Remember when we used to have Christian Pone Threads? >>36288145https://desuarchive.org/mlp/thread/36288145https://desuarchive.org/mlp/thread/36173078/
There were more threads but I don't remember whenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCfPoYBY02g
What type of Christian would the ponies be? I'll start with Twilight. I'd say Catholic would be most likely with Eastern Orthodoxy as another strong possibility. Twilight is a student of history, I think she would find the traditions and historical claims of Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy much more compelling than the more individualistic and localized Protestant denominations. Catholicism seems to have the most scholarly traditions, it is more focused on building rational systems compared to Orthodoxy. And if Twilight was Protestant, id say Anglican or Reformed would be the most likely of those denominations for her. But what do you guys think would appeal to Twilight the most? And how about all the other ponies?
What kinds of sins and temptations the ponies would have?
>>41611143gluttony
>>41611152Classice Twilight
>>41611139Good analysis, and I agree. Maybe Starswirl and Sunburst would be Orthodox. Applejack would be whatever she was raised as, maybe southern baptist because it has southern in it's name and she has a southern accent kek
>>41611154What's Wendigoon? A southern baptist? She'd be whatever he is
Bump
Turn to Christ. Equestria is your heaven
Does anyone have the video of the Joshua Graham speech edit played to MLP visuals?>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZwzbA91Yno
>>41611141I could definitely see Twi as Catholic, seeing as she is in direct service of the Ponyfex Maximus.
>>41611141Twilight might be Catholic, Reformed, or even Lutheran. I can’t see Fluttershy as anything but Catholic, Rarity might be Anglican, and if Applejack was Christian she’d obviously be a southern Baptist, but as for the other two I have no clue.
>>41611862>can't see Fluttershy as anything but CatholicSomeone please draw her with St. Francis.>for the other two I have no cluePinkie attends the schizophrenic megachurch that has rock concerts and fog machines.
>>41611082I could have sworn on Derpibooru or some other image board that there were a bunch of drawings of ponies in Orthodox icon style with Halos and Greek text on both sides saying stuff I couldn't read. Anyone have those?
>>41611141Twilight: Eastern OrthodoxI believe she would be more attracted to the mysticism of the eastern church. Considering her interest in star swirl the bearded and theory that nightmare moon would return, that feels like a rejection of the strict scholasticism that would point towards Catholicism. She would have likely studied into it and be one of the few ponies in "western" equestria who practice it. Applejack: Southern baptistRarity: Anglicanism(Transatlantic era)Eclectic church architecture, focusing on beauty with some high church elements, while also being compassionate to diverse groups of ponies.Fluttershy: Methodism Humility, community, serving the poor Dash: Nondenominational or any protestant/catholic with a rock band Pink: Pentecostal
>>41611966I forgot to mention Pinkie obviously would have grown up Anabaptist, but I feel like she would have converted to something else, not really sure what
>>41611143>GluttonyPinkie.>Envy and LustRarity.>SlothFluttershy.>PrideAJ or Twilight.>WrathDash.
>>41611154>>41611161Non-Americans trying to decipher American culture from a distance is funny.
>>41612016>>Sloth>FluttershyYou're gonna have to give some examples to justify this one, familia.>>Wrath>Dash.This one too. Should be pride along with AJ and Twi. None of them exhibit wrath, that's reserved for villains.
>>41612027>Fluttershy SlothIt's a stretch, but I think sloth somewhat fits for a complacent pushover.>Dash WrathYeah Dash would fit pride better but I didn't want half the Mane Six to share one sin. Dash is just a bullheaded asshole in general, I don't think it's a HUGE stretch to call her wrathful. Also I just realized I completely skipped greed. But I think we can all agree that not a single Mane Six member is greedy.
>>41612034>It's a stretch, but I think sloth somewhat fits for a complacent pushover.Nah, dude. Fluttershy works hard as fuck. Contrast her with her brother, now that's sloth. If anything, I guess this proves that Fluttershy is the perfect Christian pony. Not a surprise, really, with the meek inheriting the Earth and all.>Dash is just a bullheaded asshole in general, I don't think it's a HUGE stretch to call her wrathful.She's often inconsiderate, but never wrathful. Whenever she's destructive, it's either because of her pride or just for the lulz. Pride isn't just about bragging, it can be destructive. She can also be slothful at times, the first time we meet her she is shirking her duties.
>>41611082Busy now but will post later if the thread's not taken down by atheist modsHave a Rarity in the meanwhile!
>>41611851kekekkekekekekk
>>41611143>>41612083I believe this quest of finding sinful capacity if futile. There is a reason they don't belong on earth here with us and we are not worthy to be with them.
>>41612113cute
So did you guys hear about the Catholics making an anime mascot to promote the Church?
>>41613319Yeah, Luce, the Orthodox should make a pony mascot
>>41613319The satanic mascot, yes.
>>41613319Yep, and it's based and it's funny to see the tradCaths whine about it
>>41611141>TwilightDefinitely leaning towards Catholicism due to the scholastic influence and long tradition of intellectuals. Don't forget that many scientists around the scientific revolution were Catholic priests. She could go Orthodox if you feel especially mystical. >RarityCatholic or Anglican, maybe Lutheran, but certainly something high-church. She's the type to find religious meaning in aesthetics, less so in strict theology. >ApplejackSouthern baptist is the obvious one. Maybe Methodist? Something service-oriented and rooted in the country. She probably doesn't have much to say about religion, other than simply being "the way things are". >FluttershyHonestly, I'd say similar to AJ, leaning more towards universalism and liberal Protestantism. Very "Jesus is love", peace in Equestria, etc. She probably doesn't care that much about scripture and thinks different churches are all basically saying the same thing, so it's not worth worrying about the differences. >PinkieAgain, there's an obvious choice here. Mennonites or Anabaptists could work, although if she's living away from her family farm, she might have converted. In that case, maybe Catholicism? They sure have a lot of celebrations...>RainbowFor the sake of variety, Orthodox. That, or one of the weird "Christian" ones like Pentecostalism or Mormonism.
