>>18498261
>Im mad at God (fair enough)
>So I’m going to side with God’s prison warden
I don’t get Satanists

>>18498265
They do it because they know Christians hate satan so the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And satan is not a prison warden, you are another example of an Abrahamic who has never read your own holy book. In Abrahamic religion, God tortures satan in hell, satan is not the owner of hell, he is one of the inmates, God is the prison warden. Read your own book lol.

>>18498261
In order to avoid a paradox between omnipotence and infinities, God isn't able to have a standard for making use of his power that involves directly improving the world most of the time. Think about it: if God decided to directly improve something, like someone's body, how much better should he make it? As the best possible being he could never choose a smaller amount better than a larger amount better. No answer works for the best possible being.

Instead, God's standard for using his omnipotence is he ensures the total quantity of goodness that exists will always be increasing. He set the world's quantity of good to a potential infinity instead of an actual infinity, so to speak. So he can only take direct action to improve the world when action on his part is necessary for good to continue growing in the world as a whole. In other circumstances, as much as he wants to, there's no standard for using his power that would enable directly and immediately resolving the issues.

Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YKUhD7--LKw for more

>>18498265
In Christianity satan is an angel who is jealous of humans and he tries to prove humans are unworthy of paradise by demonstrating humans only like God when their lives are good, so God sends satan to hell as punishment with all the people he tricked.
In Islam satan is a djinn who is mad that Allah told him to prostrate to Adam so Allah punishes him and in anger he whispers into peoples hearts to keep them away from islam but all punishments still come from Allah, and satan has no power over the muslims lol.

>>18498261
Yes! It's what does whom hate God deserve, that their children die of cancer. Even those who claim to love him, if they do what he hates and do not repent or fear him they show they despise him.

Deuteronomy 28:58-59
>If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses.

Yet you flee from Satan when Satan was the one who accused you of hating God so God would punish you like he punishes him. Nothing Satan hates more that humans go unpunished or receive gods forgiveness and mercy when he was not given mercy and forgiveness and instead was punished.

That's why he roams the earth looking for people to accuse of sinners

>>18498290
>satan is an angel who is jealous of humans
There's no evidence for this in the Bible, it's basically fanfiction. We don't know Satan's exact desires. It could just be regular sadism instead of something coming from jealous.

>>18498306
Either way he is depicted as a traitor angel who accuses people and tries to expose false believers and he gets banished from Heaven by Michael and eventually sentenced to burn in hell as an inmate and not a warden lol.

>>18498305
Citing that verse to try and argue all sickness is due to God is going way overboard.

For one thing, it can't be universal since "all the words of this law" don't need to be followed by most people in most times. If you're one of *those* who thinks otherwise, when was the last time you made a sacrifice like Deuteronomy instructs?

Most sickness is like Ecclesiastes 9:11 says: "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all."

Time and chance happen to us all. Every time a cell divides there's a chance it goes cancerous. It will happen to any multicellular organism eventually. The odds of this are a function of time, and sometimes people get very unlucky with chance and it's only a short time.

>>18498305
>>18498317
I also forgot to add: in Luke 13:1-5 Jesus explicitly denies that disaster is always a result of sinfulness: " And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you...Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you".

So disaster can be a punishment, sometimes, but to say it always is is to go against the text.

>>18498317
>all the words of this law" don't need to be followed by most people in most times.

When God gave Israel the laws of what they weren't allowed to do he told them, Do not do these detestable things these nations do since it's because of these things that they do that I am kicking them out of their land and giving it to you, their sins polluted the land and the land vomited them out so I had to punish them.

So it's obvious that God punishes everyone who does the things the law prohibits. God didn't just gave Israel the law because they were the only ones who had to obey it, he gave them the law so they could avoid the punishments that will inevitably fall upon everyone else who do these things prohibited by the law.

>Ecclesiastes 9:11
Solomon is not God. Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes during a bitter moment in his life where he was stumbling, and he never turned back to God after that, instead he fell away from him and worshipped the false gods.

God says:
Deuteronomy 32:39
“See now that I myself am he! There is no God besides me. Im the one who kills and I the one who brings to life, Im the one who wounds and the one who heals, and no one can deliver out of my hand.

All over punishments come from God.
And also:

Job 5:18
For he wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal.

God is the one who sends plagues on wicked people.

