>>18624425
>blah blah blah I hate Jesus
No one cares. Enjoy Hell.

>>18624425
It achieved a military goal of annihilating the Egyptian army. If you could mind-control the evil leader of a nation to lead his army into a trap, why wouldn't you? It's an amazing tactic if the option is on the table

Well the simple answer to that is that nowhere does the text describe mind control. God doesn't give the same grace to everyone, He can give or withdraw it at will, and if He withdraws it we do evil; it's that simple. So this is just another boring question about the problem of evil, which is just finite minds struggling to comprehend the infinite.

>>18624425
In modern theological phrasing, saying "God hardened his heart" means God permitted Pharaoh to harden his own heart.

>>18624491
Why do that instead of just mind controlling him to not be evil?

>>18624504
Why would it even need to be noted by the text then? Does God regularly interfere with the thought processes of humans so as to make it noteworthy when he refrains?

>>18624498
>its not mind control
>its just when he removes his grace you just become le evil
that just sounds like mind control with extra steps

>>18624514
Wouldn't make for a good story

>>18624425
I mean, both judaism and christianity have major narrative holes and contradictions. At this point in my life im trying to learn all about the religion. I want to know about the life of the prophets, the apostles, but at a certain point I also want to grow past it and have a post theistic intellectual life. That is a life where I dont think about religion at all, bc its already in the decline anyway. Many European countries are already majority irreligious and America will be eventually.

File: images (1).jpg (7 KB, 183x275)

7 KB JPG

Obviously both Jews and Christians make a lot of insane claims and taking the time to discredit and expose all of them would be a waste of time. It is a waste of intelligence. Picrel alone has been and will be responsible for more deconversions than all the atheist philosophers put together.

>>18624514
Ultimately the answer to any question about why God doesn't do more is going to be https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YKUhD7--LKw

>>18624425
God wanted to show his power and the Egyptians may have deserved it.

>>18624425
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

>>18624504
Retarded. Is there anything more humiliating than christian apologetics?

>>18624425
Typically by lying about what words mean.
>>18624491
>It achieved a military goal of annihilating the Egyptian army.
Why was this the goal? He already let them go, he wasn't a threat anymore. And why would he need to lead them into a trap anyway? In 2 Kings he just sends an angel against Assyria and it kills like 200,000 people.
>>18624584
The question of the thread isn't "why doesn't he do more" it's "why did he do this one thing". The video is about why God doesn't act but Exodus is filled with God acting, it just happens that all of his acts are negative.

If schizophrenia means splitting of the mind: doesn't that imply all materialists and dualists as fundamentally delusional? I mean, you people are completely incapable of abstract reasoning. You can't fathom something as simple as Monism. How can you be expected to be taken seriously when you believe in a magical barrier between one place or thing and the next? The truth is that though all is manifest, it is of one substance, and thus is more meaningful than anything you imply asserting your silly notions of selfish legacy.

>>18624425
God does as he pleases so you should fear him, unless you're dumb.

>>18624438
>No one cares. Enjoy Hell.
Literally this, OP we don't care anymore, the world is ending, you either accept Christ or you're gonna fucking burn.

File: empire-rule-Egyptian-Thut(...).jpg (197 KB, 1438x1600)

197 KB JPG

>>18624689
>Why was this the goal? He already let them go, he wasn't a threat anymore.
Egypt often invaded and made war in the levant, look at pic related from https://www.britannica.com/place/ancient-Egypt/The-New-Kingdom-c-1539-c-1077-bce for instance. If he or another Pharaoh decided to fix the problem and regain lost glory or some such that countries often use as an excuse for wars, their military was a serious threat to the region. But after this Egypt never again conquered it.

>And why would he need to lead them into a trap anyway? In 2 Kings he just sends an angel against Assyria and it kills like 200,000 people.
Is there any practical difference between this and that at the end of the day? But regardless, this serves as an even stronger demonstration than that. The Israelites make it through fine but the Egyptians are destroyed. This sends a powerful message to the Israelites who see this and to everyone else who learns about this.