>>41614269>Rarity>Catholic or Anglican,I feel Anglican would make sense, with the high class Brits and all
>>41611850there's a video?
>>41611141twilight is an atheist jew anything else ignores the show
>>41612016>dash not having prideShe's the poster child for, it's the thing that get her in trouble the most
>>41615239True
Finally.
>>41611082threads like this are always the best for finding the most wildest of images
>>41613319Yeah. It looked decent.>t. Protestant.
>>41613352someone actually tagged me in a Luce pony post, let me dig back through my mentions
>>41616666goncerning digids
None Christian degen here, I gotta ask, how can you guys be christians but also be on 4Chan, who are pretty rude, sexual, degenerate, and other than paying lip service, kind of go against the teachings of Christ?It just seems like you guys would hang out somewhere else to avoid sexual temptations and rage bait for example.
>>41611083Based Civil War enjoyer.
>>41616723Christianity has its origins in "hanging out with degenerates" my friend
>>41616738Maybe so, but don't you guys worry that others my influence in a negative way? For example. A sexually provacative image causing you to act lustfully?
>>41616767>why don't you just lift lighter weights? It's so much easier!
>>41611141Except Dutch Reformed is the most academic denomination.
>>41616778Well I wasn't implying that, but I think I understand what you're getting at. I guess that sort of thing is bound to happen where ever you are. Another question, how exactly do ponies tie into your faith? Yeah, I know that some virtues are very similar to MLP and Christanity, but I feel like I'm missing something.
>>41617015the tie in is that I like ponies and I like JesusI even like them even though their fandoms are kinda cancerous
>>41617016Man, I guess I'm just over complicating things. But yeah, you Christfags are pretty cool, and I hope you guys bless us with your presence in the future.
>>41616723But 4chan is how I found Christ. The truth shone through the multitude of lies.
>>41616723I'm trying my best to hold myself and avoid the degenerate content. 4chan definetly have bad influence on me and I probably shouldn't visit it at all, but it's the only place I feel comfortable.
>>41616723Obviously this place is seen as sexual and degenerate, but I have always thought normies are just as degenerate when it comes to sex. Whether it's the sex crazed members of the sexual revolution, or straight couples committing domestic violence. And considering I grew up consuming mlp porn, I definitely have a "soft spot" for it compared to how disgusting the porn industry is. >>41617015MLP G4 is a core component for me returning to Christianity
>>>/v/693799319
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z6gVn6qwAA&list=PL-DtOLcs827PBshMBmGfKLYg09BaI330-&index=94
Applejack would be non-denominational evangelical.Fluttershy would be Lutheran.Rarity would be Anglican.Twilight would be Jehovah's witness.Rainbow dash would be Morman.Pinky-Pie would be baptist (formerly Amish).
>>41616723I really don't think the people on 4chan are more malicious than the average person out on the wider internet. They're ruder, sure, but at least they're direct about stuff and don't mince words. Half the time they're not even serious when they call you a fag. The anonymity also ironically lets people be kinder to each other, since there's no need to posture in front of a social group to maintain an image. (People still posture, but it's not the only course of action like with normies). Outside of here, people are still as cruel as the average person, but they hide it under layers of fake smiles and courtesy while talking about you behind your back or hiding it inside their heads. So there's the same mean-ness, but with an additional layer of lying and manipulation on top of it. 4chan attracts autists and outcasts, sure, but neither of those things go against Christ. There's also plenty of sexual degeneracy and rage bait outside of here, it's unavoidable. The extreme anonymity gives people free reign to be as shitty as they want, but it also makes the kind actions all the more genuine. It's like God gifting people free will.
>>41617749https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxepL6rzvW4My favorite is the Cherubic Hymn when the liturgy turns more mystical
>>41617838Exactly this, I think people sell themselves short here
>>41617771Just how would RD ever be a Mormon? Cause I don't see it. Fluttershy would be most likely to join our church.>t. Mormon
>>41616672Digits confirm Luce'rs are HELLBOUND
>>41619148why fs?
I'm excited to see how American Solidarity does tonight
>>41617749nice
>>41616672hmm, cute pony
>>41616723Three things:1) I appreciate the honesty that being "anonymous" brings. Everyone can talk about stuff that matters (to them) without restrictions. This, in turn, makes me think outside of my own prejudice (well as much as it offers)2) I think some of the best arguments for and against God comes from here across the board sometimes. It's rare, yes, but it happens. So, when some edgy atheists have some common objections, I would know what to say.3) Not everything is doom and gloom in this site. I tried to look at positive things, and positive things have brought about on this cursed site.
>>41617749>>41618328Great hymns!
>>41611082PRAISE!
Twilight would be the kind of Catholic who thinks non-Catholics are going to hell. In a gentle, by-the-way-you're-going-to-burn-forever-I-hope-that's-okay-with-you kind of way.Rarity converted to Anglicanism because all the rich upper class ponies are Anglican. Plus, she likes the pomp. (Side note: Have you ever worshiped at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.? It's fancy.)Applejack would be Baptist. During the reading of the Gospel, she'd call out, "Praise Jesus!" and "Hallelujah!"Fluttershy is a Unitarian Universalist. She believes that everything is sacred and holy and that everypony has their own way to worship.Rainbow Dash goes to an evangelical megachurch. The preacher promises that if you believe in Jesus, then He will reward you on Earth. Most ponies want Him to make them rich. Dash just wants Him to make her faster.Pinkie Pie is semi-secretly an atheist. She plays along with her family when she goes back home to visit, but growing up in an Amish (or Mennonite or whatever variety of Anabaptist her family is) community has turned her off of religion entirely.
