Before brainlets comment stuff like "WHY MOMMY/DADDY MAKE US HURT AND NOT GIVE ALL THE CANDY???" the answer to that is that your Mom is not an omnipotent being defying logic and laws so she can't change reality into a place in which candy is super healthy and amazing for you and where discipline is not needed to become a perfect and whole being. Please just think about what omnipotent means before you say that stuff.

If your Mom was an all-powerful wizard who can do whatever she wants and she created you craving candy and then only gives you candy sometimes and starves you on other days even though she could give you all the candy in the world and make it perfect then why wouldn't you think she enjoys your suffering at times?

>>39188911
im gonna punch god when i meet him for being a faggot not joking

>>39188911
God could be evil, and just be unpardonable or inconsolable to the fate of the damned souls which burn eternally for billions of years in hell.

>>39188917
>stars are people/angels
>looks up at night sky

>>39188911
Evil.
The question then becomes what does the suffering serve?
NPC retards with no thought patterns will dribble meaningless nothings about 'learning' but they won't be able to define what they're learning or who the teacher is or why they would accept that teacher's cruelty.
Why does a Farmer keep cattle trapped in a Farm, in a concrete shed, maximising misery whilst minimising input?
Christianity refers to humans as wheat to be harvested or grapes to be squashed or chickens or sheep or goats (all herd/farm animals) to be gathered. Shepards don't protect animals from slaughter; they enable it; they only stop wolves stealing the crop.
Matrix refers to humans as crops.
George Orwell refers to cruel human society as an "Animal Farm".
Dog eat dog world.
Pecking order.
Lamb used to both describe a baby animal and a meat.
Animals being prepared for mass slaughter, told it is the "end times". Do you think mass slaughtered chickens go to heaven? How many would there be?

>>39188911

He is not just Evil. He IS Evil itself.

>>39188937
So there's no end or freedom to this?

If time is in fact an illusion and not linear as is told by both the ancient mystics and modern physicists then there is no conflict.

I have thought about this and wondered if god is consciousness itself. The higher nature being god, lower nature being the devil. And the reason God seems powerless is that he cannot enact change in this world but through avatars on this plane, that are limited to the constraints of the human condition. And you can either decide to go along with your mission or choose to do your own thing

>>39189207
Who limits him?

All the living gods died in the Bronze Age Collapse. Christ is a mechanism to block our access to God and maintain our formerly bicameral minds as disconnected.

>>39188911
He wants us to be virtuous and powerful.
Angels, made with virtue and power, have limited free will outside physical creation, some rebel because they want to rule the universe of creation.
Jinn, not made with perfect virtue, but have tons of power and immortality, they never wanted to improve upon themselves or overcome their egoic conceptions.
Humans, little power, unknown virtue. Capable of learning the laws of creation, growing in both power and virtue, when we exhibit spiritual power its due to our virtue and faith, rather than inherit knowledge or skill. Humans can rise of fall based on our own actions, and live within a universal system which intimately rewards us for overcoming evil by granting us immortality, never ending love glory.
Who is the best? Well, all are gods creation, anyone of those can become human, and gain the benefits thereof, but immortal tendencies in souls which rebelled can take eons of experience to overcome through free will over the course of physical incarnations, but it can be done.
God made all things, all beings, even the most evil have a spark of God within them. He intended us for find supreme virtue which can forgive, have compassion, and transform even the most wicked souls into blessed life. He didn't force us to seek these values though, we can seek any values, but with the understanding that we will reap what we sow.

>>39189874
He can achieve all of that without suffering cause God is above logic.

>>39188943
Unless you can figure a way to take down the Farm, the answer is no.

>>39189874
>prequel >The OG villain was a good guy

>>39189874
>Jinn
"Opinion" discarded.

>>39188911
The main problem isn't suffering.
It's the overwhelming amount of deception in our world.

>>39190500
If you haven't encountered them yet you aren't trying hard enough to explore consciousness.

>>39188911
If the abrahamic God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and is the creator, why does suffering and wickedness exist in the world? Well, your dilemma stems from an assumption about the nature of free will and the limits (if any) on such an entity’s creation.

Now, the key point isn't necessarily in a logical impossibility. It's in the concept of free will itself. True free will is based on the potential for choice. In order for choice to exist, there must be options. If you eliminate all possibilities of suffering, you're left with only the good, the just, the kind, or the acceptable options.

This doesn’t mean suffering or pain is “necessary”. It just means they’re inevitable consequences of that initial choice to create free will. Could the all powerful eliminate suffering? Sure, but doing so would nullify the whole purpose of establishing free will in the first place. God is evil, is good and is everything, it reflects in the variety of our dynamics.

>>39190115
Actually, God is not above contradiction. No one no matter how powerful can make a square circle or a controlled free will.

>>39190522
If you're not a muslim I don't know why you would use that specific word instead of "demons" "spirits" etc.

>>39190571
>Actually, God is not above contradiction. No one no matter how powerful can make a square circle or a controlled free will.

Then God is not all-powerful, he is limited and a slave to logic.

>>39190542
> In order for choice to exist, there must be options.
> inevitable consequences
According to? The logic God designed into your brain. He could just change that into whatever he wants. If he can't do it, he is not omnipotent.

>>39188911
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:4-5

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Genesis 3:22

We know good from evil, reward from punishment. We have to figure out what is good and what is evil. Man chose to disregard God's warning. Like nosy children, we know what we shouldn't know and it affects us though we don't understand why. We brought this on ourselves.

God is not our nanny. He won't soothe us when we fall off a tree trying to knock a bird's nest down like an obnoxious brat. He said "You know like I know, so you should know your actions have consequences."
But God has what we have not: timelessness. He knows what one choice's consequence will lead to and what another choice's consequence leads to, and even what abstaining will lead to.

If we fuck up, we feel like the world is ending because we are not timeless, we are bound to this consequence. All we can do is learn from other's mistakes and try not to repeat them as best as we can with our limited abilities. We don't understand what it is to be God because we are failed gods. If we want to be worth saving, we must show God that even with such knowledge, we aren't hopeless.

>>39190588
According to observable and interactable reality. Your points are reasonable but they're also too simplistic. You fails to consider the possibility that God created logic not as a limit, but a framework. Logic allows for consequences and choices, yeah, but it also forms the basis for learning and growth. Would free will even be genuine if evil were impossible?

>>39190594
Adam and Eve obviously knew evil and good before eating, or else the command not to eat would have been utterly absurd and meaningless.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil gives you "knowledge" in the sense that you get so used to good so it no longer satisfies you, and you get so used to evil so that it no longer revolts you. This is due to a distorted perception of time. Thus you are dead in a spiritual sense. You wanted to feel things deeper, to be more intimately acquainted with them, but you didn't realize the obvious, that you can't get all knowledge from a unique source, which was part of the deception.

>>39190629
The premise is that God is omnipotent. He designed reality and he can change it into whatever he wants. If anything is impossible for God then he's not omnipotent, he is limited. Can he edit or change the framework to his liking? If not, he's not all-mighty.

Imagine Zeus Pankrator for a moment. Zeus All-Strength. It is impossible for him to be completely good because of his strength. It is a paradox. Creation is more than a watch set in motion. It overwhelms its own design.

No god is all-powerful. No god can make zero equal one. Gods exists but some are a mystery.

>>39190667
So another force outside of God exists who overpowers God aka logic or aka paradox. Who made that force though?

>>39188911
>but he insisted on having it regardless
Nope. We did, and so He gave us a place for it.
You can go to the perfect realm with free will and no suffering any time you want.

>>39190662
You're not getting it, this premise assumes that God is a separate entity, that would make us elements in God's design, imperfect in every way. An imperfect element like that would always have an imperfect experience of the universe, no matter how perfect that universe is.

The universe is a perfect machine, it possesses an automatic balancing system that keeps everything from spiraling out of control. You're arguing the choice of an ineffable being with your imperfect perception and understanding. The mechanics of this machinery stipulate that too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing, there is no good without bad, regardless of how relative those two concepts are. If God were to create a universe where only good things happened and bad things didn't exist, that would mean two things. First, no free will, the abolishing of the relative, and second, your imperfect perception and understanding would distort these new universal mechanics once again and find something new to complain about.

>>39190776
You don't get it. It's extremely simple. Is there anything you could ask God that he couldn't do? If the answer is yes, he's no omnipotent. It doesn't matter how you define God. If he is limited in that way he's not all-powerful.

>>39190773
>You can go to the perfect realm with free will and no suffering any time you want.
Wrong. Suicide causes immense suffering on other people around you and also going to the perfect place won't make the suffering that happened okay. It still happened, having a happy end doesn't make the past pain alright.

>>39190763

It is unmade. It is immanent within unbeing.

It is not the only thing that is this way. The human soul exists in this way.

>>39190787
Suicide is not how to go to God's realm.
Why would you even bring it up?
Are you feeling okay?

>>39190793
Christians and muslim don't believe that though. Their assumption is that there is nothing more powerful than God. Nothing could ever limit God.

>>39190782

Okay so God isn't something paradoxically impossible.

That does not prove that God does not exist or is evil, it merely proves that some religions are wrong about some things.

You cannot rely on bumper stickers for your theology.

It is easy to prove someone wrong.

You do not get to take that as an ad hominem justification to say that therefore everything they say is wrong because they got one thing certainly wrong.

God cannot make true false. Okay.

That isn't gg for God.

>>39190782
You're not reading. You are the "not all-powerful" one, you are the imperfect cog in the machine, a piece. You couldn't tell if something is omnipotent or not, or if something is perfect or not. You're trying to fit this semantic label onto an ineffable concept, the discussion should end right there.

You can't determine the capabilities of someone based on their choices, why? Because you aren't aware of their reasoning. This applies to people, but it's even more ridiculous when you try to do this with the ineffable.

I know you're just gonna answer with the same again, but you need to realize that you're the cause of your suffering, and that you're mad God in its omnipotence doesn't just erase that suffering from you. This is entirely about you needing to put the blame somewhere else.

>>39190814
>God cannot make true false.
That might be true but that is not the point of the thread. If someone says like "I don't believe in God" or "I believe God is real but he is limited and not all-powerful" that's perfectly fair because we can't prove it right now either way. But the premise of the thread is for people who follow religions or beliefs who subscribe to an all-powerful God who nothing and no one can ever limit or put into bondage.

>>39190822
> ineffable concept
How is it ineffable to say that omnipotent means everything is possible even things humans can't imagine? I can't imagine other colors than the ones I know yet I can absolutely argue that God can see a billion more colors. What is the problem?

> Because you aren't aware of their reasoning.
So EVERY topic that is about God is off the table because we simply can't understand so we should never talk about God?

>>39190824

What religion claims this? What branch of Christianity for example claims this? What church?

>>39190842
https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/is-god-omnipotent/

>>39190852
The Bible is not considered infallible true by most Christians or at least not by the church they are technically part of.

>>39190834
>How is it ineffable to..
God is an ineffable concept. Right now you are discussing God exoterically, like they do in church. In this exoteric context we can say whatever retarded shit we want about God, it doesn't align with the esoteric frameworks that are the foundation of said concept. What i'm saying is this is a mock argument that goes nowhere because it's started in the shitter.

>So EVERY topic that is about God is off the table
Yeah yeah i know this point too, i'm not one of those "God work in mysterious ways" bible thumpers that are ignorant of their religious model and use one liners to escape uncomfortable lines of questioning. But they are right. God is ineffable, it's at the center of everything, in every atom, particle, cell, object, human, planet. It's the collapse of the dual, a singularity, which means it's paradoxical and it makes the impossible, possible because of this non-dual quality that is everything and nothing at the same time.

No one likes the esoteric answer because they want a sky daddy to blame and mock, and they definitely don't wanna do their own research and study, so you do whatever you want with this, there's really nothing more to say other than you have no place putting labels on the ineffable, no place and no ability to do so.

>>39188911
Your premise that YHWH has Omni-powers is seriously flawed because it is just belief, theory, conjecture, and wishful thinking. He is bound by his character, and that character is fixed and it loathes Humanity and calls it Justice, Truth, and Righteousness - rather His Christcucks do that all for Him. Because to Believers, He is Good, Evil, or both at once (Isaiah 45 if you care) but He is Beyond all that! What is known is that he is Unfair, which is also a human conjecture!
Again and again... Why did your Omni-God wait 4000 years to grant the Gentiles "salvation"? Why did He limit it to the Hebrews up until then? Then He allows the destruction of 5/6th of the said Hebrew Tribes? Crickets. Why did Jesus limit his ministry, and only chose 12 Jewish Apostles, and keep it as a Jewish sect until "st." Paul saw a Vision and then went on an unsanctioned proselytization spree? When he came back to them why did all of them have a rash of Visions? Seems that the only way to make a U-Turn on one's long-held beliefs was such a Vision - like the one that Emperor Constantine allegedly had! I think that's enough, and I know I won't get any useful replies from the Christcucks here.

>>39190868
>most christians and muslims think their holy book includes lies
Huh?

>>39188911
You fundamentally misunderstand what creation is. Creation is a set of defined rules, defining a concept creates its antithesis.

You cannot invent white, without black. You cannot have up, without down. You cannot have happy without sad. Thus you cannot have complete free will, without choice.

God could, break the rules, but that would break the concept of total free will, and this layer of reality is about rapid growth through choice which comes from being pressed against both orientations with free will.

Suffering is only temporary, and because you reincarnate, it doesn't really matter in the end, you will chose to come back, again, and again, and again, until you graduate and are allowed into realms above this one which greatly remove the suffering.

>>39190870
So you think every discussion about God about whatever topic makes no sense and people should not discuss anything related to or about God then?

It seems pretty convenient too. To accept all the abuse and pain because how can you question what is going on? God is ineffable, don't even wonder or discuss.

>>39190951
>You cannot invent white, without black. You cannot have up, without down. You cannot have happy without sad. Thus you cannot have complete free will, without choice.

If you believe this you admit God is not omnipotent. Because you say if he broke this he would break the concept of total free will. But if God was all mighty he could decide what the concept of total free will is. So?

>>39190980
No, i think the peripheral esoteric elements and dynamics can always be discussed. But it doesn't matter how you spin it, by arguing about the exoteric FANFIC of the church you're simply wasting your time and making it a recreational, pointless discussion. It doesn't hang in the fact i'm trying to avoid talking about God because i don't have answers, it hangs in the fact you're talking about a piece of fiction and always at face value.

>>39191027
I wouldn't say it is just esoteric fanfic. People who had near death experiences across many cultures and thousands of years have experiences with God or the source and describe him as the limitless creator of all and him having absolute knowledge and power too.

