't we have been made to not have lust once women were married or something?

Because God, by his nature, does not want us to be forced to feel anything. He can only try to convince us, but he cannot force us to feel anything. We have to accept that calling ourselves and through prayer and fasting we may master our desires through faith.

>But if I also put food in a place that I didn't want him to go, it would be my fault if he went there. I could just not put the food there

If you interpret food as lust or temptation, this comes from our own desires or Satan. Actually, it all comes from Satan. Satan is the 'source of all sin'. Which started with pride. The source of Satan's rebellion was pride. The source of sin is Satan.

God does not stir up lust in us. He may test us, however, through suffering- like he did with his saints and matryrs.

>>16529179
dios es puto

Satan is not an underling, fallen angel, or a demon. He is the anti god. The shadow of yahweh that lives in synchronicity with him. Zoroastrianism had a great impact on judaism, and the hebrews were delighted to find a much better interpretation of god than the one they knew.

>>16530176
what impact did Zoroastrianism have on Judaism?

>>16529496
Seems like a simulation for humans to me. If they can build a civilization that can stand the test of time.... Civ v voice.

>>16530190
Satan, heaven, hell, the idea of messiahs, angels, most importantly turning yahweh into ahura mazda esque god.

The thing that irks me the most when it comes to Christianity is that most christians don't seem to understand what hell really means. You burn forever, you basically become Agni from Fire Punch. Death by burning is one of the most painful ways to go and many burn victim have given vivid accounts of how indescribably painful there experience was. And now this pain is with you...forever. It's hard for me to say that a loving God would approve of this even if the sinners freely chose of it. I don't understand how a person can live knowing a good portion of humanity is writhing in agony for eternity and say "Welp, they all deserve it".

>>16529812
you're not listening to him.
>well they (sinners) chose it because muh free will
>it just so happens that it also feels like absolute shit by design
>and god doesn't want to fix the design flaw
>nor does he spare them from said suffering by not creating them
>but it's still their fault that they got tricked into it

>>16530593
>>well they (sinners) chose it because muh free will
>>it just so happens that it also feels like absolute shit by design

It is necessarily the case that if a being is conscious and has free will, they will interpret the absence of pleasure as discomfort.

If a person cannot discern between the two, they would feel nothing. You are asking everyone feels neutral at all times.

>>nor does he spare them from said suffering by not creating them

That is literally retarded. You would rather not exist at all?

>>but it's still their fault that they got tricked into it

It is both their fault and Satan's fault. But they did not confess any responsibility. God told them not to partake of the tree.

Whether it is in a day this happens, or eons, like Satan. There is the possibility of this issue occurring.

Also Christ went down to Hades and preached the gospel. Anyone lost to 'ignorance' had a second chance.

>>16529496
>God created people good in Eden. When man rebelled, they were seperated from the good (God). In another post h
What happened to 'The sins of the father won't be visited on his children'?

>>16530636
>What happened to 'The sins of the father won't be visited on his children'?

What Bible verse are you referring to. I searched it up, sounds just like a catchphrase to me.

The original sin has been generational and passed on since the fall. There is no generational guilt, however. Western Christianity accepts this. But they're wrong and misguided.

>>16530642
>Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his & >own sin."

>>16530642
Ezekiel 18:20
The son does not inherit the guilt of the father

>>16530680
>The son does not inherit the guilt of the father

Thank you for the verses. Many people talk and give nothing.

So, yeah, everyone has inherited sin, but not guilt. The sin is metaphysical and taints their soul, their being. But the soul and body are one, so this affects both. This is why babies are baptized, the purify them. But they have no guilt. Babies do not go to hell.

>>16530623
>if you don't feel pleasure, you must feel terrible pain, because... because... reasons
>god doesn't give pleasure to those who he knew wouldn't worship him, so he passively assigns them to pain and is totally fine with it
>That is literally retarded
cope.
>You would rather not exist at all?
if pain is the only option, yes.
>It is both their fault and Satan's fault
they didn't know it was wrong to disobey god. a toddler doesn't know that he's not supposed to eat tide pods.
>But they did not confess any responsibility
should they have?
>God told them not to partake of the tree
god didn't get rid of the tree, therefore, he consented to its existence.
>Anyone lost to 'ignorance' had a second chance
then preaching done by humans in this life is harmful. let jesus do it.

>>16530698
>So, yeah, everyone has inherited sin, but not guilt.
This only makes sense from a gnostic point of view. In that, they believed sin was a substance in the flesh. Augustine, being an "ex" gnostic brought forth this idea. It's not biblical, but gnostic.

>>16530703
>>if you don't feel pleasure, you must feel terrible pain, because... because... reasons

Yeah, reasons are pretty good. Have you given reasons?

>>god doesn't give pleasure to those who he knew wouldn't worship him,

I do not subscribe to compatibalism. See William Lane Craig's "middle knowledge doctrine". It may be possible God knows all modal worlds. That is, all possible worlds. And perfect knowledge in best POSSIBLE predictions.

>they didn't know it was wrong to disobey god. a toddler doesn't know that he's not supposed to eat tide pods.

They were adults and created good and already mature. They did know since God told them so. Also, would you rather they be like Lucifer and God waits eons, then find out they rebel anyways?

>should they have?

Yes, whether it be partial or full. They didn't confess at all, they put the blame on another person. They had free will. Free will indicates a person has moral responsibility. This is fundamental in philsoophy.

>god didn't get rid of the tree, therefore, he consented to its existence.

God planned to let them partake of the tree, but not until they shown themselves worthy. He was going to let them eat it.

>then preaching done by humans in this life is harmful.

I said had, not has.

>>16530715
>This only makes sense from a gnostic point of view. In that, they believed sin was a substance in the flesh. Augustine, being an "ex" gnostic brought forth this idea. It's not biblical, but gnostic.

No, it is Eastern Orthodox dogma. Eastern Orthodox are not gnostics. And you are misunderstanding what I said. Sin affects their soul and body. It affects their soul, which affects their body. The gnostics thought the soul was pure.

I do not believe Augustine denied this.

Augustine seemed to believe in inherited guilt, which wasnt dogma. Church fathers are not infalliable. Only scripture and holy tradition.

>>16530734
>No, it is Eastern Orthodox dogma. Eastern Orthodox are not gnostics
The only thing that we inherit are the consequences of our ancestors' sin. Not sin itself, as sin is not a substance to be transmuted. We die because of Adam's sin in the same way a baby with fetal alcohol syndrome has medical conidiations. Babies are born sinless. In fact Jesus says we must become like them in order to see the kingdom of heaven. That the kingdom is made of them.

>>16529179
Yes. Satan has a purpose in God"s Will.

>>16530744
>Not sin itself, as sin is not a substance to be transmuted.