>>41619712she's a pushover and only a pushover could buy into a system of beliefs that's so retarded
>>41622290Nice
>Alicorns>They seems to be immortal or live long>Ponies can ascend into Alicorn based of different “domains” like Love or magic>All Alicorns are immediately royalty>Two Alicorns we don’t fully now the origins of literally control and are named after the sun and moonNot an original idea, just that the ponies being Romans is really funny
>>41622276cute
boop
>>41623004I guess
'
>>41616723Valley of shadow of death.
>>41622290PRAISE
>>41627089>>41626555>>41626440>>41625928>>41625412It's over
They're going to kill the mayor mare elect and blame solar storms for the blackouts.
>>41612016Sunset Shimmer is pride.
>>41629712nice
>>41630250And Wallflower would be envy
>>41612027easyshe loves all animals including the sloth
>>41611850>>41615014Yeah.https://u.smutty.horse/mbgdjyukigk.mp4>>41622290I find nuns completely unattractive. They actively turn me off.
>>41622290Imagine those sweaty balls behind that rag
>>41611082Is this ponies if modern Christianity was introduced, or is this ponies if they had Christianity from the get go?If the latter, I think there would be less sects. Considering the alicorns are centuries old, they would likely have firsthoof accounts of Jesus (Lambheart could be his pony name) and thus there would be less debate fracturing the religion
>>41631994damn I've had this video saved since it first came out and I had no idea it was some fallout character lmaoreally good stuff, it brings tears to my eyes every time.
>>41611141all ponies in equestria are catholics
>>41630250almost every pony is pride
>>41612016shouldnt AJ be wrath because of the bats
Is Celestia Christian Allegory since she essentially just persists in morality except for a few sins (envying her sister's night life, sentencing Discord to turbo prison twice, and racism) and generally is pacifistic when others aren't in danger?
>>41633723AJ could do Pride and Wrath.
>>41635028>except for a few sins (envying her sister's night life, sentencing Discord to turbo prison twice, and racism)What?>and generally is pacifistic when others aren't in danger?Again, what?
>>41634833yes
>>41635028Pretty much, yeah
Marriage is key to Christianity
>>41637099Tell that to all the priests and monks.
>>41637099cute
>>41611141Twilight is Anglican or French Gallicanist.Equestria is ultra-royalist, not ultramontanist.Since unlike Christianity, there is no need to wait for a 2nd coming, the royalty are there and there's no need mediate them between bread and wine, Princess Celestia is already there.
>>41638342Celestia is the Apollo of Equestria.She is the highest authority like the Sun King.In truth, Christianity is also ultra-royalist, but inconvenienced by the fact that Christ's real presence is represented by bread and wine and in his stead is the prime minister of Catholicism the Pope.Christ is Lord like any other Eastern or Oriental King.
>>41638381Just like Equestrians don't need the intervention of a priesthood to talk to Celestia, neither do Christians need the intervention of a priesthood to talk to God. Those who pridefully exalt themselves above others, like the Pope, are in a state of sin.
>>41638982idk about that, anon.You can talk -with- Celestia.However, you could talk -to- God all you want, but will God talk back?
>>41639001He'll talk back as much to me as he will to the Pope.
Hope you guys are doing alright this Tuesday.
>>41639042There wouldn't be any denominational problem to begin with if we could simply talk with God like we could hypothetically talk with Princess Celestia.If Christ himself undeniably came back & united all Christians and talked with them, the denominational problem would cease to exist: every Christian would simply take Christ's side and put aside their egos and quarrels.For now, this isn't the case.Christians are left with Scripture and the Tradition.The closest you could get to having any intercourse with God is Scripture, but it's not like God himself can easily re-affirm which interpretion of Scripture is right or wrong and tell us.If someone screwed up Princess Celestia's order, Celestia herself would correct them.You can talk with Princess Celestia.But trying to talk with God is a whole other ballpark, and that is why denominations are a thing.
>>41639070Your opinion is wrong and gay, let me tell you why.Jesus is king, from catholic to orthodox, to protestant, it's all the same thing adopted by different people.There is only the lord and those who fuck themselves.
>>41639087Even the Mormons?
>>41639090For better or worse, there's a reason why mainline Christian sects follow the creed. Mormons, unfortunately, do not.
>>41639090even them
>>41639070the problem isn't that God talks to us and we talk to Him, its that man is flawed and God only speaks to one of us at a time, which gives plenty of people the leeway to mishear or make up what they've been told
>>41639070This is why Equestria has one unified version of Christianity that's unlike anything we have.
>>41611910
mh, due to christ i might as well throw this herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVYzBjyVXW8
>>41640964Translation?
>>41639070You talk all about how people would put everything aside and follow God if they seen Him personaly, but the point is, as Bible states:"because thou have seen Me, you hast believed, blessed are those that have not seen and yet have believed"Idk if im quoting that right, english isn't my first language and this is a translation from the top of my head
>>41638982Lol, only an idiot who knows absolutely nothing about Catholicism would think that we need the Pope as an intermediary to “talk” to God. You’re regarded.
>>41642088*Retarded
>>41638982They have bureaucracy, don't they.
>>41611082>>41612113>>41617838>>41629712We just need one more!
>>41643328
>>41643351>>41643328neat
I love Jesus
>>41644366Very cool
How do my fellow Christians reconcile the fact they're sexually attracted to horses?
>>41645204They are also god's people, er. ponies
>>41645204Genuine love is never a sin.