>>39190951
Imagine a world where the only colors are black and purple. Why is this not possible? Why can't one sort of happiness be defined relative to pure neutrality or relative to other sorts of happiness? And why can't happiness exist and have value even without the contrast of suffering? If fish don't have a word for water because they're always surrounded by water, that doesn't mean that water doesn't exist for them.

And why can't you have free will without specifically the free will to do harm? We could have all sorts of choices that don't involve causing pain or being in pain. And why is there so much suffering that has nothing to do with free will, like that from disease, starvation, natural disasters, etc.?

>>39190980
>If you believe this you admit God is not omnipotent. Because you say if he broke this he would break the concept of total free will. But if God was all mighty he could decide what the concept of total free will is. So?


Consider the concept of "Up", although its relative to its fellow directions, it can always be defined as the direction that isn't Left, Right, Down, Forwards, or Backwards. If you create "Movement" you allow for all directions, including Up. There is no way to change that, its a concept of 3D space that we reside within.

Concepts are immutable. They just ARE depending on what you want to create.

I'm sure there are universes out there without 3D space, and thus no Up. I'm sure there are universes out there without freewill, and yet here we are. In this one, most likely because your soul desires free will, consequences & challenge. So here we are.

When you die piss off to a universe where you physically cannot harm or be harmed if that's what you desire for all I care. I'm sure you'll enjoy that and learn oh so much.

>>39191193
God could create a universe in which a life without baby rape would still equal total free will and absolute knowledge, but he didn't. So it was a choice on his side to make us experience absolutely fucked up shit even though it's not needed if he's omnipotent.

>>39191232
Again you fundamentally fail to understand what free will means and is.

THIS layer of reality, allows for ALL experiences. So that you may come to an understanding of what you want and don't want. While you may not like it, free will allows for evil, it allows the development of those who want to be conquerors, rapists, murderers. And for a brief time while we incarnate here, you experience being up against the opposite orientation.

In the next layer of reality, he separates the orientations, so those who have decided to go down the 'evil' path can progress and do it to each-other, and those of us who wish to be the best we can be, can do so without being preyed upon.

I wish you the best luck in coming to an understanding of the universe and the system you reside in. You seem to desire it, so I hope you find it.

>>39191257

>>39191193
Suffering is primarily a qualitative experience, not an informational experience.What it teaches is mostly just the knowledge of its own undesirability. If God wanted us to learn stuff, he could've transmitted the knowledge to us directly, or he could've made life a big cooperative puzzle game without any of the extended pointless suffering and disability parts. If learning is the goal, then why is there intellectual disability, dementia, and other neurological illness? Why does mental capacity depend so heavily on physical health?

>>39191274
He has only dictated physics, the universal laws we reside in. Everything else is up to the consciousnesses that reside within it collectively.

There are lessons in every lifetime to be had. Ever tried to teach a child not to touch something hot? They may tell you they understand, they may avoid it for a while, but inevitably, they burn their finger and learn the hard way. Lessons generally have to be learned, not taught.

Furthermore, what's a lifetime of suffering when you reincarnate forever. You may have had hundreds of thousands of lifetimes of comfort and pleasures before you had a single life of challenge.

All suffering ends, humanity, collectively, will graduate soon enough.

>>39191260
>THIS layer of reality, allows for ALL experiences.
It doesn't though. There's countless of things that can't be experienced. Can you experience feeling 10-dality, seeing 20 new colors and being in 100 places at once? Also when people die and have near death experiences they say Earth is EXTREMELY limited, it doesn't even come close to the afterlife. So very much this place doesn't allow for all experiences.

> free will allows for evil, it allows the development of those who want to be conquerors, rapists, murderers.
Are you trolling or do you not understand what omnipotent means? You keep putting your definition of what free will must mean but God can literally just change that.

"Hey God can you allow for TOTAL FREE WILL without evil?"

God says: "No, I can't" <--- not omnipotent
God says: "Yes, I can"

So which one is it?

>>39191325
>Lessons generally have to be learned, not taught.
Because God designed it that way. God can literally just decide that children get perfect knowledge, maturity and every lessons in the universe with 0 pain.

If you say God can't decide that then you admit that God is limited and a victim to other forces that bind him.

File: kannainspect.png (27 KB, 112x112)

27 KB PNG

>>39191325
So what you're saying is that torture victims are just souls who have had to learn the hard way not to incarnate as humans who were destined to be torture victims, and when they die they're going to wake up in a higher plane and think to themselves:
>Yup, that sure was a bad idea, just like the omnscient omnibenevolent creator of the universe warned me, but silly me just didn't him had to experience it first-hand to be certain.

>>39191390
*just didn't trust him and had to experience it first-hand to be certain.

>>39188916
You're never going to meet God. You're probably just going straight to Hell.

>>39188911
Any theological questions about God and the nature of God instantly evaporate if you begin to think about God as the writer of a story.
In the same way that there's no point to a story that has no conflict, there's no point to an existence where sin and suffering do not exist.
If existence were paradise from the start, then what is the point of existence? And how can paradise even be defined if there is no material existence to contrast it against?
Does a writer despise his characters because he makes them undergo hardship?

>>39191581
Hell ain't real nigga read near death experiences

>>39191666
The writers characters aren't real and not actually getting killed, hurt or raped. If they were most writers wouldn't write or only write good things unless they are sadists and psychopaths.

>>39191686
define "real"
>unless they are sadists and psychopaths
A sadist or psychopath would be someone who wants their creation to live a static, meaningless existence.

>>39191696
I wouldn't even touch video games if I knew the beings actually felt what was going on. I would never for my own desire or pleasure or goals make others suffer to the degree that humans and animals suffer on this planet. You literally need to lack empathy to allow this shit unless there was a GRAND PLAN to it that was 100000% worth it but I never heard an explanation that would justify all of this especially not if there is an omnipotent God then NO explanation makes sense to me.

>>39191724
>I wouldn't even touch video games if I knew the beings actually felt what was going on.
How do you know they don't?
>I would never for my own desire or pleasure or goals make others suffer to the degree that humans and animals suffer on this planet.
So if you were omnipotent, you'd just create nothing?
> You literally need to lack empathy to allow this shit
You're literally allowing all kinds of shit right now, not even in some wacky "what if the video games you're playing are actual real in some other dimension/universe". You're literally inflicting harm in the material reality you inhabit. Do you have any idea how much energy is required for you to be shitposting on the internet right now? How much damage that causes to the environment? How much harm that inflicts about other living beings, and your fellow man?

>>39191750
>How do you know they don't?
There is no indication that they have a soul and feel pain. I am also not an omnipotent God or divine-being who can tell if they are in pain or not.
>So if you were omnipotent, you'd just create nothing?
I would just create beauty and bliss. All my children and pets that I would love would feel perfection forever. No boredom, no restlessness, just bliss.
>You're literally inflicting harm in the material reality you inhabit.
I am causing harm in some mild ways I am sure, but I am not torturing beings. But I also want to exit life soon enough anyway because I think this place is a shithole of suffering. Once I am dead, I would attempt to stop or save as many people as possible if I am granted more power on the other side.

>>39191775
>There is no indication that they have a soul and feel pain.
So you don't know, but you engage in playing video games anyway even though there's a chance that your actions in the game are reflected in some other reality?
>No boredom, no restlessness, just bliss.
How would they even know what "bliss" is if it's the only thing they ever experienced.
>I am causing harm in some mild ways I am sure
So according to your prior statement, that must mean that you "literally lack empathy". Is that true?
>I am granted more power on the other side
You're incredibly spiritually weak, what makes you think you'd have any bit of strength "on the other side"?

Laughter is the language of god, does that on it’s own not prove him to be an asshole? We all know this to be true, laughter is always good, and so probably close to the heavens

File: f808703d98b2df81ddafb7a0c(...).jpg (230 KB, 1181x654)

230 KB JPG

>>39191804
>So you don't know, but you engage in playing video games anyway even though there's a chance that your actions in the game are reflected in some other reality?
I don't know. There is a chance, but it is probably extremely small because we never heard or seen any case of a video game character expressing independently that they're in pain or need help. Again, I am not a God so comparing me to the responsibility of one makes no sense.
>How would they even know what "bliss" is if it's the only thing they ever experienced.
If you are omnipotent you can decide what makes sense. I just decide that they are fully capable of appreciating the bliss without any pain. Boom. It is done.
>So according to your prior statement, that must mean that you "literally lack empathy". Is that true?
I do lack the empathy of a full-spectrum, loving God. I am not a psychopath but I'm also not a saint. However if I had the power to stop this I would. I refuse to participate in this shithole suffering simulator so I will kill myself in the future as soon as I can make sure that my death will cause as minimal harm to people left behind as possible.
>You're incredibly spiritually weak
Am I? Maybe I consider the people weak who accept this prison simulator and just bend over and take it. Maybe people who question it and don't accept any explanation are the ones who will break out. But maybe you are right and I'm a spiritual piss baby loser, I can still try. People do claim in near death experiences that they suddenly gain a ton of power as soon as they leave their body.

>>39191818
>I just decide that they are fully capable of appreciating the bliss without any pain.
And in what way would this existence be meaningful?
>Am I?
Yes, you're literally deathly afraid of any sort of pain or adversity, which is ironic given that your suicidal ideation stems from the fact that you quite clearly have not experienced it within your life in any tangible amounts.
Your life is complacent, static and boring, which ironically is just like your ideal painting of existence. I suppose the only difference between your ideal and your reality is that you can see the real world outside your hamster enclosure, and can thus look into the world filled with hardship and struggle and understand just how hollow and unfulfilling a life of merely subsisting truly is. Maybe the void of death in a world with no God really is exactly what you're after: static, unmoving, unfeeling nothingness for eternity with no frame of reference for you to be aware of just how bleak and empty it is.
> who accept this prison simulator and just bend over and take it
They don't though. They meet life's challenges and suffering head on and become stronger for it. You're an abject coward who is running away with your tail between your legs.

>>39191861
>And in what way would this existence be meaningful?
What is more important than love and joy? It would be extremely meaningful and enjoyable to me. To just exist to enjoy. You don't find that good? If you were a God and had pets or children you'd insist on hurting them to give it... meaning?
>Yes, you're literally deathly afraid of any sort of pain or adversity
Why would I even accept this fallen monkey state if we are souls that come from God? I am not just crazy, if you read near death experiences and people who left their body say this Earth is VERY ugly compared to the afterlife and the human body feels traumatically tight, heavy and painful.

You are beautiful, free and powerful, then get shoved in the body of a cockroach living in filth and if you hate that you are weak? Why glorify abuse and pain as something good? Am I good owner if I beat the shit out of my cat?

> with no frame of reference for you to be aware of just how bleak and empty it is.
The afterlife is not described like that though. They just most often feel overwhelming love and beauty and don't want to leave.

>They meet life's challenges and suffering head on and become stronger for it.
That's a cope. Pain just corrupts people and makes them bitter. Most traumatized and hurt or old people are way less good than they were before the pain. It's just abuser cope or what the slave master tells you.

>>391918610
>you're literally deathly afraid of any sort of pain or adversity, which is ironic given that your suicidal ideation stems from the fact that you quite clearly have not experienced it within your life in any tangible amounts.

Not that anon but the idea that suicidal ideation could somehow be a symptom of *not enough* misery is such pure bullshit reasoning that I feel compelled to call it out. To even think that I suspect you must be the one who has gone through life without experiencing any substantial prolonged pain or adversity.

Maybe it's possible to be suicidal without being traumatized, but the idea that suicidality could be caused by not being traumatized enough is just comes across as outright deranged to me.

Source: I've had chronic pain and been very isolated from being too sick to participate in normal life for most of the past decade. It has not made life meaningful in the slightest and it has made me contemplate suicide on a weekly basis for some time now.

>>39191902
is intended for
>>39191861

>>39191880
>You don't find that good?
No, I don't. Because "good" would have no meaning. Your proposed solution to this is to just wave your magic, omnipotent wand and make a world devoid of meaning. Which sounds horrific.
>if you read near death experiences and people who left their body say this Earth is VERY ugly compared to the afterlife and the human body feels traumatically tight, heavy and painful.
Operative word here is "compared to", kiddo.
>You are beautiful, free and powerful, then get shoved in the body of a cockroach living in filth and if you hate that you are weak?
Why are you even having this conversation with me if you feel this strongly? If you actually believe this, then you're still weak according to your own world view because you're wasting time wallowing in shit here with me when you could be swallowing a can of Raid and decockroachifying yourself.
>They just most often feel overwhelming love and beauty and don't want to leave.
I imagine most of them weren't buttfucking atheists who simultaneously hates both God and existence like you. What they probably felt was God, which you profess to hate.
>That's a cope.
The only one coping here is you. You're blatantly a NEET with no life experience or any sort of trajectory, and instead of doing anything to better yourself or better the world that you find so repugnant you've adopted this navel-gazing intellectually untenable philosophy. If you genuinely believed half the shit you do, you wouldn't be here talking to me, you'd have killed yourself ages ago. But you're too much of a pussy to even follow through with that, and you're so weak and devoid of agency I'd imagine you don't even have the means to go through with it even you somehow mustered up the resolve.

>>39191902
>Source: I've had chronic pain and been very isolated from being too sick to participate in normal life for most of the past decade. It has not made life meaningful in the slightest and it has made me contemplate suicide on a weekly basis for some time now.
I feel you. And I feel resentment for having endured pain, like a corruption and blemish of a more innocent, joyful being reduced to... someone with bitter feelings and a history of pain.

>>39191933
>Because "good" would have no meaning.
If you are omnipotent you can just decide it has meaning though? If you don't want to have it meaning, sure. But you could decide that it is absolutely meaningful and the best thing ever.
>Operative word here is "compared to", kiddo.
Well so? I feel like I can remember that state. And imagination allows me to tap into that. It's horrible to not be that anymore.
>You're blatantly a NEET with no life experience or any sort of trajectory
You have no idea who I am and what I experienced. You are not God.
>Why are you even having this conversation with me if you feel this strongly?
Ok, let's stop it then.

>>39191902
Yeah, because you're retarded and are misrepresenting my entire point.
I'm not saying he needs to go outside and get raped or hit by a truck (though it seems like that's everything he wants), he needs to go outside and get a job.
>Source: I've had chronic pain and been very isolated from being too sick to participate in normal life for most of the past decade.
Thank you for proving my point. There isn't any meaning in wallowing in pain like both you and he are doing, meaning comes from struggling to move past that pain.

>>39191951
>You have no idea who I am and what I experienced.
Nah, I do. You're a pseudo-intellectual retard who spends all his time wallowing in self-pity on the internet.