>The question of the thread isn't "why doesn't he do more" it's "why did he do this one thing".
Directly influencing Pharaoh for life involves a lot more direct action than directly influencing him for this brief period. Not to mention the Egyptian army remains that way, so the next Pharaoh can assault land that we know the Egyptians were quite capable of invading and conquering. So he's likely got to be directly influenced as well. And his successor, and so on. Instead what was done ends the threat for good.

>it just happens that all of his acts are negative
Only if you would call most of FDR's acts towards Japan negative. If you're an aggressive, murderous slaver regime then the side of good is going to be against you. (If you're of the opposite persuasion of which side was preferable in WWII like many users on 4chan are then just slot in whatever leader and war you think was good into this analogy)

>>18624939
>But after this Egypt never again conquered it.
So you have a specific date for Exodus?
>This sends a powerful message to the Israelites who see this and to everyone else who learns about this.
You know what would have sent a more powerful message? Just teleporting the Isrealites to the promised land. All the better if the promised land is on another fucking planet or something.
>Instead what was done ends the threat for good.
So now you both have a specific date for Exodus AND you can prove the Egyptian empire "ended for good?" That would put your date well into the Roman era!
>Only if you would call most of FDR's acts towards Japan negative. If you're an aggressive, murderous slaver regime then the side of good is going to be against you. (If you're of the opposite persuasion of which side was preferable in WWII like many users on 4chan are then just slot in whatever leader and war you think was good into this analogy)
See, the difference is that God is all-powerful. He has every option available to Him, including just never letting a "brutal slaver civilization" come to power in the first place. FDR was.guy in a wheelchair who needed to convince other people. He had limits. God, by definition, did not, so there has to be a really good fucking reason for God to do anything at all.

>>18624425
The Exodus never happened, full stop. Archeologists have excavated Egypt for a century and a half and have found zero proof for the Exodus happening. It’s peculiar since a lot of other things foreigners in antiquity said about Egypt got proven correct, even the insane stuff about Egypt claimed by Herodotus (a man known for making a lot of other stuff up btw) ended up being proven correct down to the last detail somehow. But not once have they found any real proof for the Exodus.

The only response to any of this by apologetics is “Egypt didn’t record their losses,” but we don’t just rely on propaganda steles as Ancient Egypt left behind vast quantities of everyday administrative records, legal papyri, letters, and domestic receipts. Exodus describes the sudden death of all firstborn sons, the total collapse of the agrarian workforce, the loss of an entire chariot army, and the devastation of the economy via the Ten Plagues. If the Exodus did happen, the catastrophic fallout would inevitably ripple into day-to-day administrative paperwork, grain supplies, and military rosters. No such disruptions exist in the records around the time period the Exodus supposedly took place.

Plus we don’t just have a lack of evidence for the Exodus, we have contradictory evidence as according to traditional biblical chronology, the Exodus happened during the later half of the New Kingdom period and archaeology shows this exact era was the absolute peak of Egyptian imperial power, economic power, and aggressive military expansion. The country shows no signs of a society recovering from total infrastructural collapse. If the Exodus really happened, it should leave behind a lot of physical evidence beyond records, but no such thing exists. The traditional dating of the Exodus is 1446 BC, but Egypt shows no sign of decline or collapse during this time and they even continued to militarily occupy the Levant for a few more centuries.
(Cont)

>>18624986
The lack of evidence also extends into the Sinai which the Hebrew Bible claims 2 million Israelites wandered in for 40 years. An apologist might claim nomadic groups do not leave behind archaeological traces, but the Sinai peninsula has been surveyed extensively and they have found pottery shards, fire pits, and remnants from tiny, temporary campsites of nomads thousands of years before exodus would have happened. If archaeologists can find the trash of a few dozen ancient nomads, the total lack of any physical footprint for a population of over two million people is problematic.