Organized religion is gay and tarded
>>41641627It's just russian with old slavic letters. I'll try[Top left of the page]And here Luciferic/satanic? the mare of the nightThe very one who (her) vengeance plans to enactShe didn't think to runAnd in ponies mania induce[middle of the page]Here Spark Dusk (Twilight Sparkle) from from Horsegradwise books is always happy to readdrinks tea from the samovar and leafs through chroniclesabout the mare she's read up on and is afraid of her evil[This text is near Celestia]Here is the red/beautiful sun queento her studentessevil she intends[Near sad Twilight]Throw off??? chroniclesbelieve not them???Sparkle ???to Horsegrad sent[bottom left of page]Ponish Village
>>41645204They're sapient and subject to morality, meaning that they are spiritually human.
>>41646251Neat
>>41646652Bible still says having sex with an animal is bad (Leviticus 18:23), it doesn't specify why, though. So it might be because they're not sapient, which wouldn't the case for MLP ponies.
>>41647194The Bible makes clear distinction between the beasts and man from man's ability to reason.
>>41647194>>41647201To play the devil's advocate, human men also have reason and the bible still condemns homosexual intercourse because it goes against sex's natural purpose for reproduction. Sex with ponies might only be morally permissible if it's possible to have offspring within the context of a loving marriage, of course.
>>41647215My horny would bypass that and I'd have beautiful pony children
>>41647215It's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit.
>>41647286>>41647381I'm the devil's advocate anon, and I agree. If enough magic exists in the world for ponies to be real, then there surely must be some way to have a bountiful pony family. Therefore, if ponies are real, it is morally acceptable to have sex with them, on the condition that you have lots and lots of foals together with your monogamous wife.
>>41647521Fine by me.
>>41611845Yes, and no to the latter.
>>41647215>human men also have reasonNot when it comes to sex.
>>41647194This instigates a question I've had about the EG realm >inb4 barbieshit on both a moral and scientific basis.Say for instance you fall in love with a human in the EG world, but of course when they pass through the portal back to Equestria, they turn back into a pony. Is it still morally wrong to have sex even when they're a human? Not only that, but if you do fugg as humans, how would your children turn out if they were to pass through the portal leading to Equestria? Does that mean they're now ungodly abominations, regardless of your intentions?
>>41644366Me too, Anon.
>>41649559No, the spirit is the only thing that matters. As all beings are children of god it does not make it immoral have sex with a EQG girl. [But you must be married]
From the standpoint of Catholic theology, the following points are clear and uncontroversial: if other embodied beings possessing reason and free will exist in the universe, they would have rational and immortal souls and be made in “the image of God.” God would love them and desire them to be in communion with him. If they were fallen, he would desire their redemption.
>>41650671Interesting
>>41650671I agree with this broadly, but the question of whether ponies are fallen or not still stands. If they aren't fallen and have remained in a primordial state of grace, then it might be said that Equestria is their "garden of Eden", so to speak. However, ponies have been shown to commit sinful actions and generally exhibit knowledge of the distinction between good and evil, and can comprehend guilt for their actions. Thus, it stands to reason that ponies are fallen and require redemption to enter the fullness of God. Would Jesus descend to Equestria and redeem ponies in a similar way to humans on Earth? Is this yet to happen in Equestria, or has happened in Equestria's distant past? It can't be anyone else who redeems them, since God has only one Son.
>>41647977>7125x5917Is crazy
>>41651575>Would Jesus descend to Equestria and redeem ponies in a similar way to humans on Earth?>Is this yet to happen in Equestria, or has happened in Equestria's distant past?It happened in the past. Celestia personally met Jesus.
>>41647215Keyphrase "after its own kind"
>>41647215Your logic implies that infertile people aren't allowed to have sex. A man whose testicles were ruined in an accident, a woman who had a hysterectomy due to uterine cancer, etc., cannot reproduce, and they know they can't reproduce, and your logic says that since they can't fulfill the natural purpose of reproduction, they can't have sex. God doesn't command them to be celibate just because of that. Sex is not solely for reproduction; it's also pleasurable, and in the right circumstances, it can be an expression of true and Christian love. God would not deny that to a loving married couple just because one of them developed a medical condition. If anything, that would encourage infidelity, and there's a commandment against that.
>>41651575>>41652646Pony Jesus?
>>41653627Based answer?
>>41654081>what is this, a png for ants?I have an alternate version where (some of) the mane 6 express remorse for their actions
>>41655398The fuck is this
>>41654081What
>>41655398>>41654081What is this blasphemous nonsense?
>>41655398Twilight would know about the 180% increase in breast cancer after every operation.
>>41645204I mean, if there's aliens that's going to be a similar complication.
>>41656223i didn't think DoSt would get pony art, what a strange crossover
>>41658105I know, right?
been reading some fanfics and it got me thinkin: If you went to Equestria, would you bow to Celestia?Is she a ruler chosen by the lord; thus, ordained by God and worth bowing to, even if she does not recognize it? Or is she a pagan ruler not worth giving reverence to, and it then being worth it to pull a Nebuchadnezzar?
>>41658910A common element in fics is sister-worship where they're considered gods/demigods themselves, which I obviously wouldn't participate in. The sisters do seem to protect and perpetuate Christian morals, though, and given their power and long, peaceful reign, you might as well say they've been ordained by God. If they're tolerant of Christianity, then yeah, I'd bow to them as rulers (just not as goddesses).
>>41658910I would say the former. Romans 13:1-7Also, I agree with >>41658938
>>416589102
>>41611082Anypony in here want to ask a Catholic who expertised in the topic of Problem of Evil/Theodicy, please let me know.
>>41611966>>41611862Twilight would definitely be Dutch Reformed>Extreme nerd>Go Bible study on a per-verse basis>Look up Greek/Hebrew/Latin translations on what specific words might also mean.
>>41660140Yes.