Our soul is tainted by sin metaphysically.

"For sin has darkened, blackened, crippled the beautiful image of God in the soul of the primordial man…Due to the close and direct connection of the soul with the body, original sin caused disorder in the body of our first parents. The consequences of the Fall for the body were sickness, suffering and death. (Dogmatics, Volume 2, Chap 38)"
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/04/11/the-orthodox-doctrine-of-original-sin-a-comprehensive-treatment/

I do not believe I said anything about substance.

Babies are not born sinless, they are born guitless. They are born with sin. Even the Catholics believe this

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/to-explain-infant-baptism-you-must-explain-original-sin

>>16530726
>reasons
absence of pleasure doesn't equal dolorous agony. i don't shriek and howl every time i drive past whorehouses and bars and maccas.
>I do not subscribe to compatibalism
so he's not all-knowing? kek.
>They were adults and created good and already mature
not complete if they missed the knowledge. they were toddlers in adult bodies.
>they did know since God told them so
toddler forgets what mommy said about those candly-looking things, because some nice stranger in the house wants him to eat them now. he blindly trusts the stranger not to harm him. he cannot use his better judgement to refuse this offer, because he's trusting and inexperienced. and it was mommy who left the door open.

>>16529203
>incapable
that limits free will

>>16530764
You're incapable of choosing to go to heaven immediately, is your free will limited?

>>16530760
>absence of pleasure doesn't equal dolorous agony

Yes. So, it started with the garden, and sin continued to get worse. It is a slippery slope. The more you sin, the more you're separated from God. It says this in tradition, that to halt sin from being eternal and to fester and get worse and worse, God removed immortality from man.

>so he's not all-knowing?

This was discussed in another thread, the intended meaning and concept the hebrews had of 'all knowing' was unsure.

If you have a perfect modal model of the universe, you are all knowing.

>not complete if they missed the knowledge.

They knew God, his essence, his nature, and his commands. And knowledge does not equate to servitude. Lucifer knew everything above all others, he knows more than us still, but he rebelled nonetheless. I think you're suggesting it is unfair to put Adam and Eve as responsible for eating the fruit?

When Adam and Eve took the fruit, their state automatically became separated from God, and they could no longer be in communion with God. God, when asking them about the fruit allowed them a chance to be in communion again. If they confessed, they would have been allowed to stay. But they didn't confess and repent of their own sins. At this moment, any possibility of being in communion collapsed and their souls were separated from God at that moment, their being was ejected from Eden for their sin caused them to no longer be in communion. It is like the tabernacle, an unclean person cannot be in communion with God. It is like hell. The energy of God will be the same, but for the sinner and the one who hates God, they experience the energy as a burning sensation. So separation or annihilation.

>toddler forgets what mommy said about those candly-looking things

Doesnt work, toddler's brains arent fully mature. People with amnesia are able to distrust others.

>>16530760
God:
>Puts retarded manchildren around super magic tree
>They don't know the difference between good and evil, so therefore obedience and disobedience
>Don't know what death is
>Don't know what suffering is
>God still tells them that's the consequence for eating from the super magic tree
>God also CREATES and puts super evil talking demon snake into his garden with these man children
>It convinces them to eat the fruit
Christians
>"UM Well ackshually they chose that sweety, now you need to pay their debt using your free will. Remember, you're also not guilty of the sins of the Father teehee"
What an amazing theology. Truly, a bunch of enslaved Jews in Babylon weren't totally coping and stealing a bunch of mythology they thought was cool like everyone else was doing. No, this is the true word of God.

>>16530817
>So it continued in the garden, and sun continued to get worse
You forget that it continued because God created an evil demon snake. You haven't answered the threads main point of why he created an evil corrupter, you've merely derailed the argument and then distracted from another evil corrupter he made doing it. If Sin didn't exist at all how the fuck would it have time to fester? God created it in your world view, and then had the stupidity to get mad about it.
>Inb4 Muh free will
Show me a single Bible verse that upholds the value of free will in God's mind.

>>16530764
An omnipotent, omniscient god, as the christian god is supposed to be, should be fully capable of creating a reality in which free will is by definition not restricted by an inability to commit evil. It doesn't matter if you, as a human, can't imagine how this could be possible. It would be possible for such a god. The question then becomes, why did god choose to not create such a reality?

>>16530817
>Yes. So, it started with the garden, and sin continued to get worse. It is a slippery slope. The more you sin, the more you're separated from God. It says this in tradition, that to halt sin from being eternal and to fester and get worse and worse, God removed immortality from man
again, pain from sin is the design flaw he doesn't want to fix. i already said that. you're not listening.
>If you have a perfect modal model of the universe, you are all knowing
i'm not interested in debating your personal "heresy", because most christians don't agree with you. your version of god can't even answer prayer if he doesn't know the exact outcome of things, and also, he can't be sure if he'll actually win the final battle against satan, because that's just one outcome. pass.
>They knew God, his essence, his nature, and his commands
and not the alternative. they didn't know what death is. saying they'll die is like saying "if you eat this fruit, you'll hoomplebump. what is hoomplebump? it's paracatalicist menoveour of gizzling, simple as that."
>I think you're suggesting it is unfair to put Adam and Eve as responsible for eating the fruit?
yes. i don't blame toddlers for eating tide pods.
>Doesnt work, toddler's brains arent fully mature. People with amnesia are able to distrust others.
neither were their brains in perfect, if they could trust someone evil. they were toddlers.
>>16530823
yeah, this is why they're going down in numbers now that internet is a thing.

>>16530827
>Show me a single Bible verse that upholds the value of free will in God's mind.

The Bible can only be interpreted through the infalliable, holy church.

The Council of Jerusalem (1672) affirms Free will as Dogma in the Eastern Orthodox church.

>You haven't answered the threads main point of why he created an evil corrupter, you've merely derailed the argument and then distracted from another evil corrupter he made doing it.

Sure. I can say, as you predicted: free will. God created the angels, all had free will. Lucifer rebelled. Lucifer was the snake. God created everything good. Good includes the ability of free will. But Lucifer choose to sin.

>again, pain from sin is the design flaw he doesn't want to fix. i already said that. you're not listening.

That is your opinion. I think conciousness and the ability to experience God's love is better than not feeling anything at all.

Also, God is the only source of good. At best you can say "I dont like that", not "that is illogical".

>i'm not interested in debating your personal "heresy", because most christians don't agree with you

William Lane Craig has stated this, and The Orthodox church has no dogma on compatibalism.

>he can't be sure if he'll actually win the final battle against satan, because that's just one outcome. pass.

This was discussed already. You can have a countable amount of possible outcomes, and in all outcomes, phi is true. Countable means a cardinality less than or equal to the natural numbers.

