"The Devil can have no real victory unless it is permitted to him by God. So God in His infinite Providence and Wisdom saw that the human race would benefit more by falling and then being redeemed, than by never having sinned."
- Most Rev. Donald Sanborn
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Truth, but those who cannot understand and are hopelessly attached to the idea of evil being an ultimately terrible thing that absolutely positively should've never existed, will hate you for saying it.
God is omnipotent too. So God has access to the time machine and knows all potential universes that could have happened.
>god allows evil because it leads to the greater good chud
>...no for frick's sake i am not going to discuss about hell again just pretend I have the final word OK???
>evil being an ultimately terrible thing
Otherwise it wouldn't be evil, moron
It is like the Avalokiteshvara of Mahayana Buddhism.
The human mind is very imaginative. It finds clever ways to justify the unreasonable in order to defend its emotionally held beliefs. The simpler solution to the problem of evil is that we evolved to suffer because this gives an advantage in survival. Organisms that do not suffer have no reason to fight for their existence, so they are replaced by those who are constantly urged by the desire to change their circumstances. And of course there is motivation to cause suffering because this often comes with some material gain which is conducive to one’s survival. The problem of suffering is easily explained in a physicalist worldview with no gods. But in theism you must simply take it on faith, and remind yourself that you don’t know anything, only God does. Which is a very convenient excuse, isn’t it? But you don’t care to hear any of this, do you? Your mind is made up. You need religion to survive, it is how you cope.
>The simpler solution to the problem of evil is that we evolved to suffer because this gives an advantage in survival
What? Evil evolved?
Nothing matters to the sea, my dude
Evil only exists in the mind. In war, the result can be considered good by one side, and evil by another. And a third side may be completely indifferent. It is clearly subjective. If no life existed, then there would be no evil (or good)
You're thinking of good in it's individual perspective form, but there are more ultimate ways to view good, like understanding Good as those things which, objectively, nurture humanities progress towards it's shared ideals, or even ideals that beyond anyone's understanding. Basically, you're right that humanity's sense of good is subjective, but Christians already acknowledge this, which is why you're told to abandon your good any put your faith in a higher good.
Evil is billionaires with slaves chained to their wall who wake up and take a shit in their mouth every morning.
I actually agree with you in a way, but am still Christian.
Material reality truly does make sense in a sort of "enclosed" way, in that there doesn't seem to be any need for materially unexplainable phenomena (higher dimensions explains even the most insane physical phenomena that would otherwise seemingly lack any explanation), everything about human existence, why we see things the way we do, etc etc, makes perfect sense through material, evolutionary logic. Yet that doesn't really answer the question in any sort of ultimate sense like you imply, it just moves it to "why is the nature of existence like this? Why did the universe give rise to life, as a working phenomenon?"
Really, all materialist explanations have this problem, science as a whole does too, it can always solve things mechanically but never answer the more fundamental question of WHY things are quite like "this" instead of being, say, anything else. Or even why existence IS at all.
I also think it's quite naive to think that we as humans could ever have any reasonably complete understanding of our own existence, to the point that we need to fill the rest in with imagination because the reality is too simple to accept, ironically I think we're able to know just enough about our universe to arrive at the conclusion that we could never truly understand why anything is, through pure reasoning. The universe is quite apparently complex, all of humanity's collective knowledge has only ever managed to create more questions than it answers, as if to consistently humble us
Why do you think a few monkeys that recently discovered atoms and the theory of relativity should understand why the universe exists? And why do you think there should be a cause at all? Your brain is adapted to search and seek out patterns, but it could be the case that the patterns in this universe are a spontaneous and emergent structure, a rare anomaly of sorts. I don’t like to say that the multiverse exists, because it’s somewhat meaningless to say that other universes exist if we can’t actually interact with them or test them in any way, but I like to imagine that there are infinite universes and infinite varieties of universes, and universes like ours appear inevitably, so that there is no miracle to it. The universe exists simply because it can. Logic, causality, necessity, these are all assumptions based on what we see in THIS universe. Because even if such laws existed, you would still have the same problem, as you couldn’t explain why those laws exist in the first place (and do these laws precede God? Or did God create logic? Is God outside of logic completely? Etc.). Of course if you entertain the multiverse theory then this could also lead to the existence of gods, but also not. There is no way to test it. But all of this is just monkey-brain speculation. We don’t need to know any of this to survive and solve problems here on Earth. But I have developed these beliefs to excuse myself from the wrath of God if I ever must face him. Everything is a cope, after all.