>>39191953
It's been scientifically proven that trauma and pain doesn't make people stronger in most cases and just leads to worse mental health and degradation of happiness in the long term. You can brush this off and call them pussies in a low empathy reaction but it's a fact of life, it is how most people respond to pain and trauma.

>>39191960
You're calling me a man who never had a job. Both is wrong, yet you talk as if you were God. You're just a human and just like a human you don't have the power to actually know the truth.

>>39191953
Ah, I see, you ARE one of those assholes who has never experienced significant suffering or adversity and yet feels the need to defend its existence because you want to believe that the world is definitely totally good and justified for your own psychological comfort.

Well, have fun being stuck in your head if you do ever get a debilitating illness or whatever.

>>39191683
Actually there are those with NDE that report seeing hell

>>39191966
It's also scientifically proven that having a job makes you far more mentally healthy. Stop trying to misrepresent my point. I'm not advocating that people should be getting constantly tortured and buttfucked.
>>39191970
No, I'm calling you an idiot that doesn't have a job. And you just confirmed that to me by the way you phrased it. Get a job. Also why are we still talking? I thought you finally nutted up and were gonna leave your cockroach body behind? Am I just that good of a conversationalist that you're forgetting how awful and horrific and painful and terrible the material world is?

I really do hate it when an atheist faggot tries to claim that your conscious living existence is simply based off “chemicals,” when they can’t even tell you a decent explanation of what an atom is and why it exists, let alone what molecules are and why they happen: best they can do is explain how they are observed to work, and they are continually surprised when they constantly observed “new” forms of interaction

>>39191991
Hellish NDE's are pretty rare and often the conclusion is that they send themselves down there by their own decision and can leave it. The other NDE's that talk about hell seem to be shilling to join the church honestly. It's always some weird "COME TO OUR CHURCH!! HELL IS REAL I HAD A NDE!! PRAISE JESUS!! DONATE AND BUY MY BOOK!!" stuff.

File: 1730852914853378.png (590 KB, 959x678)

590 KB PNG

>>39191995
>No, I'm calling you an idiot that doesn't have a job. And you just confirmed that to me by the way you phrased it
What the fuck does having a job to do with anything? I earn my own money, retard. No one else is paying my rent.
>It's also scientifically proven that having a job makes you far more mentally healthy.
Having purpose does. Trauma and pain reduce people's mental health and happiness in the long run in almost every case, as it has been studied. This whole pain and hardship makes you stronger is bullshit on every level.

>>39191983
Why are you still here if you actually believe any of this shit? Are you just a coward?
> the world is definitely totally good and justified for your own psychological comfort.
I don't have any personal stake in this. The reason I'm attacking you two whiny "suicidal" attention whores is because you have the philosophical and theological literacy of toddlers. If you aren't gonna get a job, read a book.

>>39192015
Ok, slave. Have a nice day. Keep sucking that hardship dick. You're a good slave. All the pain you endure is sooo badass. Good goy. Keep working and suffering.

>lmao

File: 2024-11-07 23_50_51.png (917 KB, 866x826)

917 KB PNG

>>39192006
We're still talking. I thought you were a glorious transcendent being trapped in a cockroach body.
I guess being a roach isn't that bad?

File: 1539368864861.jpg (32 KB, 500x500)

32 KB JPG

>>39192029
That might be insulting if I actually shared your retarded worldview.
You're the one who sees yourself as a slave whose existence is nothing but suffering and keeps taking it up the ass.

>>39192038
You are spreading wrong information. It's not a matter of opinion, it has been studied and documented that pain/trauma generally make most people feel worse in the long run and lower mental health significantly. You should stop spreading bullshit.

>>39192048
You are a slave faggot sucking the slave masters dick and bending over gaping your ass wide open too taking pride in how much and how deep you can take his dick with no lube. Anyone who doesn't want his no-dick lube is a weak pussy, your words basically.

>>39192015
I don't know how the universe works. I'm not certain why I'm here or that death is the end. In fact I strongly suspect based on several strange experiences that death isn't the end and there's more to reality, hence why I occasionally hang out on /x/. I see attempting suicide more as a "do this successfully and literally anything could conceivably happen, good, bad, or neutral" button rather than a convenient exit button.

>>39192052
No, I didn't. You're just blatantly misrepresenting my point. I have not used the word "trauma" in a single one of my posts. I used "pain" once in the sense of discomfort.

>>39192071
And pain leads to trauma. But you can even say just painful experiences. Pain and hardship reduces the mental health of most people it has been studied. It makes them WORSE. So you are spreading disinformation by trying to portray it as something good, noble or meaningful if it literally just makes most people worse and has negative effects in the long run.

>>39192055
>You are a slave faggot sucking the slave masters dick and bending over gaping your ass wide open too taking pride in how much and how deep you can take his dick with no lube.
Apparently I'm having a good time.
>Anyone who doesn't want his no-dick lube
Yeah but apparently that doesn't include you, since you're still here, taking it.

>>39192083
>Yeah but apparently that doesn't include you, since you're still here, taking it.
At the end of the day you can be a faggot like you who takes pride in how deep he is taking the masters dick without lube or you can state that it's fucked up and that you take no pride or desire in taking a slave masters COCK up your ass. You made your decision clearly.

>>39192076
>Pain and hardship reduces the mental health of most people it has been studied.
Okay, I gave you the chance to just agree to disagree and drop it, but if you're this deadset on being a fucking moron, I'm gonna make you back up all the shit you're claiming.
Your claim is that anything that can be construed as "pain", "hardship", "trauma", etc. is universally BAD and provides only negative consequences. It makes them WORSE, universally. Link the studies that prove this.

>>39192089
>You made your decision clearly.
This is your world view, not mine.
Also it's pretty hilarious that your world view can be boiled down to "you're enjoying yourself and I'm getting raped like a bitch".

File: sas.jpg (594 KB, 1278x664)

594 KB JPG

>>39192122
>Your claim is that anything that can be construed as "pain", "hardship", "trauma", etc. is universally BAD
I am speaking about the world as a whole and people dying, killing themselves, suffering from horrible disease and getting raped happens every day everywhere. Not to mention BILLIONS of animals being slaughtered each year. You were the one having a bitch fit about this and calling people who don't find that noble, good or meaningful jobless NEETS" and crybabies.

I never argued that mild discomforts are a reason for suicide or hating this world but this place is filled with EXTREME suffering. And if you wanted to argue (which is so retarded) that I experienced only mild discomforts and know nothing of trauma what about everyone else? I feel for everyone else and I know people are in great pain.

>>39192131
Yeah, you are enjoying your rape experience and take pride in it, arguing that people who shy away from pain or finding it meaningless are pussies and losers. The best raped bitch on the block, doesn't even moan or complain! Absolute anal champ.

If you don't think this world is akin to a rape you just have no empathy. Your life could be nice but it wouldn't change the horrors that happen to billions of animals and many people around the world, including children. Are you consenting to all of that happening?

>>39192136
>I am speaking about the world as a whole and people dying, killing themselves
>killing themselves
Hold on, this doesn't make any sense. If the world is so bad and evil, why are you framing people killing themselves, or even people dying in general, as a bad thing?
>Not to mention BILLIONS of animals being slaughtered each year.
Again, I thought this was a good thing according to your world view. Aren't they being freed from this material hellscape? How could that be anything but virtuous, according to you?
>You were the one having a bitch fit about this
The lack of self-awareness is astounding. I asked for a source, you gave me a random screenshot and then posted this fucking struggle session where you're still seething about shit I said 5 posts ago.

>>39188911
Indifferent.
If you believe in God you are either a deist or a theist.
A deist by definition, believes there is a creator, but lacks belief that he in involved with humans. We may just be an accident, a side product.
If you are a theist you believe in heaven. God loves his children and wants them to have maximum pleasure. Heaven is the realm of infinite pleasure. Regardless of how much you suffer, you have infinite pleasure in the afterlife. You can't subtract from infinity. Therefore God is indifferent to your Earthly suffering.

>>39192142
>enjoying your rape experience
Well then it's not really rape, is it?
>arguing that people who shy away from pain or finding it meaningless are pussies and losers
I mean, yeah that's kind of the definition of "pussy".
>If you don't think this world is akin to a rape you just have no empathy.
kek this is an all timer
>Are you consenting to all of that happening?
Yes. And so are you.

>>39192157
>why are you framing people killing themselves, or even people dying in general, as a bad thing?
Because it causes the people left behind to endure a lot of pain and grief. But also the fact that millions of people were in so much pain that they made the very difficult decision to end themselves (human survival instinct is very strong, death is scary, suicide is not easy at all) is sad.
>Again, I thought this was a good thing according to your world view. Aren't they being freed from this material hellscape?
Are you a troll or sociopath? Even if someone dies, there was a time of pain before that. The history and past matters. It happened.
>The lack of self-awareness is astounding
What lack? You are the one who tried to frame people who don't want to be in pain or think this Earth is a shithole for allowing for so much pain in beings as pussies.

>>39192165
So you like the rape? You like the pain inflicted on everyone else too? You are fully consenting to all of this and think there's nothing wrong with all the victims? Cool, then you're a faggot and a sociopath. Case closed.

>Yes. And so are you.
I'm not consenting to it. I would stop it if I could and I'm pointing that it's bad. I will not support it any further by never getting pregnant and bringing more souls down here and by leaving on my own terms as soon as I can do that with minimal pain to people left behind.

He who does not work does not eat, likewise it is necessary to suffer to be made incorruptible.

>>39192122
First of all anon didn't say universally even in the part you quoted. Second of all—

Did you know that people who have post-traumatic-stress disorder generally get it from traumatic stress, and that its effects on one's character as perceived by others is generally negative? Did you know that if your arm gets cut off, you won't have an arm anymore? Did you know that people who are isolated and/or abused as children have fewer opportunities to develop healthy social skills compared to people who aren't, and so they generally end up with less healthy social skills? Did you know that untreated diseases generally make people *less healthy* rather than more healthy over the long term?

I mean if you want studies I can google that for you, but this stuff should be incredibly obvious. But here's the CDC talking about how adverse childhood experiences are associated with greater rates of chronic illness and such since you did demand something: https://www.cdc.gov/aces/about/index.html

Of course well-callibrated *challenges* can be a source of meaning in life and an opportunity for self improvement. But well-callibrated challenges are a small subset of the totality of challenges a person can be confronted with. And there doesn't seem to be a cosmic judge around making sure that people are only confronted with challenges that are well-callibrated for their development. Shit just happens and either you're fortunate enough to be in a position to handle it well and learn from it or you get pummelled, lose a lot, thoroughly not enjoy it, and may or may not be able to painstakingly scrape even a single clear benefit out of it.

>>39192167
>Because it causes the people left behind to endure a lot of pain and grief.
But why would they feel that way? Don't they know that they're no longer trapped in the material world that is full of pain and suffering? Are they just jealous or something?
>is sad
Why though? All that pain is over. They're finally free.
>The history and past matters.
Why though? This is a material hellscape, so who really cares what happens here? Or are you saying that you believe this existence has some kind of intrinsic value and is more than just pointless suffering?
>What lack? You are the one who tried to frame people who don't want to be in pain or think this Earth is a shithole for allowing for so much pain in beings as pussies.
No one wants to be in pain, and no one enjoys seeing pain proliferate. This isn't why you're a pussy. You're a pussy because you're wallowing in self-pity and in fear of pain, and making no effort to overcome the suffering of the world, either in yourself or the people around you.

>>39192192
>But why would they feel that way? Don't they know that they're no longer trapped in the material world that is full of pain and suffering?
Not everyone believes that.
>Why though? All that pain is over. They're finally free.
So every crime and unspeakable horror is okay as long as it ends? Lmao. Gotcha. Just go out and hurt children then, why not? Cause the pain will end right? So you can totally do it. Genius!

>>39192175
>You are fully consenting to all of this and think there's nothing wrong with all the victims?
What are you doing right now to stop any of this rape and suffering that you're so consumed with?
>by never getting pregnant
KEK of course. Should have figured it out from the constant rape obsession.

>>39192207
>What are you doing right now to stop any of this rape and suffering that you're so consumed with?
I can do my part by treating the people I love well and be helpful to strangers and animals. On a fundamental level, no one can stop the RAPE AND SUFFERING besides a divine being. Stop pointing fingers at people. Why do you not accuse God? You're a submissive bitch to his design and don't even question it, instead you play by his rules.

>>39192201
>So every crime and unspeakable horror is okay as long as it ends?
I don't know, you tell me. This is your world view, not mine.

>>39192192
Step one of combating suffering in the world is acknowledging that it plainly shouldn't be there, that there is no justification for it. If you're unwilling to do that then you will always be on some level divided against yourself in your effort to oppose it.

>>39192218
It's not my world view. I told you that I have a problem with the very design of this world. It's unforgivable even if there is a heaven. You are arguing FOR this bullshit.

>>39192220
>Step one of combating suffering in the world is acknowledging that it plainly shouldn't be there, that there is no justification for it.
People are so brainwashed that they try to frame the suffering and abuse as "lessons" or "tests" or "needed discipline" ... like seriously... man.... this is what happens to humans too in abusive relationships.

>>39192215
>Why do you not accuse God?
I already addressed this at the start, it was way over your head (you're a woman, no surprise there) and this conversation has since become a therapy session where you've basically admitted that you're a "suicidal" rape victim without a job.
>You're a submissive bitch to his design
Nah, that's you.

>>39192238
I never had sex in my life. I have a job. You're a literal moron, enjoy being God's rape bitch. Peace out.

>>39192222
>It's not my world view.
Yes it is, I'm taking your arguments to their logical conclusion.
Obviously it's not what you actually believe deep down, you're just overly emotional and don't have the capacity to grapple with complex theological and philosophical issues. You believe (rightly) in your heart that this world and your life, all life, with all its ugliness, has intrinsic value. You're just too stupid to come to grips with it.
Maybe, just mayyyyybe this will help it sink in for you. This righteous indignation directed toward the world and all its suffering that you feel. Would you not say that it is beautiful? Would you not say that it is virtuous?
I lost track of which overly hormonal stupid woman I'm talking to, but one of you brought up the idea of a world that was paradise, nothing but bliss. Could this righteous indignation you're feeling right now exist in a world bereft of pain and suffering? Could any sort of virtue?

>>39192239
>I never had sex in my life
So that's where the rape obsession comes from, kek

Why do the gods need worship?

Foes that not make us more powerful?

Are gods jungian psycho symbiotes?

I must know, I seek to be a Shaman.

>>39192284
I'm the other anon who has been arguing with you intermittently because hopefully that anon has sensibly peaced out as they said they would, but I have no idea what you're on about here >>39192218 or here >>39192281 and I think framing them as the emotional one and yourself as the logical one might be more projection than not.