>they didn't know what death is. saying they'll die is like saying

Yeah, to know what death is like, you have to sin first.

Let us look at the angels. When Lucifer rebelled, all angels made one choice, rebel or not. At the moment their natures become fixed. Notice how all the angels which remained hadn't known what death was, yet remained loyal to god.

>neither were their brains in perfect

They were.

>if they could trust someone evil. they were toddlers.

This isn't the case.

>>16530861
>>16530880
>they were toddlers

This isnt the case because many people trusted Hitler and Staline

>>16530880
>That is your opinion. I think conciousness and the ability to experience God's love is better than not feeling anything at all.
that comes with the terrible cost of pain for the majority of people.
>Also, God is the only source of good
he's also the source of bad.
>William Lane Craig has stated this, and The Orthodox church has no dogma on compatibalism
>some youtuber heretic and some north asian version of christianity
i'm only interested in discussing the western version because that influenced the culture i grew up in, sorry.
>This was discussed already
so he did he know the people who are to be damned when he created them, or not?
>They were
nope. they didn't have the knowledge to reject evil.
>This isn't the case
without knowledge they were akin to a toddler and cannot be held responsible.
>This isnt the case because many people trusted Hitler and Staline
hitler and staline existed after the fall.

>>16530928
>that comes with the terrible cost of pain for the majority of people

Terrible is a moral claim. Do you have a way to justify you moral system?

>he's also the source of bad.

Everything which proceeds or is begatten from him is entirely good.

>i'm only interested in discussing the western version because that influenced the culture i grew up in, sorry.

The western version is wrong and all of them are heretics or apostates. The Eastern Orthodox church is the one true church which has apostolic succession and which has existed since Pentecost (2000 years). You shouldnt care to debate a Christianity which Christ did not intend, nor cause. You're debating Christ. Debate his true doctrine, not things apart from his intent.

>nope. they didn't have the knowledge to reject evil.

Oh yes, fair enough. Only God is perfect. Their brains were good, but not perfect. Anything which is perfect is God. I was incorrect in that phrasing, my bad.

>without knowledge they were akin to a toddler

A toddler has a smaller brain and a smaller body, this isn't the case. Also, the Son of God, who is physical, from his begottenness, the moment he was begotten from the Father was not a toddler in essence.

If Adam and Eve were caused by God, who is to say the depiction is not as though they were created not like how toddlers are concieved, but as adults?

>>16530880
>The Bible can only be interpreted through the infallible, holy church
Because you copped out like a bitch, I'm not going to bother treating you with respect, since you believe the Church is infallible do you believe the children raped by priests that they covered up deserved it?
>Sure I can say as you predicted
Because you're a retard. Free Will does not explain the creation of a supernatural evil in a land of no evil. You keep changing goalposts, the angels can live in heaven despite one of them introducing sin unto creation, why does all of man suffer for Adam? Every one of your arguments just increases the number of plot holes.
>That is your opinion
You're not even replying to me anymore because you got BTFO. Imagine getting wrecked so fucking hard you cut up my posts, can't argue against them, and then have to insert someone else's. Also why are you bringing up William Lane Craig when the Bible is supposedly uninterpretable without the church you dirty lying faggot?

>>16530880
Also even in that council there is not a single biblical reference to free will being proclaimed holy or needed by God. I will also remind you that councils staffed by men like this have established that Phoenixes exist. You're a clown.

>>16531030
>You're not even replying to me anymore because you got BTFO.

If I am not replying directly, it is because it is 2 in the morning and I have homework to do, in addition to me not caring to say "yes" when you keep saying "no" and do not provide proof. You are yelling victory all alone in your basement you dwell in. Nobody cares, nor are they paying attention. You are saying "Im the king! I won!" to an empty crowd.

>children raped by priests that they covered up deserved it?

No, that is disgusting, and that award goes to the Catholics.

>Because you copped out like a bitch,

Because that is the case. You're asking about free will, and you are assuming sola scripture. Sola scripture is a medival invention which NOBODY believed in prior to Martin Luther. I have no reason to accept these stupid standards.

"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thesselonians 2:15)

" And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matthew 15:18-20)

"... he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop does serve the devil." (Chapter 9, Epistle of Ignatious to Polycarp)

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father...It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice." (Chapter 8, Igantius to Smyrneans)

"Let the laity be subject to the deacons, the deacons to the prebyters; the prebyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as he is to the Father" (Chapter 9, Ignatius to the Smyrneans)

Ignatius of Antioch was born in the 1st century AD, and was a bishop. 1/2

>>16530982
>Terrible is a moral claim. Do you have a way to justify you moral system?
is anything terrible in your books, if god does it?
>Everything which proceeds or is begatten from him is entirely good
then why did he make satan? satan is evil.
>The western version is wrong
i concur. they're all wrong. and i don't care to debate about it, just like i don't care to debate mormonism or hinduism or islam, because i haven't heard anything convincing about those religions, either.
>A toddler has a smaller brain and a smaller body, this isn't the case
some comatose vegetables have adult bodies too. doesn't mean their brains are functioning anymore.
>Also, the Son of God, who is physical, from his begottenness, the moment he was begotten from the Father was not a toddler in essence.
poor mary. it must've hurt to carry him to term and to deliver.
>If Adam and Eve were caused by God, who is to say the depiction is not as though they were created not like how toddlers are concieved, but as adults?
they were adults, but didn't know stuff. and they were innocent. they were like toddlers.

>>16531030
>Free Will does not explain the creation of a supernatural evil in a land of no evil.

Yes it does. Truth, by definition, is everything caused by God- if he exists. Therefore any moral claim is caused or willed by God. Therefore good is the essence of God. To be in communion with God is to be communion with good.

When you seperate from God, you enter a state of evil and sin.

Free will allows us the ability to genuinely love God instead of him forcing us.

>the angels can live in heaven despite one of them introducing sin unto creation, why does all of man suffer for Adam?

All men are offspring of Adam. Angels are celibate. If Adam choose good, he might be like the Angels, but he didn't. As we know by genetics, children inherit from their fathers.

>Also why are you bringing up William Lane Craig

Because you indirectly called me a quack, seperated from consensus. He is an authority figure to show you otherwise.

The Bible IS uninterpretable without the church.

>>16531072
>is anything terrible in your books, if god does it?

Terrible is a moral claim.

Since all good comes from god, then God didnt cause anything terrible.

>then why did he make satan?

Satan was good when he was made, as a seraphim. His parts were good. For eons he was good. He chose to be bad. He made himself evil by his own decision.