Archeological surveys across the Levant have also shown an entirely different origin for the Israelites. There was no mass migration of Israelites into Canaan, instead the Israelites were originally a Canaanite tribe who only later became a distinct group. Hebrew itself is a Canaanite language no different from Phoenician or Moabite and the “Paleo-Hebrew” alphabet is just the Phoenician one, an actual independent Hebrew alphabet didn’t emerge until the 2nd century BC. There’s even evidence to suggest that Judaism evolved out of Canaanite paganism and that the polytheism depicted in Judges, 1 and 2 Kings, and Chronicles was in reality the original religion of the Israelites, not some later apostasy. Monotheism didn’t exist at all prior to the Babylonian exile and likely developed in response to trauma caused by the Babylonian exile. Even then, Israelite polytheism still survived in an official capacity as evidenced by the Elephantine papyri.
(Cont)

>>18624987
Even within the Hebrew Bible itself, there are discrepancies. How could Pharaoh muster up an entire chariot army when the horses required for it would have died due to the 5th plague? Why would Pharaoh’s daughter bathe in the Nile when the Ancient Egyptians, especially royalty, didn’t actually bathe in the Nile due to the presence of crocodiles? Moreover if the Israelites really had spent centuries in Egypt, then Hebrew should be full of Egyptian loanwords, but it isn’t which disproves the traditional narrative that the Torah could have been written by Moses. In fact, the Torah as a whole is full of anachronisms as it mentions place-names and ethnic groups which did not yet exist in the time of Moses. Also, if the 10 Plagues really happened, then realistically the Ancient Egyptian religion should have died out shortly afterwards due to the Egyptian gods failing to protect Egypt. But there is no sign of decline during this time, the religion continued to function as normal and didn’t decline until the Christianization of Egypt in the 3rd to 4th centuries AD. The only religious crisis during the Late Bronze Age was Akhenaten’s attempt at creating a proto-monotheist religion centered around Aten, but this was an internal top-down affair that had nothing to do with Hebrew slaves or plagues from a foreign god.
(Cont)

>>18624989
At best you can argue that the Exodus is based on a distorted memory of a real event whose details changed over time. But this is not proof of the Exodus but rather proof against it, especially when you consider what the historical basis might be. Just look up the Hyksos, they were a semitic peoples from the Levant who conquered Egypt in the 17th century BC and ruled over as their 15th dynasty before eventually getting expelled around 1550 BC. It’s commonly thought that the Exodus is based on a cultural memory of the Hyksos’ expulsion (in-reverse) and that the Hyksos were one of the groups who contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Israelites. Similarly there’s also the “Shasu of Yahweh,” a nomadic tribe from Midian who apparently worshiped Yahweh. Around the 12th century BC, a Shasu warlord named Irsu invaded Egypt, plundered their temples, and “treated the gods as men” (i.e. forbidding their worship). Eventually the Shasu were expelled to the Levant and it’s thought that not only they also contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Israelites and imported the worship of Yahweh into the Levant, they were also eventually conflated with the Hyksos at some point.

^None of this matters as whether it happened or not has no influence over the power of the mythology

>>18625017
I mean
>I am the Lord your god who brought you out of Egypt
is a major selling point for getting the israelites to worship yhwh throughout the OT. The fact that there was no Exodus, no Promised Land, indicates that yhwh may not be as beneficent or real as the Bible says