Again, I fully get where you're coming from.
The whole "existence is fundamentally inevitable and things are the way they are because really everything, both imaginable and unimaginable, is a part of "existence" and we are merely experiencing this particular part of it" is something I believed for most of my life. I won't lie to you, I can't disprove it, I didn't stop believing it because I realized some great truth that disproves it. But what changed is that I came to believe shrugging anything off as "it just is because it is and our desire for answers is misleading us to create explanations that aren't there aka cope" is actually the real error in thought. We are not separate from reality. In an objective, non-moral kind of way, the universe is "perfect" precisely because everything is interconnected in a causal, relational way. And that includes us. Our desire for answers came about because life, by it's very nature, but I believe that fact of life in and of itself contains very serious implications about existence which imply greater forces at work, which are working towards real meaning. Basically, the universe created us such that we see meaning because there IS meaning, and shrugging that aspect of our nature off as some coincidence that'll mislead us is the REAL misleading. We may not fully understand the meaning, in fact, we are built in such a way that individually, we never can (this is why faith is necessary to act in accordance with higher truths by the way, its how we bypass our limitation), yet we are drawn to meaning collectively, and perpetually pursue it as an inherent inclination of the phenomena of life, because, whether we can understand it or not, we are a part of an incomprehensibly greater phenomena. The ultimate "plan" of the one, primal, original cause, if you will. And this cause is God, the ONLY thing which truly defies existential truth.
At the end of the day, these are just words. Time will tell who is right. But if I had the power to do so, I would not want to breed people like you. I would start my own colony on another planet, and first focus on technological power and conquering the universe. Then we would return and kill all of you, then colonize the whole universe with super geniuses who thrive on mere existence (with the aid of genetic engineering of course). And only then we will start trying to solve the problem of existence (if we even view it as a problem). good luck to your descendants. They’ll need it.
Thank you, and good luck to you too.
For all that I've said I actually fully agree that only time will tell, what ends up happening from here on will answer these questions in a truer way than anyone's speculation ever could. We'll just have to see.
I won't get into what lead me to this conclusion, because it's ridiculously complicated and entails years of experience and searching for meaning within every iota of my experiential existence, but I think if you want to know more you should try entertaining this idea for a bit, even if just to experiment, and see where that leads you. I think you won't be disappointed. Bluntly put I think the dead end you're at is the trickery of a higher dimensional being who's whole purpose is to keep you from contributing to the final goal (although really all this does is delay it, but I digress), and I just think you should try entertaining this other possibility, the revelations that result are endless and give the experience of life a much more nuanced feel, almost as if you're back on track with the true purpose you're non-coincidental nature is trying to lead you to.
>god is a consequentialist
God would have to be if He is good and all knowing. The difference is He knows what the true consequences are.
Then just create the true consequences? Isn't god omnipotent?
Nta, but he did. We are experiencing it right now, that's the point. Every second that passes allows us to see more of his plan unfold, thus allows us to understand a bit better. You're basically b***hing that god isn't just "getting to the point" and skipping the process, but that's moronic. The process is part of the final product, time is an illusion, the past and future are equally relevant chunks of the whole.
Except god can get to the point, if god was omnipotent. The idea of committing evil for a greater good makes sense for humans precisely because we are not omnipotent, so we have to make compromises. It doesn't make sense for an omnipotent god.
You assume that God doesn't want us to suffer when in fact God wants us to suffer the pains of the cross.
>god wants us to suffer the pains of the cross
>to cleanse us
An omnipotent god could just cleanse us without the theatrics.