>i concur. they're all wrong. and i don't care to debate about it, just like i don't care to debate mormonism or hinduism or islam,

The Catholic church allows Orthodox laity to partake of their Eucharist. The Catholic church does not allow Protestants to partake. We have always tried to reunify. Big difference, bud.

>they were like toddlers.

If you define toddler that way, then I cannot stop you. But I think this analogy is entirely facetious and useless. I will never concede on this point because of the underlying rhetoric embedded within it, which is false.

>>16531065
If you had something important to do you shouldn't spend your free time on the Internet getting BTFO for free.
>No that is disgusting
Then the Church isn't infallible, show me a Bible verse
>Because that is the case
Then your Bible should have proof to base this ruling on, calling the Catholics shitty while quoting their Orthodox brothers' rulings is hilarious behavior.
>Nobody believed in the word of God being sacred before Martin Luther
Damn, it's almost like as an atheist, this is a catch 22 I've put you in for the sake of pointing out that you cannot trust your Bible to be the infallible source of all your truth and beliefs, and that you simultaneously cannot trust a random group of men. Your Bible verse is referring to the man who wrote it himself, not random people centuries removed from him
>The gates of Hades will not overcome it
And yet somehow the Church split and was overcome by it's more popular Catholic branch, and then got politically dominated by Protestants and hundreds of other random denominations.

You're a clown, notice how quickly you found those Bible verses? You can easily find verses about "suck priestly dicks" but you can't find one about free will and you expect me to believe you that this is the explanation which God himself holds so important that he threw the world into sin? Priests are more important than Free Will, literally too because you quoted two times where the Bible is stating you should listen to them instead of your own free will. There comes a point where you should grow up and stop indulging in fucking stupidity this clearly contradictory, since you're talking about homework I'll assume you're a kid and tell you to fuck off or get banned because you will only grow into a larger retard with age if you continue believing delusional fairy tales.

>>16531079
>Yes it does
No it doesn't. Truth is by definition what is true, and Evil is an immoral or malicious act. If your definition was the real one, then God could still create us separate from him and capable of free will because he is almighty and the rules of the world are up to him. This is the argument of
>God is such an inconceivably evil tyrant he is willing to make you suffer for not being exactly like him, which is why he created you to not be exactly like him because that's good or something
Loving God is not valuable enough to justify suffering, especially when he is forcing you anyway by traumatizing you with suffering and threatening you with hell.
>All men are offspring of Adam
And all angels are Lucifers compatriots, are you saying children are more responsible for the sins of their parents than grown creatures are for what their fellows do?
>Because you indirectly called me a quack
So you brought up another quack and showed that you're perfectly fine with listening to non-church interpretations? If you wanted to do that why didn't you quote a priest or bishop or Pope?

>>16531079
Also on the William Lane Craig thing, I'm not that anon, I'm just pointing out your adoptive hypocrisy on what you're willing to consider proof as long as it agrees with you.

>>16531091
>Since all good comes from god, then God didnt cause anything terrible
see? that's why i don't follow the bible.
>Satan was good when he was made, as a seraphim. His parts were good. For eons he was good. He chose to be bad. He made himself evil by his own decision
god knew he would turn bad eventually, so he could just not create him in the first place, to avoid the shitshow. he knowingly created a bad angel.
>Big difference, bud
i don't care either way, because it isn't relevant in western culture. i just want catholics and protestants to shut the fuck up. i've no interest in ural mountains mystics.
>If you define toddler that way, then I cannot stop you. But I think this analogy is entirely facetious and useless. I will never concede on this point because of the underlying rhetoric embedded within it, which is false.
i accept your concession.

>>16531092
>Then the Church isn't infallible,
That doesnt follow, and the Catholics are apostates. What they do is not related to the Orthodox. They chose to seperate from the true church.

>I've put you in for the sake of pointing out that you cannot trust your Bible to be the infallible

The bible is infalliable. But you cannot interpret it without the church. Otherwise you get dozens of denominations and branchings. You get Arianism, Nestorianism, Miaphysitism, etc.

The Bible is not the only source. But ancient oral tradition, which is all found in the pre-nicene church fathers.

>There comes a point where you should grow up and stop indulging in fucking stupidity this clearly contradictory, since you're talking about homework I'll assume you're a kid and tell you to fuck off or get banned because you will only grow into a larger retard with age if you continue believing delusional fairy tales.

Brother, no need to seethe so much, You are a funny man.

>Bible, give me verses

"Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." (John 17:7)

"And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

>Truth is by definition what is true

Circular.

(1) If there exists an uncaused all powerful all knowing creator, then everything which exists, apart from God, owes its existence to God.

(2) If something is true, its' truth is contingent on an existence of the truth

(3) Therefore truth owes its cause to God

(4) Therefore everything true is can source its will to God

(5) To be moral, one must know what is moral

(6) God is the only one which knows everything

(7) God is truthful, when he speaks

(8) Therefore, If God says something is the case, it is the case.

If you have a problem, tell me which part. 1/3

>>16531154
The church being split and having a separate apostate church means it isn't infallible.
>The Bible is infallible
Then show me a verse with free will.
>Brother no need to set he so much
You're deflecting, you could have ignored that instead of wasting time
>Chooses to do the will of GOD
Not free will
>The LORD commanded the man.... But not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
Not free will, and our entire discussion is about how he introduced a demonic serpent into the garden who convinced them otherwise, while they didn't understand the difference between good and evil or what death was. Literally the definition of not having a free choice or enough maturity and information to even consent t to a choice.
>Circular
I just didn't want to waste time, but truth is what is undeniably evident and in accordance with reality.
>If there exists an uncaused all powerful all knowing creator
Presupposition, there's no reason to believe that, and if he was uncaused so can the universe be, and what the universe and what's in it is all that has to do with the definition of truth. You can literally just paste the definition, I promise it doesn't align with your stupid bullshit.
Your entire argument is retarded, so are you, which is why you ignored half my arguments, thank you for your concession you absolutely stupid faggot, I do not want you to change your mind, please maintain your retarded delusions until death.

>>16531101
>he is willing to make you suffer for not being exactly like him

He doesnt make you suffer, he allows you to suffer by your own choices. The being of suffering is just a metaphysical fact like logic.

>And all angels are Lucifers compatriots, are you saying children are more responsible for the sins of their parents than grown creatures are for what their fellows do?

All demons owe their evillness to following Lucifer.

Children are not responsible, they are guitless, this is Orthodox dogma. Their being inherits sin. God allows us to cleanse this through baptism.

>If you wanted to do that why didn't you quote a priest or bishop or Pope?

Because I told there were differing views by an Orthodox fellow in university.

>>16531105
>I'm just pointing out your adoptive hypocrisy on what you're willing to consider proof as long as it agrees with you.