>>18498328
2 Esdras 8:49-63
New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition
because you have humbled yourself, as is becoming for you, and have not considered yourself to be among the righteous. You will receive the greatest glory, for many miseries will affect those who inhabit the world in the last times because they have walked in great pride. But think of your own case, and inquire concerning the glory of those who are like yourself, because it is for you that paradise is opened, the tree of life is planted, the age to come is prepared, plenty is provided, a city is built, rest is appointed, goodness is established, and wisdom is perfected beforehand. The root of evil is sealed up from you, illness is banished from you, and death is hidden; Hades has fled, and corruption has been forgotten; sorrows have passed away, and in the end the treasure of immortality is made manifest. Therefore do not ask any more questions about the great number of those who perish. For when they had opportunity to choose, they despised the Most High and were contemptuous of his law and abandoned his ways. Moreover, they have even trampled on his righteous ones and said in their hearts that there is no God—though they knew well that they must die. For just as the things that I have predicted await you, so the thirst and torment that are prepared await them. For the Most High did not intend that anyone should be destroyed, but those who were created have themselves defiled the name of him who made them and have been ungrateful to him who prepared life for them now. Therefore my judgment is now drawing near; I have not shown this to all people but only to you and a few like you.”

>>18498282
Satan is said to be the prince of hell and has dominion over the earth.
If we are going strictly by Christian canon then satan is the one causing cancer

>>18498456
>If we are going strictly by Christian canon then satan is the one causing cancer
If we go further, Satan is an employee of God

>>18498470
>God plays Satan like a fiddle.

>>18498470
It doesn’t say anywhere he is a paid agent.

(1 John 5:19)
(Job 34:10)
(James 1:13)
(2 Peter 3:9)
No. Satan is not an employee. No. He doesn't reign over hell. No. God doesn't give kids brain cancer.

Beware, says the Lord, I am bringing evils upon the world, the sword and famine, death and destruction, because iniquity has spread throughout every land, and their harmful doings have reached their limit. Therefore, says the Lord, I will be silent no longer concerning their ungodly acts that they impiously commit, neither will I tolerate their wicked practices. Innocent and righteous blood cries out to me, and the souls of the righteous cry out continually. I will surely avenge them, says the Lord, and will receive to myself all the innocent blood from among them.

>>18498265
Worshippers of the biblical/folkloric satan are very rare.
Some Satanists just use the aesthetics as ragebait to piss Christians off while promoting libertinism. These are atheistic satanists.
Others are theists and do worship forces of Chaos, Will, whatever, but don't actually worship the Satan of Christian mythology (as that would be stupid). Thesr lean into neo-gnosticism, theoophy, Thelema, and similar beliefs.
Then there are unorthodox groups that are mislabeled as Satanic because of their practices, teachings, etc.
These are the groups of 'satanists'.
Then you have the magicians and occultists but those are a whole other can of beans.
Not to even mention the infinite heaps of protestant and catholic Fan-fiction about witches and devil worshippers.

>>18498365
>When God gave Israel the laws of what they weren't allowed to do
>So it's obvious that God punishes everyone who does the things the law prohibits.
Are you talking about Deuteronomy 18? Anon the detestable things it's talking about are "There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead". It specifies those specific things, which very much are and always have been universal sins.

Deuteronomy contains tons and tons of laws that aren't like this, like circumcision and sacrificing and specific economic regulations and such.

>Solomon is not God
Neither is Moses but you're quoting Deuteronomy. Moses and Solomon were both prophets.

>Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes during a bitter moment in his life where he was stumbling, and he never turned back to God after that
This is like rejecting David's Psalms as scripture because David sinned. There's no indication whatsoever that Solomon became an actual apostate. Ecclesiastes concludes by saying to "Fear God and keep his commandments". It isn't some apostate's work.

>All over punishments come from God.
God sending things doesn't mean anytime those things happen it is God's direct work. Amos 3 says as much. Look at what Amos tells you:

"Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to meet?"
Sometimes

"Does a lion roar in the forest, when he has no prey?"
Sometimes

"Does a young lion cry out from his den, if he has taken nothing?"
Sometimes

"Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid?"
Sometimes

The answer to all questions: "yeah sometimes, it depends". Therefore what should be the answer to the next question?
"Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?"
Sometimes. Like the other questions.