>>18624939
>If he or another Pharaoh decided to fix the problem and regain lost glory or some such that countries often use as an excuse for wars, their military was a serious threat to the region
Do you think Egypt just didn't have a military in the subsequent ~1000 years between Exodus and the Persian conquest
>Is there any practical difference between this and that at the end of the day?
I mean the difference is you presented it as a military strategy and it doesn't seem like God actually needs to utilize military strategies.
>Directly influencing Pharaoh for life involves a lot more direct action than directly influencing him for this brief period. Not to mention the Egyptian army remains that way, so the next Pharaoh can assault land that we know the Egyptians were quite capable of invading and conquering.
Which they continued to do anyway? And again if Pharaoh was going to let them go God doesn't actually need to continue influencing him for life, he doesn't need to influence him at all.
>Only if you would call most of FDR's acts towards Japan negative.
Look I'm a fan of FDR as a president but he's not actually God. I'm not coming at this from a moral perspective, though I could, it's just you presented it as a military stratagem which it doesn't seem like God actually needs. A pretty stark contrast between God and FDR is God has a near infinite amount of solutions to any given problem. He kills every first born in Egypt, he could, unlike the US military, actually do extremely targeted attacks rather than just blowing up an entire city.
You also didn't actually address my main point here, which is Exodus features God acting constantly
There is an explicit reason given in Exodus, which you have already seemingly by accident recognized
>This sends a powerful message to the Israelites who see this and to everyone else who learns about this.
you don't need any additional points to rationalize it and attempting to do so makes the whole thing look silly.

>>18624939
Now if you want to talk about the moral component as the OP does you are going to need to explain why an all good all powerful God needed to flex his power on nonbelievers and why the way he chose to do that was by killing a bunch of them, which as the OP says sounds quite petty, and I will add, insecure. I suppose if you don't think God is all good that would solve that problem while creating another one, but it is actually much more consistent with his portrayal in much of the Old Testament and would also be consistent with the character of other Bronze Age Gods.

>>18625094
>Do you think Egypt just didn't have a military in the subsequent ~1000 years between Exodus and the Persian conquest
Not one that ever threatened Israel. Indeed by then both needed to ally together against powers that had since risen

>I mean the difference is you presented it as a military strategy and it doesn't seem like God actually needs to utilize military strategies.
I guess I don't really see much of a difference. Send a supersoldier to do it, mindcontrol the enemy leader to order his army into a trap - both accomplish the goal of taking the enemy's army out of the equation. I don't really see what there is to "justify" as the OP termed it with one as opposed to the other. It's a sad fact of reality that sometimes for the greater good, armies need to be destroyed - these are just two ways of making that happen if you're extremely powerful.

>Which they continued to do anyway?
That's not so, Egypt never became a military threat to Israel

>God doesn't actually need to continue influencing him for life, he doesn't need to influence him at all
This way you get rid of him and his army. The power base of the tyrannical, genocidal regime is completely annihilated

Like say that you pulled up a random book at libraryofbabel.info and happened to get the astronomical luck of getting a guide to building a mind-control ray that could make the leader of a Jihadist terrorist cell (replace that with whoever is an evil military enemy in your mind if that specific one has your support; you never know on 4chan lol) order all of his soldiers to walk into a volcano and then jump in himself. Wouldn't you use it?

>it's just you presented it as a military stratagem which it doesn't seem like God actually needs. A pretty stark contrast between God and FDR is God has a near infinite amount of solutions to any given problem
Is there some particular issue with picking this one? not quite seeing what you're looking for someone to justify especially if no moral objections

>>18625095
Which gets a higher result: adding a positive, or subtracting a negative?

Neither, they're the same. Destroying evil improves the world just like creating good does. God always does what's for the greater good of all beings that do or that will exist. Destroying evil is often for the greater good.

>>18625308
I think you're maybe not understanding my question, and I am being pedantic it's true but I don't think it's too complicated. Why does God need to engage in military strategy at all? He didn't need a military strategy when he killed all the first born, he just did it.
>That's not so, Egypt never became a military threat to Israel
Egypt continued to be a major power for 1000ish years depending on when you think Exodus happened they for sure did not have their power base "completely annihilated" and they definitely continued to assault other lands even if those lands weren't Israel
>Is there some particular issue with picking this one? not quite seeing what you're looking for someone to justify especially if no moral objections
Like I said I am for sure being somewhat pedantic, my greater point is justifying it as a military solution is silly. The reason given is for God to show off his power, not to efficiently deal with some threat. There is no reason to think it was anything else.
>>18625318
Why not wipe out Egypt entirely? It's still there today. Were only the first born evil, but not the second, third, or fourth born? Was all of the evil in Egypt wiped out through the events of Exodus?
You are adding that God was trying to do any of this. Again, the text gives you why he was doing it, you don't need to add to it.

