Trannys go to circle 8.3 of hell

> My children are hurting themselves
> I guess I should torture them for eternity, that'll teach them

>My children are trying to learn according to a reasonable standard of their day
> If it's not entirely reasonable, they're still sincere about it, which means they don't know any better
> Better torture them for eternity

How the fuck is that moral? How does it make sense? What the hell is wrong with you?

They did it to themselves.

>he thinks of theodicy in terms of most banal examples
Sad.

With an omnipotent, omniscient God it doesn't change anything, he's still culpable.

u r dum

Read about the prodigal son.

If God is omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect that does not imply the inexistence of evil. Those attributes only imply that we live in the best of all possible worlds (the world with the least evil). The presence of evil is compatible with the 3 attributes named above - there is no contradiction.

Do not talk about things you know nothing of.

Your Catholic school education is insufficient for doing real philosophy.

Eternal hell is infinite evil. Any world with infinite evil cannot be the best of all possible worlds. And you haven't even phrased your argument coherently, it's not "the least evil" because the least evil would be none. It's the least amount of evil that's required to achieve a certain affect. But God, being omnipotent, could have just made a world where evil wasn't necessary to achieve any effect, so the theodicy is still invalid.

In my previous post I have paraphrased an argument from Leibniz. Are you saying that he is not a real philosopher according to your standard?

You have just proven that you are an imbecile. Congratulations.

Voltaire BTFO Liebniz. Liebniz is a joke in terms of modern philosophy. He was at least honest and brilliant for his time though, which is more than can be said for you.

catholics suffer their hwole lives for beileving in heathonous fanfiction like the bible. only the jews understand the love of god

>being this much of a brainlet
The equivalent of the best of all worlds is the world with least (possible) evil. Freedom of will is the cause of evil, but a world that includes beings with free will is better than a world without free beings. Therefore God *allows* evil - as little as possible.

Also
>infinite hell is infinite evil
Since when does righteous punishment qualify as evil?

kek, crashing and burning this hard
how embarrassing

>Leibniz is a joke in terms of modern philosophy
Kek, a friendly reminder why I shouldn't engage in internet discussions.

An omnipotent God could create free will without causing evil. That's what omnipotent means. It doesn't mean all powers as subject to limitations. It means all powers, both conceivable and inconceivable.

Righteous punishment is proportional. Infinite punishment is never proportional to a finite crime.

I notice a conspicuous lack of arguments.

>be brainlet
>dumb unformed pea brain sucks at decisions
>live in a world created by an entity that knows everything that will happen
>he set in motion the events that would create you
>knows everything that would happen in your life because time doesn't matter to him
>predetermined to go to hell before the earth was even created

There was no argument to reply to in the first place. Also, you called Leibniz a "joke philosopher" you ape.
>implying there is a contradiction between God's ability to foresee everything and the freedom of will
>an omnipotent God could create a world with free beings and without evil
Humans are free, albeit finite and therefore necessarily prone to making mistakes. And the other part od your post makes no sense - what is a "finite crime"?

>Writes best poetry about sins and the people who committed them
>Writes middle school downs syndrome tier poetry about religious virtues and the people who have them

You missed the whole point of Dante if you didn't realize it was a critique of christian values

>humans are finite
>there are no finite crimes
yo kinda fucked up to punish something that can't even hope to comprehend why those rules they broke are in place. It'd be like shooting a dog for barking.

Christians are disgusting. They're dogmatists who'll take any route possible to justify their inane and incoherent world view, and their justifications are weak to start with. They are all insecurely dangling over the pit of nihilism and clawing with all their might onto the last thing they think could provide their life with any meaning. Not even trying to be edgy or ironic, these people are dogs.

A Christian is someone who would send someone to suffer torture for eternity because that person wanted something specific, when the Christian wants nothing in particular except "heaven", which they can't even define except to say it has something to do with God and is not where the other poor bastard went.

Back in those days, they understood that purging degeneracy from a society was an inescapable necessity in order to preserve it. He simply reflected this coon knowledge in his work.

Meaning, no matter how unproveable or illegitimate, is a necessity for a functioning society. Without a functioning society, edgy nihilistic pseuds would have nothing to exist within parasitically whilst incessantly complaining about how everyone else is less wise and edgy than they.

Anti-Christians are nothing but moral relativists who also assert moral absolutism while being unaware of their own hypocritical inconsistency

You include the practitioners of other religions as moral relativists? And also all moral philosophy, apparently, including deontology?

OP, was this a test to see how many people here have actually read Dante?

There are no trannies in the 3rd bolgia, that's where the simonists go

yeah its 8.4

>Tiresias: a soothsayer from Thebes who, having separated two mating serpents with his staff, was turned into a woman; seven years later, he struck the serpents again and was changed back into a man [Ovid]

>Dante spends like half of the Paradiso sucking off Aquinas
>The whole thing is "the Summa Theologica in verse"
>Dante is strict about even the dumbest of sins, putting people like unbaptized believers in hell
>Lets his childhood crush shame him for not bending over and believing in all this "justice"

No memes now, Dante really hated Boniface and what he did to the papacy but it's dumb to say that he was critical of "christian values." He's more critical of the fact that the church in his day was not comporting with those christian values.

Magic was considered to be the work of demons. It's not a highly-regimented or formal discussion, but is scattered throughout the works of Christian writers throughout the Middle Ages. A formal acknowledgement of this principle, which extends by default to alchemy as well, is mentioned in the Malleus Maleficarum, though it was only the most popular and official of various witch-hunting books at the time.

In any case, the Divine Comedy is noted more for its references, allegory, imagery and language - the actual construction and components of the poem itself - than its immediate content, although it has shaped popular conceptions of hell. We see that important issues of the writer's time are mentioned in the work, with references to important Italian, papal and Florentine personalities and the grave punishment meted out for simony; which was a widespread practice and the subject of much religious debate in Dante's time and even well into the confessional strife of the 16th and 17th centuries.

I'm sorry, I forget to mention that Malleus was from a much-later period.

he's spamming that in every thread

he's literally forcing a meme by calling things forced memes

overall weak attempt at post-irony

>there is no contradiction.

how?

kek

unbaptized believers weren't in hell, they were in limbo outside of hell. get your fucking synopsis straight before you go on a drunken rant against a very influential piece of west civ

Limbo was in hell dumbass. It's the first of the 9 circles.

>soothsayer
there's your problem

>the least evil isn't no evil

>even with ridiculously simple examples, theodicy is still an insurmountable problem
Sad

>because human make mistakes there must be evil even though God can make a world with no evil yet still with mistakes