>>18498375
I'm not really picking up what you're laying down

>>18498582
The O9A ressembles the satanism of the legends pretty well— as it tries to purposely emulate them.Yet they ironically don't put much emphasis on the figure of Satan. And some have argued they are not even Satanistic. Dumb Churchmouse opinions nonwithstanding.

>>18498261
You get cancer because your great-great-great-great-and-so-on grandma ate a fruit when God told her not to.

In turn you get to be a moral actor, experience shame and other free will type things. Enjoy.

>>18498644
Yeah, who is your reference for God again?

>>18498261
Satanism gay because you are still squarely within the influence of Christian ideology. So you still have this trash ass world view where like ur in an anime and the big bad god is over there and ur shaking your fist at him. Ur still recognizing God as the big leader. A better alternative is to meditate an hour a day until you can finally forget about god and go do the dishes in peace or go relax outside and do some chores while enjoying them instead of thinking ur in a anime drama where ur one of the chosen ones of this earth who are going to THE BEST PLACE EVER once we die though (so never) it's so fucking gay

>>18498479
Yes
>>18498480
God is in control of everything according to christianity, so Satan ruining things up is fulfilling God's plan. Satan gave that baby cancer, but God planned it

>god knows everything and can do everything
>his employee tricks humans into eating the magic fruit that starts off the entire human saga
>employee gets put in a position where he can keep tricking humans until judgement day
>some idiot humans start worshiping the employee
Your brain on satanism

>>18498658
>God is in control of everything according to christianity
There's a big difference between being in control, and controlling. Most things that are done are free will choices that God allows.

>Satan gave that baby cancer, but God planned it
God says otherwise. The book of Jeremiah makes it crystal clear that evil isn't some plan by God, it's something he does not want. In Jeremiah 32:35 for example he says "They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination".

Jeremiah 7:31 says "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind".

Jeremiah 19:5 says "and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind".

These evils are not part of his plan, he did not decree them, he does not want them.

>>18498261
Yes, the jew God causes cancer and so by eliminating all jews all cancer will be eliminated.

>>18498658
>God is in control of everything
There is free will and he limits himself.
Why do you hold it against God he isn’t a daycare foid?

>>18498265
>no argument against the question
brutal
>>18498288
>Think about it: if God decided to directly improve something, like someone's body, how much better should he make it?
fallacy of the pile.
>No answer works for the best possible being.
god could give all consciousness their own world in which they are omnipotent.

>>18498305
>god is a vengeful retard that punishes kids who didnt sin for the sins of their fathers
thanks for your concession.

File: 1773523158453885.jpg (52 KB, 1024x767)

52 KB JPG

>>18498660

>>18498827
>fallacy of the pile.
This is quite different. That is more of a linguistic point; it vanishes if one defines their terms.

This is pointing out an infinite regression.

>god could give all consciousness their own world in which they are omnipotent
You actually can't have multiple omnipotent beings. If God wanted someone in one of these worlds to walk forwards, but the owner of the world wanted that person to walk backwards (both in the same way and the same sense to the exclusion of one another), what would happen?

There can only ever be one omnipotent being, otherwise you can get logical contradictions.

>>18498846
>This is pointing out an infinite regression.
no its still the fallacy of the pile even if the scope of the possibilities (the pile) are infinite because the fallacy is about declaring a specific point in something that doesnt objectively have it.

>You actually can't have multiple omnipotent beings
you can if you dont equivocate on the word "omnipotent" like you just did. i specifically said
>"their own world in which they are omnipotent"
so they are not literally omnipotent in the retarded colloquial sense that you used despite not even your own god being omnipotent in that sense because you are ignorant of your own religion and of basic philosophy debate (since the christian god cant lie, for example).

those consciousnesses would only be omnipotent in their own reality akin to how a video game developer can be omnipotent in his own game.

>>18498660
>god knows everything and can do everything
>>his employee tricks humans into eating the magic fruit that starts off the entire human saga
Bro, the snake wasn't Satan. Or do you really believe God punished all snakes forever because Satan PRETENDED to be one?

>>18498862
>no its still the fallacy of the pile even if the scope of the possibilities (the pile) are infinite because the fallacy is about declaring a specific point in something that doesnt objectively have it
I would say there's a very important difference here.

The fallacy of the pile is basically saying that some terms are informal and blurry and that can lead to odd results if abused.