>>18625565
>Why does God
Every question like this is going to have the same answer. The four things that influence God's actions are his maximum desire to increase good, his maximum power to do so, his need to avoid actual infinities, and the world-state. At the crossroads of those four factors are available options. If one is best then he picks it, if there are multiple that are equally good he makes a free will choice of one of them.

>Egypt continued to be a major power for 1000ish years
Never one that threatened Israel. For the rest of pre-Medieval history, Egypt was either neutral or an active ally of Israel.

>they for sure did not have their power base "completely annihilated"
They absolutely did for an entire generation: their army was gone. Wiped out. All its equipment at the bottom of the sea. Their king dead.

>they definitely continued to assault other lands even if those lands weren't Israel
At this time every country was at war with its neighbors eventually. The key was protecting Israel since Israel was absolutely essentially to humanity's future both physically and spiritually

>justifying it as a military solution is silly
An entire army came against Israel and "I think God destroyed that army because it was dangerous" is silly?

>The reason given is for God to show off his power
What specific passage are you referring to?

>Why not wipe out Egypt entirely?
The answer to why God doesn't do something is going to be the same as the answer above of why he does

File: images - 2026-08-10T041807.081.jpg (25 KB, 662x302)

25 KB JPG

>>18624425
>mind controlled
>hardened heart
Anon...youve done yourself a confuse.
>Abrahamists
Judeans and Muhammedeans?
>John 8:39: They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.”

...and so they did.

>>18625891
>Every question like this is going to have the same answer
I feel like you're either not understanding my question or not engaging with it. Is mathematically impossible for God to do something like killing all the first born, a thing he already did, and he had to engage in military strategy this one time, but did not have to in 2 Kings where he just sent an angel to wipe out the Assyrians?
>They absolutely did for an entire generation
Do you have evidence for this, other than the bible claiming this? I am not making a point against the validity of the bible here, I am saying unless you have some evidence that suggests Egypt was in fact militarily crippled I don't know why you would believe that. Exodus might imply that but it also doesn't actually say that. We don't have anything that suggests the complete collapse of Egypt at any of the times estimated for when Exodus took place.
>At this time every country was at war with its neighbors eventually. The key was protecting Israel since Israel was absolutely essentially to humanity's future both physically and spiritually
I know you think that but the point you were making was that their power base had been "completely annihilated" and clearly it wasn't if they kept fighting in other places.
>An entire army came against Israel and "I think God destroyed that army because it was dangerous" is silly?
No God engaging in a military solution when he can do anything is silly. He could have just turned Pharaoh into salt. He could have just ended the lives of every military age male in Egypt before they even got on their chariots and the end result in terms of dead would be the same. He doesn't need to utilize ambushes or feigned retreats or false gaps or any other tactic humans need. The actual reason for why he acted the way he did is stated in the text.
>What specific passage are you referring to?
9:16 and 14:4 off the top of my head. I think 7:5 sort of implies it but I'll admit that one is debatable.

>>18624425
None of the words you just stated are things christians believe.
You are attacking a strawman and getting angry at your own delusional scenario.

>>18624438
christians used to bait the government into killing them so they went to heaven faster and I really wish every christard who made posts like yours would strive to emulate their spiritual forebears

>>18624803
if god does what he pleases then why should i care and waste time to think about and fear the retard?

>>18625970
>I feel like you're either not understanding my question
Honestly I think this is my issue. You say things like "He could have just turned Pharaoh into salt. He could have just ended the lives of every military age male in Egypt before they even got on their chariots and the end result in terms of dead would be the same". I suppose I don't see what you're getting at? It doesn't sound like it's a moral objection since you said that isn't the issue. You acknowledge part of it was essentially PR in "9:16 and 14:4 off the top of my head. I think 7:5 sort of implies it". So I suppose I'm just not seeing what you're challenging, exactly? On my end this sort of feels like:

You: "Chef Boyardee made lasagna for dinner. Justify this."

