"the cause of suffering is the disobedience of Adam and Eve"What does that mean? How is it possible that eating an apple can cause tornadoes, diseases, and animals to devour each other alive? Explain yourselves Chr*istfags, no buzzwords or poor apologetics, in plain English.
If God was truly moral he would have just forgiven them for not knowing better and let them continue to live in the Garden of Eden
Fedoras have one debate strategy and it's to act stupid on purpose so that no Christian would ever want to argue with them. They're like suicide bombers, sacrificing their dignity just to try and get a crumb of e-clout for their ideology.
>>18712718>cause of sufferingIt was only the cause of a few curses and their exile.
>I don't want the free gift of SalvationThis is the definition of insanity
>>18714403Salvation from what
>>18714405The devil who is trying to trick you to go keep him company
>>18714405From what physics will do to you if you don't study and respect it.
>>18714392yes, we get it, you have no argument.
>eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil>turns out understanding good and evil involves all sorts of awful shit
>>18714403>free gift>that you get punished for if you don't accept it
>>18714567you dont get "punished" for not accepting it. things just suck without it
>>18714568Why do we carry the weight of Adam's sin, if no man is supposed to carry the weight of someone else's sin?
>>18714567You punish yourself if you don't accept it
>>18714567>here is 10 million dollars for free.>If I don't accept this gift, my life will be worse, so it's a bad gift.
>>187127181. I think you are being disingenuous in reducing the fall of man to “eating an apple” 2. The sin of Adam consisted not in the external act itself, but in putting his wife before God, failing to love God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and willful disobedience of God. 3. When God created man, He entered into covenant with man, and all creation through man. Adam was the head of this covenant and represented all his progeny (mankind) and all his property (all creation) before God. The terms of this covenant were that man would perpetually obey God, with the promised blessing being life, and the threatened curse if he failed to satisfy the condition of the covenant being death. So the reason for human suffering and death as well as general entropy in the universe is because it is the righteous penalty for a broken covenant.
>>18714795>be my slave for the rest of your life or I torture you>wow I save you from torture literally a free gift why so defensive least you could say is thank you :))))))))))There's a non-retarded comparison.
>>18714991You just described the laws of physics.
>>18714991If you ignore reality, you will be tortured. You can't eat acid, you can't swim in lava, and you can't stab a needle in your eye. The reality is, all these things are toruture. Just accept the free gift of reality, and be a slave to reality, or you will constantly be tortured. You are not free to eat acid. I am the way, the truth, and the life.
>>18714991Accept the free gift of truth, and be thankfull when you recieve it. Do not reject it, or you will suffer consequences.
>>18714612false equivalence.Adam represents mankind, not just some ancestor who did something. Everyone is a part of Adam, just as they are a part of mankind. Every member of mankind is punished for their own sin.
>>18712718>What does that meanOwn your mistakes, and stop blaming God. Whence cometh evil? You.
>I want to be free!>noooo! why can't God just fix everything and force me to be good!
>>18714124>If God was truly moral he would have just forgiven Lindsay Clancy for not knowing better and let her continue to live her life in peace.What about her victims?
>>18716112Who was the victim in Eden? The apple?
>>18712718The reality is that this is one of the many utterly absurd points you could raise about Christianity and it's no surprise that no one is attempting to give you a straight answer. It's such absurd nonsense that they have to resort to equally absurd nonsense in an attempt to justify it >>18714865.It's understood across the globe that collective generational punishment is unjust.>>18714392If your father robbed a bank before you were born, would you consider it fair for you to be liable for paying back the money he stole? If he killed someone and was sentenced to an 80 year prison sentence but died halfway through, would it be just to make you serve the remainder? You may tell me yes when you understand where this is going but I think we both know that you don't believe it. It would be completely unjust, just as it would be to collectively punish the entirety of mankind for a mistake committed by a single ancestor thousands of years ago.
>The reality is that this is one of the many utterly absurd points you could raise about Christianity and it's no surprise that no one is attempting to give you a straight answer. It's such absurd nonsense that they have to resort to equally absurd nonsense in an attempt to justify it
>>18716131>It's understood across the globe that collective generational punishment is unjust.Yeah I mean if it’s understood across the globe that I’m actually a woman then that means it’s true you showed those chuds
>>18716126You're the victim of your own mistakes.
>>18716135Thats not his point. Just because most people know the earth is not flat, that doesnt make it true.What he is saying is that everyone knows the earth is not flat, so arguing about it is an absurd waste of time, and flat earthers like you should just be ignored, because your abused straw man is harmless.