He is not proof, nor did I say he was proof. This is proof that I am not isolated in my opinions. I was responding to a logical fallacy by showing it was falsely applied.

>>Since all good comes from god, then God didnt cause anything terrible
>see? that's why i don't follow the bible.

Because you are incapable of understanding logical reasoning and counterargumentation?

>god knew he would turn bad eventually, so he could just not create him in the first place, to avoid the shitshow. he knowingly created a bad angel.

God allows for free will and the possibility of alternating choices. God knows all possible outcomes, but hopes for us to choose him.

>i don't care either way, because it isn't relevant in western culture. i just want catholics and protestants to shut the fuck up. i've no interest in ural mountains mystics.

Then stop replying, because you cannot retort my own views, it is clear you can only resort to crude insults.

File: 81rf1t1WbjL._AC_UF894,100(...).jpg (127 KB, 535x1000)

127 KB JPG

The Happy fun time experience.
This (Pic) is an idol.
Idol worship is Sin®
So Christian larpers wont do as suggested.
Today we perform idolatry.
Instructions, the practice of tuning in.
Look at the statue of Cthulhu, know it's connected to the being It representa, a living effigy of the God that beings his pressence, form and energy.
Simply listen to It for a while, be silent of mind and open Up.
U Will be filled by the Spirit :3

>>16531177
>He doesn't. Make you suffer
>He allows you to
>After creating you and everything about your world
>And knowing you would
This stands on its own, you're a complete and utter retard. I say this with full and utter knowledge, I mean this with every fiber of my being and the full knowledge that I'm right:

You should kill yourself for being this stupid

>>16531175
>The church being split and having a separate apostate church means it isn't infallible.

The Catholic church is not apart of the true church. You're playing word games.

Infalliability basically just means the eccumenical councils are infalliable (See Timothy Ware).

>You're deflecting, you could have ignored that instead of wasting time

You could've used logical reasoning as opposed to using insults.

>s about how he introduced a demonic serpent into the garden who convinced them otherwise, while they didn't understand the difference between good and evil or what death was.

It is unknown whether or not he introduced the serpent or allowed his presence.

> but truth is what is undeniably evident and in accordance with reality.

So logic isn't true? Can you justify this:

if p, then q
p is true

therefore q.

What is your evidence for this being true?

Also, you failed to refute my argument, nor have you engaged with it.

>Presupposition, there's no reason to believe that,

The point is to say that if God exists, my paradigm dictates morals are from him.

Also, the materialist worldview cannot prove objective morality exists. What experiments have demonstrate moral laws existed at the moment of the big bang?

>and if he was uncaused so can the universe be

I never denied that possibility. I am showing what happens in the Christian paradigm.

> I promise it doesn't align with your stupid bullshit.

Show it using logic

>>16531187
>>After creating you and everything about your world
>>And knowing you would

We established he knows the possibilities. You seem to lack the ability to read.

>This stands on its own, you're a complete and utter retard.

Yet you're the one with insults in more than half of your arguments, and youre the one which hasn't used formal logic in your argumentation

>>16531177
>Because you are incapable of understanding logical reasoning and counterargumentation?
because i wouldn't wipe out canaanites and play with the dicks of their corpses to extract their foreskins and stuff, if he demanded me to. you totally would, because you see no bad in it if god demanded it.
>God allows for free will and the possibility of alternating choices. God knows all possible outcomes, but hopes for us to choose him.
he doesn't allow us to not to be created to avoid pain.
>Then stop replying, because you cannot retort my own views, it is clear you can only resort to crude insults
another projection. if you think my comment about mountain mystics was an insult, it means you think they're kinda ridiculous deep down.

>>16529179
>God created everything
>there are good things and bad things
>therefore god is part good and part bad
Literally every other religion intuitively understands this. Why are they like this

>>16531258
>you totally would, because you see no bad in it if god demanded it.

Can you give a justification for your moral presuppositions? Or are they just your opinions. If they are just your opinions, how is this relevant?

>he doesn't allow us to not to be created to avoid pain.

You seem to think pain is objectively immoral. I already explained how your idea is absurd and leads you to want nothing to be created.

If we use classical logic, this is the case. What you're asking for is something outside the realm of classical logic.

>>16531324
>Supposing God exists, every thing good is from God
>God created everything good, including the capability to exert free will.
>The bad things exist because of free will, caused by a person's own actions.
>Conclude that free will and existing is bad.

Why are they like this.

>>16531335
>Can you give a justification for your moral presuppositions? Or are they just your opinions. If they are just your opinions, how is this relevant?
would you slay a man and then play with his dick if your god demanded it of you? if you would, you have no moral high ground.
>
You seem to think pain is objectively immoral. I already explained how your idea is absurd and leads you to want nothing to be created
i'm not here to debate atheism. i'm here to debate the morality of your god. stop deflecting, chickenshit.

>>16531359
Nothing bad can come from something that is entirely good. Therefore free will isn’t entirely good.

>>16531388
>would you slay a man and then play with his dick if your god demanded it of you? if you would, you have no moral high ground.

That isn't an argument. In your argument defending morality you defined a moral axiom:

For a modal model, M = <W, R, V>

\forall x \forall y [(x\in U \land y\in P \land Slay(x, y) \land Play with Dick(x,y)) -> \exists z (z\in W \land wRz \land x\notin z)]

That is to say, there is an ideal world, from the world, w, we live in, where said person who is a murderer and necrophilia is not in said ideal word. He "lacks the moral high ground", since he is not in an ideal world, while other people might.

>and leads you to want nothing to be created

That is what (You) said, I never said that. I am saying the good is only derived from God, and that sin is an artifact from man, not God. You are arguing the indirect action of free will causing sin and God instantiating free will is immoral.

>>16531418
This is a better articulation of this and actually models logic.

I will say once more that sin came from man's choices, not God's choices.

I will more firmly and articulately express that it seems you are working on the supposition that

x->y->z, the arrows mean cause, not if then. So x causes y and y causes z, where z has a property, then x caused the property. In this case I would disagree.

The energy and essence of God is what is good. Which is expressed in his will. So what is good are his energies- this is the energies as defined by Palamas in the 11th-12th century or so, therefore his energies are what is good. Therefore, good is metaphysical, not action based.

I will add though, another thing you're implying is the indirect action leading to bad things is bad. This is a consequentialist ethical paradigm, which I may reject. And 50-60% of philsophers or so reject (philosophers have 1/3 virtue ethics, 1/3 deontology, and 1/3 utilitarian).

So the supposition lies where his will is good so deontology is true if God exists

>>16531539
>Pointing out something God commanded his religious to do isn't an argument
Ew, you're a dick player. NTA by the way.