Could and would are very different things. What matters is what actually did happen, all proper learning starts from the assumption that what happened is what oughta happen, and we are merely here to understand why from that baseline. When you start getting into the whole "things should've happened in a different way" shtick, you're just engaging in an elaborate form of denial
An elaborate form of denial is starting with the premise that god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and then attempting to justify the existence of evil after the fact. We do not apply that logic to other peopke, instead we look at their actions first and then determine afterwards if they are good, smart etc. Likewise, the existence of evil should lead us to the conclusion that god is either not omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent.
But then it would all have less value. Imagine a video game where you always won.
Could he? Yea. He doesn't wanna though, and won't just because you, with you're extremely primtive understanding of things, thinks he oughta. You think God is embarrassed that you aren't satisfied with what he's giving you or something? You could never appreciate why he does what he does, it's ridiculous that you think you could
>You're just a stupid monkey that knows nothing about anything, let alone god
>So let me, another stupid monkey, tell you about the god that we both know nothing about nor are even sure it exists.
I don't claim to understand why, I claim to understand that thinking you ever COULD understand is foolish, which is a much simpler and entirely knowable truth, hence why you're an idiot for not even understanding that. We as humans have the unique ability to understand that we are incredibly limited beings, yet you act with an arrogance that indicates you don't even know that much.
>I don't claim to understand why.
>I just insist that there must be a reason why, despite admitting that I don't understand anything.
Believe there isn't a reason why if you'd like, I can't prove that there is anymore than you can prove that there isn't. And I don't claim I can't understand ANYTHING, I claim I can't understand EVERYTHING, which is what I would have to understand to fully get why the universe is at it is and thus understand WHY it's good to begin with.
I have not started with any such premise, the premise I'm starting with is that things are the way they are for unchangeable reasons/causes and choosing to find these things "disagreeable" is setting yourself up for a shitty time, as if you're punching yourself in the face while complaining that doing so hurts.
>We do not apply that logic to other peopke
Why on earth would I apply the same logic to people as the universe aka God? One can change (hence why we expect them to and force them to when we want them to) and one cannot, or perhaps simply will not. Treating the actual universe like it's your equal is moronic, this is why God tells you to humble yourself, your arrogance is your own downfall.
These aren't just things that that anon finds disagreeable. These are things that god finds disagreeable according to his own holy text.
God doesn't find reality disagreeable in an ultimate sense, he allows everything to happen regardless of whether or not it is in line with what he commands of us because such an approach is part of his will. It all ties back to his gift of free-will, he chose to let us stray from what he wants us to do because he saw, in his ability to understand all of time and existence from beginning to end, that what that created was even better than simply programming us to do what wants with no ability to act outside of it. Basically, God chooses to let us act outside his will. I know that's a bit of a mind-frick but that sort of decision making isn't exactly foreign to humans, we do stuff we don't technically "want" to all the time because we recognize that we do want what it'll lead to in a greater sense. That's why embracing suffering for the sake of growth is probably the "Godliest" thing we can do.
The entire universe is God's doing, hence everything about it is effectively an extension of God. Yes, even the things you don't like. This is effectively a leap of faith, but I'm not asking you to make that leap, everything I just said still makes sense if you just see it as "the universe in all it's unchanging, unflinching, perpetuated existence." I see this as God but that's inconsequential to the logic of it all, it might as well be a matter of arbitrary labels for all you're concerned, assuming you're a materialist.
Why didn't god create a world eiyh free will and without evil? Was god unable to, or unwilling?
Free will isn't free will without evil. Free will is the ability to choose evil or good for yourself, if there were only good than free will would lack the quality that actually makes it so great. It would make the universe a completely arbitrary series of fake free decisions. So I guess, unwilling, but only because what you think he "ought" to have done is actually less.
god creates people with foreknowledge of the choices they'll make. Why couldn't god create only people that would free willingly choose to do good, and not people that god knows will commit evil?