>>41658105It's a funny movie. Steve Buscemi played his role well
>>41660140I'm also Catholic but have a shaky understanding of the Church's teaching on the subject. Personally, I view it as a sort of "humans choose evil through free will since they have moral agency" thing, and only human acts/choices have moral bearing to them. So a house fire, for example, wouldn't be literally "evil" even though most would consider it "bad". As far as what "evil" is, an argument I've heard is that it's simply the absence or lack of God's goodness/grace and not a positive quality itself, which is why God isn't evil despite being the "fullness" of everything. And finally, why "bad" things exist in the world is simply because God's plan is incomprehensible to humans and we have to simply have faith that things will work out to some optimal "ultimate good" no matter what happens. This is also how I reconcile the existence of God's plan and God's omniscience with human free will, which is that although humans can make choices and "shift the timeline", so to speak, they'll all converge to the same point infinitely far in the future (or whenever the Second Coming is), and that point is the point of "ultimate good" in accordance with God's plan. God is aware of every timeline at once, which is how He is omniscient despite humans being able to change things.
>>41654081Lol. It's always the ugliest art styles that don't even look like they're supposed to be ponies outside of the color scheme that pull this cringe shit.
>>41611082Imagine Octavia Melody playing beautiful Orthodox Church songs like some that I can't find good versions of on Youtube. Or any other beautiful church songs
>>41661446I'm Lutheran, not Catholic.The way I see it, God created the universe and everything in it; God is good, in fact He literally is goodness; so how come evil things exist? One answer, going back at least to Augustine, is that they actually don't exist. Everything that exists is in fact good. However! Good things can be related to each other in bad ways. For example, God created us. He created our hands, and our hands are good. We can use our hands to create cathedrals in which we worship Him. But we can also use our hands to murder each other, and that's a violation of the Commandments. Our bodies are still good, but my hands around someone's throat or your fist breaking someone's nose is a bad relation between good things.God likes order. When you think about it, the universe is remarkably ordered. After all, physics works! You can write down some equations that describe nearly everything humanity has ever measured. God clearly likes running our universe according to these equations. But He likes other things, too. One thing that He likes is for us to have free will. He didn't create us to be robots or slaves; he created us to be children. That requires giving us autonomy: He sets certain rules that we cannot violate (physics) and, in order to achieve His purpose, He allows us to do whatever we like within those rules. If we're not free to do evil (i.e., to create evil relationships) then we're also not free to do good. He can see what we'll do, and He doesn't always approve of it, but His will requires an ordered universe and requires that He not micromanage.A specifically Lutheran observation is that we have what Luther called a "bound will." It goes like this: We have free will, so we can do what we like; but what do we like to do? We like to do whatever it is that we like to do, whether that's good or sinful; we don't get to choose what we want to do. We can't step outside of ourselves and say, "I will make myself a different person, one with no anger, no envy, no lust, etc." We don't have that level of control over ourselves; we can't control our will. We're stuck with our will. Even though God allows us free will, we are bound by what our will actually is. Luther's point was that, because of our bound will, we cannot choose to be good on our own; if we will to sin, then we're gonna sin. And in particular, our salvation is God's doing alone and not our own work; we need His grace to be saved, and our good works happen after God saves us.
>>41661476I would fall in love with her but then lack the confidence to talk to her.She would marry somepony else and then I would leave the church so I would never see her again, despite having lots of friends at that church.
>>41661476cute
What if the only way to get to Equestria was to deny God. Sort of a Satan-Hell situation, only just an alternate Celestia-Equestria destination. It's exactly the Equestria you imagine it to be, no monkey's paw scenario and no consequences for doing so other than loosing access to God and heaven forever. Would you do it?Also if Equestria has a horse heaven, you go there instead when you die. You just have to deny the one true God to get there.
>>41663238>when you die in Equestria you die for goodNo.
>>41663238By definition, heaven >>> Equestria. But this is hypothetical because He is the God of everything, including Equestria.
>>41663238>Would you do it?Fuck no. P.S. Its also not epistemically possible, so guess what, im going to Equestria, AND im going to Heaven.
>>41661446So first things first when we test hypotheses, we need to realize that testing hypotheses without auxiliary hypotheses is impossibleIn philosophy of science, an auxiliary hypothesis is a background hypothesis which we accept. We call this our background knowledgeWhen assessing theism, an auxiliary hypothesis that we need to have is something called an axiology. Testing theism without an axiology is impossible.An axiology is a value theory, what is considered valuable or good. In this context, asking what is Gods axiology means what is the best kind of actions God can do?Which states the best kind of action one can do is minimize as much suffering as possible, and maximize the oppositeThere are two types of utilitarian axiologies people always assume, and its what the philosopher of religion John R. Schneider coined "The Necessity Condition," and the other we don't have a name for so we call the brute utilitarian axiology. In this discussion I will be shortening these two as A2 and A1, the A standing short for axiology.A1 states the best kind of action for God to do is minimize as much suffering as possible, and maximize the opposite.The necessity condition meanwhile states God can *allow* evils to exist unlike A1, as long as they meet either one of these two factors- The evil that arises creates a greater utilitarian good (so good feels)- The evil that arises stops a greater evil from arisingEverybody, atheists and Christians always assume what we call a utilitarian axiology. Both of these axiologies are utilitarian, one is brute and the other is still utilitarian in nature.The protological fallacy is a fallacy in which the other side assumes the same auxiliary assumptions in testing the same hypothesis.Confirmational holism, also known as the Duhem-Quine thesis states when we test hypotheses, we do not test hypotheses in isolation but conjunct with auxiliary theorie(s). On top of that, if a hypothesis goes wrong in the making, it does not mean the hypothesis is now false, but rather one of its auxiliaries probably went wrong in the making.So if I test a hypothesis (H) and we come across some background knowledge (K), and we have two auxiliaries (X) (Y)[The P stands for probability. So when we read P(H|E) for instance, it says the probability of our hypothesis conditional on evidence]We would test P(H|X) and P(H|Y), and see which one fits our K value the best. Lets say we find out P(H|X) does not predict K. K is now evidence *against* (H|X). However, this does not mean H is false, but rather our auxiliary is probably not a correct auxiliary.We can test P(H|Y) and we find out that K is predicted. Not only is K not evidence against (H|Y) but is now evidence *for* (H|Y). If some datum (K) increases the probability of a hypothesis, that K becomes evidence (E) for that hypothesis. Pretty straight forward.Theism which is the scientific hypothesis we are testing, requires an axiological framework. Without an axiological..(1/)