>>18716148It’s not a strawman, it’s mockery. First of all, this man is a dog and swine, who merits no serious response. He saw the answer, and saw he could not refute it, so he ridiculed it and then disregarded instead >>18714865His objection he presents is wholly empty, because it is an actual strawman that deliberately disregards the actual circumstances of the fall I described. Hence the analogy is false. But I would like to know if there’s no God why that would be unjust? By what standard? In contrast to the excuse you made for him, he did actually appeal to what is believed across the globe as the basis of morality. But pretending he meant what you said instead, why is that wrong? By what standard? Under your worldview it would not be “unjust” for me to kill you in the street for no reason at all, and it would be no more just for the state to execute me for it; both are nothing more than killing for self-satisfaction and pleasure in the atheist worldview. So, my answer is no, that’s perfectly just under the secular worldview and under that nobody could give any objection at all.
>>18716135>literally everything has to be somehow related to trannieslook bro just just honest with yourself and go ahead and transition alreadyi can tell you think about it all day every day
>>18716172Ok TJ
>>18716168>He saw the answer, and saw he could not refute it, so he ridiculed it and then disregarded insteadYeah I can't believe people aren't seriously engaging with schizo nonsense like>>18714865>mankind deserves to be punished for eternity because of one guy "failing to love God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength">When God created man, He entered into covenant with man>the reason for human suffering and death as well as general entropy in the universe is because it is the righteous penalty for one guy not loving god enough>why does that baby have bone marrow cancer? why is that newborn zebra being eaten alive by hyenas? why is this fish slowly starving to death after a parasite devoured its tongue? obviously it's because they deserve to suffer as the righteous penalty for adam not wanting to suck god's dick badly enoughthese people will unironically tell you that christianity isn't based around the worship and glorification of suffering
>>18716187>I literally have no argumentI know you don’t, clown
>>18716186you're the one who brought up tranniesand of course you have an image saved talking about sucking dicki personally have zero dick sucking pictures saved but i guess that's just meyou remind me of this pic
>>18716191>i personally have zero dick sucking pictures savedNobody buys this.
>>18716190You're making my argument for me, big boy. Literally all I have to do is stand up and say "Generational collective punishment is wrong" and then just sit back and watch as you post the most unhinged nonsense in an attempt to justify it.
>>18716193>Generational collective punishment is wrongWhy?
>>18716194Because it necessitates the punishment of innocent people. I realize this is going to cue another schizo rant about how no one is innocent because of something that some desert jew did thousands of years ago but please understand that this is not a compelling argument for anyone outside your misery cult.
>>18716192well so far you've proven you have one more than me so i don't know what to tell youi literally dont remember that trannies exist until someone like you brings them up out of nowherewe're over here debating theology and you come sprinting into the room like>DID YOU KNOW SOME MEN THINK THEY'RE WOMEN????like yeah ok bro i can tell that men trying to be women is on your mind a lot but it's not really relevant to the discussion
>>18716196>Because it necessitates the punishment of innocent peopleWhy is that wrong?>>18716198>we're over here debating theologyLol, no you’re not, you’re a bunch of deranged weirdos in women’s clothing expressing your anger for God. Where is the “debate”? The clown above you tucked tail and ran as soon as I refuted him.
>>18716199>Why is that wrong?Theist discourse is about pretending to not understand things
>>18716199I like how you guys will accuse everyone else of engaging in dishonest arguments and then as soon as you're pressed, you come out with the most insanely disingenuous shit like>Why is punishing innocent people wrong?
>>18716199>a bunch of deranged weirdos in women’s clothingoh now he's imagining men wearing women's clothingbuddy are you SURE there's nothing you want to tell us?
>>18715519>>18715531>>18715539There might be something to the claim that most 4chan posters are now bots after all.
>>18716193Generational rewards and punishments are what the theory of evolution is based on.
>>18716199>Why is that wrong?Because he has a mental framework of morality (god). He just doesn't call it that.
>>18716213In what way is possessing a moral framework an acknowledgment of a deity?
>>18716212It's not.
>>18716210It sounds that way because these performative internet Christians are just larping. They don't actually believe anything; their "faith" is just part of their obsession with politics which is why you always see them instantly attack any critics in political terms >>18716194. They think they need to be hardcore fundamentalist Christians because that's what they imagine as the polar opposite of the left wing politics they obsess over.This is why it sounds like they're reading a script. Their opinions aren't something they acquired via a lifetime of faith and self-study; they're a costume they put on when it became the done thing in alt-right circles to posture as a Christian traditionalist.