Me: "It was a great way to feed everyone for dinner"

You: "Yes but he could have done that with ravioli, spaghetti, or beefaroni. Justify lasagna."

I don't see what specifically the issue you're looking to highlight is. Is turning Pharaoh to salt or just smiting the army preferable in some way?

Could you maybe use an analogy to highlight the issue you're seeing?

>and he had to engage in military strategy this one time
Well like you know, part of this was PR. Letting your people through the Red Sea but then the army of the Egyptian pantheon's people then immediately get drowned by you quite definitively shows both Israel and Egypt which religion is true in an extremely overt way. And it solves the military issue of the hostile army.

>and clearly it wasn't if they kept fighting in other places
Eventually, but this is like someone in the future saying Germany can't have been totally militarily defeated in WWII since they fought in Afghanistan a couple of generations later.

Egypt wasn't a problem again for Israel until centuries later with Shishak. Fledgling Israel didn't have a Great Power, Egypt, attacking it. It only had to deal with much smaller local powers in the earliest days.

>>18624425
Even as a child, Moses’s chimpout over the golden calf seemed absurd to me. Never quite respected the fellow

>>18627484
To be clear I could make a moral objection to it I'm just not doing so right now. My objection is your rationalization of the action and the intention.
If the objective was to cripple Egypt's military capacity, there are in fact many ways to do that that do not involve mind control and elaborate ambushes, so the answer to why God did it this way can't be "it was a good strategy"
I am also disputing that crippling Egypt's military capacity was the objective, since the text never says that and that goal wasn't achieved. I don't want to get too deep into a tortured analogy on this, but with your Boyardee example, it would be like if CB was selling a specific canned meal for the stated reason that this particular meal was the most profitable. Not the most nutritionally fulfilling, not the best value for the consumer, it just makes CB the most money. We don't need to argue about whether this is the best meal CB could sell from the perspective of the customers, CB has told us they are selling it because they get the best ROI on it.
>Well like you know, part of this was PR. Letting your people through the Red Sea but then the army of the Egyptian pantheon's people then immediately get drowned by you quite definitively shows both Israel and Egypt which religion is true in an extremely overt way.
All I am saying is that this is all you need to explain the events of Exodus 14. It's literally what the text says.
>And it solves the military issue of the hostile army.
And this is a thing you are reading into the text and an unnecessary rationalization.
>Eventually, but this is like someone in the future saying Germany can't have been totally militarily defeated in WWII since they fought in Afghanistan a couple of generations later.
I think it's more like if you said France had been totally defeated after Trafalgar because they never tried to invade England again, while remaining a threat with major military accomplishments against the rest of the continent.

>>18627492
To be totally fair God threatens to kill all of them and only "changes his mind" after Moses grovels for their lives

>>18627484
>Honestly I think this is my issue.
>Honestly
I think the lack of shame might be worse than the lies themselves.

>>18627623
>there are in fact many ways to do that that do not involve mind control and elaborate ambushes
Is there some reason that those ways are somehow preferable? That's the part I'm not seeing. You aren't saying exactly why you think an alternate action would have been preferable.

>I am also disputing that crippling Egypt's military capacity was the objective, since the text never says that

It does, Psalm 106:10 says it "saved them from the hand of the foe" and in Exodus 14:10-12 when the people panic because of the Egyptian army, Moses assures them in verse 13 "The Egyptians you see today you will never see again". Part of it was to ensure there was going to be no Egyptian attack on Israel.

You can do a thing for multiple reasons. This both demonstrated the truth of Yahwism as opposed to Egyptian polytheism (the glory aspect) and kept Israel safe from Egypt (the crippling their military aspect).