But the important thing is, we can formalize when necessary. If I so desired, I could define a "heap" of sand as a set of sand featuring not less than some X quantity of grains which support one another and have a thickness of at least Z and a height of at least Z. Then it would be unambiguous what was, and was not, a "heap" of sand.

My argument here is very different from one that plays on ambiguity of definitions. My argument says there is no possible world in which the best possible being (defined as a being with maximum ability and maximum drive to increase some some variable we label "good") has a standard of action that involves the BPB directly acting to increase goodness beyond the minimum quantity necessary to ensure goodness' growth has no upper bound when considered over time because any such standard must result in the production of an actual infinity of good, which is logically impossible as classical finitism is true.

I can formally define all of these terms and present you with an argument in symbolic logic for what I am saying. It doesn't depend on vagueness about any of the definitions like the fallacy of the heap depends on a vague definition of the word "heap".

>you can if you dont equivocate on the word "omnipotent"
Ironically it seems to be yourself relying on imprecise definitions, then. I define "omnipotent" as "able to do anything that is logically possible". How do you define it, as you use it?

>those consciousnesses
This is something that, I believe, serve to illustrate what I am saying. How many "omnipotent" consciousnesses should God make?

File: CantHandleIt.jpg (7 KB, 318x159)

7 KB JPG

>>18498261
>So, does god actively give little kids inoperable brain cancer, or does he just let them get it and then sit back and watch while it slowly kills them? This isn’t rhetorical, I’m actually looking for an answer.
God, Doesn't. Exist. And if we still want to play the game that he does for the lols we have to at least admit the fact that he doesn't give a fuck, HE DOESN'T CARE if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves. An atheist reading of the crucifixion. God raeli did die on that fucking stick, because it shows to every bystander that you cannot rely on imaginary friends that occult themselves from you. Yikes, maybe God was just a foreskin munching desert demon created out of the collective delusion of a pack of goatfuckers in the desert with too much hot sand in their assholes and nothing better to do.

>>18498261
Sin entered the world and death through sin. Every parent has a choice to either have kids and take that risk or not. Most still do. I think that says more about us than it does about God.

>>18498804
>There is free will and he limits himself.
So the whole point of trusting him because he always has everything on his hands for your betterment is dust because he as likely as letting a dude cut your throat than making you win the lottery? Satan spits on his creation while he faps to all the tragedy porn?

Pick your poison wisely

>>18499729
You trust him, not situations. His words and instructions. You can trust his "thou shalt not", you shouldn't believe he's directly conducting everything that happens in a dark alley and so go into it

>>18499729
>So the whole point of trusting gravity, because gravity always pulls things down to earth so that it doesnt fly off into outer space, is dust, because gravity allows Satan (or any ither rando) to drop bricks on people instead of magically (I dont believe in magic btw, you do, lol) turning bricks into soft bread whenever any rando throws them at us. Also, in my weird fantasy, gravity faps everytime someone has a brick dropped on their head.

>>18499783
NTA but your reply here is in poor taste and doesn't at all address his point

>>18499754
He says that everything bad that happens wass planned according to his will, and with the purpose of making us'better', so we should remain patient for the better times he will bring. Your view defeats one of the biggest pillars of christianity, which is that God will provide in the end for his worshippers. No point in following a deity that has a laissez faire attitude with everyone, believers or not, so worshipping him or not is ultimately a worthless action.

Are you really a christian?
>>18499783
Take your (you) and begone

>>18498261
>Does God actively give little kids inoperable brain cancer,
No.
>Does god actively give little kids inoperable brain cancer,
I hope not, but there are some pretty evil people out there who thibk of themselves as "gods", and they might. For example, cigarettes where sold as diet drugs, so there is that.
>Does God just let them get it and then sit back and watch while it slowly kills them?
No. The Son of Man has thr power to forgive sin, and that's exactly what he is doing.

>>18499827
>No point in following a deity that has a laissez faire attitude
Pick up your bed and walk.

>>18499827
>worshipping righteousness, truth, and life is ultimately a worthless action.
Lulz

>>18498794
>There's a big difference between being in control, and controlling
No?
>Most things that are done are free will choices that God allows
The remaining things are natural disasters that don't follow God's view on free wil, yet he allows them
>God says otherwise.
>These evils are not part of his plan, he did not decree them, he does not want them.
>The book of Jeremiah makes it crystal clear that evil isn't some plan by God, it's something he does not want
Isaiah 45-7 says otherwise

>>18499841
>>18499844
Every post deserve a (you)

>>18499827
>He says that everything bad that happens wass planned according to his will, and with the purpose of making us'better'
What passage are you referring to?