>Why couldn't god create only people that would free willingly choose to do good
They wouldn't be people. We're only people because we're distinct from God, the Absolute Good, and thus have the capacity to stray from that good.
They still have free will, they just don't choose to do evil or stray from good, as god already has foreknowledge of. Thus, a world with free will and without evil was possible. god just wasn't capable or willing to create such a world.
What you're describing is just God forcing people to do good, and thus removing their personhood. There's no other way to achieve what you describe.
There exists a person that does not desire to rape, and will likely never freely will to choose rape. Did god rob that person of their personhood and force them to do good?
Do animals sin more than humans?
Animals have no intellect/nous that connects them to the divine and thus no obligations.
God makes all people with the ability to choose to do good or bad in a way that he actually doesn't dictate, he knows which one we'll do but only because, from his perception outside of time, it all happens simultaneously. He still didn't MAKE anyone do good or bad. What you're touching on is calvanism, which is heresy, in reality we have free will because of the fifth dimension (different timelines) and quantum indetermanicy (both outcomes are equally possible until one is observed at the moment of its realization). God made all outcomes but let US choose which one we prefer with our actions, you can even look into this, our decision making process relies on quantum fluctuations, it's why the behavior of living things isn't predictable in the way the behavior of non-living things is. This is a distinct form of unpredictability from, say, flipping a coin, because even if you have ALL factors accounted for you STILL can't predict it, it's physically impossible because in order to observe a quantum particle to begin with, you inherently cause it to collapse into one definitive outcome.
What's nihilistic about what I'm saying? You think you aren't inherently putting faith in your senses by relying on them to tell you the truth? I'm not nihilistic about it because to me, this just means faith is inevitable and in fact, objectively logical, what matters is what you're informing your faith with.
why was god incapable or unwilling to create a world with free will and without evil?
Stop saying incapable OR unwilling, it's unwilling, there's no question, he COULD have, but he didn't. And the reason is because that's what best, objectively. I don't really know why, but I trust him more than you
You’re a woman, aren’t you
Nope
God doesn't think heaven in and of itself is lame, but the process by which heaven comes about has a bearing on this. You're treating the process as meaningless compared to the conclusion, but that's only because of how you perceive time, to God, it's all equally real all at once. The past is just as relevant a part of existence as the future.
>So why doesn't god skip to the conclusion? Inability or unwillingness?
Unwillingness
No, free will is the ability to choose between good and evil (aka to follow God's will or go against it). I think he could make a bunch of good things and let us arbitrarily pick between them, but that literally wouldn't be the same thing. Maybe you call that free will, but he doesn't.
Why doesn't god make all parts of the timeline heaven? Unwillingness or inability?
Unwillingness
So god is not omnibenevolent?
Good =/= doing what you want him to do
You agreed that heaven was the ultimate good. Making everything heaven would be better than make some things other than heaven, the ultimate good.
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."
- Romans 11:33-36
People aren't forced against their will to be in heaven with God in reality. And I would say this is better than your idea.
The truth doesn't rise or fall based on how many people believe in it though.
>Some people actually want eternal suffering, chud!
>The truth
What is the truth for you?
The truth is in actuality God's word and that which prevails in reality. It can easily be the case that all but 7000 men have bowed the knee to Baal or other false gods, but that doesn't make them any more true or capable of doing anything than if nobody ever heard of them. If the majority go down the broad road to destruction (rejection of the truth) and only a few men take the straight and narrow way spoken of by the Lord, then that is exactly what will be the result: the majority will end up destroyed, and the few will be saved in such a situation.
So you admit that god is capable of creating a world with free will and without evil?
Because he's a creation of man's intellect and thus limited to what man can conceive of. One can find a good example in how God basically becomes more and more powerful as the Old Testament goes on. Not because the writers of the older section didn't think God wasn't all powerful, quite the opposite they believed he was, but being a "less advanced" people certain feats and actions simply didn't even occur to them. Think how earlier in the Bible God has to send messengers or even go himself to see what's going on, but later in the book he just "knows" all things at all times. This isn't because he "wasn't capable" of the latter originally per say, it's because the author had never even conceived of the idea of "remote viewing" or whatever you want to call it. We even see it in Paganism, both in comparing it to Monotheism, but also within itself. The Gods written about by later philosophers are much more powerful than the same gods from 500 years earlier. Because the earlier gods were thought up by illiterate bronze age hicks while the later ones were being discussed by educated men who actually had the time and learning to consider what something "all powerful" could actually do.