>>41661446it cannot make any predictions on what would or would not be data against theism.The problem of evil arises when we conditionalize our hypothesis theism (T) on a utilitarian axiology.Let the variables mean the followingS- Saint making propertiesA1- Brute utilitarian axiologyA2- Necessity conditionA3- Defeat conditionE- EvilsN- Naturalism (the belief in atheism and alongside that the rejection of anything deemed supernatural ie; irreducibility of consciousness, miracles, etc. Modern atheists almost always hold to naturalism and not atheism strictly speaking).P(E|T&A1) = 0The reason is because if we have T conditional on A1, it would strictly only allow ~E (~ means negation or opposite of) events to concurHowever, E exists, therefore, such a model of theism is not a model that can be defended.The necessity condition axiology is a model of theism modern atheologians today critique the heavily the most. On the necessity condition axiology, it can allow some evils to exist.However, there are instances of evils which atheologians today would label as "gratuitous" or "horrific" suffering.That is, suffering which does not contribute to a utilitarian value or good. An example would be for an example, animal suffering. This does not seem to contribute whatsoever to a greater good or stop a greater evil. On such a model of theism, this is not a best kind of action for God to allow.
>>41661446We know at a probability of 1, God will only do the best kind of actions, no bad actions, no irrationally influenced actions, and only good actions.The reason why an axiological framework is so important is because it asks the specific question, "what specifically is a best kind of action for God to do?" God will only do the best kind of actions, because God being a perfect being will only do perfect actions.Lets call these evils that are horrific G-evils or G for short.P(E|T&A2) > P(E|T&A1)P(G&E|T&A2) < P(G&E|N)In conclusion, it looks like both models of theism T&A1 and T&A2 fail to hold up the evidence. T&A1 even more miserably than T&A2Is there another possible axiological framework the theist can adapt to? Enter, what John R. Schneider calls the Defeat Condition (A3)1.The Defeat Condition, founded by the Marilyn McCord Adams, is what she deems as factors which God would allow for evils to be justifiable. John R. Schneider later coined these factors as the "Defeat Condition." Before anything else said, when asked the question "what evidence is there against theism," and the answer is "E," we must remember to also ask what specifically is within the content of E that is disconfirmatory evidence against T? You cannot just get from E to ~T, there needs to be what we call an intermediary proposition in between. Which is a conclusion we can get from something, and then with that we can then get to our final conclusion. The Defeat Condition: A principle within theodicy and moral philosophy suggesting that an adverse or evil condition is 'defeated' when it is integral to a greater good that outweighs it. This condition posits that the existence of evil or suffering can be morally justified if it contributes to a composite whole of greater value, where the good achieved is inextricably linked to the initial adversity. Alongside this, an evil is constituted as 'defeated' when the conscious agent who experienced such evils,will have such evils end, and be fully compensated for for their suffering. The Defeat Axiology: A principle within theodicy which states the best kind of action for God to do is to create a world alongside with conscious agents which will garner saint making properties, as saintly properties are values that are good, which God will pursue as God pursues the good. Furthermore, a world in which God pursues the good and the most good is the only type of world in which God can create. Worlds such as (T&A1) and (T&A2) are not only demonstrated to be false in face of new evidence being evils existence (E), but the prior probability of them are ludicrously low, as they are not the best kinds of worlds. In other words, a world and its agents have no character, aesthetics, virtues, narrative, etc, but only experience ~E is not a best type of world, but a world which encompasses that and at the very end all agents will experience ~E at the triumph of all things, is a better world. (T&~S) is... (3/)
>>41661446In conclusion, it looks like both models of theism T&A1 and T&A2 fail to hold up the evidence. T&A1 even more miserably than T&A2Is there another possible axiological framework the theist can adapt to? Enter, what John R. Schneider calls the Defeat Condition (A3)1.The Defeat Condition, founded by the Marilyn McCord Adams, is what she deems as factors which God would allow for evils to be justifiable. John R. Schneider later coined these factors as the "Defeat Condition." Before anything else said, when asked the question "what evidence is there against theism," and the answer is "E," we must remember to also ask what specifically is within the content of E that is disconfirmatory evidence against T? You cannot just get from E to ~T, there needs to be what we call an intermediary proposition in between. Which is a conclusion we can get from something, and then with that we can then get to our final conclusion. The Defeat Condition: A principle within theodicy and moral philosophy suggesting that an adverse or evil condition is 'defeated' when it is integral to a greater good that outweighs it. This condition posits that the existence of evil or suffering can be morally justified if it contributes to a composite whole of greater value, where the good achieved is inextricably linked to the initial adversity... (4/)
>>41661446Alongside this, an evil isconstituted as 'defeated' when the conscious agent who experienced such evils,will have such evils end, and be fully compensated for for their suffering. The Defeat Axiology: A principle within theodicy which states the best kind of action for God to do is to create a world alongside with conscious agents which will garner saint making properties, as saintly properties are values that are good, which God will pursue as God pursues the good. Furthermore, a world in which God pursues the good and the most good is the only type of world in which God can create. Worlds such as (T&A1) and (T&A2) are not only demonstrated to be false in face of new evidence being evils existence (E), but the prior probability of them are ludicrously low, as they are not the best kinds of worlds. In other words, a world and its agents have no character, aesthetics, virtues, narrative, etc, but only experience ~E is not a best type of world, but a world which encompasses that and at the very end all agents will experience ~E at the triumph of all things, is a better world. (T&~S) is epistemically impossible if (T). The only world that can exist given T is a world with ~~S or S.On T&A3, the best kind of action for God to do is create an S-world. An S-world is a world where there is no instance of ~S. (Important note: When I say world, I mean the whole of experience, so this incudes not only the entirety of the universe but also the entirety of the afterlife, so all of experience.) An axiom part of theism is that God can only do the best kinds of actions, and if the best kind of action for God to do is to create a world of ~~S, then it is instantiated at a probability of 1 God will create such world. Likewise, such logical entailment is done with T&A1 and T&A2, as those two made logical entailments that ~E and ~G must be true... (5/)