Also righteous indignation may be great and all, but a world where it isn't necessary would be much better. It's like if someone crashed their car into your place right now and destroyed some number of valuable possessions, stepped out, and before you could say anything they said,
>I bet you're feeling very shocked, confused, and maybe quite angry right now, and so I'm sure you're not happy about this, but think about it: How often do you get to *feel* that intensely? Take a deep breath and really savor the moment. Isn't it amazing? Now how about you thank me for this wonderful opportunity to feel that I've given you."

>>39188911
Read this thread:

https://x.com/elitefeat/status/1742924942151438589

Keep in mind that both Christians and atheists do not like what I have to say.

File: IMG_5065.jpg (877 KB, 1170x1717)

877 KB JPG

>>39188911

File: a.png (161 KB, 640x512)

161 KB PNG

>>39192384

>>39188911
>If NOTHING is impossible for God he is not bound by logic.
Yes. Illogic is analytically nothing. God is not bound by illogic, as you attempt to do here, because nothing binds God.
sophistry terminated, QED

>>39192348
>I have no idea what you're on about here
I know.
>Also righteous indignation may be great and all, but a world where it isn't necessary would be much better.
No it wouldn't, you yourself don't believe that. Do you consume any kind of fiction? How many of those stories involve characters that just sit around, static, doing nothing but being "happy"? Most of these stories you enjoy probably involve the characters struggling to overcome obstacles in some way. People don't want unending, unconditional bliss, they want catharsis. Your actions are living proof of this. Like Dostoevsky said, if man were ever left in a state of utopia where he had no problems, he would create his own. You're here shitposting on the internet, living a life of extreme comfort. And instead of being happy in your relative comfort, you've done everything in your power to convince yourself that your existence is utterly bleak and terrifying.
>It's like if someone crashed their car into your place right now and destroyed some number of valuable possessions
Obviously I wouldn't want that to happen, but considering I live on the second floor on the back end of the building, it'd be quite the story.

>>39192564
First, you keep assuming you know what other people's experience of life is like and what they actually think better than they do while ignoring what they say. Stop doing that. When you do that you're just talking to yourself while pretending to talk to other people which is annoying and off-putting.

Second, unending unconditional bliss is unending unconditional bliss. Bliss is definitionally complete happiness, which should include absolute contentment and satisfaction. If you're imagining it as some boring ultimately vaguely neutral state that it's possible to become dissatisfied with over time then you're not taking the words seriously. Something making for a good story is not an essential prerequisite for it being awesome and thoroughly desirable.

which god ;)

>>39192710 (cont)
Third, challenges are enjoyable. Reading about people overcoming challenges can be enjoyable. Arguing with strangers on the internet can be an enjoyable challenge. But as I said above, life doesn't reliably present people with challenges that are even well-calibrated to their capacity to overcome them, let alone enjoy them. Very often sentient beings just suffer and there is no benefit derived from it or good story that can be spun from it.

Every animal in a factory farm is living out the same story of prolonged discomfort, pain, and early death. Does such a "story" need to be told billions upon billions of times? Is it enjoyable to watch or read about? And animals in the wild all have their own stories of injury, sickness, and predation.

Millions upon millions of people get sick with horrible painful and disabling diseases which they have no hope of curing by their own effort within their lifespan. People get into accidents wnd become paraplegics. Children are abused by their parents, men and women are abused by manipulative or deranged partners, people are tortured and killed by criminals and governments. Do such "stories" need to be told millions upon millions of times? Is it enjoyable to watch them or read about them?

You may as a last resort suggest that everyone living a truly miserable life must be some sort of NPC, so whether their stories are interesting doesn't actually matter because they're just background characters. It would be a comforting thought, but I rate my own life as having included enough meaningless prolonged suffering that I can't seriously entertain it. I've been forced to accept that, although I'm a fully conscious being, the universe is truly indifferent to whether and how much I suffer, so I see no reason to doubt that every other being who appears to be fully conscious and suffering is in fact fully conscious and suffering. And it's just as wrong when is happens to them as it is when it happens to me.

>>39188911
God is evil, and I'll explain why.
1. People who make religious mistakes, get posessed.
2. Child traffickers, mafia, etc, don't.
That should tell you something.

>>39188916
You Choose to reincarnate on earth, it was your will to Become Like God for god is not tested because god is God.

>>39192962
Oh, so a guy who makes a religious mistake is worse than mafia.

Take your meds, retard

>be pious man
>About 100 times more pious than this retard>>39192992
>Make one mistake
>That's it, fire for you
>Says the guy in a website which peddles tranny prostitutes
>Who are you to say?
A guy with half a brain

>>39192992
Notice that this absolute retard is already calling people suicidal trannies over the thought that god might be evil.

>>39193049
Morality must not be real, as per your behaviour
I also understand perfectly, as I have perfect gnosis.
You on the other hand will step out of boundaries and get whacked, as all Christian larpers do.

>>39193049
How 8s morality real, nigger?
Does the moralpolice come if I pirate games or say hurtful words? Will they come if I fuck a dog? The rich do that and much more, guess there's no moralpolice.

>>39193063
Seems to me, the you will burn card anon is playing is cope for being impotent, something like a manchild rage.

>>39192710
>First, you keep assuming you know what other people's experience of life
Spare me the fucking melodrama. If you're here shitposting on 4chan, getting utterly outclassed in a debate (I'm not even sure we can call it that because it's blatantly just a therapy session for you, all your "arguments" are pathos laden, "woe is me, my life sucks so much, feel bad for me boohoohoo") about concepts that are way above your head, it clearly broadcasts several facts about your life:
1. you have oodles of free time
2. you have an internet connection, and thus are not in any sort of situation of extreme poverty, imprisonment or war
3. you are either gainfully employed and self-sufficient, or a dependent who has all of your basic needs provided for
So frankly, I really do not give a shit about your "chronic pain" or what the fuck ever that is so crippling and debilitating that it allows you to sit on 4chan all day while you spew your pseudo-intellectual drivel about how "existence is so awful but at the same time I'm too much of a pussy to just kill myself and spare myself decades of further torture".
>to become dissatisfied with over time
Of course it wouldn't be possible, and that's a very, very bad thing.

>>39192710
>then you're not taking the words seriously
No shit Sherlock, my entire point is that "bliss" cannot be semantically defined in the absence of any other feeling. It would no longer be "bliss", it would just be. In the same way, you only have a conception of the color "red" because there are other colors to contrast it with. If we made a hypothetical world where the only color that existed was "red", the concepts of "red" and color itself would cease to exist. Not only that, but your sense of sight would essentially become worthless. This world of yours where the only thing that can be experienced is "unending, unconditional bliss" is akin to a world where nothing is experienced. Yes, there's no pain, and no suffering, and neither is there free will or self-awareness. There's no state of being apart from "bliss". It's borderline nonexistence. You'd want to reduce existence down to what I imagine it is for something incredibly simplistic like a sea sponge or a jellyfish. Though you're so far gone, that idea is probably genuinely appealing to you.
>Something making for a good story is not an essential prerequisite for it being awesome and thoroughly desirable.
Isn't it though? Isn't catharsis and meaning what we actually want? You are living proof of this. If this false dichotomy of suffering/happiness was all you cared about, you would have killed yourself ages ago. You may not be consciously aware of it, but somewhere deep down, you prioritize a deeper meaning over running away from pain.

>>39192710
>But as I said above...
I will grant you all of this. But these abject evils that you speak of are what allow for "greater goods" to occur. You cannot choose to be good if there is no choice to be made. Like we talked about earlier, if goodness is all that exists, then it has no meaning. When you ask why such evil and suffering can be allowed to exist, the answer is that so someone so full of compassion and virtue such as yourself can righteously put an end to them.
>Every animal in a factory farm
First, you're anthropomorphizing this issue. Most animals do not possess the same levels of self-awareness and pain that we do. They feel physical pain and fear, but these are merely chemical responses that have developed as an evolutionary adaptation. They do not undergo cringe existential crises and suffer from juvenile angst in the way you are doing right now. Pain and fear are designed to ensure that the organism lives as long as possible, and is as successful as possible. It is not the source of existential angst and dread that it is to you, it is merely a survival mechanism. It's probably a horrible idea to try to bring in biological reality to this argument, because it completely and utterly annihilates your side of this argument. If we were to take this argument into a scientific and biological realm, then you are nothing but an utterly delusional overly hormonal idiot. Better to keep this discussion in the realm of philosophy and theology where it belongs.
>Do such "stories" need to be told millions upon millions of times?
No, but the ones in which some benevolent actor steps in and puts an end to the suffering are the ones that we all adore.
> And it's just as wrong when is happens to them as it is when it happens to me.
Great. So maybe, instead of whining about it, you should do something about it.

>>39193077
Cope, you're impotent, so you accept an imagined justicar whol will give you what you want once you're dead.
The fun never ends and they never notice the hilarity of their beliefs.

Yes fag, once you're dead and gone and cannot fix things, things will be fixed for u.

>>39193528
You wont go anywere.

>>39193540
okay how u kno

>>39193576
I know God, from meditation, he isn't the bible God. You wont go anywhere.

>>39191193
>They just ARE depending on what you want to create.
They just ARE, because they follow the whim of God.
If God wanted them different, they would be.
YOU cant do this, nor I , nor any limited being. Because were are not infinitely independent.
God is.

>>39188911
Because god being bound by logic means more than just he can do whatever he wants, it also means whatever logical reasoning we can apply to him could very well be false. In this universe, if plato is a man and all men are mortal, then Plato is mortal, however for one not bound by our rules, Plato could very well be a man, all men could be mortal and yet Plato could be immortal.
If you've read the book Solaris it's simiar, like the planet, god is something so much more complexe/real than us(he did create the whole universe) than every attempt of understanding him via logic fails, like with the planet. However, through faith, it's possible to get glimpse of God, and act accordingly, much like the Main character in Solaris ends up accepting the life the planet offers him, you can put your trust in God and follow whatever path you feel he shows you

You have said that God is above paradox, and therefore doesn't need to concern himself with free will being contradictory to making sure everything is good, but I tell you that's not the only paradox that isn't paradoxical to him, a thing to him can be true and false, and things that are evil are not necessarily contradictory to good to him.
God is not bound by logic, that much is true, but it also mean any attempts to bind him with logic, such as forcing to choose one between two contradictory statements( such as either being good or commit/letting happen evil) is doomed to fail.

File: 1721506118547812.png (143 KB, 835x893)

143 KB PNG

*Yawn*
>>39193085
>>39193086
>>39193090
You continue to often essentially talk to yourself, forget relevant prior comments, project, not take words seriously, repeat conclusions that don't necessarily follow as if they did, and be generally overconfident. Good chat.

>>39193652
>it also means whatever logical reasoning we can apply to him could very well be false
Agreed. We can look at what is claimed as God's words. We can look at those that considered ideals of those words. We can even try to model what "usually" happens and "works". But there is no saying how God is, or what God will do. We only relay what God has said, and accept and trust it is true though it very well may be a lie.
God is, after all, the Supreme Liar. God is the Supreme Everything.
>However, through faith, it's possible to get glimpse of God
I disagree. If faith allowed one to get a glimpse of God, then that in itself would a geis, a restriction, a logical onus and limitation on God.
>you can put your trust in God and follow whatever path you feel he shows you
This, I agree with, and the difference is where you put the agency. GOD can show you, and He USUALLY does so for those with faith.
But it isnt faith that is forcing God to do anything. Plenty with faith never see God. Some without it do.
You can see God, in God's entirety, if God wants you to. But nothing can CAUSE God to do this.

File: how seeing this exact for(...).gif (3.29 MB, 630x640)

3.29 MB GIF

>>39188911
>NOTHING is impossible for God he is not bound by logic. So then why is sin/suffering necessary in order for us to have free will?
It's not. But if nothing is impossible for God, then why would absence of sin/suffering be necessary for God to be good?

I keep telling you this in your threads, OP, and you keep making up excuses for how God "needs" to do shit or else he's "x" quality. God is omnipotent. Nothing he does is "necessary." Stop saying He isn't bound only when it suits your argument and then turning it around and saying, no, He is bound when it doesn't support your argument anymore! Pick one! Are you saying He is beyond cause and effect and logic? Or are you saying He's not!

>>39193738
>why would absence of sin/suffering be necessary for God to be good?
It isnt for God to consider themselves good, but for other living entities to judge God as good, they usually would insist that include compassion, the desire for others to not suffer.

>>39192384
>predictable idiot

Already answered here: >>39188914

>>39193746
>It isnt for God to consider themselves good, but for other living entities to judge God as good, they usually would insist that include compassion, the desire for others to not suffer.
>AKA I think God needs to do what I think for him to be "x" quality.
>AKA I think God needs to "be compassionate" for him to be good.
No he doesn't. He's beyond reason. Right? You admitted this. So why do you judge Him as if He needs to be compassionate in order to be how you define the word "good?"
Again. Is He bound to reason? Is He not bound to reason? Pick one!

>>39193898
>He's beyond reason. Right?
But not beyond judgement.
All sentience can judge. And each sentience determines the values they judge on.
A person might very well take the fact that God is not bound to reason as WHY they judge God to be evil.

File: download.jpg (393 KB, 720x896)

393 KB JPG

>>39193908
NTA but good answers. If God is omnipotent/omniscient he's actually in this thread right now too as goofy as it sounds. He knows how we feel, our struggles, our questions. He decides on purpose however not to answer anything and to just let us rot.

I'm not saying if I knew God's reasoning I would agree with incarnation and suffering either but it might help. However this weird state of "deal with and you will get ZERO explanation from me either" is even worse. Anyway it all seems pretty hopeless. We can discuss these topics but won't get any true answer most likely and every crime just continues, then we die and it probably won't change shit either. What an ""amazing gift"" it is to be alive.

>>39193908
>But not beyond judgement.
He's all powerful. He's beyond everything. No exceptions. To say He's not is to question His omnipotence.
Again, pick one. Is He all powerful, or not?
>A person might very well take the fact that God is not bound to reason as WHY they judge God to be evil.
Then they'd be unreasonable. If God is literally beyond reason, above cause and effect, then there obviously can't exist a reason powerful enough to judge God by.
Again, pick one. Is He beyond reason or not?