>The entire universe is god's doing
How do you get that from the universe as is?
Faith, I literally said so in that same post
So your beliefs aren't logical. Got it.
Faith isn't illogical in and of itself, you absolutely cannot prove anything without a leap of faith. Inherently you have to put faith in the reliability of your senses to even function.
Why do christkeks become the ultimate epistemological nihilists when pressed on their beliefs?
It's a tactic christcucks use to later equate their belief in magic israelites with stuff like A=A.
Except you're tacking on the existence of god on top of that, which makes your worldview more faithbased and illogical than mine, which only assumes the reliability of the senses.
I don't tack God on top of my beliefs for no reason though, just like, obviously, you don't trust your senses for no reason. I'm not gonna get into the full of my reason here, I touched on it a bit here
but in order to actually fully explain the process by which I came to believe in God I would have to write several novels. I literally wrote a 10 000 word essay on why I believe in God and wasn't able to touch on even 1% of all my reasons, it unironically is a decision informed by every second of my entire life, and all the knowledge and experience I gained throughout it.
Quite literally. Go ahead and think otherwise, see where that get's you.
I love life without having to believe in God
Good for you, never said you couldn't. All loving life takes is believing that what you experience is more good than bad, it's not hard to detatch that from God, I'm just saying that it is a part of my worldview as well. For me it is a consequence of believing in God, but it doesn't have to be, I didn't hate life before I became Christian or anything, in fact my love of life is part of what compelled me to become Christian
How do you go from the universe as is to the existence of god, let alone the omnipotence and omniscience of god?
>same logic to people
That's the same logic we apply to all things, not just people. Not my fault that reality doesn't match your conception of god
>Not my fault that reality doesn't match your conception of god
My conception of God is built of top of reality, I understand reality as being a consequence of God and hence it is the ultimate, no, pretty much the ONLY way in which I CAN have a conception of him.
If your conception of god was built on top of reality, then you wouldn't conceive of god as both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, because evil exists.
Evil exists and is good in the grand scheme of things, how is this so hard for you guys to understand? I think your error in understanding stems from a misunderstanding of what Christian's mean when they say God is omnibenevolent, you think that they're asserting a human's sense of good and bad leads one to the conclusion that God is good, that's not what they're saying, because obviously it doesn't, what they're saying (and what I'm saying) is that you should abandon your primitive sense of good and bad and put your faith in the universe (aka God) as the highest form of good that there is, and work from there. That's what submitting to God's will means, you're NOT submitting hence why you're failing to understand. The epicurean paradox you're trying to throw at me doesn't work because it's only correct under a conception of good that only atheists have and Christian's have abandoned, hence why only atheists think it's convincing lol
So you concede that you don't know if god is omnibenevolent, because you admit you don't know what omnibenevolence means?
I admit no such thing, I'm saying that my conception of good and hence my conception of "omnibenevalence" are built off of the assumption that the universe, as it occurs before me, is the ultimate good. It's an assumption, sure, as is all morality, but it's the most logical one because it keeps me from being at odds with unchangeable realities. Basically I'm choosing to love life. You can go ahead and disagree, hate life all you want man, I wouldn't recommend it but hey, you do you.
>the universe, as it occurs before me, is the ultimate good
What is heaven?
Heaven is a place of no sin, and it is the inevitable conclusion to everything you're experiencing. God wins in the end, and heaven on earth is established.
Why doesn't god skip to the conclusion?