And indeed it worked. Egypt even became their ally after this, they had royal marriage alliance and even some military cooperation according to 1 Kings 9:16. They did attack in Shishak's time but that's a bit complicated since Israel had split and Shishak was an ally of one half against the other.

Egypt did finally full-on attack them under Necho II, but by that time other powers had arisen so that was unstable and very short since they ousted him, with Nebuchadnezzar being on the scene then and beating them within a few years. The thin margin by which they escaped long-term Egyptian domination is really interesting. Perhaps if Egypt had been a bit stronger earlier on, they wouldn't have done so.

>CB has told us they are selling it because they get the best ROI on it
So wouldn't there only be a problem if you knew of one that offered better ROI? If the goal is simultaneously deal with Egyptian military power and prove to all the superiority of Yahwism, this does an excellent job.

In Christianity and Judaism it is a byproduct of his sin. An example of a common answer can be seen in Maimonides. Pharaoh originally possessed free will but eventually forfeited the ability to repent as punishment for freely chosen evil. Pharaoh had already enslaved Israel which was bad, and repeatedly resisted God. Unlike the Christian account though, according to Maimonides, some sins can become so grave that God punishes a person by withholding repentance.

In Islam there is no free will and everything happens because God wills it to happen. There is no real causation just God's will. This is called Qadar.

And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers? And it is not for a soul to believe except by Allah's permission; and He casts uncleanness on those who will not understand.
Qur'an 10:99-100

And Allah has created you and what you make.
Quran 37:96


homsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men ...
Quran 7:178-179

Really, each of those religions is a different religion with totally different beliefs, just characters with the same name, though. For example in the case of Islam, you are not even supposed to think about Qadar. In Judaism, it is highly recommended you think about free will because it involves God's essence and the Book of which he willed before time began. In Judaism is it mandatory to think about it. Moral responsibility, repentance, and the deliberate cultivation of character can only happen when you think about your choices. Only then do commandments (mitzvot), reward and punishment, and teshuvah (repentance/return) make sense and it is how they understand (Deuteronomy 30:19)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7nqC4Ep4tA

>>18624425
>This sounds like a pretty evil thing for an all loving god to do.
There is something you have to understand about the God of Hebrews in the Old Testament. HE is a jealous God. HIS entire point in the story of Exodus is to show not only to the Hebrews, but to the Egyptians that HE is mighty. This is how Jews in Israel, and the entirety of the Orthodox Jewish community worldwide, understand the story. So for proper Jews there is no contradiction. An all loving God is a Christian development, so Christians have to come up with copes to deal with the contradiction.

>>18628185
>>18628194
The jewish supremacist cult suits you lil bro. Please don't comment our religion if you're completely illiterate about it, or have a middling intellect that struggles at understanding our othrodox thought.
Read from our scholars, Instead of chatgpt. Here's some good resources to explore Islam, i pulled using your ai girlfriend.
>Hassanein's Free Will and Theodicy in Islamic Thought.
>al-Ashqar's Divine Will and Predestination
>Mutahhari's Man and His Destiny

>>18628231
Are you a Muslim?

No Muslim has ever been able to explain to me: why believe in Islam specifically over Judaism if you want unitarian monotheism, Mormonism if you want a final prophet or just Seventh Day Adventism if you want a recent one, or Hinduism if you want artistic scared books? Why do you believe that Islam, specifically, is correct?

File: IMG_2439.jpg (25 KB, 379x527)

25 KB JPG

>>18624425
God intends for many people to go to hell. No, there is nothing you can do about it.

>>18628430
This, the Bible is quite clear as to why God hardened pharaohs heart. So he could publically destroy him and everyone would know he is top dog. This is also His plan why he lets faggy little retards blaspheme him on an anime pornography website.

What do you mean justify?

God can just take away your free will whenever and for whatever reason.
That's the point.

Nobody cares what you think about that.

>>18628542
>God can just take away your free will whenever
Do we have a free will then?