>>39193952
>However this weird state of "deal with and you will get ZERO explanation from me either" is even worse.
But that is what this place is for. To simulate what it would be WITHOUT awareness of God; without God's control; without God's direction.
This is where souls come to try and be the center of existence, instead of God. And so God remains out of our lives.
>>39194001
>To say He's not is to question His omnipotence.
No it isnt. My judgement of God does not affect God's omnipotence in any way.
He could change my judgement, if God wanted to.
But that doesnt mean the judgement isnt there, nor is capable.
>Then they'd be unreasonable.
no they wouldnt. What logic are you applying to God, that you can say a judgement of God is unreasonable?
>there obviously can't exist a reason
Good and evil are not reasons, they are judgements.
They are literally like "yummy" and "yucky".
They are subjective evaluations of what is observed or contemplated.
They dont exist in the thing itself, but in the evaluation of the subject.
I dont need a reason to say my experience of a food is yucky.
you can try to throw any logic or fact at me as you wish - it has no affect on my judgement of the experience.
that perfect, gourmet meal that literally all other creatures finds yummy?
I tried it.
It was yucky.

>>39193690
I accept your concession. Not gonna let you get away with this cowardly and snide last word stunt though.
>You continue to often essentially talk to yourself
As opposed to you, who can't shut up about yourself. Your entire "philosophical" outlook is based on your fucking feelings and your personal anecdotal experience.
>forget relevant prior comments
Such as fucking what?
>project
Where?
>not take words seriously
Christ, are you still hung up on the fact that we're discussing ontology and semantics in a philosophical sense? I've been poking and prodding you to prove me wrong, and to show me that you're not completely and utterly out of your depth in this discussion, but it is beyond obvious that you don't have the slightest clue what's even being talked about. You are woefully ill equipped to engage in even casual conversation about the ontological nature of good and evil, morality, God, etc. Like it's obvious to me that you don't even have a clue what I'm talking about, and that you haven't this entire time. Feel free to steelman my argument and prove me wrong. You won't though.
>repeat conclusions that don't necessarily follow as if they did
Where?
>and be generally overconfident
God forbid I have a world view that is actually coherent and stands up to scrutiny.

>>39193952
>However this weird state of "deal with and you will get ZERO explanation from me either"
There's literally an entire fucking book.

File: Worship Outside Your Sect.jpg (691 KB, 1854x1162)

691 KB JPG

>>39194064
There are many many ways and many many books offering paths out of samsara.
The souls here that have exhausted their desire to be the central enjoyer can use them to get out.
Those that still wish to try and be God dont take them.

>>39194064
>There's literally an entire fucking book.
You mean there thousands if not hundreds of thousands books who all claim to be the truth and you can't prove which one is right? Yeah, that's not helpful at all.

>>39194054
Not the person you replied to but there is nothing that holds up against the premise that God is omnipotent and allows suffering but is all-good. If he is omnipotent absolutely nothing would be impossible for him meaning that what every lesson or trait you want to be cultivated through pain could be cultivated without pain so adding pain just seems to be a choice out of sadism or indifference.

>>39191884
Amazing idea. Which book is this?

>>39194079
>You mean there thousands if not hundreds of thousands books who all claim to be the truth
Yeah, and I'm guessing you've read zero of them.
>you can't prove which one is right?
Hmm, well don't you think that most of them pointing to the same general conclusions is kind of fucking wacky and suspicious?

>>39194091
>Hmm, well don't you think that most of them pointing to the same general conclusions is kind of fucking wacky and suspicious?
And what is the conclusion you think all religions and spiritualities have?

>>39194079
>which one is right
Why do you think one is wrong?
I see it more analogous to diet and exercise.
Everyone's specific ones can be a little or a lot different, but we are all trying to get healthy and fit.
Some people are healthy and fit almost without trying, and dont worry about their diet.
Some cant seem to get healthy and fit no matter what diet and exercise they do.
Not everyone's healthy and fit looks exactly the same, but we all have a sort of inherent idea of what a healthy and fit person is and does.

>>39194064
Why the fuck would God put his grand wisdom where your soul might be at play in a book instead of just downloading it into your brain or telling you at your birth?

Oh yeah guise there's a book uhhh like one book out of many umm and people will argue with you and tell you NOO MY RELIGION IS MORE RIGHT THAN YOURS.. so you can never 100% tell... lolol uhh good luck...

>>39190594
Would you blame a painting for being ugly?

>>39188911
that's what it's like in heaven
you're not in heaven silly mortal

>>39194099
A lot of these belief systems differ greatly and if you say "all of them are true" then none of them is and you are just as confused as you are before. One book will tell you this is a slave farm run by malicious archon aliens who will torment us forever and recycle us, the next book tells you this world is just a test from Allah to see if you eat pig meat and pray 5 times a day and if you pass it you can go to heaven and if you don't you will burn. Third book tells you there is no life after death at all and it's all genetics and there is 0% reasoning to it.

>>39194107
Why did God not put you in heaven by default?
Does he enjoy seeing his creations struggle?

>You have to earn it!!! Free will!!!
Why? If God is omnipotent he can make it so that you being in heaven by default and never in pain is perfect free will.

>>39194083
>Not the person you replied to but there is nothing that holds up against the premise that God is omnipotent and allows suffering but is all-good.
Do you seriously think this is a novel, new or unique argument that has never been asked in 2000 years? Do you think this is a question that no theologian or philosopher has ever been able to come up with an answer for?
This is an embarrassing 14 year old atheist nihilistic edgelord line of reasoning.
If you want a layman's explanation for this, I already gave one in this thread, multiple times.
If you want to actually, maybe, for once in your life, learn something, then research the work of Thomas Aquinas.

>>39194114
in infinity everything exists

>>39194108
>A lot of these belief systems differ greatly
Yes. People prefer varied ways, and they lead to different relationships with the Supreme.
>if you say "all of them are true" then none of them is
They all can lead to relationships with the supreme. "True" is not the applicable label. All such relationships exist.
>ou are just as confused as you are before
not really. Pick one. Try it. Is it working? Are you getting fit and healthy? No? Change your diet and exercise. Find one that you see gets its adherents the results you want, one you can stick with, and stick with it.

You are wondering how people can be healthy on the Adkins diet AND the Mediterranean diet, when one says eat carbs, and one says dont eat carbs.

>>39194119
>Do you seriously think this is a novel, new or unique argument
It pretty much is rarely brought up. Most people will immediately brush off the idea "WHY EVIL REAL???" as easily explainable as part of being free will or duality, they do not question it at all that a God above logic could erase that very easily.
>If you want a layman's explanation for this, I already gave one in this thread, multiple times.
You didn't. You just keep subscribing to limitations.
A X Z isn't possible without pain and suffering!

But for the sake of your truth because there are over 175 posts in here and maybe I got you mixed up or we haven't talked or you talked to someone else. In very simple terms answer the question please: If nothing is impossible for God and he could achieve every goal ( virtue, meaning, growth ) without suffering and evil, why does it exist?

>>39194098
That the universe was created.
>>39194100
>Why the fuck would God put his grand wisdom where your soul might be at play in a book
He didn't. Well, unless you're a fucking Muslim, but who gives a fuck about them.
>instead of just downloading it into your brain or telling you at your birth?
He kind of does. Humans are naturally predisposed to the idea of God, the soul, the afterlife and things like objective morality.

>>39194136
>Humans are naturally predisposed to the idea of God, the soul, the afterlife and things like objective morality.
Humans are also naturally predisposed to molesting little children and marrying underage women for the longest time. And many are still in favor of it if they weren't ashamed of getting ostracized. Religions even support that shit too.

>>39194130
>they do not question it at all that a God above logic could erase that very easily.
No, he fucking couldn't. You can't have "free will" and say "oh but you can't do anything evil tho". It's no longer free will, definitionally. It's the latest shitty Bioware game.
>A X Z isn't possible without pain and suffering!
It literally isn't.
>If nothing is impossible for God and he could achieve every goal ( virtue, meaning, growth ) without suffering and evil, why does it exist?
You're engaging in a category error you retard. You don't understand tautology. Everything you listed DEFINITIONALLY necessitates the existence of pain/suffering/evil/etc.
What you're asking is akin to asking "Why can't God make a ball that isn't round?" or "Why can't God get from 1 bean to 2 beans without adding another bean?" It's not intellectual or profound it's just absurd. It's linguistic diarrhea that means nothing.

>>39194183
>You can't have "free will" and say "oh but you can't do anything evil tho". It's no longer free will, definitionally.
You can because God decides what free will is.
Why do you think God is not able to create free will without evil?
Why do you think an all-mighty being can't decide what things are and how they are defined?
>It literally isn't.
Then get the fuck out of the thread. The premise is God is OMNIPOTENT. Do you know what that means? Open a dictionary, it means NOTHING is impossible for God.
>"Why can't God make a ball that isn't round?"
He could make a ball that isn't round. You think just because you can't imagine it without human brain it would be impossible to a limitless being? Low IQ take.

>>39194188
>Adults touching little children = nothing wrong!
>Age of consent = arbitrary!
Kill yourself.

>>39194183
NTA
>You can't have "free will" and say "oh but you can't do anything evil tho".
Grasping at straws to justify creation, rather than trying to understand it. wheat trog.
Duality does not have to exist, none of this does. The fact that it does exist is only a testament to it existing, not that it was justified.
>What you're asking is akin to asking "Why can't God make a ball that isn't round?" or "Why can't God get from 1 bean to 2 beans without adding another bean?"
Two irrelevant and unrelated questions. Suffering and joy are two different emotions, you are incapable of feeling one while you're feeling the other. The only reason that you "need" suffering is because your brain was made that way. Humans are hard-wired to actively seek it out and stir things up when their lives get too stagnant.
It's not a result of a just world, it's a result of your unjust programming.

>>39194030
>No it isnt. My judgement of God does not affect God's omnipotence in any way.
Then how can you say your judgement is above God?
>He could change my judgement, if God wanted to.
He could also change reason itself to fit your judgement, whatever reasons you use to back your judgement.

>What logic are you applying to God, that you can say a judgement of God is unreasonable?
>"X reason is why I think God is bad"
This is a judgement that poorly uses reason. It's unreasonable.
>"God is bad. I don't have a reason."
This is a judgement that doesn't poorly use reason. It's not unreasonable. Just disagreeable, since there are always reasons why you judge things even if you don't know them.

>Good and evil are not reasons, they are judgements.
>They are literally like "yummy" and "yucky".
I agree. Never said they weren't.
>They are subjective evaluations of what is observed or contemplated.
But they are still evaluations with criteria, correct? Criteria subject to God.
>They dont exist in the thing itself, but in the evaluation of the subject
But the subject has criteria in their evaluation that they follow in order to be able to judge the thing itself, no? Such as taste in food? Like, how can you really say you don't like it if you never tasted it for example.
>I dont need a reason to say my experience of a food is yucky.
Well, you'd have to have thought it tasted unpleasant, looked gross, or smelled weird, right? Those are reasons.
>you can try to throw any logic or fact at me as you wish - it has no affect on my judgement of the experience.
Sure it does. If I explain to you that you're looking at the flavor wrong, then you could change your judgement. Look at this kid's appreciation of music for example.
"When does the music start and they stop setting up the instruments?"
"That is the music"
"Oh... *starts enjoying it*
https://youtu.be/EKuAsndvxvs?feature=shared
>I didn't like gourmet
okay? But gourmet isn't omnipotent and above reason itself lmao

>>39194183
Where in the definitions of virtue, meaning, and growth is suffering and evil? If you think that something's "opposite" in some vague sense always has to be conceptualized along with it, then let the concept exist without the thing itself! I don't need half the world to be overrun with monstrous nightmare creatures from hell to appreciate the fact that my half currently isn't. Or (just to entertain the idea) if the thing itself does somehow have to exist for the concept to exist, then why not have it exist in the bare minimum way? I don't need someone to light me on fire in order to get a food idea of what "hot" means, but the world is full of gratuitous suffering and evil, far more than is necessary for us to have the concept of it.

>>39194258
>Then how can you say your judgement is above God?
Where did I ever say my judgement was ABOVE God? I put no hierarchy on judgement.
>He could also change reason itself
Yes.
>This is a judgement that poorly uses reason.
Poorly reasoned is not unreasoned, but this is quibbling.
Judgement does not require reason.
YOU have already put forward that reason holds no sway, so why now do you insist on a judgement regarding God need to include reason?
>But they are still evaluations with criteria, correct? Criteria subject to God.
Criteria subject to the sentient being doing the judgement.
>But the subject has criteria in their evaluation that they follow in order to be able to judge the thing itself, no?
Only their direct experience.
They may ad hoc describe that with other communication, but it is the awareness of existence that is being communicated.
Selfhood itself.
>how can you really say you don't like it if you never tasted it
I didnt. I explicitly said I tasted it in my example. Because as I said - the base is subjectivity. the experience. Self.
>you'd have to have thought it tasted unpleasant, looked gross, or smelled weird, right?
Not necessarily. A person can experience yucky with aesthetically pleasing food. YOU may disagree, and so judge them, but that doesnt affect their judgement.
>If I explain to you that you're looking at the flavor wrong, then you could change your judgement.
No. You could only convince someone they are wrong to experience as they did, and cow them into not saying it.
Their experience was their experience.
>Look at this kid's appreciation of music for example.
He went from one experience to another.
To say "You were enjoying it before" would be wrong.
If, after hearing that, he did not show behavior that you interpret as now enjoying it, you would be wrong to say "it is not possible for you to not be enjoying this experience."
> gourmet isn't omnipotent and above reason
I have contemplated such a being. It's evil.

>>39190896
Too many questions but the simple answer is that god chooses the worse of the sinners to be his voice.
Why?
Because Jude's cause the most son objectively because they have the most control over the gentiles

No it's not because god can or cannot do anything it's that he unironally hates human governing them selves.

Yahweh is a good if subjugation not of freedom this is said again and again
You free will is limited because he doesn't want to be out of your life.
.

>>39192712
Ofc ya pagan has to say that in a yah bread.
Lol.
Yah forgets of the lesser gods. Becayse that one can.
Not because it matters.
But then again. Azazel is known for being very aggroant and ignorant. Because power blinds and the matters of lesser beings don't matter to Azazel's over powered deity mind.

That said that ones soul is femanine so ofc there is a basis to devine femanine

And not to devine masuline which is why it's so rare to see any devine masuline regilions at all.
Christianity might as well be the last devine masuline regilions hence the hate and basis against it.