You mean why isn't heaven all there is? As I said, that's LITERALLY what a universe without free will would be. But obviously God decided that would be lame and so gave us the ability to choose to maintain heaven or destroy it. The literal first thing we did was destroy it, and we have been suffering the consequences ever since, and God has allowed it all to happen because he knows in the end heaven will inevitably be established on earth again WITHOUT him needing to force it. He's letting it happen naturally. He COULD force it, but doesn't
>Inb4 that sucks, I want him to make heaven on earth now!!!
Sucks, he's God and you're not so his will to give us free will trumps yours. Clearly God, knowing literally all things, has more info than you, a mere single, incredibly limited, being of his creation, so Ima trust he knows what's best more than you. Simple as.
How is Heaven going to be established if people are less and less christians? Do you know many real christians?
I know a lot of real Christians. We're diminishing right now, but that's within the plan, you think things haven't been bad before? We've been a lot closer to effective extinction than this, and still ended up prevailing and even becoming the largest religion on the planet. In fact, God is nerfing our position right now as another one of his shit tests, frankly speaking we've had it too good for too long and have gotten too wienery, we've become weak and privileged, too weak to contend with the bigger threats like the full force of the devil, so he's sending struggles to toughen us up.
>Inb4 how do you know any of this?
I don't, but I have faith. Only time will tell for sure, but I would bet, and am betting, my entire existence on it.
I would want to know where are you from because in all my life I only knew like 2 or 3 people of my age that are real christians. So you really think that people are going to become hardcore christians again in Europe for example?, in France for example. How is that going to happen exactly.
>So you really think that people are going to become hardcore christians again in Europe for example? In France for example?
No idea, maybe. Maybe it'll happen so far in the future that current countries don't exist. Maybe religion will be wiped out and rediscovered. Only time will tell.
>How is that going to happen exactly.
Again, only time will tell.
So basically you don't know. But as things are going people become less and less religious, the only places where Christianity is keeping or gaining followers is in poor countries but in developed countries it is declining and I would say fast.
Science has ended Christianity, people that learn so much science in class then can't go and believe that a magic being created the universe, Earth , animals and everything. It's incompatible. You could tell that in a church in the 1200s and as the people were illiterate they believed it, but not now.
I think Christianity has good teachings though and it will survive as some kind of philosophy base for people to be good and forgive and not hate and help the poor and sick and all those things. But people can't believe in all the magical things of The Bible anymore. Go tell all those things to something that is today 15 years old and he will laugh in your face.
You will believe when you get stomped.
You just said heaven was the ultimate conclusion. Clearly god doesn't think it is lame, if all the theatrics are working towards it. So why doesn't god skip to the conclusion? Inability or unwillingness?
> God decided that would be lame and so gave us the ability to choose to maintain heaven or destroy it. The literal first thing we did was destroy it, and we have been suffering the consequences ever since
How would you know this by looking at the world as is?
I don't know for sure, I can't prove it, I have faith do you not know what a religion is?
God wants us to suffer the pains of the cross and to cleanse us and make us closer to Him.
Stupid
Little kids are obliterated in air strikes, and abducted, tortured, raped, and killed. Nobody can even try to explain *how* this contributes to a greater good, they just say it mysteriously does somehow to post-hoc justify their unfounded belief that the creator is perfectly good.
Yeah even atheists use similar copes when they want to feel positive about such things. But imagine if open individualism is true and every conscious experience is “you.” Then the suffering of those kids is YOUR suffering. Surely you would want to do something to prevent this, right? You don’t want to be reincarnated as a child that’s burned alive. It’s easy to say the world is perfect when your life is peaceful.
I don't see humans sinning less after 2000 years of Christianity. I see society getting more and more degenerate. So something isn't working in that.
Pain is a good thing there can be no growth without pain. I think some things we call evils are just a type of growth too.
I think good definitely grows out of evil. Look at the slave moralities Nietzsche talked about. They're not necessarily a bad thing.
You are on the right track, but you are still not thinking scientifically. It is too superficial, too poetic (a crutch that must eventually must go). Even Nietzsche suffered from this, believing the will to power to be something fundamental, and not the natural result of evolution converging on a set of desires that approximate a “will to power,” as organisms must seek power in order to survive. But we clearly do not seek power perfectly. We do not seek pain as much as we should. We do not maximize our chances of survival. We simply follow our desires which exist because they managed to help our ancestors survive.