Satan being a dualistic entity who has some sort of 'power over this world' is a NT retcon which is drawn from the book of revelations.
OT+Judaism just thinks 'Satan' when mentioned in the story of Job is just the Qliphothic/Imbalanced influences inevitable in material-reality given form for the sake of a metaphor.

File: categorical-imperative-de(...).jpg (110 KB, 1024x724)

110 KB JPG

>>16531539
>I will add though, another thing you're implying is the indirect action leading to bad things is bad. This is a consequentialist ethical paradigm, which I may reject. And 50-60% of philsophers or so reject (philosophers have 1/3 virtue ethics, 1/3 deontology, and 1/3 utilitarian).

I will provide an example of deontic morality versus consequentialist morality and this might show how you lean consequentialist.

Kant articulated the "categorical imperative". Something is good if it can be universalized. If every person practiced said morality, and this didn't lead to contradiction.

From this, Kant deduced lying is bad in EVERY situation. A specific example:

Some mafiaso comes to your door and asks for Martha. Martha is in your house and you know where she is. You can: lie, say nothing, tell the truth. Lying is bad, so you have to say nothing or tell the truth. In telling the truth, the mafioso now knows where Martha is, and from you (x), you gave the mafioso knowledge (y), which leads him to killing Martha (z). So, one may say you indirectly killed Martha.

If you say nothing, more likely than not the mafioso will be suspicious. He will then force his way in your home to investigate. From saying nothing (x), this lead the mafioso to being suspicious (y), which led him to potentially killing Martha (z).

But Kant's morality is consistent. It only isnt if you assume consequentialism. But you can just not. Consequentialism has its own host of problems.

>>16531539
>And 50-60% of philsophers or so reject (philosophers have 1/3 virtue ethics, 1/3 deontology, and 1/3 utilitarian).

My source for this claim:

https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all

>>16531558
Satan in the OT is literally just Gods servant. Even the dualistic lord of the world thing is an unbiblical retcon which exists because church father's had to move away from the "2 more weeks guys" rhetoric when it became obvious the world was not ending anytime soon.

>>16531632
>Satan in the OT is literally just Gods servant.

He is a prisoner of war. A war which he lost to the angels. Satan does not do God's bidding, nor anything God would directly do.

File: E6D4C427-A307-42B2-88DB-B(...).png (217 KB, 716x659)

217 KB PNG

>your honor, I told the baby not to smoke crack, it’s not my fault that he listened to the crack dealer that I left him alone with

>>16531642
>A war which he lost to the angels.
Where is this war in the OT?

>>16531715
>Where is this war in the OT?

The book of Revelation. The book is so muddled with symbolism, so it has to be interpreted by church fathers.

Sola scriptura is a 15th century invention, which never existed for 1400 years. It is false and self contradicting. Where in the Bible does it specify the canons?

You, by indirect action, are accepting a tradition developed by the church.

>>16531721
I said OT. Show me any actual prophet talking about this war. In the OT, Satan enters heaven and stands in the presence of God and talks with him and brings up charges against 2 righteous men and accuse them of sins, in one he receives permissions from God to test the man, in the other instance he gets rebuked by God and his accusations rejected.

>>16531745
>I said OT. Show me any actual prophet talking about this war.

All this happened prior to creation. As did the procession of the Holy Spirit. I dont know why I have to play this game you set up.

>righteous men and accuse them of sins,

He accused God of being 'silly' for finding Job good. He thought it was vacuous and not real, because Job had a good life.

>in one he receives permissions from God to test the man

Yes.

Then the Lord said to the slanderer, “Look, all that he has I am giving into your power, but do not touch him.” So the slanderer went out from the Lord.

Then the Lord said to the slanderer, “Very well, I am handing him over to you; only spare his life.”

(NETS Bible, Job Chapter 1-2)

> in the other instance he gets rebuked by God and his accusations rejected.

Satan?

>>16531789
>All this happened prior to creation. As did the procession of the Holy Spirit. I dont know why I have to play this game you set up.
If he got cast out of heaven prior to creation then how did he enter heaven along with the angels in Job after creation?

>He accused God of being 'silly' for finding Job good. He thought it was vacuous and not real, because Job had a good life.
Satan means Accuser, his duty is to accuse men of their sins. He is like a prosecutor in heaven's court who finds the faults of men and lays charges against them. He accused Job, God's favorite person at the time, of not being loyal and only loving God for what God does for him.

>Then the Lord said to the slanderer, “Look, all that he has I am giving into your power, but do not touch him
Yes, God gave Satan permission to test Job because his argument against Job had merit.


>Satan?
Zechariah 3:1-4 (NET Bible)
>Next I saw Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, with Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. The Lord said to Satan, “May the Lord rebuke you, Satan! May the Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Isn’t this man like a burning stick snatched from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood there before the angel. The angel spoke up to those standing all around, “Remove his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “I have freely forgiven your sin and will dress you in fine clothing.”

In this instance God rejects Satan's accusations and did not find merit in them because Joshua was a man who was suffering. (a burning stick snatched from the fire) So he forgives the sins Satan is accusing him of instead of punishing or testing him.

>>16531851
>If he got cast out of heaven prior to creation then how did he enter heaven along with the angels in Job after creation?

He will always have access to heaven, until the second coming of Christ. I am unsure of the exact details of the story. What I am getting this from is Pseudo-Dionysius.

If this is an attempt at criticism, not merely a question, if someone is cast out, this doesn't necessitate they aren't let back in. He was cast out, and the heavenly war ended, but will resume once again.

>Satan means accuser

This is false, the NETS Bible translation is academic by Princeton press. Satan and the translated greek means "slanderer" not accuser. This might have gotten lost with later manuscripts. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7854.htm

You see this word being used as adversary in the other verses where it is used.

>Zechariah 3:1-4 (NET Bible)

NETS Bible is different from NET. NET is a shitty ass translation with good footnotes. This is NETS
https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/

It is a translation of the LXX (Septuagint). It is older than the corrupted OstJuden Masoretic text.

>>16531890
>It is a translation of the LXX (Septuagint). It is older than the corrupted OstJuden Masoretic text.

The Septuagint and DSS are the aryan translations. MT is only useful for hebrew context and hebrew words, iff the LXX and Hebrew text are the same. The same in that, for example, the height of goliath differs between the two.

>>16531890
There is no angelic war before creation mentioned anywhere other than the crazy book of revelations. That same book claims Zeus is Satan and has a throne in Pergamum and talks about Apollion leading an army of locust with human faces, women's hair and tails of scorpions, dressed in iron breastplates, who would sting people and torment them for 5 months. And says Hades rides with Death and will be thrown in a lake of fire. It's filled with Greek Mythology Pagan nonsense. It is the only book that claims that the serpent in the garden of Eden was Satan, no other book says this. The book of Genesis refers to the serpent as a wild animal and when God curses it he says: “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals!
And then curses it to crawl on its belly and eat dust.