Personally I'm not against anything.
T. Loki

>>39194281
>Where did I ever say my judgement was ABOVE God? I put no hierarchy on judgement.
You said God was "not beyond judgement"
How else did you want me to interprate that?
>YOU have already put forward that reason holds no sway, so why now do you insist on a judgement regarding God need to include reason?
Because when your judgement includes reasons, you need to be consistent with them.
You're not saying "God is bad" and leaving it at that. No. You're giving a reason why you think God is bad.
>Criteria subject to the sentient being doing the judgement.
God can meet any criteria you make up no matter what he does.
>but it is the awareness of existence that is being communicated.
>Selfhood itself.
In that case, because I don't believe I personally do this when I judge things. Others using criteria only ad hoc to judge things is them being unreasonable, irrational, and mistaken. Their true judgement would hypothetically just be without any reason involved since it comes purely from their sense of self. They should stop lying to themselves and to others about why they judge things when in reality there's no reason, and it's just what they are.
>I didnt. I explicitly said I tasted it in my example.
I was talking about how you're saying you need to taste x thing to know how it tastes, hence their are actual reasons for your judgement. They don't purely come from your self.
>Not necessarily. A person can experience yucky with aesthetically pleasing food
I meant the food smelled good to you, not good in general.
>No. You could only convince someone they are wrong to experience as they did, and cow them into not saying it.
If I eat a human pie and someone tells me afterwards it was human, then my judgement of my experience would change. This doesn't mean I'm being "cow-ed" into "saying something."
>To say "You were enjoying it before" would be wrong.
But the music itself didn't change.
> It's evil.
You can feel that way without lying about having reasons.

File: 1730862000072954.png (501 KB, 1237x685)

501 KB PNG

>I'm gonna fuck you til you love me!!
/thread

>>39194666
The fucking isn't even good though, alas.

>>39188911
God is not bound by logic, but we are
next

>>39194821
That doesn't answer the question LOL

>>39194778
a good fucking would be just fine

>>39188916
If you're going to hell know that you'll be in good company. There are a lot of good people in hell.
>>39188939
If God hates you know that he hated us first.
Now for some logic for ya. Why do you think Satan and the demons are roaming the Earth even though they're supposed to be in hell? Hell is not some closed space where none can escape. It's more of a containment zone where the people and angels who are not allowed in heaven are forced to stay or otherwise roam the Earth. Heaven is like a gated community. Actually it literally is if you read the book of revelation. They have walls up because they don't want the heathen and demons coming into their party. If you're not on the list then you can't get into the party. Understand? But God is love and he doesn't torture people. Okay?

>>39188911
nah not evil
i thought he was evil but he got me to quit porn so i mean he cant be that bad
that shit ruined me lol
im mad at him tho cuz i cant see why he would allow this world to be this fucked up lol
he wont just come down and save us unless he has to

we have to choose to want to be saved and not be a bunch of prideful degenerates
i was really arrogant desu cuz it was funny and it was a way to like
feel better than people who were mean to me but it just makes you suck lol

>>39188911
He's none. He's the greatest chess master in the universe and he just check mated your ass. He let's people judge themselves out of heaven. Heaven is a special place and only his friends get go there.

>>39194512
>How else did you want me to interprate that?
By understanding that a sentient being can judge God. The error you likely are making is thinking a judgement has any power.
>You're giving a reason why you think God is bad.
I gave an arbitrary answer, in order to show that - as i said - judgement does not need reason.
>God can meet any criteria you make up no matter what he does.
Yes.
>I don't believe I personally do this when I judge things
Your belief is wrong.
>them being unreasonable
You keep bringing up reason like it has any relevance.
It doesnt.
>stop lying
No one is lying. Calm down.
>when in reality there's no reason
Judgement does not need reason.
>hence their are actual reasons for your judgement.
The reason, as I said, is the experience. Not reason. Not logic.
>I meant the food smelled good to you
It smelled YUMMY. Not good. Why do you have to change the label? Why cant you think more flexibly?
It smelled yummy. It tasted yucky.
>But the music itself didn't change.
The music has no experience nor judgement.
>without lying about having reasons.
Judgement needs no reason.
I can say it over and over.
No one is lying.
Calm down.

File: Fg0YI3pXEAE3zzg.png (80 KB, 289x339)

80 KB PNG

>>39195762
He's a slave master and I will beat him the fuck up as soon as I leave my body.

>>39195847
>The error you likely are making is thinking a judgement has any power.
Well, if God can't change or remove your judgement, then He's not really omnipotent, is he?
>>I don't believe I personally do this when I judge things
>Your belief is wrong.
explain how? When I say the reason I like cats is because they have the longest whiskers on an animal, if you show me an animal with longer whiskers, I would stop liking cats.
>You keep bringing up reason like it has any relevance.
>It doesnt.
It does. The criteria for your judgements are reasons. If you judge something, and use a reason to do so, the judgement will be flawed when used on a being that decides how reason itself works.
>No one is lying. Calm down.
Yes you are! You're telling me reasons are arbitrary to your judgements, right? And then you make a claim like "God is evil because he hurts people"
Do you actually think God is evil because he hurts people? Apparently not, since reasons are arbitrary to your judgements. You could just as easily pick some other reason to think God is evil. Basically, you're telling us you hold a belief and there's a reason you hold the belief, when you actually have no reason. That's lying. Stohp it!
>The reason, as I said, is the experience. Not reason. Not logic.
I think I had a stroke reading this. So the reason is the the experience, but The reason is not itself and not the logic?

>It smelled YUMMY. Not good. Why do you have to change the label?
Because I have a fragile masculinity and saying "yummy" makes me feel faggy. Yummy Yummy Yummy Yummy Yucky! You happy now?
>The music has no experience nor judgement.
I know. The music didn't change. His judgement of the music changed after he understood. Meaning one's understanding can change one's judgement. To reiterate, the music didn't change. Only the criteria he used to judge the music.
>Judgement needs no reason.
that doesn't mean you should just lie about your reasons when you use them.

>>39196424
I can't believe people as retarded as you are even exist on this planet

>>39188911
God isn't evil or indifferent, but comatose or overburdened by the transference of power given by worship.

if god was one of us, say a bear, his life would pan out without anything really noticing it or the other way around.
Say god created the universe, and man was an afterthought, god would have to explore even a large magnitude of space to notice humans as one of many billions of afterthoughts by incident of a grand imagination.
A true god is as coming and going as a bird.

>>39196438
i can't believe the mods support this not paranormal christfag nonsense

>>39196592
christians believe jesus raised the dead, some king talked to dead people, david killed a giant, and a guy had magical strength due to being a hippie.
pretty paranormal desu

>>39196602
modern christians don't believe any of that. they believe kneeling down to the power structure means they will benefit from prosperity christianity. completely materialist philosophy like judaism and islam. not paranormal

>>39196616
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9qDz_d8BJg

>>39196592
>i can't believe the mods support this not paranormal christfag nonsense
Nigger please learn to read simple english before you comment. OP text states ALL spiritual views that consider God to be omnipotent.

>>39196667
not paranormal
you're not right just because you're a mod or sponsored by a mod

>>39196418
>if God can't change or remove your judgement
I explicitly said the opposite.
>explain how?
Because your judgement is based on experience. Everyone's is. You cannot judge without it.
>You're telling me reasons are arbitrary to your judgements, right?
No. I am telling judgement does not NEED reason. Are you really incapable of telling the difference?
>Do you actually think God is evil because he hurts people?
This has never been about what I think. Sentient beings can judge God evil, and can use that as reason.
Sentient beings could just as easily judge God GOOD because God hurts people.
>So the reason is the the experience, but The reason is not itself and not the logic?
Change the first "reason" to "impetus", if semantics are hard for you.
>You happy now?
Whatever you say, faggot. As I said it shows severe inflexibility in your thinking.
>His judgement of the music changed after he understood.
No, it changed after his experience did. If his experience did not change, then no amount of words would affect his judgement.
>that doesn't mean you should just lie about your reasons when you use them.no one is lying. Calm down.

>>39188911
I have begun to think of god as an omnipotent child. He has favorites, much like toys, throws tizzyfits, has no concept of those of us who need things. In this regard i can no longer hate him, instead i hate circumstance, the universe, whatever else for letting this happen. Idk not much else explains the indifference to good people, rewarding bad people, punishing good people etc. the whims of a child.

File: krishna baby leaf.jpg (73 KB, 640x469)

73 KB JPG

>>39198711
>the whims of a child.
The difference is a child has limitations. What they can achieve, what they can understand.
that is why they act the way they do.
For God, these acts are either by deliberate choice in full knowledge, or God is limited in the same way a child is - limited understanding first and foremost.
Why would a child ever throw a tizzyfit if it can have its desire simply by desiring it?

>>39198732
Idk, maybe I’ve conditioned myself. Im just tired of hating living. Im tired of blaming god (I had an accident at birth that fucked up my face. Ive had a lifetime of emotional pain from it. No friends, no girlfriends, etc) i would prefer to not hate every day of my life. Maybe if god is a bumbling simpleton i can logic my way into forgiveness and move forward with my life.

>>39198763
>had an accident at birth that fucked up my face.
I have something similar, and I used to think this mattered but I'm actually a very handsome man, though a bit below average height. If your face isn't a full reconstruction after an extremely violent injury like that Captain who had a meatbag for a face afterward, you'll be fine. Work on what you can change. You can try subliminals as well, be sure to tabmaxx for the most benefits (open many sub videos in many tabs). I've used them to change my face, working on height and face right now

>>39188911
Because God needs an opposite.

>>39188914
Spare the rod spoil the child, anon.

maybe hes sleeping guys. Let the man have his rest. Thats why he send us his son in his stead

you're not supposed to like it

even when I incarnated in physical form and did magic tricks and explained things, it didn't fix everything - it actually made a lot of things worse

>>39196916
The definition of paranormal in the dictionary: denoting events, beings or phenomena that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.

Now explain to me how an invisible God or Creator who made the whole universe is explained by current science. I'll wait, retard.

>>39190814
>that isn't gg for God
Actually I believe I have God in check

File: bg,f8f8f8-flat,750x,075,f(...).jpg (96 KB, 750x1000)

96 KB JPG

>>39198866
What did we learn?

>>39198810
Funny because that's exactly what Elijah says to taunt the priests of Baal for the same reason that is posited in this thread, that he is a powerless deity who couldn't do anything to prove his existence and save them from destruction. Meanwhile YHVH was able to because he was omnipotent. We have come full circle.

In theory every human soul is a fragment of God.

>>39198795
God can decide that children need 0% discipline to become perfect good beings.

>>39198790
If God NEEDS anything he's not omnipotent, he is a victim to another force or circumstance.

>>39198652
>>if God can't change or remove your judgement
>I explicitly said the opposite.
You said "He could change my judgement, if God wanted to. But that doesnt mean the judgement isnt there, nor is capable. "
From the horse's mouth.
>Because your judgement is based on experience. Everyone's is. You cannot judge without it.
Explain how I judge that a brown house is a brown thing without ever experiencing said brown house, then?
Should be impossible without experiencing it, right? So how did I do it?
>No. I am telling judgement does not NEED reason.
Yeah, it doesn't NEED a reason. But it's dishonest to use reason arbitrarily without saying you are.
>This has never been about what I think.
I know. It only needs to be LIKE what you think to explain what I mean.
>Change the first "reason" to "impetus", if semantics are hard for you.
>>So the impetus is the experience, but the impetus is not the reason and not the logic
That's a little better. Meaning you can have an abillity to move to a judgement without any reasons involved. I agree. But if said judgement claims to have reason when it was come to without any "I judge x is evil because y does z" then it is a lie, since in reality no reasons, no criteria, are involved in your evaluation/judgement. Worse, you're aware that no reasons are involved but still put reasoning in your judgements. You don't say "God is x. I have no reason. Just trust me." You say "God is x. Here's the reasons why I think so" knowing full well those reasons are not why you think so. That's lying.
>As I said it shows severe inflexibility in your thinking.
you have any studies on homophobic faggots to back that take up?
>No, it changed after his experience did. If his experience did not change, then no amount of words would affect his judgement.
You're saying the music changed? It didn't. I heard it. Are we watching the same video?
>no one is lying. Calm down.
Then what do you call saying stuff that they know isn't true to other people?

God is more evil than the devil. He allows children to die of cancer, yet does nothing about it. He allows children to be sexually assaulted. He allows people to be enslaved.

He will condemn people to hell for not blindly believing in him, despite him giving no evidence of his existence.

He's fictional, but if he were real, he's the real devil

>>39199548
Shhh. It'll be ok.

>>39199630
It cleary isn't and won't.

Interesting to note that it's only Abrahamic religions that view God as omnipotent and unequivocally "Good" and even in the Abrahamic system the idea of a single, omnipotent god was a relatively late development (Abraham if he was based on a real person would have almost certainly believed in the existence of multiple gods even if he had only worshipped one). The concept of true monotheism doesn't enter into biblical history until the the late reign of King Josiah or even later following the Babylonian Captivity. The simple fact that no other religious system in existence going back thousands of years views any specific deity as omnipotent should make us doubt that this is anything more than a human invention that was developed alongside the evolution of monotheism. What better way to make your god more worthy of worship than all the other gods than to claim that he is all-powerful. Titles such as all-mighty, or all-knowing were already traditionally applied to local versions of gods belonging to specific pantheons to grant them a higher status. With the rise of Christianity and Islam it became even more important to stress the unique characteristic of the one true God as being superior to all others.

File: ````.gif (1.78 MB, 498x245)

1.78 MB GIF

>>39195757

NARCISSISTIC ABUSES
RAPE & MURDER OF
INNOCENCE AND
RACISM ANON.

had ppl stopped hed
have reason to intervene
on peoples behalf

Suffer.

File: `````````.jpg (73 KB, 702x1024)

73 KB JPG

>>39195858

you do realize your existential expression itself is a projection FROM him right? you be deleted by being reabsorbed u dumb fuck

>>39199926
Cont.
The original title of the God of Abraham was in fact El-Elyon "God the highest" or "God Most High" The existence of this title means that the Abrahamic god himself was originally part of of a pantheon where he was attributed the highest status. The same goes for YHVH "I am that I am" who eventually takes his place or more specifically is combined with him by way of syncretism, evidence suggests that he was formerly worshipped as just one among many tribal deities. While it's almost certain that a sort of omnipotence was attributed to him by the time of King David and later the prophets, I would argue that it wasn't true omnipotence as is suggested in the OP of this thread but rather a sort of combination of powers and attributes that were often displayed by other gods which naturally lead to the much later development of true monotheism. He was simultaniously god of creation and destruction, of peace and war, he had all the attributes of a storm god which made him also a god of agriculture and civilization. There was nothing that any other god could do that he could not, and its this kind of omnipotence that is referred to in the bible rather than something that was outside of human powers of perception. He created the world and therefore the rules that governed it. He was "Good" because he blessed the people but he was also to be feared for his divine anger and jealousy.