>Your view defeats one of the biggest pillars of christianity, which is that God will provide in the end for his worshippers
He will provide in the end, but the end is the resurrection. Until then it says there may be many many hardships you have to endure

>>18499848
>No?
If a king is said to be "in control" of a country, does that mean he's controlling everything every person does?

>The remaining things are natural disasters that don't follow God's view on free wil, yet he allows them
See >>18498288. And natural disasters are themselves ultimately the result of free will choices, if there had been none of the evils that led to the Flood our environment would likely be much more stable

>Isaiah 45-7 says otherwise
Isaiah 45:7 says God brings both blessings and calamities. There's a very strange thing people do where they will take a passage where God says he does something and then conclude "this is saying that anytime this happens, God is the one who did it". If I say "I lift weights", am I saying that all weights ever lifted are lifted by me? No, of course not. Similarly if God says "I do X", that doesn't tell you all instances of X are directly done by God.

>>18499848
>Isaiah 45-7 says otherwise
One day the Son's of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and the privation of these formations was with them. The Lord said about the adverse meaning, “Can anyone tell me where this shit comes from?”

>>18499852
>What passage are you referring to?
Its basic christian theology
>He will provide in the end, but the end is the resurrection. Until then it says there may be many many hardships you have to endure
His chosen people in the bible didnt have to wait to die to see some kind of reward before meeting him in Heaven, however? Why does God actively aid and guides some to become better and happier? Isn't he interfering with free will by doing that?

>>18499883
>Its basic christian theology
Lulz. So no, you can't

>>18499892
I'm the Christian in this conversation with that atheist. Please stop butting in dude. You're dismissive and disrespectful. To be honest anon you simply make Christianity look bad with your approach.

>>18498288
>God's standard for using his omnipotence is he ensures the total quantity of goodness that exists will always be increasing
How do you explain periods in which total goodness was decreasing according to basically any standard, such as during world wars or the Black Plague?

>>18499871
>If a king is said
The omnipotent, omniscient creator isn't just a king. False comparison argument
>See
I didn't want to respond you because you are trying to apply logic to a being who is supposedly above that according to your religion.
>And natural disasters are themselves ultimately the result of free will choices, if there had been none of the evils that led to the Flood our environment would likely be much more stable
Ok, so you agree that the Flood, caused by God, interfered with humanities free will by genociding them and making things anew, so God acts towards humanity regardless of free will, so why are you debating me then?
>"this is saying that anytime this happens, God is the one who did it".
But thats exactly what the verse is saying?
>If I say "I lift weights", am I saying that all weights ever lifted are lifted by me? No, of course not.
You aren't God, however. False comparison fallacy again

>>18498261
I'm playing debil's advocate here, does it matter? If you have a guaranteed infinitude of time to spend in heaven, why would the unbelievably small time spent on the dirt rock matter?

>>18499914
Because the logical conclusion of that is humans killing themselves in masse to arrive Heaven faster, something that is a bit icky in abrahamanism for some reason

>>18499883
>Its basic christian theology
Much of what can seem like basic elements of Christianity from the outside actually comes from a long web of assumptions and traditions built up over time rather than actually being found in the Bible. Did you know for example that the Bible never even says you go to heaven when you die? That idea actually comes from Hellenistic philosophy, which thoroughly soaked the Classical and Medieval periods and so most absorbed it into their theology, but it isn't actually in the Bible anywhere.

>Why does God actively aid and guides some to become better and happier?
Great question! There it's because of Israel's special purpose. Israel had to bring about the Messiah, and so had to be handled specially. That meant direct intervention to levels not found elsewhere.

But even then it's actually rather rarer than one would gather at first glance. Everything in the Old Testament takes place over the course of 5100 years. When you look at it that way, God acting directly is quite limited even in that period

>>18499904
Excellent question! The resurrection provides us with the answer. Pay careful attention to what 1 Corinthians 3 says about the resurrection: "if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss".

It says that good works will survive. The resurrection isn't of just our spirits, or of just our bodies, it will be the resurrection of all good that has ever existed. The restoration of all things, as Acts 3:21 says.

Because of this the amount of good that exists can never decrease. Any good you add to the world permanently improves it, since all good will be resurrected.

Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5kAte0NX8Nc for some more on that

>>18499930
First of all, good post.
>Did you know for example that the Bible never even says you go to heaven when you die? That idea actually comes from Hellenistic philosophy, which thoroughly soaked the Classical and Medieval periods and so most absorbed it into their theology, but it isn't actually in the Bible anywhere.
I know, but lets not enter in sola scriptura arguments
>Israel had to bring about the Messiah
Ok
>Everything in the Old Testament takes place over the course of 5100 years. When you look at it that way, God acting directly is quite limited even in that period
And God... just stopped after that, and told everyone to suck it up until he revives them? Seems harsh

>>18499926
Because that's cheating the system, you'd be skipping the tutorial, whereas Jimmy dying of braincancer is just his trial being shorter.

File: dca.png (840 KB, 716x715)

840 KB PNG

>>18499962
>"Sorry, Jimmy, but I have to give you cancer because your parents free will or something"
>"NO YOU CANT USE YOUR FREE WILL TO KILL YOURSELF AND GO TO PARADISE FASTER!"
Since you are here against your will, and God certainly didn't FORCE your parents ti have you, you can logically leave at anytime you want to

>>18498265
Neither do they, they are just puppets for the father of lies. Thats why they will never give you a straight answer.

>>18499910
>The omnipotent, omniscient creator isn't just a king. False comparison argument
My point was one about language. To say someone is in control of something isn't to imply everything it does is something they themselves directly decided. Those passages in Jeremiah state this directly about the evils they describe.

>you are trying to apply logic to a being who is supposedly above that according to your religion.
Not so! All logic ultimately boils down to the law of non-contradiction and the Bible says that this applies to God as well, 2 Timothy 2:13 says that "he cannot contradict himself".

If you're interested, the position that logic doesn't apply to God is called Cartesian omnipotence and the position that it does is called Thomistic omnipotence. Neat quick video about why Cartesian omnipotence is the wrong choice is at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HZal99fwki4

>so God acts towards humanity regardless of free will
God's main desire is the greater good. Usually free will is an essential part of the greater good, hence why it was part of Eden. But God is against its misuse for sure

>But thats exactly what the verse is saying?
Where does it say whenever it happens, God does it? It says it's something that God does, not that God exclusively does it. Again Jeremiah denies this outright.

>You aren't God
The issue is the language. "X does Y" is not "all instances of Y are direct causations of X".

>>18500004
>2 Timothy 2:13 says that "he cannot contradict himself".
Then Isaiah 45-7 contradicts him by saying that God does create darkness and calamity.
And doesn't the whole "God can't contradict himself" bring a pantheistic problem, with God being creation and unable to go against its rules because he would change/harm/whatever himself in the process? Unlike the operative out-of-bounds traditional creator that abrahamanism suscribe to
>God's main desire is the greater good
So he does have a plan. Why are we discussing this then?
>Eden
God didn't want Adam and Eve to have free will, and punished them for getting it, watch out with what you say
>But God is against its misuse for sure
Then it isn't free will. You have the equivalent of diarrhea but applied to theologism.
>Where does it say whenever it happens, God does it? It says it's something that God does, not that God exclusively does it.
There are many verses saying that God is sovereign in all things. And on the exclusively thing, well of course he does because he's the only god there is, right? Who else would do that, Zeus?
>The issue is the language
So, God is not fully sovereign in all things? Just another local deity that got his power levels wanked by neoplatonism, it seems

For all your youtube links and fancy writting you cannot articulate yourself in a reasonable way without. The more we will talk, the more you will try go grasp at anything to continue something that you started out of stubborness, because you agree with me in this point

>>18500072
I think his problem is that you are saying that God plans and commits evil (which he does, as shown many times in the bible)

>>18500108
>god
Fixed that for you boss.

God is the judge of what is good. By definition, it only "forms" what is good. Because something good takes shape, the opposite of what is good is also created as a privation of the good.

God is not selecting and forming the evil. God is selecting and forming the good, and evil is there as the opposite of good.

Another important note, the infinite chaotic void was there in the beginning. God creates by selecting, cutting, separating, not by "poof" materializing. God is a Judge, by definition. Not a wizard.

>>18500072
>Then Isaiah 45-7 contradicts him by saying that God does create darkness and calamity
There's no contradiction there. God does create darkness - as in, what's present at nighttime. Genesis 1:4-5 had already said this: "And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called night."