>>18716205Why would you like that?
>>18716202>>18716205No, I really don’t understand why it would be wrong if there’s no God and clearly you don’t either because you don’t have an answer>>18716213Correct. The only reason people know right and wrong is because they know God.
Why did god, a seemingly omnipotent and omniscient deity, punish his creation for disobeying him? Didn't he know they were going to eat from the tree? Imagine I'm a blacksmith and I want to make an arming sword but end up making a trowel, and to punish it I break it up into little pieces. If anything, I'm the one who should be punished because I was the one who made it.
>>18716212lmao yeah that's the stuffyou ask them for unhinged nonsense and they come running to provide itappreciate you brother stay schizo>>18716213ah yes because a concept like>people don't deserve to be punished if they haven't done something wrongcould only have come from the judeo-christian concept of goda pagan society could never conceive of something like the golden rule
>>18716221What do you think the purpose of a punishment is?
>>18716218A swing and a miss>>18716224In the atheist worldview it has no purpose other than self-satisfaction.
>>18716217Sure it is Hitchens. If my genes are bad, my kids will inherit them and also suffer the consequences of the code that is passed down. It's a record of sin, like memes/traditions and circles of abuse.
>>18716222I'm sure you've noticed how Christians gleefully imagine people they hate being tortured eternally. These are the type of people who created the religion. God doesn't torture innocents because of some theological quirk or accident; he does it as a core tenet of the religion because he was created in the image of people who want nothing more than to torment others.
>>18716226Don't dodge the question you gay pussy
>>18714497Do you think Eve knew what she was getting into before gaining knowledge?
>>18716218They're pussies who are too scared to stand by their less socially acceptable political opinions and articulate them in a reasonable way so they have to couch them in religious dogma after the fact, which they feel is unassailable.
Do you think God was surprised when evil entered the world?
>>18716224>What do you think the purpose of a punishment is?>>18716226>In the atheist worldview it has no purpose other than self-satisfaction.this is an incredibly semitic replyi'm beginning to suspect that these guys who come across as absurd sadistic retards are actually just jews attempting to poison the water by larping as the most unhinged christians they can imaginelike this guy is over here unironically trying to argue that killing babies is not wrong, not only that but that the babies deserve to be killedat a certain point you can't take these people seriously anymore and you have to start looking for alternative explanations for the nonsense you're hearingi used to think that these guys used such dishonest and disingenuous arguments because they absorbed that debate style from spending too much time arguing with jewsbut now i'm starting to suspect that it's not that complex; they're just jewish themselves
>>18716226>atheist worldviewYou seem to be defining post modernist subjectivity as "atheist point of view". I think atheists are even worse. They seem to want to destroy all mental framworks, including their own. I think atheism is more nihilism than postmodern and subjective. Now that I think of it, subjective morality might be worse, if the atheism is only directed at others, but the individual continues to worship themselves subjectively.
>>18716239>subjective morality might be worseMorality is subjective, sad but true
>>18716238>like this guy is over here unironically trying to argue that killing babies is not wrongPosted by a guy who not only has a worldview that openly says killing babies is not wrong but who probably supports killing babies in the womb.>>18716239Postmodernist subjectivism is logically consistent atheism.>>18716244So it’s not wrong to kill babies.
>>18716249I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm the one who says that collective generational punishment is wrong and babies don't deserve to be born with terminal cancer. I don't think that innocent people should be punished. I don't think that newborn babies are guilty of anything. I don't think that any baby should be killed for any reason.The only person in this thread who>openly says killing babies is not wrongis you. You have flat out said that babies are not innocent and a baby who is born with bone marrow cancer is fully guilty and deserves to die>>18714865>because it is the righteous penalty for a broken covenant.Those are your words, not mine.
>>18716252>I'm the one who says that collective generational punishment is wrongYou’re contradicting yourself by saying that though. That proposition is mutually exclusive with your worldview.>collective generational punishment is wrong and babies don't deserve to be born with terminal cancer. I don't think that innocent people should be punished. I don't think that newborn babies are guilty of anything. I don't think that any baby should be killed for any reason.Why?>Those are your words, not mine.Correct, and it has nothing to do with your strawman you idiot tranny.
>>18716249>So it’s not wrong to kill babies.Things are wrong in virtue of people's subjective values and stances
>>18716252>You have flat out said that babies are not innocent and a baby who is born with bone marrow cancer is fully guilty and deserves to die>>18716259>CorrectWhat else is there to say? I rest my case.