>>39200126
Cont.
By the time of Jesus, there was already a proto-gnostic movement within Judaean religious thought that took some of its ideas from Persian religion. Satan became a much more important figure used to explain the existence of evil in creation. The people were expecting a messiah to appear who would deliver them from their enemies and rule as king from Jerusalem. No longer were the destructive qualities of God expressed but rather his qualities of love, forgiveness and redemption from sins. After Jesus came these were applied equally to him and overshadowed the vengeful and destructive qualities of the God of the OT. Those who believed in the divinity of Christ formed two parties, those who equated him with the God of Abraham and those who viewed him as an entirely different deity. Gnosticism developed rapidly in the first few centuries of the new millennium with the addition of Greek Platonism and syncretism with mystery cults of various origin, and finally fell away due to the conversion of the Roman empire and the rising power of the church.

>>39199569
>You said "He could change my judgement, if God wanted to.
The exact opposite of "God cant change or remove".
>how I judge that a brown house is a brown thing without ever experiencing
>without ever experiencing
>your judgement is based on experience
>your judgement is based on experience
'>your judgement is based on experience
The fuck is wrong with you?
You are literally quoting my explicitly saying the opposite of what you think I said.

>>39190910
The explanation is always that the "holy books" are "divinely inspired" but written by fallible humans, ergo the book can mean whatever the fuck you want it to mean because you can just claim anything you don't like is an error. That's how you get people telling you the entirety of the OT's evil acts is "just parables", how convenient.

>>39200100
You do realize that God can anally fuck you all night if he wants to and he will do it and you can't stop it u gay fuck

File: 1720126000-20240704.png (335 KB, 684x812)

335 KB PNG

>>39199569
>>39200456

File: ef4ec1b20c6206769120985a3(...).jpg (168 KB, 1080x1080)

168 KB JPG

>>39188911
The answer is that "God" is not a conscious being.

The folly and corruption of the Abrahamic religions was to try and take the concept of "Goodness" and personify it as a "Lord" when in practice, Kings are among the most evil people.

And that's just what so-called "God" is: Goodness.
It has no holy texts.
It can be defined specifically with examples, or meaningfully with abstractions, but not both.
You shall know it by its works.

>>39200456
>opposite of "God cant change or remove
I misread you on that, sorry. I thought you were still insisting that God didn't have power beyond your judgements. Since, if he does have power over your judgements, then I can make this argument:

If God just decides your judgements, then why assume they are accurate? God is omnipotent. He could make a judgement you make seem right and true when in actuality you have deeper judgements within you you're not privy to. He's literally all powerful. He could be doing this. He likely IS doing this. So why continue to judge him poorly(or at all) if you can help it?
>>how I judge that a brown house is a brown thing without ever experiencing
>>without ever experiencing
>>your judgement is based on experience
>>your judgement is based on experience
>'>your judgement is based on experience
>The fuck is wrong with you?
>You are literally quoting my explicitly saying the opposite of what you think I said.
Just to be clear, you're the one saying my judgement is based on experience, right?
If so,
just because you say my judgement is based on experience doesn't mean it is. I can judge a brown house as brown before I even see it, touch it, or experience it.

Besides that, if you just mean to undermine me by suggesting that because I misread what you were saying that somehow means my judgements are based only on my experience, no, they aren't. I was not aware I was mistaken about the facts, thus, I was coerced, my consent violated, into believing something that something false was actually true. But because how I evaluate my judgements has a logic to it, when my knowledge changes, so can my judgement. Otherwise I would keep arguing what I saw was right and the timelines changed or something, like a Mandela-fag because that was my experience. Evidently, I can doubt my experiences and listen to reason, change my mind when something isn't reasonable. It's actually super simple, but sometimes these things need to be spelled out.

>>39201050
I've literally said nothing about free will. Further, the comic suggests that God loves us and provides a reason why. Is her argument not a reason to believe God is benevolent?

>>39201636
oi

>>39201050
>talking about consistent physical laws in a Universe of probabilistic waveforms
ngmi

File: 1729850503-20241024.png (905 KB, 684x1516)

905 KB PNG

>>39201636
Sorry this was my indirect way of implying that I think a lot of your argument amounts to annoying semantic disagreement that I'm not sure is all in good-faith. Also the comic was relevant in pointing out that free-will, one of the common justifications for suffering in this thread, doesn't actually make sense as a concept, and I don't think it supports the notion that God is benevolent except as a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhXWDhCik6g

I'm burning like a fucking fire
Mysterious Domain, Murdered Apprehension
Shemyaza, Lacifarus - glow like the Sun
In this final hour
Ov Dawn ov the Dusk
I, heart ov all chthonic hearts
Vulture eye, fallen one, proclaim:
This great world
Is a mirror ov my small self
Striving for infinity, shall I remain?
We cannot kill the time:
It is the time that kills us
And I'm the answer on my questions
And blood ov my hopes and all prayers

Mark the sunset, the last judgement
And my rainment
This is the night, just black damn'd night

We cannot kill the time:
It is the time that kills us
And I'm the answer on my questions
And blood ov my hopes and all prayers

As dethroned so enthroned, attracted... rejected...
In this totality is perfection ov Me in Thee
Freedom ov Nature, delight ov Existence
So intoxicate me as I intoxicateth thee
Slay me as I createth thee
When reality is nothing more
Than quantum vortex
Deep sleep
Make it lucid dream
Or hallucinate if you please
In exaltations ov All, One, None
There Is No Difference
We are the First
And we are the Last
Io Pan!

>>39188911
maybe God isn't real?

>>39188911
Free Will is not without consequence, to know good Is to know evil and for us to be free God mustn't intervene otherwise you are not free, it would be easy for God to override our capacity for evil and make us incorruptible, but then again he could have also created more angels instead of us

>>What about Fallen angels
A parable for the sin of pride and the one angel who was victim to this was the one he made special above all, so he was granted the means to choose and with spiteful pride in his heart he fell from grace and it is by sin of pride he remains unforgiven, his sin like a millstone hanging from his neck keeps him bitter and bound to the abyss ever unable to escape his prison one of his own making.

Also in most cases the problem with the Bible is not how it is written but how it is read, Genesis is not the history of the creation of the world and humanity but a very human and flawed telling of mankind coming to terms with the cost of Free Will, a form of spiritual coping, since the ultimate test of Free Will is that we have to choose whether to give to evil which is the path of least resistance or choose to overcome evil and ascend to the garden this is not without it's trials and tribulations, doing good oftentimes is more difficult because acts of kindness can have a negative cost on our immediate desires for gratification and gain, sometimes to do good we must make sacrifices, it's this way our hearts and mettle is tested, it is how we are able to see the world through God's eyes, we have the power to do good, once we realize that material life is fleeting , illusory and temporary we come to terms with the truth, that we were made in the image of our creator, to create, protect and nurture, it is no accident that most men have dreams and fantasies of fighting to protect that which we hold important or to fight Injustice, we are the sons of our father the same way women have dreams of life and nurture, daughters of the creator father

>>39204441
Please think again about the premise. If God is omnipotent nothing MUST be a certain way. God can simply decide that free will exist without evil. If you say that is impossible you make the claim that God is in bondage to concept of logic outside of him.

So again if God is omnipotent he could have made humans without evil and it would be free will, if it was his decision. You would think that is perfectly logical. If he can't do that, he is limited and not by definition an omnipotent being.

>>39204448
I get your point about omnipotence, however what is the point of free will if from the get go you are nothing but a pre programmed automaton, only capable of one pre-defined set of actions, then it is not Free Will it is mere existence, choosing is free will for better or for worse.

if you're asking for god as an evil entity, then yes God can be evil, for he knows evil the difference is in every possible/impossible outcome god chooses good over evil, more so God has done evil in the past and yet when God does Evil he uses Evil for good, he flooded the earth and cleansed it so life may start anew in an era of rampant evil, he brought plagues to Egypt when the pharaoh refused to set free those he held in bondage, his actions in Egypt where not to degrade or to devalue the people of Egypt it was to show the pharaoh and his enablers the errors of his ways, no man is master of mankind and no man shall make slave of other men, for god made all of his children free.

Even so God having freed the Israelites, they themselves turned on him and made false gods to spite him, rather than strike them, God simply says, "Thy will be done" and when the enemies of Israel came, made them slaves again, their false gods fell to their enemies, he sent among them the messiah, to not only free them but to unite mankind and make all, even their enemies free, the Israelites crucified him and deny him to this day, even more ironic the Romans and other non semites follow the messiah a lowly jew, yet God will never abandon them or us even when we deny or spite him.

Making humans free but incapable of evil is fruitless, evil is the cost of Free Will, this is not an argument in favor of evil on the contrary it is a call to overcome evil.

We human beings are binary and dichotomous in nature, forever trapped in a grayscale bouncing between black and white. It is only when when choose good over evil that we are complete and understand our creator and why he made us this way.

File: 6f6c0eafd7df14a7572ff9000(...).jpg (457 KB, 1148x792)

457 KB JPG

>>39204448
>God is in bondage to concept of logic outside of him.
Two things wrong with that: 1. again, the spirit of Goodness is not a "person" in the way we think.
2. Not being a person, one of the things it IS is the *logic itself* that you're referring to. Like the OS for the universe.

So when you say, "God can simply decide that free will exist without evil", that's not just a change to the "Law" of the universe, in the sense of changing how free will works, it would require violating the basic PRINCIPLES of the universe, i.e. stuff like 1=1 and 1=/=0.
And that stuff is literally the same thing as "God" so it doesn't change.

>>39204638
> you are nothing but a pre programmed automaton
>We human beings are binary and dichotomous in nature

That is because God designed logic to be like that right now, meaning he could design a world in which it would be entirely logical that not committing baby rape and baby murder makes you 100% a free will individual and NO kind of evil needs to exist at all.

It's simple, really. You ask God the question "God, can you make free will 100% humans without evil?"

If God says no, I can't do that then he is not omnipotent, because some things are impossible for him.

>>39204639
>And that stuff is literally the same thing as "God" so it doesn't change.

It's simple, really. You ask God the question "God, can you make free will 100% humans without evil?"

If God says no, I can't do that then he is not omnipotent, because some things are impossible for him. If God can't overcome his nature or principles, then he is in bondage. If there is anything God can't will into existence or being then something ELSE controls him.

File: f17f395ad51b2b87845db2481(...).jpg (117 KB, 966x1366)

117 KB JPG

>>39204650
>If God says no
And if he says nothing because he's not a person in that way?

I mean, I'm not super-attached to the labels of "omnipotence" and such like christfags are, I'm trying to explain that "God" is fundamentally different from the fucking "Lord" that we've been imagining for millennia.

In fact, I think "omnipotence" might simply not apply because it implies a will.

>>39204672
>And if he says nothing because he's not a person in that way?
Pretty sure he can communicate concepts or even a yes or no, at least if near death experiences or astral travel are any reason to go believe it's legit.

>>39204684
Plenty of things in the astral can talk to you, homie.
A lot of them are even aligned with the Spirit of Goodness that people call "God", but the thing itself is big and complex.

>>39204699
Why would a simple bum spirit have more abilities than God? A simple hobo spirit can talk to you but God can't if he wanted to? kek

>>39204650
>some things are impossible for it
My brother in Christ let It cook.

Are y'all attempting to cognize the absolute again?

File: 1716766676833654.jpg (106 KB, 1280x720)

106 KB JPG

>>39204732
>but God can't if he wanted to? kek
You're being simple. What do you think that whole "burning bush" thing was all about?

Its not that "God can't talk to you", its that "MANY Gods are too much for YOU to handle talking to", let alone the highest Spirit of Goodness itself.

>a simple bum spirit
*sigh*
Bro... when I talk about a "Spirit aligned with the highest Spirit of Goodness", the more conventional term for that would be an "Angel".

"Bum spirit"?

>>39204650
>It's simple, really. You ask God the question "God, can you make free will 100% humans without evil?"
>
>If God says no, I can't do that then he is not omnipotent, because some things are impossible for him.

He can make beings 100% pure and free from evil, he made angels like Micheal, but Micheal is not human he is an instrument of god his path and actions are 100% pure and incorruptible, so Micheal the Archangel will never change.
This is the distinction between the angels ( Incorruptible Sentinels/Automatons) and us beings capable of free will and change, however I will refer to what you say is evil as Chaos ( Dichotomy ), we are imperfect and as such even when we think we do good we also do harm, cutlery can be beneficial to better eating and avoiding disease but cutlery can also be used to harm, you can gouge someone's eyes out with a spoon, you can even make the spoon bouncy and soft doesn't mean you can't still harm someone with it, you just apply more force.
Because we can choose, because we can change, because we are imperfect evil will exist even when you set out to do good, even when you think you do good you may be doing evil in the eyes of someone else and vice versa.
Change is the driving force behind our life's, God is infinite and not just omnipotent but also omnipresent, every possible outcome God is there, there's no such thing as predestination, today's good tomorrows evil, today's evil tomorrow's good.
life is a constant state of change only god is perfect for even when does evil he is doing good, god can make chaos do his will without intervention, he has overcome evil, that is why we have free will, to overcome nature, many things we deem abominable are naturally occurring, animals hunt and eat each other for survival, is the lion evil, is the bear evil, is the wolf evil?, they are doing as their nature commands, however since we have free will we can overcome nature and reign, god is above nature, free will is awareness of evil

>>39188911
why do you assume your human centered logic of good and evil is universal?

>>39204788
>He can make beings 100% pure and free from evil
>This is the distinction between the angels ( Incorruptible Sentinels/Automatons) and us beings capable of free will and change
Read the book of Enoch. Angels (formerly "lesser" deities) have free will and the ability to change, how else do you explain Lucifer?

>>39204833
>He can make beings 100% pure and free from evil
>This is the distinction between the angels ( Incorruptible Sentinels/Automatons) and us beings capable of free will and change
>Read the book of Enoch. Angels (formerly "lesser" deities) have free will and the ability to change, how else do you explain Lucifer?

Lucifer was made different from all the others he was the greatest among them and given he had higher faculties he also had the means to choose, he took his stature in heaven as a sign of superiority and scorned God's love for humanity as misplaced and a mistake so by pride (sin) he fell and remains fallen, also consider that pride is not necessary a bad thing it can be good you can feel pride in your own accomplishments or the accomplishments of others, but never should you use that pride to pursue, harm, denigrate or reduce others or even yourself (envy of others pride), Lucifer is the example of pride as sin, a mortal sin

>>39204780
>its that "MANY Gods are too much for YOU to handle talking to"
And who made it that way? It's a design choice. God can literally just decide that you can handle it and you could handle it. Unless of course we arrive back at the point that God is not omnipotent and he is limited and in bondage as to what he can do and will into existence.

>"Bum spirit"?
Isn't everyone a bum compared to an all-mighty limitless being? :^)

>>39204788
You are dodging the point. Either you admit that there are things that God CAN'T DO (aka he can't make pure free will without evil) or you admit NOTHING can limit God and whatever God wants happens even if it makes no logical sense to me or you but God is above logic.