So it is clearly an animal and not an angel from heaven. The book of Revelations is pure nonsense.

The answer is yes. The Bible explicitly states Satan can do nothing without God first giving him permission to do so.

>>16531940
What denomination do you hail from. Or what belief system?

This is a bunch of schizo talk

>>16531978
If it's not in the old testament, does not match the old testament or contradicts the old testament, it is not canon. That is my belief.

>>16531999
Idc to engage in this conversation then. Some weird esoteric cult you come from. Dont care to try to go through an entire conversation

>>16531539
holy shit... you actually would, and need a wall of text to defend it. disgusting. get away from me.

>>16532260
>holy shit... you actually would
The reddit spacing didnt give it away?

Demiurge has no soul.

>>16532260
>holy shit... you actually would, and need a wall of text to defend it. disgusting. get away from me.

Half of this wall of text was me replying to someone else. You have failed to use a logical argument which is against what I said.

I suppose your position is illogical. Thus, incorrect.

File: 1713694231276769.png (556 KB, 1000x1400)

556 KB PNG

>>16532260
>>16532289

>>16529179
>problem of evil
That's the weaker part of Christianity and some other religions. Gnostics or pagans explain it better.

a short summary of the main points of Euthyphro should be mandatory to post on this board

>>16532291
>It's a logical proofs
>Literally some presuppositional bullshit and babble to try and avoid simple questions
I love it whenever Christians have to start breaking down the structure of logic and rhetoric while believing in faggot demons in the sky.

>>16532402
Is something is pious because the God loves it, or does God love it because it is pious?

File: E49F45B8-6DF9-4995-BA54-6(...).jpg (28 KB, 370x497)

28 KB JPG

>>16532486
god loves pie because pie loves god

>>16532481
It's always the dumbest people who think they're the smartest in the room lol

>>16532481
>Criticizes Christians for using logic
>Proceeds to call Christians dumb for their ontological belief

I love it whenever atheists avoid the argument all together and just call Christians dumb, because "New Atheists said so", while failing to use any sort of epistemology, ontology, or logic to validate their claims.

>>16530838
>a god should be
Says who? You?

>>16532502
I'm not criticizing you for using logic, I'm pointing out the cognitive dissonance from someone avoiding a simple question like "would you murder people and touch their dicks" to go make a point about logical proofs for morality all while ignoring
>1. That's not how morality works
>2. They literally believe in magic.

This does not require an equation, if you think all good comes from God, and God orders people to kill their enemies and touch their dicks, you must think this is a good thing. If you deny either you're a liar. By avoiding the conversation you're proving that you're a liar since you want to avoid answering either.

>>16530806
>you're incapable
you're making assumptions and you need to word your question better so I can answer it.

>>16532508
The Bible. We are all using traits from the Bible.

>>16532508
Says the English language. Omnipotent by definition means unlimited. Only theist retards like yourself try to argue this. Literally no one else

File: Projecting-retard.png (110 KB, 2010x1340)

110 KB PNG

>>16532501
>It's always the dumbest people who think they're the smartest in the room lol

Cope.

Christ is King.

>>16532521
>The Bible
quote the passage

>>16532527
>says the English language
So you asked the English language what God is supposed to be? I don't think that's very smart of you.

>>16532516
>By avoiding the conversation you're proving that you're a liar since you want to avoid answering either.

I am avoiding the answer because I am not going to engage in a red herring in the conversation. This is like me trying to tackle an ad hominem (keep in mind I have actually been doing that half the time).

Is the question actually useful, if it is meaningless whether or not it is true

>1. That's not how morality works

I gave an opportunity for them to give me a justification for how morality works. All they could come up with "wow youre disgusting". Which isn't an argument.

There is no cognitive dissonance to me using logic and what I did. I did reply to the question indirectly. Logic has nothing to do with the question, it is meaningless. And they have failed to show otherwise.

You believe in a magic "skylaw" fairy, where some thing we cant measure, see, touch, or experiment on exists and should dictate how we live.

>>16532517
Then go to heaven right now and come back. Prove me wrong, your will is free and unrestrained, so just will yourself into heaven and back.

Since being incapable of something limits free will you must be capable of willing yourself into heaven right?
>>16532552
>“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
>But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
>“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?
>For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
>And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
>Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.
>God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

>>16532534
>crusty kang
Pure genius

>>16532559
Did I write the bible and attribute god with omnipotence? The IQs on display here are really something lol

>>16532560
>Admitting to avoiding the answer
And all your cope dies. You avoid it because you're wrong, simple as. If it was red herring bullshit you'd shift the argument to how it is. You can't do that because you're a retard and a liar. It is a fact that God has commanded Israelites cut dicks after killing their enemies, it's a fact that you yourself said everything good comes from God. You're now just picking and choosing what's valid based on how BTFO you've been. In all seriousness, how do you breathe continuing to be this dishonest.
>I gave an opportunity for them
And they didn't need to give you one because it's irrelevant and a shifting of the goalposts. You gave your definition, and then proceeded to implicitly admit you'd commit every atrocity God commands in the Bible. There is cognitive dissonance in presenting logical arguments and rhetoric then ignoring proof, inconsistencies, just like there's dissonance in you going
>Oh you believe in magic
While defending Christianity. You're on too many layers of shitposting, this is just a dumb waste of time, you're not helping yourself or anybody, you're not providing anything of worth, you are wasting hours of your time acting like a retard.

>>16532534
The only thing atheists are confident about is that you are 100% wrong. Correct people don't act like you.

>>16532587
>You avoid it because you're wrong, simple as. I

I admit it because it is like admitting transwomen arent women in a room full of liberals.

>If it was red herring bullshit you'd shift the argument to how it is.

If I did that, you would once again go on how I am shifting the argument and lying by omission. You aren't arguing in good faith. Knowing the demographics of this website, I am beginning to question whether or not you are even of age because of your arguments.

I don't even know if you're larping.

>you'd commit every atrocity God commands in the Bible.

This is why I do not reply to such asinine arguments, you are intentionally using loaded language to make the counter position look evil. The implications here are that if someone is not of good character, their arguments are invalid.

Is it the case that if someone is not of some quality you like, everything they say is false? Is this what you are suggesting. Because it is quite illogical.

>then ignoring proof, inconsistencies, just like there's dissonance in you going

Tell me the proof, infact. I will not reply any further. Ignore everything I said. Now, tell me the proof you have and these so called inconsistencies. Go on, I will wait.

>>16532599
>Correct people don't act like you.
They don't use ad hominems more half the time, constantly call people stupid, and they do not attempt to use logic to validate their claims?