>>18716262So not wrong in reality. People think it’s wrong but they’re incorrect.
>>18716264How embarrassing
>>18716266Wrong. In reality a people do hold the subjective stance that killing babies are wrong.
>>18714568Explain the rich man and Lazarus then.19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’Hades is a place of torment, a punishment rather than the absence of something good
>>18716269Right, so it’s not wrong but some people think it is. If I believe it’s not wrong am I wrong? Why would you object to me killing babies, why are you pushing your morals on me?
>>18716267i hope you work through whatever trauma led you to this pointan undamaged person doesn't behave like you
Always this bullshit whining about if nonrealist morality is true, how come vaguely worded metaethical claims using realist language don't make sense
>>18716274Thanks for the tip tranny.
>>18716277Yeah vague realist wording like “it is wrong to kill babies”. I accept your concession.
>>18716273>Why would you object to me killing babiesI because subjectively value babies. Duh.I don't mind forcing my values on other people, even if they don't share my values.People do this ALL the time, just look at world. This isn't complicated at all
>>18716281>I because subjectively value babiesSaarBut I subjectively value killing babies so why would it be wrong? What did I do wrong?
>>18716285People have always tried to impose their subjective morals upon those with differing ones, whether they're religious or not.
>>18716228You're not describing rewards and punishments, so way to confirm my point.
>>18716280I will just say 'Yes'. No problem, using everyday language that's how normal people talk.If you want to be serious about metaethical discussion, you need to use specific language. You didn't do that. Because you are being dishonestTrying to do some retarded rhetorical trick when there is no audience, and you're just talking to me. Fucking bizarre behavior >it is wrongWhat does this mean? Wrong to who? ALWAYS wrong regardless if everyone thought it was right? That's such nonsense If you index moral claims with subjects. There is no problemYou deliberately didn't do that. And keep using language that presupposes moral realism, when asking a question to a moral nonrealism.Clown shit
>>18716285>I subjectively value killing babiesI don't care.I care about MY values. Not yours.This is so fucking simpleI don't know if you're being deliberately dishonest, or just haven't thought for 1 second about how people that disagree with you will respond You should be able to figure this out all on your own
>>18716278>he's STILL thinking about tranniesi guess we know where the trauma is coming from lmaolike i'm watching a class on repression 101like one of those ink blot tests>anon, look at this theological debate, what do you see?>trannies! men sucking dick! a guy wearing a dress!what a life
>>18716295Christians cannot defend their own values so they pivot to attacking yours
>>18716285>I subjectively value killing babiesWhy are christcucks so murderously evil?
>>18716300>Christians cannot defend their own valuesBecause they're the values of batshit insane cultists that are absurd to anyone not drinking the koolaid. They're indefensible; they have no option other than attacking you because they know there is no rational defense for shit like>god is morally correct to kill newborn babies because those babies are guilty of original sin and dying from bone marrow cancer at 5 months is the righteous penalty for a broken covenant.
>>18716295Who asked what you care about? The question was if it’s wrong, I guess your answer is “no”>>18716292>Because you are being dishonestYour worldview is completely bankrupt and it’s not dishonest to point that out.>ALWAYS wrong regardless if everyone thought it was right? That's such nonsenseOk, so the answer is “no”. It’s not wrong according to you.>And keep using language that presupposes moral realismRealist language like “it’s wrong to kill babies”, but yes your worldview is completely absurd and incoherent, there is no possible world and no scenario in which it is true. The problem isn’t with me rejecting absurd things, it’s with you believing absurdities.>>18716305Evil? What’s that?>>18716300We’re talking about your beliefs because you already lost the argument about mine. This >>18714865 is completely unanswered. Atheists are just too stupid to either defend their own worldview or attack anyone else’s.
>>18716314>The question was if it’s wrong, I guess your answer is “no”False. Killing babies is wrong
>>18716314What a fucking waste of time you are
>>18716314>Realist language like “it’s wrong to kill babies”I just told you moral claims are indexed to subjective values and stances you are not indexing to anything A more appropriate and precise question would be-"Do you think it's wrong to kill babies?"-"Do you think most people would say it's wrong to kill babies?"-"Do literally everyone, everywhere, at all times always think it's wrong to kill babies?"But that's not what you are asking about. Right.
>>18712718There was no death befire the fall
>>18714124Truly moral according to who?