>>41661446Transitive Natural Theology: When testing P(H|X), K is evidence against it, however when testing P(H|Y), we find out that P(H|Y) predicts such existence of K, and therefore K now becomes evidence for (H|Y) Theism conditional on the defeat axiology states all events lets call V, will entail S. So this includes all events, and E also entails S. So if E if a defeater for T, but S is a defeater for E as S now justifies E's existence, then we have screened off any evidence against T and it goes back to its prior probability P(T|E&S) = P(T)And this is an axiological event which we call the "Defeat of all evils" when the event E brings about S for the agent who suffered such event E, and on top of that that agent will in fact have their experiences of evil end and fully be compensated for.Apokatastasis is also a logically entailed conclusion that is inseparable from the Defeat axiology. And the Defeat axiology is the only available model of theism for the theologian and atheologian to critique, because an S-world is a more valuable one than a ~S world.Apokatastasis is also known as universalism. It is not the rejection of hell but rather the rejection of a bad end for all agents, this is an entailment. Which essentially means all agents will end up in heaven at some point in time.Any event V either ~E or E which has not brought about some instance of S, is not evidence that it would not bring about S, but is simply "meaning-pending." God is obligated to defeat all evils at some point in time for the agent. There is no such thing as an instance of E which brings about instantaneous saint-making properties.I also must clarify saint-making properties or saint making is when an agent recognizes that suffering they went through becomes a constitutive part of a valuable composite whole that not only outweighs the evil, but could not be as valuable as a whole without the evil... (6/)
>>41661446A recap of the Defeat Theodicy:When testing a hypothesis, we need to test it conjunct with an auxiliary theoryA required auxiliary theory the atheologian and theologian must have is known an axiologyA utilitarian type axiology would fail theism, and make naturalism a superior hypothesisThe reason why naturalism is seen as a better hypothesis is because its seen as the best hypotheses compared to theism conditional on a utilitarian axiology. Naturalism makes zero predictions, not even the existence of good, evil, or the universe or anything for that matter. With zero predictions for or against anything, nothing can therefore be for or against naturalism.Theism conditional on a utilitarian axiology would make entailments, specifically entailments against the existence of either E or G (G is a subset of E, so all E encompasses G), while naturalism (N) makes none.However, theism conditional on a defeat axiology would make entailments. It will entail S and only a world with S. The reason why is because on the defeat axiology the best kind of action for God to do is to create an S-world which is a world that states there are no events V which has ~S.Therefore, the P(S|T&A3&V) = 1, there is no way around it. Whatever is a best kind of action God will do, God will do. Any event not just events of evil but any events of non-evils included is evidence for theism therefore.There is zero new evidence against T&A3. The only possible way the naturalist can decrease the probability of T&A3 is by trying to attack its priors, to make it low enough that naturalism because a more necessary hypothesis.However, there is a problem, this is not even conceivable. First and foremost, the only possible model of theism is specifically (T&~S) the reason why is because S is a good, and God will always pursue the good, and therefore the P(T&~S) is impossible. Not only can we disprove T&A1 and T&A2, but those models of theism are not even possible models of theism, they have no spot in the probability space.Second of all, under a Bayesian Explanationism framework, which is a type of epistemic discovery founded by the philosopher of science Nevin Climenhaga, the prior probability of hypotheses are "atomic propositions conditional on auxiliary hypotheses." That means the only way you can have a prior probability of a hypothesis that is not statistics based such as rolling a 6 headed die, is by having that hypothesis conditional on some background knowledge.Making unconditional prior probabilities is *not* acceptable.There is no evidence therefore against T&A3 and there is no evidence against T&A3 having a low prior probability.Naturalism is specifically an eliminative hypothesis, that means its probability goes up and all else goes down, it cannot raise its probability on its own. But as demonstrated, the theist can successfully screen off any disconfirmatory evidence against it (E) under a different axiology... (7/)
>>41661446Lastly, I want to say that as a Catholic, you can accept universalism. I am a Catholic universalist, and was an infernalist for a long time. There is no ecumenical council of the 21 ecumenical councils from Nicaea I to Vatican II that condemns universalism. Forthermore, conciliar fundamentalism is not true, so only the finalized canons have a binding effect. Some Catholics would like to say every WORD from every council is infallible, but Rome does not teach this, and this is not a methodology Catholics *ought* nor *should* adhere to. So not every word in some session of a council whatever may it be, is also infallible. Most Catholic intellectuals are also not conciliar fundamentalists. Now to the Bible. This is the most important part, and it goes to ANY PASSAGE in the Bible that is translated as "eternal" is based on the word αἰῶνας . Which in the Greek lexicon means "of an age"αἰῶνας is a Greek word that in almost all English translations -except the Youngs Literal Translation, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible translation, and David Bently Hart translation of the New Testament (he is a Bible scholar by the way) (these are just Bible translations I know that correctly translate αἰῶνας)- will translate αἰῶνας is "eternal" or "forever." This is incorrect. If you wonder how this came to be, its because of a proto-protestant figure named John Wycliffe, who in 1382 published his translation of the New Testament into English, and he translated αἰῶνας as "eternal." This is how the tradition of English Bibles maintaining that translation in all αἰῶνας passages came to be. Of course, the Latin church and soon after the Greek church during Augustine of Hippos influence on the doctrine of Infernalism being true, gave a profound impact. However, αἰῶνας can be translated as "age-during" and not eternal, and given the prior probability of universalism is true conditional on the only conceivable axiological framework for theism which I have demonstrated earlier, we can be epistemically confident αἰῶνας ought to be translated as "age-during" or a similar translation depending on the context which the Greek word αἰῶνας is conjunct with.I hope this helped out. If you want to contact me and want to talk about the problem of evil more my discord is ihaveatonofnames and i dont plan on changing that because... i really do have a ton of names. Gods love knows no boundaries. EPISTEMOLOGY IS ETERNAL!!!!