There's nothing bad about the dark and nighttime.

And calamities can be for the greater good. Improving the world isn't just about making good, it's about destroying evil as well.

>And doesn't the whole "God can't contradict himself" bring a pantheistic problem, with God being creation and unable to go against its rules
You have a very common, but very flawed, understanding of what exactly you're saying when you say God should be able to go against logic.

Things that violate the laws of logic aren't things at all. They're just grammatical constructions that fail to actually achieve meaning.

They're like asking "Can God zelengeiss a vashtrin?". Grammatically you have constructed something that looks like a question but it only has the illusion of meaning, it does not actually ask anything because it fails to refer.

That is what logical impossibilities are: grammatical illusions, not actions God is incapable of. Something like "God should be able to make 1+1=-755 if he is omnipotent" is exactly as meaningless as "Can God zelengeiss a vashtrin?", the illusion is only slightly better-hidden.

>Why are we discussing this then?
We seem to disagree on very fundamental issues about God, and how he would and how he should and how he is said in the Bible to operate

>God didn't want Adam and Eve to have free will
>Then it isn't free will
Can you define what exactly you mean by "free will", here?

>There are many verses saying that God is sovereign in all things
Which do you have in mind?

>who else
People, and the results of their choices.

Natural selection is good and you're a tranny with shit genes, which is why you encourage dysgenics by blaming God for your fuck-ups.

>>18500691
>There's no contradiction there.
Contextually, god does affirm he creates evil
>And calamities can be for the greater good
You were hitching to say that. No, 500 people drowning in a flood doesn't add nothing of good to the world, stop arguing otherwise.
>You have a very common, but very flawed, understanding of what exactly you're saying when you say God should be able to go against logic.
As I thought, the God you propose is essentially existence itself, so no point in worshipping him as a being that cares about you. Your view is one step away from atheism (which is what ended up happening in history)
>We seem to disagree on very fundamental issues about God, and how he would and how he should and how he is said in the Bible to operate
If God follows the cartesian view on omnipotence, he is evil and doesnt deserve to be worshipped. If God follows the Thomistic view on omnipotence, then he doesnt exist as a personal being and shouldnt be worshipped. That's the end of the line for us in this.
>Can you define what exactly you mean by "free will", here
Not falling for that slippery slope that your type likes to use
>Which do you have in mind?
You don't know, seriously? Psalm 115:3, Daniel 4:35, Proverbs 21:1...
>People, and the results of their choices.
No, dont you dare go that way. Its natural for living, mortal beings to do some wrong in their lives. Very different when it's a all knowing being with the power to heal and kill as he pleases. A kid doing a prank, or a bear hunting have nothing to do with God choosing who lives and who dies, without any opposition

I have shown my point, thats it for me in this thread

File: Bible Prophecy + confirmi(...).png (169 KB, 1874x822)

169 KB PNG

Humans are suffering in this world to wake them up and show them their need of Jesus Christ, because God doesn't want them in Hell, which is worse than whatever happens on earth. God lets bad things happen because if He didn't, you would not understand just how serious sin really is, and what it means if you reject Christ.

The Lord Jesus Christ came to reconcile man and God together again, He did it by bearing the judgment of the sinner in Himself on the cross. He was judged and punished for all our sins. What the sinner is asked to do is to trust in Jesus Christ, The Lord God Almighty. It doesn't matter how much faith you have, but you can't put that faith in yourself, because you can't save yourself. Trust that the work He did is sufficient to pay for you sins, and call upon Him as your Saviour, knowing that you are a sinner, and that without the blood atonement He made you would go to hell. You might not know what to say, but if you understand that you need Jesus Christ, call upon Him and let Him do the rest.


Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9, given by God, Romans 10:8 & 17) only in the one, final, effectual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:8-12) dying in your place (1 Cor. 15:3-4) as a substitutionary offering for sin (Rom. 5:1-10). His blood atonement made for you is finished, so if you have received the Lord Jesus by faith (John 1:12) in your heart, you're forgiven of all your sins and are saved, once for all; finally and forever! (Rom. 8:38-39, Romans 4:5)

The gift of salvation can't be earned, it's a gift: Eph. 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Rom. 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc
https://truthischrist.com/seven/

>>18500776
>god does affirm he creates evil
God defines/names what is good, and through this formation of good, the privation of good is also named (created).