>>39204793
I don't. I am just talking from a human perspective and many share it, but not all.

File: 60994545_p2.png (1.32 MB, 1000x1412)

1.32 MB PNG

>>39204881
>Unless of course we arrive back at the point that God is not omnipotent and he is limited and in bondage blahblahblah
Yeah, but that's kinda your thing.

I'm explaining why all of that is moot because "God" isn't a person with a will, and so "Omnipotent" cannot apply in the first place.

>>39204929
Then you don't have to join and discuss in the thread. The thread gave a premise. We discuss the premise.

"God is not omnipotent" is like "God isn't real!" just pointless because of the premise, although both of these things might be true.

>>39204881
He can, in fact he continuously creates himself across all possibilities he is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent and in all escenarios he is pure and above evil, what you struggle with is parting with the idea of absolutes as total truth, no such thing as total evil or total good exists, even when it seems evil God is doing Good, he has free will and is still perfect and pure, we are not God, we are merely replicas of his image and as replicas we are not quite the real deal, we could be and that is what our purpose in the universe is.
Lucifer was made pure and perfect with the ability to choose for himself, he fell to evil.
Christ was made human, frail, weak and imperfect, and he rose to perfection through choice and sacrifice, Christ could have abandoned what god asked of him, he was tempted by Satan, he did not reject Satan because it was how he was made but rather by his own choice, his own Free Will, everything Christ did he did not do out of fear of God, but out of love and realizing the truth choosing good above evil is the truth of God, you only know light because you already knew darkness, perfection and purity are not the absence of evil, they are result of being able to choose good above or despite evil, there is no such thing as predestination, otherwise you would be condemned from before you were even born, you were not born evil nor good you were born with the power choose and even if you were born pure, perfect, good with the ability to choose, then well, ask the one and only prisoner of hell how that went for him

>>39202442
>Also the comic was relevant in pointing out that free-will, one of the common justifications for suffering in this thread, doesn't actually make sense as a concept, and I don't think it supports the notion that God is benevolent except as a joke.
So you think that the comic was relevant because it pointed out that free will doesn't conceptually make sense?

Explain to me how that can be the real reason you think the comic is relevant, if the entire force that brought you to that conclusion excludes reason.

Tell me how it can be logically even possible you're not lying every time you claim to have a reason for one of your beliefs, and we will talk about arguing in good-faith.

>>39205007
If God could have made a world with 100% free will and no things like cancer for children, animal abuse and rape then he is from my human perspective not benevolent.

He is all-mighty so he can achieve ANY GOAL (maturity, perfection, free will, choice, you name it) without horrors or let's say LESS horrors yet he decided to include terrible pain because he just felt like it.

File: 3d775c1e5cf7c64c102338d0e(...).png (1.57 MB, 736x981)

1.57 MB PNG

>>39204995
>The thread gave a premise. We discuss the premise.
Well, the premise is wrong, so I'm discussing that~<3

What actually matters is Truth, not "victory" in some binary conflict between two wrong choices.

>>39205049
I'm not the anon you were talking to. I was replying to both of you. And what brought me to that conclusion is the absence of a coherent definition of free will. What does it mean? Either things happen deterministically or they happen randomly. Neither of those can be satisfyingly described as free will and there is no third option. When a person seems to make a decision, either they are making it because prior causes have forced them to make that decision (without invoking anything supernatural, biology operates at a scale where all apparent decisions should fall into that category as far as I know), or, at a higher level of abstraction, they're making it because it's what they find themselves "wanting" to do after evaluating the desirability of different options (and people don't choose their most basic desires, at bottom your preferences have to be based on simply valuing something just because), or they're somehow making it randomly.

>>39205136
*Or things can happen due to some combination of randomness and determinacy, but that doesn't lead to a satisfying idea of "free will" either.

>>39188911
The only reason good things can be considered good is in contrast to bad things. Eliminating all bad things makes good things neutral and pointless and it is our nature to be dissatisfied with such circumstances.

File: 0_lSa2XwwsG39nKekh.png (551 KB, 750x500)

551 KB PNG

To all you people acting like he gives a single iota of a care about you; Here is a man who lost the ability to remember. Clive Wearing, brilliant conductor, was in his mid 40's when he contracted herpes encephalitis. The doctors weren't able to get to him before the bug cooked his brain, permanently shitting his short-term memory. To this day he has been living the same 7 seconds of confusion and fear, over and over again, since 1985. When he was admitted, he would call his wife repeatedly with the same story "I don't know what the bloody hell is going on here, but please call me back.." and she did, repeatedly.
His favorite pastime is writing "This is my first conscious thought ever" in his notebook, and promptly scribbling out the last identical passage. He "hasn't seen a single human being" since 1985; he has but he can't remember. To him, he just got there, he always just got there. He describes the experience prior to 'waking up' like death, nothingness and oblivion. One of the only things that survived the bug was his music.
Now tell me, what would he learn from this? Really grasp for those straws bro.
I can sort of see why they do what they do up there, but at the same time I don't. This entire thing is pointless beyond painting a scene of torment, and letting your enemies(?) live there.

>>39205102
You can't prove that it's wrong so it's as pointless as saying God doesn't exist.

>>39205155
>The only reason good things can be considered good is in contrast to bad things.

Wrong. And again I don't know why I have to repeat this a million times: the premise is GOD IS OMNIPOTENT. You are saying "good can only exist in contrast to bad things"... says who? God? Then God can change it. If God can't change it he is bondage and victim to what you consider duality or logic.

>>39205057
God cannot square the circle, anon.

And by the by, what in the hell makes you think we could?

>>39205198
>God cannot square the circle, anon.
According to? Why do you think this is impossible for God because our human minds can't comprehend it? Think that through. If there is ANYTHING you can ask God and he says no, then he is not omnipotent.

Then there are limits, rules and things that keep God in bondage. So the force of logic is more powerful than God?

>>39204995
>>39205057
Here's the dilemma, God's Creation by default allows for such things, so even if we explain the existence of evil in Creation as the result of some "outside" interference (Satan, or the Angels in the book of Enoch) we also have to suppose that the capacity to do these things was preexisting and already built into the framework of his Creation and also that the concept for them was already in existence (how did the angels have knowledge of these things). Therefore by your definition, God is undeniably the source of that evil.

I'm also sure that most of us have heard of the explanation that evil is the absence of God just as darkness is the absence of light (and shadow the obstruction of light if you want to take that parable farther). However this poses another problem, namely it presents the question "can anything exist outside of God?" which would imply that God is not omnipresent. I agree with others in this thread that the very premise of this thread is flawed, however these are the conclusions I am forced to arrive at given the framework.

>>39205155
This isn't even a logical necessity. Things do not need always need their "opposites." Positive numbers can be conceptualized without also conceptualizing negative numbers. A world with only goodness could conceive of it as a spectrum with neutrality on one end and total bliss on the other. Or even if they didn't come up with a word for it at all, that wouldn't imply that it wasn't there. Things existed without words for them for most of history.

>>39188937
Your thought pattern is the other side of the coin of OP… have fun living together… either one of you will create the other too don’t worry. Like people are stuck at two roads… God is definitely omnipotent when people like you question his her their whatever whoever’s omnipotence. But it also is like what kind of life experiences these people are basing their truths on that amplifies or mutes someone’s messages… like any of them… what words… do I listen for? Change drastic change asking for forgiveness from American public (I’m talking about American but probably world intellectual class)… but that will never happen. Don’t worry God is omnipotent. I want to test how he works tho. Wtf people think right and wrong is a two roads problem? I turned on my emergency lights… it’s all dark… u don’t understand how unweighty all the fucking words are today…

File: dc354ba3deb890479d992f557(...).jpg (1.06 MB, 2185x4096)

1.06 MB JPG

>>39205191
>You can't prove that it's wrong
Can't I?

The entire premise of this thread is the CONTRADICTION, i.e. the idea that there's something WRONG with the premise.

I'm telling you how to square that circle.
You are trapped by the assumption that "God" must behave within the trappings of a person.
That's incorrect.

>>39205243
You ever seen the wizard of oz?

>>39205201
Anon, that's the thing. We are attempting to cognize the absolute- anon you CANNOT, BY DEFINITION cognize the absolute. You can't demarcate the ineffable. You cannot make a circle square.

You are trying to place limitations on God, and then getting angry when God operates outside of your paradigm.

>>39205247
Yes, and the real world has no "man behind the curtain".

File: SquareQuick_20241110125433510.jpg (338 KB, 1620x1620)

338 KB JPG

>>39205167
Very sad, but at least he seems to be okay-ish with his state. Setting aside the idea of God, it's hard to imagine there even being any sort of afterlife for humans when physical illnesses can damage our minds so thoroughly like this.

>>39205251
You're right that they're not men, Mr. wheat.

>>39205201
>If there is ANYTHING you can ask God and he says no, then he is not omnipotent.

What makes you think you have the right to ask anything of God, anon? Especially with that attitude. It's like, we both agree in the existence of God, we're just debating on whether It is an asshole or not.

>>39205234
People still die and are born… tons everyday… alone is frowned upon… guess what tho? I bet ppl can get by from being fake funeral guest service provider in the future… it’s pretty fucked up…

>>39205214
>Positive numbers can be conceptualized without also conceptualizing negative numbers.
Yes, but positive numbers cannot exist without negative numbers. You cannot separate the good from the bad, anon.

God should be able too, in theory, of course. Then why does he not do so? Because it is not God's will. Maybe some day we'll get there but Jesus titty-sucking Christ, anon, we won't get there with your attitude.

>>39205191
I only came to say what I said, I don't really agree with your premise in that if there is a God, we cannot know if he is omnipotent, that is impossible. I also believe omniscience itself, and by extension omnipotence itself, to be impossible. Cannot know if there is something you don't know, even if you happen to know everything else.
Regardless what I said was sound in a hypothetical situation with an omnipotent God. It is our constitution that makes it so. Further to that point, a God that created us probably could just change us, but meaning in the creation would then be lost. Creation has to have value to the creator as well to be worthy of creation. To the all-powerful, limitation is where value is found in anything.

>>39205249
>You cannot make a circle square.
I can also not imagine a different color than the colors I know this doesn't mean I can't say an omnipotent being can create endless new colors.

You need to be able to imagine a square circle to make the statement that God can do that.

>>39205243
You can't. No one in this thread can prove what God actually is. We can only debate ideas.

> that there's something WRONG with the premise.
Just your opinion. There are tons of near death experiences where people say they experience God and God literally communicates with them directly.

>>39205262
If God didn't want me to have the right he could just stop me, but he isn't. So on some level God seems to enjoy (or be indifferent?) if we hate him or criticize him.

>>39205057
So now you condemn God for not making nature stale and harmless, you seem to forget your own dichotomy, your material form is rooted in nature, so in other words you want genetic/biological homogeneity, the Y chromosome that is smaller and less resilient than the X is also the main purveyor of mutations and changes, men like Micheal Phelps or Shaquille o Neill are the result of that ever changing nature or if you are one of those that thinks that women have it better due to having a backup x chromosome , XX pairs have a higher chance of developing autoimmune diseases because the very same system that protects them can also turn aggressive against its host, if you want to blame someone for that blame nature, and God does not coerce nature because the principle of choice and diversity creates change, something Inmutable pre designed beings cannot do, that very possibility of change is what has made us rulers of this natural world, remember change is how you transcend your natural tendencies and defects through your spiritual will that is the other side of you, the side which was made in God's image, I suggest once again that there may be ideas about God that you need to part with, seems your concept of good is more human than spiritual/universal

>>39205268
>Creation has to have value to the creator as well to be worthy of creation.
>To the all-powerful, limitation is where value is found in anything.
Does it? Did God tell you that directly?

>>39205269
>>39205249
You don't need to be able* to imagine a square circle to make the statement that God can do that.

>>39205267
>Yes, but positive numbers cannot exist without negative numbers. You cannot separate the good from the bad, anon.
You repeat this but I'm not convinced by your reptition of it that it's true.

>>39205256
Physical illnesses are the origin of every one of our problems.
Soul or no soul, a boulder cannot choose to fall on a man, it's blown by wind and the path is made via erosion. Of course they could move the boulder somewhere it won't fall, or have no boulders in the first place, but that would be against free will, wouldn't it? The boulder has a right to choose.

>>39205273
Why would I blame nature when nature was designed by God and he could change it with the blink of an eye?
>something Inmutable pre designed beings cannot do
You keep making statements that things are impossible for God.

"So and so isn't possible"
"Beings can't do that if x and y"

If God is all-powerful he can take your sentences, your logic and change into whatever he wants.

>>39205276
Also isn't separating the good from the bad exactly what the Christian God supposedly intends to do in the end https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A31-46&version=NIV

File: space-weather-2.jpg (26 KB, 409x409)

26 KB JPG

>>39205269
>so on some level God seems to enjoy if we hate him or criticize him
Yes, you're starting to get it, anon. Congratulations, have a star.

>>39205285
Yes, in the end it is. But anon, we're not at the end yet. You have to let the story play out, anon. If you tried skipping to the end, bad things would probably happen.

>>39205285
Furthermore, the bible has been so corrupted that it is tantamount to toilet paper at this point.

>>39205265
Guess who I first called into my heart when I felt like I could cry for them like a fucking G in my most chaotic moment? (Possession or hyperactivation? Possession by whom? I kill thou…) Guess what happened after… it could be like a fucking mini series… Dionysian theatre…
Do it. It’s like a tradition. What you can’t write a quality paper that ai can’t? Then stop complaining and learn from others… cause I don’t know then… I’m not for them… also result is gonna be a very different you than your paper.

>>39205296
So you admit that it is possible, that there's no logical necessity.
Sounds like a good case for immanentize the eschaton right now if you ask me. I mean, surely God can do it without any issues whenever he feels like it, being God and all.

>>39205306
문학도의 기본자세 아님? ㅅㅂ 세상 좃같은데…

>>39205277
Kek

>>39205309
>immanentize the eschaton
Here's the thing, buddy: I am also a very very smart person, I'm talking like, just very wise. I, too, have floated with the idea of immanetizing the eschaton. Anon, I'm starting to think we might be wrong.

I am still 100% in favor of doing it, I mean, if the button was in front if me I would press it right now. Anon I'd press it with my tongue. I mean, at this point fuck it, we ball. And I hope we learn well from the consequences of our actions.

May God have mercy on our souls (when he's done kissing my ass)

File: 1729960945599354.jpg (52 KB, 650x936)

52 KB JPG

>>39205350
SOON. (That's God-speak for three to five business millennia.)