>>16532609
Yes, which is why you aren't correct.
>>16532607
>I admit it because *cope*(keep this one in mind for later)
>The implications here are that if someone is not of good character their argument is invalid
The entire point of this argument, and the main topic is about the morality of suffering. Revealing yourself to be a cultist who has no belief in a concept of good and a morality that doesn't involve submission to evil entities willing to command slaughter despite being omnipotent and being able to solve all problems without it means you're a dishonest rat. I was being serious before, this post is a final fart to try and squeeze some more attention, you've conceded at every turn and admitted to lying, thank you for your concession, I will no longer be replying to this part of the argument, feel free to bitch and moan at yourself for being a wrong liar.

>>16532665
>Revealing yourself to be a cultist who has no belief in a concept of good and a morality that doesn't involve submission to evil entities willing to command slaughter despite being omnipotent and being able to solve all problems without it means you're a dishonest rat.

If there was a good beyond God, then I would submit. But you have failed to show how this is the case. All you can do is squeeze insults.

>, you've conceded at every turn and admitted to lying, thank you for your concession

I didnt concede, that was a type I meant to put "I avoid it because.." Anyways, I do admit it. I admit this is the logical conclusion given science, logic, and philsophy. This is the truth given reason. You've failed to use reason in any of your posts. To count just in this let us list out all the insults and number, just in this one post you made

>cultust, evil entities, slaughter, dishonest, rat, liying, a wrong liar.

Wow, 6. And at least one in each sentence. Quite impressive. And

Let us examine the number of points talking about my character rather than the topic

>Revealing yourself to be a cultist who has no belief in a concept of good
>without it means you're a dishonest rat.

> you've conceded at every turn and admitted to lying, thank you for your concession, I will no longer be replying to this part of the argument, feel free to bitch and moan at yourself for being a wrong liar.

Amazing. More than half your argument is just ad hominem insults. Very impressive.

But, to the topic,

>doesn't involve submission to evil entities willing to command slaughter

Youve yet to show this. In all this rambling you have yet to adress my original argument >>16531570 >>16531539

A litmus test for your idea: show that what hitler did was wrong. Show any concept of good and morality doesnt involve the submission to ruthless ideologies and killing thousands for the common good. If you dont want to adress this.

I sound like a parrot, but you have no logic nor proof

>>16532737
>A litmus test for your idea: show that what hitler did was wrong.
nta but there's no evidence hitler did anything wrong.

>>16530726
>God planned to let them partake of the tree, but not until they shown themselves worthy. He was going to let them eat it.
How is it possible that God knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will ever happen, but simultaneously could make a plan that fails?

>>16532832
>How is it possible that God knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will ever happen, but simultaneously could make a plan that fails?

So, I described this. If God knows everything, he knows the model of the universe. If determinism is true, he knows a "modal model" with only one timeline.

As a note I realized I have been autistic, maybe. Anyways, a "modal model" is a concept in modal logic. It is a way to formalize ideas of possible worlds and necessary truth. Anyways, one way to interpret a modal model here is like a timeline with branches, infinite branches. If there are more than one branches, then there are more than one possibilities. So God knows all possibilities.

>but simultaneously could make a plan that fails?

I would use the Leibniz method thing for this. God plans the best possible world without contradicting his goodness. If something is inevitable, that is it will necessarily be the case that an event occurs (all possible branches have a fact be true), then you may say the outcome is determined to fail. Yet, God chose the best possible world, whilst simultaneously allowing a human's free will. The only reason an outcome may fail, is due to free will. Otherwise, God can simply force humans to do the right thing.

>>16532832
>planned to let them partake of the tree,

>>16533908

To add to what I was saying, I might have not said things correctly. God hoped they would partake of the tree*. The hope is because he hopes they follow his instructions, thereby hoping they partake.

God had the rule in mind, a 'game'- logical game like game theory- where if they followed his will, they would take the tree. He hoped the game came to a specific outcome.

>>16532569
Alright mr big iq. What passage are you struggling with? Book and verse please.

>>16532567
>doesn't quote the passage
Do you want me to grow angel wings and fly too? That's not what free will means. And suicide is a sin anyways.

>>16532567
I read your quotes and they do not seem to support your 'argument'.
Here's a more relevant one, read it carefully because it is addressed at (you)
>But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
>Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Matthew 23:13-14 KJV.

The only evil that exists in this world comes from us, the devil is just a tempter and deceiver, nothing more.
The good that God wants has evil in it, just like you can't make a painting portraiting only light.

>>16529179
Christianity is the religion of Aryans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT_RUdBTlp4

>>16535032
>Get BTFO
>"Um ackshually the quotes that say that God is all powerful and wise beyond measure, and who doesn't change his mind or need to because of it don't support that he's too all powerful to need to have made earth"
>"Here's me seething at you with some quotes about how you're a Pharisee or something!"
You're really pathetic.

>>16530764
You already have limits to free will
>Ugh I can’t bring myself to flay children alive, I lack free will

>>16535012
That's your own definition of free will, you're the one who said that you hypocritical faggot,cand you can just paste them into Google to make sure that they're real, you asked for quotes so I gave them to you. If you think that they're fake ones I made up you're going to have to prove that yourself you silly little bitch.

>>16535585
NTA. Are you 16? You know you have to be 18 to post here. Or are you just delusional? What is your problem?You seem to think you are always winning, even when your arguments are shit and stupid
"Here are arguments to show why youre wrong"
>Lol youre dumb and wrong, and you smell
>BTFO'd

>>16535634
>NOOOOO YOU'RE UNDERAGE
>NOOOO YOU'RE INSULTING ME BACK
And the derail to save face continues. Hey anon quick question, why is it you've argued with me enough to know what I'm "always" doing? Could it be that you're just the same fag in this thread pretending to be different people?

>>16529256
How can a being with total foreknowledge be disappointed by his own creation?

>>16536448
He saw from ancient time that you would disappoint him today, so today arrived and in fact he was correct, you did disappoint him today.

>>16536462
Why didn't he just create something that wouldn't disappoint him?

>>16536468
Maybe he wanted something that had its own mine to decide to disappoint him or not.

>>16536476
It's own mind*

Free will is a godly gift from the fall which clouds prescience when the eye is turned upon those who require salvation from the blood of God. Although the gift was given with good intention, pride was the error of the father of sin for none could foretell the evil choices made by those who are damned fruit of the tree.

>>16535648
>why is it you've argued with me enough to know what I'm "always" doing?

I can tell by the way you write. There is consistency in the amount of braindead aggression. Also, Ctrl+F "BTFO", you see one guy say this in 5 instances(You)

>>16535648
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-uat0-azYE

This entire video is (You)