>>41661446>>41661987By the way you two guys. I just want to say the free will theodicy is absolute trash. Just abandon it, the Defeat Condition Theodical framework is stupidly OP and superior. Its literally cutting edge philosophy of religion + philosophy of science. AKA Ramified Philosophy of Religion. What I just presented to you guys here is I would say is some CIA tier level shit. Nobody, not even on (if you search up problem of evil on the search engine) YouTube, Twitter, you name it, would even recognize this theodicy.If you want more on this, PLEASE CHECK out my two friends -who I know personally- Kyle Alander and Tim Howard, their youtube channels are Christian Idealism and Doxastic Masteries (all public info btw). Check out Kyles book, "The Educative Matrix," its literally cutting edge, he also made it cheaper to afford for its academic content, it goes way much more into detail and complexity than this. Check out Trent Doughertys book "The problem of animal pain a theodicy for all creatures great and small" he is a philosopher of science and published this with the philosopher of religion Yujin Nagasawa, both well versed in phil sci and phil rel (most academics that publish in phil rel in the topic of PoE are actually philosophers of science).Study bayesian epistemology, study philosophy of science, check out Richard Swinburne hes the goat, Roderick Chisholm, Marilyn McCord Adams, with that said I think thats all I got. Peace
>>41663238I mean I already did deny him. Believing in Equestria is my form of Paganism.I also agree with Heidegger that life is about preparing yourself for death. I am preparing myself for Equestria.
>>41663804Needs work. You have some confusion here about the meaning of "hypothesis testing." This is something that can only be done in a frequentist paradigm, not a Bayesian one. In the most basic form of frequentist hypothesis testing, you have two hypotheses that you would like to compare (conventionally called the null and the alternative), and your test relies on determining which one is more likely given the data. (In general, you have two sets of hypotheses, and you need to specify exactly how you're comparing them. For example, "likelihood of the best hypothesis in the first set" versus "likelihood of the best hypothesis in the second set.") This is not written as a conditional probability P(X|Y) because in a frequentist paradigm, the model is absolute and is not assigned a probability; to a frequentist, there is no such thing as P(Y). One sometimes sees notation like P_Y(X) for the probability of observing X if Y is the correct model. This distinction is important because in a Bayesian paradigm, models do get assigned probabilities. P(Y) makes sense, as does P(X|Y), because a Bayesian framework makes different assumptions, and under those assumptions, asking about the probability of a model makes sense (unlike in the frequentist framework). However, a strict Bayesian approach is incapable of hypothesis testing. All it can do is assign probabilities to models. It cannot (usually) reject a hypothesis because that's an absolute statement and Bayesian approaches only ever work in terms of probabilities. (The one exception is that a Bayesian paradigm could be said to reject any model which has probability zero.)While you have phrased things in terms of probabilities, it looks to me like you don't have any use for probabilities other than 0 or 1. That makes me think you're actually trying to use modal or deontic logic. Also, the fact that you distinguish ~~S from S is characteristic of intuitionistic logics (like the internal logic of an elementary topos). While this isn't my specialty, I think it's possible to have intuitionistic deontic modal logic. You might find that idea handy for the types of arguments you're trying to make.I want to specifically respond to >>41663817:>which God will pursue as God pursues the goodNo. God IS good. Goodness and godliness are one and the same. There is no distinction between the two. Trying to draw a distinction quickly runs into the problem of divine command morality. Plato's Euthyphro, despite being pagan, is still an astonishingly effective takedown of divine command morality.>>41663855Believing in Equestria is entirely compatible with belief in God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say, or even imply, that God made no world but this one. It is possible that God made other worlds, and it is possible that one of them is Equestria.
>>41663873Not going to subscribe to a weak and moralist religion.
>>41622966This is really good.>Twilight the conservative CatholicThat would be Opus Dei. >'Twilie awaits induction into the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem (The Knights of Malta) where she is personally blessed by the Pope and instructed to use her magic to do God's Will.' >>41623376Maybe the other Alicorns are also members of the Knights of Malta along with other Equestrian power brokers.>>41622966AJ Loves Jimmy Swaggert but can't Stand Fallwell, Robertson or any of those other 'Bible Polishers' (she does backslide and watch/listen to the Rev Gene Scott on occasion!"Futers the Unitarian" KEK, Gag but Kek. Just as wussy about her devotion as she is about everything else.>>41638381>Celestia is the Apollo of Equestria.I could see her being more like Constantine and upon seeing the Holy Cross covering the Solar Orb she commits her nation to the Holy cause. >>41661446>"humans choose evil through free will since they have moral agency" thing, and only human acts/choices have moral bearing to them.This has been my understanding. Human exposure to Evil began with Man's choice in the Garden of Eden from whence he was then cast out and now he must be tested to qualify for Eternal Grace.
>>41652646Prince is an old word for ruler.