I think he saw the will to power as the sum of those desires, and I think he himself saw those desires arise by evolution. His point wasn't that we would all seek power perfectly but we all have a number of competing wills in us. We should follow those desires to their fullest extent, and whatever pain it may bring is a good thing. That pain determines who we are
No, he said specifically that physiologists make an error in assuming that the desire to survive is primary. This is just one of the consequences of the will to power, to exert yourself. Or “discharge your strength” as he put it. It’s all poetic and lovely, but wrong.
Yeah but he still thinks that desire arose by evolution. I don't think you can boil any one thing down to "desire to survive" though, and I don't think the human population is selected by "desire to survive" or even the strength of their wills. Humanity has probably been affected more by events out of its control, like weather and plagues, than events in its control. I think there are many different wills which push people forward.
So God was either incapable or unwilling to simply have humanity get the benefits of both but the negatives of neither? Seems to me god either isn't all-powerful or isn't all good.
Sinners wouldn't love God as much if they had never sinned. They also wouldn't have as much humility. Then they become grateful to God rescuing them.
Ironically people like you aren't even wrong to accuse God of not being good, they're "correct" in the sense that yes, God indeed DOESN'T fit their idea of good, no matter how much you try to force it. Yet all this means is that you're dumb enough to build up a conception of good that puts you at odds with the universe. You're inflicting yourself with the notion that the universe isn't good, logically it only makes sense to build your conception of good on top of reality as it is presented to you, as the former can change while the latter most certainly won't. You're gonna call this a coping mechanism with the implication that it means I'm wrong, yet which one of us is at odds with reality? The universe is the truest good there is, understand this and you'll finally stop toiling in frustration for no reason.
>"The universe is good as is, because it just is, ok!"
This is a little too close to new age drivel about life on Earth being some sort of test or learning experience. That it is true in a sense, but only accidentally, it wasn't orchestrated by God to be such. All God wants is for Heaven and Earth to be one again, and that's what He is working towards. Time is an illusion only experienced by mortals, so it doesn't really matter how much time it appears to take to defeat evil, because God has already done it. But ultimately evil is allowed to exist temporarily because that's just the nature of the world, it just sucks because it is inherently separate from God. For God to crudely brute-force all evil from it without our consent would effectively be to destroy it and turn it into a lifeless husk.
Guys this has been fun and all but it's 1:00 pm where I live so I'm gonna go to bed now. Hopefully some other Christian will come and pick up where I left off, but I doubt it.
Congratulations anon, you became even more a moronic homosexual.
>God has to allow evil to reach the extents he wants man to because... HE JUST DOES OK!
Why else would God have allowed the fall unless He decided the fall would be better somehow? I believe God is all 3 of the omnis so God would know the outcome with or without the fall.
Maybe stories written by ancient desert semites weren't the most coherent? No, there must be some divine wisdom behind god demanding foreskins and losing to iron chariots, among other things.
>God in His infinite Providence and Wisdom saw that the human race would benefit more by having babies die by cancer.
ayy man
Death exists because of sin which is because of Adam going against God's will. And souls have a continued existence after death occurs in the body, and in this existence each individual is then judged by God. That's simply how it is.
No. Wrong. It's not that the human race would benefit from falling, it's that free will exists because God loves us, but because we have free will we will inevitably sin against.him and use our free will. It has nothing to do with sin being good for.us, it's not. I hate when anyone says shit like that. When people try to turn sin into something to be praised. "Thank God Adam and eve sinned" it's.so absolute backwards to the entire.message of everything in God's Bible. Sin is bad, doing what God wants is good, period. The only reason sin exists is because free will exists. But one thing is that God does plan ahead and uses all sin to accomplish his own goals. He knows our moves before we make them and he plays around them so that we.unknowingly and unintentionally accomplish his goals, which are always good.